Congress
U.S. Congress
Here's a look at documents from all members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate
Featured Stories
Blumenthal Slams Trump Administration's Reckless Decision to End Policy Preventing At-Risk Veterans From Buying Firearms
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, issued the following news on Feb. 17, 2026:* * *
Blumenthal Slams Trump Administration's Reckless Decision to End Policy Preventing At-Risk Veterans from Buying Firearms
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) today slammed the Trump Administration's dangerous decision to end a policy aimed at preventing veterans who are at-risk to themselves or others from buying firearms:
"Guns are used in the vast majority of veteran suicides. The Trump ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, issued the following news on Feb. 17, 2026: * * * Blumenthal Slams Trump Administration's Reckless Decision to End Policy Preventing At-Risk Veterans from Buying Firearms Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) today slammed the Trump Administration's dangerous decision to end a policy aimed at preventing veterans who are at-risk to themselves or others from buying firearms: "Guns are used in the vast majority of veteran suicides. The TrumpAdministration's decision to abruptly end a policy that prevents troubled veterans or those requiring a fiduciary to manage their affairs from buying firearms is dangerous and reckless. This Administration should be focused on measures that will actually help end veteran suicide and make our communities safer. Eliminating this policy and weakening the NICS background check system altogether is a disastrous decision that will have potentially tragic impacts for years to come."
For the last 30 years, the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) list has included veterans who have serious mental health disorders, including schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This policy is intended to protect from the irreversible harm that can result when someone in crisis has access to a firearm. VA made these determinations through a comprehensive process with robust due process protections built in. Earlier today, VA Secretary Doug Collins and Attorney General Pam Bondi announced they will stop reporting these veterans to this background check system and remove all past VA reports.
According to VA's 2025 National Veteran Suicide Prevention annual report, unsecured firearms in the home increase the risk of suicide death. In 2023, firearms were involved in 73.3% of veteran deaths by suicide. From 2001 to 2023, veteran firearm suicide rates rose 67.0%. Among veterans enrolled in Veterans Health Administration (VHA) care who died from suicide in 2023, 60.9% also had a VHA mental health or substance use disorder diagnosis.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2026/2/blumenthal-slams-trump-administration-s-reckless-decision-to-end-policy-preventing-at-risk-veterans-from-buying-firearms
Blumenthal Raises Alarm Over New Trump Administration Rule to Slash Disability Ratings for Thousands of Veterans
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, issued the following news on Feb. 18, 2026:* * *
Blumenthal Raises Alarm Over New Trump Administration Rule to Slash Disability Ratings for Thousands of Veterans
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) today raised alarm following the Trump Administration's new interim final rule at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that immediately changes how veteran disability ratings are evaluated. This will lower disability ratings and compensation ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, ranking member of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, issued the following news on Feb. 18, 2026: * * * Blumenthal Raises Alarm Over New Trump Administration Rule to Slash Disability Ratings for Thousands of Veterans Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) today raised alarm following the Trump Administration's new interim final rule at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that immediately changes how veteran disability ratings are evaluated. This will lower disability ratings and compensationawards for disabled veterans by not taking into account their baseline conditions.
"Each day, thousands of veterans take medications to cope and better control their service-connected conditions, or to reduce their symptoms. This new Trump Administration policy - aimed at tanking earned disability compensation for these veterans - appears ripped straight out of Project 2025. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims recently ruled that a veteran's disability rating must be based on their worst day. That is how VA should accurately assess the true extent of a veteran's condition. This new Administration policy will do nothing but reduce the compensation veterans are due, and scare them into avoiding the life-improving medication they need - thereby posing an imminent risk to veterans' physical and mental health."
Blumenthal joined Veterans Service Organizations, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and Disabled American Veterans (DAV), in raising concerns over this rule.
Yesterday, VA published an interim final rule to change how veteran disability ratings are evaluated without the normal public comment period. This new rule reverses the previous standard established by the Ingram v. Collins court case issued in 2025, which required VA to discount the impact of medication when evaluating the severity of claims disability. Instead, the rule directs examiners to rate veterans' disabilities as they present and disregard the impact of medication. This requires VA to issue a lower disability ratings, despite evidence showing veterans meet the requirements for higher ratings.
