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.
09Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Cole, Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 7006, Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department Of...
12Congressional Earmarks, Limited Tax Benefits, or Limited Tariff Benefits
13Deletions of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
32 public bills, H.R. 7050- 7081; and 6 resolutions, H. Res. 996-1001 were introduced.
Pages H892-93
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H.R. 6359, to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-447); H.R. 5169, to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to provide a clear definition of adequate consideration for certain closely held stock, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-448); H.R. 681, to amend the Act of August 9, 1955 (commonly known as the ``Long-Term Leasing Act''), to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119- 449); H.R. 4386, to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to clarify entrance privileges for vehicles with respect to the America the Beautiful interagency pass, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-450, Part 1); H.R. 3903, to exchange non-Federal land held by the Chugach Alaska Corporation for certain Federal Land in the Chugach Region, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-451); H.R. 4467, to modify the boundary of the Vicksburg National Military Park in the State of Mississippi, and for other purposes, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-452); H.R. 5910, to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held in trust for federally recognized Indian Tribes (H. Rept. 119-453); H.R. 4284, to amend the Small Tract Act of 1983 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to convey, without consideration, certain cemeteries, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-454, Part 1); H.R. 5103, to establish a program to Beautify the District of Columbia and establish the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-455, Part 1); and H.R. 5103, to establish a program to Beautify the District of Columbia and establish the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-455, Part 2).
Pages H891-92
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Wittman to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H721
Recess
The House recessed at 10:47 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H726
Recess
The House recessed at 12:54 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m.
Page H732
Recess
The House recessed at 3:41 p.m. and reconvened at 4:45 p.m.
Page H798
Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026
The House passed H.R. 7006, making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 341 yeas to 79 nays, Roll No. 28.
Pages H734-H801
Rejected
Roy amendment (No. 1 printed in H. Rept. 119-445) that sought to reduce the District of Columbia District and Appeals Court funding by 20% and strike the salary and expense funding for Judges Boasberg and Boardman's staff (by a recorded vote of 163 ayes to 257 noes with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 26); and
Pages H795-97, H799
Crane amendment (No. 2 printed in H. Rept. 119-445) that sought to prohibit funding for the National Endowment for Democracy (by a recorded vote of 127 ayes to 191 noes, Roll No. 27).
Pages H797-98, H799-H800
H. Res. 992, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7006) was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 25, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 24.
Pages H728-32, H733-34
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, January 14th.
Page H801
Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following Members of the House to the Canada-United States Interparliamentary Group: Representatives Larsen (WA), Morelle, Omar, Thanedar and Kennedy (NY).
Page H801
Board of Trustees of the American Folklife Center in the Library of Congress: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following individual to the Board of Trustees of the American Folklife Center in the Library of Congress: Mr. Robert Anacletus Underwood of Tamueng, Guam for a 6-year term.
Page H801
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following Member of the House to the Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China: Representative Walkinshaw.
Page H801
United States Group of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly: Appointment
The Chair announced the Speaker's appointment of the following Members of the House to the United States Group of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly: Representatives Sanchez, Larsen (WA), Norcross and Kamlager- Dove.
Page H801
Quorum Calls: Votes
Three yea-and-nay votes and two recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H733, H733-34, H799, H799-800, H800-01. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 7:10 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: 106 of 231 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 6, 2026, 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, 250 years ago, history was marked by patriots who proved that freedom belongs to the people; not the powerful.
This year, our Nation will celebrate 2\1/2\ centuries of freedom not granted by kings or governments but endowed by God.
America's story is unmatched. It is a story of perseverance, faith, sacrifice, and self-government. From Lexington and Concord to the present day, generation after generation has answered the call to preserve this great experiment in liberty.
As we approach America's 250th birthday, we have much to celebrate. We celebrate the principles enshrined in our founding documents: limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and the rule of law. We celebrate a Constitution strong enough to endure great challenges, and we celebrate people who have always risen to meet the moment when freedom was tested. Through it all, the Nation persevered.
Kansans know the story very well. Our statehood was forged in the fire of that very struggle. Kansas entered the Union as a free State, shaped by men and women who believed deeply that liberty was worth fighting for.
Kansas didn't just inherit freedom; they helped to defend it. From the frontier to the heartland, Kansas has always stood on the side of opportunity, hard work, and moral clarity.
Over the course of our Nation's history, Kansas farmers and ranchers helped to feed a growing nation. Kansas innovators helped to fuel our economy. Kansas servicemembers answered the call in every major conflict to protect this country at home and abroad. The values that built Kansas--faith, grit, service, and responsibility--are the same values that built America.
Those patriotic values were embodied by Kansans like President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Senator Bob Dole, whose leadership helped to guide America through defining moments in our history and shape the course of the Nation.
As we reflect on 250 years of our Nation's history, this anniversary is not only about looking back, but it is about looking forward and deciding what comes next. The next chapter of the American story requires strong leadership. It requires leaders who believe in this country, who aren't afraid to defend its principles, and who understand that with hard work and prayer, America's best days are yet to come.
I am grateful that, as we approach this historic anniversary, we once again have strong leadership in the White House from President Donald Trump.
President Trump leads with confidence in America's greatness. He believes in secure borders, strong families, energy dominance, and an economy that rewards work. He understands that, both at home and abroad, American strength is not something to apologize for but something to preserve and protect. American strength makes the world a better place.
The world is watching as America is led by a President who puts our country first and is not afraid to stand up for the values that have defined us for 250 years. He believes in the American experiment, and his commitment to celebrating our Nation's history brings out patriotism in all of us.
Mr. Speaker, America's 250th anniversary should not just be a celebration. It should be a recommitment: a recommitment to the ideals that launched this Nation; a recommitment to the Constitution that binds us together through popular sovereignty; a recommitment to the faith in God that has steered us through stormy seas time and time again; and a recommitment to ensuring that the next generation inherits a country that is freer, stronger, and more prosperous than the one we inherited.
From the Big First District of Kansas to every corner of this great Nation, Americans are proud of our past and hopeful for our future.
May we honor those who came before us, rise to the responsibilities of 250 years of independence, and ensure that the United States of America remains the greatest Nation on Earth for centuries to come.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today with both anger and urgency.
What we are witnessing in this country is not law enforcement. It is violence followed by lies. It is authority without accountability.
Since Trump returned to power, at least 36 people have died in ICE custody, and 2 have been shot and killed by ICE agents. These are not just numbers. They are lives, people with families. We must say their names, tell their stories, and stop state-sanctioned violence.
