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.
13Oath of Office Members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates
14Private Bills and Resolutions
15Deletions of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
16Petitions, Etc.
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
51 public bills, H.R. 5242- 5292; 2 private bills, H.R. 5293-5294; and 11 resolutions, H.J. Res. 119; and H. Res. 689-698, were introduced.
Pages H4236-38
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 3400, to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to assign physicians of the Department of Veterans Affairs to temporarily serve as traveling physicians in the territories and possessions of the United States, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-263); H.R. 3767, to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for a time frame for the employment in the Department of Veterans Affairs of participants in the Health Professionals Scholarship Program, and for other purposes, with an amendment H. Rept. 119-264); H.R. 5100, to extend the SBIR and STTR programs, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-265, Part 1); and H.R. 4446, to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the conditions under which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is required to redevelop the individualized vocational rehabilitation plan for a veteran, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-266).
Page H4236
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Taylor to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H4167
Recess
The House recessed at 11:11 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H4174
Recess
The House recessed at 3:45 p.m. and reconvened at 4:02 p.m.
Page H4213
Moment of Silence
The House observed a moment of prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family.
Page H4214
Oath of Office: Eleventh Congressional District of Virginia
Representative-elect James R. Walkinshaw presented himself in the well of the House and was administered the Oath of Office by the Speaker. Earlier, the Clerk of the House transmitted a copy of a letter received from Ms. DJ Geiger, Director of Operations, with the Virginia Department of Elections indicating that, according to the unofficial results for the Special General Election held on September 9, 2025, the Honorable James R. Walkinshaw was elected Representative to Congress for the Eleventh Congressional District of Virginia.
Pages H4214-15
Whole Number of the House
The Speaker announced to the House that, in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlemen from Virginia, the whole number of the House is 432.
Page H4215
Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
The House passed H.R. 3838, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, by a recorded vote of 231 ayes to 196 noes, Roll No. 262. Consideration began yesterday, September 9th.
Pages H4176-H4213, H4213-14, H4215-28
Rejected the Houlahan motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services by a yea-and-nay vote of 208 yeas to 219 nays, Roll No. 261.
Pages H4226-27
Agreed to
Scott (GA) amendment (No. 21 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that authorizes the Baltic Security Initiative to strengthen the armed forces of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania to deter Russian aggression, increase interoperability, and support modernization;
Pages H4187-88
Rouzer amendment (No. 33 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that incorporates the text of H.R. 474--Lumbee Fairness Act, extends federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and makes its members eligible for the services and benefits provided to members of federally recognized tribes;
Pages H4196-97
Rogers (AL) en bloc amendment No. 5 consisting of the following amendments printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255
Moolenaar (No. 26) that prohibits federal research awards from going to individuals or institutions with affiliations or partnerships with hostile foreign entities, including those listed on U.S. government entity lists; Griffith (No. 31) that amends Section 1021(b) of the FY12 NDAA to limit the authority of the U.S. military to indefinitely detain individuals pursuant to the 2001 AUMF, to exclude American citizens from being subject to detention; Messmer (No. 32) that modifies the Industrial Base Fund (IBF) authorities, established under section 4817 of title 10, to strengthen and grant additional flexibilities, so that the Department of Defense can act swiftly in expanding key supply chains, mitigating single points of failure, and addressing critical national security shortfalls within the Defense Industrial Base (DIB); Scholten (No. 254) that directs the Department of Defense to provide Congress with an overview of the types of contracts that are not set- aside for small business competitions despite the value falling under the Simplified Acquisition Threshold; Schweikert (No. 255) that directs the Department of Defense to utilize artificial intelligence in the audit of its financial statements with the goal of achieving a clean audit opinion for the first time; Schweikert (No. 256) that authorizes the use of artificial intelligence in the weapon inventory system for the Department of Defense, for the purpose of creating accurate inventory records; Scott (VA) (No. 257) that requires the Department of Defense to submit a report on the status of the Interagency Regional Coordinator for Resilience Pilot Project; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 258) that expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name an aircraft carrier USS United States; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 259) that amends 32 USC 508(d)(13) by adding Young Marines, Naval Sea Cadet Corps, and the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary to the list of youth and charitable organizations eligible to receive assistance; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 260) that amends Section 152(b)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, to make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau eligible to be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 261) that requires each company with $1 billion of revenue or greater seeking a contract with DOD to provide data relating to the numbers of veterans hired in the past 12 and 36 months and that number still with that company 12 and 24 months after hiring--to focus on veteran hiring AND retention; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 262) that makes a technical correction to Section 354 of the bill in regards to the USS Constitution Naval History & Heritage Command Detachment Boston and adds the Hampton Roads Naval Museum; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 263) that requires The Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a strategy to eliminate the reliance of the Department of Defense on any covered nation to acquire computer displays by January 1, 2030; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 264) that establishes a system of official Air Force and Space Force museums within the Department of the Air Force; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 265) that prohibits the Secretary of Defense from entering into, renewing, or extending a contract or other agreement for the procurement of organic light emitting diode (OLED) display technologies that are fabricated in a foreign adversary, by a foreign adversary entity, or by a covered OLED display technologies company; Self (No. 266) that increases the pay rate for Department of Defense blue-collar (prevailing rate) employees by the percentage authorized under section 737; Self (No. 267) that encourages the Department of Defense to expand artificial intelligence pilot programs and fielding across mission areas and requires biannual reports to Congress on integration efforts for five years; Sherrill (No. 268) that limits the realignment of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation functions and funding away from Picatinny Arsenal; Shreve (No. 269) that requires a comprehensive review of the current effectiveness of interagency coordination and the DoD's implementation of their existing responsibilities pertaining to the physical safety and cybersecurity of the air, rail, and maritime infrastructure that underpins U.S. military readiness; Shreve (No. 270) that requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to develop a comprehensive strategy to counter Iran's and Hezbollah's propaganda, religious networks, and influence operations in Latin America; Smith (NJ) (No. 271) to conduct a review of biological weapons research conducted between January 1, 1945 and December 31, 1972 in relation to ticks and tick-borne diseases and submit a report to Congress detailing the findings of that review; Sorenson (No. 272) that extends the Army's online real estate tool pilot program until September 30, 2030; Stauber (No. 273) that provides a two-year funding mechanism for the State Partnership Program; Stauber (No. 274) that requires the Department of Defense to conduct a study to increase efficiency of the Funeral Honors Program; Stauber (No. 275) that requires the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a plan to Congress to recapitalize and modernize the Air National Guard's fighter fleet; Stauber (No. 276) that requires the Department of Defense to address our dependence on Communist China for critical minerals; Stefanik (No. 277) that revises Section 1723 of the Rules Committee Print 119-8 to include cameras to the covered list; Steube (No. 278) that convenes the U.S.-Israel Defense Industrial Base Working Group to study the potential for defense industrial base integration between the United States and Israel, including the possibility of inclusion into the national technology and industrial base (as defined in section 4801 of title 10, United States Code); Steube (No. 279) that prioritizes local law enforcement agencies in adopting any ceremonial horse that may no longer be utilized by the U.S. Army; Steube (No. 280) that extends and modifies annual report on Iranian military; Steube (No. 281) that requires Defense Health Agency to develop a plan to reopen any previously-closed chiropractic clinic on a military installation and to pay chiropractors under the GS scale; Steube (No. 282) that requires report on U.S.-Israel cooperation on increased production capacity and inventory of the Arrow interceptor; Steube (No. 283) that requires annual report on U.S.-Israel military exercises, emphasizes mutual benefit of U.S.-Israel relationship; Strong (No. 284) that amends 10 USC 2465 to permit the use of private contractors for security-guard functions at military installations with <300 permanently assigned enlisted service members below the rank of E- 7; Subramanyam (No. 285) that requires the Air Force to provide a report on the integration potential and value of ultra-short takeoff and landing aircraft; Tenney (No. 286) that strikes Section 842(c) from the FY25 NDAA; Turner (No. 287) that requires an assessment of integration of Joint Combatant Commander exercise team into large scale exercises of INDOPACO; Turner (No. 288) that requires a report on development and deployment of the Naval Autonomous Data Collection System; Turner (No. 289) that requires the Chief Information Officers within the DoD to provide Congress with a Cybersecurity Regulatory Plan to reduce the regulatory burdens on the Defense Industrial Base; Van Orden (No. 290) that encourages the President to take such actions as may be necessary to counter Chinese Communist Party efforts to blockade or embargo Taiwan, including by providing training and support to the Taiwan Navy for liquefied natural gas convoy operations; Van Orden (No. 291) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report within 180 days on options for establishing a digital engagement framework to address recruitment, retention, and readiness challenges; Webster (No. 292) that requires a report on the military camping and recreational park program; Whitesides (No. 293) that directs the Secretary of Defense to establish Advanced Technology Centers at community colleges with workforce programs targeted at meeting needs in the defense industrial base; Whitesides (No. 294) that commissions a report on research relating to the upper atmosphere and near-space environment; Wilson (SC) (No. 295) that amends Section 744 to include cervical cancer in the study; Wilson (SC) (No. 296) that requires a strategy to Armed Services Committees relating to the issue of political prisoners in Pakistan, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan in mil to mil engagement with the military of Pakistan; Wilson (SC) (No. 297) that requires Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy to be submitted to Congress, aimed at encouraging defections by senior Iranian security officials and members of the armed forces; and Wittman (No. 298) that requires a report from the Secretary of Defense within 180 days regarding the use of waivers for software security requirements within the Department of Defense;
Pages H4200-13
Norman amendment (No. 13 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that prohibits the provision of gender transition procedures, including surgery or medication, through the Exceptional Family Medical Program (by a recorded vote of 221 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 245);
Pages H4177-78, H4215-16
Mace amendment (No. 14 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that prohibits DoD from covering or furnishing gender-related medical treatment under TRICARE (by a recorded vote of 221 ayes to 207 noes, Roll No. 246);
Pages H4178-80, H4216-17
Mace amendment (No. 15 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that prohibits the Superintendent of a Service Academy from allowing a cadet or midshipman who is male from participating in an athletic program or activity that is designated exclusively for females (by a recorded vote of 227 ayes to 201 noes, Roll No. 247);
Pages H4180-81, H4217
Mace amendment (No. 16 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that prohibits the Secretary of Defense from soliciting information through a form or survey regarding the gender identity of an individual, providing an option to indicate the sex or gender of an individual is something other than male or female, and requiring the Secretary reject a response other than male or female to a required question on a form or survey regarding sex or gender (by a recorded vote of 221 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 248);
Pages H4181-83, H4217-18
Mace amendment (No. 17 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that prohibits individuals from accessing or using single-sex spaces on military installations which do not correspond to the biological sex of the individual (by a recorded vote of 219 ayes to 209 noes, Roll No. 249);
Pages H4183-84, H4218-19
Patronis amendment (No. 9 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that was debated on September 9th that eliminates the preference for Motor Vehicles using Electric or Hybrid propulsion systems and related requirements of the Department of Defense (by a recorded vote of 224 ayes to 208 noes with one answering ``Present'', Roll No. 251);
Pages H4219-20
Wilson (SC) amendment (No. 11 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that was debated on September 9th that modifies federal statutes 50 U.S.C. 797 and 18 U.S.C. 1382 (by a recorded vote of 228 ayes to 205 noes, Roll No. 252);
Pages H2220-21
Mills amendment (No. 18 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that restricts base commanders' ability to fly unauthorized flags at their discretion (by a recorded vote of 222 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 253);
Pages H4184-86, H4221
McCormick amendment (No. 25 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that amends Section 1555 of the FY24 NDAA regarding contracting for military recruitment to prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with entities that perform fact-checking and information- grading services for purposes of censoring their political opponents (by a recorded vote of 219 ayes to 211 noes, Roll No. 258); and
Pages H4193-94, H4224-25
Rose amendment (No. 253 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services on the fraud scheme perpetrated by Janet Yamanaka Mello, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army who was indicted and pleaded guilty to stealing over $100 million in 4- H Military Partnership Grant program funds (by a recorded vote of 430 ayes to 3 noes, Roll No. 260).
Pages H4198-H4200, H4225-26
Rejected
Meeks amendment (No. 34 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that sought to insert the text of H.R. 1488, repealing the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs (by a recorded vote of 61 ayes to 167 noes, Roll No. 244);
Pages H4197-98, H4213-14
Smith (NJ) amendment (No. 7 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that was debated on September 9th that sought to require the Secretary of Defense to certify that offshore wind projects in the North Atlantic and Mid-Atlantic Planning Areas will not interfere with radar capabilities (by a recorded vote of 209 ayes to 224 noes, Roll No. 250);
Page H4219
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 20 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that sought to ban the research, development, procurement and promotion of cell cultured meat by the DOD (by a recorded vote of 194 ayes to 236 noes with one answering ``Present'', Roll No. 254);
Pages H4186-87, H4221-22
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 22 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that sought to prohibit assistance to Ukraine (by a recorded vote of 60 ayes to 372 noes, Roll No. 255);
Pages H4188-90, H4222-23
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 23 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that sought to strike funding for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid program (by a recorded vote of 60 ayes to 370 noes, Roll No. 256);
Pages H4190-91, H4223
Greene (GA) amendment (No. 24 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that sought to strike foreign aid funding for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative (by a recorded vote of 9 ayes to 422 noes, Roll No. 257); and
Pages H4191-93, H4223-24
Biggs amendment (No. 29 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-255) that sought to prohibit the designation of military and certain National Guard lands as critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act when deemed necessary by the Department of Defense. Exempts military personnel from Endangered Species Act prohibitions during national defense-related operations, including incidental harm to protected species (by a recorded vote of 200 ayes to 228 noes, Roll No. 259).
Pages H4194-96, H4225
Agreed by unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3838, including corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings. H. Res. 682, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 3838) and (H.R. 3486) was agreed to yesterday, September 9th.
Page H4228
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, September 11th.
Page H4228
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026: Motion to go to Conference
The House agreed to the Cole motion to take from the Speakers table the bill H.R. 3944, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House; disagree to the Senate amendment and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
Page H4228
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026: Motion to Instruct Conferees
The House considered the DeLauro motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 3944, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. Further consideration was postponed.
Pages H4228-30
Quorum Calls: Votes
One yea-and-nay vote and eighteen recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H4213-14, H4215-16, H4216-17, H4217, H4217-18, H4218-19, H4219, H4219-20, H4220- 21, H4221, H4221-22, H4222-23, H4223, H4223-24, H4224-25, H4225, H4225- 26, H4226-27, and H4227. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:23 p.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: 158 of 523 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Malik Todd Murray, senior vice president and head of business development at Ariel Investments, one of the Nation's leading Black- owned asset management firms.
Malik stood tall, literally and figuratively. A former athlete and NBA referee, he brought a team-first mindset to business, mentoring talent, opening doors, and proving that excellence and equity go hand in hand.
I salute him today especially for his work in promoting and expanding opportunities for minority businesses. Along with Ariel's founder, John Rogers, he championed using business diversity versus minority procurement.
He was an influential force behind the work of the United States Congress' first Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion under the powerful Financial Services Committee led by the Honorable Maxine Waters. Ms. Waters then appointed me to be the first chair in the history of this Congress of the Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion.
He and those at Ariel reminded us early on that there is no shortage of high-performing and diverse-owned firms. I could clearly do a roll call, listing all of those firms.
It reminded me of something that I was told. As John Rogers was testifying and Malik and I were witnesses to watching him, he said: As Reverend Jackson says, baseball became a better sport when Jackie Robinson was allowed to play.
The financial services industry is well-served by many dynamic leaders who look like Jackie Robinson. They are job creators and philanthropists. They play important roles in being role models in our communities and across America.
Malik, along with John Rogers, taught me a lesson that I carry with me today. Diversity is not only those we hire but with whom we do business.
True economic power is going beyond service contracts. True business diversity includes diverse hires in private equity, in wealth management, those who handle our money, the accountants who protect our books, and the lawyers who advise clients.
That is why it is important that we look at all industries, whether they be hospitals, museums, universities, or tech companies--and the list goes on--because this is America.
We all deserve to have equality and equity. That is what this great America is about. It is about opening doors, expanding opportunities, and making sure that our young children can dare to dream. If they can see it, they know they can be it. It is for them to know that while they are here today, they are reaching for their ``there'' tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, to the family of Malik Todd Murray, we salute him. We thank his family for allowing him to share his young life with us. He will be deeply missed, but I promise his work will not be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two of southern Ohio's outstanding young women who have proudly made the Second Congressional District home to both Miss Ohio and Miss Ohio's Teen: Olivia Fosson and Allison Payton.
Allison, a Chillicothe native and rising senior at Zane Trace High School, was crowned Miss Ohio's 2025 Outstanding Teen this past June.
A newcomer to the pageant world, Allison was encouraged to get involved last year by a friend from her dance studio. She has been a competitive dancer for 15 years, with tap being her favorite, which she performed during the competition.
Allison's service initiative focuses on one-to-one mentoring relationships, a meaningful way to empower and uplift youth in our communities. Examples like hers inspire students to work hard, serve those around them, and find ways to give back to their communities.
Just this past weekend, Allison went on to represent Ohio in the 2025 Miss
Olivia Fosson earned the title of Miss Ohio 2025 in June of this year. She grew up on a Christmas tree farm in Kitts Hill and made history as the first Miss Ohio from Lawrence County.
Olivia is proud of her rural and Appalachian roots and hopes to be a role model for other small-town girls. She is a musical theater graduate of Oklahoma City University and is currently pursuing a law degree at The Ohio State University.
Olivia's community service initiative focuses on the importance of fueling your body and recognizing when you need rest. It is her mission to share her story so that those struggling with body image issues know they aren't alone. She hopes to promote sustainable habits and a positive self-image for the next generation.
Olivia represented our Buckeye State in the Miss America competition this past weekend, showcasing the best Ohio has to offer and making her hometown proud.
These programs are a part of the Miss America scholarship organization, the largest scholarship provider to young women in the world.
As a father of three girls, I am happy to see young women like Allison and Olivia setting a great example for girls around them of confidence, a solid work ethic, and a drive to serve others.
This program is more than just a pageant. It promotes healthy living, creative expression, and academic achievement, while offering scholarship opportunities that help young women achieve their educational dreams. It fosters personal growth, professional development, and a powerful network of female leaders who are making a difference in their communities and beyond. Its mission is simple yet powerful: to prepare great women for the world and the world for great women.
Southern Ohio is proud of Allison's and Olivia's accomplishments and the ways they have given back to our Buckeye State communities. We are cheering them on and can't wait to see what they will achieve in the years ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Matthew Juniper, a former member of the Wellston Police Department, who tragically passed away on August 30, 2025, due to an off-duty accident.
Throughout his life, Matthew demonstrated a deep commitment to his community, serving as a police officer, a former deputy sheriff, and a volunteer firefighter.
Matthew consistently put his community first and was a beloved member of the police department. His colleagues described him as a joy to be around and everything you would want in a police officer.
Beyond his role as a first responder, Matthew was a loving father, son, and brother who enjoyed the simple pleasures of life: hunting, fishing, and spending time with family.
Matthew will be fondly remembered by his friends and family, who will carry him with them in everything they do.
It is people like Matthew who put service above self that make this country exceptional.
My thoughts and prayers are with Matthew's family. He will never be forgotten.
Please join me in a moment of silence to recognize Matthew and pray for his family.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the extraordinary career of my dear friend, Herbert Bellamy, Jr., the longest serving member and chairman of the Buffalo Sewer Authority board, who recently retired after 33 years.
After being appointed to the board in 1991, Herb was elected as chair on July 1, 1994. As chairman, Herb championed diversity, equity, and inclusion among the authority's workforce, appointing the first Black general manager in the authority's history and expanding contract opportunities for minorities and women-owned businesses.
Through his steady leadership, Herb has set a standard for navigating challenges while keeping the focus on service and community, so when the Niagara Business Association sought a new president, it was only fitting that Herb was entrusted with the role this past July.
In each and every endeavor, Herb has built a culture of accountability and empowerment. As CEO of Bellamy Enterprises, Buffalo Black Achievers, and Niagara Falls Black Achievers, among many other hats he wears, Herb has consistently created platforms that amplify excellence in our community and nurture the next generation of leaders.
Building on his father, Herb Bellamy, Sr.'s legacy, the Bellamy name remains synonymous with leadership, integrity, and an unwavering commitment to uplifting communities too often overlooked.
The Bellamy family's impact on our community is also felt through Herb and Marilyn, his wife; their three children, Jason, Chantelle, and Brandon; and their grandson, Jaxon.
I have had the distinct privilege of working alongside Herb over the years, and I have seen firsthand the quiet strength, humility, and conviction he brings to every room.
Herb has helped lay the foundation for a more just, more inclusive, and more vibrant future for every western New Yorker. I thank Herb for his service, for his vision, and for showing all of us what it means to lead with heart, with purpose, and with people in mind.
May his next chapter be filled with the same passion and dedication that have defined his incredible journey so far. On behalf of a grateful community, State, and Nation, I wish my good friend, Herb Bellamy, Jr., nothing but the best and Godspeed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Minnesota State University, Mankato, on the grand opening of their new Maverick Innovation Gateway.
This center represents the very best of southern Minnesota, where innovation meets hard work and where our next generation of leaders will gain the skills to drive our economy forward.
With the support of community partners like Nidec and many others, this facility will provide students with hands-on experience, foster entrepreneurship, and prepare young people to meet the workforce demands of tomorrow.
As a proud Minnesotan, I know firsthand the impact that institutions like MSU-Mankato have on our families, our businesses, and the vitality of our region.
The Maverick Innovation Gateway will be an invaluable resource for students not only to build the skills necessary to fill critical jobs but to take what they are learning in the classroom and translate it to real-world job experiences.
This new addition to the MSU campus is more than just a building. It is a promise to students and employers that southern Minnesota is and will remain a hub of opportunity and innovation across our State and Nation.
Mr. Speaker, today, I congratulate President Inch, faculty, staff, students, and the entire Mankato community on this exciting achievement.
Mr. Speaker, working people are sick and tired of corporate greed. It is time to say enough is enough.
Last year, Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol made almost $96 million. The average Starbucks worker made less than $15,000 a year. They would have to work more than 6,000 years to match Starbucks' CEO pay.
While Starbucks is among the worst, it is not the only one in the United States. Among the 100 S&P 500 companies with the lowest worker pay, the
This is absurd, and it is immoral. It is corporate greed. It leads to income inequality in our country and drives wage stagnation. It doesn't have to be like this.
This is why I am introducing the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act. While these CEOs float around on their yachts, millions of Americans, our residents, are drowning in credit card debt and struggling to keep their heads above water.
This level of inequality is a threat to our democracy, and this kind of economic power concentrated in a few hands truly hurts our families.
CEOs in the 1970s made roughly 25 times the average pay of their workers. Today, it is 290 times more. I want folks to think about that because these are workers who depend on us, the Federal Government, to subsidize these poverty wages. They are on Medicaid and getting food assistance because their CEOs are focused on profit and their own pay instead of taking care of their workers.
This bill would apply higher corporate tax rates to companies that pay their CEOs higher amounts of compensation compared to their workers. It is triggered if it is 50-1. That is the trigger, 50-1, that a company will pay more in corporate tax if that is the case. The greater the ratio, the larger the increase in the tax rate.
This will not only incentivize more reasonable CEO pay packages, but it would also compel companies to increase their workers' pay and take care of their workforce.
This level of inequality we face is a threat, again, to our families' economic stability and livelihood. In this Chamber we constantly have to subsidize. We constantly have to take care of the workers when their CEOs and the companies don't do that.
I urge my colleagues to please support the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans already voted to give $5 trillion tax breaks to the richest Americans, paid for by ripping food from children's mouths and kicking 17 million people off of their healthcare.
Trump's big betrayal bill--and that is what I call it because it is a betrayal to the American people--also included $150 billion for the Pentagon's war machine. Here we are this week, again, debating another obscene $892.6 billion military budget. It is not helping our veterans. That is not where they get, literally, healthcare, mental health support, and the things they need. That is over a trillion dollars to Trump's so-called Department of War, even after the Pentagon failed seven audits in a row.
As recently as 2023, the Pentagon could not even account for 62 percent of its assets--a trillion dollars, while the President is deploying troops in our neighborhoods and threatening to go to war against American cities.
It seems my colleagues can always find time and money for war, but when it comes to clean water, when it comes to being able to address the needs of our people, there is never enough money.
Why is it that when it comes to, again, trying to make sure people have healthcare, being able to address the Housing crisis, being able to tell our families that we are doing the best that we can, all I see is the bipartisan support for a war machine budget that can't pass an audit?
I want people to look at this and pay attention because they will never, ever fully fund Medicaid, universal school meals for every hungry child, or guarantee healthcare as a human right in our country. I think maybe it is because many of my colleagues in this Chamber are actively profiting financially when they vote to pass more funding for weapons and war because they own stock in war manufacturing.
I introduced an amendment to this war machine budget to add the Stop Politicians Profiting from War Act to put an end to this corruption by banning Members of Congress and their families from owning defense stocks.
My colleagues should not be able to use their positions of power to get rich from defense contractors while voting to pass more funding for war. Our elected officials should not be able to profit off of death.
The American people deserve Representatives who vote in the best interests of our families. We are elected to serve the public, not to serve stock portfolios or campaign contributors.
The American people deserve better. We are sick and tired of politicians profiting off of endless wars.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of former Seguin mayor, Mrs. Betty Ann Matthies.
Born and raised in Guadalupe County, Mrs. Matthies graduated from Seguin High School in 1953 and went on to become a registered nurse.
After marrying her beloved husband, ``Pokey,'' she returned to Seguin to begin her 42-year career helping shape and grow what is now Guadalupe Regional Medical Center.
Throughout the years, Mrs. Matthies rose through the ranks, holding to her guiding principle: Always do what is best for the patient.
Following her work in healthcare, she carried her passion for service with the Seguin City Council and her work as mayor, always doing what is best for the community.
Whether as a leader, a mother, or a friend, she encouraged everyone to pursue their passions and live life to the fullest. Her inspiring legacy and service will always be remembered.
Ms. DE LA CRUZ. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the life of Sabrina Walker-Hernandez, a truly remarkable and selfless woman who dedicated her life to serving her country, her family, and the community of Edinburg, Texas.
