We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
08Adjournment From Friday, July 18, 2025, to Monday, July 21, 2025
1 member spoke
09Bills Presented to the President
10Adjournment
1 member spoke
11Private Bills and Resolutions
12Discharge Petitions
13Discharge Petitions: Additions and Withdrawals
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
72 public bills, H.R. 4475- 4546; 1 private bill, H.R. 4547; and 10 resolutions, H. Res. 588-597, were introduced.
Pages H3472-75
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H. Res. 590, relating to consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (H. Rept. 119- 208).
Pages H3451, H3472
Guest Chaplain
The prayer was offered by the Guest Chaplain, Rev. Dr. Lindsay Curtis, Grace Baptist Church, Norwalk, CT.
Page H3371
Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025
The House passed H.R. 3633, to provide for a system of regulation of the offer and sale of digital commodities by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, by a yea-and-nay vote of 294 yeas to 134 nays, Roll No. 199.
Pages H3373-3405, H3449
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-6, modified by the amendment printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-199, shall be considered as adopted, In lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committees on Agriculture and Financial Services now printed in the bill.
Pages H3373-97
H. Res. 580, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 4016), (H.R. 3633), (H.R. 1919), and (S. 1582) was agreed to yesterday, July 16th. Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act: The House passed S. 1582, to provide for the regulation of payment stablecoins, by a yea-and-nay vote of 308 yeas to 122 nays, Roll No. 200. H. Res. 580, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 4016), (H.R. 3633), (H.R. 1919), and (S. 1582) was agreed to yesterday, July 16th.
Pages H3405-27, H3449-50
Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act
The House passed H.R. 1919, to amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy, by a yea-and-nay vote of 219 yeas to 201 nays, Roll No. 201.
Pages H3427-34, H3450
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. H. Res. 580, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 4016), (H.R. 3633), (H.R. 1919), and (S. 1582) was agreed to yesterday, July 16th.
Pages H3427-28
Recess
The House recessed at 4:02 p.m and reconvened at 10:01 p.m.
Pages H3450-51
Rule for Consideration
The House agreed to H. Res. 590, relating to consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4) to rescind certain budget authority proposed to be rescinded in special messages transmitted to the Congress by the President on June 3, 2025, in accordance with section 1012(a) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, by a recorded vote of 215 ayes to 203 noes, Roll No. 203, after the previous question was ordered by a yea- and-nay vote of 218 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 202. Upon adoption of H. Res. 590, the House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4) with the Senate amendment thereto, and to have agreed to the Senate amendment.
Pages H3451-61
Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026
The House passed H.R. 4016, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 221 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 212. Consideration began yesterday, July 16th.
Pages H3434-48, H3467-68
Rejected the Kaptur motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Appropriations by a yea-and-nay vote of 211 yeas to 219 nays, Roll No. 211.
Pages H3435, H3467
Agreed to
Joyce amendment (No. 159 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that increases the amount for Heavy Dump Truck, 20T (CCE), Other Procurement, Army Budget Activity 1, Line 7, by $30 million; decreases the amount for development of the Future Tactical Unmanned Aircraft System, Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army, Line 75, by $30 million; and
Page H3444
Tiffany amendment (No. 293 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that prohibits the expenditure of funds to create, procure, or display any map that depicts Taiwan as part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.
Page H3448
Rejected
Davidson amendment (No. 57 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to strike the provision barring the Navy from decommissioning Littoral Combat Ships;
Pages H3435-36
Gosar amendment (No. 106 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to prohibit funds for BioMADE, a bioindustrial manufacturer that produces lab-grown meat for military bases;
Pages H3436-38
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 111 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to strike funding to Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense (by a recorded vote of 63 ayes to 365 noes, Roll No. 204);
Pages H3438-39, H3462
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 112 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to strike funding for the Taiwan Security Co-operation Initiative (by a recorded vote of 6 ayes to 421 noes, Roll No. 205);
Pages H3439-40, H3463
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 113 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to strike funding for HIV prevention educational activities in foreign countries (by a recorded vote of 104 ayes to 326 noes, Roll No. 206);
Pages H3440-41, H3463-64
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 114 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to strike funding for the Israeli Cooperative Programs (by a recorded vote of 6 ayes to 422 noes, Roll No. 207);
Pages H3441-42, H3464
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 115 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to strike funding to support the armed forces of Jordan (by a recorded vote of 30 ayes to 400 noes, Roll No. 208);
Pages H3442-43, H3465
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 116 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to prohibit funds from being used for assistance to Ukraine (by a recorded vote of 76 ayes to 353 noes, Roll No. 209); and
Pages H3443-44, H3465-66
Steube amendment (No. 277 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that sought to prohibit all assistance to the Lebanese Armed Forces (by a recorded vote of 76 ayes to 355 noes, Roll No. 210).
Pages H3445-47, H3466
Withdrawn
Miller-Meeks amendment (No. 221 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119- 199) that was offered and subsequently withdrawn that sought to prohibit funds from being used to reduce the workforce at any active United States Army arsenal; and
Pages H3444-45
Tenney amendment (No. 287 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-199) that was offered and subsequently withdrawn that sought to increase and decrease Air Force, RDTE to provide $71M for PE 0401132F, Line 259, C- 130J Program, to provide $70M in NRE for the LC-130J aircraft.
Pages H3447-48
Agreed by unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 4016, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, and that the second instruction in amendment number 40 printed in House Report 119-199 be changed from page 39, line 19, to page 40, line 19. H. Res. 580, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 4016), (H.R. 3633), (H.R. 1919), and (S. 1582) was agreed to yesterday, July 16th.
Page H3468
Member Resignation
Read a letter from Representative Green, wherein he resigned as Representative for the Seventh Congressional District of Tennessee, effective July 20, 2025, at 11:59 p.m.
Page H3468
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, July 21, 2025 for morning- hour debate.
Page H3469
Discharge Petitions
Representative Meeks presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 462) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 91) relating to a national emergency by the President on April 2, 2025 (Discharge Petition No. 7).
Page H3478
Representative Meeks presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 518) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2913) to authorize support for Ukraine (Discharge Petition No. 8).
Page H3478
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on page H3371. Quorum Calls--Votes: Six yea-and-nay votes and eight recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H3449, H3449-50, H3450, H3460, H3460-61, H3462, H3463, H3463-64, H3464, H3465, H3465-66, H3466, H3467, and H3467-68. Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and adjourned at 1:01 a.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 133 of 567 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Welcoming Reverend Dr. Lindsay Curtis
The SPEAKER. Without objection, Mr. Himes of Connecticut was recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, on this consequential day, when this body is likely to make law and debate critical things, it has already been a good and blessed day because our day was opened with a prayer by Reverend Dr. Lindsay Curtis.
Dr. Curtis is well into his second decade leading as senior pastor at Grace Baptist Church, a 129-year-old faith community in the center of my district, Norwalk, Connecticut.
The church has thrived under Pastor Curtis' leadership, and I admire him as a friend, as a mentor, and as a spiritual guide not just for his understanding of the Scripture, but for his deep commitment to ministry.
Dr. Curtis, over the course of his career, has served as president of the Connecticut State Missionary Baptist Convention. He has served as chairman of the Advisory Board of Directors of Norwalk ACTS, which is a partnership of civic leaders. He has acted as the president of the Norwalk NAACP, commissioner of the Judicial Selection Commission, and when he sees a problem, he uses ministry to solve it.
Just this summer, out of nowhere, he conjured up a summer camp for 150 children in Norwalk, Connecticut, who might not otherwise have a way to constructively spend their days.
I have always loved the quote attributed to St. Francis of Assisi. That quote is familiar to so many of you: Always preach the Gospel. Sometimes use words.
Lindsay Curtis embodies that idea in his ministry, and his superb record is blemished perhaps only by my suspicion--and it is a suspicion--that he thinks that somehow the Chicago Bulls fit into the Trinity, but above all else, our God is a forgiving God, so I am sure that that will not be a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Curtis so much for opening us up today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two outstanding students from West Shamokin Junior-Senior High School, Aybrah Zelenski and Elena Gourley, who earned top national honors at the Future Business Leaders of America National Leadership Conference.
FBLA is a nationwide student organization that prepares young people to become community-minded business
While in Anaheim, California, Aybrah placed sixth in public speaking and Elena placed seventh in career exploration.
West Shamokin's FBLA chapter, founded in the fall of 2023, has quickly made a name for itself and has proven that a small, rural school can leave a big mark on the national stage.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud both Aybrah and Elena and the entire West Shamokin FBLA team for their leadership, hard work, and bright futures. They make their school, their community, the Commonwealth, and this Congressman very proud.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Pasquotank County Emergency Medical Services for earning their prestigious 2025 Best in Category Award for Health from the National Association of Counties.
Out of 157 entries, Pasquotank County EMS was recognized as one of the best health programs in the country and the only winner from North Carolina.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Pasquotank County EMS, like many counties, faced a serious shortage of paramedics and emergency safety workers.
In response, they developed an innovative tiered response system allowing ambulances to quickly respond to emergencies while paramedics provided essential support when needed, improving their service, making it faster and more efficient.
Pasquotank County EMS is a shining example of hard work, innovation, and dedication.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate each and every one on this remarkable honor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Love Thy City event held in Tyler, Texas, a community-wide initiative that reminds us that service to our neighbors does not start in Washington, D.C. It starts in the heart and in the home, and it extends to every corner of this Earth.
Organized by local citizen leaders, churches, nonprofits, and volunteers of all ages, Love Thy City is a day of service to others, rooted in the great command to love our neighbors. That is a principle that transcends politics and parties, race and gender, and every other perceived difference between us.
It is our shared responsibility to care for everyone around us just as the Good Samaritan did, not because government would tell us to, but because the love of Christ propels us to.
Whether it is cleaning up a park, helping a neighbor in need, or simply showing kindness to a stranger, Love Thy City challenges us to use our active faith to lead by example and invest in our communities, not just with words, but with action.
This is what makes east Texas strong: faith, service, and a deep love for God and for others. I am proud to honor this effort today and to recognize all those who give their time to love their neighbor.
Mr. Speaker, $6.8 billion in education funding, dollars appropriated by Democrats and Republicans, is frozen. These are funds that should have been available on July 1.
In Pennsylvania, that is $230 million. Resources, including summer programs and teacher training, hang in limbo.
Abington School District, my alma mater, is missing more than $250,000. Some schools may be able to function while the President's latest whims play out in court, but as is the case with most of his orders, Trump has stolen the most from those who have the least.
The Norristown Area School District, just 15 miles from my district of Abington, is owed three times as much, more than $750,000 in Federal funds.
This is not about government efficiency. It is about greed, incompetence, and cruelty.
When Secretary McMahon testified before the Appropriations Committee, I asked her: ``Why are you in this job?'' Her response: ``I want the best for my family,'' not all families, her family.
When Republicans tell us who they are, Mr. Speaker, we should believe them.
Mr. Speaker, in honor of the Nation's 249th birthday, House Republicans delivered the largest tax cut in our Nation's history for middle- and working-class families, strengthened the farm safety net, and voted to get our country back on track.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act gave a lifeline to the agricultural community by updating reference prices, expanding crop insurance, and saving millions of family farms from the death tax. The relief was long overdue. We are grateful, but the work doesn't stop there.
It is past time for Congress to pass a fiscally conservative 5-year farm bill, including support for agricultural research and development. We have seen the devastating impact disease outbreaks can have with the HPAI virus, and now we must continue to take steps to prevent the New World screwworm from reaching our borders.
The Big First District is home to crown jewels of the animal health corridor, where world-renowned research happens, positioning the United States to focus on disease prevention rather than outbreak control after the fact.
By investing in agricultural research, we strengthen our food supply chain and, in turn, our national security, all while providing the best and most effective return on taxpayer dollars.
We cannot afford to put our food security at risk by not prioritizing adequate investments in animal health research when we pass the next iteration of the farm bill. I urge this body to get this right.
Mr. Speaker, the Israeli Government has deliberately blocked food, medicine, and fuel from entering Gaza. The entire population of Gaza is experiencing famine, and half a million Palestinians are facing catastrophic levels of starvation.
At least 66 Palestinian children have already been starved to death. Maybe if my colleagues would close their eyes, or pretend that they are not Palestinians, they would care, that they would care that Palestinians have been forced to eat grass and animal feed--they are human beings--while thousands of trucks carrying food sit blocked at the border.
The Israeli Government is using starvation as a weapon of war. Now, the Israeli forces are deliberately shooting and killing starving Palestinians lined up for food, and the responses by the Israeli Government do not add up. Mr. Speaker, 875 have been murdered in 6 weeks alone.
The so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, backed by the Israeli Government and the Trump administration, is a deadly sham. The United Nations calls it a death trap.
The Israeli soldiers have even admitted it themselves. They were ordered to deliberately shoot unarmed Palestinians, many of them children, calling it a killing field.
This is not a game, Mr. Speaker. These are human beings.
If colleagues need to close their eyes again and pretend they are not Palestinians to care, then maybe they should. We would stop this madness and stop supporting the genocide in Gaza.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to shed light on the broken permitting process that creates roadblocks to unleashing American innovation and development while costing more taxpayer dollars with basically nothing to show for the expenses.
The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 attempted to change course and imposed a 2-year deadline and a 150-page cap on environmental impact statements. However, the Council on Environmental Quality reports that 61 percent of environmental impact statements still take over 2 years to complete.
The other two branches of government are taking actions to inject some regulatory common sense into the process. President Trump's ``Unleashing American Energy'' executive order directs Federal agencies to confine NEPA analysis to applicable law, and in May, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on narrowing the scope of NEPA.
It is time for Congress to take bipartisan, bicameral action to fix the broken permitting and regulatory laws so that America can thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today here on the House floor of the United States House of Representatives to recognize an extraordinary American and a dear personal friend, Mr. Roy Drinkard of Cullman, Alabama, who just celebrated his 105th birthday this past weekend, on July 12.
Born in 1920, Mr. Drinkard is a proud veteran of the Second World War, who served his country with courage and continues to inspire all those who know him. He is the oldest living marine in the United States of America.
After the war, he returned to Alabama and built a legacy as a successful businessman, civic leader, and helped shape the growth and character of Cullman, Alabama, as well as the State.
At the age of 105, Mr. Drinkard remains active in his business. He still serves on the board of trustees at Troy University, demonstrating that age is no barrier to leadership, commitment, or purpose.
Mr. Speaker, Roy Drinkard is a living example of American grit and grace. My wife, Caroline, and I are proud to call him our friend. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Mr. Drinkard a very happy 105th birthday and in thanking him for a lifetime of service to his community and to his Nation.
May God bless Roy Drinkard and his family, and may God bless the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Luna Higbie, the daughter of my friend, Brian, back in Westchester County, New York.
Luna is a delightful 6-year-old girl, but she has already endured bullying simply for looking different. Luna wears an eye patch and glasses to treat her amblyopia. Mistreatment by a few peers has made Luna want to reject her treatment.
Disney's Pixar has recently released the movie, ``Elio,'' about a boy who is wrestling with his insecurity and a longing to belong. Representation matters. Research shows that seeing someone in the media who mirrors your experiences boosts self-esteem, supports identity formation, and reduces stigma. Imagine how it might feel for Luna to see a character who wears an eye patch--someone like her. It makes it more likely to help keep her patch on, to feel proud and seen.
As someone who grew up with strabismus and experienced teasing firsthand, I know how much it can hurt. We must teach our children that differences are not deficits, but paths to empathy and connection.
Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in sending Luna a message of inclusion: You belong. You are valued, and you matter to America.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up the bill (H.R. 3633) to provide for a system of regulation of the offer and sale of digital commodities by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, in lieu of the amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committees on Agriculture and Financial Services printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-6, modified by the amendment printed in part B of House Report 119-199, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
TITLE III--REGISTRATION FOR INTERMEDIARIES AT THE SECURITIES AND
TITLE IV--REGISTRATION FOR DIGITAL COMMODITY INTERMEDIARIES AT THE
TITLE III--REGISTRATION FOR INTERMEDIARIES AT THE SECURITIES AND
TITLE IV--REGISTRATION FOR DIGITAL COMMODITY INTERMEDIARIES AT THE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the further amendment printed in part C of House Report 119-199, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall be considered read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 15 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong support this morning of the CLARITY Act. We have been here before, Mr. Speaker. Just last year, we passed landmark legislation, FIT21, with an overwhelming bipartisan majority to apply strong Federal standards to digital asset markets.
For more than 5 years, our committee has heard from dozens and dozens of experts, held numerous roundtables and hearings with market participants of all sizes in all segments of the market to learn more about the emerging digital asset ecosystem.
We learned about the value proposition and relevant risks associated with digital assets and the use of blockchain technology. We have heard time and time again from market participants and regulators about the need for clear regulatory guardrails.
We have talked about the need to fill those regulatory gaps that have left millions participating in crypto markets vulnerable. In fact, Mr. Speaker, both President Biden in his Executive Order 14067, and President Trump in his Executive Order 14178, identified those market regulatory gaps, asking Congress to act to fill those gaps.
In 2022, we certainly witnessed consumer harm when the Financial Services Committee heard unprecedented testimony from an expert called in to clean up the failed digital asset crypto firm FTX and the mess it left behind. In his words, never had he seen such an utter failure in corporate controls.
In its wake, then-Chairwoman Waters wisely stated: ``We need legislative action to ensure that digital assets entities cannot operate in the shadows outside of robust Federal oversight and clear rules of the road.''
If we needed actions then, we certainly need it now. We risk history repeating itself, and that is why we gather today on the House floor.
After years of bipartisan work and numerous iterations, this bill would apply rigorous rules to digital asset firms, prohibiting commingling of customer funds, and requiring capital recordkeeping and conflict of interest mitigation standards.
Importantly, the bill recognizes that decentralized finance, or DeFi, developers do not take custody of user assets nor do they control user assets. Therefore, we should not treat them in the same way that we treat centralized actors who do have custody and who do have control over assets.
It is important to note that in an Agriculture Committee hearing, the former general counsel of FTX USA himself testified: Had we the regulatory structure provided for in CLARITY applied to FTX, its story--and he goes on to say--would almost certainly have had a much different ending.
Let's ensure that we learn from the past, Mr. Speaker, the digital asset ecosystem is evolving at a remarkable pace, enabling real-time settlement of peer-to-peer transactions, initiating a renaissance in applied cryptography and laying the groundwork for the next generation of the internet.
The United States has long had the most innovative financial and technology sectors and the deepest and most liquid capital markets, but while other jurisdictions are building frameworks for the future of finance to be on-chain and digitally native, our great country, with those great characteristics, is lagging.
For too long our digital asset regime has been the worst of both worlds: regulation by enforcement, which has pushed good actors to leave the United States, and the regulatory gaps that I talked about identified in both President Biden and President Trump's executive orders that have left consumers unprotected from the bad actors.
Now, today, we have an opportunity to reverse course and reestablish the United States as the global hub for digital innovation. To do so, we must close the regulatory gaps with commonsense rules.
Mr. Speaker, the CLARITY Act does just that by leveraging the expertise of our two market regulators, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to ensure wraparound oversight of digital asset markets, from initial sales, raising capital, to daily trading, it provides clarity for banks engaging in this ecosystem.
As we said in the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, these rules need to be fit for purpose for the digital ecosystem. All of us on this House floor know that the status quo is simply unacceptable. We all know American consumers and innovators deserve this clarity. They deserve better. They deserve rules of the road.
The choice before us is whether to lead in the financial markets of the future or watch the next FTX fail while we are left saying once again: Well, we have been here before.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me on both sides of the aisle and support the CLARITY Act. Let's fill these regulatory gaps with the proper Federal oversight. Let's create a competitive digital ecosystem. I support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, crypto week has been going so well, hasn't it? Mr. Speaker, that is because bailing out billionaires is hard work.
I look at how hard Republicans worked to strip healthcare from 17 million Americans, shutter rural hospitals, and take food assistance from 12 million people just to hand the richest 1 percent of Americans a tax break they don't need. No one should be surprised that the Republicans' next order of business is a billion-dollar handout to the President himself.
In just 6 months, President Trump has enriched himself and his family to the tune of $1.2 billion, and that is just the beginning.
President Trump used to call crypto a scam. In 2021, Trump said: ``Bitcoin, it just seems like a scam . . . I don't like it because it is another currency competing against the dollar.''
Melania was actually the first to get involved in the crypto ecosystem. In January 2022, she announced an auction of her non- fungible token, or NFT, collection. Trump then followed suit in December 2022, launching his own NFT collection, ditching his concerns about crypto because he saw it as a way to pad his pockets.
During the campaign trail, Trump ramped up his crypto involvement. In September 2024, he and his family launched World Liberty Financial, a crypto trading platform. Days before the Inauguration, Trump launched his memecoin which he later used to offer access to the White House to the highest bidder, foreign or domestic.
His family's crypto empire hasn't stopped there. World Liberty Financial launched a stablecoin called USD1.
All of this comes at the same time that the Trump administration has taken away the independence of the financial regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission.
He issued Executive Order 14255 which now requires all rules written by the financial regulators to be reviewed and approved by the White House budget office. This means this bill would hand over to the President the ability to write the rules he wants to advance his crypto operations.
Not only that, under the Trump administration, the SEC has said that memecoins, stablecoins, and bitcoin mining all do not fall under their oversight. Can my colleagues imagine that?
Do these assets sound familiar? Oh, yes, they do because these are all ventures that Trump and his family are pursuing now with no oversight by Wall Street's cop on the beat--that is the SEC.
Surely, each of my colleagues can see how this is a blatant conflict of interest. Democrats do. It is why I introduced the Stop Trump and Crypto Act to ban the President, Vice President, and all the Members of Congress from crypto corruption.
If we do not ban elected officials, including the President or Vice President, from this crypto corruption in H.R. 3633, each of us will be complicit. Yet, even if we included language to stop the crypto con, this bill, which should be called the calamity act, is bad public policy. That is plain and simple.
The bill would lead to increased investor harm, plant the seeds for the next financial crisis, and endanger our national security.
Just last week, the former chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission warned that this bill would allow traditional companies, like Apple or Google, to evade securities laws. They could walk away from the disclosure, antifraud, liability, and corporate governance protections that investors have relied on for 90 years. The bill blocks our State regulators from protecting seniors against fraud in crypto.
Additionally, the calamity act does not address illicit finance and other crimes commonly seen in the crypto space. It does not provide nearly enough direction to agencies, which would be required to match the level of financial crimes and noncompliance seen in the industry. It also does not provide sufficient funds for Federal agencies to examine and enforce these laws.
Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I strongly, strongly oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is an essential leader in our committee and also the chairman of our Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for all of his hard work on this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CLARITY Act. I think two things are clear. First, the digital asset and blockchain technology are leading the next wave of financial innovation. We need to make sure that innovation is occurring here in the United States of America.
Second, under the previous administration, the United States failed to enact a regulatory framework that is aligned with the realities of the technology and adequately protects consumers.
Today, the House has an opportunity to meaningfully improve the status quo that for too long has been marred by uncertainty and regulatory enforcement. The CLARITY Act establishes a workable, forward-looking framework. The CLARITY Act provides and ensures that markets operate with transparency, accountability, and strong consumer protections.
Today, our laws leave digital asset developers guessing which regulator has jurisdiction and what compliance even looks like.
It is not only bad for business. It is bad for consumers and bad for U.S. competitiveness.
Without action, we will continue to see innovation move overseas to jurisdictions that are providing the legal clarity that we thus far in the United States have failed to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, what we want is innovation in developing, not occurring in boardrooms and law firms in the United States, but in basements and dorm rooms.
Ensuring the United States leads the Web3 revolution isn't a partisan issue. It is an American issue.
The CLARITY Act legislates in a thoughtful way in a rapidly evolving space. The CLARITY Act protects consumers and fosters innovation.
Today, we can lead not by accident but by design. Let's send a message that America intends to lead in the golden age of digital assets.
Mr. Speaker, I support the CLARITY Act, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership on this issue.
I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 3633, the so-called CLARITY Act. I believe this misguided legislation will have devastating impacts on our financial stability, national security, and investor protection.
While my Republican friends claim that this bill will regulate crypto market structure, in reality, it eviscerates the longstanding history of investor protections that have made our markets the envy of the world.
Most importantly, this bill, this push for crypto, will not end well for the U.S. taxpayer. This bill will lead to the next financial crisis, and the largest crypto donors who wrote this bill will walk away unharmed because the worst aspect of this bill is that Republicans have repeatedly refused to include a single amendment preventing a Federal taxpayer bailout of the crypto industry.
That is what this bill does.
Additionally, this bill includes zero provisions to prevent the President, who has a $620-million conflict of interest, from continuing his ability to accept emoluments from foreign governments like Abu Dhabi.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and protect the American taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is our majority whip and who has been an absolute, essential early focus policymaker in the digital asset space.
Mr. Speaker, the United States stands at the forefront of the next digital renaissance, a transformative shift toward a decentralized peer-to-peer digital economy.
For many years, innovators and investors were forced to operate in a legal gray zone while agencies jostled for regulatory superiority over the digital asset ecosystem, leaving blockchain developers to pack up and move abroad.
The CLARITY Act fixes this by creating regulatory guardrails tailored to the unique attributes of blockchain technology while giving users and developers the confidence to engage and innovate in this ecosystem.
Gone are the days of arbitrary enforcement actions and regulatory turf wars that only hindered the development of this groundbreaking technology and drove capital overseas.
This bill gives market participants the confidence to build, invest, and grow right here in the United States of America.
We are proud to have the Securities Clarity Act included in this legislation. This provision provides market certainty for innovators and clear jurisdictional boundaries for regulators.
Subsequently, elements of the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act were included, clarifying, once and for all, that digital asset developers and service providers who do not custody consumer funds are not considered money transmitters.
Importantly, the CLARITY Act will help further decentralize our financial system so that Americans can forgo intermediaries and transact directly with each other.
Having this choice will fundamentally transform the digital economy and unlock new opportunities for innovators, investors, and consumers around the globe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill and Chairman Thompson for their leadership and for working with us to include our two bills in the CLARITY Act.
The United States has the opportunity to lead and deliver on President Trump's promise to make America the crypto capital of the world. We cannot and will not fail.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing you need to know about the CLARITY Act is that it is designed to destroy U.S. capital markets.
U.S. capital markets are the envy of the world because investors like putting their money in them. They are the envy of the world because we provide robust investor protections when people put their money in them, because of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Yet, the CLARITY Act would allow companies to raise up to $200 million over 4 years without any disclosure and without any transparency, just by tokenizing their security.
Let's be clear. Putting a security on the blockchain doesn't make investors safe. It might make money for the crypto industry. Mr. Speaker, I know you all like that. It might make it possible for the companies to temporarily raise more money from dumb investors because they don't get that protection. If we stop protecting investors, then why would investors put their money in the stock market? They will abandon the U.S. to go to places with a better risk-reward.
I understand we have a lot of fraud and grift in the White House. I understand Republicans are big fans of fraud and grift in the White House, but we don't need any more.
Let's protect Americans' hard-earned savings. Let's protect markets and not just make crypto bros richer. I urge a resounding hell no.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those remarks from the chair.
The digital asset ecosystem currently operates in a fragmented regulatory environment that lends itself to significant challenges for both businesses and, more importantly, investors.
The ambiguity in classifying a digital asset, either as a security or a commodity, has led to confusion, legal uncertainty, and, ultimately, consumer harm.
American innovation is a critical element in job creation and economic opportunity here in the United States. Congress must look to preserve this competitive advantage and not let it leave our shores.
By passing a comprehensive market structure framework, responsible actors will now have greater certainty and consumers greater protection from bad actors.
This bill establishes a regulatory framework for digital assets that aligns with our existing financial markets while accounting for the unique characteristics of digital assets.
Mr. Speaker, our markets are the envy of the world. American innovation is a critical element of job creation and economic opportunity here in the United States. Congress must not cede its responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.
Mr. Speaker, I submitted many amendments to Rules, as did other Democrats. They made only one in order. I will not be offering it because in the absence of the other amendments, it is really not useful.
This bill is an attack on working families, which is why the AFL-CIO says no, and they are scoring it.
This bill prohibits Congress Members from sponsoring cryptocurrencies because of the obvious corruption and conflict of interest, but it allows the President to create electronic Monopoly money.
Who is buying? Abu Dhabi is buying $2 billion of Trump stablecoin while the Chinese interests behind TikTok are buying $300 million worth of Trump coin, and that is just what we know about. There is a lot we don't know about because cryptocurrency literally means hidden money.
It allows for bailouts under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. Jay Powell won't do it, but the next guy will.
Congress won't stop him because crypto spends more in super-PAC than any other industry by far, five times more than the combination of Big Oil and Big Pharma.
It allows for the purchase of bitcoin and Trump coin, and Trump has announced that he is going to do just that with our tax dollars going into his crypto.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Finally, this creates the perfect financial tool for drug dealers and for tax evaders because every time a billionaire cheats on his taxes, a member of the Freedom Caucus earns his wings.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who is the chairman of our Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions and a longtime policy advocate for reform in our digital markets.
Mr. Speaker, the ability to move payment or digital tokens that represent other assets person to person, without a third party or intermediary, across any space digitally at the speed of light is part of the reason this industry was created.
What do those tokens represent? Either securities, commodities or real world assets? We have needed a bright-line test since this market began to decide who regulates them.