Last week in Minneapolis, a 37-year-old American mother, Renee Good, was killed by an ICE agent. It was caught on video for the world to see. Almost immediately, the lies began.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said that Renee Good posed an imminent threat, even floating the words ``domestic terrorism.'' Yet, the facts don't back this up. Eyewitnesses don't back this up. The video doesn't back up the lies repeated by DHS immediately after the killing.
State law enforcement in Minnesota have been blocked from the vehicle where Renee was killed because the FBI sealed it off, blocking transparency and accountability.
Renee Good's murder is not an isolated incident. In my community, we know this pattern all too well. In September, Silverio Villegas Gonzalez, a father of two, was killed by ICE on the side of a road in my district after dropping off his kids at school. Right on cue, we got the same script: immediate vague allegations by DHS, lies instead of facts, no transparency, no accountability, and no respect for the family left behind.
There was also Marimar Martinez, another constituent. An ICE agent shot her five times and then arrested her. ICE leveled serious criminal accusations to justify it. Later, quietly, those charges were dropped. Why? It was because they were lies, but the damage was done. Her name was dragged through the mud. Her family was terrorized. Her community is still shaken.
This was how a teacher in our community was victimized, and it didn't stop there.
Juan Espinoza Martinez, also from my district, was accused of serious conspiracy to commit crimes that never happened. ICE made them up and publicly smeared his name. Those charges were dropped as well because they were false. There was no apology, no discipline, and no consequences.
ICE acts first and then lies. The lie sets the frame. The truth is forced to play defense.
In 2025, Republicans gave ICE $75 billion, a nearly 300 percent increase in its annual budget, at the same time that they stripped millions of Americans of their healthcare. Republicans now want to give ICE and Border Patrol even more money.
We are asked to fund an agency that does the following: sends masked agents into communities like my neighborhood to use loaded guns and tear gas against our neighbors. It arrests people without warrants. It engages in obscene racial profiling and discrimination that communities see clearly, even when Washington looks away. It stops Members of Congress from inspecting detention centers, which is their duty as a coequal branch of government.
These facts should outrage every Member of this House. If you believe in the rule of law, you should be furious. If you believe in congressional oversight, you should be furious. If you believe that Federal agencies should not lie to justify violence, you should be furious because when an agency lies to the public, lies to the courts, and lies to Congress, they are spitting in our faces.
This is not about being for or against immigration enforcement. This is about whether we tolerate violence followed by coverups. This is about whether or not we accept fabricated charges as a means of intimidation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a McAllen native, Firefighter Sergeant Jhonier Daniel Marin.
Sergeant Marin's life is defined by answering the call to service. At age 18, he joined the U.S. Army Reserve. By age 19, he was a certified Texas firefighter. From overseas operations to the front lines of our own southern border in Eagle Pass, Texas, Sergeant Marin has selflessly protected our great country.
His leadership is exceptional. Out of 25,000 troops, Sergeant Marin was 1 of only 13 selected to be honored by President Trump in the Oval Office this past December, where he received the new Mexican Border Defense Medal.
Today, he continues to protect his community as a firefighter for the city of Mission.
I congratulate Sergeant Marin on this recognition and thank him for his unwavering service to south Texas and our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sergeant Estela Rodriguez of the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office on her retirement after 32 years of service. For over three decades, Sergeant Rodriguez has not only been a dedicated member of law enforcement but also a mentor and a leader.
Through her work to create the Hidalgo County Sheriff's Office Women's Empowerment Conference, she opened doors for the next generation of female officers, instilling confidence in the women who will follow in her footsteps. Her legacy is not just the badge worn but the countless officers who stand taller today because of her.
Sergeant Rodriguez leaves behind a department and a community that are better because of her work. We thank her for 32 years of selfless service, and we wish her a long and well-deserved retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the UTRGV Vaqueros for finishing their inaugural season with nine wins, including all seven home games, making the Vaqueros the winningest first-year program in football championship series history.
The team proved that the Rio Grande Valley is a football powerhouse. Every home game, fans across the valley showed up to cheer on their team, selling out all seven home games and ranking top 15 for attendance among FCS teams across the Nation.
I congratulate the players, coaches, and the fans on a great season that put UTRGV football on the map and gave the valley a legacy that will not be forgotten. We are already looking forward to the next season.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in grief and in outrage over the killing of an American citizen at the hands of the United States Government.
Her name was Renee Nicole Good. She was the mother of three, a devout Christian, a poet, a partner, a compassionate neighbor. She was a woman whose love for her community was only rivaled by the love that she had for her children. Those children will never hear their mother's voice again, feel her embrace, or have her by their side as they are growing into adulthood.
That is the human cost of what happened in Minnesota last week. Renee Good's life was taken by a Federal agency emboldened by this administration. Donald Trump and Kristi Noem have created an Immigration and Customs Enforcement with no oversight, no chain of command, no standards, and no restraint. They have created a lawless culture with no accountability, and a mother being shot at point-blank range is the consequence. That is not law enforcement. It is state violence.
The Department of Homeland Security was created to protect the American people and defend our Nation against terror. Under Secretary Noem, it has become a source of terror for the American people themselves. From
This did not happen by accident. This administration made a deliberate choice. Now, because of it, a U.S. citizen is dead, and she is not the only one. Rather than investing in our communities, they are turning them into war zones. This is about failed leadership at the very top.
Kristi Noem took an oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, an oath she has violated time and time again. She has obstructed Congress, defied Federal court orders, violated due process by detaining and deporting American citizens, and directed unconstitutional ICE operations using militarized agents in American cities, conduct that culminated in the killing of Renee Nicole Good.
Renee should be alive today. Her children should still have their mother. Her wife should still have her spouse. The American people deserve to know exactly what happened, why it happened, and how we ensure it never happens again.
This administration, whose own policies and actions help create these conditions, cannot be trusted to investigate itself impartially. That is why there must be a full, independent, and transparent process that results in justice for Renee and accountability for those in power who allowed this to happen. Anyone who presides over the killing of American citizens and turns a department meant to protect us into a force of terror does not deserve to remain in office.
Secretary Kristi Noem must resign immediately, or she must be impeached. Justice is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable, and silence is complicity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the Pennsylvania Farm Show which kicked off this past weekend.