After serving 4 years in the U.S. Army, she earned a master's degree in public administration from UTRGV. For 10 years, she served as the CEO of the Boys & Girls Club of Edinburg in the RGV where she helped raise over $11 million for their new building to provide more young Texans with space to learn and grow.
In addition to being a gifted speaker and a published author, she gave her time to numerous boards, including the Museum of South Texas History.
Her compassion shone through during her own battle with cancer, and she used her journey to raise funds and awareness for the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society.
In 2023, she was recognized as the Woman of the Year by the Edinburg Chamber of Commerce for her community service.
Her incredible life and legacy are remembered by her family, friends, and all of south Texas.
Ms. DE LA CRUZ. Madam Speaker, today I proudly rise to celebrate a landmark moment for the Rio Grande Valley, the inaugural season of the UTRGV football program.
Four years in the making, the UTRGV Vaqueros have finally hit the field along with their new drill team and marching band.
A new tradition has begun in the Rio Grande Valley. Nearly 13,000 proud fans came to watch the first game against Sul Ross.
The valley is excited to unite around this Rio Grande Valley football team, and we are ready to keep cheering our team on. We wish you the best season. V's up.
Madam Speaker, as we mark the solemn eighth anniversary of Hurricanes Irma and Maria making landfall in the Virgin Islands, each as Category 5 hurricanes, I rise today to speak about the remarkable resilience of Virgin Islanders, the critical Federal partnership that secured the necessary funding for our recovery, and the transformative opportunity which is on the cusp of realization for our people.
On September 6, 2017, Hurricane Irma pummeled the territory, shredded roofs, destroyed our utilities, and shattered lives.
Two weeks later, Hurricane Maria made landfall in the Virgin Islands, wreaking destruction across parts of the territory already spared from Irma.
The devastation was complete and overwhelming. Our hospitals were destroyed. Schools were left in ruins. Our children shared schools for 2 years, and thousands of homes were uninhabitable. Our residents lived without electricity for 9 months.
In those darkest hours, I witnessed something extraordinary: the unbreakable spirit of Virgin Islanders. We came together to support one another, rebuild our community, and lay the foundation for a stronger and more resilient future.
While others simply saw the need to rebuild, I saw an opportunity for transformation. Many in my home in leadership said I was asking for too much and I was out of place.
By showing Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle how many times infrastructure had been rebuilt after storms and how expensive that was, Congress recognized that the prudent replacement required that the Virgin Islands should rebuild not how things were at the time of the storm but how they should have been.
As the Representative in Congress for my home at the time, I knew that recovery of this magnitude would require unprecedented Federal support and innovative approaches.
That is why we fought for and secured transformational changes in Federal law through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. This legislation allowed FEMA, for the duration of our recovery, to rebuild our critical infrastructure with resilient design features up to the latest industry building standards, regardless of what existed before the storms.
This was not just a policy change. It was a paradigm shift. Instead of simply replacing what we lost, we could build infrastructure designed to withstand future storms and serve our community for generations.
I personally brought drafters of the legislation to meet with local government and FEMA officials to ensure that they understood the intent of this body in changing that law.
The numbers speak for themselves of the historic investments in the territory: almost $2 billion for rebuilding of our hospitals, several billion dollars for our schools, and more than $4 billion for the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority. There was a total of $20 billion flowing to our population.
Recognizing that even this massive investment could be undermined by local matching requirements, I worked tirelessly with the last administration to secure an increase in the Federal cost share to 95 percent for public assistance categories and 98 percent for larger critical infrastructure. This will save our territory $1 billion in matching funds that we simply do not have.
Unfortunately, the local government has, at times, exacerbated the slow pace of rebuilding. The first years after the storm were not used to sufficiently build capacity or develop integrated project management, and we have had fits and starts in rebuilding.
Our isolation and relatively small size creates difficulty in obtaining supplies and labor. This is further exacerbated by delays that occurred at HUD and FEMA. However, the story of the Virgin Islands recovery is, ultimately, a story about partnership between Federal and local government; between Congress and our territory; and, most importantly, among Virgin Islanders themselves.
We must be focused, transparent, adaptable, and driven to make our home the jewel of the Caribbean. It is a testament to what we can achieve when we refuse to accept that natural disasters must define our destiny.
As we move forward, we carry with us the lessons learned from Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria. We cannot and we will not squander this transformational opportunity. We will build smarter, stronger, more resilient, and we will continue to prove that Virgin Islanders, undeterred by any challenge, remain VI Strong.
Madam Speaker, I rise today with profound respect to commemorate the life and legacy of Irene Perez Ploke Sgambelluri, a CHamoru daughter of Guam, a survivor of World War II, and a tireless advocate for justice.
At just 10 years old, Irene was eating breakfast with her family when the skies above Guam roared with warplanes. Her father, a U.S. Navy pharmacist, surrendered himself to protect his family, spending years in a Japanese POW camp.
Irene, her mother, and her siblings endured displacement, hunger, forced labor, and cruel treatment under occupation. She gave up her bed so that her grandparents could rest. She helped forage for food, and bore the weight of survival with quiet strength.
At age 13, she witnessed the return of American forces and trekked through mountains and devastation to seek safety, but her story didn't end there. Ms. Irene transformed her pain into purpose. She spoke at schools, ceremonies, and even laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, becoming the first civilian to do so, in honor of Guam's liberation.
Her advocacy helped to secure war reparations for CHamoru survivors, and her home phone became a lifeline for those who were seeking help.
Her grandchildren called her ``the bionic woman,'' a fitting tribute to a woman who defied cancer, embraced technology, and danced through life with grace and grit.
Her legacy is etched not only in the history books but in the hearts of her family and the people of Guam. She reminded us that history lives among us and that the enduring CHamoru spirit would never be forgotten.
Madam Speaker, we thank her. We honor her, and we carry her life forward.
Madam Speaker, death comes for all of us at a time and a place unknown. It may come quietly, after a long illness, or swiftly and violently without warning. None of us are exempt. The youngest and the oldest among us each will face that moment. We know it. We fear it. Still, we carry on, putting it out of our minds so that we can live, work, and love.
In that certainty, we are united. Death does not discriminate by race or religion, gender or sexual orientation, or economic status. We are all equal in our mortality.
On September 11, 24 years ago, death came suddenly and violently. It struck without mercy or logic. It took office workers, firefighters, police officers, maintenance workers, financial executives, flight attendants, secretaries. It took Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and those with no faith tradition. They were targeted simply because they showed up to work.
Others died trying to save them. Those first responders--the brave men and women of the FDNY, the New York Police Department, EMS, and Port Authority--ran into danger knowing full well the costs. Some lives were saved because of them, and many of those heroes never came home.
The attacks were an attack of hate, of an ideology turned into violence. In highjacking airplanes, those terrorists tried to hijack our values, to cause casualties in pursuit of their beliefs, and to use death as a weapon to divide us.
Yet, even as we still grieve, as we continue to lose 9/11 survivors to illnesses from that day, we remember something greater: that humanity goes on, even as individual lives are lost. Children who lost parents have grown up. Parents who lost children have passed on. Young Americans have graduated high school who were not yet born on that clear, bright, September morning. We are reminded that life continues, but it is up to us to give it meaning.
In a deeper sense, we are all on the 107th floor of that day. We are all aboard flight 93. We all carry the weight of that day, not just in mourning but in mission.
The universality of loss can and should be the foundation for our unity, and so I ask: Why, then, are we so divided? Have we learned nothing from
Evil still exists. It takes on many forms. It still tries to convince us that terrorism or hatred can be justified and that violence can serve a cause. We must always reject that lie.
The deaths on that day 24 years ago give us a chance to remember. We remember the lost, and we honor the brave. We reaffirm our shared responsibility to stand against hate and those who use death and terror to divide us, and we hold fast to our common humanity.
Let us say a prayer for the fallen. Let us say a prayer for the living, and let us walk forward together in the shadow of that somber day.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kreider Farms of Lancaster County on 90 years in business.
Kreider Farms began in 1935 when Noah Kreider and his wife, Mary Hershey, bought the Hershey farm from Mary's father. Starting with 50 chickens and a dozen cows, the following decades saw the Penn Township farm expand on their dairy and egg production.
In 1972, Kreider Farms built their own processing plant and retail store for their milk and ice cream.
Madam Speaker, 90 years later, Kreider Farms is the last full-scale egg and dairy farm in the United States. The fourth-generation business employs 475 people and encompasses 3,000 acres.
They are the largest egg producer in Pennsylvania and help make Pennsylvania's 11th Congressional District the second-ranked egg- producing district in the Nation.
Kreider Farms' business practices are also noteworthy. Their focus on environmental responsibility and sustainability has won them numerous awards, and they are the first farm in the Northeast to be American Humane Certified.
Kreider Farms has brought joy and nutrition to countless families across Pennsylvania's 11th Congressional District and the Nation for an astounding 90 years.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate Chairman Ron Kreider and Kreider Farms for their hard work and continuation of Pennsylvania's rich agricultural legacy. I wish them many more years of continued success.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Shady Maple Smorgasbord on 40 years in business.
In July 1985, Marv and Miriam Weaver added on to their Shady Maple Farm Market and cafeteria with a new business venture, the Shady Maple Smorgasbord.
Since then, Shady Maple has become the largest and one of the most highly rated buffets in the country. The restaurant covers 161,000 square feet, seats nearly 1,200 customers, and employs hundreds of people. Specializing in authentic Pennsylvania Dutch food, the buffet features hundreds of food options as well as a from-scratch bakery and in-house smoked meats.
Shady Maple Smorgasbord is just one part of the larger Shady Maple enterprise, which includes the farm market, a gift shop, and RV sales. The company has remained in family hands under Marv and Miriam's sons, CEO Lin Weaver and President Phil Weaver. The farm market and smorgasbord complex employ 750 people and attracts over a million customers a year.
Madam Speaker, as Shady Maple celebrates 40 years in business, I commend the Weavers for their hard work on transforming a small cafeteria into a culinary destination that draws people from around the globe. May their success continue for the next 40 years and beyond.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the York County Agricultural Land Preservation Board for conserving the 50,000th acre of farmland in York County, which occurred at Star Rock Farms.
Since its founding in 1990, the board has worked tirelessly to safeguard York County's rich agricultural heritage. Over the years, York County's farmland preservation program has become a model for protecting farmland from development and ensuring its availability for future generations.
On August 20, 2025, the board celebrated this historic milestone with the preservation of Star Rock Farms in Brogue, Pennsylvania, a family- owned, third-generation operation led by cousins Rob Barley, Abe Barley, Jr., and Tom Barley.
Star Rock Farms was founded in 1932 by Abram M. Barley with the purchase of 12 acres in Manor Township in Lancaster County.
Star Rock Farms has been a model operation and now raises dairy, beef, and swine in addition to growing crops in a sustainable manner.
To date, 354 farms have been permanently preserved across York County, ensuring that our region's farming tradition continues to thrive.
York County has shown how strong partnerships between government and landowners are necessary to protecting our Nation's farms. York County ranks third in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and ninth in the Nation in preserved farmland acreage. Together with Lancaster County, both located in Pennsylvania's 11th Congressional District, our region proudly stands as a national leader in farmland preservation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the York County Agricultural Land Preservation Board not only for protecting farmland but for preserving a way of life that sustains families, communities, and our Nation. I also thank Star Rock Farms for continuing to lead the way for agriculture in Pennsylvania's 11th District and for their efforts to support farmland preservation.
Madam Speaker, I rise because Donald Trump and House Republicans lied to Americans when they promised to lower costs.
Now, they are even trying to rebrand their so-called big, beautiful bill with a new name about working families. No matter what label they slap on it, the facts don't change. Trump and Republicans' big, ugly law makes the cost of healthcare go up and takes away healthcare from working families.
Republicans hand out an average of $80,000 in tax breaks to every millionaire. Where do they get this money from? Each millionaire tax cut is paid for by taking away insurance from four people. Republicans are stealing from the American people to fund these tax cuts.
What does it mean when four people lose their coverage? It means a mom with diabetes may have to skip her insulin or a dad ignores chest pains because he can't afford the ER visit. It means your child missing their asthma treatments and struggling to breathe in class. These are real lives on the line.
Overall, the big, ugly bill will take away healthcare coverage from 16 million people. When people lose coverage, they get sicker, there are longer wait times, hospital visits rise, and costs skyrocket for families and the entire system.
House Democrats are fighting for a different vision. We are fighting to make sure that if you work hard, you and your family should have healthcare and should be able to afford to see a doctor, fill a prescription, and get the care you need without going bankrupt.
While Republicans protect tax breaks for billionaires, Democrats are working to protect affordable coverage, lower prescription drug costs, and expand access to healthcare for working families because in our America, healthcare is not a privilege for the wealthy few. It is a right for every American.
This week, six members of the U.S. Supreme Court decided to allow ICE raids in Los Angeles that are rooted in racial profiling. This is a direct assault on our Constitution and on the very idea of equal justice under law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it best when she wrote: ``We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.''
I agree and join that dissent. These raids are not about law and order. They are about targeting immigrants because of the color of their skin, the language they speak, the neighborhoods they live in, and the jobs they hold. I dissent.
ICE is not chasing criminals. It is chasing families. I dissent.
Nationwide, 71 percent of those in ICE custody at the end of July had no criminal convictions. Let's think about that. Tens of thousands of lives upended, children left without parents, families torn apart not because of what people did but because of who they are. That does not make us safer. It makes us weaker.
It destabilizes our schools, our neighborhoods, and our workplaces. It harms industries that keep our economy running--construction, agriculture, hospitality--all while wasting taxpayer dollars on cruelty instead of real public safety. I dissent.
Families across this country now live in fear because their very existence has been criminalized. This is not justice. This is persecution. I dissent.
Six members of the Supreme Court may have turned their backs on equal justice, but Congress cannot. We must defend the Constitution, protect immigrant families, and ensure that no American community is left to live under the shadow of racial profiling in immigration enforcement.
For those reasons, I join Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and I say: I dissent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Madam Speaker, for decades, Jeffrey Epstein's abuse was an open secret powerful people knew. Agencies knew. Some in government knew. Yet, year after year, he continued to operate in trafficking, exploiting, and destroying the lives of children and young women.
This was not only sexual violence. There were financial crimes. Epstein's empire was built on money, blackmail, and connections, and those connections reached into the highest halls of power.
What makes this scandal unbearable is not just Epstein's evil but the way institutions, Republican and Democratic administrations alike, looked away. No administration, past or present, has fully stepped up to bring the truth to light. The very agencies charged with protecting the vulnerable, instead, protected the powerful.
Now, under Donald Trump, that coverup has gone from negligence to active obstruction. Trump promised to release the files. He promised the American people transparency. Instead, he and his handpicked lieutenants have buried the truth under a mountain of lies and contradictions.
Let's review the record. In June of 2024, Trump said he would declassify the Epstein files. His campaign even celebrated that promise online. On January 30, Trump's FBI Director, Kash Patel, vowed to release everything. On February 21, Attorney General Pam Bondi said the client list was literally on her desk. As of today, none of that has materialized.
However, when Bondi told Trump in May that his own name appeared in those files, everything changed. Suddenly, the files were too dangerous to release. Then the Department of Justice claimed there was no client list at all. Trump went from promising full transparency to calling the files boring, then a hoax, then a dead issue. This is not transparency. This is a coverup.
Madam Speaker, when leaders abuse their office to shield predators, that is corruption of the highest order. When hundreds of survivors are denied justice to protect one man's reputation, that is a crime against the very idea of democracy.
The majority often speaks about morality. We are told about protecting children, about being pro-life, and standing up against human trafficking. So I ask my colleagues on the other side: Where is the outrage now? Where is that moral clarity when the lives of trafficked and abused girls demand your courage?
This is not about partisanship. This is about whether the United States Congress will side with survivors or with abusers. Will we protect the powerful or will we protect the powerless?
Trump threatens Republican Members who demand justice in this matter. Like Epstein survivors, the majority are now terrorized by men in power to stay silent. I know that many aspects of this criminally corrupt scandal are horrible to look at and think about, but we don't have to be divided. Together, we can be the solution and send a message that we will not let this happen again.
Here is my demand: Release the files, every name, every deposition, every page, unredacted, except to protect the survivors. No more excuses. No more delays, and no more hiding.
Madam Speaker, sunlight is the oldest disinfectant. It is the only way to end the rot of corruption that let Epstein thrive, and it is the only way to give survivors the justice they deserve.
Right now, there is a bipartisan effort in this House to force a vote on releasing the files. We need only two more Republicans to join us, two Members who believe their oath to the truth is stronger than their loyalty to Donald Trump. We need two Members who are willing to live up to the words they so often speak about morality, family, and protecting children.
Let me say this: Americans are divided on so much today, but on this demand for justice, transparency, and accountability, we are united. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Americans across every community want this coverup to end. At a time when our country desperately needs something to unite around, this could be it.
The American people have waited long enough. The survivors have waited long enough. If our justice system means anything, it must mean justice for the vulnerable human beings that powerful men thought they could use and throw away. No more secrecy, no more corruption, no more protection for predators.
Madam Speaker, history will remember what we do in this moment. Here is the truth: If we in Congress cannot unify to defy the most well- connected predator of our time, what good are we?
Madam Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor Kelly Pierce, who tragically and unexpectedly passed away on August 1 of this year.
Kelly was a beloved mom of three boys. She was a daughter, a granddaughter, a friend, a cousin, an aunt, and a women's soccer coach. Kelly coached at Pima Community College, Mountain View High School, CDO Soccer Club, and FC Tucson, but she was most recently known for coaching the Salpointe High School Lancers varsity women's soccer team, where she graduated from in 1999.
As a player, Kelly won two State championships, and later as coach, she led the Lancers to six State championships in the past 8 years, a truly remarkable feat.
Only 44 years old, Kelly was passionate and devoted to her family and her coaching. She was widely known in our community for her soccer talent and had been involved with youth soccer for nearly 20 years. She was an inspiration to young female athletes, instilling self-confidence and their power as individuals.
Among her cousins, she was the leader with all the confidence who was admired with the biggest, kindest, and most giving heart. Later in life, her boys were her everything. She was a
My prayers are with her three sons; Tyler, Brady, and Camden; her partner, Joey Bernier; her brothers, Jeff and Donald Pierce; and her large extended family, including her mom, grandmother, and cousins; plus all the players she loved so much, both current and former.
Kelly truly reflects what I love the most about our community and our district: hardworking, passionate, and dedicated. She leaves a humongous hole in our community and will be dearly missed.
As her family, friends, and the entire Salpointe community grieves, know that our community is alongside them. May Kelly's legacy on this Earth continue to inspire all of us today and our future generations. She will be dearly missed. May she rest in peace.
Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of a civil rights icon and a beloved Birmingham pastor, Bishop Calvin Woods, Sr., who passed away on August 16, 2025, at the age of 91.
Bishop Woods was a cherished member of the Birmingham community whose moral leadership served as a guiding light during the civil rights movement and beyond.
Born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama, Bishop Woods attended Parker High School before earning his bachelor's degree from Miles College. He went on to complete several more degrees at the Universal Baptist Institute and Union Baptist Seminary, as well as the School of Truth.
In 1956, Bishop Woods began his nearly six decades of involvement in the civil rights movement, cofounding the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights alongside his brother, Reverend Abraham Woods, and the Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth.
Bishop Woods worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King and participated in numerous civil rights demonstrations, including the Birmingham campaign and the 1963 March on Washington. Following the shooting of five African-American protesters at a Birmingham supermarket, Bishop Woods planned public protests and later filed a lawsuit challenging the unjust suspension of schoolchildren for demonstrating against segregation.
Despite being beaten, arrested, fined, and imprisoned, Bishop Woods was never afraid to stand up for what he believed was right. As a result of his fearless advocacy, he was appointed by Dr. King as a SCLC City Convener for the Birmingham Ministers Leadership Conference.
Bishop Woods was a devoted man of God whose love for his family and his community was unmatched. He spent more than three decades as the pastor of Shiloh Baptist Church in Birmingham, and held numerous leadership roles in the community.
He served as a board member of the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute and a member of the National Baptist Convention Board of Directors.
In 2006, Bishop Woods was named president of the Birmingham SCLC, and one year later, he became president of the New Era Baptist State Convention.
Madam Speaker, on a personal note, I am forever grateful for the sacrifices that Bishop Woods made in the name of equality and justice for all. He stands as a testament to the power of ordinary Americans to achieve extraordinary social change. I know that I get to walk the Halls of Congress as Alabama's first Black Congresswoman because of his courageous efforts.
The city of Birmingham, the State of Alabama, and our entire Nation are indebted to him for his tireless fight to end segregation.
On behalf of Alabama's Seventh Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the extraordinary life and legacy of Bishop Calvin Woods, Sr.
Madam Speaker, may he rest in peace and may his legacy live on in the lives that he touched and in the change that he sparked.
Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about a very troubling concern that is taking place in Congress.
Madam Speaker, you may be aware that the so-called DOGE group, a group of individuals that was put together by Elon Musk and President Trump that were unvetted and unaccountable, have now gotten the data of more than 300 million of our fellow Americans. They have taken that data and put it in a cloud, making it vulnerable to being hacked. It is an unsecured position by people who had no right to go into individuals' personal data and information.
Madam Speaker, I asked Chairman Estes yesterday if he would call a hearing on this so that we could bring the whistleblower in who made this evident and clear that this data is being kidnapped and taken to the cloud, which means, for those of you that don't understand this, an unsecure place.
The Social Security Administration has no idea. When I asked my fellow Republican colleagues if they had any idea where this data was, they had no idea either. It is long overdue that, as an equal branch of government, we hold the executive branch accountable when they are taking people's personal data and Social Security information and exposing it. There is no reason why any 24-year-old, unvetted, unaccountable person should have access to any American's Social Security information.
Madam Speaker, you have more than 177,000 Social Security recipients in your own district. Is there not one Republican who will stand up and say: We need a hearing. We demand to know where this information is. We want to know why they need this information.
I think you know why. It is because they want to privatize Social Security. They are dissembling Social Security from within.
Democrats are aware of this, but all citizens--whether Republican, Democrat, or unaffiliated--ought to be concerned and shocked by the fact that your data, your personal information, has been hacked by people who were not vetted and are unaccountable and have placed this in a cloud, meaning in an unsecure place, that anyone could hack into. Imagine that the Social Security administration has no idea what they have done with this data.
We asked Elon Musk and DOGE to come before this Committee on Ways and Means, and they refused to come. Why? Because they believe they are above the law. They don't believe that they are accountable to an equal branch of government. Now they have gone in and taken the data that they were after. Why is Elon Musk after it? Because that data contains information about the $2.7 trillion of the people's money that is in Social Security.
If I sound a little angry, it is because I am. Every American ought to be angered and outraged that this is going on. We vowed to protect their information and keep it safe and secure. This administration and Elon Musk have sent DOGE into Social Security to take this information. It is morally wrong. It is not legal, and it is long overdue that we take action.
Madam Speaker, when the Armed Services Committee reported out this year's NDAA, it was a bill I was proud to support after months of bipartisan work, careful oversight, and real provisions to strengthen our national defense. That is the kind of process this committee is known for.
As we have sadly seen before, the amendments being considered are largely partisan poison pills set to, once again, diminish the bipartisan work of our committee. Through a closed, partisan process, Rules Committee Republicans stripped away balance and accountability. They denied Democrats and, by extension, our constituents the chance to openly debate
Not surprisingly, not one of the ten amendments I submitted were made in order.
Let me tell you what Republicans apparently don't care about: Accountability for predators.
I offered an amendment to disinter Dr. Robert McCormick Browne, a man accused of sexually abusing dozens of students in Hawaii, from the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. A predator like that does not deserve to rest amongst heroes. The Republicans said no. By refusing to act, they are, once again, protecting a pedophile, allowing him to lie in a place of honor instead of standing amongst survivors and justice.
Taking care of veterans. I proposed suspending commissary debit card fees that unfairly tax veterans and their caregivers. I also proposed eliminating medical copays for Native Hawaiian veterans, the same healthcare benefits that Native American and Alaska Native veterans currently receive. Republicans said no. Apparently, they believe veterans should keep getting nickeled-and-dimed for basic healthcare and food.
Madam Speaker, with regard to safe housing for servicemembers, I proposed an amendment to increase investment in barracks for unaccompanied servicemembers and establish clear timeliness standards for maintenance work orders.
No servicemembers should be forced to live with black mold, broken plumbing, and unsafe conditions. I have walked through those barracks myself.
Republicans said no, again. I guess they are fine sending troops off to war and combat and then sending them home to live in squalor.
With regard to standing up to China, I introduced an amendment requiring congressional approval before advanced AI chips, critical to our most sophisticated weapons and intelligence systems, could be exported to Beijing. It was blocked.
I also proposed raising the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative cap to $8.5 billion, fully paid for with existing tariff revenue that is coming in, to strengthen Indo-Pacific deterrence. Republicans still said no. If this is their idea of strength, China will be the one that wins.
It wasn't just me that didn't get amendments included in the NDAA. Many of my colleagues put forward commonsense ideas like prohibiting the deportation of veterans without due process, as in the case of my constituent, Mr. Sae Joon Park, or clarifying that the National Guard can't be turned into an immigration police force. Yet both of these amendments were blocked.
Madam Speaker, here is the truth. It is an intentional choice that we make to take an oath to be of the people and for the people.
In a democracy, we debate. We vote. We let the American people see exactly where we stand. In an autocracy, that choice is stripped away. Dissent is silenced, and decisions are made behind closed doors.
That is the difference. That is the danger. That is a choice. Shutting down debate isn't just about dysfunction. It is a betrayal of our oath and our disservice to every single servicemember, veteran, and family who depends on us.
They fought for us. They have sacrificed for us. They have died for us. They deserve leaders who fight for them and not politicians who game the process.
I will always stand up for all of Hawaii's servicemembers, their families, and the communities that support them. Their sacrifices inspire me every single day.
Madam Speaker, there is another way. There is a better way. It is called democracy, and it begins with a choice.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate a remarkable milestone for the city of Arlington, Texas. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the Arlington Chamber of Commerce.
As the city's oldest and largest business organization, the Chamber has been a pillar of the community for eight decades, serving over 1,000 members and advocating for businesses of all sizes.
The hardworking families and entrepreneurs of Main Street are the backbone of our economy, and it is vital that they have the resources they need to succeed.
For 80 years, Arlington Chamber members have worked tirelessly to address key issues facing small businesses throughout the community.