I introduced the first piece of legislation on this back in 2018 called the Token Taxonomy Act. Think of the harm that could have been prevented if we had that bright-line test all this time.
The other essential component is self-custody, the ability to control your own assets. You can't go person to person if you have to go through an intermediary without a permission.
It does that. It does just what we need it to do, just like cash. We finally have market structure in place with this bill. I hope the Senate delivers the same structure soon, and we get the certainty the markets need.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. It is ironic we are debating a bill called the CLARITY Act when it offers no clarity on one of the biggest issues in crypto, the blatant conflicts of interest inside our own government.
Since returning to office, President Trump has turned the Presidency into a crypto cash machine. It is now estimated that crypto makes up the majority of Donald Trump's net worth.
Foreign investors, some under Federal investigation, are pouring millions into these ventures, buying access, influence, and favorable treatment.
So I ask: What are we doing here?
With this bill, not only are we continuing to allow President Trump to issue his cryptocurrency, but we are allowing him and his cronies to be in charge of the regulators overseeing that venture and compromising the stability of capital markets in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. It has been a longer wait than expected, but I am excited that the CLARITY Act has finally made it to the House floor for debate.
The CLARITY Act is not just about digital assets like bitcoin. This bill will usher in a new age of blockchain innovation that will go well beyond the tokens that we know well today.
Chris Dixon's book titled: ``Read Write Own'' talks about a future where blockchain technology enables a new generation of the internet which he terms ``Web 3.0.''
Technologies like NFTs can be used as tickets to events, identity verification tools, and serve other real-world uses that will change our digital economy.
I urge my colleagues to see the bigger picture. The vote today is not just about cryptocurrency as we know it. It is about enabling the next generation of innovation enabled by blockchain.
This is a good, bipartisan product that builds on years of work from Chairman Hill, Subcommittee Chairman Steil, the Financial Services Committee, and the Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CLARITY Act, which claims to bring digital assets under a regulatory umbrella but fails in two major areas.
First, it fails because it has no KYC--know your customer-- requirements for self-hosted wallets. It allows anonymous trading on DeFi exchanges and the dark web, which means there is no way to prevent wash trading, front running, corruption, ransomware, extortion and kidnapping payoffs, and all the parade of horribles that unregulated crypto has unleashed upon the world.
This legislation simply applies a patina of regulation while codifying loopholes that leave large parts of the industry, including the President's own meme coin schemes, completely unregulated.
Secondly, the CLARITY Act also lacks the basic investor protections present in the securities laws. For example, firms are not required to serve the best interests of their investors or to separate critical market functions and many other basic protections.
Now, I am not ideologically opposed to crypto, and both of these flaws are fixable, but in CLARITY they have not been fixed.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the bipartisan CLARITY Act, commonsense legislation that finally gives digital asset markets the regulatory certainty they need to grow responsibly right here in the United States.
For too long, innovators have been stuck in a regulatory gray zone caught between agencies and overlapping authority and subject to enforcement instead of clear rules.
The uncertainty has driven jobs, investment, and innovation offshore while leaving American consumers exposed.
The CLARITY Act fixes this. It establishes clear, functional rules for digital assets, drawing a bright line between the SEC and the CFTC and creating strong, enforceable protections for consumers.
It ensures the digital assets developers and consumer-facing firms play by the rules, disclosing who owns what, segregating customer funds, and avoiding conflicts of interest.
It is long overdue, and I commend the chairmen for bringing this bill to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in vigorous opposition to the CLARITY Act. This bill gives a green light to self-enriching crypto schemes where officials at the highest levels of power, including in the White House, have generated hundreds of billions of dollars in personal profit.
We need legislation that stops financial abuse, not encourages it, especially during a time when the SEC has dropped enforcement actions against major crypto firms and undermined investor safety.
Across our country, millions of working families are battling rising costs, our elders are targeted by financial scams, and investors are trying to recover from volatile markets. Republicans are ignoring all of that to prioritize the crypto industry's wish list.
To be clear, the people deserve crypto legislation that is fair, transparent, and accountable, not a bill that opens the floodgates to conflicts of interest and weakens investor protections.
The CLARITY Act fails that test. Republicans need some clarity all right: moral and legislative. I agree with Ranking Member Waters that this is really the calamity act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We are here today, Mr. Speaker, because of the exceptional work by the House Financial Services Committee over a 5-year period, including under the leadership of then-Chairwoman Maxine Waters and former Chairman Patrick McHenry, gathering feedback from experts, looking at market participants, analyzing the markets, and talking to regulators. That is how we got the CLARITY Act on the floor today. It is built on the backs of that hard work.
This Chamber passed a similar bill in the last Congress with exceedingly strong, bipartisan support. Since then, the CLARITY Act has only been further refined and strengthened in terms of legal certainty and consumer protection.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, as we have demonstrated over that period of time, would prevent consumer harm like FTX.
Mr. Speaker, I support the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the so-called CLARITY Act.
Let me be clear: I support the growth of digital assets, blockchain innovation, and the promise that crypto holds for expanding financial access and economic justice, but this bill is not clarity. It is confusion cloaked in legislation. It picks winners and losers, and the biggest winner is the President of the United States.
Why is that office exempt from all of the rules? It undermines the SEC's ability to protect consumers and fast-tracks deregulatory loopholes without addressing core issues like transparency, fraud prevention, or equity and access. The SEC doesn't even like this bill.
We need comprehensive, thoughtful regulation, not rushed frameworks driven by the people who will gain the most who ignore the voices of everyday investors, builders, and communities left behind.
Crypto deserves rules that are smart, fair, and future-facing. The CLARITY Act is none of these things because, if it was, Republicans would have had the votes much earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate: A vote for H.R. 3633 is a vote to give Trump the pen to write the rules that would put more money into his family's pockets. A vote for H.R. 3633 is a vote for increased investor harm. A vote for H.R. 3633 is a vote to plant the seeds for the next financial crisis. A vote for H.R. 3633 is a vote to endanger our national security.
That is why I am voting ``no'' on H.R. 3633, the calamity act, and I urge all Members to not give a vote to Trump to own crypto and not to give a vote to the Vice President. They are the only two elected officials in this bill who can own crypto businesses.
I want to see all of the Cabinet, the President, the Vice President, and all Members of Congress unable to own crypto businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote no, no, no, on this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for Financial Services debate has expired.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am incredibly proud today to stand before you to share my support for the CLARITY Act. This is legislation that we have been working on in the Agriculture Committee for 7 years. This is an improvement over the legislation that fulfilled the very same purpose of what we are addressing today that passed last Congress with over 300 votes, including 71 Democrats, and it was a great bipartisan bill. This is an improvement on that bill.
The CLARITY Act is about three related ideas: certainty, protection, and innovation. I will talk about why each of these ideas is important.
First, the CLARITY Act provides regulatory certainty for all corners of the digital asset ecosystem, including issuers; exchanges; intermediaries; builders; software developers; and, most importantly, users of digital assets.
This regulatory certainty means that all parts of the ecosystem can engage with digital assets with confidence. It promotes healthy markets by establishing commonsense requirements to protect consumers. Those are all built on the existing requirements in the financial services markets.
Secondly, the CLARITY Act protects good actors from government overreach. By establishing clear rules, we limit the government's ability to subjectively enforce vague statutes. These protections are important to those entities like exchanges, brokers, and dealers, who we require to register. Yet, in many cases, they are more important to entities which Congress is not seeking to register.
Third, and most importantly, the CLARITY Act supports innovation across the economy, not just the crypto economy.
At the House Agriculture Committee, we heard testimony from numerous stakeholders about innovative ways in which developers and entrepreneurs are leveraging blockchain to build projects and services using blockchains and digital assets.
The certainty and protections provided through the CLARITY Act will lead to the development of a new generation of services, tools, and systems. I am excited for that future to happen here in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, Congress has a historic opportunity here today to act. With the CLARITY Act, we can pass legislation that protects consumers and ensures that the United States remains at the forefront of technological innovation. These are not mutually exclusive goals. They are mutually reinforcing goals.
By supporting the CLARITY Act, we can create a safer, more transparent, and more accessible environment for digital assets.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of nearly 44 million American consumers who have invested in, traded, or used digital assets. That is one in five Americans. The public interest in these markets is already here, and it is not going away.
Under the status quo, there is a gap in regulation for the digital commodity asset market. Our work here today could begin to provide the protections that American investors are accustomed to in traditional financial markets that are regulated by the CFTC.
Regardless of whether Congress acts, these markets will continue to grow. The only question is whether we will begin the hard work of developing regulation or refuse to begin.
The CLARITY Act would put consumer protections in place for the first time for this industry. Consumers will finally be protected by the same sort of guardrails that protect investors in other sectors of the economy: segregation of customer deposits, consumer disclosures, mandatory recordkeeping, and examination by regulators. We do not want another FTX.
The 2022 collapse of the world's third largest cryptocurrency exchange wiped out an estimated $8 billion to $10 billion in value, leaving American consumers holding the bag. The CLARITY Act would have largely mitigated or avoided this crisis entirely.
Former Biden administration CFTC Chairman Russ Behnam testified yesterday before the Senate Agriculture Committee:
`` . . . inaction will only result in greater risk to our financial markets and investors, through lack of market transparency, fraud, market manipulation, corruption, and conflicts of interest.''
That is lack of action.
Mr. Speaker, let me address the elephant in the room: the First Family's involvement with digital assets and personally profiting from them.
It has rightfully raised questions of impropriety and alarmed government ethics watchdogs. The First Family's personal financial involvement in other sectors, such as telecoms, should ring alarm bells, as well, loud and clear as it comes to ethics in our country.
There is a time and place for holding the powerful accountable, and that must happen. We should address executive branch corruption independently, and it should apply to all sectors.
Today, we must focus on regulation and protections for consumers because, today, one in five Americans, and growing, lack those protections and lack any guardrails. It is our job to start putting them in place.
Is this bill perfect? No. Can it be improved upon? Absolutely, and I encourage my Senate colleagues to keep working on those outstanding issues.
This bill deserves our support, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I was remiss with my opening comments not to thank my Agriculture Committee partner, Ranking Member Angie Craig, for her leadership and for working together with me on this issue, but also our Financial Services Committee Chair French Hill; my good friend, Don Davis; Whip Emmer; Bryan Steil, and so many more. There was just such a strong bipartisan leadership partner team.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), a member of the House Agriculture Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Thompson for bringing this bill forward. It is an amazing bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the CLARITY Act. The increasing adoption of digital assets and the use of blockchain technologies can grow our economy and provide American families with a new opportunity to grow wealth.
However, under President Biden, digital assets were attacked, which crushed innovation and created uncertainty for businesses.
Fortunately, President Trump is working to make America the crypto capital of the world. We want digital asset innovation to happen in America and crypto jobs to be created in America without ceding ground to foreign countries.
That is why we must pass the CLARITY Act, to spur innovation and support economic growth by providing clear rules of the road for digital assets in the United States.
This bill establishes clear roles for the SEC and CFTC, which prevents agencies from overreach and confusion. It provides consumer protections through greater transparency and accountability in the marketplace. It fosters innovation by providing a pathway for digital asset firms to operate legally and with confidence, encouraging digital asset innovation to remain in the U.S. The CLARITY Act unlocks economic growth, global competitiveness, and financial opportunity for all.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and put America first in the race to lead the global digital asset marketplace for our country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis), my distinguished colleague and the ranking member of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3633, known as the CLARITY Act.
I am honored to serve as a co-lead on this legislation, alongside Chairman Thompson, Chairman Hill, Ranking Member Craig, Subcommittee Chair Johnson, and so many others who came to the table in good faith to get this done.
Let me also take a moment to thank the staff, both the majority and the minority staff. They put in so many hours working on this. I know I was up late one night. It was probably midnight. I really commend the team. They helped work on a very complex issue here that is before us and to help shape a bipartisan product that reflects the seriousness of the moment.
This bill reflects compromise, collaboration, and months of work to craft the regulatory framework that meets the moment, because the truth is, we can't afford to fall behind.
Right now we are at a crossroad. The digital asset industry is growing, evolving, changing the way people around the world engage with financial markets and emerging technologies. Without a clear regulatory structure in place, we are seeing innovation move overseas not because our talent isn't here, but because the rules aren't here.
The CLARITY Act provides us with an opportunity then to change that, to lead, to establish thoughtful and balanced guardrails that support innovation, protect consumers, and foster confidence in our markets.
You see disclosures and reports dealing with so many provisions, antifraud, manipulation. You can't commingle funds.
But let me be clear: The bill isn't perfect. I have been vocal about that, too.
I remain concerned about the absence of meaningful conflict-of- interest provisions dealing with the executive branch. It doesn't matter who occupies the White House. The bottom line is,
I also remain concerned about adequate resources for the CFTC. Yes, I acknowledge this bill provides more flexibility to deal with hiring, but we also need to see more resources because we are asking the CFTC to take on a major role here.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
In the 118th Congress, we passed FIT21 with overwhelming bipartisan support. The CLARITY Act builds on this work. Let's pass the CLARITY Act and send a strong message to the American people and the world that the United States will lead in building a forward-looking digital economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn), a member of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Thompson, as well as Ranking Member Craig for leading a truly bipartisan opportunity to help America deliver as a crypto capital for the entire planet.
As a member of both the Agriculture Committee and the Financial Services Committee, I have been able to see this issue on both sides: commodities versus securities, CFTC versus the SEC.
In my home State of rural Iowa, we know commodities: corn, soybeans, hogs. The CFTC does this very well. In downtown Des Moines and on the Main Streets of hometowns across Iowa, our banks handle stocks and bonds, securities, those handled by the SEC.
That level of clarity works, but when it comes to digital assets, the lines become blurred, confused, and overly burdensome. That regulatory uncertainty doesn't just cost dollars. It costs jobs, innovation, and America's global leadership.
The CLARITY Act is exactly what America needs now to drive toward the future to ensure the next generation of financial internet technology and blockchain success is built in America, that our innovators come from the U.S., and that we have a future going forward. Mr. Speaker, I endorse the CLARITY Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. McDonald Rivet), my distinguished colleague who serves on the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development.
Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice support for the CLARITY Act. While there is still work to be done, it is an important step in providing crucial and clear regulatory framework to the crypto industry.
Let's break it down. Today, one in six U.S. adults, 17 percent of the population, are invested in or use cryptocurrency. That is 55 million Americans. There is more than $3 trillion invested in the industry. It is dangerous and irresponsible that a market of this size and scope is currently operating without a clear regulatory framework. For consumers, innovators, and the stability of our Nation's economy, the CLARITY Act is an important first step forward.
It protects consumers and equips assigned agencies with the appropriate authority to provide efficient and thorough oversight over digital asset markets. It also provides desperately needed certainty so that businesses can grow and evolve.
I will be clear: If the CLARITY Act had been in place, the FTX market crash that caused their customers to lose $8 billion would not have happened.
This bill strengthens our national security by giving regulators the tools they need to track cross-border transactions and stop digital assets from being used to evade sanctions or fund our adversaries.
The bill is not perfect, and it does not resolve every issue. Like many of my colleagues, I am deeply concerned about the Trump family's potential conflicts of interest in using crypto to profit from the Office of the Presidency. That is why I voted for amendments to impose guardrails to stop elected officials from improperly profiting off trades, and I will continue to push strongly for solutions to this problem.
However, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We stand at a critical moment where market structure is critical for our consumers, economy, and security, and the CLARITY Act moves us meaningfully forward.
Mr. Speaker, I will expand for a minute on the important protections included in the CLARITY Act. The CLARITY Act includes strong protections for the developers of software. Sections 309 and 409 make it clear that neither the CFTC nor the SEC have the authority to require a person to register just because that person is developing, publishing, or distributing software. This is a critical protection, rooted in our First Amendment, that should be read expansively by the commissions.
The creation of new decentralized finance protocols is also an important development that the CLARITY Act seeks to protect. Both the CFTC and the SEC must carefully examine and understand DeFi, which is why we are requiring both Commissions to undertake a robust study on the unique benefits and risks of DeFi.
Through the CLARITY Act, Congress is making an unambiguous statement that DeFi is different, and it should be treated differently from the centralized custodial intermediaries. Protecting this emerging technology is an essential purpose of the CLARITY Act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Messmer), a member of the Committee on Agriculture and a member of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the CLARITY Act.
America's innovative ecosystem has made our Nation an investment magnet and development hub, but thus far, our regulatory system has failed the digital assets industry. Under the current framework, fraudsters go unpunished, consumers remain unprotected, and the best and brightest minds in the industry have picked up and left for other countries.
The CLARITY Act finally establishes distinct jurisdictional boundaries between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, while also creating guardrails to incentivize and safeguard investment.
The bill not only expands opportunities for Wall Street and Silicon Valley, but it also provides great opportunities for Hoosier farmers by opening a new frontier for rural innovators and expanding access to capital in agricultural communities.
The digital asset markets are in dire need of regulation, and the CLARITY Act is the solution. I look forward to witnessing a new era of economic prosperity and technological advancement that this bill will bring to America.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to many of my colleagues' views on the issues before us today. I respect them all, and I respect their views. I don't disagree with many of the points that my colleagues who are in opposition are making, especially as it relates to executive conflict of interest concerns.
Here is what I know. I know that the United States is lagging behind the rest of the world in regulating this industry. I know that the regulations in the CLARITY Act are better than none at all in this industry. I know that consumers will be better protected the day after this goes into effect than they were the day before.
Now, is there more work to be done? Absolutely. We should do that. We cannot allow subjective ideas of perfection to override what are objectively steps in the right direction.
The CLARITY Act is one act that I support, and this is an important first step. As we move forward, however, we must continue to make the necessary investments so that everyone can participate. Those are investments in technical training and education so that people have the knowledge and
This is also a time to commit ourselves to ensuring that we do not leave underserved and rural communities behind. I represent a district that is geographically predominantly rural. We still struggle with issues like not having access to the internet in many counties that I represent.
You cannot participate in or leverage the benefits of a digital economy if you can't get on the internet. That is a fact. We must stand up for these communities and bring broadband and internet expansion resources to every community that we possibly can.
Let's keep moving forward. Let's keep making sure that we are bringing everyone along with us.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman who just spoke for his remarks concerning the need for high-speed broadband. My pledge, as the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, is that when we are back in September, we will have farm bill 2.0, which includes rural economic development and rural broadband. We have to get that done.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), a cosponsor of the CLARITY Act, for 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my support for the CLARITY Act.
The CLARITY Act is a bill that will make clear laws to help better regulate digital assets and blockchain technology. This bill will ensure that future innovations in the financial world will happen here in the United States and not in foreign countries.
We cannot allow our adversaries, such as China, to control the digital economy. The CLARITY Act will help modernize financial laws to make innovation possible and clear up many opaque and sometimes contradictory laws.
This bill delivers on President Trump's commitment to make the United States the crypto capital of the world, and I am proud that we are paving the path toward American dominance in the digital future.
Today, I again would like to give my support for the CLARITY Act, as it cements America as a hub for the world's financial innovation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), my distinguished colleague who serves on the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Craig for her excellent leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan CLARITY Act. This bill was made possible through a bipartisan effort that I was very proud to help lead with Chairman Hill and Congressman Steil. It is an important one because one-fifth of Americans own crypto. My State, New Jersey, proportionally ranks second nationwide in ownership of cryptocurrency.
While cryptocurrency has tremendous economic potential, we desperately need rules of the road to protect consumers, ensure the success of American entrepreneurs, and ensure that America leads the way, not other nations around the world, but that America leads the way in this growing space.
The CLARITY Act takes commonsense steps to make crypto work for everyday users, including measures to stop snake oil salesmen, fraudsters, and hucksters, and puts the Trump family's coins under regulation.
This legislation supports American-led innovation by encouraging developers and entrepreneurs to build, invest, and create jobs in our country.
Finally, this bill gives clarity to the SEC's and CFTC's roles in crypto to work together efficiently and to crack down on scammers and criminal activity. After years of uncertainty, it finally says who should oversee what, so that people in this space understand the direction it is going in and understand who is going to oversee what, so that consumers can be protected. I can't say that enough.
Do we want this to continue to be the Wild West with uncertainty, or do we want to have clear rules of the road to protect consumers? Do we want to do something or nothing? Is it perfect? As you have heard today, no, it is not perfect. Few pieces of legislation we bring here are.
The questions are: Will it do good? Will it make sure that we look after people who are involved in this space? Will it ensure that America succeeds and grows? Those are the questions.
To do nothing means that we will ensure that Trump's coin has no oversight. Why would we want that? We will ensure that no consumer is protected if we do nothing. We want to protect American consumers. That is our job. This legislation does that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this critical commonsense, bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), the vice chair of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee and also a member of the House Financial Services Committee. He is a very busy man.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the CLARITY Act, which provides long-overdue updates aimed at protecting the future of digital assets, encouraging growth, and protecting American consumers.
The days of stifling this emerging industry through litigation and rogue rulemaking must end. The Securities and Exchange Commission under former Chair Gary Gensler went far outside the agency's statutory mandate in many ways, especially with cryptocurrencies.
The CLARITY Act will strengthen transparency and accountability for consumers. It will require developers to provide accurate disclosures with details about the asset project's operation, ownership, and structure. It requires brokers and dealers to disclose important information to investors, to hold their own funds separate from their customers' funds, and to report any conflicts of interest.
This bill ensures Americans know where they are putting their money, and it gets government out of the way of growth and innovation.
Let's pass the CLARITY Act for the good of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the chairman of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, it has been such an honor to work with G.T., French, Angie, Don, Brian, and so many others on something that is real.
It is sometimes hard to separate the real from the fake in this town. That is certainly true for digital assets, NFTs, and memecoins. These generate tremendous attention, and they can pull our gaze away from what really matters.
Here is what matters: Blockchain technology, Web3, will transform every single industry in the same way that the internet has transformed every single industry over the last 30 years. That transformation will happen much faster than people realize if we can keep government from continuing to screw this up.
This is not about buying bubble gum with bitcoin. This is about blockchain innovation happening here rather than overseas, about more liquid capital markets, about small businesses creating new services and products, about removing friction from transactions for every single American, and about protecting consumers so the debacles like the FTX meltdown never happen again.
We tend to overstate the impact of what we do in this town. Everything is historic, even when it is not. However, this is different. This is huge.
Before I came to Congress, I was in the broadband industry, and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided the regulatory certainty needed to launch the internet era. That was a watershed victory for this country. Mr. Speaker, we are here again.
The regulatory certainty provided by this incredible bipartisan work product will launch a golden age of innovation and the golden age of digital assets. Today, now, this moment, this is a watershed victory for this country. Today we do something real.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota for his remarks and, quite frankly, I couldn't agree more. I also thank, again, my Agriculture partner, Ranking Member Angie Craig with the Agriculture Committee, and Don Davis and our leadership and all those who have the foresight to see that this is about the future. Well, it is about today because, you know, companies are struggling with this, but more importantly, it is about the future of both the financial sector and the technological sector.
A vote for the CLARITY Act is a vote for America's future and America's leadership. I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the CLARITY Act. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman G.T. Thompson, and his team for working on this consumer protection legislation in a bipartisan manner.
I believe bipartisan legislation is always preferable to partisan legislation. It is stronger. It is harder to undo when it has broad support and leadership changes overnight.
I heard my chairman talk about the farm bill. I regret that it wasn't a bipartisan path through reconciliation for farm bill provisions, but I am optimistic that we can work together in many other areas.
While I wait to see what the gentleman has in store for us for farm programs left behind, I, too, agree that rural development is incredibly important, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the bipartisanship shown through the CLARITY Act process can act as a reminder that we accomplish more and we go further when we work together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 1 will not be offered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up the bill (S. 1582) to provide for the regulation of payment stablecoins, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Senate GENIUS Act, and I thank my colleague and longtime friend, Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, for his leadership in ushering this bipartisan bill through the United States Senate.
Around the world, payment systems are undergoing an evolution. New technologies are modernizing legacy infrastructure and unlocking innovative solutions to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand access to financial services.
Members of the House Financial Services Committee have long recognized the promise of payment stablecoins and have worked since 2022 to establish a legislative framework.
Last Congress, under the leadership of former Chairman Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, the committee passed the Clarity for Payment Stablecoins Act of 2023. This bill provided for bank and nonbank pathways for issuers to obtain regulatory approval, preserve State- level oversight, and set standards for reserve composition, audits, and sound risk management.
When the 119th Congress started in January, we picked up this effort. In close coordination with the Senate Banking Committee and our base legislation, our legislative work over the past 2 years has laid that foundation for the progress made in both the House and the Senate.
Today, we have an opportunity to send stablecoin legislation to President Trump's desk. This is a multi-Congress priority item, and it ensures American competitiveness and strong guardrails for our consumers. We should not, Mr. Speaker, squander that opportunity.
This priority has been agreed to by both President Biden, with his executive order, and President Trump in his Executive Order 14178.
Mr. Speaker, through multiple versions of stablecoin legislation, the House and Senate have shared ideas and crafted workable approaches. Our joint efforts before us helped enhance the legislation on the floor this morning.
I recognize the hard work of my friends in the Senate to get the core fundamentals of what payment stablecoin legislation demands.
I also recognize the diligence and thoughtful work of my colleagues here in the House, including the chairman of our Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence, Bryan Steil, who championed and worked through our committee through markup in successfully designing, writing, and passing in committee the STABLE Act.
I thank my House colleagues for their principled approach to key policies that guided and distinguished our efforts particularly around State regime oversight, the reserve composition, the anti-money laundering, and territorial integrity issues around stablecoins, and, finally, the corporate structure of issuers.
Furthermore, it is my firmly held belief that only by enacting payment stablecoin legislation and, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, and comprehensive market structure reform in this Congress, like we just debated a few minutes ago, the
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and sending it forward to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for President Trump to sign into law.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago Republicans boasted about how they would provide billionaires with tax cuts they don't need by stripping healthcare from 17 million Americans, shuttering hospitals across the country, and starving 12 million families, including millions of children.
These billionaires are the same individuals who proudly gave millions of dollars to President Trump's campaign. They literally bought votes during the last election and even sponsored Stalinist military parades to celebrate the President's birthday.
No one should be surprised that these same Republicans' next order of business is to validate, legitimize, and endorse the Trump family's corruption and efforts to sell the White House to the highest bidder.
S. 1582, the so-called GENIUS Act, establishes a woefully deficient Federal framework for dollar-denominated payment stablecoins in the United States. Stablecoins are a form of digitized private money. Unlike other types of crypto, these coins claim to always maintain their value, often one coin for $1.
Nevertheless, that promise of stability is precisely what causes stablecoins to be subject to bank-like runs where the public rushes to sell their stablecoins at the first whiff of instability, making a bit of bad news into a full-blown financial crisis.
It was for this reason that when I was chairwoman of the committee, I sought to create a Federal framework to oversee these stablecoins and ensure that consumers are protected. I worked with the Biden administration and former Republican Chairman Patrick Henry to craft legislation.
We achieved that goal, and I posted that legislation earlier this year. We wanted to create a strong Federal system to oversee this type of crypto market that protected consumers, our national security, and financial stability.
Unfortunately, the election of Donald Trump ended those bipartisan efforts and brought a significant new challenge to stablecoins. That challenge was the Trump family's brazen corruption using crypto to sell access in exchange for official acts.
It just so happens that those stablecoins are one of the main vehicles Trump is using to make his corrupt crypto billions. The Trump family's crypto company, World Liberty Financial, launched a stablecoin called USD1 in April.
Shortly after that, the Abu Dhabi-backed investment from MGX bought $2 billion of Trump's coins to make an investment in Binance, a company that had been under investigation for numerous legal violations. Trump and his family will make tens of millions of dollars just on that transaction from the interest earnings alone. That is Abu Dhabi's money.
More concerning, by passing this bill, Congress will be telling the world that Congress is okay with corruption, okay with foreign companies buying influence, and okay with criminals buying Trump coins to seek pardons and beneficial treatment.
Each of my colleagues surely can see how this is a blatant conflict of interest. Democrats and the rest of America do, as well. It is why I introduced the Stop TRUMP in Crypto Act, to ban the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress from crypto corruption. If we do not ban elected officials in S. 1582, including the President or Vice President, from crypto corruption, each of us will be complicit.
Let me be clear on this point because there has been a lot of misinformation. This bill has a policy statement that elected officials like Members of Congress and Senators, as well as government officials, cannot issue their own stablecoin.
Are my colleagues aware who Republicans did not ban? Get this straight. The President and the Vice President are the only elected officials that can have a crypto business. Why are the Republicans protecting the President so he can make billions and billions more?
Don't just take my word for it. Earlier this week, Chairman Hill confirmed this much in the Rules Committee. Anyone who says the bill stops the President's company from issuing stablecoins is not telling the truth.
Yet, even if we adopted such a ban, the GENIUS Act, sent over by the Senate and apparently unable to be amended, is still bad public policy. S. 1582 creates the appearance of a Federal framework for stablecoins, but it does not provide the Federal Government with the full authority it needs to ensure that all stablecoin issuers comply with the law.
The bill also creates risks for consumers who will be stuck in a lengthy bankruptcy process if a stablecoin ever fails.
Additionally, it leaves the door open for foreign firms that present a major national security threat, including targets of sanctions, all to appease those in the Trump family's inner circle which has ties to those shady entities.