Through Ingram v. Collins, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims required VA to discount the impact of medications when adjudicating claims for disabilities for which the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities does not explicitly mention medications. This applies to veterans who take maintenance medications for their disabilities. The VA rule prohibits medical examiners from estimating or discounting improvements to the disability due to the effects of medication or treatment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.veterans.senate.gov/2026/2/blumenthal-raises-alarm-over-new-trump-administration-rule-to-slash-disability-ratings-for-thousands-of-veterans
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty VP Baxter Testifies Before House Education & Workforce Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor":* * *
Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonamici, and distinguished Members of the Committee, I'm honored to be here today to offer testimony concerning the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which recognized ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- The House Education and Workforce Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education released the following written testimony by Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing entitled "Defending Faith and Families Against Government Overreach: Mahmoud v. Taylor": * * * Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Bonamici, and distinguished Members of the Committee, I'm honored to be here today to offer testimony concerning the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor, which recognizedthat the fundamental right of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children is not surrendered at the doors of a public school. My name is Eric Baxter, and I am Vice President and Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm dedicated to protecting religious liberty for people of all faiths.
* * *
1 Vice President and Senior Counsel, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
* * *
I served as the lead attorney in Mahmoud and argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of the parents of Montgomery County, Maryland.
I plan to organize my testimony into three sections: detailing the astonishing facts surrounding the litigation, outlining the Court's decision, and discussing its implications moving forward.
* * *
Facts of the Case
Montgomery County is the most religiously diverse county in America and has for years respected the beliefs of its residents by offering generous opt-outs to curriculum, instruction, and extracurricular activities that violate parents' and students' religious beliefs. As a long-time resident and parent of the county myself, I had success utilizing opt-outs throughout my own children's education. Yet, in November 2022, the Montgomery County School Board introduced a new series of "LGBTQ-inclusive" storybooks designed for children in pre-kindergarten through 5th grade.
Explicitly chosen to "disrupt" "stereotypes," "cisnormativity," and "power hierarchies," these age-inappropriate books explore various aspects of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Pride Puppy, a picture book written for three and four-year-olds, describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there. It includes an interactive picture hunt for children to search for images of "underwear," "leather," "lip ring," "[drag] queen" and more. My Rainbow tells the story of an autistic boy who convinces his family to support his social gender transition using a rainbow wig. Intersection Allies invites children to ponder what it means to be "transgender" or "non-binary" and asserts that "[w]hen we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex," "[b]ut at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender." Born Ready tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy, tells her mom that she "doesn't want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I'll look like you," and convinces her family to treat her as a boy because this issue is about "love" and doesn't need "to make sense." Love, Violet tells the story of a budding same-sex playground romance between two little girls who "blush hot" over their attractions. Other storybooks convey similar messages about the "right" way to approach sex and gender.
In addition to the books, the school board issued guidance on how to instruct children on the books' themes./2
This guidance tells teachers to "'[d]isrupt the either/or thinking' of elementary students about biological sex," to explain to students that doctors "guess about our gender" at birth, and to provide real life examples of same sex relationships and non-gender conforming activities. For children who object to these ideas, teachers are directed to frame their disagreement as "hurtful." Local parents were naturally outraged with the controversial content of the new curriculum and worried about its effects on their children's religious development.
Even Montgomery County's own school principals' union objected to the storybook instruction. They warned that the books and teaching guidance "support the explicit teaching of gender and sexual identi[t]y," state as "fact" things that "[s]ome would not agree are facts," invite "shaming comment[s]" toward students who disagree, and were "dismissive of religious beliefs."/3
Still, Montogomery County insisted on implementing its curriculum. For most of the 2022-2023 school year, parents across the county utilized existing opt-out procedures to shield their children from the controversial content. Up through March of that school year, the school board repeatedly affirmed its opt-out policy in public statements. But in a dramatic reversal, after its final affirmation, the next day the Board issued a new policy saying it would no longer allow parents to opt their children out of the storybook instruction and would not even notify them when the books were being read.
This extreme action sparked a series of protests, with nearly one thousand parents appearing at Board meetings to object to the withdrawal of opt-outs. School board members compared the religiously and racially diverse parents (mostly of the Ethiopian orthodox and Muslim faiths) "racists" and "xenophobes," accused students of "parroting" their parents' "dogma," and refused to amend the Board's new policy.
With no other choice, the parents of Montgomery County took their school board to federal district court, where my team at the Becket Fund and I argued for their First Amendment constitutional rights. For two years, we battled through district and appellate courts simply to restore the parents' notice and opt-out rights, without seeking removal of the books themselves from the schools. The district court judge ruled that once parents place their children in the public schools, they have no further say in what their children are taught. The Fourth Circuit court of appeals affirmed, suggesting that the only available remedy was for parents to leave the public school system altogether by homeschooling or putting their children in private schools (an impossibility for most families). Following these losses, we petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. In December 2024, review was granted, and the Court heard oral argument early in 2025.