Through securing and expanding resources, the Chamber has brought immeasurable growth to our city.
I commend the Arlington Chamber for 80 years of excellence, and I thank them for their continued commitment to serving Texas. In God we trust.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress but as a proud Oregonian.
Donald Trump is once again threatening to deploy troops against American civilians. We have already seen him abuse Federal power in cities like D.C. and L.A., and now he is targeting Portland.
Let me be clear: Donald Trump is punishing cities like Portland simply for standing against his authoritative power. This isn't about safety. It is political retribution, plain and simple. Portland doesn't need his help. We are resilient, creative, and strong.
To my fellow Oregonians: I am standing with Governor Kotek, Attorney General Dan Rayfield, our delegation, and local leaders to defend our communities and our rights. I will use every tool available-- legislation, litigation, and public pressure--to stop this dangerous overreach.
We will not be bullied. We will not be silenced, and we will not back down. In Oregon, we fly with our own wings. We rise, we resist, and we stand together, undaunted and unafraid.
Mr. Speaker, last week I rose to recognize the dawn of the newest college football rivalry in the great State of Georgia, and today I rise to honor the winner of the inaugural Clash of Highway 29, the LaGrange College Panthers led by Coach Wes Dodson.
On Saturday night, the Panthers defeated the Point University Skyhawks 36-14. I attended the game with the president of LaGrange College, Dr. Susanna Baxter; the president of Point University, Dr. Stacy Bartlett; and administrators of both schools.
Mr. Speaker, this matchup was exciting from the beginning. On the first play of the opening drive, LaGrange converted a double pass for a touchdown. On the ensuing kickoff, Point responded with a 90-yard kick return for a touchdown. LaGrange's offense was led by three talented players: quarterback Henry Brodnax, who finished with 265 passing yards and three touchdowns; kicker Landon Eaker, who was perfect on the night with three field goals and two PATs; and wide receiver Dami'on Thompson, who, in his first-ever collegiate game, was honored as the USA South Athletic Conference's Rookie of the Week.
Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate the Panthers' victory, we also remember their teammate, Marquis Rice, who tragically passed away during the off season. The LaGrange College Panthers honored Marquis with an incredible performance and an indisputable victory on Saturday evening.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor my parents, Chris and Jack Morrison.
I am a lifelong Democrat, but I was raised in a primarily Republican family. We debated politics and the issues of the day around the dinner table. We didn't always agree, but we respected and learned from each other.
My brother and I were encouraged to think independently and to stand up for what we believed in. We knew that we were loved and that they always had our backs.
We were raised to believe in the promise of America and with the expectation that it was our responsibility to serve our community and other people. My parents lived that ethic and led by example through serving in the military, running for office, working for nonprofits, through their many and deep friendships, through their care for our extended family, through their embrace of their son and daughter-in- law, and through their love and deep engagement with their grandchildren.
We learned that service was important and expected, and we have endeavored to live up to their example. My parents are my heroes, and encapsulating what they mean to me in 1 minute is impossible.
However, let me say directly to them, as they are in the gallery today: I am so proud and grateful that you are my parents, and I love you very much.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that the rules do not permit references to individuals in the gallery.
Mr. Speaker, President Donald Trump is cracking down on murderers who threaten American families. Trump has signed an executive order to eliminate cashless bail. This will prevent Democratic district attorneys from putting criminals back on the streets, murdering random citizens. This could have prevented the merciless murder of Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska on August 22 in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Her killer had 14 previous arrests. Her merciless murder was concealed for 10 days by Charlotte Mayor Lyles, as she faced a primary election yesterday. The mayor should resign, as proposed by Charlotte- area Congressman Ralph Norman.
Every other week, I am grateful to fly through Charlotte, with its professional staff, but as long as Lyles is mayor, I will avoid the Charlotte airport because every passenger in Charlotte is at risk of being stabbed to death.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin's lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump, while Putin is invading Poland with Iranian drones 100 miles into Poland yesterday from Belarus, as Putin tries to resurrect the failed Soviet Union.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, for the 38th time, to call on the Trump administration to restore lifesaving food aid for starving children around the world.
It has been 8 months since the Trump administration put a stop-work order in place. As a result, there are thousands of boxes of lifesaving aid meant to save the lives of starving children sitting in warehouses in Rhode Island and Georgia instead of getting to the kids who need them.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we are voting on the annual Defense bill. I just want to point out that this is a national security issue because when starvation and famine are permitted to progress unimpeded around the world, it yields terrorism, increased violence, and extremism that is a risk to our own Nation's defense.
When we step back, our adversaries, like China, step in to save the day in the developing world. That is bad for the United States and for democracies all across the globe.
Mr. Speaker, I call on the Trump administration, once again: Restore lifesaving food aid for children.
Mr. Speaker, I have exciting news to share about a remarkable young woman, and her name is Mary Gray Hardy.
The election results are in, and Mary Gray was elected as Spring Creek High School's student body president. Her victory is not just any win here. Mary Gray may be one of the few, if not the only, students with Down syndrome in our State serving as her school's student body president.
Mary Gray's classmates elected her not because of her Down syndrome but because they believe in her. I have been around Mary Gray, and she is nothing but amazing.
With the news of her election, it brought tears of happiness, and they flowed freely.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Mary Gray--I am sorry--Madam President. Actually, that has a special ring, President Hardy.
Mary Gray, keep working hard. Know that your Congressman is praying for your successful presidency and for your school. Your story is part of the American story.
Mr. Speaker, Mary Gray's community, her parents, and I are incredibly proud of her.
Mr. Speaker, when solicitors don't prosecute crimes, when judges and rogue magistrates let thugs out on the streets of America, cases like Iryna Zarutska happen, murders like Iryna Zarutska happen.
I want to pay special attention to a certain solicitor in South Carolina who is not doing her job, who is lying to South Carolinians, and that is Solicitor Scarlett Wilson of the Ninth Judicial Circuit.
Scarlett, I want you to know that I am watching. When you leak evidence, when you politicize rape, when you leak evidence of rape victims, and when you leak evidence of victims who are being stalked or who have been beaten, South Carolina is watching. I am watching. If you don't do your job to protect South Carolinians, there will be consequences.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, on May 30, Severna Park and Maryland's Third Congressional District lost one of our youngest members of our community, Hugh Nie. Hugh was not even 18 months old when he died of sudden, unexplained death in childhood, or SUDC.
Hugh's parents, Eddie and Jessica, who are here today, described him as joy personified. He loved going to the park, circle time at the library, and getting booped in the nose at bath time.
With his loved ones, Hugh read over 1,000 books and was a dear friend to our public library system. In Hugh's memory, our community is now building Hugh's Corner at the Severna Park Library.
Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 400 cases of SUDC in the U.S. every year. Without a known cause or form of prevention, the NIH research conducted on SUDC is critical and could be lifesaving.
I urge my colleagues to join in supporting full funding for the NIH's lifesaving work so that not another family has to experience what the Nies have endured.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the AmeriCorps Seniors Foster Grandparent Program.
This is one of the oldest, most impactful senior service programs in the country. Since 1965, foster grandparents, who are volunteers aged 55 and older, have provided consistent support, mentorship, and care to children and youth.
Through this intergenerational service, they help young people thrive while strengthening communities.
Foster grandparents volunteer their time to help children through tutoring, mentoring, and sometimes providing classroom support to teachers. These grandparents have the ability to help young people in need learn independence, self-confidence, and social skills.
Mr. Speaker, many of us have fond memories of our own grandparents, and I am glad that for the past 60 years the foster grandparent program has helped connect seniors with young people to form these wonderful relationships.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Sarah Katz, an empathetic, driven, and compassionate young woman, whose life was tragically cut short 3 years ago today.
A native of Jersey City and graduate of Elisabeth Irwin High School in New York, Sarah devoted her life to helping others, working with the American Heart Association and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to raise awareness about heart health and the importance of CPR.
Sarah was admired by so many in our community, especially her classmates and mentors at the University of Pennsylvania.
Above all else, she was deeply loved by her family, her parents, Jill and Michael, and her sister, Dana. Amid unimaginable grief, her family turned to action, honoring Sarah's life by advocating for change.
It has been a privilege to join them in this effort, introducing the Sarah Katz Caffeine Safety Act to save lives and prevent more families from having to endure the pain that the Katz family has felt. Every step of the way, their love for Sarah has been at the forefront of their advocacy.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join in this important effort and help drive change that will save lives. May Sarah's memory always be a blessing.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a grateful but sad heart to honor the life of U.S. Senator Fred Harris, a tireless champion for justice, democracy, and the people of New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Senator Harris fought for Native American and civil rights, returned sacred lands to our Tribes, and helped advance the Great Society programs that have lifted millions out of poverty.
His impact goes far beyond his time in the Senate. He created the Fred Harris fellowship that has brought hundreds of UNM students to Washington, D.C., to give them firsthand experience in public service. He was a mentor, an educator, a dear friend, and a hero to so many in our State and across the Nation.
While we grieve his passing, his legacy will live on in the countless people whose lives he has touched and who continue to fight for justice he dedicated his life to and the legacy this United States leaves behind.
Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 682 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. 3838.
Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) 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. 3838) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, amendments en bloc No. 4 printed in part A of House Report 119-255 offered by the gentleman from
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in part A of House Report 199-255.
Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits provisions of gender transition procedures including surgery or medication through the Exceptional Family Member Program.
The Exceptional Family Member Program provides resources to military families with special needs. This program is designed for military spouses, children, or other dependent family members who require ongoing medical or educational services, such as individuals with asthma, autism, chronic respiratory illnesses, intellectual disabilities, and much more.
Under the Biden administration, the Air Force suggested using the Exceptional Family Member Program for families who want to help their child transition. Democrats also introduced a bill to expand this program to include transgender dependence and specifically lists gender dysphoria as a qualifying medical need to be included in the program.
My amendment ensures that we reserve this valuable program for its original intent to help families with special needs by prohibiting the use of the program for the provision or referral for gender transition procedures such as gender surgery or medication.
The Exceptional Family Member Program, otherwise known as EFMP, should be used fully to support families with special needs and chronic illnesses, not for gender transition procedures, as has been mentioned.
The program, as it was intended, specifically lists certain things for identifying families with special needs which includes the following: potentially life-threatening or chronic conditions, current or chronic mental health conditions, asthma or other respiratory- related diagnoses with chronic recurring symptoms, intellectual or developmental delays, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, chronic conditions that require adaptive equipment which assistive technology devices, or environmental or architectural considerations.
Allowing gender transitioning procedures through the EFMP goes against the very intention the program was designed for. It provides valuable resources for families who otherwise would not have the funds to do so. Gender transitioning is not covered under any of the criteria for identifying individuals eligible for the EFMP.
Mr. Chair, I ask for adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, there are going to be five amendments now that are all targeting the transgender community. I want to make sure we understand a couple of really sort of broad themes and why these amendments are so problematic.
Number one is the transgender community has been targeted and discriminated against aggressively. If my colleagues troll through rightwing radio or online messaging, they are called freaks and weirdos. They are dehumanized on a very consistent basis in a way that has led to violence and discrimination against the transgender community.
On all five of these amendments--just put a little exclamation point on that--it encourages the dehumanization of transgender people in a way that is very, very dangerous. That is number one.
Number two is transgender people exist. That is just a fact. Gender dysphoria is a medical fact. No serious medical person disagrees on that point. It is not even debatable. There are a couple of things that are debatable.
What do we do about it? What treatments are appropriate, given the set of circumstances? Personally, I think it is wide open to have that conversation. What should the medical profession do?
Second, when there is a transgender woman or a transgender man, how does that work in terms of sports and a wide variety of different things with women's sports or men's sports? We can have a conversation about how to fit that in.
Acting like transgender people don't exist further contributes to their dehumanization and the discrimination against them. None of these amendments before us today are even remotely necessary. They are simply an effort to take advantage of a culture war, partisan issue to drive a wedge into this bill. Does it belong here?
On this particular amendment, for a servicemember who has a child experiencing gender dysphoria, what this amendment says is that child doesn't actually exist. That is not really happening.
How is it going to make a servicemember feel when they are trying to take care of their child? I have met with children who went through gender dysphoria and who credit the treatment they received for absolutely saving their lives.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I always like to say, I have had three hip surgeries including two total hip replacements. I probably didn't need any of them. It was probably a mistake. I don't see anybody on the floor talking about banning hip replacements because occasionally one is done wrong. That happens.
This decision should be made by doctors and patients. It should not be made by Congressmen and legislators. This is restricting healthcare that could be incredibly necessary for young people and also for other family members. It is bigoted, discriminatory, and unnecessary. I hope this body will turn it down.
Mr. Chair, all I would add to that is we have got an obligation to the American people to keep this country safe and to support our finest military men who are willing to risk it all in defense of America.
My friend on the opposite side of the aisle mentions hip surgery. I think that is entirely different than a sex change operation. That doesn't say the person doesn't have it. With regard to the military and the funding, that is not where the money should come from.
How about telling that child who has asthma that he has no treatment? How about telling that child with a mental impairment there is no money to do it and that we have to put the money toward somebody who is not sure about what sex they are?
It is just not a priority in the military. The funding should not be set aside for that. There is a set amount of dollars that have to go toward this valuable appropriations process, and it is not to determine what somebody's sex is. This needs to be decided in other places with their own money and at other times.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute for three quick points.
Number one, this does not restrict medical treatment for anybody else. It has nothing to do with this whatsoever.
Second of all, this doesn't just eliminate sex-change operations. This very specifically eliminates any treatment for gender dysphoria. A lot of times, that is mental health treatment. That is not surgery, and that is not drugs. That is a conversation about that issue. It eliminates it for everybody.
Third, yes, we need to put our servicemembers in the best position to focus on their mission and the fight. If you are a servicemember overseas, Mr. Chair, stationed and fighting, and you have a child who is experiencing gender dysphoria and told that your child, who is in a very dangerous situation, cannot get the healthcare that they need, that is not going to help that servicemember be the best possible fighter they can be for this country.
We should not be denying healthcare to the family members of our servicemembers that they need, and that is what this amendment does.
Mr. Chair, let me just put some numbers to this. Over the course of 5 years, the Pentagon spent $15 million--$15 million--in treating 1,892 transgender troops, including $11.5 million for psychotherapy and $3.1 million for surgeries, according to the Department of Defense.
The price tag for individual gender-affirming surgical procedures and other medical treatments can range from $8,000 to $100,000. To compare hip surgery to a sex-change operation, it is two different worlds and two different thoughts that we just have a complete difference of opinion.
I think if you take a survey of any of the troops, Mr. Chair, who are serving this country, the vast majority would say that transgender surgeries have no place in the military.
The public to be borne with that price tag is, to be honest with you, Mr. Chair, incomprehensible.
Again, Mr. Chair, we are not talking about sex-change operations. This is just another example of the profound ignorance surrounding treatment for gender dysphoria. We are talking about any treatment.
Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Let's be clear: The Exceptional Family Member Program does not pay for medical care. Its purpose is simple: to ensure that military families are stationed where the medical and educational services they need are available.
This amendment misrepresents the mission, and it undermines it.
We ask our servicemembers to sacrifice so much for this country, in many cases, even their lives. As a mother, I would never ask them to sacrifice their child's well-being. That is not just offensive, that is cruel, and it is inhumane.
Gender-affirming care is healthcare. Denying it sends a harmful message to military families with transgender children that their needs, their dignity, who they are, and their very lives do not matter.
In addition, when we harm their families and when we harm their children, we undermine the very readiness we are so focused on as a military, the very people whom we rely on to be on the front lines, defending this Nation every day.
Our servicemembers put everything on the line, and we should do the same for them. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in part A of House Report 119-255.
Mr. Chairman, this is the second of five--only five, and I think there should be more--amendments regarding gender-affirming care, trannies, you name it.
Castration is not a mistake, by the way. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to say that castration is healthcare and there is nothing more dehumanizing than going after the trannies out there.
One recently shot two young schoolchildren in Minnesota. It is a mental illness, and it needs to stop. We can stop it in our military right now.
In last year's NDAA, we took the important step of banning TRICARE from covering medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria, which would result in the sterilization of children.
This is a strong statement by the Congress in opposition to the mutilation of kids. However, the language allows the Department of War to continue to perform an array of gender-affirming child abuse on military dependents and to continue to mutilate our servicemembers.
My amendment is simple. It would prohibit TRICARE, across the board, from covering or furnishing the chemical or surgical mutilation of our warfighters and their dependents under the guise of healthcare.
Our government should not be in the business of mutilating our fellow citizens, particularly our warfighters, with our tax dollars and with your tax dollars, Mr. Chair.
This does not serve to advance our national security. It serves only to advance a dangerous and radical ideology that the American people have soundly rejected. Not only have the American people rejected the chemical and surgical mutilation of their fellow citizens, but much of the science doesn't support it, as well.
The science of playing to the delusions of these individuals is not compassionate. It is cruel. Numerous studies have shown that not only do these cross-sex hormones dramatically increase the risk of infertility and sexual dysfunction, but they actually increase depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among those for whom these medical procedures are performed.
The purpose of our military is to fight and to win wars. It is to create warfighters, killers, not to participate in the latest progressive fad.
Under the Biden administration, we diverted money away from readiness and lethality to promote extreme gender ideology and to fund sex changes in our military.
Under the Trump administration, we have finally recognized gender dysphoria for what it is, a mental illness which precludes military service.
Our armed services are not a laboratory to study the effects of irreversible surgeries or hormones. Our service does not exist to provide experimental treatments to those whose conditions should be disqualifying. These people are mentally ill and should not be serving in the United States military.
This amendment says clearly the purpose of our military is to defend the United States, not validate identity politics. It makes sure TRICARE serves the mission of protecting health, not undermining it.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
First of all, I thank the maker of this amendment for making it clear what the problem is: ``trannies,'' ``mentally ill,'' and insulting transgender people. This is exactly what these amendments are about.
It is about a rightwing culture war to try to target the transgender community and make them something less than human. If you listen to those comments, Mr. Chair, you can get a feel for why that is a problem.
Number two, this amendment does not have anything to do with transgender people serving in the military. President Trump has already implemented that bigoted, discriminatory policy to drive them out of the military.
This is about healthcare for children experiencing gender dysphoria. What this amendment does is it bans that healthcare treatment for children experiencing gender dysphoria.
I made a series of arguments on the other amendment about why that is such a bad idea, but the bottom line is this is a legitimate problem. The studies have often shown that this is beneficial treatment that is now being denied by the United States Congress.
This is something that doctors and patients should decide. If we want to offer an amendment saying, ``Please look at this issue. Here are some studies on one side or the other,'' and ask the medical community to reach conclusions, then that is one thing, but banning it doesn't make sense.
Mr. Chair, if not wanting to castrate kids is a rightwing culture war, then sign me up because this is not the kind of thing that should be happening to children or military dependents anywhere in our country.
Castrating kids is not healthcare either. We are talking about something very permanent. We don't allow our kids to be tattooed until they are adults. We don't allow them to drink or smoke or vote until they are adults. The gentleman is saying that it is okay to castrate a kid because of this weirdo, freak ideology.
Yes, these are weirdos. These are freaks. These are people who are mentally deranged and mentally ill. This should not be funded by American taxpayers.
Current law bans sterilization, so that is just a lot of crap about what this is about. Current law bans what she is talking about. What is being banned here is any treatment for gender dysphoria, and that is completely wrong.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).
Mr. Chair, as you all know, President Trump has already kicked out transgender troops from the military, despite the fact that they are willing and able to serve and despite the fact that it will cost billions of dollars and decades to recruit and train their replacements.
This proposed ban on medical care is unnecessary and redundant for our servicemembers because we know the goal here isn't actually about policy. It is a symbolic punishment. It is to send a false political message that trans healthcare is illegitimate, even though those of us who live in reality know that trans healthcare is safe, effective, and medically necessary. It is supported by every major medical association in the U.S., representing more than 1.3 million U.S. doctors.
Let's be clear by what we mean by gender-affirming care. We don't only mean surgery. Sometimes it is just using the correct pronouns. Sometimes it is mental health care. Sometimes it is hormone therapy. Yes, sometimes it is surgery.
This ban would also take away mental health care from the trans children of our servicemembers. We know that trans youth face significant mental
Like any parent, if a servicemember's child can't get the care they need, they will be distracted from their mission.
Ultimately, this ban will hurt our military readiness and likely lead servicemembers to leave the military. This amendment isn't only bigoted; it is shortsighted and would hurt our national security. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to this amendment.
If passed, this amendment would immediately prohibit TRICARE coverage of mental health counseling for transgender young people. Let me repeat that. This amendment would take away mental health care services for transgender kids of servicemembers. That is what we are talking about.
This amendment is intentionally discriminatory and will result in higher rates of mental health issues and suicide for trans youth, kids who already experience higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide compared to their peers.
Republicans' all-out assault on healthcare right now has put these people into a state of constant fear and anxiety. Imagine that you are a servicemember, you are a parent, and you hear from a doctor that Congress has banned medically necessary care endorsed by every major medical association that would literally help save your child's life. All young people in this country should have access to the mental health care that they need, full stop.
Forcing servicemembers to choose between being able to provide healthcare for their family, for their kids, or serving their country does not make our military stronger, does not make our country safer, and it will not--no matter what the Member says, it will not make transgender people in this country disappear.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in part A of House Report 119-255.
Mr. Chair, women have fought for decades to have equal opportunity in education and athletics. As the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, no one understands that fight better than I do.
Unfortunately, these hard-earned rights women have fought for are now literally under assault. Misogyny disguised as acceptance has forced mediocre male athletes into women's locker rooms, forcing women to undress in front of them, robbing women of opportunities, and have left some women with lifelong scars.
My amendment would prohibit the superintendents of the service academies from allowing a cadet or midshipman who is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designed for females.
It is an indisputable fact there are significant physical, biological, I dare say science or scientific, differences between men and women. Biological men generally have greater muscle mass, bone density, cardiovascular capacity, and physical strength than women do. This is very obvious.
Allowing men to compete in women's sports is patently unfair and robs women and girls of accomplishments and opportunities.
Over 900 medals in women's sports have been won by biological men, stolen from women who worked hard to earn them.
Women have fought hard to earn records that have been shattered by mediocre men, men pretending to be women, mentally ill men pretending to be women.
This is a travesty and discourages women from competing at all. This was the case last year when multiple college women's volleyball teams forfeited rather than face a team with a biological male athlete, rather than face a traumatic brain injury when the next man hit them in the face with a volleyball.
There is nothing honorable about robbing women of opportunities, invading their privacy, and jeopardizing their safety in athletic competitions. Allowing biological men to participate in women's sports is incompatible with the values of our servicemembers, our service academies, and basic notions of fairness and good, old-fashioned common sense.
I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition today to this amendment and in defense of our Nation's servicemembers.
Our ranking member and the chairman have negotiated a bipartisan NDAA, which invests in military pay raises, quality of life, and many important aspects for military readiness. We should be focused on that in the National Defense Authorization Act, not another amendment bullying trans people.
If you ever needed proof that trans folks live rent free in the minds of my GOP colleagues, then look no further than this amendment because there are literally no known and out transgender people serving in our academies right now because of the transgender military ban.
So what is this amendment all about?
The GOP obsession with bullying trans people is weird. It is invasive. It is abusive. It is discriminatory, and it is dangerous to our military readiness.
I want to remind my colleagues that words have power. You are standing in one of the most powerful institutions not only in the United States but in the world, and my colleagues are using this platform to bully a population that is vulnerable here in the United States.
I have to say: If my colleagues across the aisle are so genuinely concerned about the well-being of women who are serving in the military and sexual violence, how about actually addressing that and the 45 percent of women who have reported that they have been sexually harassed just last year alone? Dare I say: If my Republican colleagues are concerned about sexual violence and deviance, how about they release the Epstein files? How about that?
This amendment reflects a sustained, targeted, villainization of the trans community and the LGBTQ+ community that continues day after day on this floor.
The trans community represents only about 1 percent of the population, as we understand it, but you wouldn't actually think that listening to this Chamber because they are spending time that we should be talking about military readiness and our national security to bully trans people at our service academies.
This has nothing to do with service to this great Nation or our national security. I say to my colleagues: Let's get back to work on behalf of the American people and defeat this disgusting and hateful amendment.
Mr. Chair, imagine being a woman on the floor of the House of Representatives, screaming--I dare say screeching--into the microphone to put your daughter in danger or to have your daughter's scholarships, your daughter's skills, and your daughter's opportunities stolen from her because some guy--some mentally ill, deranged, weird freak of a man--thinks he is a woman because he can put on a skirt and wave his willy-nilly around in a locker room, that he somehow is equal to a woman and that he is going to take away her rights.
We fought for so long for rights as women. We didn't get the right to vote until, what, 1919 or 1920? In fact, in the State of South Carolina, we didn't elect our first Republican woman to the U.S. House of Representatives, to Congress, until 2020. I was sworn into office in January of 2021.
We have fought hard. There are so many opportunities for women. Yet we have never had a female President of the United States. I am not going to let some guy in a skirt come around to take opportunities away from our daughters, from future leaders, or a future President one day because somebody is mentally ill and thinks they can steal those opportunities away from your daughter.
It is not going to happen, not on my watch. We can start with the service academies and protecting these women who are going to fight valiantly, to serve, and to protect our freedoms in our country, here and abroad, to make sure that opportunities are not stolen from them by the mentally ill.
Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Stansbury for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, which would ban transgender women from participating in women's sports but also lead to challenges on all women's bodies, making the military and academies less safe for any women to enlist, no matter who they are.
Military personnel already undergo in-depth medical exams, and this amendment would allow for women and trans people to be subjected to increased and invasive targeting and harassment.
Athletic associations and the service academies are better prepared to understand the sports that they regulate and how to provide both respect for transgender people and fairness in sports. These associations and academies should be addressing this issue, not politicians, especially politicians who do not understand that trans people are not men who put on skirts.
Republicans have already banned trans people from the military and the service academies via executive action. This amendment is just another backdoor attempt to discourage transgender people from enlisting in the future while making the military less safe for all women and embedding discrimination into law. This amendment is a classic example of politicians trying to insert themselves where they don't belong. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will address the topic of sexual violence, particularly with my female colleagues across the aisle.