Yes, I am talking about Tether, the foreign stablecoin issuer everyone knows has been used in terrorist financing, organized crime schemes, and other horrible acts but which the Secretary of Commerce has close ties with.
Let me give one more example of why this bill is just bad for America. The very heart of this bill is that stablecoins will, in fact, be stable because they will be backed one to one with solid, safe assets. I invite anyone to read the bill.
While some of the reserves are cash and short-term Treasury securities, this bill allows for uninsured deposits. We already know how dangerous these deposits are. When Silicon Valley Bank failed, Circle, the largest stablecoin today, had $3 billion locked up in uninsured deposits and needed the Federal Government to rescue it. That isn't all.
A stablecoin issuer is also permitted to hold bitcoin as reserves. That is because someone added language in this bill late in the night that added new definitions and language to the bill.
The language allows for a stablecoin issuer to use any money received under repurchase agreements that are a means of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a foreign government.
Do my colleagues know what Trump's favorite strongman, the dictator of El Salvador, adopted as a legal currency? He adopted bitcoin.
This highly volatile cryptocurrency will now be eligible to be a reserve backing your stablecoins. It is truly absurd and dangerous and will lead to consumers losing their money and the taxpayers being called on to bail out the financial system.
It is for all of these reasons that I submitted several amendments to this bill, none of which were made in order by Republicans, because the President has rejected any conflict of interest language that binds him.
One interesting point is that even Chairman Hill himself inserted language at the end of the so-called CLARITY Act that the House is separately considering this week that actually amends the GENIUS Act.
Mr. Speaker, you heard me right. Rather than amend the GENIUS Act, which our own chairman saw had problems, he put his changes at the end of the CLARITY Act.
Mr. Speaker, you may be asking why he would do that. He could just offer his amendments to the GENIUS Act. The reason is that House Republican leadership has given up our power as the United States House of Representatives to work the will of our Members on behalf of our constituents and make changes to any legislation that the Senate sends us. Instead, we are simply taking the language directly from the Senate with no amendments, even when the chairman and other House Members know that this bill is flawed.
Unfortunately, because President Trump demanded the bill be passed without any changes, that is what the Republican Congress will do.
One of Chairman Hill's changes to the GENIUS Act addresses a key concern I have had from the beginning, which is that Facebook and any other Big Tech company should not be allowed to issue their own stablecoin.
Unfortunately, the GENIUS Act allows Elon Musk's X to issue its own stablecoin and creates a pathway for Facebook to do the same.
For these reasons and many more, I strongly oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to address a few of those points.
One, I am so delighted to hear that it sounds as if my friend, the ranking member from California, in fact, will now vote for the CLARITY Act this afternoon on the House floor since she highlights some of my suggested changes to the GENIUS Act. I appreciate her remarks on that.
Here is the big picture, Mr. Speaker. These bills, the CLARITY and GENIUS Acts, are about protecting American consumers, protecting investments, bringing capital back to the United States, and making the U.S. a fintech leader in payments and digital assets.
Consumers are protected. The rules are straightforward. All issuers of a payment stablecoin are treated the same, with high standards and high regulatory oversight. I want to make sure that those at home following on C-SPAN get the record straight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), who is the chair of the House Agriculture Committee and who, for years, has been a partner in crafting a digital asset approach that will make America more competitive.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before Chairman Hill and support the GENIUS Act. It actually garnered 68 bipartisan votes in the Senate. I appreciate those Senators. They demonstrated an awareness of the needs of a modern financial sector here in the United States. I congratulate Chairman Hill and Chairman Steil and thank them for their work on the stablecoin legislation.
The GENIUS Act represents an important step for this Congress in establishing the United States as a leader in the digital asset space.
This legislation, together with the market structure bill that we previously considered, which I have had the honor of cosponsoring with my colleagues on the Financial Services Committee, will provide important safeguards around the utility of vital digital assets in the next generation of global finance.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I intend to submit additional remarks for the Record to clarify congressional intent on the effect the bill may have on the ability to list certain derivative products.
Mr. Speaker, additionally, I would further state the following understanding with respect to the ability to offer listed derivatives products on payment stablecoins.
By excluding ``payment stablecoins'' from the definition of ``commodity'' in Sec. 1a(9) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1a et seq.) Congressional intent was not to extend Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (``CFTC'') jurisdiction over ``payment stablecoins'' and leaving this jurisdictional reach only for appropriate State and Federal payment stablecoin regulators. However, in the event that a derivative market on payment stablecoins develops, such exclusion of ``payment stablecoins'' from ``commodity'' would not affect the regulatory status under the CEA of certain derivative instruments based on ``payment stablecoins'' issued under the GENIUS Act, such as ``swaps'' as defined in Sec. 1a(47) of the CEA. For example, registered designated contract markets (``DCMs''), i.e., commodity exchanges, and swap execution facilities (``SEFs'') could list for trading swaps on payment stablecoins and make them available for retail and professional participants to allow them to hedge and mitigate their commercial risks and exposure to potential market price fluctuations of ``payment stablecoins.''
Because ``swaps'' are qualified as ``commodity interests'' under Sec. 1.3 of CFTC regulations (17 C.F.R. 1, et seq.), CFTC will have jurisdiction to police fraud, manipulation, insider trading and other market violations and to otherwise ensure customer protection of retail participants if a derivative market in payment stablecoin swaps develops in the U.S. or overseas and becomes available to U.S. persons.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the so-called GENIUS Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill has never even been considered or debated by the House Financial Services Committee or the Agriculture Committee, the committees of jurisdiction, which is the usual practice in this body. I guess this is what passes for genius these days.
Republican leadership has, once again, caved in to President Trump's demands to quickly push crypto legislation.
President Trump just yesterday posted to pass the GENIUS Act ASAP. There is no need to debate it, read it, or amend it. Just pass it.
Mr. Speaker, you might think that Republicans might be cautious about taking financial policy directions from someone who has a side hustle selling baseball hats and Bibles and who has filed bankruptcy six times in the past 20 years. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, you would be mistaken.
This bill significantly weakens the U.S. dollar, which is the global U.S. reserve currency and provides a huge competitive advantage for our country.
This bill allows a complete takeover of our financial system by Big Tech companies by allowing these massive companies to issue their own cryptocurrencies.
For example, Google has 3.5 billion daily users, and META has over 2 billion active daily users, not to mention Amazon, X, or Walmart. Several of these companies have already indicated they are planning to launch crypto stablecoins if this bill becomes law. These companies can easily compel or incentivize users to move away from the dollar, away from traditional banks, and into these so-called stablecoins.
President Trump's own stablecoin is set to become one of the top 10 stablecoins after Abu Dhabi announced a $2 billion investment in World Liberty Financial, which is a joint venture between the Trump family, his sons, and Steve Witkoff and his family. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that Steve Witkoff is Trump's Special Envoy to the Middle East, where Abu Dhabi is located.
Nothing in this bill prevents the clear conflicts of interest and violations of ethics laws by President Trump.
The worst aspect of this bill is the danger and risk that it puts on the backs of U.S. taxpayers because this will not end well, and nothing in this bill prevents a taxpayer bailout of crypto. If we really wanted to protect the taxpayer, we could require the crypto companies that are pushing these bills to absorb the losses if they fail. That would seem fair. Despite several attempts to have amendments included in this bill that would protect the taxpayer from paying for crypto bailouts, my Republican colleagues repeatedly refused.
We have seen in the past, in 2008, when the last version of financial innovation blew up, the collateralized debt obligations and other complex derivatives. It was the taxpayer who had to clean up that mess to the tune of $700 billion, while the bankers who created the mess got bonuses.
We should not let that happen again.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my friends on the other side and my colleagues on our side to defend the U.S. taxpayer and vote ``no'' on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I really have to say that I believe the GENIUS Act is an important component for preserving and enhancing the United States dollar as the reserve currency around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is our majority whip and who has been instrumental in our success in crafting digital asset legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in November, the American people elected the most pro-innovation and pro-crypto Congress and President in American history. Following his historic victory, President Trump gave Congress a mandate to pass landmark legislation to create rules of the road for the digital asset ecosystem. The GENIUS Act is the first step in fulfilling that promise.
I applaud my Senate colleagues Chairman Scott and Senators Hagerty, Lummis, and Gillibrand for energizing an often calcified Senate and sending over the GENIUS Act. Furthermore, I thank my colleagues, Speaker Johnson and Leader Scalise, along with Chairman Hill and Chairman Thompson, for putting this bill on the House floor today for a vote.
Fundamentally, any stablecoin bill is about national security. It is about preserving and extending the dollar's dominance as the world's reserve currency. People want to transact in dollars because we have the strongest and most reliable economy and government in the world. It is the currency the world counts on to do business, and the United States' global position relies on that status.
The United States cannot afford to sit on the sidelines. If we fail to lead in this space, we risk leaving the door open for authoritarian regimes like China to advance its state-controlled digital currencies.
This bill is a globally competitive, regulatory framework for dollar- backed stablecoins, one that encourages domestic innovation and brings transaction volume back into the United States' visibility and under our control.
As we saw over the last 4 years under the Biden administration, regulation by enforcement not only created uncertainty but also pushed companies offshore. A clear and defined stablecoin framework, like that in the GENIUS Act, keeps these innovators here at home and brings back all those who left.
This is not a perfect bill, but it is a perfect bill for this moment. Congress must keep its eyes on the finish line and send the GENIUS Act to President Trump's desk this week.
Bottom line: The GENIUS Act is a proinnovation, profreedom, and progrowth piece of legislation. It is a bipartisan solution to a global challenge, empowering U.S. markets to lead, not follow.
Let's pass this bill and secure American financial leadership in the global digital economy. I encourage all my friends in this body to unequivocally vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is customary, when we consider major legislation, to give credit to those who created the bill. The ghost of Sam Bankman-Fried looms above this auditorium. He is the genius behind this GENIUS Act, and one can only hope that he is able to watch C-SPAN on a black-and-white television set in his prison cell.
You don't have to be a genius to know that this bill is an attack on working families. That is why the AFL-CIO says no, and they are scoring it.
They call it stablecoin. It is not stable. It is not a coin. It is a money market account that, under this law, must pay zero percent interest. Who wants to forgo a 4 percent rate of return and get a zero percent return in stablecoin? Those who are desperate for what cryptocurrency offers.
Cryptocurrency literally means hidden money, and these stablecoins are exempt from the anti-money laundering provisions. Thus, it meets the needs perfectly of drug dealers, human traffickers, sanctions evaders, those who are hiding assets from their former spouses, and tax evaders.
Just to be clear, the Republicans rejected unanimously in committee a provision to prevent mixers. Mixers are devices whose sole purpose is to defeat even top law enforcement efforts pursuant to a warrant, and under this bill mixers will be used to defeat law enforcement.
Republicans claim to be against crime in the streets, but they are creating a device whose sole purpose is to facilitate crime in the suites.
Page 43 of this bill contains a provision maintaining the eligibility of stablecoins for bailouts under a facility created under section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act. Now, Jerome Powell won't bail out stablecoin, but the next guy will.
Stablecoin marketers are going to tell investors that if they ever have a problem they are going to get bailed out. After all, crypto has all the power in Congress because it is the number one source of super- PAC independent expenditures. Last year, crypto did more super-PAC expenditures than Big Oil and Big Pharma times five.
This bill is designed to enrich President Donald Trump. Even Richard Nixon never thought of printing up baskets of Monopoly money and selling them for cash. Trump thought of it, and he is doing it electronically.
Abu Dhabi has announced they are investing $2 billion in Trump stablecoin, $2 billion in Trump's hands where he has to pay nothing, zero percent, on the loan. He invests the money, makes $2 million a week, up until Abu Dhabi demands its money back, which they are never going to do as long as our foreign policy meets the needs of Abu Dhabi.
Republicans rejected unanimously an amendment to prevent taxpayer money from being used to buy crypto. If you are voting for this bill, you are voting for taxpayer money to go into buying Trump coin.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the chair of our Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence, who crafted the STABLE Act, which is the base text that led to this joint, good work between the House and Senate.
I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the GENIUS Act. The legislation brings clarity, consumer protections, and American leadership to the evolving world of payment stablecoins.
Stablecoin legislation has been in the works for over 4 years and has been called for by Democratic and Republican administrations. The status quo fails to protect consumers from fraud. That is an untenable situation in a market growing by the billions.
For too long, the United States has operated without a clear Federal framework for dollar-backed payment stablecoins, leaving consumers vulnerable to fraud, innovators in limbo, and our global competitiveness at risk.
That is why I am proud to have introduced stablecoin legislation in the House and worked alongside my colleagues in the Senate to make the legislation reaching the President's desk as strong as possible. That is why I am urging a ``yes'' vote on the GENIUS Act.
The bipartisan, bicameral legislation creates a robust framework for payment stablecoin issuance in the United States. It encourages the innovation and development of Web3 businesses here in the United States. It establishes clear rules to ensure that consumers are protected and businesses have clear regulations to responsibly participate in the digital asset ecosystem.
By requiring issuers to maintain a one-to-one reserve in cash and high-quality liquid assets like U.S. Treasuries, consumers know what they are getting and are protected.
GENIUS has strong anti-money laundering, operational risk, and governance standards in place to prevent abuse, reinforce market integrity, and create an even playing field with other financial institutions.
By passing the GENIUS Act in the House and sending it to the President's desk, Congress will be sending a clear message: The United States will dominate the future of financial innovation. We will protect consumers, support innovation, and defend the central role of the U.S. dollar in global commerce.
With this bill, we are not just responding to a moment. We are building a foundation for the future of finance in the Web3 world.
Payment stablecoin legislation is critical to this foundation. If we want to become the digital asset hub of the world, we must enact a comprehensive
I urge my colleagues to support both the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act and send a message that America leads in financial innovation and does so with integrity, strength, and a firm commitment to protecting the people we serve.
Mr. Speaker, if I were to describe Jeffrey Epstein as a nice family man who works in finance, you might question why I am saying that. If someone says that something that is neither a coin nor stable is a stablecoin, you might question why they are saying that because they aren't stable.
Terra, which was a stablecoin, collapsed at 30 cents and wiped out $40 billion in investor value. That was an algorithmic stablecoin. More recently, as the ranking member has noted, USDC, a so-called stablecoin, fell to 88 cents and only exists today because taxpayers bailed them out.
These are some of the reasons why central bankers last week issued a warning that stablecoins threaten global financial stability and need a much more restrictive regime compared to traditional finance.
The GENIUS Act ignores all of those experts and, instead, ties stablecoins into our financial system but without the safeguards that are required by banks and investment companies.
As the ranking member noted, this allows Big Tech companies to issue stablecoins and amass consumer data at the same time we are gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects consumers.
It allows issuers to cherry-pick the lightest-touch regulator between the Federal Government and any of the 50 States.
Rather than fixing the problems created when Silicon Valley Bank collapsed, it makes them worse by saying that you can have uninsured deposits. Yet, if there is a run on a future Silicon Valley Bank, the stablecoin issuers have a superior claim over every single person in this room who has a legitimate deposit in that bank.
My colleagues have said that this has a one-to-one requirement, except that it is not audited. There is only an audit requirement for companies over $50 billion in assets, which is only two stablecoins. Donald Trump's stablecoin just has to say that they attest that there was value in there on the 30th day of the month, and we don't have an auditor. That isn't one-to-one certification.
Finally, the GENIUS Act is a missed opportunity to limit foreign influence. We know that, recently, a convicted money launderer wrote the code so that the United Arab Emirates could buy $2 billion of Trump's stablecoin, which allowed President Trump to earn $30 million on the transaction.
Now, this convicted felon--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, the convicted felon I am referring to is the guy who ran Binance and not the President, but he is seeking a Presidential pardon.
Mr. Speaker, the GENIUS Act sets the stage for an exponential crisis and allows the President to continue cheapening the office for his own financial gain, and I urge a strong ``no.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, today is a good day for innovation. It is a good day for free markets, entrepreneurs, and consumer choice. It is a good day for American digital leadership.
Mr. Speaker, after years of debate and, frankly, as I was chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee in 2017 and 2018 and held hearings on cryptoassets, Congress has finally recognized the unique nature of stablecoin products.
Under this bill, we established a regulatory framework that targets the activity, not the technology. After years of indecision, Americans finally have an administration that is ready to embrace those products. The time to reassert American leadership in the digital asset space is now.
The GENIUS Act acknowledges that stablecoins can address inefficiencies in the U.S. payment system. It acknowledges that maintaining the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency should always be at the forefront of any decision that we have. It acknowledges that the private sector must lead the way, fostering innovation and competition.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me additional time.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, at the end of this, finally, it acknowledges that a clear regulatory framework led by the United States is needed to usher in this modern technology.
Mr. Speaker, we are at an inflection point. When it comes to digital assets, I urge my colleagues to seize this moment by supporting this important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the GENIUS Act.
From the beginning, I have said that Congress needs to tackle stablecoin legislation, but we cannot pretend that this is happening in a vacuum. We are creating a framework for stablecoins while the President, his family, and members of his administration are personally invested in this market and directly profiting from it.
Mr. Speaker, 3 days before taking office, President Trump launched his own memecoin. When the coin's value collapsed, his insiders cashed out. Everyday investors were left holding the bag. It is estimated that they lost over $2 billion while the Trump circle walked away with more than $350 million.
Now, his family firm, World Liberty Financial, has launched its own stablecoin, once again netting the President's family tens of millions of dollars.
The administration is rolling back enforcement and reshaping policy to give these business interests a leg up.
These are such clear-cut conflicts of interest, yet this bill does nothing to address them. It doesn't bar the President or Cabinet officials from holding financial stakes in stablecoin issuers. It doesn't address the foreign investors piling into these ventures. It doesn't even try to draw a line between public office and private banks.
This isn't a framework for innovation. It is a framework for more corruption.
If we are serious about protecting consumers and about protecting our markets, we have to start with ethics. This bill fails that basic test.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill, the GENIUS Act, and the bill we debated a few minutes ago, the CLARITY Act, are all about consumer protection. There are no rules federally across the board in the digital asset space at all now. That is why we have seen consumers hurt by the lack of a regulatory framework. I have to say, Mr. Speaker, in total contrast to my friends on the other side of the aisle, that is what we are all here for today.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your continuing reminder to the Members in the Chamber to refrain from engaging
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), our distinguished chairman who leads our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the passage of the GENIUS Act, and I thank Chairman Hill for his extraordinary leadership, not just in this Congress, but for a long time advocating for this moment. He deserves a tremendous amount of credit for persevering and working and marshaling bipartisan, bicameral support. I thank him for his tremendous leadership.
I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil) for being a subject- matter expert and working in a bipartisan way to build a bipartisan coalition for this moment.
There has been a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, made in this term of Congress about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is a historic piece of legislation, no doubt. It is going to supercharge our economy. It is jet fuel for our economy. They are the biggest tax cuts we have ever seen in this country's history. Yet, I would argue, with all respect, that, arguably, the most important and most transformational pieces of legislation in this Congress are these bills that we are talking about here today, the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
It is paramount that we send this historic piece of legislation, the GENIUS Act, to the President's desk because this bill is the first of its kind in creating a regulatory framework for the future of stablecoin issuance in the United States to revolutionize finance and payments in this country and around the globe.
Not only will this cement us, the United States, for decades to come as leaders and innovators in the digital asset space, but it will, importantly, protect the U.S. dollar's dominance and increase demand in our Treasury market.
In the GENIUS Act, stablecoins become pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by high-quality liquid assets.
Mr. Speaker, in stark contrast to what my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), was arguing, this actually prevents these other so-called stablecoins from actually thriving in the marketplace.
You are going to have stablecoins that actually are stable. That is why we need the bill. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten) is actually making the argument for us. He is making the argument for why he should support the GENIUS Act. It is because of unstable stablecoins that are out there. Those products will lose ground in the marketplace after we pass the GENIUS Act.
It will ensure that consumers are protected while reaping the benefits of blockchain technology. The GENIUS Act will allow for scalability to occur in the stablecoin marketplace, ensuring American consumers and businesses have access to this innovative product.
Both banks and nonbanks can issue stablecoins under the GENIUS Act, bringing together the best actors in both the traditional finance space and the new era of digital finance.
The GENIUS Act provides that all appropriately regulated banks, including the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, which are supervised by the Federal Reserve, are treated equally to their U.S. peers.
This is particularly important with respect to the issuance, reserve and custody services, and bank capital requirements irrespective of whether they are deposit insured since the act prohibits stablecoins from being covered by FDI insurance.
A robust, well-regulated stablecoin market eliminates any justification for a government controlled Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC, which jeopardizes Americans' access to freedom, privacy, and apolitical private capital.
This is an important point for all of my colleagues on my side of the aisle who share my concern and opposition to a CBDC. If you want to put a dagger in the heart of this crazy surveillance state idea of a Central Bank Digital Currency, pass this bill. I urge all Members to vote for this bill, vote for the GENIUS Act, which will eliminate all arguments for a CBDC.
With the GENIUS Act, we will increase the speed and decrease the cost of payments. We will decrease and eliminate friction from our payment system. If all Americans see housing their deposits via a CBDC at the Federal Reserve as a risk-free proposition, they would be incentivized to pull their money out of private-sector banks.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Just to conclude, we want to avoid eroding the deposit base and starving the private sector of conventional bank financing. The GENIUS Act will not erode the deposit base. It will allow banks to issue and custody stablecoins and participate in this emerging crypto economy cementing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, protecting consumers and the deposit base, and supercharging the Treasury market.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a perfect bill since I have been in Congress, but this is a pretty good bill. It is an important bill. Regulating stablecoins is long overdue at the Federal level, but make no mistake, stablecoins aren't new.
The New York Department of Financial Services has regulated stablecoins in the State of New York since 2018. They are time-tested and proven, and they have been stable.
It is long overdue for us to provide Federal legal clarity here, so why am I speaking in opposition to it? My Republican colleagues are exactly right about the stablecoins and the need for regulation. That is why we passed the STABLE Act, but my Democratic colleagues are right this time to recognize that the legislative process is broken and, frankly, we all know that. Everyone in the House does.
We have seen it broken on lots of things, but here, today, we have got a defective product that our legislative process prevented us from fixing.
On the product, the GENIUS Act, we agree we have five amendments that we want to do to the GENIUS Act that we are doing in the CLARITY Act, and they are important. Frankly, while the GENIUS Act does address retail CBDC, and it is an important concession because Democrats want a surveillance state Central Bank Digital Currency.
Mr. Speaker, you are going to see that when we vote later on Tom Emmer's bill. They want that. Republicans are thankfully united in opposing Central Bank Digital Currency, but we should deal with that fully here.
On March 8, 2023, in a dialogue with Chairman Hill, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that they would need congressional approval for a retail CBDC, but he went on to explain that you could have a layered CBDC. They are building just that at the Federal Reserve.
We should completely turn that off, and that is why we need to pass Representative Emmer's bill. I will talk about that later, but we also need to protect self-custody, which is the ability for you to move your money directly person to person without an intermediary. You won't have direct access to your own money unless you protect it because government agencies continue to try to ban it. We need to protect it. We do in the CLARITY Act, and that is why I oppose the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 1582, the GENIUS Act. I thank the chairman of our full Financial Services Committee, Chairman Hill, for his leadership; Chairman Steil for his great work; Whip Emmer, and so many in our committee and our colleagues in the Senate for their work on this legislation.
I also recognize President Trump's administration, crypto czar David Sacks, and SEC Chair Paul Atkins for
Mr. Speaker, the Senate's legislation built on 2 years of groundwork by the House, crafting a framework for stablecoins that protects consumers, the dollar, and unleashes private-sector innovation. This bill achieves three goals. It supports the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. It provides a private-sector alternative to a government-run digital dollar which is very important, and it modernizes payments to reduce costs and expand access. This is smart, forward-looking policy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, since assuming office, President Trump has been making himself richer and richer, while working-class Americans are struggling just to stay afloat.
President Trump has earned $1.2 billion since he entered office. The Trump family has been using the Office of the Presidency, and the way that they are doing this is extremely alarming to me and my fellow Democrats.
Now, let me go through this timeline once more.
In September 2024, on the campaign trail, the Trump family launched World Liberty Financial, which they have described as a decentralized finance, or DeFi company.
On January 17, 2 days before the Presidential inauguration, President Donald Trump launched his Trump memecoin. Days later, Melania Trump launched her memecoin.
On March 25, 2025, World Liberty Financial launched a dollar-pegged stablecoin just 1 week before the House Financial Services Committee marked up stablecoin legislation and 2 weeks after Senate colleagues held their markup.
On March 31, Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.'s, American data centers merged with American bitcoin, a bitcoin mining operation.
On July 8, Trump Media and Technology Group, the company that operates the Truth Social media platform, announced that it had filed paperwork with the SEC to approach to launch the crypto blue chip ETF later this year.
Now, let's add all of this up.
Since January of this year, President Trump and his family have launched or are planning to launch six different crypto ventures. Congressional Republicans and the crypto industry will state that these conflicts of interest take away from the discussion on other parts of the bill. They claim that this bill is good for consumers and investors.
Well, let me tell you, it is not. It is good for Trump's family and wealthy crypto investors that can afford to see themselves through an FTX-type collapse. No one, not a Republican or a Democrat, should be using their office to make themselves richer while everyday Americans are struggling to buy groceries and pay for their healthcare.
Everyday Americans are simply trying to survive, thanks to Republican policies, while President Trump and his billionaire boys' club thrive in the economy.
It is simple. People want to know why Members of Congress can't simply exclude the President and the Vice President. Why do they keep them in both of the bills as owners of crypto? Why did they avoid my amendment that would take them out?
I don't believe that the President, the Vice President, his Cabinet, his family, or any Members of Congress should be owners of crypto. I certainly don't believe that the Office of the Presidency should be used by anybody, any President, now or in the future, to be the owners of crypto.
Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this since I was in the Nebraska Legislature. Back in 2021, I passed the Nebraska Financial Innovation Act, making our State the second State to allow State- chartered banks to custody digital assets, stablecoins.
These stablecoins have the ability to greatly increase not only the speed of payments and settlements, but also make our economic system even more efficient. Stablecoins will also support the advancement of the U.S. dollar around the globe.
We may often take it for granted, but most of the transactions around the globe rely on a currency backed by the U.S. dollar. That could change if we don't adopt laws like this.
Who steps in? Adversaries like China.
We want to have a presence on the Continent of Africa. That is the next frontier. This assures us of that.
In the early days, caution was certainly prudent. Stablecoins are a novel technology with significant questions regarding how to protect consumers, like what happens in the event of bankruptcy and how to ensure that the issuers live up to the technology's namesake by providing a truly stable asset, the dollar.
That is why we have been working on this issue in our committee for the last several years. Similarly, the Senate has been running through their process.
Let me be clear, this bill is not perfect. With my experience in Nebraska, I have been a strident supporter of a strong, robust State pathway for issuers. This bill has a State pathway, but it is capped at a $10 billion asset threshold.
I personally much prefer Congressman Bryan Steil's STABLE Act to this Senate product. However, despite my personal preferences, this bill absolutely provides a comprehensive and safe Federal framework for stablecoin regulation.
In order to usher in a new era of blockchain innovation, we need to pass the GENIUS Act so our regulators can get to work implementing a comprehensive stablecoin framework.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters from organizations that oppose this terrible bill: a letter from the AFL-CIO, which is scoring this vote, and a letter from Public Citizen.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), who is a distinguished member of the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bipartisan GENIUS Act. This legislation builds on the bicameral negotiations that Chairman Hill, former Chairman McHenry, Chairman Steil, and I, and so many others, have worked so hard on for the past years.
The GENIUS Act is smart bipartisan legislation that backs stablecoins through the U.S. dollar on a 1-to-1 basis and allows States to make future safeguards to further protect consumers.
The GENIUS Act, as I said, protects consumers and gives clear rules of the road to allow America to lead the way in a space that is key to our economy. It cracks down on illicit finance, helps counter bad actors, and reinforces the global strength of the dollar, all while lowering the cost of payments and making transactions happen in just seconds.
The bill has already passed the Senate in a strong bipartisan way. Now, it is time for us to clarify rules for stablecoins, protect consumers, and promote American innovation.
As I said before, when we were talking about the CLARITY Act, the question is: Do we want some rules of the road or no rules of the road? To vote against this bill and to vote against the CLARITY Act is irresponsible if you want to make sure that the Trump coin has oversight and that consumers are protected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey's time has expired.
Mr. Speaker, to not pass this legislation is deeply irresponsible. It will allow the Wild West to continue.
This will protect consumers and ensure that the Trump coin and others are overseen, with protection and oversight from the CFTC. It is critically important for protecting consumers and protecting our country.
Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that it is irresponsible to turn this bill over to the President of the United States, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
This bipartisan, industry-supported bill will finally give the stablecoin asset class clear rules of the road for the issuance and use of digital assets. The GENIUS Act will establish standards so that issuers are credible and stablecoins are quality assets in a rapidly innovating digital market.
I thank the Senate for passing this bill and getting it to the House so quickly. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of the GENIUS Act. It is a vital step in keeping America at the pinnacle of financial innovation.
Mr. Speaker, let's make the U.S. the crypto capital of the world.
Mr. Speaker, as the vice ranking member of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture, I rise today in support of both the CLARITY and GENIUS Acts.
These bills aren't perfect, but digital innovation is critical to our economy, and I support a regulatory framework that protects consumers in the financial system.