For 110 years, farmers have met each January at the Farm Show in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The event is the largest indoor agricultural exposition in the country, featuring nearly 5,000 animals, more than 250 commercial exhibits, and welcomes more than 500,000 visitors each year.
The Farm Show is a great event for all ages and features many educational booths, helping children learn about the ag industry. One of the most popular attractions at the Pennsylvania Farm Show is the food court. Here, visitors can enjoy various food that features commodities grown in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
This year's Farm Show theme, ``Growing a Nation,'' is particularly fitting as we celebrate 250 years since our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence.
For generations, American farmers have not only fed this country, they have helped to feed the world, and they have done so by continuously adapting and embracing new tools, technologies, and practices.
The success of U.S. agriculture has been built through the ingenuity, hard work, and the strategic application of science and technology.
I was proud to help open the 110th Farm Show on Saturday. It is always an honor to meet farmers from across the Commonwealth and learn about how they continue to ensure agriculture remains Pennsylvania's number one industry. It was particularly encouraging to see many young and aspiring farmers, making it clear that the next generation is ready to take charge and lead the industry.
I hosted my annual listening session, where I was able to take questions directly from producers and consumers. The crowd also included county commissioners, Farm Bureau leaders, State senators, representatives from Penn State, Delaware Valley, as well as lots of 4- H'ers, dairy princesses, and FFA members.
As the House Committee on Agriculture prepares to craft the farm bill 2.0, it is crucial to hear directly from the men and women who feed their communities and this Nation.
I was glad to be joined by my fellow Pennsylvania Congressmen, Ron Bresnahan and Dan Meuser. I was also proud to have Russell Redding, Pennsylvania's Secretary of Agriculture, and Dr. Troy Ott, dean of Penn State's College of Agricultural Science, on the panel.
This year, we celebrated passage of my bill, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, which will be soon signed into law and brings back the option of whole milk and 2 percent milk, including flavored, to our schools' meal programs. Dairy farmers from across the Commonwealth championed the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, and I thank them for their support for this commonsense bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Pennsylvania Farm Show has grown exponentially since it began over 100 years ago, a direct reflection of how our country's ag industry has grown. It was an honor to attend the Farm Show this year, and I thank all of those who worked tirelessly to make this incredible event possible.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 20th anniversary of MyRye.com under the editorship of Jay Sears, for its service as an online chronicler of the life and the times of the Rye community.
In addition to an active business career and family obligations, Jay Sears somehow finds the time and energy to attend and report on community comings and goings of the people and the organizations in Rye. The high school sports scene, boys' and girls' sports, are well documented with photos and stories of the athletes, as well as scores of games.
MyRye has regular features, such as Rye GPT People of Note--the celebrities who live here or have a connection to Rye; a platform to feature the nonprofits of Rye, the Rye YMCA, The Rye Arts Center, the Rye Nature Center, the Historical Society, and the Rye Free Reading Room, amongst so many others. He also highlights the inevitably sad news when a longtime Rye neighbor passes away for a final salute.
Mr. Speaker, from the floor of the House of Representatives, I thank Jay Sears and MyRye.com.
Mr. Speaker, permit me a shout-out to the many volunteer environmental activists in the village of Ardsley who work tirelessly to advance good environmental policy.
Two groups meet monthly to plan and implement efforts to make Ardsley greener and cleaner in air, water, and land resources: The Ardsley Green Task Force and the Ardsley Pollinator Pathway Committee.
In attending Zoom meetings, I have seen the energy and dedication of these volunteers. With the strong voice of Dr. Carol Sommerfield, they are making a difference in their community of 4,500 residents.
Mr. Speaker, from the floor of the House of Representatives, I thank them for backing up their commitment to the environment with hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the work of Dr. Olo-run- toba Ah-du-yem'-ee LaCrown, who is president of the African American Association of Co-Op City, and the members of that organization as they prepare to celebrate The Dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., this coming Monday, January 19, at the Church of New Vision, Einstein Loop North of Co-op City in the Bronx.
We all know him as ``Toba,'' and he and his organization have sponsored important cultural events that unite the African-American population in shared moments of pride.
Aside from honoring the legacy of Dr. King this weekend, the organization held a recent December celebration of Kwanzaa that drew a crowd to the Bartow meeting hall.
Toba's leadership has been on display in many forms: as a United States Air Force veteran who served in Afghanistan and, later, headed The American Legion Post in Co-op City; as a former NYPD police officer and, later, as leader of the 47th Precinct Community Council; active in Bronx Community
The legacy of Dr. King is carried down to this day by Toba and all those who gather this weekend who, in the words of Dr. King, are judged and appreciated not merely by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Mr. Speaker, from the floor of the House of Representatives, I salute Toba LaCrown and the African American Association of Co-op City.
Mr. Speaker, I stand before you, along with my colleague, Representative Keith Self of the Texas Third Congressional District, to honor Colonel Chuck DeBellevue, United States Air Force retired, an American patriot whose extraordinary courage, leadership, and lifetime of service reflect the highest ideals of our Nation and the United States Air Force.
On September 9, 1972, then-Captain DeBellevue and his F-4 Phantom II crewmate, Captain John Madden, shot down two north Vietnamese MiG-19s. These victories marked DeBellevue's fifth and sixth aerial kills, making him the highest scoring American ace of the Vietnam war.
Over the course of his career, Colonel DeBellevue flew 220 combat missions, including 96 over North Vietnam. He is credited with the destruction of six North Vietnamese jet fighters in aerial combat, making him America's leading ace of that conflict and the last American ace to serve on Active Duty. His actions in combat remain among the most distinguished examples of aerial valor in the United States military history.
His decorations include the Air Force Cross, the Service's second highest award for valor, along with three Silver Stars, three Legions of Merit, six Distinguished Flying Crosses, and eighteen Air Medals.
Colonel DeBellevue earned a bachelor of science degree in physics from the University of Southwestern Louisiana and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Air Force.
Following undergraduate navigator training and an initial assignment flying the F-4 Phantom II at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina, he was deployed to Southeast Asia, joining the 555th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Udorn Royal Thai Air Force Base, Thailand.
Following his combat tour, Colonel DeBellevue attended undergraduate pilot training and became a full-fledged F-4 pilot. He subsequently served with distinction in multiple fighter squadrons, including the 335th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, the 8th Tactical Fighter Squadron at Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, and the 43rd Tactical Fighter Squadron at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. His staff assignments included service at the Pentagon, Alaskan Air Command, and the Fifth Air Force.