I have authored dozens of bills related to sexual violence, and very few of my Democratic colleagues will sign up and cosponsor them in a bipartisan way. Why is that? Is it because I don't want men in women's spaces? Probably. Is it because I say the word ``tranny''? Yes.
Democrats don't want to protect women except for when it makes good on their narrative. In fact, when I gave a harrowing speech for 1 hour on the floor of this House earlier this year on February 10, as I talked about my personal experiences with sexual violence, not a single female Democratic colleague spoke up in defense of women who are victims and survivors of sexual violence.
Mr. Chairman, I find it offensive, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I remind us that we are here to talk about the National Defense Authorization Act and to stand with our servicemembers who proudly signed up to serve this great Nation. We will continue to stand with our servicemembers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in part A of House Report 119-255.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is about one thing and one thing only: restoring biological truth, restoring biological reality, and restoring science.
For too long, my colleagues across the aisle have pushed the fiction which says that your gender is whatever you say it is and that you can change your mind at any time. You can be thinking. Thinking is like a gender option to some of these morons.
Under 4 long years of the Biden administration, they have enshrined this fiction in every facet of our government and demanded that we all play along with the lie that men can be women, women can be men, and people can be both, neither, either, other, or whatever. They could be a eunuch. It is so ridiculous.
Perhaps they even share the delusion that people can sexually identify as an attack helicopter because, apparently, that is also an option for some of these maniacs.
My amendment recognizes a simple fact: There are two genders. They are designated at birth, and they cannot be changed.
This is basic biology, Biology 101. It is not about feelings. It is not about ideology. It is not about politics. It is not about trying to make half of 1 percent of the population happy for the rest of us.
Under this amendment, the Secretary of War would be prohibited from collecting information for a form or survey related to gender identity. ``Male'' and ``female'' are the only two options that should be listed for questions about sex or gender, and the Secretary will be required to reject forms which list a sex or gender other than ``male'' or ``female.'' We are going to bring back common sense to the Department of War.
Mr. Chairman, this ideology is not harmful. It is corrosive. It has undermined women and seeks to replace objective truths with subjective fiction. It has told us that we must reject the foundational truths that our society has held for thousands of years. This ideology has forced institutions to adopt terms like ``birthing persons,'' ``pronouns,'' which got us into this whole mess--``they,'' ``them,'' ``it''--as if language itself must be bent to their radicalized ideology.
They have taken what is obvious to every civilization in human history, that men are men and women are women, and turned it into a political controversy. I say, today: Enough is enough.
This amendment would restore common sense and the truth at the Department of War. I can't believe this is even a debate we need to have on the floor of the House.
Mr. Chair, you are going to hear opposition to science today from people who tell you to follow science. Women are biologically distinct from men, and we love it. Every single one of my colleagues knows this truth, even if they are too afraid to say it.
My colleagues across the aisle have stood silent for too long and allowed this ideology to erase women and hand over our hard-won victories to men. This amendment ensures the Department of War recognizes these biological realities.
This is more than about forms and paperwork. It is about whether we will defend women or whether we will erase them. It is about whether the strongest military on Earth will be grounded in reality or captured by ideology.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the truth, stand with women, and stand with our military, and vote in favor of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, Americans understand that trans people do exist and that transgender servicemembers have served our country with distinction and honor for almost a decade. They were able to do this openly.
Yet, this amendment seeks to erase the existence of transgender people, whether they are servicemembers or DOD employees, by prohibiting the Secretary of Defense from collecting information about gender identity on any form or survey.
Let me be clear: Trans people do exist, and their experiences matter.
Nondiscrimination and inclusion are core American values. This amendment is about exclusion and erasure.
Collecting data on the experiences of transgender people at the Department of Defense is critical to addressing the challenges the community faces.
Every person who steps up to serve our Nation in uniform, including trans people, should be treated with the utmost respect. These servicemembers have continuously shown that they are fit, qualified, and willing to serve.
This amendment would create real obstacles for transgender people by requiring DOD systems to list the wrong gender for transgender people. Discrepancies between these systems and trans people's legal documents will cause a host of issues, including complicating background checks.
This administration is already forcing transgender servicemembers out of the military just because of who they are. The Americans I know honor everyone who has the courage to serve. They do not support kicking people out of the military, people we have invested time and millions of dollars in training into, just to score political points.
Trump's trans military ban is cruel and shameful. Now, Republicans want to add insult to injury and try to erase trans servicemembers' existence with this amendment.
Enough is enough. I am proud to stand before this Chamber and support all of our servicemembers.
I will make it clear to every trans servicemember currently in the process of being forced out by this administration: My Democratic colleagues in Congress and I value your sacrifices and service to our Nation. We are, and will keep, fighting for you because you have put your life on the line for America. You deserve the same rights and treatment as every other servicemember.
Mr. Chair, I will say that a form that you say whether you are male or female, how you were born, what God gave you, is not an obstacle. That just goes to show, the mere comment that filling out a form, am I male or female, that it is such a huge, ornate, objective obstacle, that it is adversarial, just goes to show you how mentally ill this ideology is, that filling out a form that is biologically pure, biologically true, would trigger you.
It goes to ask: Would it trigger them so much that they would go shoot up a military base? Maybe. We had a tranny shoot up a school, a Catholic school, a couple of weeks ago in Minnesota, killing two beautiful, young children.
They are mentally ill. These people should not be serving in our military. When they accuse us of erasing trannies in the military, yes, if you are mentally ill, you don't have the right to serve. We need warfighters. We need men and women who are going to be strong on the front of our battle lines fighting terrorism.
Iran is on the march. China is nipping at our heels, as is Russia. We need men and women who, rather than worry about if I am a eunuch or this or that, an attack helicopter, or whatever gender dysphoria they have that day is--who are we going to make safe today? What freedom are we fighting for?
How we are going to make Americans safe here and abroad, that is the mission. Our national security is the mission for the United States military, and it will stay there with Donald Trump as President.
Mr. Chair, for the folks who are watching, for the transgender
Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to this amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from collecting data on gender identity.
Data is not just numbers. Data is a story and reflection of those lived realities of real people, and this amendment is to stop data collection. It is clear that it is an attempt to erase the existence of transgender servicemembers at the Department of Defense.
Without data collection, the Department of Defense cannot adequately address the challenges that lesbian, bisexual, and transgender servicemembers may face.
Transgender employees will have a difficult time filing equal employment opportunity complaints without accurate data. Employees will also have inconsistent records and incorrect gender markers in Department of Defense systems, making it harder to access health services.
Mr. Chair, I was going to say some nice things about rising in support of a bipartisan NDAA that supports housing, healthcare, and childcare, but I have sat here appalled at the language that we have heard on the House floor from the other side of the aisle.
I stand in strong opposition to the person from North Carolina's amendment. I have sat listening to her violent, dangerous, and dehumanizing vendetta against parents, children, and trans people trying to live their lives and trying to defend our country.
This is a pattern of the unhinged political war on trans people that this person from North Carolina, the Republican Party, and the President are waging.
Denying the ability of out trans folks to serve in our military isn't enough for these people. The person from North Carolina is trying to erase the existence of trans people from forms, from hallways, from our military, and choosing violence.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in part A of House Report 119-255.
Mr. Chair, my amendment is straightforward. It would ensure the use of sex-specific spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms on military installations are based on biological sex, not ideology. Women in uniform deserve dignity, privacy, and absolute safety.
Protecting women's spaces shouldn't be partisan. It should be common sense. However, under the Biden administration, the Federal Government decided to abandon common sense. It allowed men to enter women's spaces and violate their privacy and dignity.
Under President Trump, the government has restored basic biological truth: men are men, and women are women. I applaud the President for his commitment to protecting women, but a future administration could bring us right back to this insanity.
The Biden administration sacrificed the dignity and safety of women to appease radical gender, lunatic ideology. Our women in uniform shouldn't be forced to suffer indignities to appease the insane policies of the other side of the aisle, all the Democrats who support this nonsense.
Allowing delusional men to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, and changing rooms is an affront to women, and it is reckless.
In Virginia, a registered sex offender with more than a dozen convictions was allowed to use the women's changing room by claiming he was a woman. For 6 months, he exposed himself to women and kids. This is who the left is defending today, pedophiles and men that want to go in women's spaces and rape them, assault them, and expose themselves to little girls and our daughters.
In California, a 17-year-old girl was terrorized by the presence of a man in her locker room while she showered.
In Georgia, a 51-year-old man pretending to be a woman undressed in the women's restroom and exposed himself to shoppers.
In Virginia, a girl was sexually assaulted by a biological male in a woman's bathroom.
In Oklahoma, a young woman was beaten for daring to say she was uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a man.
This is not theoretical. These aren't just random incidents. This is an epidemic. They are the natural, predictable consequence of policies that pretend biology doesn't matter. These are the policies of the left, policies of Democrats who say: Follow the science, except for women. We don't care about you. We hate you. We want to take everything away from you. We won't follow science on this one.
We have opened the door for predators to abuse women and girls. Our daughters are growing up with something we never had to distinguish when our generation was growing up. We are putting our daughters in imminent danger, in harm's way, and this has to stop.
Women shouldn't be forced to share their private spaces with men, and this amendment says we are going back to reality. Privacy and safety matters. Dignity matters. Women matter.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to protect all women. I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Trans people, including trans servicemembers, deserve the basic human dignity and common decency of safely using the restroom.
Besides that, let's take the gentlewoman's point at face value. She wants
The Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law even did a study on it, and there is zero evidence that allowing trans people to use the correct bathroom increases the risk to others. In fact, it is actually opposite. We have seen that cis women are harassed when people try to enforce or decree bathroom bans.
Earlier this year at a Buffalo Wild Wings in Minnesota, a server followed a teenage girl into the restroom and demanded she prove she was a girl. When the server didn't believe her, she unzipped her hoodie to show she had breasts. That is the actual reality of bathroom bans and even the idea of bathroom bans: harassment, discrimination, and body exams.
We don't need servicemembers acting like vigilantes to enforce this policy either by surveillance, profiling, or physical inspections. Our servicewomen go through enough. We shouldn't be inviting even more harassment. We don't need this amendment opening up the Pentagon and the entire U.S. Government to a massive lawsuit.
This isn't good policy. This doesn't protect women. This is based on misinformation, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Chair, it is ironic that my colleague says that women are harassed going into the bathroom. Well, that might be because nobody wants a transgender, tranny, person in the bathroom with them. No one wants biological men in women's spaces. And because this wacko ideology, not based in science, is now pervasive, we are teaching it in schools and we are forcing kids to use pronouns. We want to protect women because the left has gone so far. It is not just the left. This is mainstream Democrat policy, going after our girls.
You heard my colleague say there is no evidence, literally after I read evidence of incidents of trannies in private spaces assaulting women and underage girls, our daughters, kids.
They say no evidence exists. That is because Democrats will not show you or tell you or share with you the facts, but the average American, we see it every day now. It is everywhere and people are sick and tired of it. If they want this harassment to stop, then the trannies need to stop harassing the rest of America. This is not what the American people want. It is not what they voted for.
They say that our servicemembers, our servicewomen in uniform, go through enough. They are right. That is why we don't want this happening. That is why we want to protect them. In their most intimate moments in the dressing room, no man should be watching them.
They talk about lawsuits. We don't want more lawsuits. I find it ironic because it is Democrats who sue States and sue Republican parties over congressional lines and apportionment and all those things that tie our U.S. elections up in lawsuits. It is their party, not ours. We are just fighting back. We are going to protect every woman and girl, every single daughter in the United States, but particularly for our servicemembers, our women in uniform. The Republican Party is the party of common sense. We are the party of normal. We are the party of women.
Mr. Chair, Republicans have a series of amendments targeting trans people and the ability of servicemember parents to make decisions about healthcare for their children. All of these amendments, including this one, do not do anything to make us safer or to honor our commitment to the servicemen and -women who are willing to give their lives for this country.
These amendments are part of a culture war that is intended to make Americans angry, divided, and fearful. They want to rename it the Department of War because they are in a war against the idea that the American life is something that includes all of us, that we can all belong.
Their proposed facilities ban is a huge violation of privacy and would make all women and girls less safe. Will Republicans require menstrual monitoring, checking reproductive organs, as has happened, as my colleague pointed out? Girls and women who are tall, strong, and gender-nonconforming are already being questioned and yelled at. Republicans seem to always want to dictate from D.C. what we can do with our bodies, and that is not freedom.
I stand with all our servicemembers, including our trans servicemembers, who are willing to fight and die for our freedoms. I am going to fight for their freedom to be who they are, to fight for an America where we all belong. We should not be at war with each other. We all belong.
Mr. Chair, I would just like to point out that I think it is very interesting that my colleague from South Carolina is so obsessed with the issue of trans people, using horrible slurs to talk about them, when many people in this body have received gender- affirming care. Filler is gender-affirming care. Boob jobs are gender- affirming care. Botox is gender-affirming care. Lots of my colleagues have received gender-affirming care. Let me be clear, I think everyone should have access to the gender-affirming care that they need, and I think we should respect everybody in this country.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from South Carolina is not recognized. The Committee will be in order. The gentlewoman and the gentleman will suspend. The Committee will be in order. The gentlewoman from South Carolina is not recognized.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. For what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition?
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, this amendment, which passed in the House NDAA last year, would ensure that base commanders follow Federal law by ensuring that only approved flags are flown on military installations.
Patriotic Americans understand that the American flag is to be revered.
Anybody who has served understands the sacrifice that has been made to keep Old Glory flying.
On military bases, it is truly sacred. It is the symbolic altar of the Nation.
During morning and evening colors, all work ceases as troops salute her raising and lowering. In battle, our forces carry her, wearing them proudly on their sleeves. She serves as the final blanket for soldiers who come home, having given and paid the last full measure.
The 2024 NDAA rightly addressed this issue by codifying an appropriate list of approved flags that uphold the honor and dignity that our military is built on.
However, there is a glaring error. A caveat built into the list gives commanders the ability to fly any flag they deem appropriate. Since President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have taken office, the woke infiltration of our military, even its highest leaders, continues to be exposed.
The embarrassment of these flags is hard to grasp: drag shows on ships and military installations; base security training teaching guards that pro-life bumper stickers were indicators of possible terrorism; and taxpayer-funded gender transition and hormone treatments that kept soldiers nondeployable or nontrainable for years. The list goes on, but the point remains.
Even still, there are senior officials and officers that refuse to mount the portraits of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth on their chain of command due to insubordination. Believe me, these individuals will not last long in our Armed Forces.
I ask you: Do you think that commanders who approved and even encouraged all of this to happen would exist or hesitate before deeming a Pride or trans flag appropriate for the month of June? Of course not, and it would likely be their idea in the first place.
Finally, I want to emphasize the power of symbolism. Symbols serve as a representation of our values, priorities, and our identity.
When a company completes a grueling training hike and sees that flag flying over their garrison, it symbolizes home, and I promise you that last mile may feel like a sprint to get to that cloth.
When a platoon returns from a patrol and reenters the wire, she symbolizes safety.
Imagine what our enemies would think of our strength and resiliency if we ever allow flags flown contrary to the principles of America.
I promise you that as much as this stands as the military standard, it also serves as deterrence to our adversaries.
Mr. Chair, therefore, I invite my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important measure.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why my colleagues across the aisle are so triggered, triggered by a piece of cloth. Yet, here we are for the third year in a row voting to ban the Pride flag from spaces at the Department of Defense.
Nearly half of the House Republicans' fiscal year 2026 appropriation bills include bans on the Pride flag as well. I don't know what they think this flag does. The Pride flag did not make me gay, and it will not make DOD employees gay either.
What displaying a Pride flag does do, however, is send an important signal to LGBTQI+ people that they belong. Our Department of Defense, what does it exist for but to defend America, to defend all Americans, to defend the dignity, rights, and freedom of all Americans?
What the flag does do is send an important signal that LGBTQI+ people belong. Displaying Pride flags is a way for servicemembers and DOD civilian employees to show that they are committed to creating and affirming an inclusive environment for LGBTQI+ people or a way to celebrate their own identity. It does not indicate to exclude anybody else for what they may believe in.
At a time when the LGBTQI+ community is under attack, displaying a Pride flag is especially important. It is particularly offensive that Republicans are seeking to ban this flag at DOD, given that one of the earliest Pride flags was created by a former U.S. military officer, Gilbert Baker.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people are fair and they support inclusion. I think they view amendments like this one, dictating to Federal employees and troops what flags they can have at their workstations, as both ridiculous and extreme government overreach. We should be focused on strengthening our military readiness, not censoring the LGBTQI+ community and our allies.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, the only thing that was just said by our colleague across the road that I can actually agree with is inclusivity. What is more inclusive than the American flag, the flag we all honor as American patriots? The one thing that we know about the Pride flag is that it represents only one portion of those who serve. That is not called inclusivity, sir. That is called division. That is why for the first time since the previous administration took over, we have actually hit our recruitment numbers in every single branch. That is something you can't say when it comes to the last administration's efforts.
So what I look at is this: the 1777 Flag Act. The fact that we actually stand for something that unifies us, not divides us. The fact is that we need to get back to meritocracy, not division through diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Mr. Chair, this is very simple. It is a patriotic stance. The very flag which stands behind you, that stands proud in this Capitol, is the same one that sits over Presidents, over our fallen soldiers, and over our military installations. That is not division. That is not recognition of others' sexual preferences. That is the actual acknowledgment of what we fight for day in and day out as Americans.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I would say in response to the gentleman that the Pride flag does not replace the American flag. It is flown at certain times of the year. It affirms a huge portion, a significant portion of our military.
Yes, I agree the American flag is inclusive. We can also show that we can include a minority that is often disparaged.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this cruel and callous amendment.
Mr. Chair, there are 20 days until the government shuts down. There are 8 legislative days. What are Republicans focused on? They are focused on flags, Pride flags.
Republicans are spending valuable floor time, time that could be used by the government to lower costs for working families.
The Acting CHAIR. For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition?
Mr. Chair, we are wasting valuable time trying to ban the display of Pride flags in any workplace or common area at the Department of Defense. This is time that could be used to fund the government or lower costs for working families.
This obsession with attacking, dehumanizing, and villainizing our LGBTQIA+ community is as sick as it is a waste of time.
Trump is using the same tired playbook authoritarian regimes have used throughout history. He is dehumanizing our most vulnerable to divide us and distract us from the fact of his failure to meaningfully improve the lives of the people he was elected to serve.
Mr. Chair, we see this for what it is, and we refuse to let them win. We will not erase the LGBTQIA+ community.
Mr. Chair, I want to be very clear in this. They on the other side may think we can out-pronoun our enemies, and that will keep our adversaries at bay. We can ``he,'' ``him,'' ``they,'' ``them,'' ``she,'' ``her'' all day long. That is not what makes us strong as America.
It is the flag we wear, the training we have, and the meritocracy which should always exist. I will continue to fight for every member of our Armed Services and every single person to know that it is the American flag which will fly high and proud. We will defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Mr. Chair, let me just say that I don't understand why-- to acknowledge and to allow a flag to be displayed in a workstation or to be flown during Pride month in certain areas--the other side believes that LGBTQ+ people are such a threat to recognize their service in the military.
We are a country of inclusion. We are the land of the free and the home of the brave. That should include all of us. There is no reason we should think that the fact that we had a policy of inclusion and that we had Pride flags at the Department of Defense was the reason why we were falling short of our recruitment goals. There was something else going on there.
This is all crazy talk, and that is why I think more and more Americans think it is the Republican Party that has gone too far with its very extreme views about LGBTQIA+ people and defense.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, I rise today on behalf of my friend and colleague, Congressman Warren Davidson from Ohio, who is a proud Army Ranger. I am offering his amendment to prohibit the Department of War from researching or procuring lab-grown meat.
This amendment prohibits the Department of War funding from being used on the research, production, advancement, or enhancement of cell- cultured meat which is fake meat. It is not even real meat.
Over the years, climate activists have tried to push experimental food alternatives on the American public. The latest product they are peddling to us is cell-cultured fake meat. What is worse is they have been trying to push this experimental product on our U.S. servicemembers like they are lab rats. This is all in an attempt to put America's ranchers and farmers out of business. Our great men and women in our military are not lab rats, Mr. Chair.
In 2024, the Department of Defense announced up to $500 million in grant funding for the development of lab-grown meat products. In case anyone at home is wondering if this is real, yes, it was real, and it happened.
Last year, small farms and mom-and-pop operations across the country raised their voices in outrage against this ill-considered initiative. We won and got the DOD to back off on trying to put our farmers out of business while trying to feed our soldiers fake, poisonous garbage.
It is now time to codify this win into law, and it is important to do so with the fiscal year '26 NDAA. That is why this amendment is so important.
A product this experimental has many unresolved safety and environmental concerns. These products are not yet approved for retail sale in grocery stores. It should not be tested on our brave servicemembers who put their lives at stake for this country.
Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to amendment No. 20, which would place a blanket statutory ban on any DOD research, development, procurement, or promotion when it comes to cultivated cell-based meat.
Let's be clear. This isn't about whether the Pentagon is going to serve cultivated meat tomorrow. It is about whether we let our military continue doing what it has always done best, and that is preparing for the future.
Readiness has always been America's edge. Our military leads the world because we don't close doors. We open them. We evaluate every tool, every technology, and every option that might keep our servicemembers better supplied and better prepared for future missions. This amendment does just the opposite. It ties our hands. It says: Don't even consider it.
Meanwhile, China has already made cultivated meat a national priority in its 5-year plan. They are scaling up production, while countries like Singapore, Israel, Australia, and the U.K. are moving forward, as well.
If cultivated meat helps deliver cheaper, scaleable protein solutions worldwide, do we really want China setting the standards, dominating the intellectual property, and reaping the jobs this burgeoning industry creates?
Mr. Chair, I have spoken directly with senior DOD officials who have shared with me the potential benefits cultivated meat could bring to readiness. This includes from operating in harsh bases to sustaining missions where supply lines are contested or disrupted.
Keeping the option open for DOD research and evaluation ensures we remain competitive and ensures U.S. leadership in the broader protein biotech space that underpins global supply chains.
Voting ``no'' on this amendment preserves the military's discretion-- let me say that again--preserves the military's discretion to explore technology that could strengthen readiness, create U.S. jobs, and help maintain our competitive edge.
This ban doesn't save money, and it doesn't improve readiness. All it does is close off technology others are racing to develop while handing China a free lane in a strategic biotech domain.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment to ensure DOD can test, validate, or reject technology on the merits, not because of shortsighted, anti-science ideology.
Don't forget, Mr. Chair, that the COVID virus was made in Wuhan, China, and released upon the world. Look at the consequences of that.
Never forget it was the Democrats who were all about forcing poisonous vaccines into people's bodies against their will. We saw the devastating impacts of that on many military members: myocarditis, nerve conditions, heart problems, heart attacks, and many reported issues not just on the military but the American people.
As a matter of fact, there are vaccine injuries and deaths that have not been investigated to this day.
Mr. Chair, now, Democrats want to continue to force our great men and women in the military to eat fake, lab-grown meat? That is repulsive and disgusting.
I can tell you right now, Mr. Chair, I, along with my Republican colleagues, want to feed our great men and women in the military ribeyes, those that are grown right here on good old USA farms.
I think our men and women in the military, in order to quote my colleague across the aisle, to have readiness, to be ready and prepared for war, they need to be as healthy and fit as possible.
I would argue that lab-grown, disgusting, fake meat is not going to make them ready. It is not going to make them healthy. It is not going to make them fit. It is not going to get them the best possible shape they can be in to go to war. God forbid they go to war. I don't want to see them go to war either.
They talk about this fake meat being a tool or an option to keep them better supplied. I think it is repulsive. I think it is an insult. I can't imagine anyone signing up for the military saying: I can't wait to eat a big old portion of nasty, lab-grown, fake meat.
Mr. Chair, I would just say that, yes, I want to be competitive with China's military and their readiness first and foremost.
Second, our DOD officials are talking about the future. They are not talking about today. They are talking about preparedness for the future.
Mr. Chair, if you want a ribeye steak, cultivated meats can create that, and I assure you it will be delicious. They will love it, and they will not know the difference. Our military will not know the difference.
Mr. Chair, if we take this even out of the military, this is about investing in a new industry in our country that both Democrats and Republicans support because it is an opportunity for us to move and lead this, as opposed to China, Singapore, Israel, or Australia, which are already leading in this.
We want to be competitive in the global marketplace. We want our military to be ready.
This is about the future. This is about research. This is about science saying it is either good or bad, but to move forward with the research so that we know what our options are for the future for our military, which might be deployed to an offshore island somewhere, where there is no access to food whatsoever except for what they can develop.
Mr. Chair, my Democratic colleague across the aisle just said that it is about the science. Where have we heard that one before? I think everyone in the country remembers the past few years of forced, mandated COVID vaccines.
When it becomes about the science and not about feeding our men and women in the military good, cultivated, real meat, then it is a serious problem.
Being competitive with China, according to the Democrats, means being just like China, a Communist country that America should never be like at all.
Mr. Chairman, I will finish with this: When Democrats are saying that they won't know the difference when they are being fed fake meat versus real meat and they will love it, I think that is the most terrifying thing we can hear.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment, and 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 ayes appeared to have it.
My amendment authorizes the Secretary of Defense to carry out a security assistance program known as the Baltic Security Initiative for the purpose of expanding security cooperation with the armed forces of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This security assistance program has been in existence since the first Trump administration in fiscal year 2020.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Scott for yielding.
Mr. Chair, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I rise to speak in support of my colleague from Georgia's amendment to authorize the Baltic Security Initiative.
This amendment comes up at a crucial time. Just last week, the administration announced the U.S. would be pulling out of all security assistance programs for Europe, including the BSI.
I have had the privilege of traveling to the Baltic. When we speak with the people there, it is not a question of if Russia will invade. It is a matter of when. Now is the time to stand firm in our support of these allied nations to deter Russian aggression.
What type of signal does cutting support send to the Kremlin? Cutting off the BSI is a massive gift to Putin.
Deterring a war between Russia and NATO is in our best national security interests.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Representative Scott for offering this amendment.
Mr. Chair, it is incredibly important to secure the funding for the Baltic Security Initiative. The Baltic Security Initiative has assisted the states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which are important NATO allies. They have contributed well above the 2 percent NATO benchmark, have committed to reaching the 5 percent GDP of defense spending in the upcoming years, and are vulnerable NATO allies.