However, I am concerned about the ability of certain officials to use these assets for self-enrichment at the highest levels of our government. These bills ensure Members of Congress and many other government officials must abide by ethics rules that we expect from government officials, allowing the industry to innovate as it should. Two individuals are exempted, the President and Vice President.
This is incredibly dangerous, and it undermines confidence in this important industry. It also further degrades the public trust in our government, especially at a time when that trust is already eroded by the President's refusal to release the Epstein files.
We need to take important steps to establish a regulatory framework for digital assets to thrive and to restore public trust. We need action now, and I hope we can close these loopholes.
Mr. Speaker, once again, we are showing that we can lead here in Washington, D.C., getting things done with the leadership of our President and our leadership here in the House, working together with the United States Senate.
It shows that we are offering that certainty and stability once again for our economy to make America first. We are going to make the dollar dominant once again, and we are going to lead on digital currency payments.
It will increase, of course, the demand for U.S. Treasuries and move us toward that dominant position we need to have in the financial markets.
I applaud our chairman. As a new member of this committee, it has been wonderful to watch a person in action who is attempting to work with the other side, pushing through bipartisan legislation, and, once again, proving that Washington can work if we have leadership at the helm.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Arkansas has no further speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me again reiterate that a vote for S. 1582 is a vote to give Trump the pen to write the rules that would put more money in his family's pockets. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote for consumer harm. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote to plant the seeds for the next financial crisis. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote to endanger our national security.
That is why I will be voting ``no'' on S. 1582, the GENIUS Act, and I urge all other Members to also vote ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.
Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that we are here on the floor, where we have heard a vigorous debate about dollar-backed payment stablecoins. Our committee has worked under both Democratic leadership with Ms. Waters and Republican leadership to research this, talk about it, think about it, and have hearings about it for over 5 years now. We come to the House floor today with a bill before us that, while not perfect, is a good bill, as has been evidenced by our speakers on the floor.
S. 1582, the GENIUS Act, is a simple, bipartisan bill that is long overdue and is based on that bipartisan work in both Chambers. Wow, we are actually legislating. We are seeing bills passed in both Chambers. It is exciting for me to see the good work of my friend, Chairman Tim Scott of the Banking Committee, in leading a policy-driven effort to put America's financial leadership first. S. 1582, as written by Bill Hagerty, does exactly that.
Mr. Speaker, 68 Senators voted for this bill in the United States Senate. A cloture-proof margin is only 60, but here 68 Senators came together, including 18 Democrats. They vigorously debated this bill, worked on it, improved it, modified it, and sent it to us in the House.
Likewise, Chairman Steil here in the House worked with those Senators on both sides of the aisle all along the way to take the ideas that we had here in the House in our markup and our STABLE Act and improve the GENIUS Act.
With this legislation today, on a bipartisan basis, we are modernizing our financial infrastructure, streamlining transactions, lowering costs, and expanding financial tools for everyday Americans. This is about putting American innovation first. It is about creating a future where innovation is met with clarity, not confusion; where American ingenuity is empowered, not stifled, by an outdated, not-fit- for-purpose regulatory regime.
The GENIUS Act will help maintain U.S. global leadership in financial technology, digital innovation, and the power of the reserve currency-- the United States dollar--while reinforcing important consumer protections and critical regulatory oversight where it is needed most.
This is commonsense, forward-looking legislation that reminds me of the earliest days of this House Chamber agreeing in 1996 not to tax or regulate the internet, but to tax and regulate how people use the internet. This is a keen example of that principles-based legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the GENIUS Act, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I call up the bill (H.R. 1919) to amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in support of H.R. 1919.
This bill has been before us in this House Chamber. We debated it in the last Congress. It has had the outstanding leadership support and advocacy by our majority whip here in the House, Mr. Tom Emmer of Minnesota. I rise in strong support.
At stake is a fundamental choice about the future of money in America, a choice between freedom or government control. Central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs, put the government at the center of every financial transaction: monitoring, controlling, and possibly restricting how Americans could use their own hard-earned money. An American Government-controlled digital dollar threatens to open the door to government overreach here at home.
It would threaten individual privacy and stifle innovation by undermining progress that we have seen from private-sector solutions like we just talked about on the House floor, privately issued U.S. dollar-backed payment stablecoins.
That is a continuation of the evolution of the private-sector guiding the expanse of our money, how we use our money to make payments, formerly starting out with cash. We wrote checks. We use debit cards and ATM cards at the point of sale. We use credit cards. We can send money by wire transfer or by an electronic check. The private sector has innovated all along that continuum of financial technology, and that is why today we don't want the Fed to drive that, to potentially control it, to issue it, for individuals to bank at the Fed and be subject to these risks to privacy or surveillance. Let's stick with the approach of private-sector solutions.
We have already seen small glimpses of this possibility under the prior administration. The chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee for Oversight and Investigations, Dan Meuser of Pennsylvania, has been having a robust discussion about the debanking policies of the prior administration for politically disfavored industries.
The capability for the government then to follow on and directly freeze or delete Americans' funds on a whim is not compatible with our values, our cherished freedoms, our way of life, or even the past approach to the evolution of payments in our country.
Moreover, a government-run digital dollar would put the Federal Reserve potentially in direct competition with the private sector. Further, a CBDC would create unnecessary risks by consolidating financial power within the Federal Government, limiting choice and threatening the very innovation that made American financial markets the strongest in the world.
For all these reasons, I am thankful that consistently my friend, our colleague, Majority Whip Tom Emmer, has been leading the charge to prohibit the implementation of a U.S. central bank digital currency. I thank him for the work he has done to elevate this issue in the Congress and bring this bill before us once again for a vote on this House floor.
I hope all my colleagues can recognize that Article I determines how we issue money and how we value it, that that is a power of the Congress, and that we are not delegating it to the executive. We control that in Article I. This bill says that you can't issue a CBDC without that specific explicit authority and direction from the Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. Emmer's bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, over the last hours we heard arguments from the other side of the aisle that the United States must prioritize innovation. The Republican crypto bills we considered will create giant loopholes in our Federal financial laws that put consumers and investors at risk in the name of innovation.
These bills would increase the chance of another costly financial crisis like the one in 2008 that led to trillions of dollars of wealth being wiped out in the name of innovation.
It comes as a surprise to me that the last bill we will debate would block any research, pilots, or consideration about how to digitize the U.S. dollar, it is the reason that I call H.R. 1919 the anti-innovation act.
We have been discussing a lot about cryptocurrency. We have talked about two different acts, which are the CLARITY Act and the GENIUS Act. We have talked about a lot of intricacies of crypto. The general public does not understand all of this because the big
It is time for the United States Government to take charge, and our central bank must be involved in the study and the research so that we don't have issuers with crypto or anything else without the Federal Government knowing about it and being in control.
H.R. 1919 would immediately halt and prohibit the United States from any research and exploration of the benefits of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC. A central bank digital currency is essentially a digital version of the dollar, issued by the Federal Government, that uses crypto technology known as blockchain to record everything and everybody who owns tokens. Open it up. Let us know who the big issuers are.
There are two types of CBDCs, and this bill bans both of them. A retail CBDC is made available directly to consumers from the Federal Reserve, from a bank, or other Federal institutions. A wholesale CBDC is not available to the public but only to the banks and other financial institutions. This bill would ban both of these kinds of CBDCs.
Mr. Speaker, when Republicans raise concerns about CBDCs, they are talking about retail CBDCs, but because they are so averse to knowledge and averse to studying things, they have no idea that their bill blocks research into other forms of digitizing the dollar that would truly cut costs for people.
For example, J.P. Morgan Chase has estimated that $100 billion could be saved in cross-border transactions every year if a wholesale CBDC is adopted. Earlier this week in the Rules Committee, we heard Republicans claim that we need to weaken oversight of private crypto because doing so will help cross-border payments.
I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why should we abandon any research into making the greenback ready for the future? If this bill passes, the United States would be the only country in the world to ban any research in the world on CBDC. What are my colleagues afraid of? Why do they not want the knowledge explained?
Mr. Speaker, 137 countries are racing ahead. Some are studying, and others are issuing their own CBDC. The foreign currency markets are evolving, but Republicans want to stick their heads in the stand. Those 137 countries and currency unions represent 98 percent of the global GDP, and China is one of the frontrunners in the global race to implement a viable CBDC.
Do my friends across the aisle know why China is quickly rolling out its digital currency? It desperately wants to create an alternative to the U.S. dollar to determine the dominance of our currency.
Mr. Speaker, America reaps great riches because our currency, the dollar, is the premium currency used around the world for all sorts of trade. It is used from sales of oil to commodities to financial contracts.
One of those benefits is that when we take out a loan to buy a car or use our credit cards, our interest rates are much lower than in other countries. Another benefit is that the United States can pressure bad actors from Iran to Russia to China by cutting off access to our financial system and the dollar using sanctions.
Those same countries would love to replace the dollar with their currency or something else. One way China hopes to do this is to show that the dollar is an antiquated currency, whereas the Chinese currency is the future.
It is so shortsighted to not even study how the dollar could be digitized, especially during the same week that Republicans want to let private companies create their own currency.
It is very important for all of us to understand that if we want to be innovative and if we want innovation, we will study and we will understand so we then will be able to explain. If we really want to protect the American dollar, we will not put our heads in the sand. We will allow this research to go on to make sure that the American dollar stays strong even in digital.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), our distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Anti-CBDC Surveillance Act. I thank Whip Emmer for his leadership on this issue. He was actually one of the first in Congress to raise the alarm. Since then, the case has only grown stronger about the risks posed by U.S. CBDC.
Mr. Speaker, the global economy is at a crossroads when it comes to digital payments. Jurisdictions around the world are upgrading their payment systems to be faster, to be cheaper, and cross-border. The private sector is leading the way, including payment stablecoins to enhance the payment rails.
As the United States grapples with modernizing our own payment systems, we are confronted with a choice. Do we empower free-market solutions that protect privacy and protect individual liberty, or do we centralize control over payments in the hands of the Federal Government?
Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear to me. Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller has repeatedly warned that a CBDC is ``a solution in search of a problem.'' Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, in 2022, in his executive order on Responsible Development of Digital Assets, President Biden sought to explore a U.S. central bank digital currency placing ``the highest urgency on research and development efforts into the potential design and development options of a United States CBDC.''
President Trump understands a CBDC's threat to our American freedoms.
In his January 2025 executive order, President Trump explicitly prohibited any Federal agency from issuing or advancing a CBDC without direct congressional authorization.
In a free society, Mr. Speaker, financial privacy and private property rights must be protected. The American economy thrives on choice, competition, and liberty, not on coercion and control.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, preserving liberty, protecting privacy, and ensuring the United States of America is a global leader in financial innovation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her confidence and for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1919, the so-called Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. At the expense of U.S. global economic leadership, this misguided legislation would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, also known as a CBDC.
Unfortunately, the facts surrounding the development of CBDC have been obscured by disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extreme political ideology. Republicans and the crypto industry have made unfounded claims that a CBDC will be used as a surveillance tool by the Federal Government.
Let's be clear about what a CBDC is. It is a publicly issued digital dollar that would be regulated by the Federal Reserve, an independent Federal Reserve, that would have the full faith and backing of the U.S. Government. A CBDC could serve as an alternative to existing forms of payments, and it will have benefits, including instant payment settlement, providing a medium for cross-border transactions, and fostering greater financial inclusion. Additionally, Congress could require that the architecture of a central bank digital currency not have surveillance capability.
More than 130 countries are or have been studying or have launched their own government-backed digital currencies, including every major world power. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains far behind amid increasing and blatant misinformation about the features of digital currency.
Let's talk about the EU. It is widely acknowledged that the EU has one of the most stringent data protection regimes and protection laws on the planet. They have strict data protections, number one, on the GDPR, so EU citizens have access to control of their personal data. They have the right to be forgotten, which would prevent data surveillance and surveillance of citizens, and they have strict penalties for companies that violate their personal data rights.
The United States could have the same in a U.S. digital currency. There is a widening gap between the U.S. and its G7 peers, all of whom have far more advanced CBDC projects than the U.S.
I will go back to the EU. The EU is in the final stages of a pilot retail CBDC program already. They are so far ahead of us. They are going to capture the future if we adopt this bill.
The U.S. Government has always led the way in harnessing technology to promote innovation. DARPA and NASA space programs are clear examples of what happens when the U.S. invests in research and development.
While concerns about data privacy could be real, we have the ability to protect that data in any architecture that we adopt. It is counterintuitive that my colleagues would be raising concerns about data privacy while thousands of private companies are scooping up data every single day.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my friend from Minnesota, Whip Emmer's bill, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, a bill I am proud to cosponsor. This bill would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, or a CBDC, to anyone.
I don't think the Federal Reserve has the authority to do this. In fact, a cursory, simple review of the Federal Reserve Act shows that the Federal Reserve does not have the legal authority to issue a CBDC to individuals absent explicit authorizing legislation from Congress. The Supreme Court has also recognized Congress' power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, implicitly denying to the executive branch or to the Fed the ability to do this without congressional authority.
That said, I think it is prudent to explicitly deprive the Fed of the authority to do this for a variety of reasons.
As has been said, Americans' financial privacy is at stake here, and we should not try to compete with China by becoming more like China. The argument for a CBDC that Beijing is doing this, so we should do it, too, why on Earth would we want to imitate, emulate, or copy Beijing's surveillance-state authoritarianism?
To my friend on the other side of the aisle who just made the argument that we are behind and the European Central Bank is doing this, when have we in this country, the United States of America, wanted to emulate Europe?
This is America. We do it the American way, not the European way, not the Chinese way, and not the Communist, socialist way. We do it the free enterprise way. We do it the limited government way. We do it the way to honor Americans' privacy through the GENIUS Act and through private stablecoins. That is the way we should do it. That is the way we should lead in innovation.
Yes, personal privacy is at stake. Surveillance of Americans' individual financial transactions through a CBDC does raise serious privacy concerns and concerns about government control and politicization of loans, online payments, credit scores, tax compliance, Federal contracts, monetary policy, and the like.
In addition to these privacy concerns, a central bank digital currency would centralize Americans' finances, eroding the banking deposit base. That would decrease competition and choice.
This is a big concern that I have, that a CBDC would substantially decrease the availability of credit and increase the cost of financial services and products for consumers, destroying our conventional, traditional banking system.
Our banking system, in contrast to Europe and China, is the envy of the world due to its free market principles, dynamism, and diversity. Banks of all different sizes serve customers, communities, and businesses with all different needs. Capitalism promotes market demands, which incentivize banks to offer products that fit the needs of their consumers at the best price possible.
We don't want to eliminate that. We don't want to erode the deposit base with a CBDC.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, would we truly want to lose the benefits of a diverse banking system that makes the U.S. the global leader in the financial system? Do we want to take actions to be more like China or Europe and decrease Americans' right to privacy?
I went to the European Central Bank. I heard them lecture us about a CBDC, and it made me more convinced than ever that we don't want to be like Europe.
The answer is that we do not want to be like Europe and that we do not want to be like the Communists in Beijing. We must disintermediate our banking system and allow for the creation of a CBDC. We must not threaten Americans' access to privacy.
That is why I support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so, as well.
If my Republican colleagues really don't like a CBDC, then vote for the GENIUS Act, which takes away all the arguments for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who is also the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California for this opportunity to speak because this is one of the most ignorant things I have seen this House produce in a very long time.
It stuns me, frankly, that my good friends, Congressmen Hill, Steil, and Barr, are associating themselves with this bill.
Let's be super clear about this. Nobody knows whether a CBDC is a good idea. A couple of years ago, I wrote a white paper on CBDC, and I concluded that it is not clear. The arguments for and against are being mooted today.
Yes, it could be abused by an overwhelming executive if we had a President, for example, who showed disdain for the Constitution, who was comfortable acting illegally, and who wasn't comfortable with judicial rulings. It is hard for us to imagine that President, but this could be abused.
It could be used for monetary policy, a bad idea. It could be used for taxation, a bad idea. It could also, by the way, be a trusted electronic currency
The truth is that nobody on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle knows either, but we are going to forbid any inquiry around this to figure out whether it is a good idea or a bad idea. We are going to say we can't even research it.
This is a stunning definition of ignorance. Imagine if 100 years ago we had said that electricity is scary. It can kill you and is produced by burning coal, which is dangerous, so we are not going to research electricity or atomic power or the automobile. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because of the automobile.
We don't know, and the majority says let's not learn because they have some ideological fixation that, frankly, I don't understand.
Two hundred years ago, the private sector, which my friends on the other side of the aisle hold up, had issued currency. It was called scrip. Companies and banks issued their own currency, and this country learned that this was a terrible idea and that, in fact, the central bank should issue currency, which is one of the reasons we are who we are today. You might give the CBDC at least some benefit of the doubt instead of being ignorant about whether we want to know the truth.
We need to stop this. We held this institution up for 2 days over a bizarre MAGA obsession which is rooted in insanity and ignorance. Don't even find out the answer. The ranking member said that this is like a boy who is hiding from the truth. I have another metaphor. This is like a young 5-year-old who is angry and covers his eyes and ears and believes he is invisible.
Just imagine my good friend Andy Barr saying we are not like China, we are not like--what if there is a sterling or--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, for all the rah-rah patriotism, think about this. Again, I will acknowledge that we don't know if this is a good idea or a bad idea, and we ought to find out.
Let's imagine that the European Union, which Mr. Barr wants to dissociate himself with, puts out a CBDC that picks up real usage. Now all of a sudden, we have a threat to the dollar because we are still handing around pieces of paper because the Republican majority said we shouldn't even research something that may or may not be a good part of a modern, 21st century economy.
Don't go with ignorance. You are too smart for that. Don't risk putting us behind on something that could be really important to the future of the American dollar. Vote ``no'' on this ignorant bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who is the chair of our Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions.
Mr. Speaker, central bank digital currency poses an existential threat to western civilization. It is essentially, at its heart, communist banking.
Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, and Democrats in the Senate didn't walk around Omarova to be confirmed as a bank regulator because they were opposed to communist banking. They want it. That is what central bank digital currency is.
Our colleagues on the other side of this debate act like we need to study communism a little harder to figure out whether it works or not. We have got plenty of evidence it doesn't work. Central bank digital currency inserts government between you and your money.
Another word for central bank digital currency is programmable money. Who does the programming? The central bank. They can condition your access to your own money with whatever parameters they put in place. They can filter transactions. They can even set them to expire. Monetary policy wonks in the communist banking world think this is a feature, not a flaw. They think if they can set your access to your money to expire, then it would be a better future.
Every dystopian fiction that I have found--``Brave New World,'' ``1984''--says this is the future of money, that it is corrupted into a tool for surveillance, coercion, and control.
Frankly, our own current banking system has crept too close to that. We need to turn the other direction. The market is telling us that. That is why cryptocurrency was invented, frankly. That is why it is so popular and is a growing asset class. We need to say no to this, and we need to protect what the market is telling us consumers want.
We tested this under the Biden administration. They decided that they were going to spy on your bank accounts if you had $600 in your bank. The public said: Whoa, what? Why are you spying on my bank account?
In a communist world, they say: Well, if you have nothing to hide, then why should you have anything to fear.
But that is not our way of life in this country. The Fourth Amendment doesn't say that. It says if you have probable cause, and only then, then you get a warrant. Here, you build the surveillance into the program.
I get it. If all men were angels, this would never be abused, but we know they are not. We have seen massive abuse in our own country. In Canada we saw Trudeau, a fellow traveler on the communist long march, want to ban people's access to their own bank accounts because they were protesting his COVID policies at trucker rallies.
This is very easy to do when you have programmable money. We need to say no to this. It is an existential threat to our way of life, and ideally, we would do it at every opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues to vote for Mr. Emmer's bill and stop this threat to our way of life.
Mr. Speaker, I worked hard in school, but the grade I am proudest of is to be the first Member of this House to get an ``F'' from the crypto industry.
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution says that it is the Federal Government and Congress who should coin money and determine the value thereof. However, our Republican friends tell us that that means that the Federal Government should be stuck with 1776 technology while the competitors of the dollar race forward in the 21st century.
The largest super-PAC expenditures in history occurred last year. The crypto industry spent more on independent expenditures--look at this. If you combine all of the expenditures from Big Oil plus Big Pharma, put them together, and multiply by five, you still don't have what the crypto industry did last year.
It is not surprising that we hear words like ``freedom,'' ``innovation,'' ``choice,'' and ``competitiveness'' used to justify making money for the crypto bros, and now we have a bill designed to prevent freedom, innovation, choice, and competitiveness when it poses a risk to their profits.
This bill not only prevents us from ever having a digital dollar; it prevents us from even studying a digital dollar.
Now, I think Americans will always have banks, credit cards, debit cards, Zelle, Venmo, cash, money market funds, and pursuant to the bill that it looks like we are going to pass today, they will have stablecoin, a privacy device specifically designed for criminals and tax evaders. Then they will have mixers to make it impossible for even the most advanced law enforcement, even with a warrant, to find out what is happening.
They have all of those choices.
What is the one choice you are not allowed to have?
You are not allowed to have the currency provided for in the U.S. Constitution. You are not allowed to have a digital dollar or even a study of a digital dollar. If you don't want to carry a lot of paper around, you can't have the full faith and credit of the United States.
Now, we have talked about the role of the U.S. dollar, the critical role that it plays in international transactions, and why that is a major economic benefit to the United States.
The crypto bros occasionally tell you out loud what they are thinking. That
Our banking system is the envy of the world because we innovate. This bill says no innovation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, you might think it is hypocritical that they tell us that we have to have crypto because, otherwise, China will do it. Then they say: We can't have a digital dollar because China is doing it.
That is not inconsistent. They are consistent. Their consistent rule is that you must do what makes profit for the crypto bros, including Donald Trump, and you must prevent them from facing any competition, even the competition called for by the U.S. Constitution.
Today's bills in whole, all three of them, will create a payment system designed for tax evaders and criminals. It will provide for taxpayer bailouts, and it will allow the crypto industry to say that we have all this power in Congress. Crypto bailouts are not only allowed, but they are guaranteed.
It will provide an avenue for foreign interests to provide hidden money--``cryptocurrency'' literally means hidden money--into Trump's personal pocket, and it is designed to allow taxpayer money to be used to buy bitcoin and Trump coin.
Finally, it takes our freedom. It says that you can have freedom to have a digital currency only if you do it in a way that it enriches the crypto bros. There would be no choice for Americans who want a digital dollar.
Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to introduce the author of this important legislation, and I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the majority whip of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, after much debate, we can now codify President Trump's effort to prevent the development of a central bank digital currency, or CBDC, and ensure that the United States' digital currency policy remains in the hands of the American people and not the administrative state.
I am proud to have my legislation, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, being considered on the House floor for a vote today.
This bill is straightforward. It prevents unelected Washington bureaucrats from creating a financial surveillance tool that, if not done correctly, will fundamentally alter the lives of every American.
Unlike decentralized digital assets, a CBDC is a digital form of sovereign currency that is designed, issued, and monitored by the Federal Government. It is government-controlled, programmable money that, if designed without the privacy protections of cash, could give the Federal Government the ability to surveil and restrict Americans' transactions and monitor every aspect of our daily lives.
In other words, every dollar you spend, where you spend it, and who you spend it with would all be visible to and tracked by the watchful eyes of Washington. There would be no cash, no anonymity, and no space for private financial decisionmaking.
This isn't an inconceivable concept. We have already seen examples of governments developing these types of tools and using them to weaponize their financial systems against their citizens. The Chinese Communist Party employs a CBDC that is being used to monitor and restrict its citizens' spending. The data is being used to develop a social credit system that rewards or punishes individuals based on their spending behavior.
In Canada, the former Trudeau administration demonstrated the power of Federal financial surveillance and control when it froze the bank accounts of hundreds of truckers protesting the COVID vaccine mandate in 2022.
Surely, this totalitarian surveillance tool would never take root in the United States. However, that assumption would be wrong. This is not a theoretical risk. It is a very real and very dangerous precedent.
Under the Biden administration, financial surveillance was a core tenet of President Biden's policy agenda. In 2022, President Biden issued an executive order placing urgency on CBDC research and development.
Moreover, the agency reports created under that executive order made it clear that the previous administration was eager to create a CBDC and was willing to trade Americans' right to financial privacy for a CCP-style surveillance tool.
Our bill, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, prevents future administrations from weaponizing this technology against the American people while ensuring that any development of digital money reflects our American values of privacy, individual sovereignty, and free market competitiveness.
If not designed to be open, permissionless, and private--``private'' with a capital p--resembling cash, a government-issued CBDC is nothing more than an Orwellian surveillance tool that will be used to erode the American way of life.
The Federal Government has no business monitoring Americans' daily financial lives. We don't need or want a state-run digital dollar with Chinese Communist Party characteristics. We need to protect the core principles that make this country exceptional: liberty, limited government, and the right to privacy.
We are on the verge of the next game-changing technological evolution, and we must embrace this push for a more developed digital economy. In doing so, we cannot jeopardize who we are as Americans, and this bill is designed to ensure just that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill and Chairman Steil for their tireless work and advocacy on this issue, in addition to the 135 Members of Congress who have joined as cosponsors of our legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our full committee, Chairman Hill, for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, led by Whip Emmer.
This bill is about defending our Constitution and protecting the privacy of the American people. The Constitution is unambiguous in Article I, Section 8, which grants only Congress exclusive authority to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin.
This is a clear provision of the United States Constitution. It is a foundational element of our constitutional Republic designed to keep such important authority over our Nation's currency issuance within the hands of the people's Representatives.
A central bank digital currency would centralize unprecedented power in the Federal Government and could open the door to real-time surveillance of every financial transaction in America.
Existing banking practices safeguard Americans' privacy. A CBDC could undo that protection overnight, creating a tool ripe for abuse. Even though the Constitution is clear, this bill restrains the Fed from even considering a central bank digital currency, reinforces Congress' constitutional authority over currency, and ensures that any digital dollar reflects our founding principles.
Mr. Speaker, I commend Whip Emmer for his leadership, and I urge support for this very important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not the only ones who want to study CBDC. In 2021, my dear friend, Chairman Hill, worked with Representative Foster to introduce the Central Bank Digital Currency Study Act.
Chairman Hill also wrote a letter to the Fed asking for information. After the Fed agreed to do a study, he issued a statement saying:
I ask the gentleman: What changed?
We need more research. We need to learn more, so we need to vote ``no'' on this bill. It goes in the opposite direction from what the gentleman wants and has been asking for.
Finally, we have a chance to vote, and certainly I am asking for a ``no'' vote, and I hope that the gentleman would, too.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act.
Among the many rights that we enjoy as Americans, privacy is among the most fundamental. Establishing a central bank digital currency would not only usurp consumers' privacy and individual freedoms, but it would also hinder free market innovation.
Digital assets are here to stay. I agree strongly with President Trump that the United States should be a leader in this space. However, the last administration held a very different view. They wasted no time exploring ways to set up a surveillance state digital currency managed and micromanaged by the Federal Government.
President Trump understands the dangers of more government and more surveillance. It is why he issued an executive order prohibiting a CBDC. The vote before the House would make that ban permanent, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on the GENIUS Act, short for the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act. The bill, which was introduced in the Senate by my friend and fellow Tennessean, Senator Bill Hagerty, provides a clear regulatory framework for the issuance of payment stablecoins.
Today, this payment product is offered with little, if any, Federal oversight. By establishing this regulatory clarity, this bill will drive significant demand for stablecoins. This bill will ensure issuers back stablecoins with high-quality liquid assets, a major win for the American consumer.
The GENIUS Act includes consumer protections and enables innovators to do what they do best. It also happens to strengthen the U.S. dollar's reserve currency status. This will result in the ability to make near-instant payments anywhere in the world, which is good for consumers, companies, and Americans.
Mr. Speaker, yet, again, my colleague confuses retail and wholesale CBDC. Banning wholesale CBDC is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with surveillance and everything to do with modernizing how American financial institutions and our central bank engage in intrabank cross-border transactions.
This suggestion of Big Brother and monitoring is just a fabrication, a bogeyman. We must support financial innovation and not hide from the future.
Mr. Speaker, I thank our Financial Services chairman for his leadership on a really important issue that is going to affect many generations ahead of us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act.
Our Founding Fathers were clear that Congress, not the executive branch, has the power to coin money and regulate its value.
Yet, in 2022, the Biden administration issued an executive order that placed the highest urgency on the research and development of a central bank digital currency, a so-called digital dollar.
Under the wrong circumstances, this technology could allow the Federal Government unfettered access into the wallets of every American, putting privacy and freedom at risk.
Unfortunately, Americans know all too well how far some administrations are willing to go to intrude into our lives. We all saw how the Biden administration ruthlessly pressured social media platforms to silence the voices of Americans who criticized their disastrous COVID-19 policies.
We saw this same ideology taken to the extreme when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau froze the bank accounts of Canadians who dared to protest his government during the pandemic.
Now, imagine if the Federal Government could see where we spend our hard-earned paychecks, track our charitable donations, or even cut off access to our own money if it disapproves of our beliefs.
Any digital dollar must reflect our values of privacy and our First Amendment rights. This bill ensures our digital assets policy is in the hands of the American people, not the administrative state. It protects our values of privacy, individual freedom, and free market innovation by prohibiting a CBDC surveillance tool that could be wielded against the American way of life.