* * *
2 Brief for Petitioners at 11-12, Mahmoud v. Taylor, 606 U.S. 522 (2025) (No. 24-297).
3 Id. at 13.
* * *
The Supreme Court's Decision
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with our parent clients, recognizing the normative nature and coercive execution of the curriculum as a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the Court's opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch.
Justice Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion, and Justice Sotomayor issued a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
The legal question of the case centered on whether the parents merited a preliminary injunction restoring their notice and opt-out rights while the litigation proceeded. In its primary holding, the Supreme Court found that Montgomery County was unconstitutionally requiring parents to submit their children to instruction that "substantially interfere[d] with" and posed "a very real threat of undermining" the religious beliefs and practices of the parents in directing the religious development of their children. Thus, the parents were entitled to a preliminary injunction, and the case was remanded to the lower courts for settlement discussions.
To reach this conclusion, the Court detailed how the curriculum and denial of optouts presented a constitutionally impermissible substantial burden on parents' religious exercise. The Court relied heavily on Wisconsin v. Yoder, a 1972 case that upheld what it called the "enduring American tradition" of parental religious direction--specifically in that case, the right of Amish families to withdraw their children from public school after the eighth grade. In Mahmoud, the Court found that the burden in this case is of the exact same character as the burden in Yoder./4
Further, it held that the books in question were "unmistakably normative,"/5 "present as a settled matter a hotly contested view of sex and gender that sharply conflicts with the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children,"/6 and "impose upon children a set of values and beliefs that are 'hostile' to their parents' religious beliefs."/7
The nature of the books and instruction "exert upon children a psychological 'pressure to conform.'"/8
Taken together, the Court found the state's actions represented an "objective danger to the free exercise of religion."/9
Unlike for many other free exercise claims, such burdens do not require a further showing of government discrimination--that is, a showing that the challenged policy is not either "generally applicable" or "neutral." Instead, the Court held that burdens on parental religious exercise "bypass[ ] those issues" under Yoder given the "special character" of such burdens./10
So the Court proceeded directly to strict scrutiny--the most exacting test known to constitutional law.
* * *
4 Id. at 565.
5 Id. at 550.
6 Id. at 553.
7 Id. at 553-54.
8 Id. at 554.
9 Id.
* * *
Applying that demanding test, the Court found that, while some religious burdens may be justified by compelling state interests, Maryland's stated interest in "maintaining a school environment that is safe and conducive to learning for all students"/11 was inadequate. Pointing out the robust "system of exceptions"/12 that exists in Maryland for curriculum opt outs in a wide variety of contexts (including Individualized Education Plans, Emergent Multilingual Learner courses, and state-mandated exemptions from sexual education classes), the Court rejected the state's argument that providing exemptions would be "infeasible or unworkable."/13
The opinion also addressed a smattering of additional arguments presented by the government, rejecting each in turn.
Montgomery County argued that its actions were legally protected "internal affairs" of the state and not subject to litigation, to which the Court responded that the state's curriculum policies inherently "implicate[ ] direct, coercive interactions between the State and its young residents."/14
The County also argued that the curriculum merely exposed, not coerced, children to contrary beliefs. Pointing to the normative elements of the curriculum, the Court disagreed with this analysis, saying the state's actions went "far beyond mere 'exposure,'"/15 and that regardless, the question at hand under governing precedent was whether "the educational requirement or curriculum at issue would 'substantially interfere[e] with the religious development' of the child or pose 'a very real threat of undermining' the religious beliefs and practices the parent wishes to instill in the child"./16
Neither of these turns on an "exposure" standard plucked out of thin air.
The Court outright rejected claims from friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that parents unhappy with their children's instruction should simply place their children in private schools or homeschool them. Besides finding this let-them-eat-cake approach unattainable and unreasonable for the average American family, the Court reaffirmed that "public education is a public benefit, and the government cannot 'condition' its 'availability' on parents' willingness to accept a burden on their religious exercise."/17
* * *
10 Id. at 564-65.
11 Id. at 566.
12 Id. at 567.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 557.
15 Id. at 556.
16 Id.
* * *
The Court also issued some forward-looking judgements in its opinion. To school boards, the Court warned that a public school "cannot escape its obligation to honor parents' free exercise rights by deliberately designing its curriculum to make parental opt outs more cumbersome."/18
And it also rejected the spreading legal belief that Yoder was somehow limited to its facts, explicitly treating the case like "any other precedent" that "cannot be breezily dismissed"--reiterating that it "embodies a principle of general applicability" and provides "robust protection for religious liberty."/19
Taken as a whole, the decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a resounding victory that not only vindicated the parents of Montgomery County but preserved and expanded religious liberty protections for parents nationwide. By rejecting several common legal arguments used by states to justify religious discrimination, the Court made the jurisprudence surrounding parental rights in education that much clearer.