We are debating this amendment at a time when Russia's bombs have just fallen upon NATO ally Poland. It is important that we secure this funding.
The Baltic states have contributed about $10 for every $1 of U.S. funding that has gone into the Baltic Security Initiative.
Why this is important is that this is the U.S. portion of funding for training that has been the U.S. participation as part of Baltic exercises in the area that has ensured and been a part of deterrence to say to Russia: We will be there. We are part of the NATO alliance and are ensuring that the Baltic will be secured.
It has also been a statement against Russian aggression as we tried to secure and make a statement as they have been attacking with their murderous attacks against Ukraine, as we have also been trying to stand up and ensure that as they look to expand and threaten Poland that we will be there for them.
Mr. Chair, we must continue to stand with our Baltic allies who remain on the front lines of Russian aggression. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are strong democratic partners that contribute significantly to NATO's collective defense.
What we saw last night is a reminder of why this amendment is critical. Vladimir Putin's aggression will not end with Ukraine. His goal is to reassert control over the former Soviet sphere, including NATO allies like the Baltic States.
Yet, what is concerning is the current administration has already announced plans to suspend key European security programs, including the Baltic Security Initiative. This is not peace through strength. It is weakness that plays directly into Putin's hands.
Turning our backs on NATO allies would embolden dictators and further undermine American credibility. Walking away would send a dangerous signal to Putin and Xi Jinping. We cannot strip away resources from allies confronting Russian aggression or leave a vacuum for our enemies to exploit.
Instead, we must reaffirm our commitment, strengthen our alliances, and provide the tools our partners need to deter aggression and defend democracy.
I am proud to cosponsor this bipartisan amendment. I am proud to stand with our Baltic allies and with Ukraine in the fight for freedom and global democracy.
Mr. Chair, I 100 percent support the Baltic Security Initiative. All three countries are our best friends. They embrace freedom, democracy, free markets, and the rule of law, and no one has embraced our values like these Baltic States.
These countries are on the front lines with Russia. They see the treachery of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and know very well they could be next.
Why don't the political appointees in the Pentagon see this? It is clear to most that this is the case.
Every family in the Baltics knows someone shot by the Soviets or sent to Siberia to die. They have had this experience. The Baltic people know the harsh reality of living under the Russian thumb and know they could be next if Ukraine falls.
The Baltics lead the way on defense spending. They spend more on defense per GDP than the United States. They spend more on Ukraine per GDP than us.
This amendment is necessary because there are some appointees in the Pentagon who have embraced the foolish policy of decoupling from Europe and weakening our leadership in NATO. We have got to stand opposed to this. We need to use our Article I powers today and be counted for what we believe in.
What happens if we withdraw from the Baltics? No one will be more happy than Russia's Putin. Secondly, deterrence will be weakened, and war in Europe becomes more likely if we withdraw.
Strong support for the Baltic Security Initiative is a vote for deterrence. It is a vote to stand by our allies and to oppose a dictator who is invading his neighbors.
Mr. Chair, this is an extremely important program. It was originally done in fiscal year 2020 under the Trump administration. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania deserve our support. If you look at what happened last night with the Russian incursion of drones into Poland, I think it is now, more than ever, necessary that we make sure that these countries have what they need to defend themselves from Vladimir Putin's aggression.
Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the assistance to Ukraine in the NDAA.
This bill provides approximately $700 million in funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative over fiscal year 2026 and 2027 for training, equipment, lethal assistance, supplies and services, and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine.
The administration has even raised strong objections against extending the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and authorizing additional funding for it, yet somehow, the NDAA contains $700 million.
The administration said--and this comes from a letter from the office of the OMB--the administration ``strongly objects'' to sections 1223 and 1227, as these provisions extend the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative and authorizes additional funding.
``Similarly, the administration objects to section 1224, which requires the creation of a depot-level maintenance plan in conjunction with the Ukrainian Government. Furthermore, the administration strongly objects to section 1228, which usurps the administration's authority to dictate the terms of its intelligence support to the Ukrainian Government. These four provisions do not advance the administration's objective to end the conflict in Ukraine.''
That is the key point. The administration wants to end the conflict in Ukraine. Ukraine is not a NATO member nation. We are not contractually bound to provide their protection.
Need I remind everyone here that we are $37 trillion in debt--$37 trillion. We should not have to be sending more American tax dollars over to defend Ukraine and the people of Ukraine when Ukrainians themselves are coming to our country and getting murdered on subway trains. Iryna Zarutska was brutally murdered by an American man as she was riding on a subway train, yet we are sending $700 million more to Ukraine?
The American people would like that $700 million spent here to keep people safe and stop senseless, insane murders.
This amendment would be very destructive to achieving peace in Ukraine. I agree with the gentlewoman; that should be the goal.
What has been clear for quite some time is that Putin will only stop his war when it is clear that he cannot achieve his objectives in Ukraine.
President Trump showing weakness on that issue, literally rolling out the red carpet for Putin, has only made the war worse. Ever since President Trump has tried to blame the war on Zelenskyy and Ukraine, Putin has ramped up the war, launching more aggressive attacks than he ever has in the 3\1/2\ years of the war, and most recently, sending drones over Poland, as well.
Weakness invites aggression, and I know the proponent of this amendment has said this many, many times, but apparently she doesn't recognize weakness when she sees it. That is what cutting off Ukraine does.
If you want to stop the war, back the 53-nation coalition that is supporting Ukraine and make it clear to Putin he is not going to win. That forces him to the peace table. Showing weakness, backing off, undermining the coalition only extends the war.
Mr. Chairman, the American people have war fatigue. They not only have war fatigue, but they are absolutely fed up. They are absolutely fed up with funding foreign wars and defending foreign nations' borders while, here in America, many cities are completely unsafe, and senseless murders go on and on.
My amendment would reorient defense policies and priorities to America only by prohibiting all assistance to Ukraine. This lines up completely with what Trump's administration has asked for. For some reason, Congress has decided that they want to keep funding the war and funding the killing in Ukraine.
To date, U.S. taxpayers have provided over $175 billion in assistance to Ukraine, including direct military aid, funding for their government, and, essentially, funding for their entire economy. Mr. Chair, this was while American businesses were shut down during COVID lockdowns and our border was completely overrun.
Everyone needs to understand that it wasn't Putin who was killing Americans, but it was the cartels killing Americans and insane murderers and criminals on our own city streets, in our own country. I remind everyone that the American people are broke, and the people in this room are responsible for that on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, $37 trillion in debt is no joke. I say that on behalf of my children's generation, and they are all in their twenties. I want to know: How deep are we going to continue digging the grave to bury our children and our grandchildren? I will have no part of it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, sadly, the gentlewoman has had a big part in it. She just voted for a budget that would add $4 trillion to the debt, so I don't know that that is a particularly consistent position.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).
Mr. Chairman, I stand 100 percent opposed to this amendment. I am a Reagan and Eisenhower Republican and a post-World War II conservative. I believe in peace through strength, strong allies, and that we are the world's leader in defense of freedom; and we do not cower to bullies.
Russia invaded Ukraine because it wants what they call Little Russia to be their vassal state. Ukrainians have suffered for decades and centuries under Russia. Four million Ukrainians were killed alone in the 1930s purposefully.
A Ukrainian victory is in our national security interests. A thriving Ukraine that is a democracy with free markets is in our national security interests. If Ukraine falls, then you can assume that Moldova, Georgia, and others will also fall. Russia will also threaten the Baltic countries. Our military aid is necessary and cost effective. If we lose here, it will cost a lot more.
I remind us that the Russians are bombing cities every single day, kidnapping kids, and murdering POWs. We have to stand on the right side of this issue. We are on the side of freedom.
It is not conservative to appease Putin, nor is it conservative to have a lack of moral clarity of who is at fault in this war. It is not a conservative position to embrace isolationism.
Mr. Chairman, I stand with two-thirds of America, and I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would have our Nation turn its back on the brave people of Ukraine in their greatest hour of need by cutting off all military assistance.
As we stand here today, Russia's illegal invasion, which is now in its fourth year, is intensifying to the highest levels of the war, despite all of the oily, phony, happy talk coming from Vladimir Putin about seeking peace.
On Saturday, Russia launched the largest drone assault of the war, with 805 drones and 13 cruise missiles, killing 5 people and hitting the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The Tuesday before, a glide bomb killed 23 Ukrainians. Just last night, Russian and Belarusian drones made 19 hits in sovereign Polish airspace, scrambling NATO F-35s and F- 16s to fend off civilian casualties.
It was Ukraine's air force that alerted their neighbors in Poland to these blatantly illegal incursions, demonstrating Ukraine's commitment to protecting not only their own population but the rest of Europe.
If this amendment were to pass, it would cripple not only Ukraine's legal right to defend itself but also our NATO Treaty allies.
Mr. Chairman, I missed that part in my civics lessons and pretty much every single United States map I have ever seen where Ukraine is the 51st State. In fact, it is not.
It is shameful that, in the United States House of Representatives, more United States Members of Congress fight for money and fight for the defense of a foreign country than they actually fight for their own people.
I think Members of Congress should have to wear sponsors, like NASCAR race cars have to wear, for which country they represent and which industry that they are shilling for.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of my amendment. No more money to Ukraine. Let's end the war.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. Russia is murdering innocent civilians in Ukraine.
Our support to Ukraine opposes Russia's murderous aggression. Ukraine is fighting on the front lines against Russian aggression. Vladimir Putin is threatening NATO's eastern flank, including the Balkans. Russian drones have flown over Poland. It is unbelievable that, after Poland has been threatened, we are even debating this amendment today.
It has been warned that U.S. disengagement in Ukraine would fracture NATO unity, undermine deterrence, and invite broader conflict in Europe.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with all of the arguments that were made. I think the most crucial point here is that the United States of America is the most economically powerful country in the history of the world. That has been the case since the end of World War II. A large part of that is because of our efforts to work with the rest of the world to maintain peace and security.
Sadly, it just doesn't end at our borders. Peace and security in the world is in the best interests of the American people, and we see the economic prosperity that we have enjoyed because of it. That is what Ukraine is about and why we should continue to support them.
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 ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes funding for overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid programs.
My amendment strikes $115 million in foreign aid funding to the overseas humanitarian disaster and civic aid programs of the Department of Defense--I am sorry, the War Department.
Mr. Chairman, the United States Government is not a charity, and the American people are some of the most generous people in the world, all by themselves, without the government taking their hard-earned tax dollars and sending it to wherever they want.
Mr. Chairman, this account funds three different programs. Humanitarian assistance helps nations with disaster preparedness, public health support, and basic infrastructure support. Humanitarian Mine Action Program provides assistance to nations to help them safely eliminate unexploded mines. Disaster relief supports disaster relief in foreign countries.
In 2023 and 2024, the Department provided support for responses in Haiti, Turkiye, northern Syria, Philippines, Libya, and Gaza.
While we are compassionate to people around the world suffering from national disasters and many other issues, think of our own national disasters and problems that we face here in our own homeland: Hurricane Helene, Hurricane Milton, Lahaina wildfires, L.A. wildfires, Texas flooding, and the opioid epidemic. The drinking water in northwest Georgia is also polluted with forever chemicals.
These are the issues that the American people care about. These are the issues that the American people pay their taxes for. Mr. Chair, $115 million shouldn't be sent to go sit in an account somewhere ready to go pay money off to every foreign country and every foreign country's need.
We are $37 trillion in debt, and I cannot believe that we can't cut spending here in this body that has created that debt.
Mr. Chair, basically, what this amendment says, as the gentlewoman was saying, is that we are a compassionate nation. She is saying that she wishes we weren't, basically, and that we need to stop being a compassionate nation.
This is $115 million. I will remind everybody that the budget bill that the gentlewoman and the sponsor of this amendment voted for added $4 trillion to the debt. Why don't we start there?
There is a basic argument here: Why does the U.S. engage in foreign aid? There are four real arguments for that.
Number one, economics: Again, we are the most economically powerful nation in the world. We have the largest economy. We benefited the most. If we can help other countries generate economies, we have access to those markets. They will buy our stuff. It grows our economy. It has worked spectacularly well for 80 years.
Number two, disease and health: Sadly, those things don't know borders. Ebola and a variety of different other diseases can spread and come back here. If we work with the rest of the world to prevent it before it comes here, that is to our benefit.
The third is a matter of national security and safety. Mr. Chair, 9/ 11 happened because things were going wrong in other parts of the world, and they came here. It absolutely impacted people in the United States of America. The idea that this has no impact on our citizens doesn't matter. It just fails to recognize that it is not the 19th century anymore. It is a globally connected world that impacts us.
The last argument I would make, Make America Great Again: We are supposed to be the most compassionate nation. As we run around the world telling everybody how great we are, how much we are better than everybody else in the world, this amendment basically says: Screw you. We don't care.
We should be a great nation. We should be willing to set aside $115 million in a $14 trillion economy to help other parts of the world that are less fortunate than us. If we want to make that claim, then we ought to live up to it to at least this tiny little degree.
Mr. Chair, this is a heartless and uncompassionate amendment. Please defeat it.
Mr. Chair, we are $37 trillion in debt. Fiscal year 2024 was the first year that the U.S. spent more on interest payments than on national defense. Spending on interest was more than all the money spent on veterans, education, and transportation combined. That is for America, not the rest of the world.
Interest costs will keep rising, crowding out other priorities, and not only burden future generations but cripple them.
Three hundred Americans die every single day from drug overdoses. In 2024, 17.6 veterans committed suicide every single day, and there were over 30,000 homeless veterans.
These are American problems. These are the issues we should be spending Americans' hard-earned tax dollars on instead of shoving them off and just saying we can't wait to give American money to the rest of the world for whatever they need. Yet, we kick Americans right in the face and say: No. No money for you.
According to the Department of Education, 85 percent of Black students lack proficiency in mathematics and reading skills. Forty percent of high schools in Baltimore did not have a single student score proficiently in math in 2023, not a single student. But we have to send another $115 million for somebody else's flood or problem or issue because, God forbid, the government not jump in and send money to foreign countries.
Mr. Chair, the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid account empowers the U.S. to be a global first responder, advancing our humanitarian goals and strategic interests at the same time.
This fund makes humanitarian responses possible that otherwise wouldn't be. It enables the quick delivery of food, water, shelter, medical supplies, and transportation during natural disasters or humanitarian crises in areas that are too hard for NGOs and other U.S. agencies to reach as quickly. That means more lives saved.
This account is also used to fund the removal of dangerous landmines and other unexploded ordnance that could harm civilians, something I know the amendment's sponsor has been vocal about in the past.
This fund helps showcase the U.S. military in a positive light, leading with our values and capabilities while strengthening partnerships and alliances.
For example, just a few years ago, OHDACA provided critical humanitarian assistance to Afghan Special Immigrant Visa applicants after the collapse of the Afghan Government.
Compared to the rest of the defense budget, OHDACA's budget is modest, but its impact is huge. It yields massive returns in lives saved, crises stabilized, and partnerships strengthened.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, $115 million is a lot of money, especially when our interest is bigger than our own military budget. We have a serious crisis right now, and it is our national debt.
The American people have been through unbelievable crises: hurricanes, wildfires, every kind of natural disaster you can imagine, but also disasters caused by our own government. Yet, the people in this room are tone deaf, absolutely tone deaf.
If it were up to my Democratic colleagues, they would just keep digging the hole of debt and sending all the hard-earned money here in America overseas for every single issue there is.
I will reiterate: Americans donate more money to worldwide charities than any other country on Earth. If Americans want to be able to check a box on their IRS tax return that says, ``Here is some extra money I want to send over for humanitarian aid,'' by God, let them do it, but they shouldn't be forced to do it at gunpoint, and this body should not force them to do that.
Mr. Chair, there are two aspects. One is a budget debate, and it is fascinating. We are having this passionate debate about $115 million, and we didn't, apparently, have that debate when we passed the budget resolution that the sponsor of this amendment voted for that added $4 trillion to the debt.
All those passionate speeches about the debt, the deficit, and its impacts are absolutely real, but how can you ignore that and vote for the $4 trillion debt and be all passionate about $115 million?
Also, it is not true that we do nothing for the American people. It is somewhere around a $6.5 trillion budget. This is $115 million. Let's not act like we are not funding those other priorities. We are funding those other priorities.
The second piece of this is, does this benefit the United States of America to spend this money to help the rest of the world deal with disasters? As I explained earlier, it 100 percent does.
Would it make sense for us, as the gentlewoman has suggested we are doing, to fund every single crisis all around the world? No, it wouldn't, and we don't.
We spend $115 million to try to help the rest of the world with public health disasters and natural disasters, which does benefit us.
All the arguments about the debt and the deficit, please don't take those seriously from a group of people who just voted for increasing the debt by $4 trillion. This is $115 million that is absolutely in the best interest of the United States of America. It will help us.
Mr. Chair, please defeat this amendment, and 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 ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes the funding for Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative.
This amendment would strike $1 billion in military assistance to Taiwan. This funding will be used to provide a wide variety of assistance, including planes, drones, missile defense, munitions, and more. However, this is an increase of $700 million from the fiscal year `25 NDAA, which authorized only $300 million, so this is quite a jump in funding.
The entire defense budget of Taiwan is less than $20 billion. We have given Taiwan over $2 billion in funding and munitions over the last 2 years. Increasing foreign aid to Taiwan will only increase their reliance on the U.S. Increasing funding by $700 million to $1 billion, when the interest on our own debt is over our entire military budget, is America last.
The United States is $37 trillion in debt, and in fiscal year `24, the government spent over $1.8 trillion more than it took in. The interest alone on our debt has exceeded $1 trillion. We can't afford to fund other countries' militaries and secure other countries' borders.
Before we start worrying about Taiwan's borders or Ukraine's borders, we
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment striking funding for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative.
Coming from Hawaii, on the front lines of the Indo-Pacific, I know firsthand how critically important it is to keep our ties in this region strong.
The Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative is not just another line item. It is a vital provision that enables Taiwan to maintain its self- defense capabilities and sends a clear message to both Taipei and Beijing that the United States is serious about deterrence. It keeps us out of that war that the sponsor of this amendment is so concerned about. Cutting this funding would only invite Beijing to push harder, not pull back.
We say we want to be tough on China, yet here we are entertaining whether to cut one of the clearest demonstrations of our strength and resolve. The fact that this amendment has even been made in order undermines us. Just giving this amendment airtime sows seeds of doubt in Taiwan as to our support and further emboldens Beijing. This is not, by any means, a serious amendment.
In this very same bill that we are debating, we are considering bipartisan provisions that strengthen our defense relations with Taiwan, expanding DOD's annual readiness assessments, even Republican- led amendments to invite Taiwan into RIMPAC and bolster its energy security. These are the kinds of amendments that are aligned with the United States' interests. These are the kinds of amendments that foster deterrence, not instigate and facilitate Chinese propaganda, as this one would.
When we question our support for Taiwan outright, as this amendment does, onlookers will wonder what else are we willing to walk back on? Who else will we abandon on the line? That is not the message we should be sending. This amendment is nothing more than a political stunt that should never have seen the light of day. Beijing is watching, my friends. Passing this amendment is a win for China. Do not be fooled.
Mr. Chair, I think everyone has to be honest in here and admit to the fact that our United States military has a strong presence in the Indo-Pacific. The United States is not backing down to China. However, we shouldn't have to fund Taiwan's security and military at $1 billion.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to Ms. Greene's amendment to eliminate funding for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative.
I know that my colleague is trying to save money and put America first, and I respect that, but defunding support to Taiwan that was requested by the Trump administration has consequences that would do exactly the opposite of what I believe the gentlewoman is trying to achieve.
Peace through strength saves money, saves lives, and puts American interests first. President Trump recognized that, which is why he requested Congress double the funding for this program to preserve peace in a critically important region.
Trade in the Indo-Pacific accounts for about 40 percent of the world's GDP. Around 21 percent of the global trade passes through the Taiwan Straits, including 40 percent of the world's container fleet. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company produces 90 percent of the world's AI chips, which are crucial to the American economy.
A war in this region would be a global catastrophe. Our Taiwanese allies are already awaiting overdue delivery of American military supplies.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, they are waiting for supplies they have already paid for. This amendment sends the wrong signal at the worst time. A withdrawal of our support would defeat Trump's initiatives to shore up this critically important part of the world, save us money, save us ultimate deficit spending in defense of a region that we need to critically supply.
Mr. Chair, not only have I introduced amendments to defund Ukraine, defund $115 million in humanitarian assistance for foreign countries, defund $1 billion from Taiwan, I have also introduced amendments to defund money to Israel, Syria, Iraq, and the border security for Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Pakistan, but those amendments were not made in order, so I didn't get to debate those today.
The reason why I introduced those amendments is because I believe our funding for our United States military should be for our country only because it is the defense of our country only that should matter, and that is what matters to the American people.
They are absolutely fed up. Every single one of my colleagues can go back home to their districts and face their constituents, and their constituents will tell them: We are sick of the foreign wars. We are sick of the foreign aid. That is a matter of fact.
I will tell you why. It is because the American Dream has become unattainable today. The median age of first-time home buyers is 38 years old, compared to 29 in the 1980s. The cost of college tuition has increased by about 130 percent in the past two decades. Graduates leave with massive amounts of debt and are unable to find jobs. The youth unemployment rate is at 10.8 percent. The average health insurance premium for a family has risen by 22 percent since 2018 and 47 percent since 2013.
This is an America last Congress, and this is every single Congress. As we debate these bills, it is always about sending more money to more foreign countries for their foreign causes because every foreign country has a plea and a request and a reason to ask America to write them checks.
Madam Chair, in recent years, China has increased the size, scope, and complexity of its drills around Taiwan. As Admiral Paparo has said: These are not exercises. They are rehearsals for a forced reunification.
President Trump understands that supporting Taiwan's self-defense now is the surest way to deter CCP aggression. I agree. That is why the President and the Pentagon requested $1 billion for the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative in FY26. This bill fully funds President Trump's budget request. To do otherwise would put peace and security in Taiwan at risk. Therefore, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Madam Chair, the issue here is it is always about another country, and it is always America last. We are $37 trillion in debt. I can tell you right now there is becoming a big difference between how young Americans feel versus how older Americans feel. This body is absolutely tone deaf when it comes to spending and priorities.
When young Americans today are hopeless for the future, don't believe that they will be able to afford to buy a home, can't afford the cost of living, but yet here in Congress the debate goes on and on about how much more money we should send to more foreign countries around the world, the United States Congress is absolutely losing the support of the American people. That goes for both political parties.
Madam Chair, I urge the support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, we have heard strong voices from both sides of the aisle that this is a bad, reckless, dangerous amendment. Every dollar and day we spend supporting Taiwan is another day we keep our servicemembers, our children, and our grandchildren out of war. This is about putting Americans first.
It is a very simple decision. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
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 and offer my amendment No. 25 to H.R. 3838, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026.
My amendment expands on language already in law, in this bill, and in the Senate NDAA to combat the indirect censorship of conservative news outlets in the Department of War.
Section 1555 of the fiscal year 2024 NDAA required that the DOD, when contracting with organizations that place military recruitment advertisements, must certify that an organization does not place advertisements based on political bias or the determination that a media outlet spreads so-called misinformation.
The language is necessary because the DOD, or now the Department of War, has contracted with organizations such as NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index.
According to the Media Research Center, the average NewsGuard score for the left and lean-left outlets was a green shield rating of 91 of 100, while the average rating for the right and lean-right outlets was a low of 66 of 100.
A Global Disinformation Index report on the online news lists the 10 riskiest online news outlets as the New York Post, The Federalist, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Newsmax, One America News Network, The American Spectator, The American Conservative, Reason Magazine, and RealClear Politics. They are all conservative.
Left-leaning sites like ProPublica.com, NPR.org, NewYorkTimes.com, WashingtonPost.com, BuzzFeedNews.com, and HuffingtonPost.com were among the 10 lowest risk online news sites.
We should not be excluding large swaths of Americans simply because they watch or read conservative news, especially when considering that recruiting is hard enough without excluding this demographic.
My amendment adds language to clarify the standards on what exact bias looks like, as well as by striking the 1-year sunset included in subsection (c).
This language is already in the Senate NDAA. I thank Senator Tuberville for his leadership in pushing this forward. I ask for my colleagues' support on amendment No. 25.
We have dealt with this issue on a number of levels. It is already in the underlying bill. This expands it to any organization that is deemed to be engaging in fact-checking. Basically what this amendment has done--and it is in law from last year; now we are making it permanent and expanding it--is basically if you are an organization that checks for factual accuracy, we don't want to do business with you, which is just a remarkable statement in terms of how we approach this. I think we should want people to check facts.
For example, it is not the Department of War. It is the Department of Defense. It is in the statute. It is the law. The President can say whatever he wants to say, but the law still says it is the Department of Defense. If he wants to put into the law that he is going to change that, that is fine; but it is factually inaccurate to say that it is the Department of War.
Yes, the statistics seem to show that rightwing news agencies score lower on factual accuracy. There are two reasons possible for why that happens. One is the bias that the gentleman, the maker of the amendment, says. The other is that they are more likely to be factually inaccurate, which seems to be the more likely outcome.
I also want to make clear, we are not excluding anything. In fact, this amendment is what excludes things. If you are an organization that checks facts, we are going to exclude you from who we are going to do business with.
I would just let out a heavy sigh at this moment about how do you engage in that sort of conversation? If you want to take a close look at this and say: The way you are checking for factual accuracy, we think it is wrong. We don't think you are being fair. We don't think you are doing this right. Okay. Fine.
Now we are just going to say: Don't look. Don't check. Don't think about it. It is your truth.
We are going to go with--the leftwing version of this is: Your truth is as much truth as anybody else's. The rightwing version of this is: We are going with alternative facts.
I still want to live in the factual universe. If you join me in that cause, let's defeat this amendment.
Madam Chair, I find it rather distracting that my peer on the other side of the aisle thinks that one person controls the truth. That, by and large, he thinks that conservative media is lying and that liberal media is telling the truth.
The fact of the matter is, during the Biden administration when all of this came to be, where we start fact-checking, recruiting went down miserably. We had a recruiting problem we have never seen in America since the Vietnam war. We had a problem getting the Army up to par. The only service that made their recruiting goals was the United States Marine Corps. I would like to say it is because of their amazing commercials, but I am sure it is far more than that.