I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation, and I thank Whip Emmer and Chairman Hill for their outstanding leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration started us down the road of adopting a Central Bank Digital Currency issued by the Federal Reserve without the consent of the American people or their Representatives here in Congress.
Today, we are saying no. We are not the Chinese Communist Party. We are not going to turn the central bank of the United States into a giant panopticon, capable of tracking and surveilling every American citizen, while keeping a watchful eye on each and every one of your financial transactions, crediting or discrediting, or punishing you based on your personal behavior, and restricting that behavior with the tap of a button. Nothing could be more inimical to the liberty and privacy on which American greatness depends.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a sponsor of this critical legislation and look forward to its passage on the House floor today.
Mr. Speaker, America is not a surveillance state, and under Republican leadership, it never will be. Today, this Congress has the opportunity to lay the foundation for a digital future that protects freedom and financial privacy.
At the center of that effort is the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. This bill ensures that no central bank digital currency will be created under the Federal Reserve. We have seen what that looks like in Communist China where the CCP uses it to track, monitor, and control their people, but not here, Mr. Speaker. Not in the land of the free because together with the CLARITY Act and the GENIUS Act, we will protect Americans' financial liberty and make the United States the crypto capital of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Earlier my colleagues praised our wonderful private sector, and we know now my friends do not like studies, but I would encourage them to read the study from our biggest bank, JPMorgan Chase, explaining how CBDC's can save $120 billion in cross-border payments. Please read the study. Even if you don't like studies, read it anyway.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that we fall further and further behind the global economic stage with congressional Republicans' policies. We are already seeing inflation rise on consumer
Further, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Himes made a great argument and a great point about ignorance. He believes that this is an ignorant bill, and it just does not speak well for the Members of Congress not wanting to do research and study to determine what is in the best interest of the dollar and our country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, first, I will thank the members of the House Financial Services Committee and the members of the House Agriculture Committee for all the work that they have put in on both sides of the aisle. It was significant hours for multiple years, basically the last three Congresses, in thinking through what is the future of digital assets, how are they best regulated, what is the role of United States Government in oversight, what is the future of money in terms of the use of a blockchain.
Members in these committees have worked extensively. Likewise over in the Energy and Commerce Committee, the idea of blockchain technology at large outside financial institutions has garnered a tremendous amount of bipartisan work.
This House wants to make sure that we prepare this country for a prosperous, free, open Web3 technology as we go into seeing the benefits of writing applications on a blockchain. We will see competition in blockchains, just as we saw competition in operating systems in computing. I think that breeds a lot of excitement.
No one can actually do that if we don't have clear rules of the road. We have spent this morning debating those rules of the road.
The CLARITY Act that we debated on this House floor provides that market framework for the use of digital assets, custodying digital assets, investing in digital assets, or dealing or raising capital around them. It clearly defines what should be treated as a commodity versus what should be treated as a security.
We talked about that important payment device on a blockchain for use in that marketplace that is outlined in the CLARITY Act. That is a dollar-backed stablecoin.
We want the U.S. to dominate in financial technology and payments, just as we do for the vast majority of payments around the world in dollars. That is delivered by the bipartisan work in the Senate on the GENIUS Act.
I want to start by thanking those Members. I also recognize the incredibly hardworking staff members on the House Committee on Agriculture and the House Committee on Financial Services who have worked together unbelievably, capably, cooperatively, and effectively over these last two Congresses, as they did at the height of the cleanup from the financial crisis in 2008 when House Financial Services and the Agriculture Committee came together to write rules about the swap market.
I particularly thank Nick, Jack Jackson, Lindsey, and Paul on the staff at the House Agriculture Committee. They did great. I thank Nick, Allison, and our team at House Financial Services for their staff leadership.
Mr. Speaker, this bill we are debating today is essential. The ranking member seems to think that I am interested in the subject of a central bank digital currency, and I am. I have spent the better part of the last 5 years studying central bank digital currencies outside the United States and talking to officials inside the United States about whether that is a good idea or a bad idea.
Over those years, it is not out of ignorance that I have come to the conclusion that it is a bad idea. One of the contributing factors to my determining that I don't believe it is an idea whose time has come, to supplement private-sector innovation in this Nation, is actually Congressman Jim Himes' white paper that he shared with me years ago. I thought it was well-written, and it was another indication that this was not the direction to go in.
Since that time, I have visited with other central banks around the world, in Europe and other places, that make me even more certain that we should rely on private-sector innovation that, in turn, can create the tokenized money, which we have talked about all morning, but doesn't do it in a way that can surveil your work, take over your life, have outcomes that you heard from Congressman Davidson and Congressman Emmer, about the examples of debanking that we witnessed in Canada or the policy debanking we witnessed in the Obama administration and, to a degree, the Biden administration.
Americans have made it clear: We don't want the Federal Government controlling how we spend, save, or send our money in our personal lives. We have witnessed firsthand the dangers when government wields that power unchecked, and you heard examples of that this morning.
Americans want and deserve control over their own money, and we have tried to institutionalize that in all the work we have done in both of these committees in this digital assets innovation and reform space.
We believe in self-custody. I have self-custody in the analog world of cash and investments. Why can't I have that custody, that self- control, in my digital financial space? I don't understand why one can't recognize the authorities that we have on our person-- constitutionally guaranteed, guaranteed by law--in an analog context? Why can't we demand the same?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 580, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 580 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4016.
Will the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Knott) kindly take the chair.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4016) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with Mr. Knott (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, amendments en bloc No. 7, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) had been disposed of.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 48 will not be offered.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies.
Mr. Chair, as the senior member on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned and disappointed by this legislation. This bill was written before the
Thus, we have been brought to the floor to vote on an incomplete bill, with no complete executive branch submission. This is not only out of order, it is dangerous. Their procrastination yields uncertainty for those who risk their lives in defense of this Nation.
America deserves better than uncertainty and a Defense Department that is missing in action. Our troops can't train on promises. Our allies can't fight with doubt. Our factories can't build American strength without steady support. This bill fails liberty on all counts.
This bill misses crucial opportunities to strengthen America's defense industrial base. Shipbuilding is backed up over 2 years. The Great Lakes region, a cornerstone of American industrial manufacturing, can play a major role in relieving that backup, but all of America is put on hold due to the DOD's damaging budget delays.
We must prioritize investments that rebuild our domestic manufacturing capabilities. Our military should never have to fight with or depend on foreign sources for materials, critical minerals, or key military components. Furthermore, by cutting all funding for Ukraine, this bill dangerously ignores history at our own peril.
At our founding, Patrick Henry heroically proclaimed: ``Give me liberty or give me death.'' He knew liberty's cost and our new Nation's responsibility to uphold the values that our European forebears bequeathed to us, ones that focused on representative government.
Thomas Jefferson knew America does not exist alone on the globe when he wrote the words: ``Our laws, language, religion, politics, and manners are so deeply laid in [European] foundations, that we shall never cease to consider their history as a part of ours.''
More recently, on January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy, in his inaugural address, recognized America's fierce dedication to liberty when he said: ``We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.'' Then he warned that those who ride the back of the tiger would end up inside it. He warned against that, and I hope our Nation never goes down that lonely, dark path.
In a contemporary era on June 6, 1984, President Ronald Reagan stood in Normandy, France, commemorating the day in history `` . . . when the Allied armies joined in battle to reclaim this continent to liberty. . . . Here the Allies stood and fought against tyranny in a giant undertaking unparalleled in human history,'' and they did it together.
Mr. Chair, these quotes and sacrificial deeds of our forebears explain why I rise to express my deep opposition to this bill's irresponsible and shortsighted exclusion of any funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
Throughout generations, the fundamental purpose of our Nation is to guarantee liberty, to develop the kinds of relationships with our democratic allies who stand with us against tyranny in any form, and to fill our constitutional duty to provide for our Nation's common defense. Common defense, the Constitution says.
Ensuring that the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative is properly funded is essential to fulfilling our charge in defense of liberty on our watch. If you haven't noticed Ukraine's struggle against the spiderweb of tyranny fostered by Russia, China, Iran, Belarus, and North Korea, it is real, and it is lethal.
Ukraine is in a historic fight now, not of her own choosing but for her very survival. The poorest nation in Europe has fought back mightily against the third largest military in the world after Putin's murderous aggression that began in 2014.
Russia and its spiderweb of tyranny are a threat to liberty everywhere, and Ukraine stands on the front line. If support for Ukraine is withdrawn, Russia and its allies' assault on fundamental freedoms will spread.
May no one in this generation become swallowed by the tiger. Those who do not know and study history are doomed to repeat it.
Proper funding in this bill will boost our domestic defense industrial base and affirm critical security and mineral alliances. It supports our NATO partners. It is our privilege and, yes, duty to support our allies and the brave people of Ukraine by appropriating funds for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
My amendment would reinstate funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. I include in the Record the text of this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 49, printed in part A of House Report 119-199.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57 printed in part A of House Report 119-199.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to urge you and all of our colleagues to support amendment No. 57 to the FY 2026 Department of Defense appropriations bill.
This amendment strikes section 8072, a misguided rider that prohibits the Navy from decommissioning littoral class combat ships.
The state of shipbuilding in the United States is nothing we would hope to have. It is broken. This program maybe represents the pinnacle of its brokenness. The ship doesn't accomplish what it was designed for. I am encouraged when I speak to the chairman to know that it is being put to use elsewhere, but it is not accomplishing the mission that the Navy needs it for.
This provision ties the Navy's hands, forcing it to retain a deeply flawed, costly, and ineffective class of ships that undermines our national security, endangers our sailors, and wastes taxpayer dollars, when we could move forward and build a ship that could accomplish the mission.
President Trump is trying to take leadership over this and fix it, and this ties his hands in a way that prevents options. We should leave the Commander in Chief that decision.
The littoral combat ship program, costing over $30 billion, with each ship priced at roughly $500 million, is a textbook example of Pentagon inefficiency and contractor-driven bloat. Designed as a light, fast, customizable vessel for near-shore warfare, the LCS has instead become a symbol of our flawed procurement system.
Mr. Chair, since its inception, the program has been plagued by persistent propulsion system failures, weapons system integration issues, hull problems, and rampant cost overruns.
A 2022 GAO report exposed the LCS's shortcomings. It has not demonstrated the operational capabilities needed for its Navy mission.
Operational testing revealed significant challenges including the ship's inability to defend itself, if attacked, and frequent failures of mission-essential equipment on the ships. Deployments have been marred by breakdowns and setbacks, rendering these ships unreliable at best.
Mr. Chair, forcing the Navy to maintain a fleet of broken and expensive ships is simply irresponsible. I think it is wrong to take our Commander in Chief's hands. Our sailors deserve the best and most reliable vessels to defend our Nation. Every dollar spent on the LCS is a dollar diverted from building a stronger, more capable fleet. Retaining these ships compromises readiness, squanders limited resources, and puts lives at risk.
My amendment restores the Navy's authority to make strategic decisions about its fleet and frees up resources for platforms that actually enhance our national security.
Mr. Chair, I urge our colleagues to put the safety of our sailors and the strength of our Navy first, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on amendment 57.
Today, our Nation is facing growing and real threats from adversaries around the world. There is China, who continues to rapidly grow their naval capacity at an alarming rate.
Iran, and its terrorist proxy groups, are threatening our allies and disrupting free trade in the Red Sea.
Finally, South American cartels and drug smugglers are harming the health and well-being of American citizens.
To face these growing threats, our Navy must rise to the occasion. That means projecting strength throughout the world, while bolstering our naval fleet. The LCS supports America's maritime security, sea control, and deterrence, and, importantly, President Trump's agenda.
Just this past April, the USS Minneapolis-Saint Paul helped the U.S. Coast Guard stop two alleged drug smuggling operations in the Caribbean Sea. These ships assist in stopping narcotics, protecting the homeland from illicit maritime drug trafficking, and securing our border.
Also, sea mines are actually responsible for more damage to U.S. naval warships than any other weapon since World War II. Although it is 10 years after originally planned, the LCS platform is now providing support for detecting, localizing, and neutralizing surface, near- surface, moored, and bottom mines, helping our sailors stay safe around the world.
The Navy has emphasized the need for a mixed naval fleet in the past, consisting of both blue water and littoral combat ships that act as fast-moving surface warfare vessels.
They continue to undergo upgrades to improve their lethality and survivability in littoral waters so they can intercept drug and human traffickers in the Caribbean and sweep for deadly mines. Most importantly, they support U.S. naval efforts to end Houthi attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea.
Our littoral combat ships have risen to the occasion to defend our homeland. They have provided the necessary backup needed to protect Americans at home and abroad.
Mr. Chair, if we want our military to continue to be the best in the world, we cannot throw away a dime to save a nickel, especially when an LCS vessel has only reached half of its life cycle. That is exactly what this amendment does.
The decommissioning of the Navy's mixed fleet strategy, the LCS vessels, is not the answer to our budget constraints. That is why I stand in opposition to this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Davidson amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
Mr. Chair, I rise in the strongest opposition to this defense spending bill because, once again, in the dark of night, the GOP is passing bills, stripping the American people of their safety, security, and support.
Last night at 3 a.m., the Senate shoved through a dangerous rescissions package that guts foreign aid and public broadcasting.
Just this morning, the OMB Director suggested that he was just getting started and didn't care whether or not the appropriations process proceeded as our Founding Fathers and the Constitution imagined it. He said it should be more partisan and that he would continue to send rescissions packages like the one that they passed on the Senate floor last night.
Let us be clear. The White House and an unelected bureaucrat are trying to steal the power of the purse and to steal the power of the people.
To my colleagues across the aisle, it is happening under their watch. They are allowing it, enabling it, and giving away our constitutional authority to a corrupt and chaotic administration, while trying to pass fake bills like the one they have on this floor right now.
It will weaken our military readiness, abandon our allies, and strip servicemembers of tools, training, and pay. It will undermine our national security and abandon our troops and, yes, make the world less safe.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues across the aisle what they are doing. How can they abandon the American people, the Constitution, our troops, and our national security? It is time to stand up and grow a backbone and vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 106 prohibits funds for the DOD's bioindustrial manufacturing and design ecosystem, or BioMADE, that funds lab-grown meat and protein products for the military from feeding our men and women. How disgusting does that sound?
With a national debt of over $37 trillion, we can't afford to litter sensible appropriation bills with wasteful spending.
An October 20 press release revealed BioMADE received $87 million in Federal dollars under the Biden-Harris administration to produce lab- grown meat to reduce carbon emissions on military bases. In March 2023, BioMADE received an additional $450 million for the ManTech program.
Let me name a few of these projects that taxpayer dollars benefited.
One is called the ``Potential Benefit of Superbrewed Food's Sustainable Postbiotic Protein on Warfighter Health.'' That one produces lab-grown protein to shorten recovery time and improve the concentration of servicemembers. Another is the ``Development of a Sustainable, Low-Cost, Oil Process for Heart-Healthy DOD Rations,'' or producing oil from microalgae for servicemembers. The ``Alternative Protein Bars,'' is a lab-grown protein derived from a microbiological agent similar to fungus.
Yummy.
This is the food that built America? I think not.
Why do marines, sailors, guardsmen, and coasties need lab-grown meat when the U.S. is full of delicious beef?
In fiscal year 2022 alone, the DOD awarded more than $369 million in U.S. contracts for beef, $2.3 million of which was supplied by Phoenix, Arizona.
Serving lab-grown meat over domestic beef or poultry rewards the government-funded bioindustry and punishes the American cattle ranchers who have a far smaller so-called carbon footprint than these big corporations.
In 2024, Florida and Alabama banned lab-grown meat to protect farmers and the cattle industry. This year, Mississippi, Montana, and Indiana all followed suit.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to end this experiment on our Armed Forces and support my amendment No. 106.
Mr. Chair, I think there may be a misunderstanding about bioindustrial manufacturing, what it is and what it is not. Bioindustrial manufacturing is not cultivating meat. However, bioindustrial manufacturing is critical to energetics, such as hypersonic fuels, critical chemicals for munitions and missiles, and materials that literally increase the bang for the buck.
In the 1980s, the United States developed what we called CL-20, one of the most powerful nonnuclear explosive chemicals ever created, but we did not produce it at scale. China, unfortunately, found our research and then scaled production. Now, the Chinese and Russian arsenals have this very powerful ingredient.
We cannot allow China to be the world innovation leader in any field, including bioindustrial manufacturing. We must continue tried and true practices to adopt new technologies to fortify the American defense industrial base.
American lethality is degraded without bioindustrial manufacturing. Meanwhile, China and Russia benefit from American research. That has to stop.
I am going to make a point here. BioMADE is a product. It is not a manufacturer and does not manufacture lab-grown meat. BioMADE has never funded research projects for lab-grown meat, has no current research projects on lab-grown meat, and has no plans to fund projects on lab- grown meat in the future.
I think we have a misunderstanding. We need this technology for our energetics, which we use in our explosion devices very effectively.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who is the ranking member.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Let me be as clear as the chairman was. BioMADE has never funded any efforts to develop or produce lab-grown meat for any purpose.
The Rules Committee should not have made this amendment in order because it is just not germane to this bill.
Mr. Chair, let me tell you a little bit more about why it is important that this amendment be defeated. By preventing funding for the Bioindustrial Manufacturing and Design Ecosystem partnership, or BioMADE, this amendment would hand a clear win to China.
The bipartisan National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology recently completed its comprehensive review on biotechnology's impact on national security. It concluded that China recognizes the immense military and commercial potential of biotechnology and biomanufacturing. They have made it a strategic priority and are quickly starting to ascend to dominance.
To preserve our lead, we must take swift action to commercialize and scale biomanufacturing here at home. These new technologies use the power of biological cells and systems to perform complete chemistry-- complex issues.
They will enable us to onshore the production of critical chemicals, including those used in munitions and high-performance aviation fuel, as the chair mentioned; to develop new medical cures and treatments and produce them on-demand near the front lines; to engineer biological sensors that can detect pathogens and chemical threats on the battlefield in real time; and to better extract critical minerals from domestic mining deposits, reducing our dependence on China for rare earth mining.
That, again, Mr. Chair, is why the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report recommended that Congress support a network of manufacturing facilities to scale up bioindustrial production, including for defense needs.
BioMADE is a private-public partnership with nearly 300 members across 37 States. Its mission is to partner with industry to enable innovators to pilot new bioindustrial production in facilities across the country that are linked to regional supply chains and agricultural feedstocks and to train the future workers in this industry.
To be clear, we should be accelerating BioMADE's efforts, not senselessly blocking them.
Last year, the Chinese Government invested over $4 billion in biomanufacturing. We must take action now. We must not cede the lead to China. We must win the biotech competition.
It is for that reason, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in strongly opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I am a little bit confused here, so I want to ask the question: If we do good faith advertising to the American people, because that is what our job is, tell me why we would actually say the ``Potential Benefit of Superbrewed Food's Sustainable Postbiotic Protein on Warfighter Health.'' That is obviously not what the gentleman is talking about.
Then, we are talking about the ``Sustainable, Low-Cost, Oil Process for Heart-Healthy DOD Rations.''
The other side's mantra is to do low carbon, getting rid of cows, but now they wonder why the cattle industry has problems understanding why they are doing this.
I accept what the gentleman said in regard to what BioMADE is, but their truth in advertising fails. It fails dismally for the American public because that is what it says here.
I am interested in the substitutes because I don't think our warfighters should have to have that, and I would like people to make that distinction, even if it costs the amendment.
Mr. Chair, we support our great men and women in our military, and we want to fund them to have the best equipment, be afforded the best housing and best pay, and be treated the best in the world.
I have an amendment today that would strike $118 million of funding to overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid programs of the Department of Defense. These accounts fund programs for humanitarian assistance in foreign countries, in other nations, for foreign peoples--humanitarian mine action programs, foreign disaster relief for foreign countries and foreign peoples--that the American public is having to pay for.
I want to remind everybody that the American people are $37 trillion in debt because of this institution and the way Congress has spent their money. Think about our own national disasters and problems that the American taxpayer faces here at home: Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Milton, the Lahaina wildfires, the L.A. wildfires, the Texas flooding where there are still over 100 missing people, the opioid epidemic, and the fentanyl epidemic. All over the country, people are suffering.
The American people voted to put America first. Mr. Chair, the American people are still being put last.
Right now, the average health insurance premium for a family has risen by 22 percent since 2018. Fentanyl still kills hundreds of people every single day in America. More than 32,000 veterans, people who served in our military, were homeless in 2024, and there were 6,407 suicides among American veterans in 2022. This is unacceptable.
In our Department of Defense appropriations funding, we should be funding our military and not paying for funding for humanitarian aid and crises in foreign countries. America simply cannot afford it anymore.
Mr. Chair, this program is designed to assure that our allies and partners of the U.S. are supported in times of trouble. This funding provides basic humanitarian aid and essential services to the populations in need.
Let's talk about what it does for America's national security. This program is an important tool for our combatant commanders who use this to assist our allies, and it builds and cements our relationships.
Let me just give you a few examples. When we help our allies improve their capacity to prepare and to respond to a crisis that will take place, when we help implement the Humanitarian Mine Action Program, this provides significant training, readiness, and enhanced benefits even to our United States military. It contributes to alleviating the worldwide problem of explosive remnants of war, which includes landmines, unexploded ordnance, and small arms munitions. The program allows our military to hone their critical wartime, civil-military, language, cultural, and foreign internal defense skills.
Finally, through the Foreign Disaster Relief Program, a program executed by our combatant commanders, we provide unique assistance during natural and manmade disasters when interagency support is requested.
DOD's ability to respond rapidly with extensive manpower, transportation, and communication capabilities is critically important in a time of crisis.
When we assist in filling in these capability gaps with our partners, we help contain the crises and limit threats to regional stability by providing relief aid within hours or even within days of a disaster.
Each of these programs are vital to the success of our combatant commanders' relationships with their counterparts.
Cutting these funds would lessen the ability of our Armed Forces to execute their missions. For these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Chair, this amendment strikes all funding for the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid account. The funding is used by DOD to assist during humanitarian disasters. The funding is also used when specialized DOD experience is needed, such as detection and clearance of landmines, unexploded ordnance, and other explosive remnants of war. Even to this day, we are cleaning up World War II remnants.
President Trump's budget request includes just over $100 million for this account. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, the American people are $37 trillion in debt. The Department of Defense's mission statement is to deter war and ensure our Nation's security. That is their mission, and that is exactly what their funding should be for.
I would like to ask: What foreign country showed up to help Americans in our time of distress, in our humanitarian crises?
Which foreign country has come to clean up the hundreds of people who die every single day on the streets from fentanyl?
Which foreign country showed up to defend our border as we were invaded by millions of people for the past 4 years?
Which foreign country said: Here, America, here are millions and billions of dollars to help you?
I am going to tell you, zero. Zero foreign countries showed up.
Here we are again. The American people are enslaved by $37 trillion in debt, a debt we can never climb out of, but yet a debt that continues to rise because here in Congress we go by this belief that we have to fund every foreign country all around the world.
I say: Enough. The American people say: Enough.
Right now, Americans can't afford their rent. Young people cannot afford to buy a home. Ask any 20-year-old or 30-year-old if they believe they will ever be a homeowner. Their answer overwhelmingly is no.
Americans can't afford their bills. They can't afford car insurance, health insurance, and homeowner's insurance. Life does not look good in the future.
Do you want to know why inflation is high?
Do you want to know why life continues to be unaffordable?
Because Congress cannot rein in its America last spending. It cannot stop. It refuses to stop. It continues to say yes to the lobbyists for the military industrial complex. It continues to say yes to every lobbyist who walks in this institution, as Congressmen and Congresswomen take donations into their campaign accounts.
Americans are the most generous in the world. Americans can donate through charities to foreign countries to help foreign issues and foreign people. But the American people should not be forced to write the check, and
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I would like to point out, again, that when we do these projects together with our allied nations, it provides significant training, access, and readiness enhancement benefits to the United States military.
Mr. Chair, the question was asked on this House floor who came to our aid, who stood for the United States.
I was here on September 11 serving in Washington, D.C., my first term in Congress. NATO, the world, came to our aid. The world came and helped us when we fought against the Taliban.
Mr. Chair, I thank those nations for standing with us, and I look forward to working with them in the future in this type of partnership.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, as the House considers funding $831 billion to the Department of Defense for the funding of our great men and women in our military to defend our Nation and our Nation's interests, it is important to talk about the foreign aid that we are funding to foreign countries.
The American people are $37 trillion in debt. The debt keeps rising, and the interest on our debt is at $1 trillion now per year.
My amendment would strike $500 million of military assistance to Taiwan. This is an increase of $100 million from fiscal year 2025 and will be used to provide a wide variety of assistance, including planes, drones, missile defense, munitions, and more.
Mr. Chair, listen to this. As we are giving an extra $100 million, making it $500 million in this Department of Defense appropriations bill, the entire defense budget of Taiwan is less than $20 billion. Our defense budget is $831 billion.
It wouldn't be so high if we weren't giving foreign aid. We have given Taiwan over $2 billion in funding and munitions over the past 2 years. We have already given them $2 billion, but now we are giving them another $500 million.
Increasing foreign aid to Taiwan will only increase their reliance on the United States, and the United States should be serving the American people and stop enslaving the American people in massive debt that drives the inflation that is causing Americans to suffer and is causing Americans to not be able to afford everyday life.
The United States is $37 trillion in debt, and we can hardly afford our own massive military budget, let alone funding the significant portions of other countries, of foreign countries and foreign nations and foreign people that do not pay taxes here in America.
We have so many of our own domestic problems here at home and should not be funding foreign countries, foreign aid, and, quite frankly, instigating world war III with China.
Before we start worrying about Taiwan's borders or Ukraine's borders or any other country's borders, we should be focusing on the continued security of our own border and deporting the criminals and terrorists and millions of people who invaded our country and are somewhere within our country after they invaded our own borders.
Mr. Chair, I greatly admire the gentlewoman from Georgia's passion for ensuring support for our overseas allies are a wise use of taxpayers' dollars, but support for Taiwan must be part of that equation.
Just yesterday, the Trump administration released a statement of administration policy for the Defense appropriations bill. I was very supportive of the bill we produced. One of the very few areas the administration expressed any slight disagreement with our bill was wanting more money for Taiwan. The administration has proposed including $1 billion while this bill provides $500 million.
Mr. Chair, had OMB delivered budget materials to us in time for consideration, we would have certainly taken a look at providing what they requested, but that wasn't the case.
Supporting Taiwan in the face of unrelenting Chinese aggression is absolutely in the vital interests of the United States. I point out that Taiwan makes 90 percent of the world's chips and close to 100 percent of the highly needed chips for artificial intelligence and high technical devices.
The funding will go a long way to making sure that Taiwan has the resources necessary to help prevent a Chinese invasion. That is the position of the Trump administration, and that is the position of this bill.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).
Mr. Chairman, I am very, very proud of my vote to vote against the President's big tax package, which added $3.4 trillion of debt to our national debt over the next 10 years. Yet, right now, I am rising in opposition to this amendment.
America's strength around the world does not only stem from our military power but our network of alliances in Europe and the Pacific that allow us to project power. Our allies support us, and we support them.
That means, when our allies are threatened, the United States needs to be with them. That is exactly what we are doing in Ukraine: helping a sovereign nation defend its democracy from Russian aggression. A similar situation could easily occur in the Pacific, where Taiwan is threatened by the People's Republic of China.
China has a recent history of seizing territory. Look at the invasion of Tibet in the 1950s. They have suppressed democracy in Hong Kong. When the Chinese President speaks of reunification of Taiwan, we should believe that he will attempt it. We cannot allow that to happen.
China may not stop with Taiwan. If Taiwan falls, other Pacific Island nations, like the Philippines, would be threatened. America is not alone in these concerns. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand are deeply concerned about the future of Taiwan's democracy. That is why they are working with us to deter China and to prevent an invasion of Taiwan from happening.
Mr. Chair, the $500 million from this bill will assist Taiwan in preparing their military and increasing their readiness and their deterrence capabilities.
Mr. Chair, I support the inclusion of the funds in this bill, and I strongly oppose this amendment. I ask my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chairman, the best way to compete with China is to have a strong American economy. We shouldn't be funding the protection of a foreign country that is producing over 90 percent of our chips when we should be producing those chips right here at home.
Currently, many of our rare earth minerals are tied up on Federal lands, and this is a problem that is tying up the production of chips here in America.
Mr. Chairman, America should be building our strength and resilience. Instead of, let's say, an additional $500 million being given to Taiwan for their defense budget, we should be investing that $500 million into America's ability to produce chips so that we don't have to be the world's police that defends all these other foreign countries from China's aggression.
The best way to beat China is with a strong America, but decades of America-last policies, where our manufacturing jobs were sent overseas and sent to China, is what made China strong. America created that problem, and America is continuing to create that problem by dependence on foreign countries for our own manufacturing. This is why rural America has been crumbling for decades because of the economic loss of their own small towns.
In America today, the cost of college tuition has increased by over 180 percent. That means it is unaffordable for many students, and they are laden with student loan debt.
According to American Compass, in 1985, 40 weeks of a typical worker's income could provide the middle-class essentials for a family of four. Yet, today, this requires over 62 weeks of income, exceeding the 52 weeks in a year.
Life is unaffordable for Americans, Mr. Chairman. We are $37 trillion in debt. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, as we are debating today the $831 billion Defense appropriations bill, it is important to talk about the foreign aid that is in this bill and why it must be stopped. The American people are $37 trillion in debt, and this institution is to blame for it.