* * *
Mahmoud Implications
The Supreme Court's decision naturally has short- and long-term consequences. The aftermath of the decision has seen a wave of legislative and regulatory actions across the country as states try to reconcile their existing school policies with the Court's directions. But there are also signs of longer-term changes in First Amendment jurisprudence, school choice policy, and other educational disputes between parents and schools. I will briefly pass by each topic and conclude with considerations for Congress and the Education and Workforce Committee.
* * *
Short Term
Most immediately affected by Mahmoud was Montgomery County itself, which entered settlement deliberations after the decision to remedy its unconstitutional practices. States have responded to the decision with varying levels of compliance.
New Jersey, a state with preexisting parental opt-out rights, released guidance that recognized Mahmoud's holdings and announced new regulations that require school boards to create publicly available procedures for parents to submit opt out forms and to make all approved curriculum publicly available./20
California, meanwhile, attempted to minimize the scope and strength of Mahmoud and gave vast discretion to local educational agencies to determine when and how a Mahmoud "notice and opt out process" is required./21,22
And Seattle Public Schools, the largest school district in the state of Washington, has gone even further by explicitly issuing policies that ban parental opt outs from "LGBTQ inclusive instruction." Nevertheless, Mahmoud's standards are binding nationally and courts will be obligated to enforce the Court's ruling in every state when parental rights claims are raised.
* * *
17 Id. at 561.
18 Id. at 567.
19 Id. at 558.
20 Memorandum from Samantha Price, Assistant Comm'r, Div. of Legal & External Servs., N.J. Dep't of Educ., and Jorden Schiff, Assistant Comm'r, Div. of Teaching & Learning Servs., N.J. Dep't of Educ., to Local Educational Agency Leads, Guidance Regarding Parental Opt-Outs Based on Religious Objections (Nov. 5, 2025), https://perma.cc/8HXE-KA9C.
* * *
Long Term
The longer-term implications of the case are still to be seen. It is refreshing and important that the Court recognized parental religious authority as having a "special character" not contingent upon a showing of government discrimination (i.e., a lack of neutrality or general applicability) under Employment Division v. Smith. That conclusion illustrates both the continued erosion of Smith's precedential value and the Court's development of distinct rules for different associations engaged in religious direction (as in the "church autonomy" context). In identifying these distinct authorities on religious duties (religious organizations and parents), the Court could be reinforcing an important insight: religious duties transcend state power, because they are directed by authorities that don't exist by virtue of a state permission slip.
If the Court builds upon these insights, the Constitution's commitment to limited government could be fortified, and the law on religious liberty can better reflect its ancient roots.
Congress certainly has its own role in shaping the national dialogue over this issue.
In its opinion, the Court cited the brief that Members of Congress submitted in the case, noting Montgomery County's widespread use of individualized education plans.
Indeed, the Members brief noted multiple federal laws that reinforce the individualized tailoring of education and a transparent relationship between parents and their schools--including the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, among others. Continued parental transparency and tailoring of education to a child's needs can occur by educating parents of their rights over their children's education and promoting legislative and regulatory policies that make it easier for American families to access the funding and educational opportunities they need, both in and out of the public school system.
* * *
21 Cal. Dep't of Educ., Supreme Court Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor (Aug. 6, 2025), https://perma.cc/6LLS-UVJP.
22 N.Y. Dep't of Educ., Statement from New York State Education Leaders on Supreme Court Decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor (July 28, 2025), https://perma.cc/38RC-6V84.
* * *
This Committee can also communicate with the Treasury Department as it prepares its regulating guidance for the federal school choice tax credit passed in this Congress.
It is imperative that religious families and schools are eligible for equal access to educational opportunities, so that parents who choose alternative education opportunities outside of public schools don't have to compromise their faith. If the government is going to create a new benefit, it cannot constitutionally discriminate against religious schools or families in the distribution of that program.
I thank the Committee for its time and allowing me to testify. I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/written_testimony_of_eric_baxter_final.pdf
American Stewards of Liberty Executive Director Byfield Testifies Before House Natural Resources Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands released the following testimony by Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, Georgetown, Texas, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing on the Land and Social Security Optimization Act (H.R. 34):* * *
Mr. Chairman, Representative Gosar, and honorable members of this committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of passing the Land and Social Security Optimization Act, the LASSO Act (H.R. 34).