After his promotion to colonel in 1985, he attended the Army War College and held senior leadership positions across the Air Force.
In his final Active-Duty assignment, he was commander of Air Force ROTC Detachment 440 at the University of Missouri, Columbia, where he continued to shape and mentor future officers.
Colonel DeBellevue is a command pilot with more than 3,000 flying hours, including over 550 hours in combat. In 1972, he and the other Vietnam war aces were awarded the MacKay Trophy and the Veterans of Foreign Wars Armed Forces Award. He retired from Active Duty February 1 of 1998, after 30 years of honorable service.
Following his retirement from the Air Force, Colonel DeBellevue continued his commitment to service through work in the aerospace industry, higher education, and veteran advocacy. I am proud to say he currently resides in Oklahoma's Fifth Congressional District, which I represent. He serves on the boards of the Dale K. Graham Veterans Foundation and the Air Warrior Courage Foundation and is president of the American Fighter Aces Association. In 2023, he was honored as River Rat of the Year and named the Air Warrior Courage Foundation Humanitarian of the Year.
Colonel DeBellevue's lifetime of service has been recognized with numerous honors, including selection as Outstanding Alumnus of the University of Louisiana in 2008, introduction to the Louisiana Aviation Hall of Fame in 2011, and the Oklahoma Military Hall of Fame in 2012. In 2014, he was the recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal as a member of the American Fighter Aces.
Colonel DeBellevue and his wife, Sally, have raised a family grounded in service, integrity, and love of country.
Mr. Speaker, Colonel Charles ``Chuck'' DeBellevue represents the very best of the United States Air Force and of those Americans who have answered our Nation's call with uncommon valor and lifelong dedication. It is fitting that his service and legacy be entered into the Congressional Record so that future generations may know and be inspired by his example.
Mr. Speaker, I often say that while my name may be on the ballot, we are all going to Congress together. Families in Ohio's 13th Congressional District and all across the country are telling us that housing costs are rising faster than wages, making it hard to keep a roof over their heads.
Today, I rise to bring an issue that plagues my community and the entire country, which is the rising cost of housing.
In my district alone, over one hundred thousand households rent their homes. The median renter household income is just above $40,000 a year, yet the median rent is more than $1,000 per month. That means housing costs are often the largest part of a monthly budget, and this is even before groceries, childcare, or healthcare.
It is not just renters who are feeling the squeeze. Homeowners are feeling the squeeze, too. The median home value in Ohio's 13th District is about $228,000. That may sound modest compared to national prices, especially for those of you on the coasts, but property taxes, insurance, utilities, and repairs add up fast. With aging homes and data centers driving up the cost of utilities, people are feeling the crunch.
For families with a mortgage, monthly housing costs average nearly $1,500, and even those who have paid off their mortgage face rising property taxes and repair costs that strain household budgets.
For families trying to buy their first home, the challenge is steeper, because mortgage rates may have dipped below 6 percent, but high prices and limited inventory keep homeownership out of reach for many in my district. We cannot ignore the inequities baked into the system.
In Ohio's 13th District, the homeownership rate overall is nearly 69 percent, but for Black families, it drops to just 37 percent, dropping by nearly half. That gap reflects generations of barriers we still have a responsibility to address, like redlining and restrictive covenants.
For some families, rising costs lead to housing instability or homelessness. That is why, last November, I pressed the Department of Housing and Urban Development to protect Federal funding and homelessness prevention programs in Summit and Stark Counties. These continuum of care dollars support nearly 2,700 beds in my district for families, veterans, and young people who need a safe place to sleep. Any cut could disrupt services that people depend on and, most importantly, keep them without a roof over their head.
We also have to confront the root causes of this crisis. Large corporate investors are buying up single-family homes, driving up prices and rents, and locking families out of homeownership.
That is why, last summer, I introduced the HOMES Act, which cracks down on investors buying 50 or more single-family homes, shines a light on corporate ownership and rental practices, and makes sure local families, not profit-seeking investors, get first
Just last week, President Trump acknowledged the same problem and called on Congress to address it. On this issue, it seems we may finally all be reading from the same page.
I encourage my colleagues to support the HOMES Act and see its swift passage, but we also need to build homes, too. Supply simply has not met the demand. That is why I secured Federal funding for the East Akron Neighborhood Development Corporation to help expand affordable housing, revitalize neighborhoods, and create jobs. Increasing supply is essential if we want housing prices to come down.
As chair of the New Democrat Coalition's Affordable Housing Task Force, I helped develop a housing action plan with more than 20 recommendations to increase housing supply, reform zoning and permitting, strengthen Federal incentives, grow the construction workforce, and improve transparency.
Mr. Speaker, housing is the foundation of opportunity. Homeownership is the primary way in which families build wealth. When housing is affordable and stable, families can plan, save, and build a future. When it is not, life becomes harder. Rents are too high. Mortgages are still out of reach for far too many families. Property taxes and repairs are stretching household budgets. Homelessness programs that protect our most vulnerable neighbors must be preserved.
Mr. Speaker, we have to get serious about housing and focus our attention on lowering the cost of housing and keeping housing accessible to everyone. The American Dream depends on it.
Every family deserves a safe and affordable place to call home, and this House has a responsibility to help make that possible. Until housing costs come down, Congress has a lot more work to do. I look forward to working with this body on behalf of my constituents and across the country to work to reduce housing costs so everyone can live their American Dream wherever they choose to call home.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and thank someone whose impact on my office and on me personally cannot be overstated, my chief of staff, Nate Soule, as he concludes his service to New York's 17th Congressional District.
When I first ran for the New York State Assembly in 2020, before there was a congressional office or a seat in this Chamber, Nate took a leap of faith and helped build a campaign from the ground up. Together, we delivered a victory many said was impossible, defeating an incumbent in a district with a 2-1 Democratic enrollment advantage. That race was the foundation for everything that has followed.
In Albany, Nate served as my chief of staff and helped lead one of the most active offices in the State assembly. Our team delivered real results for the Hudson Valley and built a reputation for being accessible, responsive, and relentless when it came to constituent services.
When I was elected to Congress, Nate once again stepped up, first as deputy chief of staff and communications director and now as my chief of staff. Through every transition, he has brought discipline, sound judgment, and an unwavering commitment to the people we serve.
Nate understands that public service is not about titles or headlines. It is about doing the work, telling the truth, and delivering for the people who sent us here. His counsel is steady and measured, his loyalty unwavering, and, above all, his friendship cherished.