Mr. Chairman, it is Congress and the men and women who serve in Congress who can never say ``no'' to every single lobbyist and every single foreign country that walks into their office.
My amendment today would strike the funding for HIV prevention education activities in foreign countries. This bill provides at least $15 million for HIV prevention educational activities undertaken in connection with the United States military training exercises and humanitarian assistance activities conducted primarily in African nations.
My amendment would strike this provision to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being wasted by teaching African soldiers about how to have safe sex. This is an issue that should be resolved by now.
The U.S. already spends a massive amount of money on HIV-AIDS primarily through PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. To date, U.S. funding for PEPFAR has totaled over $120 billion. That is $120 billion that the American people do not have and never helped them solve any of their problems.
This has grown from $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2024 to $6.5 billion in fiscal year 2025. Additionally, the National Security Department of State and related programs appropriations bill released this week would provide $5.8 billion to prevent and treat HIV-AIDS globally. When the American people are $37 trillion in debt, their credit cards are maxed out.
Young people in America have no hope for the future. Why are we continually paying for HIV prevention activities in education in Africa and other foreign countries? How does this provide for the defense of our Nation? It doesn't.
Again, the American people are some of the most generous people in the world. They donate to charities, causes, and all types of organizations and foundations to help people. This should be a private donation out of the generousness of their heart. It shouldn't be part of our Defense appropriations bill that is already $831 billion.
When do we ever look at the balance sheet? When do the American people's empty pockets ever matter to Congress, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Chair, the Department of Defense works with partner militaries around the world to advance regional stability and mutual security. These foreign military forces must be healthy and functional to effectively engage with our forces and support these missions.
The HIV-AIDS epidemic has a devastating impact on many countries, including on their militaries. It reduces readiness, unit deployments become limited, and it saps the morale and capabilities of the infected individuals and their communities.
DOD's HIV-AIDS prevention program pairs health and security assistance to provide care and treatment in concert with military training, exercises, and humanitarian activities.
This amendment would eliminate a successful military-to-military HIV- AIDS prevention, care, and treatment efforts in more than 55 countries.
In doing so, it would increase the burdens and risks for American forces and weaken global security by reducing the capacity of our partner forces.
For these reasons, I will urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. Chair, the amendment strikes $15 million for HIV prevention education activities undertaken in connection with the United States military training exercises and the humanitarian assistance activities conducted primarily in African nations.
This funding supports the Defense Health Program, and those funds are credited with scaling back the AIDS epidemic in Africa. This program has long enjoyed support across party lines.
Mr. Chair, while the Defense appropriations bill funds $15 million for HIV prevention educational activities undertaken in connection with the United States military training exercises and humanitarian assistance activities conducted primarily in Africa, I will talk about something that is plaguing Black Americans today.
According to the Department of Education, 85 percent of Black students lack proficiency in mathematics and reading skills.
That is appalling. That is a failure of our education system to Black Americans, but in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, we are supposed to send $15 million to teach soldiers how to avoid getting AIDS?
Isn't this already known?
This has been going on for years and years and years, and we are having to pay for that. Why are the American people that are $37 trillion in debt having to pay for people in Africa, soldiers in Africa, to tell them how to avoid getting AIDS when our own Black students here in America, 85 percent of them, lack proficiency in mathematics and reading skills, which is extremely
Furthermore, there are entire high schools in our cities where not a single student scores proficiently on a standardized test, but the most important thing we can do is send $15 million to teach adult soldiers in Africa how to not get AIDS? This is insanity, and this is the exact America last spending that the American people are fed up with.
Mr. Chair, at what point does sanity enter the Halls of Congress because it hasn't been here for a very long time.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment to at least save the American people $15 million or help students in America.
Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentlewoman from Georgia. We need to do more for our children here at home. I fail to see how cutting the Department of Education, canceling grants, some of them in my district for special education teachers, ending the AmeriCorps help that our schools were getting with many students having someone to sit with them and help them with extra one-on-one for reading and for math to help them succeed, not to mention the cuts to SNAP.
I used to teach. The last thing you want is a child with a hungry stomach in your classroom because they are more focused on what they didn't eat than learning.
Mr. Chair, there is more we can do, and that is another reason why I am so glad I didn't vote for the President's tax cut.
I just reiterate, again, that this mil-to-mil training builds resilience, support, and respect between the militaries. It keeps their militaries healthy, and I continue to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, as the House considers the Defense appropriations bill today that costs the American people $831 billion, it is important to talk about the fact that this is the funding for our great men and women serving in our military and our Nation's defense.
The Department of Defense's mission statement is to deter war and ensure our Nation's security. That is worthy of the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. However, the American people are $37 trillion in debt, so this is money that is being spent that they already don't have.
My amendment would strike $500 million in funding for nuclear-armed Israel's missile defense system, and it is important to phrase it that way.
Israel is a nuclear-armed nation, which is very capable of defending themselves, and they have been proving that so as we have watched on the world stage.
The U.S. already provides Israel with $3.8 billion annually in foreign aid. That is $3.8 billion. That is a lot of money.
Additionally, the April 2024 security supplemental included $8.7 billion for Israel. That is nuclear-armed Israel. During the recent 12- day war, the U.S. used 15 to 20 percent of our Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile stockpiles defending nuclear-armed Israel, which cost us over $800 million.
The $500 million provided in this bill will fund Israel's--that is, nuclear-armed Israel's--missile defense system--the Iron Dome, David's Sling, Arrow system--yet Israel is a nuclear-armed nation. That is a pretty big deterrent for any of their enemies. Any nation that has a nuclear bomb has the greatest threat against their enemies.
U.S. aid typically accounts for 15 to 20 percent of Israel's defense budget, even though Israel--nuclear-armed Israel--has universal healthcare for their citizens and subsidized college for their citizens. They are able to provide that. However, here in America, we are $37 trillion in debt.
My amendment to strike $500 million in foreign aid will ensure an America First Department of Defense. That is exactly what we need, and we haven't had it for a very long time.
Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman's amendment would strike $500 million in funding for the vital Israeli missile defense capability.
Over the past 2 years, Israel repeatedly has been attacked by Iran and its terrorist proxy groups, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Each time, these groups have vowed to destroy the State of Israel.
The United States has affirmed our resolve to stand with Israel by helping defend against the recent missile raids launched by Iran against Israel's civilian population.
The success of Israel's robust missile defense capability is, in part, because these funds were provided in this bill and prior bills. Furthermore, this funding benefits our own missile defense industrial base, as it provides for coproduction activities and shared technology development. It is certainly to our mutual advantage.
With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
To be clear, I have disagreements with Prime Minister Netanyahu's government.
Israel totally had the right to defend itself after the heinous attacks on October 7, and all the hostages should come home.
The Israeli military campaign has been an absolute tragedy for the people of Palestine. The people of Gaza are in desperate need of more humanitarian relief, which I strongly support.
The funding in this bill does not support offensive weapons for Israel. That is funding in a separate appropriations bill. This bill provides for defensive measures only, like Iron Dome, which I support.
Safety is what everyone in the region deserves. Israeli children deserve to go to bed at night knowing that missiles from Yemen, Iran, the Houthis, or anywhere else in the region will not rain down on them. Palestinian children deserve to go to bed at night knowing that their schools, hospitals, and homes will not be bombed. That is what we all need to work toward: Peace.
Mr. Chair, Israel is a nuclear-armed nation, and they are less than $400 billion in debt. They are quite a thriving and successful nation. Their economy is strong. They are doing a great job for their people.
However, the United States, the American citizens, are $37 trillion in debt, yet we are continuing to send hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid constantly to foreign countries. This has to end at some point.
Our problems here at home for Americans and the American taxpayer who are paying for all of this have gotten too large.
I also want to point out that Israel bombed a Catholic church in Gaza, and that an entire population is being wiped out as they continue their aggressive war in Gaza.
We are heartfelt about the October 7 tragedy when innocent people were killed. However, at some point, the United States needs to recognize that Israel is a strong country. They are nuclear-armed, and they are capable of defeating their own enemies.
It is right to stop funding this as we give them $3.8 billion every single year anyway.
Mr. Chair, I ask for support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this America last amendment and reject the premise of the arguments that are being made.
There are 600,000 Americans who live in Israel, and one rocket has been fired against every 23 of them, 26,000 rockets since October 7. Forty-three Americans were killed on October 7, and 12 were taken hostage.
More importantly, the research that this funds is the premise behind the Golden Dome. When we support research and development for the Iron Dome, we are creating the capability for the United States to defend itself as well.
I have news. We have a nuclear weapon, too. That doesn't get you off the hook with those who are out to get you.
When we oppose this amendment, when we vote it down, we are not only standing with Israel. We are standing with the best interests of the United States.
Mr. Chair, as we are considering the Defense appropriations bill that costs the American people $831 billion, it is important to consider the amount of foreign funding that we are spending every single year. The American people are $37 trillion in debt. Life in America has become unaffordable, especially for our youngest generation.
This amendment would strike $500 million in military assistance to Jordan. This bill provides up to $500 million in military assistance to support the Armed Forces of Jordan. However, our Department of Defense mission statement is to deter war and ensure our Nation's security.
My amendment would strike this provision to ensure that our Defense appropriations bill funds only our military, not foreign militaries. Why does our Department of Defense appropriations bill continue to pay for other countries' militaries?
Furthermore, the Subcommittee on National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations bill released this week already provides for an additional $1.65 billion in aid to Jordan. Why are we giving them another $500 million in our appropriations bill for our Department of Defense?
Congress has appropriated between $1.5 billion and $1.65 billion in economic and military aid annually to Jordan since 2018--annually. We are already sending them billions and billions of dollars as the American people continue to tumble further and further into a graveyard of debt.
Mr. Chair, $37 trillion is a debt that we don't think we will ever be able to claw our way out of. However, it is this institution and the irresponsible continued spending year after year that continues to enslave the American people in debt.
At what point do our military bases in the Middle East and around the world make our country safer? In America today, there are still hundreds of American people dying every single day from fentanyl that has come from China, which the cartels create into press pills and other drugs and smuggle them into our country.
It is time to put the American people first, Mr. Chair, and it is time to finally consider the drastic amount of spending that we spend every single year on foreign aid.
Mr. Chair, Jordan remains an indispensable ally in an extremely dangerous region. Our partnership with the Kingdom of Jordan is critical both to the regional and U.S. national security.
We must continue to ensure Jordan can counter extremist terrorist threats and have the resources necessary to continue their role as the linchpin in the region.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the ranking member.
Jordan is a longstanding, reliable ally in the region, as the chair pointed out. When there is any type of incident in the region, for our national security officials, from CENTCOM generals to diplomats, the first contact they make is to get the temperature of the region from their Jordan counterparts.
The United States and Jordan have, since 1996, a status of forces agreement, a 2006 acquisition and cross-service training agreement, and a 2021 defense cooperation agreement. This is a 30-year stability-built relationship in the Middle East with an Arab partner. We need to nurture and maintain it.
We have deployed military personnel to Jordan to support operations that defeated ISIS to enhance Jordan's security and to promote regional stability. Jordan air bases have been particularly important for the U.S. to conduct intelligence, surveillance, and target acquisition and reconnaissance missions in Syria and Iraq.
Just 2 weeks ago, our U.S. Central Commander traveled to Jordan, where he met with the chairman of the Jordan Joint Chiefs of Staff and key staff. They discussed the evolving security situation in the region, the deepening bilateral defense relationship between the United States and Jordan and further expanding the military-to-military relationship between Jordan's Armed Forces and ours.
This partnership continues to serve as a steadfast, capable, strategic partner for peace and stability in the region. We need strong allies. Jordan has been and continues to be one of our strongest.
For this reason I oppose this amendment. I ask my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, with the American people $37 trillion in debt, we are weighing whether we should send another $500 million to Jordan. They already have received $1.65 billion from another appropriations request, and they already receive another $1.65 billion every single year from the American taxpayer, who can hardly afford to pay their bills.
Let's talk about America's veterans. For the past several decades, we have men and women in our country, great men and women who served in our military, yet they were shipped over to some foreign war in the Middle East. That didn't defend America's border. Our border continued to be overrun by foreign people from all over the world, but they were sent over there to fight for our freedoms.
Do you know what they came home with?
They came home with physical injuries that they have to live with for the rest of their lives. They came home
Unfortunately, they have a suicide rate of over 22 a day. Over 6,400 veterans committed suicide in 2022 and 32,000 veterans were homeless in 2024, yet the debate is about spending another $500 million for the defense of Jordan. That is a country I guarantee you most Americans can't even find on a map, but most Americans have a veteran in their family or their friends that suffers every single day from this country's continued pursuit of foreign wars and funding foreign wars.
Mr. Chair, enough of the foreign aid and foreign wars and funding for the security of foreign borders that have nothing to do with our own borders and our own American people and the $37 trillion in debt that is killing us.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, as we are considering the Department of Defense appropriations of 2026 that is going to cost the American people $831 billion, my amendment would be that none of the funds made available in this act may be used for the assistance to the Ukraine war.
This is a war that has nothing to do with America. Ukraine is not a NATO member nation. It is not the American people's responsibility to pay for this war, and it is not the American military's responsibility to fund it.
My amendment would ensure that no further resources will be sent to Ukraine. To date, Congress has provided nearly $175 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including direct military aid, funding for their government, and other forms of economic assistance.
For the past 4 years, we had a Democratic President who cared more about the borders of Ukraine than the country he swore to protect, the United States of America. They allowed our own country to be invaded by murderers, rapists, and terrorists, all while sending nearly $175 billion to defend the borders of Ukraine and fund their entire economy.
Our country funded their government at $1 billion a month, and the American people were forced to pay for their businesses. At a time when our government shut down American-owned businesses, families could not afford groceries, and our people were suffering, it was reported that nightlife in Ukraine was thriving and that there were more bars and restaurants open in the capital city, Kyiv, than before the start of the war.
Yet, the American people couldn't send their children to school, their businesses were shut down, and life here was closed, but the American people were paying for Ukraine. It was shameful that Americans were forced to foot the bill of the Ukrainian economy while ours suffered.
Furthermore, Ukraine is one of the most corrupt governments in the world, and Zelenskyy is a dictator who, by the way, stopped elections in his country because of this war. He has jailed journalists. He has canceled his elections, controlled state media, and persecuted Christians. The American people should not be forced to continue to pay for another foreign war in a country that has no effect on our own, and we are not contractually bound to defend.
Madam Chair, first, the majority has already eliminated funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in this bill. It is zero. I personally believe that to be a huge mistake, and that that only emboldens Putin. President Trump seems to be agreeing now because just the other day he announced the decision to provide billions of dollars of equipment to Ukraine through our NATO partners. I give credit to the President for that decision.
Now we have an amendment to further prohibit any support of Ukraine as they fight to defend their country from an illegal Russian invasion. Putin is attempting to rewrite the map of Europe through use of force. He is doing so in violation of international law. He is deliberately killing civilians, targeting hospitals and schools, destroying the economy and the livelihood of Ukraine in the process.
Putin and his thugs are committing war crimes on a mass scale. They are putting the United States and the democratic nations of the world on notice, and that is why we must strongly oppose him. If we do not, then he or other authoritarian leaders will likely try something like this again, either in Ukraine or elsewhere in the world.
Madam Chair, America is not alone in our military support of Ukraine. Our NATO and European allies are continuing to provide billions of dollars for support themselves. That is in line with the decision that President Trump announced the other day.
Let's not abandon the EU or our NATO allies now, and let's not abandon Ukraine. The Ukrainian people did not ask for this war. They deserve our continued support. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.
Sadly, we saw for years how the Biden administration failed to provide Ukraine the resources necessary to fight back in an effective way against Russian aggression. Just the other day, President Trump took decisive action to provide weapons to Ukraine to defend against these unprovoked attacks.
The President is right to support efforts to ensure innocent lives are no longer lost. He is right to undertake efforts to stop the bloodshed. As he continues to work toward a peaceful solution, we should not remove the ability to provide what he thinks will help the Ukrainian people to prevent further losses and use as leverage to negotiate a peace agreement hopefully very soon.
Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment.
Madam Chair, Democrats used to be the antiwar party. Yet, every single Democrat voted to fund the war in Ukraine. This funding has been approximately $175 billion of the American people's hard-earned tax dollars. Yet, the American people are in debt by $37 trillion.
It is said that the Ukrainian people didn't ask for that war. The American people didn't ask for this debt. The American people are not obligated to defend every single country around the world.
At what point do we defend our own citizens and their ability to actually be able to afford life in America? As our debt continues to climb because Congress refuses to stop spending on priorities that put America last and refuses
Now that our border is closed--thank God for Tom Homan, ICE, and President Trump and his administration--we are conducting the largest deportation operations our country has ever seen. We must continue to put America first and continue to address the needs of our own people within our own homeland.
This means no more assistance to Ukraine. The only assistance that America should be providing is a pathway to peace and not furthering a war. That is not what the American people want. That is not what the American people voted for.
Americans do not deserve to have their hard-earned tax dollars fund a bloody and deadly war in Ukraine. We need peace, and we need peace all over the world.
This is an unwinnable war in which Americans are footing the bill, and it has resulted in mass casualties in both Nations. Americans don't want to pay for murder.
Rough estimates show that over 1.5 million people have been killed and injured since the start of this war. A Ukrainian assessment earlier in 2024 placed Ukrainian troop losses at 80,000 killed and 400,000 wounded. Estimates from June of this year show that approximately 1 million Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded.
These are people's sons. These are people's brothers. They are their cousins and their husbands. An entire generation of Ukrainian men are being wiped out. Russian men are, as well. This isn't something the American people should pay for.
Madam Chair, I would stress to the body that the majority has already eliminated any funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative in this bill. I believe this is a huge mistake. The amendment does not accomplish cutting the funding.
I would point out again, Madam Chair, when I talked about international war crimes and when the previous speaker was talking about the loss of life in Ukraine, there are 20,000 Ukrainian children who have been kidnapped by Russia. They were ripped from their homes and the arms of their mothers and fathers. That is a war crime, and we should not be silent on that.
Madam Chair, I thank President Trump for now realizing it is important we come to Ukraine's aid through our NATO partners.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Madam Chair, I rise today to speak in support of amendment No. 159, to provide funding for the purchase of heavy dump trucks, or HDTs, for the Active Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserve.
While much of the focus in our FY26 Defense appropriations bill is on weapons and on other Defense materials, the tools that our military use to ensure that the infrastructure is in place to support our servicemembers are just as critical to our Nation's success.
HDTs are necessary for the construction and the maintenance of supply routes, airfields, helipads, and logistical facilities in both combat and noncombat zones.
Currently, our military is forced to rely on an outdated and an unreliable fleet of trucks. Upgrading these vehicles will provide our servicemembers with up-to-date safety features such as blind spot detection, collision avoidance, and antilock brakes that are common in most modern vehicles.
Additionally, modernization of the fleet will also accommodate armored ballistic cabs, vitally critical for protecting our warfighters.
Not only will this amendment ensure that our servicemembers can utilize modern technology when building the infrastructure that our warfighters rely on, but it also puts millions of dollars into local economies throughout our country.
From my home State of Pennsylvania to Minnesota, communities across the United States play a vital role in supporting the HDT industrial base. This amendment will continue to support the hardworking Americans who build these trucks.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to ensure our servicemembers have the most up-to-date technology to support our warfighters.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment by my colleague from Pennsylvania that increases funding by $30 million for procurement of the Army's heavy dump trucks and offsets it with a $30 million reduction to future tactical unmanned aircraft system development. While that development remains important, the Army's heavy dump trucks are critical to current operational needs.
These trucks are manufactured by companies like Mack Defense in Allentown, Pennsylvania. I have had the opportunity to tour that facility and see firsthand how this facility provides well-paying jobs in our community while at the same time reinforcing the strength of our Nation's defense industrial base.
This amendment delivers the tactical vehicles our troops rely on that are built by a critical manufacturer right in the Lehigh Valley.
Madam Chair, I am proud to cosponsor this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting its passage.
Madam Chair, America's warfighters rely on more than courage and training. They rely on an uninterrupted supply of expertly manufactured weapons, parts, and ammunition. That lifeline begins with our Army arsenals.
My amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act protects that lifeline by prohibiting any Federal funds from being used to reduce the workforce at Rock Island Arsenal, Joint Munitions Command, Army Sustainment Command, or any other active U.S. Army arsenal.
Rock Island Arsenal is more than just a military installation. It is a critical node in our Nation's defense infrastructure. Its civilian experts, many of them veterans, produce, repair, and innovate the equipment our troops depend on from the front lines to forward operating bases.
Every rifle sight calibrated, every artillery shell inspected, and every 3D-printed replacement part shipped from Rock Island shortens the time between a soldier's need and the answer that keeps that soldier alive.
When rumors surfaced of workforce reductions at the island, I wrote to Secretary of the Army Driscoll, made a site visit with him, and spoke directly with the men and women whose skills cannot be replicated overnight. This amendment cements their mission readiness. It prevents talent loss, preserves irreplaceable know-how, and keeps our defense industrial base resilient against any adversary who hopes to see it weakened.
In addition to being a pillar of our national defense, Rock Island Arsenal supports more than 15,000 jobs. Nearly one-half of those workers live in Iowa. It also contributes over $1.2 billion annually to the economy of the Quad Cities region. These are good-paying jobs that support families, grow our communities, and, most importantly, provide the backbone of our military supply chain.
As a 24-year Army veteran, I know how vital these arsenals are, not just to the military, but to the Nation. This is about protecting readiness, our military, and America.
With the assurance of the chair that he will work with me to ensure that this amendment does what we intend it to do and continues to supply our military with the munitions they need, I will always fight for Rock Island Arsenal, and the men and women in and out of uniform who power its mission and protect our Nation.
Madam Chair, I state to the gentlewoman that certainly I look forward to working with her as we move forward with this legislation to make sure that we have the right type of language.
What I am going to do is work with the gentlewoman as we move forward on this legislation to make sure that we don't have any unintended consequences in the language. We will do that as we move this legislation forward. I appreciate the gentlewoman withdrawing the amendment.
Madam Chair, it is our duty to afford the American people the assurance that their tax dollars are spent fulfilling the needs of the American people, not funneled to terrorist proxies that threaten our very existence.
My amendment would ensure that not a single taxpayer dollar would be sent to the Lebanese Armed Forces, a military force riddled with Hezbollah sympathizers that acts as yet another proxy of the Iranian terror regime.
To say that Hezbollah and its allies do not have any control over the Lebanese state is just categorically false. Hezbollah and other terror groups that operate freely throughout the country have launched countless attacks on our ally Israel.
In the past year alone, Hezbollah has indiscriminately launched nearly 2,000 missiles into Israeli territory, attempting to replicate the horrific atrocities that occurred on October 7, yet the Lebanese military has consistently failed to take any substantive action to eliminate Hezbollah from its control over the Lebanese state.
Not only do Hezbollah and its allies control dozens of seats in Lebanon's Parliament, but they literally sit at the helm of the military force that the American taxpayer has been propping up since 2006.
As a matter of fact, Nabih Berri, the speaker of the Lebanese Parliament, is a Hezbollah sympathizer himself. As the head of the Amal Movement, his group joined Hezbollah in their war against Israel and launched attacks upon the IDF. Like Hezbollah, Amal is just another proxy of the Iranian terror regime.
Why should we trust the Lebanese Government that our assistance to their military wouldn't be funneled to terrorism when their own speaker of parliament is a terrorist supporter himself?
While the Lebanese military alleges a willingness to disband and disarm Hezbollah, their actions prove otherwise. The Lebanese military is conveniently absent in Hezbollah strongholds and is far too reluctant to take any meaningful action to eliminate Hezbollah once and for all.
That is why I introduced legislation providing for an eight-point plan to condition aid to the Lebanese military, including provisions that would disband Hezbollah, eliminate all coordination with and support from the Iranian regime, and end persecution of American citizens who have advocated against Hezbollah's influence over the Government of Lebanon.
This bill, the PAGER Act, offers a clear roadmap to strategically realign the Lebanese Government to no longer threaten the United States or our allies and interests in the Middle East.
In fact, a significant portion of Lebanon's military expenditures don't even go toward its defense. Over 70 percent of its budget has consistently been allocated for personnel salaries and excessive benefits, including domestic servants and drivers for high-ranking officers. American taxpayers expect their hard-earned tax dollars to be spent on American interests, not armored Mercedes and other luxury goods for Lebanese generals.
This really should be a bipartisan issue. Where are the Democrats complaining about Lebanon's human rights atrocities?
The Democrats were silent when the Lebanese military shot protesters, silent when they forcibly repatriated Syrian refugees, and silent when the Lebanese military failed to prevent Hezbollah from indiscriminately targeting our ally Israel. Yet, they tell us to turn a blind eye and let the Lebanese military abuse the generosity of the American taxpayer.
We cannot, in good conscience, continue sending U.S. taxpayer dollars to Lebanon when they are complicit in empowering a terrorist organization whose primary mission is to destroy America and Israel.
Money is fungible, and every dollar funneled to Lebanon is another resource aiding Hezbollah's operations, undermining regional stability, and threatening Israel's security.
Until they finally eliminate Hezbollah and stop reporting to their handlers in Tehran, any more funds to the Lebanese military are simply unjustifiable.
I encourage my colleagues to recognize the pressing danger that still exists within the Lebanese military and vote for my amendment.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this misguided amendment.
The longstanding U.S. military investment for the independent Lebanese Armed Forces, also known as the LAF, has worked to support U.S. security interests in the Middle East for close to 20 years.
As co-chair of the U.S.-Lebanon Friendship Caucus and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I work closely with the brave men and women in the U.S. military who work alongside the LAF to ensure robust oversight of U.S. military funding and training resources.
The stability of the LAF is important not only to the security of Lebanon but also their neighboring countries and the United States. That stability is more important than ever as the LAF works to permanently disarm and destroy Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon.
Building on the tremendous success of Israel in weakening Iran and eliminating Hezbollah's terrorist leader network, Hezbollah is now at its weakest point. This is a tremendous opportunity for the LAF and for the people of Lebanon to root out terror proxy influence from within their borders.
The LAF has an active mission and expectation from the United States and others to fully disarm Hezbollah, and they are working to accomplish that every day.
Eliminating military funding from the LAF now will only serve to further embolden Hezbollah and allow them to regroup. This cannot happen with Hezbollah on their back foot. U.S. support and funding for the LAF is more important than ever.
This amendment is misguided. To prove that point, I will reference an article from earlier this week, from July 12 of 2025: This week the Trump administration, the State Department, and the DOD approved $100 million to go to the LAF for the Super Tucano aircraft.
In listening to what the State Department said regarding the sale of military equipment to Lebanon, this is their statement: ``This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a partner country, [Lebanon,] that continues to be an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.''
Madam Chair, I include in the Record an article dated July 12, 2025, which shows that the current Trump administration supports military funding to the LAF.
US Approves Potential $100 Million Sale to Lebanon for A-29 Super
Madam Chair, in closing, the gentleman from Florida is entitled to his opinion. It is an opinion he has brought to us not once, but multiple times. Each time this body has voted down, on a broad bipartisan basis, this amendment.
There is reason for that, Madam Chair. It has been voted down repeatedly because, in fact, it is misguided, and it relies on facts that simply aren't facts.
I don't know about the author of this bill, where he got it, but I can tell you this. I have stood in Lebanon with our Special Forces who are training and working on a constant basis with the LAF. I have stood in Lebanon and seen the destruction of Hezbollah caches, massive amounts. More than that, I have met with our ally Israel, and in conversation with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, I asked him: Should we continue to give money to the LAF? His answer was short: Give them more.
Madam Chair, King Abdullah of Jordan has been passing on necessary vehicles to help them do their job better, and Israel created the opportunity for them to retake all of Lebanon and rid it of the Iranian influence and Hezbollah once and for all.
Our President; his predecessor, Joe Biden; his predecessor, Donald Trump; his predecessor, Barack Obama; and his predecessor, George W. Bush, don't agree on much, but they agree on this: It has been worth the investment. It is paying dividends. You do not let up just at a point when they are clearing out and making safe for a democracy that, in fact, would work there but for foreign forces with weapons.
Madam Chair, this has been defeated before, but before we didn't have the good news and the support of every neighbor and our President the way we do today.
I ask all Members to vote against this, not because they can't make a point that Lebanon is a country that has been influenced but because they can't make a point that the LAF is anything but the only force that can, in fact, bring an eradication of Hezbollah and keep Iran from reoccupying that, something that Israel supports and we support.
Madam Chair, this is a headline from 2 days ago: ``Israeli military attacks Hezbollah sites in eastern Lebanon.''
``The Israeli military on Tuesday said it attacked Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. Fighter jets targeted military sites in the eastern Bekaa Valley, which the Iran-backed militia used for training purposes.''
Madam Chair, I also include in the Record another one from 2 days ago: ``12 said killed as Israel hits elite Hezbollah force deep inside Lebanon.''
``Israeli jets carried out a wave of airstrikes deep inside Lebanon aimed at stopping an elite Hezbollah unit from regrouping and rebuilding . . .''
``The military camps that were targeted are used by the Hezbollah terror organization for training and preparing terrorists for the planning and execution of terror operations against IDF forces and the State of Israel.' ''
Madam Chair, I rise today to offer and withdraw my amendment No. 287 to provide $71 million for nonrecurring engineering expenses associated with designing the new LC-130J as part of LC-130 recapitalization project.