My name is Margaret Byfield. I serve as the Executive Director of American Stewards ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- The House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Federal Lands released the following testimony by Margaret Byfield, executive director of American Stewards of Liberty, Georgetown, Texas, from a Feb. 10, 2026, hearing on the Land and Social Security Optimization Act (H.R. 34): * * * Mr. Chairman, Representative Gosar, and honorable members of this committee, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the importance of passing the Land and Social Security Optimization Act, the LASSO Act (H.R. 34). My name is Margaret Byfield. I serve as the Executive Director of American Stewardsof Liberty,/1 a 34-year-old property rights organization based in Texas. We have members all across the nation, many of whom are the people who steward our federal lands. They are the ranchers, farmers, timber producers, miners, oil and gas developers, hunters, and recreationists--the people who have made these lands their home and who support our vital rural communities.
I was raised on a large livestock operation in Nevada, where we held the right to graze lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Through both personal and professional experience, I have seen the damage caused to families, communities, and economies when our federal lands are not utilized as Congress intended.
This is why I believe the LASSO Act is needed. It will highlight the federal mismanagement of these lands and help correct this by creating a direct link for every American citizen to benefit from the important multiple-uses of our national resources.
The bill allocates ten percent of the revenue generated from these lands, identified as "covered lands" in the bill, to be deposited into the Social Security Trust Fund. This simple transfer increases the immediate and long-term durability of the Social Security program, which is on course to be insolvent by 2033. Importantly, it incentivizes the proper stewardship of these lands by tying the citizens' prosperity to the flourishing of our abundant natural resources.
* * *
1 American Stewards of Liberty is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization whose mission is to protect1 property rights and the liberties they secure by defending the use of our land, and restoring local control. This testimony is provided to educate Congressional Members on federal actions that erode property and identify responses that would bring these actions in alignment with full Constitutional protection of these rights.
* * *
The bill also helps accomplish the original purpose for these lands. Under Article IV of the Constitution , Congress determines the purposes for federally-owned property, and this body has/2 made a distinction between lands that are to be protected and lands that are to be productively used.
According to the Congressional Research Service,/3 "The federal government owns roughly 6403 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States." One-third of these lands are permanently protected, with limited or no productive uses. These have been preserved by Congress through laws such as the National Park Service Organic Act (54 U.S.C. Sec. 100101 et seq.), the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1131-1136), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1271 et seq.), the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act (16 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 668dd-668ee), and others.
The remaining federally-owned lands, outside of the 8.8 million acres owned by the Department of Defense, are generally identified as multiple-use lands. These have been set aside for the specific purpose of providing our nation with the natural resource commodities we need to support the health, safety, and welfare of our people and the continued prosperity of our nation.
Through laws such as the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1701 et seq.) and the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1600 et seq.), Congress has directed federal agencies to manage these lands in such a manner that all of the uses can occur concurrently, as appropriate. This means a rancher can be grazing the land while a mineral developer is mining energy and critical resources and a timber producer is harvesting timber, all while the public has open access for hunting, fishing, hiking, and other recreational activities.
Our lands flourish when they are worked. That is a fundamental premise of land stewardship/4 in alignment with how God designed our world. Mankind is charged with the responsibility of working the land and watching over it. When we do this, the resources thrive. When we neglect the land, it becomes a wasteland, as we have witnessed in the West where the federal government owns roughly 50 percent of the land base.
Failure to properly steward the lands has resulted in massive wildfires that have consumed everything--homes, businesses, protected species, and wildlife.
* * *
2 U.S. Const. art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2:2 "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
3 Congressional Research Service, Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data, updated February 21,3 2020.
4 Margaret Byfield, "OPINION: Why 'stewardship' should guide how we care for resources," Federal4 Newswire, Oct. 11, 2025.
* * *
Carrying out the multiple-use mandate on our federal lands has been delegated by Congress to federal agencies, primarily the Forest Service and the BLM, which manage roughly 437 million acres. They are charged with ensuring all the uses continue to flourish and provide abundant natural resources today and into the future. When any of these agencies determine that the lands must be restricted, conserved, or locked up, it is an admission that they have failed in the mission given to them by this body.
The productivity of these lands is vitally important to the local communities that steward these resources. For example, in a county such as Custer County, Idaho, where the federal government owns 97 percent of the land, the county government is responsible for maintaining the roads and highways on federal lands, providing emergency services to people who recreate there, and delivering other essential services.
But the federal government does not pay property taxes as a private landowner would. It is the revenue generated from the commodities produced on these lands that makes up this deficit. In simple terms, if the people cannot utilize the natural resources, the dependent communities die.