Through Nate's vision, his hard work, and his invaluable leadership, our office has not only been more effective but has set a standard for what public service can and should be. I have no doubt that he will bring the same integrity and dedication as he embarks on a new chapter. Doina and I wish Nate and his wife, Lauren, the very best.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Anthony ``Tony'' DeFeciani, who passed away peacefully on December 23, 2025.
Born and raised in Haverstraw, Tony was a proud New Yorker, attending Haverstraw High School and participating in the marching band, where he was voted the most musical in his senior year.
Following graduation, Tony enlisted in the United States Navy and proudly served during the Korean war. He was awarded the Bronze Star after more than 30 years of service. Returning home, Tony worked at Bear Mountain, Lederle Laboratories, and New York Telephone/Verizon, retiring after 30 years of professional service.
Tony also gave back to his community as a volunteer firefighter with the Haverstraw Fire Department Relief Hose Company No. 3 for 60 years, serving as fire chief.
Tony was an avid gardener and fisherman, built his own boat, and ran Rainbow Gardens, known locally for its tomatoes.
A devoted husband, father, grandfather, and great-grandfather, Tony shared 66 years of wonderful marriage with his beloved wife, Joan. Together, they raised six children. He cherished every moment with his family and community and will be deeply missed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Theodore ``Ted the Great'' Schultz, who passed away peacefully on January 10, surrounded by his family.
Born in Nyack, Ted was raised on his grandfather's farm in Pomona and attended Spring Valley High School, where he earned the rank of Eagle Scout. A talented athlete, he wrestled and played football, earning the nickname ``Tank,'' and went on to attend Illinois Wesleyan University, where he played football for 4 years and later earned his MBA from Washington University.
It was at Illinois Wesleyan that Ted met his wife, Carol. They settled in Pearl River, New York, where they raised their children, Traci and Craig, before later moving to Stony Point.
Ted built a remarkable career at Ted Schultz Auto Sales, relocating the dealership to Nanuet and growing it into a nationally ranked Ford dealership while earning numerous President's Awards.
Beyond work, Ted enjoyed time with friends, boating on the Hudson River, and spending time with his grandchildren. His legacy lives on through the lessons he passed on to his family, his friends, and the many lives he touched. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the S.W. Johnson Fire Department in Rockland County on an incredible milestone of 150 years of dedicated service to our community.
Since its formation in 1876, S.W. Johnson has been 100 percent volunteer, embodying selflessness, courage, and a commitment to protecting our neighbors.
One of the department's most treasured pieces of history is its steamer, a Button manufactured in 1896 by the company that would become American LaFrance. This remarkable piece of equipment reflects the rich legacy and enduring dedication of S.W. Johnson and the fire service today.
I say thank you on behalf of New York's 17th Congressional District to the many firefighters who have given their time and bravery to this firehouse over the years. Congratulations to S.W. Johnson on 150 years of dedicated service. Their commitment, bravery, and volunteer spirit are an inspiration to us all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the courage and selfless service of Officer William Epperson of the Oyster Creek Police Department.
Mr. Speaker, on the night of November 17, 2025, Officer Epperson responded to a house fire with two residents trapped inside. Heavy smoke was pouring from the home, and the living area was only accessible by an exterior stairwell.
When the front door was locked and conditions were too dangerous to enter, Officer Epperson did not give up. Hearing calls for help, he broke a smoke-filled window and pulled a woman to safety. He then returned to assist her husband, who had limited mobility, helping him also escape the burning home.
Officer Epperson then ensured no one else was inside and went door to door, warning the nearby neighbors, all while suffering smoke inhalation himself.
Mr. Speaker, without Officer Epperson's bravery, lives would have been lost that night. His actions reflect the very best of law enforcement and the very best of Texas. God bless Officer Epperson.
Mr. Speaker, today, we honor a leader whose service has left a lasting mark on the Texas coast and on the safety of millions of Texans. I am speaking about Lieutenant Colonel Ian O'Sullivan, who has been instrumental in advancing the Coastal Texas Project, what folks back home called the Ike Dike. Under his leadership at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Galveston District, this project moved from concept toward construction.
Just recently, the House included $5 million to advance pre- construction engineering and design for the Ike Dike. That funding moves the project forward, Mr. Speaker, as it heads to the Senate, and it supports a comprehensive coastal resiliency strategy that protects lives, restores ecosystems, and strengthens our economy.
Those numbers only happen, Mr. Speaker, because of leaders like Mr. O'Sullivan, leaders who understand the mission, discipline, and follow through on what they promised.
From combat deployments overseas to mega projects right here at home, he has served with honor and excellence.
On behalf of the people of southeast Texas, I thank Lieutenant Colonel O'Sullivan for his leadership, his service, and his commitment to protecting our coast.
May God bless Lieutenant Colonel O'Sullivan, and may his next chapter be as impactful as the one he leaves behind.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Catalina Foothills High School boys' swim team for winning the D2 State championship.
The Falcons finished with a total score of 386, with senior Connor Daggett winning gold.
The team finished first in three races: the 200-meter medley, with Nicholas Dinsmore, Mathew Murray, Ariston Elsesser, and Connor Daggett finishing with a time of 1:39.891; the 50-meter freestyle with Connor Daggett finishing with a time of 21:42; and the 200-meter freestyle relay, with Nicholas Dinsmore, Aidan Kastner, Ariston Elsesser, and Connor Daggett finishing with a time of 1:30.831.
In addition to finishing first in multiple races, the Falcons also placed in the top five for several others.
To Coach Ed Walter, the whole team, and everyone who made this win possible: Congratulations. Their hard work has made their school and our community extremely proud.
Falcons, enjoy your victory. You earned it. Congratulations again.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Tanque Verde High School boys' swim team for winning the D3 State championship.
The Hawks finished with a total score of 257, placing first in the 200-meter freestyle relay and in the top five for multiple other events, including the 200-meter medley relay and 400 freestyle relay.
The team's time of 1:31.81 on the 200-meter freestyle won them first place, with a team made up of Jackson Eftekhar, Grayson The, Wade Olsson, and Zachary Duerkop.
To Coach Porter Olstad, the whole team, and everyone who made this win possible: Congratulations. Their hard work has made their school and our community extremely proud.
Hawks, enjoy your victory. You have earned it. Here is to another successful season and many, many more.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Cienega High School's marching band on winning the Arizona Marching Band Southern Regional Championship.