What we know is they have a job to do. We are hurting the recruitment efforts by taking out a demographic based on your idea of what is accurate and truthful, rather than doing your job of bringing people into the military to make sure that we are sustaining a lethal force moving forward. That is our goal. That is as American as you get, and it is not a partisan issue.
Trying to figure out which news agency should be advertised on, based on your idea of what the truth is, is really a side-note argument that should be kept in this room, not on the political front in front of the future soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen that we need to sustain our force.
Madam Chair, I would say, since we instituted this bill last year: Guess what? Maybe it is because we have a
Madam Chair, I would make a couple of quick points.
Madam Chair, first of all, I am not remotely saying the left is right and the right is wrong or anything like that. This amendment says we are not going to even examine the question. That is the problem I have. I fully admit the left is wrong frequently. I think we ought to factually check that. Here, we are saying don't factually check that.
While we are on the subject of facts, COVID played a little bit of a role in our recruitment problem. I don't think anyone who is being fair about analysis would dispute that. Again, here we hear: Oh, no, it wasn't COVID. It was the fact that, where we advertised, we didn't place it here.
Madam Chair, come on. COVID is what impacted our recruitment, which is why I think we should allow people to check facts. It is not that the left is always right. They are frequently not. Believe me. I live those arguments back home in my district, and I argue the other side of it. I just think we should at least try and figure it out.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cisneros).
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me. This highly partisan amendment would prevent DOD from contracting with entities that perform fact-checking for recruitment purposes.
Explain to me how we are enhancing national security, deterring our adversaries, and, most importantly, increasing servicemember quality- of-life needs by going after a contract.
In my previous role, I oversaw recruiting for the military services. Never did one of them ever come to me stating they couldn't recruit because of this tool.
As the gentleman said, it had to do with COVID. It was because the services weren't putting money into their recruiting budgets. That is why recruiting went down.
It is amendments like this that not only put our national security at risk but make this bipartisan process crumble before us in the House.
Madam Chair, do you know who loves to feed this information through sites that don't fact-check? Russia, Iran, the People's Republic of China, and other adversaries do.
Republican leadership has continued to fail the American people by making this bipartisan bill a rightwing culture war process. When we should be debating the administration deploying Active-Duty servicemembers on U.S. citizens in our cities or managing the destructive mess Hegseth and Trump have turned the Pentagon into, we are dealing with this nonsense.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Madam Chair, I love the fact the other side just said that it is factual that COVID is the reason we couldn't recruit.
When I came into Congress, we had the President of the United States say we can take off masks, that the pandemic is over. For the first 2 years of my service here in Congress, the pandemic was over. Yet we could not recruit.
Therefore, I want to point out that the gentleman literally put misinformation in his argument, which proves my point. Should I censor him from being able to present his case right here in front of the American people? No, I would say not. He is allowed to give us misinformation like he just did.
COVID was over. We couldn't recruit. Then we changed the law. We changed the President. We have mass recruiting efforts being reinforced. It was downright misinformation just to say that COVID didn't allow us to recruit. We have seen that in recent history.
The pandemic has been over for 2 years now. It didn't change until we had a new President and new laws. That was misinformation. To my point, they interpret their misinformation. I interpret mine.
Madam Chair, actually he made my point. He just fact-checked me. Good for him. I disagree, which I will get to in a second, but he fact-checked me.
What their amendment does is it doesn't allow that. It just allows it to hang out there. They can't fact-check it.
The facts are recruitment picked up a year before Trump came back in office. We all know this. Recruitment improved for a long time. There was a bit of a lag in time, yes, until 2022 and 2023. They caught up with the lag. Recruitment improved for a year before Trump showed up in office. It continues to do well.
I would say that that argues it was, in fact, COVID that drove it. I would love to have that discussion. I would love to have people check out facts and have a debate and not cut off all fact-checking.
Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to please oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Madam Chair, our brave servicemen and servicewomen stand ready to defend this Nation against any threat; but they cannot prepare for tomorrow's battles if today's training grounds are shackled by outdated and overreaching regulations.
The Endangered Species Act, once intended as a shield for vulnerable wildlife, has morphed into a weapon wielded by radical activists and unelected bureaucrats that cripple our military's readiness and drain billions from our defense budget.
Madam Chair, consider this. The War Department manages nearly 27 million acres of land, waters, and airspace, which are vital for testing cutting-edge technologies, honing combat skills, and ensuring our Forces remain the world's finest.
Yet as many as 550 threatened or endangered species call these areas home, which triggers endless ESA restrictions that hamstring essential training and operations.
At Fort Huachuca in Arizona, for example, the Sonoran tiger salamanders' designated critical wetland habitat requires strict protection measures. That means environmental reviews and limits on land use, construction, and water management. All those delay vital infrastructure projects and constrain training exercises during breeding seasons.
On top of that, Fort Huachuca must carry out ongoing monitoring, predator control, and habitat management, all under ESA guidelines, which impose onerous constraints on our ability to train and be ready for our warriors. The same could be said about the Barry M. Goldwater Range, also in Arizona.
It is not just Arizona. This happens to Guam, as well, for instance. Guam's military installations face extreme challenges related to ESA from the invasive brown tree snake, which has devastated native wildlife and forced costly and elaborate mitigation programs.
On Guam, the military must deploy snake-proof fencing, trap-and-bait programs, and train detection dogs to prevent brown tree snake incursions on military equipment and cargo, significantly complicating logistics, readiness, and training activities.
This forces the Department of War to divert funds to wildlife management, while mission-critical activities grind to a halt.
Activist groups exploit the ESA through relentless litigation and red tape, imposing critical habitat designations that do precious little to recover species but everything to block land use and weaken our defenses. They are a direct assault on our national security.
After more than 50 years since its enactment in 1973, the ESA's track record is abysmal. Fewer than 2 percent of listed species have been delisted. That isn't a success story. That is proof of a flawed perpetual regulatory machine that prioritizes special interest agendas over sound science and our soldiers' needs.
Madam Chair, House Natural Resources Committee Democrats strongly oppose Biggs amendment No. 29, which seeks to weaken the Department of Defense's work to preserve habitats crucial for military readiness and recovering vulnerable species.
The DOD covers millions of acres, spanning a vast array of natural habitats and providing that realistic backdrop for training and testing. Healthy and well-managed natural ecosystems play an essential role in maintaining the readiness of our military troops, an advantage that is unique to the U.S. military.
The military has even used ESA-listed wildlife to add complexity to training exercises, treating them as sensitive infrastructure to avoid as they would for schools or hospitals in another environment.
This amendment not only erodes this longstanding work, but it also doesn't reflect what the DOD actually needs. The DOD has not now or ever before requested this language.
Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, let me reiterate: Activist groups exploit the ESA through relentless litigation and red tape, curtailing and preventing full training and preparation by our military.
This amendment is nonnegotiable. It draws a clear line: Military and National Guard lands cannot be arbitrarily designated as critical habitat if the Department of War deems them essential for national defense.
I want to take the same argument that was used on the last bill when Mr. Cisneros of California said, good grief, our adversaries don't care about this question of censorship. I am telling you, Madam Chair, our adversaries don't care about this question of the environment and the ESA.
It exempts our personnel from ESA prohibitions during defense-related operations. That is what is happening, even if incidental harm occurs, because in the heat of preparation for real-world threats, we cannot afford to pause for paperwork.
The ESA was not meant to become a tool for endless lawsuits, environmental extremism, or regulatory overreach that jeopardizes our ability to deter adversaries.
Madam Chair, now is the moment for bold action and clarity. National defense must eclipse this misguided focus on the ESA. The ESA has only delisted 2 percent of the hundreds and thousands of species that it has listed.
We cannot handcuff America's military. Our enemies are not waiting for environmental impact studies. They are advancing relentlessly.
If we vote against this, we are choosing endangered species over war preparedness and defending this country. This is essential, and it is a lifeline for security.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand up for our troops and pass the measure today, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, as co-chair of the Congressional Endangered Species Caucus, I rise today in opposition to this amendment.
I can't believe that we are here again considering this unpopular amendment. It was brutally defeated last year, and it was crushed the year before, both times with bipartisan support.
The Endangered Species Act has wide popularity, but our current biodiversity outlook has really worsened. Our scientific community continues to scream from the rooftops that biodiversity shrinking is a danger to humanity.
In the meantime, our national defense is in no way endangered by saving endangered species. Amazingly, this is basically an attack on the Endangered Species Act that the Department of Defense has never asked for. It is a solution in search of a problem.
The Department of Defense already has a robust collaboration with the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. They do management plans everywhere.
Military lands are already excluded from designation as a critical habitat
To date, as the Member from Arizona has mentioned, 99 percent of the species listed under the ESA have been saved from disappearing forever, making this one of the most successful pieces of legislation in American history.
Actions to protect these species do not hinder national security, and managing endangered species in balance with our mission is something the Department of Defense already does very well.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues, once more, to reject this unwanted and unnecessary amendment.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which would create broad exemptions from the Endangered Species Act on military and National Guard lands. In Hawaii, this would be akin to a taking.
The idea that protecting endangered species and maintaining readiness are mutually exclusive is simply false. Across the country, including in Hawaii, the Department of Defense has shown it can partner with conservation experts and local communities to safeguard fragile ecosystems while still meeting its mission.
We should be doing more to hold the Department of Defense accountable and strengthening these efforts, not giving it a blank check to disregard environmental laws whenever it claims national security.
In Hawaii, where trust around military land use is damaged, quite frankly, and lease negotiations are ongoing, accountability is not optional. A back-door taking of our lands is 100 percent unacceptable.
Allowing this amendment to pass would set a dangerous precedent, undo decades of progress, and erode community trust. Protecting our environment and ensuring national defense are not opposing goals. They are shared responsibilities that we must uphold together.
Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Madam Chair, I will close by reiterating that the Department of Defense has not now nor ever before requested this language. Over 20 of my Republican colleagues recognize this very real truth, having voted against this exact language and understanding that responsible conservation and strong national defense go hand in hand.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to include the Lumbee Fairness Act in the bill before us today, providing the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina the full Federal recognition they have been unfairly denied for decades.
Throughout recorded history, the Lumbee Tribe, comprised of nearly 60,000 members, has called southeastern North Carolina home. Despite their long history and cohesive culture, the Lumbee have never had access to the same Federal benefits enjoyed by every other federally recognized Tribes.
During what is referred to as the termination era, Congress passed the Lumbee Act of 1956 recognizing the Tribe yet denying them the Federal rights and protections afforded to other federally recognized Tribes.
Beginning in 1978, the Federal Government began rectifying the damage done during this era. Since then, Congress has stepped in, reversed its previous actions, and recognized 23 Tribes through legislation reestablishing their relationship with the Federal Government.
Legislation to rectify this for the Lumbee Tribe has been introduced in Congress more than 30 times with broad bipartisan support. In the past two Congresses, in fact, the House passed this legislation under suspension, most recently on December 17, 2024.
Outside of Congress, the Lumbee Fairness Act has the support of 236 Tribes across the country that have repeatedly cited the unfair treatment of the Tribe under the 1956 Lumbee Act.
Today, Congress can take a major step forward to end the unfair and unjust treatment of the Lumbee Tribe once and for all.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
For far too long, the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina has been wrongfully denied full Federal recognition, but today is a chance to make it right.
With over 55,000 individuals, the Lumbee people are a core part of my district and the great State of North Carolina. I am honored to be their advocate in Washington.
I know firsthand that they are salt-of-the-earth, hardworking patriots who deserve access to Federal services like their Tribal counterparts.
We must take legislative action to fix this problem and amend the 1956 law that currently prohibits this access.
Last Congress, Members across the aisle, as has already been mentioned, overwhelmingly voted to restore these rights to the Lumbee Tribe, but there wasn't time for the bill to clear the Senate. Today is our opportunity to get this crucial issue finally across the finish line. A vote today for the Lumbee people will fix a historic injustice, and I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, my home State of North Carolina has recognized the Lumbee Tribe since 1885, yet for more than 135 years, their fight for full Federal recognition has been blocked by red tape and indifference.
In 1956, Congress acknowledged the Lumbee Tribe but cruelly denied them the services and the benefits afforded to other federally recognized Tribes. That mistake has never been corrected, but finally Congress has the opportunity to right its wrong.
The Lumbees are more than 55,000 strong, making them the largest Tribe east of the Mississippi. They have defended this Nation in uniform. They have contributed to our economy and preserved a proud heritage that strengthens our State and our country.
Today, this House has an opportunity to finally deliver justice for the ``People of the Dark Water'' of North Carolina. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chair, we are not here today to recognize the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. The Lumbee Tribe was already recognized by the United States Congress in 1956.
We are, however, here today to right a wrong, to end the termination era of Indian policy, and to take the Lumbee out of the legal limbo that they have been in for almost 70 years. It is the job of this Congress to right the wrongs of the past.
During the early 1900s, the Lumbee had numerous Indian agents sent by the U.S. Government go to the homelands, study them, collect data, and determine if they are, in fact, Indian. Each time the Indian agents returned to the District of Columbia, they reported back that these were indeed Indian people. They were Indian people who had survived disease, warfare, and colonization.
I know the Lumbee personally. They are a resilient, strong, and proud people. The Lumbee have served this country in every branch of the military. They contribute to our society. The Lumbee have a strong faith in God. They are good friends who value education, hard work, and community.
I am proud to stand with the Lumbee and urge this body to vote today to end a decades-long wrong.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of my amendment to the NDAA, which would finally repeal both the 2002 and the 1991 Authorizations for Use of Military Force, or AUMFs. These AUMFs are long obsolete.
By remaining on the books, these AUMFs only risk abuse by administrations of either party to sanction military force that Congress has not considered or approved.
It is time for Congress to reclaim its constitutional authority over matters of war and peace, its Article I war powers, by removing these open-ended AUMFs once and for all.
I am thankful to my colleagues who have worked to pass these repeals, having nearly passed both Chambers in the 117th and 118th Congress. I am particularly thankful to Representatives Roy
This amendment is going to pass because a clear majority of this House agree it is time to close these chapters of endless wars. I am prepared to fight in conference to get this over the finish line.
It is time to once and for all end these forever wars.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment I am going to say for procedural reasons, but there are procedures that are important here. The ranking member should know this.
As members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we have sole jurisdiction over powers of war. What goes on abroad with war is not flippant activity. It affects the lives of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen that are stationed abroad in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. While I agree with a lot of the comments that the ranking member just made about reasons to say there should be sunsets on AUMF--and I didn't hear everything that my colleague Mr. Meeks said, but I am sure undoubtedly we have agreement on why there should be sunsets on these things--it cannot be done without bringing in the CENTCOM commander and this commander and this commander and this commander and saying: What are your thoughts on this? What effects does this have on our ability to react or deploy? What effects does this have on those downrange in counterterrorism operations as we speak? What needs to be put back in place in order for us to not be afoul of something that we are doing right now?
These are questions that were not asked, and the answers were not given. This goes beyond just our generals in the Pentagon. It goes to our Secretaries. It goes to others. They are absolutely questions that I am committed to asking and questions that I am committed to finding the answers to and in a timely way. I consider it to be vitally important.
Again, we have, I think, probably large agreement on reasons to sunset things, but it should not be done in the absence of doing something of this gravity in the proper way.
Mr. Chair, in response to the chairman, I will say that we asked those questions in the 117th and the 118th Congress. We continually ask the same questions. We have gotten the answers, and I think it is time to move on and to get this done.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York. I am proud to work with him and others of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and to stand for a simple proposition that, 23 years after this Chamber authorized force, at a time when most of the Members who did so aren't even here, at a time when numerous facts have changed, after Saddam Hussein was captured in 2003 and was executed in 2006, when troops were withdrawn and the hostilities were over in 2011, and then we went back in--regarding ISIS--and then out by 2021, that we should not be operating under a 23-year-old authorization of the use of military force. We can do better than that.
We are not touching 2001. We are touching 2002 and 1991. Come on. Mr. Chair, we don't need to have Congress effectively, modern day, declaring war and leaving it in place for one-quarter of a freakin' century or, in this case, 34 years since 1991.
We can do better. If we want to actually authorize force, we should deliberate, vote, and authorize force, but Article I has to mean something. Please support this amendment to end an endless authorization of force.
Mr. Chairman, these AUMFs were literally voted on when I was 2 years old and 13 years old, respectively, and now I am old enough to be a Member of Congress.
Let's be clear. Presidents from both parties have abused these AUMFs, and my generation is tired of these endless, forever wars. We know that President Trump will exploit, bend, and break any law. The courts have even said it. That is why this body should leave no ambiguity, no wiggle room, and no daylight about our congressional intent and congressional authority. Congress has the sole constitutional right to declare war, not President Trump or any other President.
Yet, we have already seen this President take unauthorized military strikes in places like Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq. Earlier this year, he launched strikes on Iran without congressional authorization. Right now, he is weighing military strikes on cartels in Venezuela and hasn't sought congressional authorization.
This body should not sit idly by while the President makes a mockery of our Constitution and our laws. We--only we--have the power to declare war. I urge my colleagues to pass our bipartisan amendment and repeal these outdated AUMFs.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues have pointed out, it is very simple. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 through 13, are the war powers of Congress, granted to us and given to us. It states very clearly: ``Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.''
Yet, the key thing is that Congress shall have power, not abdicating our roles and responsibilities and not continuing endless wars that spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. We need to bring the power back to Congress to ensure that it is not being abused by anyone within the executive authority, regardless of who is in the actual seat.
This is very simple, Mr. Chairman. We have abdicated and abdicated to where the Article I section of the Constitution no longer has its intended powers and purposes that it initially had. We must get that back, and I support this.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3838, Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution of Delivery and the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026.
My amendment is intended to address the Janet Mello fraud case, the Army civilian who was indicted and pleaded guilty to stealing over $100 million that were intended for the 4-H Military Partnership Grant Program.
The 4-H Military Partnership Grant Program serves 4-H clubs that are in many military installation youth centers. These programs include 4-H positive youth development programming, engaging in hands-on learning in day and overnight summer camps, including military team adventure camps.
We, as a nation, ask so much of our military families. Frequent moves can be especially difficult for children. However, the 4-H Military Partnership Grant Program can serve as a lifeline to military families by providing continuity, as it is often the case that a family can move from one installation to another and maintain active participation in 4-H programs because they are located at so many military installations.
Janet Mello ruthlessly plundered more than $100 million from this program meant to support the children of our military heroes. This calculated betrayal was not only a staggering act of theft but a cruel assault on the very families who sacrifice the most for our Nation's freedom. By draining critical resources, she robbed military children of the opportunities and security promised through 4-H.
The American people deserve answers, and they deserve to know how such a monumental fraud was allowed to fester in the shadows for so long. My amendment requires a report on how this fraud was missed, what red flags were ignored, and what fixes are needed to prevent this from ever happening again.
The House passed my amendment last Congress. Unfortunately, it was not included in the final bill. I am proud to reintroduce this amendment again this Congress with slightly adjusted reporting requirements.
I also note for my colleagues that my office sought and received technical assistance on this amendment from the Office of the Secretary of Defense Comptroller.
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a press release from the Department of Justice describing this fraud in greater detail.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, in closing, I thank Congressman Fulcher for cosponsoring this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting accountability by ensuring that we get answers to how this fraud was able to steal from military families and taxpayers undetected from 2016 through 2023.
Mr. Chair, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 682, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 5 consisting of amendment Nos. 26, 31, 32, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, and 298 printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama:
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 682, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 10 minutes.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Rogers for the opportunity to visit on this en bloc. I appreciate his leadership in once again guiding the NDAA successfully, on a bipartisan basis, through the House.
While I will support this en bloc set of amendments, I would be remiss if I didn't bring to light an amendment that is included in this en bloc that I believe needs more deliberation. I appreciate the intentions of the sponsor, but I believe we need to carefully consider some of the details.
This amendment nearly duplicates the vast powers of the Defense Production Act while the House Financial Services Committee and the Senate Banking Committee are in the midst of a thorough reauthorization, including happily and proactively consulting with our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and our Members throughout both sides of the Hill.
Note that I said the amendment narrowly duplicates the DPA because there are significant differences that should raise concerns about the text in this amendment.
Over the course of 75 years, Congress has built in crucial safeguards to the Defense Production Act. The amendment does not include these safeguards.
Here are just a few examples: Under the Defense Production Act, the Pentagon is limited in its use of financial assistance to domestic industry as well as certain entities located in our Five Eyes partner countries. Even in those countries, our closest, most reliable allies in the world, the DPA has strong oversight language to prevent offshoring to foreign companies.
This amendment, if enacted into law, would allow the Pentagon to use subsidies and purchase commitments in 190 countries around the globe, including, Mr. Chairman, Venezuela and Cuba. We must carefully evaluate these policy choices at a time when we are working to bring jobs back to the United States and reverse decades of manufacturing decline.
Under the previous administration, President Biden sought to use the DPA for things like making more baby formula and residential heat pumps. The amendment would only ensure such efforts in future administrations. This is just not a likelihood. It is a certainty that it could, in fact, be used outside the defense arena.
These are only a handful of my concerns, and I think it would be better for this debate to happen more fulsomely between the committees in a conference process.
Mr. Chairman, I invite Chairman Rogers to commit to addressing these concerns by working with our Financial Services Committee members through the NDAA process, and I thank him for yielding me some time today.
Mr. Chair, I agree with Chairman Hill that our committees have a lot of ground to cover on authorities to strengthen the defense industrial base.
Mr. Messmer's amendment is a good attempt to break through some of the bureaucracy that has hampered those efforts. I commit to Chairman Hill that we will work with him and his committee on the defense industrial base matters that arise in the conference on the NDAA.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their work on keeping the NDAA bipartisan.
There is such a vital focus on national security here, and there are some truly good reforms. As Mr. Hill highlighted, the Defense Production Act has broader implications than just the Department of Defense.
This turf war is, frankly, as old as the Defense Production Act, back to 1950. When Chief of Staff James A. Baker, III, was navigating this, he highlighted that tension. Since then, all kinds of things have taken place with the Defense Production Act. This year is the first opportunity to reauthorize it since the COVID pandemic, so HHS has been used.
There is a lot of thoughtful work underway as we seek to modernize and reauthorize this. I look forward to future collaboration.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Rogers for his commitment to Chairman Hill. As chairman of the National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions Subcommittee, this authorization does go through my subcommittee, and I am happy to work with colleagues across the spectrum here to get a good product across the finish line.
Mr. Chair, I am opposed to this en bloc because of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendments Nos. 476 and 478.
We are at an inflection point in American history. China is investing heavily in AI, integrating it into its military and economy. America cannot afford to fall behind.
My first amendment expands AI pilot programs and logistics, cyber defense, intelligence, and maintenance. AI is a vital force multiplier, cutting costs, speeding decisions, and keeping our warfighters ahead. It also mandates regular reports to Congress for swift, informed action to maintain our edge.
My second amendment ensures an immediate pay raise for Department of
Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with the Department of War on implementing recommendations to make sure these crucial workers are paid what they deserve.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
I was very proud of the markup that passed out of the Armed Services Committee. The bill that we delivered to this floor this week was overwhelmingly bipartisan. It supported our men and women in uniform and strengthened our national defense.
It was an honor to work so closely with Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith on that bill.
Unfortunately, the toxically amended bill that is here before us is no longer that. Not only have a number of very difficult amendments been added to the original markup, but also, since the markup, this administration has recklessly and dangerously deployed the National Guard to American cities without the request or permission of either State or local officials.
For good reason, the Governor of each State makes the decision about when and where to deploy National Guard, not Presidents who are trying to score cheap political points and who are trying to divide our Nation.
I am very proud to be a veteran, and as ranking member of the Military Personnel Subcommittee, it is my responsibility to make sure that we are taking care of our troops and deploying them responsibly and legally, but you don't need to be a veteran or a member of a military family to see what this administration has done with our military. It is divisive, shameful, and irresponsible.
It is divisive, shameful, and irresponsible for us to ask our soldiers to act as local police officers, a role that undermines our readiness for actual conflicts.
It is divisive, shameful, and irresponsible that we force them to leave their families and their jobs for an uncertain period of time with uncertain pay and benefits. It is most certainly divisive, shameful, and irresponsible when we force them to spend their days picking up trash at a cost of millions to the taxpayer.
Our National Guard is designed and trained, indeed purpose-built, to serve key roles in domestic emergencies, natural disasters, and in deployment overseas. When we stray from that mission, we put our national security at risk, and we disrespect these men and women.
For these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. This simple amendment requires that the State's Governor must consent before the National Guard can be deployed.
I know that many of my colleagues may agree with me, including some who are, indeed, running for Governor of their home State, so I ask these Members and all of those who believe in federalism and States' rights to have the courage to support this important amendment today. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for this motion to recommit.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the leadership of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith on this important piece of legislation.
I rise today in support of this en bloc package, which contains four of my amendments. The first requires the Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of the Air National Guard to work together to modernize the Air National Guard's fighter fleet.
Last year's NDAA required a similar report, but this report did not fulfill several requirements, like consultation from the Director of the Air National Guard and recapitalization plans for all fighter wings. It was entirely inadequate.
The average age of our fighter fleet has grown from 10 years to 30 years, and 51 percent of the Air Force's service-retained fighting force is in the Air National Guard. We need to act to modernize our fleet.
My second amendment will provide a 2-year funding mechanism for the State Partnership Program. This is a key security cooperation program that enables our National Guard units to train with United States allies and increases the interoperability, compatibility, and overall readiness of the National Guard.
Budget volatility has brought fiscal uncertainty to this program, putting its future in jeopardy. A 2-year funding mechanism will bring much-needed stability to the program.
My third amendment will require the DOD to increase the efficiency of the Funeral Honors Program. The Funeral Honors Program helps the families of fallen veterans give their loved ones the dignified and respectful burial that they have earned. This program relies on local veterans service organizations to provide these funeral honors, and VSOs receive stipends for costs incurred.
Last year, it was brought to my attention that some VSOs had their stipends withheld due to budgetary shortfalls and the National Guard's operational needs taking priority.
My amendment will require the DOD to identify best practices and cost-effective ways to protect the operational needs of our National Guard while ensuring VSOs are supported in their selfless dedication to our Nation's heroes.
My last amendment will require the DOD to address our crippling reliance on Communist China for critical minerals. We currently rely on Communist China for roughly 80 percent of our critical minerals. These minerals are used to produce everything from cell phones to fighter jets.
With the flip of a switch, Communist China could cease all exports of critical minerals to the United States. In fact, they have already started reducing their exports.