There will be no close service that can quickly rescue a stranded hiker, or injured hunter. No gas stations or grocery stores. No necessary services that allow the public an opportunity to enjoy these lands.
When people's livelihoods are tied to the productivity of the land, they take better care of the resource. If this generation's Social Security checks are funded, in part, because we have the ability to cultivate and productively use our abundant natural resources, how we manage these lands for their best and highest use becomes important.
Why is it that private lands are more productive than federal lands? It is precisely because the small landowner's entire paycheck, now and in the future, is determined by how they take care of their land today--not by how much they extract today, but by how well they steward their property so that it continues to produce resources well into the future. That land is the small landowner's 401(k) retirement plan, and it is what they leave to their children.
In the same way the LASSO Act ties every citizen's future Social Security retirement funds to the productivity of our federal lands. It creates an intrinsic motivation for all of us to support actions that foster better stewardship of these lands.
It may be helpful to revisit how these multiple-use lands came into being. Unlike the eastern states, the western states did not come into the Union on equal footing. Instead of having ownership of the lands within their jurisdiction, federal policy changed, and the federal government retained ownership of roughly 50 percent of the lands in the western states.
Importantly, however, the western states were given ownership of all the water and wildlife within their jurisdiction on federal lands. State law, not federal law, determines who owns the Page of3 6
water on federal lands. In areas suitable for livestock grazing, that is usually the rancher who holds the grazing preference. The states, not the federal government, determine what wildlife can be hunted and the duration of seasons.
When the western states came into the Union, most of the territory had been settled; otherwise, the states would not have been established. The first settlers had already carved out homesteads, secured water rights, developed grazing operations, and established mineral and timber operations--making the rugged, untamed West a vibrant part of the national economy. These early settlers were following the Homestead, mining, and other acts that governed land settlement in the United States at that time.
When Congress determined to hold, instead of dispose of the lands, it created a significant controversy in the West. Some historians describe this as an action that could have set off another civil war./5
To prevent this, laws were passed that recognized existing rights and allowed for the productive use of resources to support essential local economies. A series of land-use laws were passed by Congress that recognized multiple uses and protected established rights.
An example is the Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. Sec. 315 et seq.). It determined the allotment boundaries of livestock and sheep operations. If a settler could prove he owned the water rights on the grazing lands, had base property contiguous to the land, and he or his predecessors were the first to make beneficial use of the lands, he was given a priority grazing preference over another user who migrated through the area.
The original laws governing the federal lands largely satisfied the early settlers. They had the assurance that their rights were protected and that these lands would always be used productively for the benefit of the American people.
Fast-forward to today, and we have witnessed a progressive erosion of these rights, a reduction in production, an increase in government regulations, and even an attempt by the BLM to circumvent Congress and administratively change the purpose of these lands from multiple use to a conservation policy that eliminated all other uses.
This brings us back to the reason we need to have the LASSO Act passed out of this committee and enacted into law. It allows every American to benefit from the productivity of these lands, with ten percent of the revenue generated going directly into the fund that helps provide for their retirement.
* * *
5 Wayne Hage, Storm Over Rangelands (Bellevue, WA: Free Enterprise Press, 1989)
* * *
Let me close with a story. When Thomas Jefferson was in France, he often toured the French countryside. On one of his walks, he was passing through an area known as "King's" land. These were lands set aside for the kings and lords--the elites of their time--to hunt, fish, and recreate.
They were covered in lush meadows and large forests.
He caught up with a poor woman who was walking to the next town and struck up a conversation. He learned she was a day laborer with young children at home, hoping to find work in the next town. She had helped him with directions, so he handed her a few coins as they parted. She burst into tears. Jefferson believed this was because she had never before received such great aid.
That evening, Jefferson captured this experience in a letter written to a friend in America./6
The date was October 28, 1785. He wrote: "...with the solitude of my walk, [it] led me into a train of reflections on that unequal division of property which occasions the numberless instances of wretchedness which I had observed in this country and is to be observed all over Europe. The property of this country is absolutely concentrated in a very few hands."
Jefferson pointed out that the people were not poor for lack of resources. The lands he walked through that very day could have provided essential materials and food for many--that is, if they had not been set aside as playgrounds for the elite classes.
"I asked myself what could be the reason so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands. These lands are undisturbed only for the sake of game."
He noted that a society that would withhold valuable natural resources from the people instead of allowing them the opportunity to utilize those resources was not a just society.
"Whenever there are in any country uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on."
He concluded his letter by stating that we cannot allow this to happen in the new world.
"But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of the state."