The Bobcats broke the program's record for the highest score in a regular season show. They also brought home the highest score in music performance, visual performance, general effect, and percussion performance.
I also congratulate them on coming in as State silver medalists at the Arizona Marching Band Association's State championship. Through the long hours of hard work and dedication, the Bobcats achieved this outstanding accomplishment.
To Director Reed Bailey, each member of the band, and all parents and staff who made this win possible: Congratulations. They have made their school and our community very proud.
Bobcats, enjoy this victory. You earned it. Congratulations on yet another successful season.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize eight students from the Central Middle School and High School who performed in December at the ReliaQuest Bowl in Tampa Bay, Florida.
The Central Mountain Middle School and High School twirlers were among the 481 performers present during the pregame show and joined other high school bands during the halftime performance. The students performed in front of an estimated 35,000 fans in Raymond James Stadium, the home of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
The twirlers were invited to participate in the game day programming through the National Youth Dance and Twirling Program. Stephanie Ford, the Central Mountain High School twirling coach, provided choreography for the twirlers. Stephanie has been the high school and middle school coach for 11 years and was pivotal in making and helping the students learn the choreography ahead of the performance.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Central Mountain Middle School and High School twirlers on this fantastic achievement. I thank them for representing Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District on a national stage.
Mr. Speaker, the core of NATO is Article 5: An attack on one is an attack on all.
Since the end of World War II, the U.S. and our allies have honored and operated on this mutual trust. President Truman called it a neighborly act.
There is no article for if a NATO member attacks another because for 80 years, we have led a peaceful partnership for our shared democratic ideals. Truman considered the treaty a means to establish freedom from aggression and from the use of force in the North Atlantic community. If one ally invaded another, the center would not hold.
Now, President Trump seeks to threaten our historic alliance by his flippant, poisonous quip that we will have Greenland one way or another. As a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, I have met with the Prime Minister of Denmark and other key allies. They believe in America's global leadership. They have fought and died alongside us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now, they fear our words. They plan for a future in which the United States is no longer the indispensable nation, a core global ally.
This cannot be the path we forge. It is good to have friends, and in order to have friends, we must be one.
Mr. Speaker, led by Republicans and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the Working Families Tax Cuts is reversing harmful Biden-era regulations and putting more money in the pockets of American families and creating jobs.
The law is delivering bigger paychecks, lower costs, and real results for hardworking families, including: expanding childcare access, permanently expanding the child tax credit; supporting American jobs, with tax breaks for loans on ``Made in America'' cars; keeping the border secure, protecting American families with more Border Patrol agents; 4-year low gas prices; reversing Biden-era regulations; modernizing air traffic control; no tax on tips, overtime, and Social Security.
President Trump and House Republicans are producing real results, led by Speaker Mike Johnson.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump, with Putin defending mass murderer Khomeini as Donald Trump courageously encourages the people of Iran for freedom.
Mr. Speaker, in November, my home State of North Carolina watched in horror as Federal immigration agents descended on our State and terrorized our communities.
During these raids, my constituent Fatima Velasquez-Antonio, was detained. She has work authorization, no criminal record, and is allowed to legally remain in this country while her asylum case is pending.
Yet despite all of this, she was taken into custody and ripped away from her family for weeks. Thankfully, after an outpouring of public anger and criticism, the Trump administration finally released Fatima a few days before Christmas.
Fatima is one of countless hardworking immigrants who have been unlawfully or unjustly detained across the country. People like Fatima with deep ties to our community are being targeted instead of a focus on apprehending violent criminals.
We cannot allow the Trump administration to continue violating the rights that all individuals in this country are guaranteed.
I rise in recognition of excellence, discipline, and American competitiveness.
The 2026 Monster Energy Supercross Series is absolutely underway, and in America we like it. If it goes fast, has got a big motor, and there is a high probability of somebody getting hurt, even better.
If you have never seen Monster Energy Supercross, I am about to change your life, and you are welcome. You have got 22 riders in a confined space going from a starting gate to go-to-the-bathroom-on- your-pants, fast hitting 20-foot jumps with no seatbelts, airbags, or bumpers; just man on machine.
Last weekend on Saturday, Anaheim I, the first race of the series went off. In the 250 class, Max Anstie got first; Chance Hymas got second; Ryder DiFrancesco got third; and last year's champion, Haiden ``Danger Boy'' Deegan, got fourth place.
In the premier class, Eli Tomac absolutely showed up on his new ride. Ken Roczen got second; Jorge Prado third; and seventh place, last year's champion, was Cooper Webb.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to Justin Barcia and Malcolm Stewart after that horrific crash they were involved in. I hope they are healing up well and every household has their favorite rider. My oldest boy loves Cooper Webb. My baby boy, Lincoln, loves Eli Tomac and Ken Roczen. My wife and I absolutely are the biggest fan of number 7, Aaron Plessinger, the cowboy. Go forward and do great things, Aaron. Dig in your spurs. This is your year.
Mr. Speaker, Bishop Rosie O'neal, a celebrated pastor, author, and Christian leader, after 37 years of faithful service, retired as senior pastor on December 14.
Born in Germany and adopted by Norman and Joann Standifer, she gave her life to Christ at the age of 16 at Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church, where her grandfather served as pastor. Bishop O'neal went to East Carolina University to join the choir and answer the call to ministry,
In 1989, she founded Koinonia Christian Center with just 7 members and grew it into a ministry of more than 2,500. She is recognized for her ``keep it real'' approach, and she is, without a doubt, one of eastern North Carolina's most influential faith leaders.
A cancer survivor, Bishop O'neal is married to Toiriste O'neal, Sr., and is known for her deep love of family, friends, and even riding motorcycles.
Congratulations to the O'neal family. May she keep on riding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Brian Buhr, one of my former professors at the University of Minnesota, who is stepping down after 13 years of serving as the dean of the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences and the director of the Minnesota Agriculture Experiment Station.
As our State's premier institution for agricultural education, the U of M has a longstanding reputation of excellence in developing and training future ag leaders.
Thanks to Dean Buhr's leadership, CFANS has become a global leader in ag education, offering a diverse range of studies for 14 undergraduate majors, 25 minors, and 13 graduate programs.
By working shoulder to shoulder with farmers, agribusiness, and public policymakers, Dean Buhr has worked to cultivate a student experience that combines classroom learning with cutting-edge research and public engagement, preparing CFANS graduates to become the world's ag leaders of tomorrow.