Further, we have turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed by our supplier. Communist China owns 13 of the 19 industrial mines in the Congo, and they utilize child slave labor and follow zero environmental laws.
My amendment would require DOD to help develop a strategy to reshore critical mineral production and end our reliance on Communist China.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc package.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
There are three things I want to do in the closing here. First of all, I want to really recognize the efforts of all of the staff that were involved in bringing us to this point to get the bill to the floor: certainly the House Armed Services Committee staff, and the bipartisan staff, ably led on both sides of the aisle.
This is a long process. Thousands of amendments are generated, thousands more ideas that they have to work their way through to get the bill through the markup and get it to the floor.
Certainly, the Rules Committee staff works overtime processing all those amendments, as well as the floor staff. I thank them all very much for putting up with this. This process was not as bad as it has been in the past. I am not
Everyone has to do so much work on this to make this happen, so I really thank the staff for their incredible work. It is a fine testimony to how vital government employees are to making our country run, and I really appreciate that.
Second, I thank Chairman Rogers, all of the members of the House Armed Services Committee, and their respective staffs for the product we produced out of committee. It was a bipartisan product that really focused on what we needed to do to make the Defense Department better and make sure that we support the men and women who serve in the military.
There are all manner of external issues that really are focused more on partisan advantage one way or the other that typically get thrust at us. We resisted that and stayed focused on the policy. It is not that there aren't disagreements on that policy, even partisan disagreements, where Republicans tend to be in one place and Democrats tend to be in the other. However, it was all around the focus of what is the best way to run the Department of Defense, and that is a legitimate debate to have. Chairman Rogers handled that incredibly well. It was a very fair debate, a fair discussion, and we produced what I think was an excellent product.
It is worth remembering what is in that base bill. The single biggest thing is acquisition reform, which is every little bit as important as it is boring to talk about. It is hard to dive into the details of who is making this decision, the other decision.
The bottom line is, it just takes too long now to buy the equipment, to update and get the innovative technologies that we need in the modern world. The pace of change has never been this rapid--AI, drones, counterdrones, all manner of different technologies. We have got to get those in the hands of the warfighter vastly more quickly and vastly less expensively than we currently do, and the focus in this bill is absolutely right to deal with this.
We also continue to prioritize quality-of-life issues for the men and women who serve in our military and their families, as well we should. There are a lot of very good provisions in that bill, and we produced that product.
The Rules process was a different thing. It was a very, very partisan exercise in which if Republicans made requests, they got them, including the weird little thing that we just went through with some financial services issue, which I don't understand why that is in our bill. It shouldn't be. Well, I do understand why it is in our bill, because the Speaker has a very difficult time saying no to people that he ought to say no to. We need to work on that.
That created a partisan process out of what was a bipartisan process. In and of itself, that is problematic because what it means is Democrats do not get to adequately participate in the process. We didn't get any of the amendments in the debates that we wanted, not a single, solitary one. Meanwhile, all manner of different issues that are pure culture war, partisan issues were allowed in. I fear that many of those are going to pass. We will see. If those amendments are defeated, we will wind up in a different place, but if they pass, we will have a bill that is no longer bipartisan.
This year, as Ms. Houlahan just highlighted, there is one particular thing that was problematic, and that is we are not exercising oversight of the Chief Executive in the manner in which we should. We have become vastly more partisan in that regard as well. I have served under--I am going to lose track of how many Presidents. I think it is five now. Every single one of those, Republicans would always have complaints about a Republican President and Democrats would have complaints about a Democratic President, now not as many as would go the other way, to be sure. But there were always efforts when we would, on a bipartisan basis, say no, the executive branch shouldn't do that. We are going to stand up for Congress.
This is the first term I have ever seen that completely silenced. There is no effort whatsoever for Congress to criticize anything the President does. That is a problem. That upsets the balance of power, the checks and balances that were put in place by our Founders to make sure that we continue to be a constitutional Republic, a Nation based on the Constitution and laws, not on any one individual.
We see that played out most starkly with the way the United States military is currently being used in our cities, in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and even the specter of the President threatening the city of Chicago that he will invade them like a scene from ``Apocalypse Now.'' That should trouble everybody. I don't care whether you are conservative, Democrat, Independent, Republican, liberal, whatever. You should be troubled, even if, by the way, as I do, you have profound concerns about crime in our areas.
I have profound concerns about the way some of those cities are using the criminal justice system. I have concerns in my own area.
I have concerns in my own area. The answer to that is not sending in the United States military.
The way I have come to sum it up is: Crime is a problem. Fascism isn't the answer. More police and stronger communities, that is the answer.
We need to exercise oversight on that because it violates the law. It also undermines the readiness of the United States military. They are supposed to be trained to defend us against our enemies and adversaries, not to engage in domestic law enforcement. We should have a conversation about that and exercise oversight.
We also have the problem with the whole Signalgate thing, where classified information was shared in a way that it should not be shared, and there should be no disagreement on that. We didn't exercise oversight on that either, so stepping aside from all of these issues, simply letting the President do what he wants to do.
Then, internationally, the last point, this attack on that boat down in the Caribbean is incredibly problematic. This is an expansion of the war powers of the President that we have never seen before.
If the President has the power on his own, without even notifying Congress, much less with us exercising any oversight of it, to declare war on any drug cartel in the world whenever he wants to, then our Constitution, Article I, pretty much ceases to have meaning.
We just had an amendment to repeal the AUMFs. I listened to some of those arguments. I support that amendment. I think it was a good argument. The argument was for Article I, for the United States Congress playing a role. We have abdicated that role at this point in a way that we have never done before.
That is a problem. It is something that the Rules Committee should have permitted us to really debate through a series of amendments on the floor, and they did not. I am troubled by that. We will see how the amendment process goes.
Again, beneath all of that is a really good bill that a lot of very good people worked very hard to produce. I hope that when we get through the end of this process and actually pass the bill and send it off to the President, we get that bill back, because it is really important that we pass it.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I support this bipartisan en bloc amendment that was worked in advance with the minority.
I also want to take a minute to completely foot-stomp what my friend, the ranking member, just said about the staff, not only the House Armed Services staff on both sides of the aisle, who have just done incredible work, but the floor staff here and the Rules Committee staff in moving what is the biggest bill that this Congress has to move each year in such an expeditious fashion. They are all to be commended, and I thank them all.
Mr. Chair, I can't overstate how much I appreciate the ranking member and his partnership and leadership in this process. He is, as you can tell, a thought leader in this area, but also just a great partner in advancing this very important piece of legislation.
This is a good bill. It is a very important bill. It reforms the Pentagon's
The House will work its will on the amendments before us today, but I urge all Members to support final passage of the bill. It is critical we get this bill to conference and, ultimately, to the President's desk.
The threats we face today are more complex and precarious than at any point in the last 80 years. The Department needs the authorities that this NDAA provides to stay ahead of these threats. I urge all Members to support this en bloc amendment and the underlying bill.
Mr. Chair, Representative Moolenaar's amendment No. 26, entitled the SAFE Research Act, would enact excessive prohibitions for research awards that would stymie American innovation. In particular, the amendment would introduce a government-wide prohibition to give awards to individuals if they, or a research collaborator, have been affiliated with a hostile foreign entity at any time within five years of applying for the award. The definitions of who is included a ``hostile foreign entity'' is very far reaching and includes twelve separate entity lists as well as any entity performing academic, scientific, or technical collaboration perceived to contribute to nefarious activity.
For an agency to implement this prohibition, they would have to analyze a personal history of every awardee, along with every research collaborator (defined by joint research, coauthored publications, collaboration on awards, and formal mentor relationships) that awardee has had in the past five years. Furthermore, the amendment restricts post-award activity, prohibiting covered individuals from sharing ``expertise'' with ``hostile foreign entities,'' or those affiliated with them, for five years. This is vague, onerous, and impracticable. Simply from an implementation standpoint, it is highly difficult for any research agency, nonetheless one that has had its staff gutted, to properly carry out these proposed policies.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama) having assumed the chair, Mr. Smucker, 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. 3838) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, amendments en bloc No. 5, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), had been disposed of.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 119-255, on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 34 by Mr. Meeks of New York.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Norman of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 14 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 15 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 16 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 17 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 7 by Mr. Smith of New Jersey.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Patronis of Florida.
Amendment No. 11 by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 18 by Mr. Mills of Florida.
Amendment No. 20 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 22 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 23 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 24 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 25 by Mr. McCormick of Georgia.
Amendment No. 29 by Mr. Biggs of Arizona.
Amendment No. 253 by Mr. Rose of Tennessee.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 34, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 261, noes 167, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ellzey) (during the vote). There are 5 minutes remaining.
Messrs. CARTER of Georgia, MORAN, Ms. MALLIOTAKIS, Messrs. WALBERG, DIAZ-BALART, THOMPSON of Pennsylvania, BARR, HARRIS of North Carolina, Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia, Messrs. VAN ORDEN, WEBER of Texas, ROSE, and WIED changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BURLISON, VARGAS, HIMES, McCORMICK, BIGGS of Arizona, COMER, DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. DEXTER, Messrs. CRANE, HAMADEH of Arizona, CLINE, EMMER, Mrs. FEDORCHAK, Messrs. FRY, and SCHWEIKERT changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker having assumed the chair, Mr. Ellzey, 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. 3838) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
The SPEAKER. The Chair would ask that all Members present in the Chamber and those in the gallery please rise for a moment of prayer for Charlie Kirk and his family.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Colorado seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as dean of the Virginia congressional delegation to introduce and welcome to Congress the newest Representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia, James Walkinshaw.
James was born in Northern Virginia, the very region of the Commonwealth that he will now represent in Congress. He graduated from New York University with a degree in politics. He then returned home and got involved in his local community. He managed our dear friend Gerry Connolly's 2007 campaign for chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, and a year later he managed Gerry's successful campaign for Congress.
While a new Member, James is no stranger to Congress. After Gerry's election to Congress, James went on to serve as his chief of staff for over a decade, where he worked closely with many of us and our staffs. James consistently fought alongside Gerry for the people of Virginia's 11th Congressional District.
In 2019, he followed in his political mentor and boss' footsteps and was elected to serve on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, representing the Braddock district, where he has continued to be a powerful advocate for his community.
He resides in Fairfax County with his wife, Yvette, and his son, Mateo. With his victory in this week's special election, I know he will make an outstanding addition to our delegation and this Chamber with his steadfast commitment to the 11th Congressional District of Virginia, fighting to have their voices heard in this body.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).
Mr. Speaker, I rise with profound gratitude and humility as I begin my service on behalf of Virginia's 11th District.
As a lifelong Northern Virginian, I am honored by the trust my community has placed in me. I am deeply grateful to my wife, Yvette, and our son, Mateo, whose love and patience sustain me. This moment belongs to them as much as it does to me.
I am also honored to follow in the footsteps of my dear friend and mentor, Congressman Gerry Connolly, a singular figure in Virginia and in this body, who showed us what principled leadership looks like. His legacy will guide me every day.
With that gratitude, Mr. Speaker, comes responsibility to speak honestly about the challenges my community faces. In Virginia, we are on the leading edge of President Trump's economy. In my district, everyone knows someone who has lost their job due to the agenda coming from the White House and too often from this Chamber. If we do not change course, what is true in Northern Virginia today will soon be true in every district in this Nation. Families everywhere will know someone who has lost their job because of the DOGE cuts, the tariffs, the budget bill, or our failure to address the rising costs on everything from groceries to rent to prescription drugs.
This week, Mr. Speaker, the people of Virginia sent a clear message: They want pragmatic solutions. They want a government that works for everyone. They want us to tackle the high cost of living, housing, and health care, to confront climate change, to honor the public servants, our Federal employees, who keep our government running.
Mr. Speaker, I am humbled by the trust my constituents have placed in me. I will carry their hopes and their voices into this Chamber every day. I will never forget where I came from, and I will never stop working for a government that reflects the best of who we are. Together, Mr. Speaker, I believe we can build that future.
Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to House Resolution 682 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. 3838.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ellzey) kindly resume 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. 3838) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with Mr. Ellzey (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. 34, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) had been disposed of.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 13, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 221, noes 210, not voting 6, as follows:
So the amendment was agreed to.
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. 14, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 221, noes 207, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, during Roll Call Vote number 246 on H.R. 3838, I mistakenly recorded my vote as Aye when I should have voted No.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 15, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 227, noes 201, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, during Roll Call Vote number 247 on H.R. 3838, I mistakenly recorded my vote as No when I should have voted Aye.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 16, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 221, noes 210, not voting 6, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 248.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 17, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 219, noes 209, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
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. 7, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 209, noes 224, not voting 4, 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. 9, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Patronis), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 224, noes 208, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 4, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
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. 11, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 228, noes 205, not voting 4, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
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. 18, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 222, noes 210, not voting 5, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
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. 20, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 194, noes 236, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 6, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mrs. BICE changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, on Roll Call No. 254, I mistakenly voted No when I intended to vote Aye.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 22, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 60, noes 372, not voting 5, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Messrs. ELLZEY and HERN of Oklahoma changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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. 23, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 60, noes 370, 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. 24, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, 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 9, noes 422, not voting 6, as follows:
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. 25, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 219, noes 211, not voting 7, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, I regret that I was unable to vote today, as I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted NO on Roll Call No. 258, on agreeing to McCormick Amendment No. 25 to H.R. 3838, the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 29, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 200, noes 228, 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.
On September 10, 2025, on page H4225, in the third column, the following appeared: Mr. KIM. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I
The online version has been corrected to read: Mrs. KIM. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 253, printed in part A of House Report 119-255, offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 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 430, noes 3, not voting 4, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Ms. BYNUM changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, during Roll Call Vote number 260 on Rose Amendment No. 253, I mistakenly recorded my vote as NO when I should have voted AYE.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Ellzey) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moolenaar, 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. 3838) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2026 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 682, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry further 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.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, nays 219, not voting 5, 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 passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Authorizing the Clerk to Make Corrections in Engrossment of H.R. 3838, Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 3838, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section and title numbering, cross-referencing, conforming amendments to the table of contents and short titles, and the insertion of appropriate headings.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama?
Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) and the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to instruct conferees to adopt the Senate funding level for Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, WIC, as part of the conference on three fiscal year 2026 funding bills: Agriculture, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and legislative branch.
Besides cutting WIC to unacceptable levels, House Republicans are coming to the table with funding bills that are filled with extreme reckless cuts and harmful riders that have been rejected on a bipartisan basis.
We are now 9 months into this administration and weeks away from the end of the fiscal year, and the cost-of-living crisis has only gotten worse under President Trump. Americans are struggling with rising costs of everyday necessities. They are living paycheck to paycheck, but the President and House Republicans are not laser focused on the cost-of- living crisis. They are making it worse.
Instead of lowering prices, Republicans passed a bill to cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which will strip healthcare coverage for more than 15 million people. Over $500 billion in cuts to Medicare will be triggered by this law, harming America's seniors. In their signature law, Republicans slashed nutrition benefits for poor families, which will cause an additional 1 million kids to go hungry.
They did all of this in order to pass trillions of dollars in tax cuts for big corporations and for billionaires, adding $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.
Since then, House Republicans have only doubled down on their attacks on the working class, the middle class, and vulnerable Americans.
Last night, Republicans on the Appropriations Committee forced through their reckless 2026 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies funding bill that assaults public health, slashes medical research, eliminates funding for reproductive health, and eviscerates education and job training.
They used this bill not to right the wrongs of their big, ugly law, but to make healthcare even more expensive and slash research into lifesaving cures.
They cut funding for the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They slashed funding for State and local health departments, substance use prevention and treatment, mental health services, and eliminated funding for tobacco prevention and HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment.
To top it all off, House Republicans continue to full-scale attempt to eliminate public education, decimating support for children in K through 12 elementary schools, and threatening the future of the entire generation.
The Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education funding bill was cut from the same cloth as the agriculture funding bill we are preparing to conference. At a time when families around the country are struggling to
That is why the House conferees must support the WIC level in the Senate bill, $500 million over the budget request and the House bill. This should be a simple ask. On Monday, the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, asked for funding of the continuing resolution at the Senate's level of $8.2 billion.
Mr. Speaker, this should be a simple ask. On Monday, the Office of Management and Budget asked for funding in the continuing resolution at the Senate's level of $8.2 billion. Yesterday, the administration released its Make America Healthy Again report. The report commended the WIC program for its science-based approach to evaluating the health and the diet of participants and working to improve them.
Unfortunately, the report made no mention of the administration's drastically insufficient budget request for WIC or the need to fully fund vouchers issued to participants for fruits and vegetables.
House Republicans must do more than pay lip service to the goal of making healthy food available to children and families. They must fund WIC at the Senate's proposed level and support the fruit and vegetable vouchers.
House Republicans' Agriculture funding bill also fails to provide the Food and Drug Administration with the funding it needs to keep Americans healthy and safe from foodborne illnesses and harmful additives. From keeping track of food recalls to rigorously inspecting processing facilities to protecting infant formula to banning toxic dyes, the FDA cannot accomplish its missions if we slash its resources.
Given many recent food recalls, and particularly with contaminated foods and medical products that are imported, there is a need for the FDA to expand its presence. That cannot be done for free.
We must follow the Senate's lead on funding the FDA. The Senate bill provides $3.5 billion for the vital agency, $332 million over the House bill and roughly equally to the 2025 level. This level provides significantly more funding for human foods and drugs work, two of the most vital responsibilities of the FDA.
Even beyond the insufficient and dangerous funding levels for WIC and FDA, there are other reckless cuts and policies in the Agriculture funding bill that must be addressed in conference.
Despite Republicans claiming to support farmers and rural communities, their bill cuts investments in rural America, including grants that help hardworking Americans buy homes in rural areas and programs to help build drinking and wastewater infrastructure in rural communities that need it most.
House Republicans are using this bill to eliminate protections for small meat and poultry producers against large corporations that have dominated the market, forced small producers out of business, and price gouged consumers.
We are in an era of unprecedented corporate consolidation. Mr. Speaker, four countries control over 80 percent of the beef market, four companies control 70 percent of the pork industry, and four companies control more than half of the chicken industry.
House Republicans' bill will help these major companies dominate the market, grow their power, and raise prices on the backs of hardworking Americans.
The two other bills in this package, the Military Construction and Veteran Affairs and Legislative Branch funding bills, also need significant improvements in order to earn support from Democrats.
As it stands now, the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill would worsen the quality of life for servicemembers and their families and raise costs for Americans, while helping big corporations profit from privatizing medical care for veterans and hurt military readiness.
This extreme proposal also furthers Republicans' constant attempts to roll back women's rights by restricting healthcare access for servicemembers and their families.
House Republicans' Legislative Branch funding bill, typically a bill that has been quickly agreed to by both parties, jettisons bipartisan priorities in order to aid and abet OMB Director Russ Vought in stealing funds from American taxpayers.
This bill's drastic cuts and restrictions on the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress will inhibit our ability to hold government accountable and will let waste and fraud run rampant.
It is astonishing that for all the talk about finding and rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, that House Republicans would defund the watchdog that is tasked with precisely that role.
The only plausible explanation is that the majority, and the administration to which it is blindly loyal, is upset that GAO has repeatedly found that the White House is stealing funds away from taxpayers.
This conference takes place as our entire legislative branch of government is being undermined. The Trump administration, guided by Project 2025 author and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, is unlawfully stealing funds that we, Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate, elected by our constituents for this purpose, passed into law.
Russ Vought continues to withhold more than $410 billion from families, from farmers, from children, from small businesses, and from communities in every part of the country.
As the courts have repeatedly concluded, this administration's disregard for our Nation's spending laws and Congress' power of the purse has harmed every corner of our country. Children in elementary schools have been denied resources they need to succeed. Farmers in rural communities have been left to fend for themselves. Communities have been robbed of resources to keep people safe.
Russ Vought has stripped hope away from cancer patients and singlehandedly made the cost-of-living crisis even worse for working families.
Make no mistake. This is all part of Russ Vought's plan to centralize and hoard power for himself over all others. He is poisoning these negotiations. Every illegal action he takes is designed to spite Congress and make sure his dark vision comes to pass.
Russ Vought wants a shutdown. He wants the country to continue spiraling into chaos so that he can keep stealing from our communities and dismantling Congress' power of the purse.
I stand ready to move forward to fund the government in a bipartisan way, and to pass funding bills that address the cost-of-living crisis that President Trump is escalating. Any funding agreement must reflect Democratic priorities. We must pass full-year spending bills that ensure that lawmakers, not President Trump and Russ Vought, decide how taxpayer dollars get spent.
Democrats want to lower the cost of living for all Americans and deliver critical services and investments to the working class, the middle class, and the vulnerable. That victory can be achieved through bipartisan cooperation to pass annual funding bills, signed into law by President Trump, that ensure this elected body's commitments to our constituents are fulfilled.
It cannot be achieved through another full-year continuing resolution that only increases Russ Vought's power. If Republicans choose to empower an unelected bureaucrat over the voices of the American people, then Democrats will not provide our vote to such a dangerous usurpation of congressional power.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Motion to Instruct, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, for yielding and for her strong leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Motion to Instruct. From the very beginning of this Congress, Democrats have made clear that
America is too expensive. Far too many people in this country are working hard and playing by the rules, but they are unable to get ahead and can barely get by.
Yet, what we have seen from this Congress is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently made life harder for everyday Americans. That is what the one big, ugly bill was all about. It was to hurt everyday Americans in order, Mr. Speaker, to reward billionaire donors with massive tax breaks.
Why was this done? The one big, ugly bill rips healthcare away from millions of Americans. Hospitals, nursing homes, and community-based health clinics will close. The American people are now confronting dramatic increases in healthcare premiums, copays, and deductibles. America is already too expensive. President Trump and House Republicans are making things worse.
Democrats are prepared, under the leadership of Rosa DeLauro, to sit down anytime and anyplace to negotiate a bipartisan spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people in terms of their health, public safety, and economic well-being.
What Democrats will not do, Mr. Speaker, is support partisan spending legislation put forth by Republicans that continues to gut the healthcare of the American people.
Enough is enough. We need to reverse the damage that has been done, not do more.
The big, ugly bill steals food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans. Why? Once again, it is to pay for massive tax breaks to Republican billionaire donors. This is unacceptable and unconscionable.
This motion to instruct will help ensure that in a conference between the House and Senate, between Democrats and Republicans, we are actually protecting women, infants, and children here in the United States of America, all over, in urban America, rural America, small- town America, suburban America, exurban America, and the heartland of America.
The assault on the social safety net that Republicans have engineered this Congress, Mr. Speaker, has been completely and totally unacceptable, hurting everyday Americans and exploding the debt and the deficit at the same period of time.
Nothing has been done by this Republican-led Congress to lower the high cost of living. Donald Trump promised that costs would go down on day one. Costs have not gone down. They are going up. Inflation is on the way up. Life has gotten more expensive. Electricity bills are skyrocketing and out of control. Now, healthcare premiums are on the verge of increasing by thousands of dollars a year for 20 million Americans unless Republicans choose to join us and act with respect to the tax credits that will expire at the end of this year connected to the Affordable Care Act.
There is much work that needs to be done. Again, Democrats are ready to sit down anytime and anyplace to work out a spending bill on a bipartisan basis that actually makes life better for the American people, but we will not allow this administration and the Republican Congress to continue to hurt everyday Americans.
That is why I strongly support this motion to instruct. That is why we have made clear that under no circumstances will we support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to rip away healthcare from the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as our leader said, we are ready to move forward to fund the government in a bipartisan way, as we have done historically, and to pass funding bills that address the cost-of-living crisis that is the central issue for the American public today.
It is the cost-of-living crisis that the President is escalating. Take a look at food prices today. He said that prices were going to come down on the first day. They are skyrocketing.
While I am prepared to meet anytime, anyplace, anywhere, what is critical is that any funding agreement must reflect Democratic priorities. We must pass full-year spending bills that ensure that lawmakers, Democrats and Republicans, decide how taxpayer dollars get spent and not the President and not Russ Vought. They have no authority to steal the funds that Democrats and Republicans, in a bipartisan way, historically appropriated.
We need to lower that cost of living. Bipartisan cooperation is essential, and we need to ensure that this body's commitments to our constituents are fulfilled.
I also believe it cannot be achieved through another full-year continuing resolution. That only increases Russ Vought's power. If Republicans choose to empower an unelected bureaucrat over the voices of the American people, then Democrats will not provide our votes to such a dangerous usurpation of congressional power.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to instruct. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I have some comments that were drafted before today's events.
Last month, in Minnesota, a gunman opened fire on Catholic schoolchildren praying. Again, thoughts and prayers are offered, but what do we say and what do we do when the victims were already praying?
This cannot be our only response. We need substantive action.
As Westchester County executive, we acted early to ban gun shows from county-owned buildings. It was a small but meaningful sign that we were serious about keeping guns out of our communities.
Now, Congress must show that same seriousness. We need universal background checks. We need weapons of war off our streets. We need strong red flag laws to keep guns away from abusers.
State laws are not enough. Guns can easily be trafficked across State lines.
Thoughts and prayers didn't save children at Sandy Hook, Uvalde, or in that Minnesota church. They won't save the next victims unless we act. We have to keep weapons of mass death out of the hands of those who would use them to kill innocent people.
In the last few hours, we have one more example, the murder of Charlie Kirk. Any person, regardless of their politics, should be able to express their ideas without violence.
Commonsense gun laws save lives, Mr. Speaker, and we must pass them now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Captain Dannie Nelson Wilson, Jr., who passed away after a brave battle with cancer.
Dannie was a devoted husband to Tara, a supportive stepfather to Matthew, a loving father to Dannie III and Morgan, and an adoring Pap to Lillian and Ryann.
Dannie first joined the Loudoun County Volunteer Fire and Rescue service in 1989 as a volunteer. In 2000, he became a career firefighter, serving our community at various stations. He rose the ranks over his decades of service and ended up as a captain.
Captain Wilson will be remembered by colleagues for his depth of knowledge and experience, for his toughness, and also for his heart of gold. He expected a lot from his crew, but he also created a fun atmosphere to work in.
Captain Wilson's legacy of service, humility, and devotion will continue to resonate in Loudoun County and beyond.
May we keep his family in our prayers and honor his memory by carrying forward the values he lived by.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take the time to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of my dear friend and neighbor, Michael Friedman, a tireless champion of social and economic justice and workplace democracy.