* * *
6 Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28, 1785, in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 8, ed. Julian P. Boyd (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), 681-83.
* * *
America was founded on this core principle: that the people would have the right to own and fully utilize the land. But as the West was settled, instead of disposing of the lands, the federal government became the landowner.
Importantly, however, Congress also guaranteed that our multiple-use lands--and even protected lands--would not be locked up from the people. These lands would be productively used, except in very rare cases as Congress determined, to ensure every citizen had the opportunity to help steward the land, witness its infinite beauty and wildlife, and enjoy the bountiful resources it produces for human flourishing.
The LASSO Act is a smart approach to carrying out this charge. But it is not unprecedented. It follows a proven model that states have enacted and applied to State Trust Lands. The revenue from these lands in many states is allocated directly to their education funds. This has created a reliable stream of funding for state education systems.
Our federal lands could provide a similar measure of durability by allocating ten percent of the revenues directly to the Social Security Trust Fund. These lands can and should help every American citizen have a better future.
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II10/20260210/118899/HHRG-119-II10-Wstate-ByfieldM-20260210.pdf
Alton: Budzinski Visits With Students at Riverbend Head Start
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Rep. Nikki Budzinski, D-Illinois, issued the following news release on Feb. 17, 2026:* * *
ALTON: Budzinski Visits with Students at Riverbend Head Start
ALTON, IL - Today, Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski (IL-13) met with students at Riverbend Head Start and Family Services in Alton to highlight the importance of Head Start programs.
Budzinski also discussed her work earlier this year to secure delayed federal funding that had been allocated to the Alton facility for renovations.
"Head Start services are a lifeline for families throughout the district, providing children ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Rep. Nikki Budzinski, D-Illinois, issued the following news release on Feb. 17, 2026: * * * ALTON: Budzinski Visits with Students at Riverbend Head Start ALTON, IL - Today, Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski (IL-13) met with students at Riverbend Head Start and Family Services in Alton to highlight the importance of Head Start programs. Budzinski also discussed her work earlier this year to secure delayed federal funding that had been allocated to the Alton facility for renovations. "Head Start services are a lifeline for families throughout the district, providing childrenwith the foundation they need to succeed long before their first day of kindergarten," said Budzinski. "It was a privilege to meet with the students and faculty at Riverbend today and see firsthand how these federal investments are being put to work. In Congress, I will continue to fight for the funding our Head Start programs rely on to ensure every child in our community has a safe environment where they can learn and thrive."
"We are grateful that Congresswoman Budzinski was able to join us for this rescheduled visit," said Gene Howell, Riverbend Head Start and Family Services President and CEO. "It was an opportunity to share the everyday realities our children and families face and to demonstrate how early learning, family support, and strong community partnerships can change lives. We appreciated the opportunity to showcase the dedication of our staff and the positive impact this work is having across Madison County."
* * *
Original text here: https://budzinski.house.gov/posts/alton-budzinski-visits-with-students-at-riverbend-head-start
"The Shutdown Makes Our Country Less Safe": Chairman Garbarino Warns DHS Funding Lapse Threatens Public Safety
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, issued the following news:* * *
"The Shutdown Makes Our Country Less Safe": Chairman Garbarino Warns DHS Funding Lapse Threatens Public Safety
House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino (R-NY) joined ABC News Live and Fox News Live to outline how the lapse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding, triggered by Senate Democrats' refusal to advance the House-passed, bipartisan full-year DHS funding bill, could put Americans at risk and harm frontline DHS ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Feb. 19 -- Rep. Andrew Garbarino, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, issued the following news: * * * "The Shutdown Makes Our Country Less Safe": Chairman Garbarino Warns DHS Funding Lapse Threatens Public Safety House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Andrew R. Garbarino (R-NY) joined ABC News Live and Fox News Live to outline how the lapse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding, triggered by Senate Democrats' refusal to advance the House-passed, bipartisan full-year DHS funding bill, could put Americans at risk and harm frontline DHSpersonnel. Since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) received billions of dollars in funding through reconciliation, the shutdown disproportionately impacts DHS's other components that are responsible for disaster response, cybersecurity, transportation security, and infrastructure protection, forcing many personnel to work without pay and straining mission readiness.On Fox News Live, Chairman Garbarino discussed how the House-passed DHS appropriations bill would've increased transparency and accountability for the department:
"As for the body cameras, it's [funding] that was already agreed to in the full funding bill, that the Democrats aren't approving right now... I do believe that there is room for reforms, and I believe that both the CBP and ICE, both of the leaders were in front of my committee this past week, talked about possible reforms."