I thank Brian for his years of service to the College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Resource Sciences and the many contributions he has made to the U of M's legacy in ag education. I wish him all the best as he starts this new chapter.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chair Jerome Powell, who has served with honor and integrity on the Federal Reserve's Board of Governors for 13 years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise and join Democrats, Republicans, and other leaders because the Justice Department's criminal investigation into Chair Powell is yet another attempt by Trump to take control of the Fed, endangering household finances across the country.
Our economy relies on an independent Federal Reserve, and every American should be deeply concerned and alarmed by this administration's dangerous efforts to politicize our central bank.
Interest rate decisions directly impact American households through inflation, the labor market, savings, and household costs. It is imperative that these decisions be driven by economic data and evidence, not partisan pressure.
I ask my colleagues to stand up and use their voices to defend an independent Fed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary young North Carolinian, Mehri Navab, who has been awarded the National Medal of Honor Lifesaving Award from the Girl Scouts, one of their highest recognitions for courage and quick action.
On what should have been a normal afternoon at swim practice, Mehri saw her brother, Tristan, at the bottom of the pool. Something didn't look right, and instead of hesitating, she acted. She swam down, pulled him from a lane divider, got him to the surface, and called for help. Lifeguards began CPR, and she refused to leave her brother's side until he began breathing again. Because of her courage, her quick response, and her presence of mind, Tristan is alive today.
The Girl Scouts teach service, skill, and leadership. Mehri embodied all of it in a moment when most people, even adults, would freeze. She is a hero, and her community is proud of her.
I thank Mehri for going above and beyond to make a difference in our community. I congratulate her on receiving this well-deserved honor.
Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of California's 21st Congressional District, I am here to share some good news for the people of not only the Central Valley but across the country. The House has just passed the Crime Victims Fund Stabilization Act, with strong bipartisan support.
As one of the original founders of the bipartisan Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus, this is good news. I am proud to co-lead the bill alongside a bipartisan group of colleagues.
Right now, too many victim service organizations are forced to operate with uncertainty, not knowing if funding will be there from year to year. That uncertainty affects real people who have been victims of crime, survivors seeking counseling, families needing emergency shelter, and victims looking for legal support in some of the hardest moments in their lives.
This bill stabilizes the Crime Victims Fund, which is funded by criminal fines, not taxpayer dollars, and supports critical services through VOCA programs across the country.
By bringing stability to the funding, States and local organizations will have the ability to plan ahead, keep staff in place, and continue showing up for survivors when it matters most.
This bill heads to the Senate, and I am urging my colleagues there to act quickly on its passage for victims of crime and their families.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7006, Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and the underlying legislation.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 992, providing for the House's consideration of a single measure, H.R. 7006, the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7006 under a structured rule, with two amendments made in order. Further, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their respective designees, and one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, following last week's progress in advancing three separate appropriations bills through the committee and on the floor, we have returned this week to continue our work. H.R. 7006 was negotiated in good faith on a bipartisan, bicameral basis.
President Trump's priorities, alongside the priorities of the American people, are interwoven within this important package.
Let me make this abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker: Not only does this legislative package contain no poison pills, but it also cuts foreign aid by 16 percent. That is more than $9 billion.
Further, this package is part of an agreement that keeps fiscal year 2026 spending below the level that has been forecasted under the current continuing resolution.
We are enacting targeted funding to accelerate entrepreneurship and economic prosperity, guard our Nation's national security posture and apparatus, and further cement true, unyielding, American leadership on the international stage.
At the very same time, we are slashing incompatible mandates and provisions that were cooked up during the Biden administration that would have weakened America's trajectory to greatness.
With fiscal restraint and an eye toward paving a new and prosperous path for our Nation, anything--yes, anything--can be possible.
As I said in the committee yesterday afternoon, gone are the days of inflated omnibuses that have bogged down and constrained this legislative body. Indeed, we are moving in a better direction and chucking the Biden budget into the grave where it belongs. Good riddance.
The bipartisan and bicameral underpinnings of this legislative package make a compelling case as to why the House must pass it immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
Let me begin by acknowledging the hard work of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee who, despite deep divisions and really difficult political conditions, have assembled a bipartisan compromise to fund additional portions of the Federal Government for the current fiscal year.
The bill before us containing the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act and the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, includes hard-fought Democratic priorities, despite our minority position in the House and Senate. These Democratic priorities will help working families and small businesses safeguard our elections and protect American values and interests abroad.
Democratic appropriators secured funding for vital government programs that the White House sought to cut, including the CDFI fund, which promotes economic development in low-income communities; the Small Business Administration, which provides invaluable financing that allows people to start or grow their businesses; and the Election Assistance Commission, which supports State and Federal election integrity across the country. The package also provides a long overdue increase in funding for the Federal Defender Services, which gives access to justice to those who cannot afford it.
Importantly, the bill restores funding, with meaningful safeguards, for humanitarian and democracy building programs at the Department of State, programs that were illegally shut down earlier this year by the Trump administration.
This bill ensures that the U.S. will continue to provide economic and humanitarian assistance. Specifically, it will support women and women's health in developing countries and will combat HIV and AIDS worldwide.
These are victories, and they matter. They matter for small business owners struggling to secure a loan. They matter for low-income neighborhoods that are essentially red-lined by big banks and that rely upon Community Development Financial Institutions. These victories matter for women and girls around the globe seeking safety, education, and healthcare.
The restoration of State Department funding matters for all of us who still believe in the promise of American leadership in advancing a safe and prosperous global community.
Ultimately, we cannot afford to let funding lapse for those agencies, and given that we are 4 months into the current fiscal year, I commend our appropriators for crafting these bipartisan bills to address fiscal year 2026 so that we can immediately start working on appropriations for next year, fiscal year 2027.
However, Mr. Speaker, commendable as this package is and as much as I respect the work of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I also believe this package reveals the limits of what we can achieve to meet the needs of the American people under Republican control.
Let's be clear: This bill isn't some compromise where both sides get a little of what they want. It is the most Democrats could get from a Republican Party that continues to knuckle under to the whims of the Trump administration and turn a blind eye to its worst abuses. That is why our Republican colleagues have rejected multiple provisions to rein in the unconstitutional power grabs by this President and his administration.