LC-130s are polar ski planes that possess the unique capability of being able to land on snow instead of solely on a paved runway. The LC- 130 is the only plane in the world with this capability and provides the United States with a key competitive edge in the Arctic and Antarctic domains.
The LC-130 fleet is wholly operated by the 109th Airlift Wing of the New York Air National Guard at Stratton Air National Guard Base in Scotia, New York.
Beyond its national security importance in supporting our Arctic strategy, the LC-130 fleet is also critical in supporting our Nation's scientific research efforts.
Each year, the current LC-130 fleet assists in critical missions in both Greenland and Antarctica pursuant to President Ronald Reagan's Presidential memorandum 6646.
However, our current LC-130H fleet is aging quickly, with some planes over 50 years old. Despite the great work of the 109th Airlift Wing in maintaining these planes, we must quickly recapitalize these planes to ensure the U.S. does not lose the critical capabilities provided by the LC-130 fleet.
Before I conclude, I want to thank Bob Epp and Dennis Feeney from the New York National Guard's legislative team, General Steven Slosek from the 109th Airlift Wing, General Michael Bank, the New York Air National Guard Commander; and General Ray Shields, the New York Adjutant General, for their tireless efforts in advocating alongside me for the LC-130 recapitalization.
Last year, with the help of these individuals and Chairman Calvert, we were able to secure $29 million in the FY25 CR spend plan for the Department of Defense for these nonrecurring engineering expenses.
Rest assured, I will continue fighting to secure the additional funding in the final FY26 Defense bill.
Before I withdraw this amendment, I ask Chairman Calvert to commit to working with me on the continued LC-130 recapitalization project as you have so graciously in the past.
Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).
Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from creating, procuring, or displaying any map which depicts Taiwan as a part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.
The House approved a similar amendment as part of the State Department appropriations bill last Congress, and today's amendment would simply extend this policy to the Department of Defense.
This is not a controversial amendment since all of us know that Taiwan is not, nor has it ever been, part of Communist China, even for a single day.
The people of Taiwan elect their own leaders, deploy their own armed forces, conduct their own foreign policy, and maintain their own trade agreements with other countries.
By every measure, Taiwan is a sovereign, democratic, and independent nation, and any claims to the contrary are simply false.
Since the 1970s, America's so-called One China policy has acknowledged Beijing's unsubstantiated claims over Taiwan. This is an antiquated and dishonest policy, and it is one that we should abandon. While my amendment will not end that misguided policy, it will at least require that the maps that we use reflect a simple reality: China is China. Taiwan is Taiwan.
Madam Chair, I ask for a ``yes'' vote on my honest maps amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I understand why the gentleman from Wisconsin is offering this, and I don't agree with the spirit in which it is being offered.
The Department of Defense, the administration, this Congress, and I have been pretty clear on opposition to the unwelcome assertions of China's control over Taiwan.
As a former social studies teacher, geography was part of what I would teach. I would never use or display in my classroom a map showing that China is in possession of Taiwan, but let me take the teaching just one step further.
This amendment would prevent the Department of Defense from buying or displaying a map that shows how China views itself in the world, how China is putting out mis- and disinformation on what they think the world should look like according to them.
It would force the Department, in my opinion, to put its head in the sand when showing at the military academies China's view of the world and why we have to work so hard to defeat that.
I hope we can all agree that it is important to know what our allies and our adversaries are thinking and that we have adults at our military academies who can sort out the difference and see the differences in the maps.
As a geography teacher and a person who used to use maps, that is my only opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
I know what he is getting at. I don't disagree with it, but sometimes you have to have what your enemy has, how they view the world and what they are showing the world, in juxtaposition to how we view the world and how Taiwan needs to remain independent.
Congress and the Department should focus our time and energy on being clear about China with respect to international boundaries and rule of law.
As a geography teacher, I had to say something, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I certainly rise in support of the amendment. The amendment prohibits the expenditure of funds to create, procure, or display any map that depicts Taiwan as part of the territory of the People's Republic of China.
Let's be clear: Taiwan is not a part of the People's Republic of China. We should not appease the desires of the Communist Chinese leadership by pretending that it is. Our maps should accurately reflect this reality.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, Taiwan is a great friend of the United States, and it is a unique friend to Arizona.
The CCP uses every tool it can, including maps, to undermine truth and assert illegitimate claims over sovereign territory. Congress should not fund anything that supports the CCP's disinformation efforts, and now is the time for strategic clarity, with rising bellicosity coming from the CCP.
We cannot allow authoritarian regimes to dictate how our government communicates facts. If we truly stand for freedom, sovereignty, and truth, then we must also stand with Taiwan. This is one way to do so.
Madam Chair, I will close by saying that I appreciate the consistency by the gentlewoman from Minnesota because she said the same thing a couple of years ago. Yet, this body was excluded back in 1979 when the One China policy was implemented by President Carter, and it is up to this body to make sure that it claims its rightful place in foreign policy when we have an issue like this before us.
The gentlewoman talks about the spirit of this amendment. This amendment is issued in the spirit of freedom, and that is all that Taiwan is looking for, to defend its freedom, and it should be able to do it.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 303 will not be offered.
Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fine) having assumed the chair, Ms. Malliotakis, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4016) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 3633) to provide for a system of regulation of the offer and sale of digital commodities by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 294, nays 134, not voting 4, as follows:
Mr. GARAMENDI changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. VICENTE GONZALEZ and MILLS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (S. 1582) to provide for the regulation of payment stablecoins, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 308, nays 122, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. MRVAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 1919) to amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, nays 210, not voting 3, as follows:
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. This evening, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 590, providing for the House's consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025. Passage of this Rule will send H.R. 4 directly to the President's desk.
Mr. Speaker, if you told the American people that wasteful spending overtook Washington during the Biden-Harris administration, they would not be surprised. Their jaws would not drop, and their pupils would not dilate in utter shock.
The American people saw the fiscal ruin that was created by the previous administration. That is why they overwhelmingly chose Republicans to lead the Nation and restore fiscal sanity. That restoration is here, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4 is part of our efforts to get Washington's fiscal house in order.
H.R. 4 rescinds $9 billion in spending that the President has identified as wasteful and unnecessary. As I said in the Rules Committee, it is unfortunate that the Senate was not able to execute all of President Trump's recommended rescissions. That said, there are many pertinent rescissions that remain, and they are very impactful.
Now, our Democrat colleagues will scoff and say that this $9 billion we are clawing back is a drop in the bucket; that it is merely peanuts. That is where they are wrong, Mr. Speaker. The thing is that in their arguments against H.R. 4, Democrats can only grasp at straws. Their positions are weak, and their claims are even weaker. They will talk in circles and just bloviate. In the end, they simply don't make any points that are worth remembering. They will rail against H.R. 4 so much that they say absolutely nothing.
Here is the truth. If this rescissions package was not put forth and passed by Congress, taxpayer dollars would still be funneled to ideologues at PBS and NPR and taxpayer dollars would continue to be funneled to all manner of foreign aid repositories that do not align with the fiscal sensibilities and values of the American people. That money, the people's money, would continue to be squandered. That is the truth of the matter.
Republicans understand that $1 of taxpayer money wasted is $1 too many. We must pass this rescissions package and send it to the President so that we can continue our work and continue to secure wins for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this process sucks. None of what we are doing here today is about governing. We aren't here to improve healthcare access or to put money back in hardworking people's pockets or to make life better for Americans or, for that matter, anybody in any way.
We are here because Republicans want to protect powerful people. They want to protect billionaires and protect those at the top. It is about doing Donald Trump's bidding. Shame on them.
Earlier this week, I offered a simple amendment to release the Epstein files that Donald Trump, his AG, his FBI director, and his supporters tell us contain a list of clients of Jeffrey Epstein. Let the American people make up their own mind. But Republicans voted it down, every single one of them. Why? Because Donald Trump, for whatever reason, doesn't want these records to get out anymore.
After years of promising America that his administration would release the Epstein files and tapes, Trump is now calling it a hoax. He is calling his own supporters stupid for believing the things he told them, and you are deeming adoption of a bullshit resolution on Epstein that does nothing.
Let me be clear. This resolution does not have the force of law. This does not have the force of law. It is political theater. It is a smokescreen for Republicans to hide from doing something that would demand Trump's DOJ release of these files.
This is a glorified press release, a talking point to save face, something they can wave around and say: See, we care, so they can walk free of shame while doing absolutely nothing.
This nonbinding resolution does nothing to get these files released.
Mr. Speaker, when we asked them when this nonbinding, useless resolution is coming to the House floor, the answer was, well, it is up to the majority leader.
Mr. Speaker, either Republicans want to actually release the files, or they don't. There is no middle ground here.
Republicans don't get credit for pretending to care. They don't get points for playing PR games while the people who enabled Epstein's abuse go unnamed and unpunished.
This is why people hate Congress. This is why they don't trust government.
Republicans talk about supporting the victims. They talk about holding
The other side just added $4 trillion to the debt with their big, ugly, billionaire-tax-break bill. The big, ugly bill costs 450 times what these rescissions will save. It doesn't even come close.
Mr. Speaker, I should mention that these rescissions are also deeply harmful. It cuts funding for international aid that provides lifesaving healthcare. People are going to die because of these cuts. It undermines Ukraine and our allies. It slashes public broadcasting that delivers essential news to communities nationwide.
Republicans call it tightening the belt, but it is the same old story. Republicans blow up the budget for billionaires, and then they nickel and dime everyone else to pretend that they care about the debt and the deficit. It is nuts.
If we were all being honest here, nobody even truly knows exactly what the hell is in this bill. As Senator Tillis, a Republican, said: ``I suspect we're going to find out there are some things that we're going to regret.''
Susan Collins, another Republican, said: ``The rescissions package has a big problem--nobody really knows what program reductions are in it.''
You can't make this stuff up.
Finally, let's not forget that the Trump administration, as we speak, is illegally withholding over $425 billion in congressionally approved funding while Republicans in Congress rush to get these rescissions done, covering for the President once again, afraid to raise an eyebrow to question what he is doing.
This is not how this place should work. None of what we have experienced with this majority is normal. This is government by chaos, run by a party that can't count its own votes, can't pass its own rules, and can't stand up to the White House after all of their broken promises.
This week has been shameful. People are watching. They see what is happening, and they are tired of being sold out, spun, and left behind.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to avoid using profanity while speaking on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Foxx for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, we all know what Neil Armstrong said when he first walked on the Moon. As founder of the DOGE Caucus, I am proud to say that, with this rescissions package, the first of its kind in 25 years, we are taking one small step to cut wasteful spending but one giant leap toward fiscal sanity. Yet, Houston, we have a problem. We are still $37 trillion in debt. This year alone, we will run a $1.7 trillion deficit. With this small step today, let's commit to the giant leap.
Here is my challenge to the White House: Let's do a rescissions package every month because America has had enough--enough to wasteful spending, enough to out-of-control deficits.
We do have a long journey ahead, but, thankfully, not as far as the Moon. All systems are go. Let the countdown begin, and let's launch to fiscal sanity by voting ``yes'' to clawing back $9 billion.
I am ready. The House is ready. America is ready. Let's go get `em.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is concerned about unchecked deficits and debt. He just voted for a bill to add $4 trillion to the debt. Come on. Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic leader.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman, the top Democrat on the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern, for his leadership and for yielding.
I thank all the distinguished members of the Committee on Rules for their steadfast, courageous, and insightful participation in opposition to this rule and the substantive legislation that underlies this particular rule.
I also thank Rosa DeLauro for her principled and strong opposition to this reckless Republican rescissions package, this effort by the Trump administration to, once again, hurt everyday Americans.
Mr. Speaker, it was just said on the House floor that the American people are fed up with out-of-control, wasteful government spending. As Democrats, we are committed to making sure that taxpayer dollars are spent in an effective, efficient, and equitable manner.
This bill that is on the floor right now has nothing to do with waste, fraud, and abuse. It represents an attack on the public health of the American people, the national security of the American people, the public safety of the American people, and the ability of the American people to actually get information, particularly in rural America, that they may need through public radio or public television in the face of an emergency.
Mr. Speaker, no one is buying the notion that Republicans are actually trying to improve wasteful spending.
In the aftermath of this one big, ugly bill that just passed this Chamber and has been signed into law that explodes the debt by more than $3 trillion, and then asks everyday Americans to pay for part of the expenses in the bill by ripping away healthcare for more than 17 million Americans, hospitals will close, nursing homes will shut down, and community-based health clinics will be unable to provide services to everyday Americans. As a result of the one big, ugly bill, people will die.
It is an all-out assault on healthcare and the largest cut to Medicaid in American history. It also rips food out of the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans. All of this is being done to provide massive tax breaks to billionaires.
Then, Mr. Speaker, in this one big, ugly bill that has now been signed into law, the debt and the deficit will explode by trillions of dollars.
How dare anyone from the other side of the aisle claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility. That is fake, and that is phony.
When you look at this particular piece of legislation that is in front of us right now, this reckless Republican rescissions package, it undermines American national security and American leadership in the world.
This is not an America First bill. It is a China first bill because of the void that is being created all across the world. It is in America's interests, our national security interests and our leadership interests, to make sure that we are investing in development, diplomacy, and democracy all across the world.
Great leaders have recognized that throughout the American journey. It was Abraham Lincoln who came to the House Chamber in the middle of the Civil War, in the early 1860s, and spoke to the Congress and talked about America being ``the last best hope on Earth.''
President Lincoln said that in the 1860s, a visionary declaration of the role that America might one day play as the leader of the free world.
This legislation, this reckless Republican rescissions package, undermines our ability to keep our people safe here and to project America's soft power all over the globe.
Mr. Speaker, why would we undermine our ability to use diplomacy, democracy, and development to protect our own national security?
The President promised that on day one he was going to end the war in Ukraine that is now going on. In this particular piece of legislation, we are undermining the ability of Ukraine to continue to valiantly fight against Russian aggression.
Russia is not our friend. They are our enemy. Vladimir Putin is a sworn enemy of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, why is it Republicans in this bill are once again undermining Ukraine?
Ukraine stands on the side of democracy. Ukraine stands on the side of freedom. Ukraine stands on the side of truth. Russia stands on the side of autocracy, tyranny, and propaganda.
Why would we stand on the side of Russia? That is inconsistent with American leadership. This reckless Republican rescissions package does the exact opposite.
Mr. Speaker, we just saw tragedy unfold in the Texas Hill Country. More than two dozen children have died. Parents should never have to bury their children. More than 100 Texans died in the deadly floods.
There are a lot of questions that need to be asked about government failure and State government failure in Texas. The Governor of Texas has a lot of questions that need to be answered. Instead, he is trying to rig the Texas congressional map in the middle of a search and rescue operation. He has got to answer some questions.
The Trump administration needs to answer some questions about the National Weather Service and the devastating cuts that have been inflicted on them. Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration needs to answer some questions about the stated goal to defund FEMA.
In the midst of this tragedy that we all need to collectively respond to in Texas, just as we needed to respond to the tragedy that unfolded in California and the wildfires earlier this year, this reckless Republican rescissions package is going to undermine the ability of people in rural America and in small-town American to receive advance warning or necessary information when disaster strikes, when extreme weather strikes, when flooding strikes, and when hurricanes strike.
That is what happens when public radio is shut down and public television is shut down, which is what this reckless rescissions package will do. It is all extraordinary.
Mr. Speaker, I don't understand why Republicans continue to advance legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives that hurt everyday Americans. Is it simply because the goal is, as always, to reward billionaires, as was done with the one big, ugly bill, providing them with massive and unnecessary tax breaks?
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress, as House Democrats, we made it clear that we would work with anyone in this town in order to make life better for the American people. We would work to lower the high cost of living of the American people and to address the affordability crisis afflicting the American people.
We thought perhaps we would have some partners in this necessary endeavor. Why? Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump and House Republicans promised that they were going to lower costs. In fact, costs were going to go down on day one. Those are not my words. Those are President Trump's words.
Costs haven't gone down in the United States of America. Costs are going up. Inflation is on the way up. Life is getting more expensive for the American people.
Nothing in this reckless rescissions package is going to make life more affordable for everyday Americans. It is going to complicate their life even further just like what happened with the one big, ugly bill.
Mr. Speaker, we are strongly opposed to this legislation. This is legislation that apparently Republicans don't even want to actually debate on the House floor. Once again, they want to address an issue to be debated in this Chamber under the cover of darkness.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the challenge that we have with this legislation is that the appropriations process has historically and traditionally been bipartisan. It means Democrats and Republicans will work and try to come together to reach a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people in terms of their health, their safety, and their economic well-being. House Democrats and Senate Democrats, along with House Republicans and Senate Republicans, will do it in a bipartisan appropriations process to try to reach an enlightened agreement.
Mr. Speaker, what this rescissions package signals to us and the people that we represent and, more importantly, what it signals to America, as the OMB Director just said, Republicans aren't interested in bipartisanship. They aren't interested in commonsense solutions to finding common ground anchored in Democrats and Republicans coming together.
We know that is the case because we have made clear our willingness to solve the challenges that the American people face and work with anyone in this town, particularly when it comes to lowering the high cost of living in the United States of America. Republicans continue to do nothing about that. They are not doing a damn thing to make life more affordable for the American people.
That is one of many reasons why we continue to be opposed to this reckless legislation that Republicans bring to the House floor. It will hurt everyday Americans. It will hurt children. It will hurt families. It will hurt older Americans. It will hurt people that Republicans represent in rural America and all while undermining American leadership in the world.
Mr. Speaker, once again, this is unfortunate. Once again, we see a Congress not functioning as a separate and coequal branch of government. We see a Congress, given this Republican majority, not willing to serve as a check and balance on an out-of-control executive branch but always willing to do the bidding of the executive branch, as if we work for the Article II branch of government.
Mr. Speaker, we don't work for Donald Trump. We don't work for JD Vance. We don't work for the OMB Director. We work for the American people, and that is why we are a hard ``no'' against this reckless rescissions package.
Mr. Speaker, we all know from watching the last 4 years the Democrats have been working for an autopen the last 4 years and not the American citizens.
As a guy from a small town, I want my friends on the other side of the aisle to know this. My town is so small that we literally don't have a red light unless the train comes through. We don't need big-city people telling us how to live. We get along just fine.
In fact, right down the road from my house, a person can open up a cooler and pull fresh vegetables out of there based on the honor system. The bag says how much someone is supposed to pay for them. There is a box with cash in it.
Mr. Speaker, try that in one of your metropolitan areas. While I hear my colleague talk about how much help we in the small town need for more government, as a small-town guy, the deficit and the debt scares us. It does.
Let's talk about the facts about this package. If there is anything that is wrong with the package, it is that it doesn't cut enough.
The net increase in spending so far this fiscal year, the last 9 months, is $318 billion.
Let me say that again for the American citizens.
The net increase in spending has gone up $318 billion in the last 9 months.
This piece of legislation cuts less than one-half of 1 percent of discretionary spending. It is a rounding error on the increase. I wish that DOGE were working as effectively today as it was the first several months of the year. I hope that we, as Republicans, get back to exposing where the American tax dollars have been wasted over the last several years.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage people to vote for this minor cut, but a minor cut is better than no cut.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, you have to love the gentleman from Georgia when he says that he worries about the deficit and the debt. My question is, why the hell did you vote for the big, ugly bill that adds $4 trillion to the debt? It makes no sense.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question, and I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up to the House floor H.R. 4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, introduced by Representatives Khanna and Massie under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate.
Mr. Speaker, tonight in the Rules Committee, Democrats offered a motion, several motions, to allow a vote on the floor to actually release the Epstein files, and Republicans on the committee just voted to block it, time and time again.
The only reason it won't be considered on the floor immediately after this rule passes is because of nine Republicans on the Rules Committee who voted no.
Now with the previous question, I will give the entire Republican Conference another chance to vote to release the Epstein files, the only other chance to vote on it this week. As I just said, the resolution Republicans just voted on in the Rules Committee is a glorified press release. It is nonbinding.
The Republicans are pretending to do something because they are feeling the heat at home, but it won't even come to the House floor this week, Mr. Speaker. We can't even get a commitment for when it is coming to the floor.
The bipartisan bill we are offering, if we defeat the previous question, would actually release the files. It would have the power of law. It would not be a glorified press release.
Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, why would anybody want to stop this bill from getting a vote? What are Republicans so afraid of?
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, the American people, Republicans, Independents, and Democrats want the Epstein files released with the victims' identity protected.
Now most people don't understand how this town works, so I am going to try to explain this really simply.
Congressman Massie and I introduced a bipartisan bill to release all the Epstein files and to make sure victims were protected. There are 10 Republican cosponsors of that bill, including MAGA stalwarts like Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Tim Burchett. We have the votes tonight to pass it, but what happened in the Rules Committee is they don't want to have this vote tonight because they know they are going to lose because they know their own Members want to vote for it.
What is even sillier is they had this nonbinding resolution, so I thought surely we would vote on a nonbinding resolution. They don't even want to vote on the nonbinding resolution in case Donald Trump gets slightly offended. They don't even want the vote on the nonbinding resolution tonight.
Now, the President is paying attention--not just because his favorite Congressman Thomas Massie is involved--and he directs the Attorney General Pam Bondi to ask the courts to release the grand jury testimony.
Here is the problem: The grand jury testimony is largely about Epstein and Maxwell, not about all the rich and powerful men who abused, assaulted, and abandoned young women. Those people are still being protected.
By the way, the courts usually don't release grand jury testimony. The President is hearing the American people, and the President knows that if there is a vote tonight, this body overwhelmingly would vote for the release of the files.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I don't need more than 30 seconds. I need 10 seconds. This question is: Whose side are you on?
Today, the Democrats are on the side of the people. The Democrats are on the side of the children. There are 10 Republicans who are on the side of the people and the children, but the entire Democratic Party is on that side and the Republicans have chosen to protect the rich and powerful men who have abused our children. It is wrong, and that is the clear difference tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for yielding and for helping get this process to the floor, despite so many attempts by the Democrats to block this effort to cut waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending. We have seen it over and over and over again.
Every time we have tried to get our economy back on track to put more money in the pockets, by the way, of hardworking families, as we just succeeded in doing with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, every step of the way, the only people trying to block that effort have been Democrats in Washington.
They are getting nervous. They are feeling the heat from people back home, Mr. Speaker, that are angry, saying why did you vote--those waiters and waitresses, who make $32,000 a year, when they keep hearing them talk about billionaires. They are not voting against billionaires. They are voting against waiters and waitresses earning $32,000 a year and cops working the beat who don't want to have to pay overtime taxes. We protected them from that.
Every Democrat voted no, Mr. Speaker. I can understand why they come up here and want to talk about anything other than what we are actually doing to deliver for those families.
It is interesting how they talk about Jeffrey Epstein because for 4 years, Mr. Speaker, President Joe Biden had those files and not a single Democrat that you are hearing tonight tried to get those files released.
The House Republicans are working to do that and, of course, they are in a tizzy, Mr. Speaker, because they are finally being exposed for covering it up for 4 years.
Let them continue to come up and talk about all the deficit spending that they created while they cite and talk about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. If you look at our scorekeeper here in the House, Mr. Speaker, they said it is going to add $4 trillion to the deficit by giving people their money back, along with cutting waste, fraud, and abuse that we did in this bill.
They are citing the same organization that the last time we gave families more of their hard-earned money back, that same group, CBO, said, oh, it is going to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, we actually have the numbers now, and CBO was just a little bit off. The same people they cite as Gospel on $4 trillion said that we were going to add $1.5 trillion to the deficit back then. Do you know how much they were off by, Mr. Speaker? The numbers are in. They were off by $1.5 trillion.
They have lost their credibility. The Office of Management and Budget actually came out and said that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 trillion. They don't want to talk about that because every Democrat voted no. Every Democrat voted against, by the way, reforming and revamping America's air traffic control system, which was in that bill. Every Democrat voted no.
Every American family wants that air traffic control system reformed. They sure want that tax relief. Those small businesses want to be able to get back up on their feet, and they will be able to because House Republicans said we are going to just focus on doing the work of the American people. Anybody that just wants to go root for failure and continue to try to keep inflation high, interest rates high, and vote ``no'' on every bill that puts power back in the pockets of families, let them have to answer for that back home, Mr. Speaker.
We are going to keep working. This bill tonight is part of continuing that trend of getting spending under control. Does it answer all the problems? No. I would say $9 billion is a good start. Hopefully, we do more things like this, but they are going to come up here and talk about everything other than this bill because they are all going to vote ``no.''
I think it is important to know, Mr. Speaker, what they are going to vote ``no'' against. Let's talk about what is in the bill.
They are going to be voting against $6 million that was spent for net zero cities in Mexico, and $8 million for the anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Council, a group that is anti-Israel. Why should $8 million of American tax dollars that are being borrowed from other countries be going to that organization? How about we actually get spending under control?
$300,000 was to hold a Pride parade in Lesotho. If Lesotho wants to hold a Pride parade, let them do it with their tax dollars, not with American tax dollars.
$1 million was for voter ID in Haiti. This is rich. They are angry that we are cutting that money off, but those same Democrats who are going to vote ``no'' on that will oppose voter ID in America. They are okay with voter ID in Haiti, but they are against it in America.
I will continue.
They keep talking about Sesame Street. $3 million was going to Iraqi Sesame Street. Again, if the people in Iraq want to have Sesame Street on TV, let them go do it. How about if they do it with their own tax dollars, not with American tax dollars? Better yet, they probably can get it put on one of the many options that the private sector would have, just like here in America. We have thousands of private-sector options to watch any kind of show you would want. Anybody in America can watch all of that.
$33,000 was for ``Being LBGTQI in the Caribbean.'' That is what we are cutting, and every Democrat will vote against that cut.
$643,000 was for LGBTQI programs in the Western Balkans. Mr. Speaker, every Democrat is going to vote against that cut and start talking about, oh, my God, the world is going to end, and that we won't even be able to do diplomacy because we are not going to be spending taxpayer dollars to have an LGBTQI program in the Western Balkans. I think our relations with the Western Balkans will be just fine if we save that taxpayer money and try to get spending under control in Washington. They don't want to do it. At least we do.
$5.1 million was to strengthen the resilience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, and queer global movements. I don't know what those global movements are. I think they can do that without taxpayer money. Then, of course, there was funding drag shows in Ecuador.
The list goes on and on, Mr. Speaker.
Let's finally get control over waste, fraud, and abuse. We started it in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. We are continuing it here, and we are going to continue it through the appropriations process.
If Democrats want to vote ``no,'' that is their prerogative. They have become the party of socialists. Let them vote that way.
We are going to fight for those hardworking families who want to get our great country back on track.
Let's pass this bill, keep moving, and keep working toward a better, stronger America.
Mr. Speaker, let me go back to something the gentleman said in his long and rambling speech.
He talked about a coverup. Let me just say to him, who is doing the coverup? You guys are in charge. You control the White House. You control the House. You control the Senate. Get a grip on reality, for God's sake.
Either you don't want to know the truth because you have been conned by Trump that there is nothing in the files, or you are afraid that there might be something in the files. You are in charge.
By the way, I was hoping the majority leader would tell us when he is going to schedule the vote on his meaningless bill on the Epstein files, but I think we will have to wait until he gets back on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I remain strongly opposed to this rescissions bill, which is a rubberstamp on stealing from the American people.
Since taking office, the Trump administration has stolen funds appropriated by the Congress, passed by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President of the United States, upending the separation of powers and our constitutional order.
This rescissions bill is another effort to subvert the Congress' power of the purse. That is precisely what they are trying to do. For what ends? To hand billionaires and the biggest corporations that already pay little or no taxes a massive tax break and, ultimately, to embrace privatization; to give the biggest companies unchecked power to rig the economy against the middle class, the working class, and vulnerable people; and to ensure the American people have no faith in their government.
This bill will shut down rural television and radio stations, cutting off coverage of local news, eliminating emergency information like severe weather alerts, jeopardizing access to PBS KIDS, children's programs like Sesame Street--yes, Sesame Street.
This bill rips lifesaving support away from hungry, displaced, and sick people in developing countries and conflict zones and will end programs that prevent conflict and pandemics.
This bill abandons the people of Ukraine while they resist Putin's tyranny.
This bill puts America last.
When we retreat from the world diplomatically and through our assistance to vulnerable people, America will be alone without allies in a less stable world without the support of the international community.
Do you know who will come out ahead? China, Russia, Iran.
All of this is being done in the name of combating waste. I will tell you what waste is: 500 tons of food grown by American farmers destroyed at a cost of $130,000 to American taxpayers because of the chaos caused by dismantling USAID. It was left there to expire.
This is the bill to help Republicans claim that they are practicing fiscal responsibility while concealing that what they are doing is ripping health insurance away from at least 17 million Americans in order to make billionaires even more rich, and they increase the debt by $4 trillion.
How dare they talk about the deficit when they have just increased it? They are not addressing the cost of living in this country, the single biggest issue. They are making it worse.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
This bill codifies the right of the Trump administration to steal from vulnerable American communities, children, and the global poor for the sake of handing even more money to billionaires.
Congress needs to reassert its role. Fight for the middle class, the working class, the vulnerable, not to protect the interests of billionaires and big corporations.
I strongly oppose this bill. It forfeits our global leadership, undermines our national security, and steals from the American people.