"It's really shortsighted on the Democrats' part to shut down the rest of the department over changes that they're looking for in ICE and CBP... I hope it doesn't go on long, but I'm worried what it would do to the security of America if it does."
Chairman Garbarino also discussed the broader impacts of the DHS shutdown on Americans:
"We're going to see, like we did in the last shutdown, callouts by TSA officers, which means...the longer lines at the airports. Also, with the FIFA World Cup coming up in June, and the America 250 celebration, the Secret Service is planning a lot of that, TSA is planning a lot of that. So, if they're not there doing work, you could see a lot of effects on the games. You could see a lot of effects on the 250th celebration... The families that are affected by natural disasters that FEMA has to come in and take over, those are the people that are really going to feel it. And, again, that's something that I hope doesn't happen if it's long-term. But this is a purely Democratic created shutdown. Again, because we had an agreed upon deal that they pulled out of."
On ABC News Live, Chairman Garbarino addressed the potential impacts of the shutdown on DHS's workforce:
"Secret Service, FEMA, CISA, who's a cybersecurity agency, as well as the TSA officials that work at our airports, Coast Guard--they are all going to go to work without being paid. And the shutdown, the way it is now, I actually think makes our country less safe. And I think it's time that the Senate gets back into town and does its job and passes something that the House can then pass."
"The number one priority should be making sure our Coast Guard families, our TSA officers...and the FEMA employees are all paid while they're going to work, because there are so many things that could happen. And if these guys aren't at full strength, again, it just puts us at a greater disadvantage."
Chairman Garbarino also highlighted the cooperation between the local and federal law enforcement on Long Island:
"Local police in both Suffolk and Nassau County here on Long Island are working well with ICE and CBP, going after the worst of the worst criminals. We had a huge MS-13 problem here on Long Island, and they are working hand in hand, making sure those criminals, whether it's violent criminals or sex offenders, or human traffickers or drug dealers, are all taken care of and returned to their country of origin, so they can't continue to prey on my constituents."
Background:
In a shutdown, many of the Department's more than 250,000 employees, who dedicate their lives to keeping the American people safe, would be forced to work without pay. Homeland Security and House Appropriations Republicans issued statementscondemning Senate Democrats' actions, warning that the funding lapse puts the safety and security of Americans at risk.
The House passed six final appropriations bills, including a bipartisan agreement to fund DHS for a full fiscal year in January. The legislation provided funding for body cameras, deescalation training, and resources for DHS's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to enhance transparency. Additionally, the House-passed version included vital funding to support the personnel and missions of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Transportation Security Administration (TSA), U.S. Coast Guard, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), and more.
In the Committee's oversight hearing last week, leaders from ICE, CBP, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) all testified that a DHS shutdown would undermine interagency coordination and hinder the department's ability to effectively carry out its core mission. The House Appropriations Committee's Homeland Security Subcommittee also held a hearing last week on the impacts of a shutdown for DHS, where leaders from FEMA, TSA, CISA, and the U.S. Coast Guard emphasized similar concerns about the operational and security risks caused by a lapse in funding.
Last week, numerous publications and outlets also highlighted the impacts on different DHS components:
* The shutdown may disrupt several ongoing investigations being led by the agency's Office of Inspector General, affecting the ability to conduct thorough oversight of DHS and its components.
* The shutdown is also the second time in the past four months that TSA workers are expected to work without pay, with approximately 95% of the administration's employees considered essential. During the last shutdown, TSA saw "increased rates of unscheduled absences and localized spikes in wait times," which are expected again during this shutdown as spring travel begins to rise.
* CISA Acting Director Madhu Gottumukkala told House appropriators last week that just one-third would remain on the job under a shutdown, significantly impairing the agency's ability to conduct "cyber incident response, security assessments, stakeholder engagements, training exercises, and special event planning."
* During the last shutdown, "nearly 85 percent of FEMA employees" continued to work without pay, which is expected to recur with the current funding lapse. Although the disaster relief fund has sufficient resources to sustain ongoing and anticipated activities, emergency response efforts could be strained, and disaster relief reimbursements may be delayed, potentially slowing recovery efforts for affected communities.
* "More than 41,000 active-duty and activated Reserve members" of the U.S. Coast Guard will continue to work without pay, even amid its historic success in securing the country's maritime borders, slowing down the flow of illicit narcotics, and conducting high-risk maritime operations to protect U.S. interests abroad.
* * *
Original text here: https://homeland.house.gov/2026/02/18/the-shutdown-makes-our-country-less-safe-chairman-garbarino-warns-dhs-funding-lapse-threatens-public-safety/