From his early days as a truck driver and founding member of Teamsters for a Democratic Union to his distinguished legal career, Mike's life was rooted in advancing the rights and dignity of working people.
Mike believed deeply in the power of unions and cooperatives to transform lives for the better.
As general counsel at the Center for Community-Based Enterprise, Mike dedicated himself to helping businesses transition to worker ownership, empowering employees, and strengthening communities.
Mike was an active social justice organizer in Detroit for decades. He cofounded our local Jewish Voice for Peace chapter and helped lead their work challenging the U.S. support for the Israeli Government's apartheid and genocide in Gaza.
His legacy will continue to inspire all of us who fight for justice, equity, and workers' rights. Our thoughts are with his wife, Barbara Harvey, and their family during this very difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask when the majority will join us to address the epidemic of gun violence in our schools in America.
A recent shooting at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis left 2 children dead and 21 injured when a shooter opened fire during morning mass.
Since 2013, there have been more than 1,500 incidents of gunfire on America's school grounds, resulting in 485 deaths and 1,100 injuries nationally.
As a result of California's strong gun regulations, residents of that State, my home State, are 25 percent less likely to be killed in a mass shooting than people in other States. California's overall rate of gun deaths is 42 percent lower than the national average. However, 40 percent of the guns used in California come from outside of the State. We need to deal with this nationally even while States show action.
The national statistics are much more troubling. For example, the U.S. gun homicide rate is 26 times that of other high-income countries. House Republicans continue to block all legislation to address this crisis.
It is past time that we put the safety of our children before the profits of the gun lobby and finally pass laws to protect our communities and young Americans from gun violence particularly in school.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Greek Orthodox community in Florida and also across the United States to extend a heartfelt welcome to his All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew who will visit Washington, D.C., from September 15 through September 17.
For many Greek Orthodox faithful in my district, His All-Holiness is more than a religious leader. He is their spiritual father. He is a voice of compassion, a symbol of faith that has been carried across generations of families who came to America in search of freedom of opportunity. His visit to our Nation's Capital is an occasion for pride for my constituents and all Orthodox Christians who call America home.
Patriarch Bartholomew is known worldwide as a bridge-builder, working tirelessly to promote peace, dialogue, and respect among all different faiths. He is also a champion for protecting our natural environment, earning him the title of the ``Green Patriarch.''
His leadership is a source of inspiration not only for the Greek Orthodox community but all those who care about human rights, religious liberty, and the stewardship of God's creation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming His All- Holiness to the United States and celebrating this historic visit with many Greek Orthodox Americans who are honored by his presence. This moment is a reminder of enduring contributions that faith, family, and the community make the strength of our Nation a great nation.
On September 10, 2025, on page H4231, in the third column, the following appeared: Mrs. TORRES of California. Mr.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. TORRES of New York. Mr.
and a true champion for older adults in the Bronx, Ms. Sophia L. Reid. For nearly two decades, Ms. Reid has dedicated herself to the health, dignity, and well-being of our senior community. As program director of the Eastchester Neighborhood Older Adult Center under R.A.I.N., Sophia is more than an administrator. She is a mentor, a caregiver, and a tireless advocate for our community's older adults.
Sophia brings compassion and leadership to everything she does by fostering a sense of community, by organizing health education programs, and hosting wellness activities. As one of her residents retells: ``Sophia has provided an environment where her older adults feel safe, comfortable, and happy to be in daily.''
The older adults that come are from various ethnic backgrounds and not all speak English, but Sophia says: You don't have to love each other, but you must respect each other, and that is how it is.
Her years of dedicated service and passionate care have led her to receive countless awards from the New York City Council, the Bronx Borough President's Office, and now a congressional recognition.
Her work in recognition speaks volumes to the impact that Sophia has had on the Bronx. Sophia has created a space where our seniors feel safe, valued, and seen.
In a city as diverse as New York, she reminds us that respect, community, and care are the foundations of aging with dignity.
On behalf of the people of the Bronx, I thank Sophia Reid for her unwavering service.
Honoring Allison Griffith and Radcliff Magenta Block Association
Mr. Speaker, today I want to honor the extraordinary dedication of community leader Allison Griffith and the Radcliff Magenta Block Association, whose tireless work has transformed their Bronx neighborhood.
Over 20 years ago, Lillian McDuffie and Yvonne Long fought against a serious health hazard in which raw sewage was backing up into their homes every time it rained. Their persistence brought attention to a dangerous problem that endangered children playing in basements and resident safety.
After over a year of fighting for the issue to be addressed and for the continued cleaning of the sewer system, the request was approved, and the reconstruction on the area began to fix the sewer system as a whole.
Their commitment didn't stop there. Seeing neighborhood children with nothing to do, they helped start a block party to bring the community together, fostering connection and care among neighbors.
Today, Allison Griffith carries on this tradition as the chairperson of the Radcliff Magenta Block Association, keeping the community united and engaged year after year. I have had the pleasure of attending the block party since I began representing the community, and it has been a day full of fun and events for the full neighborhood.
I am proud to support this extraordinary community organization and its efforts to build a healthier, stronger Bronx. Their story reminds us that real change begins with neighbors looking out for one another.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Cheryl McNear, the newly elected president of the 47th Precinct Community Council and a steadfast leader in our Bronx community.
Cheryl has dedicated nearly a decade of service to the council holding multiple leadership roles, including vice president, recording secretary, corresponding secretary, and assistant secretary before being elected president.
As a retired associate dean of student affairs, she brings a wealth of experience in leadership, policy, and institutional structure, skills she now applies to strengthen community safety and engagement.
Beyond her professional achievements, Cheryl serves as a community chaplain and is deeply engaged with organizations like the NAACP Williamsbridge branch and Not On My Watch Incorporated.
Her leadership is shaped by clarity, order, and emotional intelligence, anchored in a deep understanding that community work is not just a responsibility but a ministry.
For Cheryl, serving the community is not a job. It is a lifelong calling rooted in principle and purpose. Mr. Speaker, Cheryl McNear's life deserves to be honored for her outstanding leadership and dedication to making the Bronx a safer, stronger place for all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Margaret Alexander, a dedicated and passionate community service advocate, and a voice for the voiceless who volunteers for various causes.
Margaret's projects include coordinating events for The Beacon of Hope, as a youth mentor with the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and recently held a key role as an ambassador advocate for the Alzheimer's Association.
She cared for her mother and aunt, both of whom succumbed to Alzheimer's, for over 15 years. As an experienced caregiver, she turned her pain into power. Her work with the Alzheimer's Association has afforded her the opportunity to attend rallies and meet with elected officials.
Her successful advocacy and dedication to her work led her to be a lead speaker before the 2024 Alzheimer's National Forum in Washington, D.C., where she was awarded an Alzheimer's National Advocacy Team award.
Margaret currently leads a business that provides social activities for folks living with mild and moderate dementia. Additionally, she has participated in Alzheimer's research trials for over 5 years to assist in the fight against this devastating disease.
Margaret's work has helped so many seniors in our community age with dignity. I thank her for her incredible service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate a true pillar of faith, resilience, and community in the Bronx, St. Luke's Episcopal Church in Williamsbridge.
What began humbly in 1914 in the living room of Mr. and Mrs. William Witty has grown into one of the most vibrant and enduring congregations in our city. Through decades of transition, leadership, and vision, from the Rev. Harold McLean to Rev. Pierre-Andre Duvert, St. Luke's has been a beacon of hope, compassion, and purpose.
Whether building formal senior housing, launching youth ministries, or expanding its spiritual and physical sanctuary, St. Luke's has always understood that faith is more than words; it is action rooted in love and service.
For over a century, St. Luke's has lived its mission not only within its sanctuary but throughout our borough and the world. We thank its clergy, leaders, and parishioners, past and present. We honor their legacy, and we celebrate their unwavering commitment to lifting others up.
May St. Luke's continue to be a light in the Bronx for generations to come.
Celebrating the 67th Anniversary of NAACP Williamsbridge Branch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the NAACP Williamsbridge Branch on its 67th anniversary gala.
For nearly seven decades, this branch has been a steadfast champion for justice and equality in the Bronx, especially in the northeast Bronx, where its leadership has empowered families, defended civil rights, and strengthened neighborhoods through action.
From education to civic engagement, the Williamsbridge Branch has been a powerful force for change, amplifying the voices of our communities and ensuring that they are heard, valued, and respected.
This year's gala not only honors exceptional leaders in youth, health education, and public service, but it also reaffirms the branch's deep commitment to investing in the next generation.
On behalf of New York's 15th Congressional District, I commend the Williamsbridge NAACP for its enduring legacy of advocacy. May the 67th anniversary be both a celebration of progress and a call to continue the vital work that lies ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor an extraordinary leader, scholar, and servant of God, Rev. Dr. Alpher Sylvester, district superintendent of the Connecticut District in the New York Annual Conference.
Born in Trinidad and Tobago, the seventh of ten children, Rev. Sylvester was shaped by a deep faith and disciplined upbringing. His journey from Sunday school in the Caribbean to lecturing at NYU and ministering across Africa, Europe, and the Middle East is a testament to his calling, his conviction, and his commitment to empowering God's people.
He is not only a passionate preacher and teacher of the Word, but a scholar, mentor, and global faith leader, sponsoring pilgrimages and uplifting lives through exegetical preaching and compassionate service.
Through every role--as a husband, father, academic, and pastor--Rev. Dr. Sylvester has embodied excellence and purpose.
On behalf of the people of New York's 15th Congressional District, I commend him for his enduring dedication to ministry and to humanity. May his life continue to be a blessing to the body of Christ and to the world.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Ursula Cruz- Greene, a remarkable public servant, and a pillar of our Bronx community.
Born in Lumberton, North Carolina, Ursula moved to New York and quickly made her mark. After graduating as a valedictorian from Global Business Institute, she joined Bronx Community Board 12 in 1995 and has been serving with excellence ever since.
In 2000, she earned her bachelor's degree magna cum laude from Monroe College, further proving her dedication to growth and service.
For nearly three decades, Ursula has gone above and beyond by supporting residents, advocating for seniors, and ensuring that government works for the people it serves. Her compassion, professionalism, and commitment are felt in every corner of our district.
On behalf of the Bronx and this House, I thank Ursula Cruz-Greene for her extraordinary service and look forward to her continued leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary spiritual leader and community pillar in the Bronx, the Rev. Dr. Rabbi Keith Elijah Thompson.
For over four decades, Rabbi Thompson has served the people of the Bronx with unwavering faith, humility, and purpose.
He is a man of God who is known across the community as a man who inspires, teaches, and instills hope in those around him. Dr. Thompson started out by leading a small, home-based Bible study for members of his community.
In 1980, he would go on to become the founder and chief apostle of the Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle Word of Faith Ministry. He has uplifted countless lives through dynamic preaching, compassionate service, and inspired teaching.
Known as a teacher of teachers, Dr. Thompson has built a ministry rooted in love, empowerment, and transformation. His leadership extends far beyond the pulpit, establishing the Bronx Resource Community Center in 2008, mentoring clergy, and serving for two decades as a trusted liaison with the NYPD.
In a world too often defined by division, Dr. Thompson reminds us of the power of faith to unify. His legacy is not just in the honors he has received but in the lives he has changed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Rev. Dr. Pierre-Andre Duvert, a spiritual giant, and a community leader whose life of service has touched thousands across the Bronx and beyond.
Born in Haiti and ordained in 1991 at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, Dr. Duvert has spent 34 years in ordained ministry, living out his calling with humility, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to justice.
As rector of St. Luke's Episcopal Church in the Bronx, one of the largest congregations in the diocese, he has not only shepherded his parish but also uplifted our broader community.
His dedication extends far beyond the pulpit, from instituting the Annual Police Appreciation Day, to serving on committees focused on reparations and shared mission, to mentoring the next generation of faith leaders.
With two doctorates and decades of academic and spiritual leadership, he exemplifies the intersection of faith, intellect, and service.
I thank Dr. Rev. Duvert for his lifelong ministry and for being a beacon of hope, healing, and unity in our community.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Aureo Ivan Cardona, a son of Puerto Rico, a child of the Bronx, and a giant in the fight for justice, dignity, and community.
Born in Arecibo and raised in Hunts Point, Aureo embodied the very best of our community, rooted in faith, driven by purpose, and committed to service.
Aureo often shared that he had a beautiful childhood. ``I never knew we were poor because I was happy.''
Aureo was a tireless advocate for justice, a fearless voice of the marginalized, and a champion of the underserved. His career began with the Model Cities Program, tackling urban poverty, housing decay, and racial inequality in New York City. He later became president of the South Bronx Housing Corporation, tasked with rebuilding the community after the devastating fires of the 1970s.
Aureo never stopped believing in the power of people to transform their neighborhoods. He was a champion for youth, a builder of homes and hope, and the founder of the National Hispanic Housing Coalition. His legacy reaches from the Bronx to Miami, from Puerto Rico to Spain, and far beyond.
Aureo's voice echoed for the marginalized. His leadership lit the path for generations.
Aureo was more than an advocate. He was an artist, a mentor, a loving husband, a father, and a friend. His life was a master class in service, compassion, and joy.
To his beloved wife, Cookie; his daughter, Ralina; and his extended family, I say thank you for sharing him with us. The Bronx is better because your father and husband lived. May his memory be a blessing and a call to action.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary spiritual leader and community pillar in the Bronx: the Reverend Dr. Rabbi Keith Elijah Thompson.
For over four decades, Reverend Dr. Rabbi Thompson has served the people of the Bronx with unwavering faith, humility, and purpose, a man of God who was known across the community as a leader who inspires, teaches, and instills hope in those around him.
Dr. Thompson started out by leading a small home-based Bible study for members of his community. In 1980, he would go on to become the founder and chief apostle of the Bronx Miracle Gospel Tabernacle Word of Faith Ministry. He has uplifted countless lives through dynamic preaching, compassionate service, and inspired teaching.
Known as a teacher of teachers, Dr. Thompson has built a ministry rooted in love, empowerment, and transformation. His leadership extends far beyond the pulpit, establishing the Bronx Resource Community Center in 2008, mentoring clergy, and serving for over two decades as a trusted liaison with the New York Police Department.
In a world too often defined by division, Dr. Thompson reminds us of the power of faith to unify. His legacy is not just in the honors he has received, but also in the lives he has changed.
Mr. Speaker, instead of an hour of another economics presentation, we need to have a conversation.
Is the evil winning? A couple of hours ago, one of my constituents lost his life. There is a 16-month-old whose daddy is not coming home. There is a 3-year-old little girl whose daddy is not coming home. Erika, the wife, can you just imagine what is going on right now? Do we really now live in a country where words take your life?
Last weekend, it was either Monday or the weekend--and Andy will know the proper name. There is a newspaper called the Beehive or something like that--forgive me for not knowing the name--and it actually did a whole expose on Charlie Kirk coming to universities in Utah to actually spread his message.
If you actually read it, it was a classic conservative message of hope, of loving people, of believing marriage and prosperity were really good for Americans, and a message for young people.
The other half of the article was about how many people in Utah hated this message and what they would do to stop him because, as you know, having a conversation now is--particularly, if it is conversation that doesn't support collectivism, the left, and some weird dystopian view of what America is--your kids don't have a dad that comes home.
Look, I am not here to try to make this a drama. Maybe we hyperpersonalized it a little bit. I have a 3-year-old little boy at home, and I have a 9-year-old girl. My little girl is scared to death. When she is home with mom, she has to walk through the house every evening and make sure every window and door is locked because we had someone attack us a couple of weeks ago in a Costco parking lot.
This is America. Great job.
I have asked a couple of my friends who knew Charlie Kirk better than I do--actually, my brother knows him better than I do. The morality of a life that is taken at age 31 that was actually just trying to make us better--and that cost you your life? What is wrong?
Every Member of this body, particularly on our side, I beg of us, understand and embrace this message of love, conservatism, prosperity, hope, and the morality of family. We have to make sure this legacy of a young man who was actually having a remarkable impact on a society that is lost--let's keep that message alive because it is worth fighting for.
The idea of someone losing their life for words--I am going to sit down. Andy, bail me out here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my neighbor.
Mr. Speaker, today we tragically lost a tremendous leader and a friend. We didn't lose him so much as he was taken from us.
Charlie Kirk was an inspiration to an entire generation, and I believe that his legacy will grow. He will be remembered as someone who changed the course of this Nation.
He was the founder of one of the most influential movements, political movements, of our time. We live in an interesting time. We see political movements. President Trump has fostered the MAGA movement, perhaps the most powerful in the history of the country.
However, let's just talk about what Charlie Kirk did in Arizona, and then we will talk about his most important contributions.
He founded an organization, Turning Point USA, and a whole group of related Turning Point affiliates. They are headquartered right there in Arizona. He was just absolutely remarkable.
Arizona is a battleground State. What did they do? In our State, Turning Point Action, together with other coalitions, actually turned out more than 300,000 low-propensity Republican voters, right? What is the difference? The difference was it made Donald Trump win Arizona. It helped Donald Trump win Arizona by the largest margin of any battleground State, 160,000 votes, a 5 percent, 5-point victory.
He fostered a movement. He fostered the movement because he was smart. He was erudite. He was passionate. He was generally calm, took on all comers, unafraid to talk with anyone about his message.
While we consider this movement, we know that people in his generation and younger are actually moving to the right. A lot of people say they are moving to the right because they have been disassociated by the left, they have been disillusioned by the left. I think there is probably some of that to it, but they don't move to the right unless there is an invitation. So he invited people to come and to share his love of freedom, family, faith, God, and country.
Charlie will be a historic figure. He really will be. He will be one more in a long line of those who are good whose lives are snuffed out by those who are evil, but his memory will remain strong.
I would suggest that the most important role that Charlie filled was as a loving husband, a father, a devout Christian who shared his faith unapologetically, without fear, with tremendous courage, charisma, and compassion.
My family invokes our thoughts and prayers on behalf of Erika and Erika and Charlie's two young children. We pray that God covers them with peace and gives them the comfort of the holy ghost.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just close with a couple things. We always say there is no place for political violence in this country, and there should not be. This assassination was meant to instill fear. It was an actual assassination, a political assassination.
What must we do? Well, we certainly speak peace, truth, and comfort, but we respond with courage because the message Charlie brought was there is a good way. This country has much to offer everyone, so we will double down. We will reinvigorate and restart our engine.
Those who want to destroy this country, whether it be because they want to destroy our faith in God, whether they want to destroy our freedom, whether they want to destroy our education--David mentioned that--we will persevere because there is much to be learned from this young man.
Mr. Speaker, my family and I say may God bless Charlie and his family; may God bless the entire TPUSA team, who are in mourning and grieving; and may God bless the message of freedom that America stands for.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Schweikert for reserving this time in the people's House to honor our friend, Charlie.
Today is a really hard day. This is unexpected, obviously, but the moment we heard that something had happened, I was able to get on the phone with faith leaders throughout the Nation, and instantaneously there were prayer groups formed, mighty men and women of God, faith- filled Christians, believers who stood in the gap and interceded for my friend, Charlie.
I thank God for that faith. The prayers were not in vain. God promises that His Word will produce what it says it will. I do not believe that Charlie's life being stolen in this manner is in vain. Charlie is a pioneer. A Greek word that God has brought to my remembrance each and every day for more than a decade is archegos. If you look it up in a Strong's Concordance, it is word number 747. In some way, God reminds me of this Greek word archegos on a daily basis. Even when I think I understand it, I still ask him to give me a deeper revelation. I believe today God highlighted exactly what it means. Charlie personified this word, and it is ``pioneer'' in the English language. It is one who pioneers a way, who makes a way for others to follow. They may not be the originator of the thing, but someone who fearlessly takes charge; who courageously goes into the unknown; who faces adversaries unafraid, unashamed, boldly; and influences others to continue down that path; that is exactly what Charlie Kirk has done.
Charlie Kirk was a husband, a father, a man who spoke more of family than he ever did politics. For those who didn't know him personally, they may just see him as a political figure. But to those of us who knew Charlie, who listen to his message on a regular basis, who attended his events, we know that rather than talking about tax rates and GDP, he was more talking about the nuclear family, talking about faith in God, talking about the value of marriage, how children need a father in the home, how they need both parents, how you uplift one another rather than tear each other down, and that is exactly what Charlie did.
He would sometimes go into the enemy's territory, and he would give those who saw themselves as his enemy a platform to speak, and he would have debate. He never promoted violence. He condemned violence at every turn. He gave data, thoughtful responses, and he shared his faith each and every day. He was a pioneer who shared his love for Jesus, proclaiming the Lordship and reign of Jesus each and every day.
Faith comes by hearing, and by hearing the Word of God, and more literally, that second word ``hearing'' in Scripture means understanding. Faith comes by hearing and understanding the Word of God. I believe that Charlie Kirk was on a mission for America and the world to hear and understand the love of God, to have a revelation of the love of God so that they would know the hope of their calling, so that their intervening would be enlightened, and they would understand that there was a hope and a future, a desired outcome that God had purposed them with.
Charlie Kirk understood that you have to be a doer of the Word, that faith without corresponding action isn't faith at all.
Charlie took action each and every day. We heard that he was moving our youth to the right, but I think, more importantly, Charlie Kirk was moving our youth to God, to faith in God, to read the Scriptures. He lived exactly what he spoke each and every day, being the example, being the change that he wanted to see in America and beyond.
Charlie Kirk has a legacy, not only through the work that he has done, but through his wife, Erica, who I humbly ask each and every person to pray for her and their children. Those prayers right now mean so much.
Charlie Kirk is present with the Lord. He is in the fullness of joy right now, present with Jesus. He is not hurting. He is not suffering. We are the ones who are feeling loss. Erica and those children are the ones who are feeling loss, hurt, and pain. It is the Holy Spirit who I ask to surround them with his wraparound presence and bring them peace, peace that surpasses all understanding in this time, to guard their hearts, to heal their broken hearts. We know that joy will come.
There is a time of mourning, but that joy is not just a suggestion. It is the battle plan that will get them through each and every day of their lives.
In this moment, I want to quote one thing that my friend Charlie said. He has given so many of us an opportunity to speak truth. He has given us his platform, an ability to reach into the hearts and lives of millions of our youth, and beyond.
In a recent quote, he said: ``You are commanded to go do something productive with your life, to go give and to
Charlie Kirk was a doer of the Word, risk-taker, and bold defender of truth, and he has sown into the lives of millions, and that harvest will produce 30-, 60-, and 100-fold.
Charlie, you have a legacy. Thank you for honoring our Father God. Thank you for proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Thank you for expressing the fellowship and communion of the Holy Spirit.
We will not be silenced. That would be a dishonor to everything Charlie has done over the years. We will be bold. We will speak out. We will go forward. We will continue to move our youth closer to God. We will continue to press in and get a grip on God as he has a grip on us.
This day, September 10, 2025, truly marks a turning point in our Nation and throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, God bless Charlie Kirk, God bless Turning Point USA, Andrew, Tyler, Erika, and everyone who is a part of the team. God bless them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Charlie. It has been such an honor to serve alongside him.
Mr. Speaker, I have a challenge for everyone out there who thinks you know things. A little while ago, I was sent--and I hope this is either a bot or just someone who is having a mental health issue, who was putting out horrible, evil comments. You could tell this is a person who has never actually listened, never actually gave a moment.
Here is my challenge to particularly my brothers and sisters on the left, a lot of us on the right, and those who consider themselves populists everywhere else in between. I need to apologize. My world, I see the world through math. It is sometimes a little cold. Maybe I should learn to spend more time like Mr. Kirk, with just the morality of family, of prosperity.
My challenge to you is to go online, go actually watch some of the actual videos, not the interpretation of them, not someone who is offended because it is a violation of their collective dystopian view of the world, but the actual videos. Go find something where Mr. Kirk is basically saying here is the philosophy.
Here is my hope. Here is where I actually think that if we embrace this, all of us, our society would be better, more prosperous, more loving. I challenge you, before you start to actually think you understand--why is it some of us who sometimes are best of friends, sometimes we beat the crap out of each other, and we are all here saying the same thing to you?
Do words that I actually believe are based on what we are as Americans, based in our founding documents, should those words take your life? Should they leave a 16-month-old, a 3-year-old, and a wife without a father and husband?
Mr. Speaker, if the movement is going to work, if the movement is going to save our future, if the movement is going to give hope to a generation that in many ways has been crushed by so many things we have allowed to happen, it needs someone like Charles Kirk going out and saying: Look, there is hope. Here is a path.
Go watch the video. Go watch and read what is written. If we are going to have an opinion, make it based on actual information and not on some propaganda on social media.
This can't be what we have become, but it is. There is a pit in my stomach when I think about how Steve Scalise almost lost his life and when the President was shot at. I have heard stories from Members, which we try often not publicize, who have been assaulted and had a bullet through their office windows. I think about my own experiences with my children in my arms.
We are politicians. There is a certain risk and a certain insanity that goes with doing this. How many of us are out there who have built a very powerful and very successful organization but are also telling a story that is America? It is actually what made us.
Go read the actual documents. Go watch the actual videos. After that, if folks have an opinion, it is their opinion. They are Americans. We get to have a belief, but don't make it a belief based on ignorance.
For everyone in my community, in the Phoenix and Scottsdale area, Charlie's home, I ask them to please pray and extend kindness. I say to his family--Erika and his two children--he is not coming home.
Please, God, let's not make this what our future looks like. We have got to be better than this, even when the messenger that is ultimately a message of optimism and prosperity and morality and love takes a life.
Mr. Speaker, I come up here every week and talk about the economics and how terrified I am about the debt, deficits, and demographics. Maybe I should just be terrified of what our future looks like when we have someone at 31 years old, who has built a following just telling the truth--Mr. Speaker, I have to stop myself from rambling because I have a thousand thoughts going through my head. Many of them are quite angry. I promised myself I wouldn't come up here and do a tirade.
Let this be a moment of reflection and particularly for those who fill my text message, fill my emails, and fill my mailbox at home with hate. If there are people on the left who are full of burning hate, maybe now is a good moment of reflection for what those folks have brought to our society. Is this really what we are?
Actually take my challenge. Go actually watch and go read what Charles Kirk was actually trying to communicate. People might actually find out it is not that foreign to where their hearts are at.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 23 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 11, 2025, at 9 a.m.