Mr. Speaker, if this $9 billion House rescissions package doesn't reach President Trump's desk, Congress will have blown the political opportunity of a lifetime.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a simple message to my colleagues: This is a baby step, but if we don't take it, we are not living up to our promises. We all ran on fiscal responsibility, so let's be responsible now and for future rescission packages.
This is low-hanging fruit in the eyes of America, but it breaks the cycle of spending without accountability. It is proof that Congress can and will act responsibly when it wants to.
When the American people put President Trump in office, they demanded lasting changes to a bloated Federal Government. We must not let them down.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are destroying that which is good and kind in America. Abraham Lincoln said that America is ``the last best hope of Earth.''
Our public radio and TV and our work across the globe for public health and peace are what is the best of America. They are taking Elmo off the air because they gave billionaires a tax break. They are defunding Tribal radio and rural broadcasting while Trump
Republicans are engaged in waste, fraud, and abuse. That is the definition of it. That is the definition of destruction, deception, and corruption.
The bill doesn't protect Tribal broadcasting, doesn't protect emergency alerts, and doesn't protect the working families who rely on public media for news, safety, and education.
Republicans are eating your public programs to serve caviar to their donors. The public will remember who stood with Big Bird and who strangled him.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, give me a break. Republicans are finally offering taxpayers relief from years of spending from Democrats. Again, with President Biden they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt. It needs to end. We voted to end it in H.R. 1. We are ending it in this package here today, and we won't stop fighting for taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Foxx very much for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, let's set something straight about tax cuts, so-called, for billionaires. There are fewer than 800 billionaires in the United States of America. We kept taxes low for over 160 million Americans, and the Democrats all voted to increase taxes on 160 million Americans. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, most of those billionaires--over 70 percent--are huge Democratic donors.
During President Trump's first term, we had progrowth policies, a booming economy, and revenues increased. Then the Biden administration accelerated the deficit by those in the administration, by the way, who referred to themselves as the Politburo who were actually running the administration.
Service on the debt alone increased during that time from $400 billion in 2020 to nearly $1 trillion last year. That is why we must rein in irresponsible agencies. They have been taken over by ideologues, Mr. Speaker, doing things that are simply not in the interest of the people of the United States.
USAID has done some good things, but they have also done things that were an enormous waste, totally inappropriate, and, in fact, they lost the trust of the American people. Agencies like this need to be reformed. The American people aren't going to put up with it anymore.
Why is the government still funding public television when most people have hundreds of channels, as has been mentioned, to watch their news or whatever they want to watch? Is it just because it has been around for 50 years? That is not reason enough.
Unless we want to pass along $37 trillion, and climbing, of debt to our children, we have to start spending money on the must-haves, not on the nice-to-haves. These stations are not only nice-to-have to some, they are not-nice-to-have to most, and they are certainly not must- haves.
Mr. Speaker, let's pass this rescissions package. Let's get on our way to having some accountability for the American people and codify President Trump's spending reductions into law.
Mr. Speaker, according to CBO, the top 1 percent get 22 percent of the tax cuts. The top 20 percent get 66 percent of the tax cuts. Only in a Republican mind would that be considered fair.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., could politicians come to the floor and brag about cutting $9 billion from rural radio stations while 2 weeks ago they voted to increase the deficit by $4 trillion. Spare us these lectures.
For years, Republicans have lectured us and the country about so- called fiscal responsibility, the deficit, the debt, and then they have the audacity to increase the deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the 800 billionaires that my Republican colleague from Pennsylvania is so carefully tracking. It is shameful.
This bill, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, is a war on rural America. They are closing rural hospitals by virtue of the bill they passed 15 days ago. Now they will close rural radio stations in the chairwoman's district in North Carolina and in my State, Colorado, the western part of my State that I have the privilege of representing. There are rural radio stations across the country that help constituents during wildfires and during floods. It is shameful. It should be rejected, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's reckless spending caused rampant inflation, burdening workers, families, farmers, and small businesses, unless you believe the spin that continues tonight. I don't think America is believing it.
After passing the largest savings in America's history through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act earlier this month, the Rescissions Act builds on House Republicans' unprecedented success in reining in wasteful spending and the President's willingness to not spend everything that we give him. That is unusual.
The list of egregious foreign aid projects is endless. Here are just a few: $3 million for Iraqi Sesame Street, $18 million to improve gender diversity in the Mexican street lighting industry, $2.5 million to teach children how to make environmentally friendly reproductive health decisions, whatever that means.
This abuse of taxpayer dollars must end. The Rescissions Act would prioritize the needs of Americans over everyone else.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The Rescissions Act would prioritize the needs of American people instead of funding far-left foreign initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, which represents a vital step in reining in wasteful spending and Big Government abuse of the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership. We are so proud of him.
Now, tonight is a dangerous night for our country. I am not even talking about the defense bill and whether we agree or disagree on that. I am talking about what is happening in this Rescissions Act.
Don't take it from me. Just take it from Navy Admiral William McRaven, who was a Navy SEAL and a 4-star admiral. He warned that cutting State Department USAID will put every American at risk.
This is the quote: ``This is no time to weaken any element of America's power. The dismissal of highly trained diplomats at the State Department and the dismantling of USAID will jeopardize national security and make the military's job much more difficult. Our national security has never depended on military strength alone; rather, it relies on collaboration with a strong Foreign Service and diplomatic corps,'' and I am adding with our USAID.
In this bill, over $8 billion is taken away from what we do to alleviate poverty in the world, to lessen things like HIV and AIDS and other diseases, which have an impact on global health, by stopping the funding for the World Health Organization.
I gave praise to President Bush when he put forth PEPFAR. We worked closely with him to fund it as appropriators. There were 25 million people's lives saved, but we are saying the alleviation of poverty and the eradication of disease is no longer the point. They did this in the 1990s, too, when they took control of the House. Do you know what they did? They opened the door for China and Russia to go into these countries, have geopolitical victories funded by our money that they made in trade against us, speaking of China, and then, and then us walking
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote ``no'' on this and understand what this is.
Mr. Speaker, we have had a great debate between deficits and taxes, but deficits and taxes are two sides of the same coin. To spend a dollar, Mr. Speaker, you must either tax it now or borrow it now and tax it later. Taxes and deficits are both driven by spending.
This bill rescinds some of the most stupid spending in the entire Federal Government. These are the kindest cuts of all: subsidies for state media and grants to corrupt NGOs for outrageous foreign propaganda.
Mr. Speaker, $9 billion comes to about $70 for an average American family.
Mr. Speaker, do you think they prefer to spend that $70 on a new pair of shoes for their child or for ``girl-centric climate change programs'' in Brazil?
That is the choice.
Congress squanders hundreds of billions of dollars annually on destructive subsidies and useless grants like these. Let us finally take this first, small step toward the solvency of our Nation, relief for our people, and redemption for our Congress.
The American people across the political spectrum are now demanding the release of the complete Epstein file. This is what President Trump and Vice President Vance and the whole Trump team was demanding up until the last couple of weeks when President Trump suddenly decided he wanted to sweep the whole thing under the rug. There are now two approaches in Congress.
We have got a bipartisan, binding law which has teeth to compel disclosure of all the relevant material that America wants to see, but on the other hand, the Republicans in the Rules Committee just unveiled a meaningless, hortatory, fig leaf, Swiss cheese resolution that has no teeth at all. It doesn't even have dentures. It is all cavities what they have offered.
We have got a choice now. We can go with a bill that would actually have teeth for enforcement or a meaningless, hortatory resolution that has all the legal force of National Chrysanthemum Month.
Now, the original Khanna-Massie bill asks for comprehensive release from the Attorney General, and it is binding, which means if they don't turn it over, then we can go to court. It is comprehensive. It includes everything from flight logs and travel records to individuals, including government officials named or referenced, in connection with all of Epstein's criminal activities, all of the entities involved. We want to know about all the immunity deals.
It even tried to deter and account for destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of documents and records. All of that falls out of this fraudulent resolution they have thrown up at the last minute here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
There is nothing in there except for a series of qualifying weasel words which are added to give complete, unilateral, and subjective discretion to the Attorney General to decide what should be in and what should be out. It starts off by saying whereas--our resolution says: ``All documents, records, and communications.'' Theirs says: ``All credible documents, records, and communications.''
Well, who is going to decide that?
It will be Attorney General Bondi in conjunction with Donald Trump who today said that a letter that he wrote to Jeffrey Epstein on his birthday which was published and which has all the indicia of credibility is not credible. That would not be included.
So here we are. Democrats couldn't seem to find a single thing to say about Epstein when President Biden was in office, but now they want to make this the centerpiece of their entire conversation.
The fact of the matter is right now they know it is true, and right now what they don't want to do is have the American people focusing on the Republicans in Congress who are doing the thing they sent us here to do, which is end wasteful spending, to stop the ridiculous spending of a bureaucratic government that has been weaponized against the people. These are dollars that are being used and wasted and sent around the world for $32,000 for transgender comic books in Peru. That is how they want to use taxpayer money.
We are over here trying to make sure we are saving that money instead of having $6 million to fund tourism in Egypt or $2 million for sex changes and LGBT activism in Guatemala.
Why should the people of Texas be paying for that instead of paying to clean up the flood in Texas?
The fact of the matter is the people of Texas want their money to be used for the things they care about.
We have listened to the minority leader come to the floor and lecture us about the virtues of public radio and public broadcasting.
Yet, nevertheless, the truth is it took NPR through Texas public radio 19 hours to post anything about the flooding on its social media pages after the floods hit in Texas.
What was NPR and Texas public radio doing that morning?
They weren't breaking to talk about what was happening in Texas. They were running ads saying people should call Congress to fund them, but the private stations in Texas were breaking to release reports and tell people what to do because that is what private stations can do. They can respond to the people because they are locally owned, they are locally run, and they are not run by bureaucrats from this town.
The fact is, we are going to save money for the American people and end the absurdity of this leftist propaganda being put under public radio.
Mr. Speaker, my head is about to explode. That guy just voted to increase the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, and he is trying to blame Democrats for Jeffrey Epstein.
Who was President when Jeffrey Epstein died in his cell?
It was Donald Trump.
Who is in charge now and blocking the release of the files?
It is Donald Trump, so please.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a reckless, cruel, and shortsighted assault on American values, global leadership, and our constitutional responsibilities.
Let's be clear. This is not a budget fix. It is a dangerous retreat from our role in the world. Foreign aid is just a sliver of our budget, but it saves lives. It prevents wars, and it opens markets for American businesses. It is a smart investment in our national security.
As we speak, Mr. Speaker, there are millions of dollars of food that has been left rotting over in ports, leaving massive numbers of people in conflict zones starving. This is all due to the chaos and mismanagement of the White House.
This is not fiscal responsibility. It is moral failure. This bad bill pulls millions of children out of school, leaves small farmers without tools, wipes out access to clean water, and cuts off contraception for women and girls.
Meanwhile, our adversaries are stepping in. China and Russia are seizing influence as we retreat. This bill cedes Congress' power of the purse giving one man the authority to cancel funds we have already approved.
I call us the disappearing Congress, and that is not how democracy works. It is how autocracy begins. Vote ``no'' on this very bad bill.
Mr. Speaker, tonight is the culmination of months of work from House Republicans to defund leftwing state-sponsored media outlets like NPR.
During that process, we got to bring in leadership from these outlets like the CEO of NPR, Katherine Maher, to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
I got to ask her about a lot of her past public statements. It turns out she has a prolific Twitter history. She has written extensively about every single major woke buzzword that you can think of, Mr. Speaker, including ``the ravages of late-stage capitalism,'' ``structural privilege,'' and her own ``cis White mobility privilege.''
Mr. Speaker, most Americans, including myself, didn't know what that meant until reading this.
She wrote about the ``politics of representation,'' and, of course, ``toxic masculinity.''
She also wrote about herself, about one of her major pet peeves, which is whenever she goes on an airplane and finds out that the demographics are ``usually > 80% male, usually white.''
Mr. Speaker, that is flagrantly racist. She has written about how: ``I do wish Hillary''--meaning Hillary Clinton--``wouldn't use the language of `boy and girl'--it's erasing language for non-binary people.''
Mr. Speaker, this is the person running the outlet the other side of the aisle wants our tax dollars to subsidize.
Of course, she has written extensively about race, about how America is ``addicted to white supremacy,'' how she grew up ``feeling superior'' because she is White, how ``America begins in black plunder and white democracy.'' Mr. Speaker, this is directly from her own Twitter account.
Mr. Speaker, nonpartisan news outlets are not run by lunatics like this. Republicans are done using the power that voters give us to fund Democrat media machines. We are playing to win now.
Mr. Speaker, this rescissions package is disastrous. It cuts $8 billion in lifesaving and critical U.S. foreign assistance, including food assistance, access to clean water, and lifesaving medicine.
Let's stop pretending that this is about fiscal responsibility. This package is not about saving money. It is about selling a con yet again to the American people.
The President claimed the United States was wastefully sending condoms to Gaza. The fact is that they were sending them to Mozambique to stop the spread of HIV and AIDS.
The President claimed that there was a wasteful $21 million grant to India. The fact is the grant never existed.
It goes on from there.
The President claimed that there was a national emergency in Brazil to justify slapping a 50 percent tariff on a country where the U.S. has run a trade surplus for over a decade. There is no emergency.
He shouted about the Epstein files, and now his administration is saying there are no such files.
This all, once again, is to serve as a con to the American people.
Let's be clear about what the Republicans are voting to defund today: programs that help educate women and girls, programs that fight deadly diseases.
Food, clean water, humanitarian relief for the world's most vulnerable--are we really going to take these things away from the most vulnerable with it? America's credibility and global leadership must not yield to this con.
Let's get to the real waste. The real waste is incinerating 500 metric tons of expired aid sitting in warehouses meant to feed suffering children in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The real fraud is telling the American people that these cuts will help them, and they won't.
The real fraud is letting Elon Musk and his DOGE minions wreak havoc at State and USAID after the President fired the independent watchdogs at those agencies.
This is not how you run and lead a country. This is how you run a scam on the American people. Let's call this for what it is. It is a con.
Republicans claim that they are doing this to save taxpayer money, but as Mr. McGovern says continually, you cut $8 billion in Foreign Service and then you add over $3 trillion or $4 trillion to the American debt. It is a con.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Here we go again, not talking about the subject at hand but trying to distract people. It is the same old, tired song and dance. Our friends revert to demonizing and misrepresenting the big, beautiful bill. They say you can't make this stuff up, but that is what they do.
We are having one success after another, and it is driving our friends across the aisle to distraction.
When they had full control of the levers of power just a few years ago, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt.
What is most revealing is their refusal to articulate a single program, a single outlay, or a single area of Federal spending they want to reduce on behalf of taxpayers. They want every single dime of taxpayer money, and they don't like the historic cutting of $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud, and abuse in H.R. 1. They can't stomach the $9 billion here in this discretionary cuts to wasteful spending. There is no upper limit to the amount of taxpayer dollars they will throw at their government-centered schemes.
How about a million? Can democrats articulate a cut to Federal spending in the amount of a million? How about in the thousands, like the $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda or the $8,000 for promoting vegan food in Zambia that we are cutting now? They can't do it, and that is very unfortunate because it has dire consequences for our Nation.
The fact is, we can't work in a bipartisan fashion to cut Federal spending anymore, and that wasn't always the case. Our colleagues are addicted to a tax-and-spend formula that has been bankrupting our government.
But we won't stand idly by. We won't wait on Democrats to take their heads out of the sand or wake up from this woke-induced coma. We are taking bold action at every level and in every facet of the Federal Government to get our Federal spending under control. We will do it $8,000 at a time when we have to or $1.6 trillion at a time when we can. We have been given this mandate, and the American people are counting on us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to President Trump's reckless and destructive rescissions bill.
The proposed $8 billion cut to global aid programs is not only a shortsighted betrayal of American leadership, but it is going to result in millions of people getting sick and losing their lives.
If we continue to retreat from helping countries around the world as this administration is doing, our adversaries like China will fill the vacuum. That makes us less powerful and less safe.
It is not just lives at risk abroad. Lives here will be lost, too. By defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, millions of Americans will no longer have access to our national emergency weather alert system. Simply put: Americans will die because of these cuts.
In addition to gutting one of the last vestiges of independent journalism, which is only biased if you think the truth is biased, the Republicans are also defunding free children's educational programs enjoyed by millions around the country.
I rise today in opposition to the rule to consider the rescissions package of
It is not hyperbole to say that public broadcasting saves lives during emergency situations and natural disasters. My State knows that firsthand.
When Hurricane Helene devastated western North Carolina last year, public broadcasting was there when traditional communication failed. Widespread power, cellular, and internet outages meant that, for thousands of North Carolinians, public radio was how they received their news.
Our local public broadcasting stations provided lifesaving updates for our residents, broadcasted emergency resource information like food and water and distribution, and gave a direct line for North Carolinians to speak to their communities.
Slashing public broadcasting funding will limit their ability to operate during crises and delay critical information to the people who need it most.
Make no mistake: Without public broadcasting, we would have seen more lives lost in Helene. We need to protect these stations so we can protect our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates that all public broadcasting programs must demonstrate strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs. There are a myriad of statistical studies that prove that they are not.
Perhaps most damning for NPR is the fact that it had to utilize a $1.9 million Federal grant to ``improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints'' last year. This is despite the fact that NPR's CEO recently testified, as our colleague said, that she didn't witness any bias at the organization. Then why the need for the Federal grant?
The problem with the Public Broadcasting Act is that it lacks an enforcement mechanism, so we will go with our constitutional prerogatives here to enforce the law. It starts with the rescission of funding.
Mr. Speaker, you guys are so weak that you won't even vote to release the files. It is 11:20 p.m. in the middle of the night, and once again, you are trying to jam your dark agenda through Congress in the dark of night.
It makes me wonder: Have you even read this bill? I mean, really, because this bill rescinds $9 billion for international aid, public health, and public media. It will make America less safe. It will undermine our national security. It will threaten lives across the world and kill children.
On top of that, it undermines our Constitution, the power of the people, the power of the purse, and the separation of powers in our Constitution, as Russell Vought, OMB, and the architects of Project 2025 are trying to use this rescission bill to undermine the power of Congress.
That is why we will vote ``no,'' a ``hell no'' to the blatant power grab that it represents in the face of the chaotic and corrupt administration and Congress that is stealing from our people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, we are far from weak. We are doing what the American people want us to do, and that is to let them keep more of their money and not take it and let unnamed bureaucrats spend it on their behalf.
Mr. Speaker, the era of woke and wasteful spending in the people's government is over, and it is sad to watch this last-ditch effort by my Democratic colleagues to fight for status quo. The status quo is a cesspool of these leftist ideological programs that they would say is soft power for America's interests or that they would say are lifesaving services.
Mr. Speaker, the American people rejected this radical agenda. They rejected the failed policies of my Democratic colleagues and their unbridled spending that is bankrupting this country.
They sent President Trump here with a mandate and unified Republican leadership to restore competent leadership, commonsense policies, and a commitment to America First. There is nothing common sense or America First about transgender comic books in Peru and all the other woke and wasteful programs that my Democratic colleagues are fighting to defend.
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that we have a President who has heard from the people and is hell-bent on rightsizing this bureaucracy, reining in this waste, and restoring fiscal sanity here in Washington, D.C., not only for the taxpayers of today but for the future, for prosperity, for freedom, and for our children.
This is why my colleagues are going to wander in the wilderness for years to come. While that might benefit us politically, it is sad for my country. I am sad as an American to see the defense of these crazy, divisive, and dangerous ideological programs that my taxpayers in west Texas are spending their hard-earned money for.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage and urge my colleagues on both sides to support this rescissions package.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, before I close, let's talk about what is actually in front of us.
This rescissions package is a joke. Republicans passed a massive tax giveaway for the rich, one of the most expensive in history. That giveaway was 450 times the size of these rescissions, and every single Republican who spoke tonight voted to add $4 trillion to the debt-- every single one of them.
This isn't even good policy or process. It is rushed. It is sloppy. Even Republicans in the Senate are warning about the consequences, but the House majority doesn't care. They are more interested in headlines than outcomes. Once again, it is everyday people who pay the price.
Mr. Speaker, let us end where we started: the Epstein files.
Republicans can take a real vote today, a vote that will put them on the side of truth and justice, a vote to tell victims that we hear you, we see you, and we will not protect the powerful at your expense.
Instead, they are choosing cowardice. They are choosing obedience to Trump, so they cooked up this nonbinding resolution, a press release, pretending to do something.
Let's be clear: Republicans can either vote to release the files or vote to bury them. If every Republican votes to block our attempt to release the records, they are telling Epstein's victims that they don't matter as much as their political convenience. That should disgust every single one of us.
This place deserves better. This country deserves better. The victims, most of all, deserve the truth.
Release the Epstein files. Release the Epstein files. Release the files.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, all night, our colleagues across the aisle have been talking about what we are not here to discuss, which is this rescissions package. They keep trying to distract the American people with things that we are not here to talk about.
The American people do not want to see their hard-earned tax dollars being squandered, not one bit. At its core, H.R. 4 is about shutting off the spigot of wasteful money, clawing back the tax dollars of Americans, and ensuring that wasteful and unnecessary spending is uprooted and left to wither and die.
It is just that simple. That is all there is to it. With more rescissions packages on the horizon, the President and Speaker have indicated that the best is yet to come.
We are doing our job to help save the American taxpayers' dollars. We know how hard it is to earn those dollars, and we don't want to see them squandered.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on the rule, and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 590 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, nays 211, not voting 3, as follows:
Ms. PEREZ changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 580 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4016.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) kindly take the chair.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4016) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bost (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole House rose earlier today, amendment No. 293, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) had been disposed of.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 119-199, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 111 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 112 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 113 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 114 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 115 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 116 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 277 by Mr. Steube of Florida.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time of any electronic vote in this series.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 111, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 63, noes 365, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 112, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 6, noes 421, not voting 10, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 113, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, noes 326, not voting 7, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 114, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 6, noes 422, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. DesJarlais) (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 115, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 30, noes 400, not voting 7, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 116, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, noes 353, not voting 8, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Messrs. MOORE of West Virginia and JACKSON of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 277, printed in part A of House Report 119-199, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 76, noes 355, not voting 6, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendment, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Murphy) having assumed the chair, Mr. DesJarlais, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4016) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 580, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, nays 219, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, nays 209, not voting 2, as follows:
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of H.R. 4016, the Clerk will be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, and that the second instruction in amendment No. 40 printed in House Report 119-199 be changed from page 39, line 19 to page 40, line 19.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, today our country lost a true trailblazer. Congressman William Clay passed away after a lifetime of service that reshaped St. Louis and our Nation.
Already a civil rights icon before he was elected, he didn't come to Washington to play politics. He came to fight for working people, Black families, union members, and those too often left out and unheard. He carried their voices into this Chamber and made sure they echoed.
Bill Clay was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. I and so many others would not be here without the doors he opened and the example he set.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
Mr. Speaker, as I sat on the bed this morning, trying to get up, I received a phone call to tell me that Congressman Bill Clay had just passed. I sat there for a few minutes, feeling sad.
Then it occurred to me that death is not the greatest loss in life. The greatest loss in life is to die with a life not lived and still inside a man.
Bill Clay did not die with hope for his country inside him. He did not die with his brilliant writing inside him. He did not die with creativity. Bill Clay did not die without working every day he walked into this place for the people of St. Louis.
Mr. Speaker, I hold his son, my friend and predecessor, Lacy Clay; the entire Clay family; and the St. Louis community in my prayers.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, the entire CBC, which he helped found, and the Missouri delegation, I ask for a moment of silence in memory of the Honorable William Lacy Clay, Sr.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary young Montanan, Tarquin Bennion, who will make his Carnegie Hall debut on July 20.
Tarquin hails from Sidney, Montana, and is one of the 28 violinists from around the country headed to the Big Apple to perform with the National Youth Orchestra of the United States.
Not only will he debut in New York, he will also represent our Nation and
Tarquin's journey began at the age of 5 when his mother, who taught herself to play the violin at age 34, inspired him to pursue music. Since then, his passion has taken him to venues like the Montana Senate Chamber where he performed a piece from Mozart's Violin Concerto No. 4 during his time as a page.
Mr. Speaker, Tarquin's remarkable talent and dedication are an inspiration to his peers and to his State. I congratulate him on this incredible accomplishment and wish him the best of luck in his bright future. I know this is just the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, America faces a housing crisis. One part of the solution to that crisis, though, lies right in our backyards. The solution has many names: granny flats, backyard cottages, or accessory dwelling units, but all expand our affordable housing supply.
When I was mayor of San Jose, we made building backyard apartments easier by enabling thousands of homeowners to be able to get their permits online in a single day. The problem, though, is that many homeowners of modest means could never get a shovel in the ground because they couldn't get financing.
We talked to the banks and the banks said they would lend if homeowners could get FHA insurance, or if Fannie or Freddie would backstop the loans.
Today, along with my Republican colleague Andrew Garbarino, I have introduced a bill to do just that. The bipartisan SUPPLY Act will empower homeowners to become home providers.
Mr. Speaker, together we can make affordable housing a reality for thousands more Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Georgia?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Susan Mason, a resident of Savannah, Georgia, who has dedicated 40 years of her life to bringing elegance, excellence, and warmth to thousands of life's most meaningful celebrations.
When Susan Mason founded her catering company in 1985, she was recently divorced, living rent-free in a friend's home, and inspired by a then-up-and-coming Martha Stewart.
What she lacked in resources, she made up for with resolve, talent, and a sparkling sense of humor. Over the next four decades, Susan Mason Catering became synonymous with silver service, culinary perfection, and timeless Southern style. Whether planning wrap parties for A-list celebrities or elegant weddings for local families, she made sure every detail was flawless.
She is now 85 years young and still very much at the center of the party. With her signature wit and stylish presence, she has become both a cultural fixture and a business force in Savannah.
Mr. Speaker, Susan Mason represents the very best of resilience, charm, and entrepreneurial spirit. It is an honor to recognize her today for 40 years of extraordinary service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the 30th time to call on the Trump administration to restore lifesaving food aid for starving children.
When children are starving, their organs shut down. At a certain point, they are not able to eat traditional food anymore. Ready-to-use therapeutic food is the only chance they have to survive and to get back to health.
Right now in Rhode Island, there are 87,000 boxes of ready-to-use therapeutic foods, already bought and paid for, but sitting in a warehouse because the Trump administration has frozen this aid.
It is time for the administration to honor the will of Congress, to honor its own commitment, and to do the right thing and get this food to the kids around the world who need it. I will keep speaking out every day until they do.
Mr. Speaker, tonight, I voted against sending more military aid to Israel. I voted against it because I saw it as I currently see it, as a vote against collective punishment, a vote against ethnic cleansing, and a vote against genocide appearing before my very eyes.
I refuse to have my fingerprints, my imprimatur on the killing of innocent people, including children. I voted ``no.'' I will not become a ``yes'' because Mr. Netanyahu doesn't want peace. He wants all of Palestine. My imprimatur will not be on it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my shock and outrage over the killing of Saif Musallet, a 20-year-old Palestinian American from Florida who was visiting his family in the West Bank.
He was beaten on his own family's land by settlers. We have grown too used to this kind of violence. We have grown weary of news reports detailing the onslaught of deaths, but we should never accept the killing of innocence, let alone the killing of an innocent American citizen.
In an unusual and forceful statement, Ambassador Huckabee called the killing a ``criminal and terrorist act'' and urged Israeli authorities to conduct a full investigation and bring those responsible to justice.
I echo the call of the ambassador for an investigation and ask my colleagues to do the same. The United States Congress cannot allow silence to reign and complicity to creep in. Instead, we must demand justice.
Mr. Speaker, as we leave the Capitol for the weekend, I want to leave the body here with a little bit of thought. I am going to quote from a book called ``The Tragedy of American Compassion,'' by Marvin Olasky. It is now a 30-year-old book.
It is an interesting book in that it deals with what we have today called welfare. At the time that was all privatized. I am going to quote from the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism of the City of New York on what they felt was the cause of pauperism at the time and what had to be done to end it.
It listed 10 causes of pauperism. People in the 1820s were brighter than the people today. They listed ignorance, idleness, intemperance, which I take to mean drunkenness, want of economy, imprudent and hasty marriages--you don't hear that one anymore, but they
When we return next week, let's remember the wisdom from the Society for the Prevention of Pauperism and not give away charity too easily.
Mr. Speaker, today is the so-called culmination of crypto week.
The AFL-CIO has sent a letter to every Member, saying that these bills are an attack on working families and that they will score your vote on these issues, and to vote ``no'' on both bills.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the ALF-CIO correspondence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Mr. Speaker, this shows what Trump had to say about crypto before he learned he could make money from it.
The bills we have allow the President and the Vice President to sponsor crypto. It means they can print their electronic monopoly money. China is buying $300 million, and Abu Dhabi has agreed to buy $2 billion of Trump coin or Trump stablecoin.
It allows for bailouts by the Fed. Jerome Powell won't bail out Trump coin, but the next Fed Chair will.
It allows for the purchase with your U.S. tax dollars of Bitcoin or Trump coin.
The third bill says that innovation is wonderful except if the U.S. Government does it.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 1 minute a.m.), on Friday, July 18, 2025, (legislative day of Thursday, July 17, 2025), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Monday, July 21, 2025, at noon for morning-hour debate.