Republicans control the Senate, the House, and the White House. Under unified Republican control, we have seen the Federal Government used not to help the American people but to punish the President's enemies and to enrich and protect the rich and well-connected at the expense of the American people.
We have seen it when the Republican trifecta passed a partisan bill that gave huge tax cuts to big business and billionaires but refused to extend the ACA tax credits that helped millions of Americans afford their health coverage.
In their main legislative accomplishment so far, Trump and congressional Republicans blew a massive hole in the deficit with their tax cuts for the rich and then tried to pay for it with cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, and public health programs that Americans rely upon.
We are seeing it play out after a masked Federal agent shot and killed Renee Good, an American citizen in Minnesota. In the wake of that killing, we learned that Department of Justice leadership blocked the decades-long practice of initiating an investigation of an officer- involved shooting by the Office of Civil Rights. Having blocked that investigation, they instead opened a politically motivated criminal investigation of Ms. Good's widow as it tries to brand protected speech by Americans as domestic terrorism.
The failure to investigate the lawfulness of the officer's use of force and the weaponization of the investigation to attack the widow are so beyond the pale that it has sparked a mass resignation by career prosecutors at the Department of Justice.
It goes on. Last weekend, the Trump White House launched a criminal investigation against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, not because he broke the law, but apparently because he refused to surrender the independence of the Fed and submit to the President's demand that he lower interest rates. This is an unprecedented attack on the independence of the Federal Reserve, an institution that is critical to the stability of our economy because it is above partisan politics. Yet, under Republican rule, the independence of the Fed and other nonpartisan agencies is being destroyed before our eyes because this President cannot tolerate dissent, and his party will not restrain him.
Just last week, the administration blocked $10 billion in social services funding to States with Democratic leadership. Yesterday, President Trump went even further, announcing his intent to withhold Federal funds from any State that does not embrace his toxic immigration priorities. This is extortion, plain and simple, directed against the American people he was elected to serve, and the House Republican majority is letting him get away with it.
Of course, we cannot forget the continued coverup of the Epstein files. The Department of Justice was mandated by law to release the Epstein files last month, last year now, but the vast majority of the files are still being kept secret, leading us to ask again: Whom is Trump trying to protect, and why is it the Republicans refuse to hold him responsible for this blatant coverup? What possible justification could there be for this secrecy, except to protect the wealthy and powerful men implicated in those documents.
A suggestion of the answers have come from an unlikely source. According to former Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the President yelled at her in a phone call that he didn't want to release the Epstein files because ``my friends will get hurt.''
The list goes on and on, and the Republican agenda is clear. They abuse the powers of the Federal Government to protect the elite and punish the vulnerable.
While I will support the appropriations minibus this week, I call on my Republican colleagues in the House and the Senate to take seriously their obligations to this institution under Article I of the Constitution. We cannot sit by and watch as the executive branch grabs more and more power at the expense of Congress and at the expense of the Constitution.
Congress' power of the purse is not just a budgetary tool. It is one of the last real checks we have on a President who believes that he is above the law and only constrained by his own morality.
I know my Democratic colleagues fought for everything they could in this bill under deeply constrained circumstances, so the failures in this bill are a reflection of the Republican majority, which continues to look the other way as the President dismantles our Federal institutions and subverts our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate this appropriations package, not every other issue under the Sun. I urge my colleagues not to lose sight of the legislative package at hand: We have a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations package free of poison pill riders that bring us closer to fulfilling our Article I responsibilities.
My colleague says Republicans are in control, but the very bills we have passed and are passing are bipartisan. We are working across the aisle, which we should do. Our friends can't have it both ways. They can't say we are in control, therefore, everything is our fault, and say at the same time that these are good bills built upon bipartisan support.
There will no doubt be time to debate other matters, but today the matter at hand is an appropriations package containing the Financial Services and General Government bill and the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs bill.
Might I add that national security is the number one issue in our Federal Government. We need to stay focused and complete the task at hand.
Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I didn't say these were good bills. I said they were the best bills we could get under the circumstances, and certainly we would craft very different bills.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).
Mr. Speaker, no one in America is safe from ICE today. Joe Rogan said that ICE agents are acting as ``villains,'' stripping away freedoms from Americans. This agency has gone rogue. It is lawless, and it needs to be reined in.
The ICE agents who pepper sprayed an elderly couple in Minnesota need to be arrested and prosecuted. The ICE agents who dragged out a disabled woman from her car who was going to a doctor's appointment need to be arrested and prosecuted. The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good needs to be arrested and prosecuted.
When you have people in the MAGA base, when you have people like Joe Rogan talking about the lawlessness of a private police force--ICE acting as the President's private police force--then we know we have a crisis of freedom in this country. It is time to rein in this lawless agency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, we should be focused on the issue at hand. Mr. Speaker, we never celebrate the loss of life on our side. We don't celebrate the loss of life in the recent shooting, but we cannot absolve people of the actions they are taking to disrupt ICE's operations.
We certainly shouldn't be looking at ICE agents, condemning ICE agents who are showing up to do their jobs. Democrats have been questioning the authority and jurisdiction of ICE's actions in Minnesota.
Let's shed some light on what ICE has been doing. They arrested a criminal illegal alien from Somalia with a record of multiple counts of credit card fraud, drug possession, controlled substance possession, and drug trafficking. This criminal was issued a final order of removal in 2022.
ICE also arrested a criminal illegal alien from Laos with three prior convictions for selling drugs as well as convictions for assault and contributing to a minor's delinquency. This criminal was issued a final order of removal in 2009, Mr. Speaker.
A criminal illegal alien from Mexico previously arrested for child cruelty and battery was also picked up by ICE. This criminal was issued a final order of removal in 2009.
In addition, there was a criminal illegal alien from Mexico previously arrested for cruelty toward a child, and a criminal illegal alien from Somalia previously arrested for dangerous drugs and possession of narcotics.
We are talking about dangerous people, Mr. Speaker. The list goes on and on. Let's be clear, ICE is targeting criminal rings, and the Trump Administration isn't ignoring fraud as Governor Walz had done for years. They are targeting that criminal ring for immigration violations, just as they have done elsewhere.
Not long ago, ICE agents arrested more than 150 illegal alien sex offenders during a major enforcement surge across the State of Florida. ICE is focusing on rings of criminality, and they will pursue them wherever they might be, political correctness be damned. Americans are better off under this approach.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning that the Federal Government has the duty and authority to arrest and detain and deport these so-called worst of the worst, rapists, drug dealers, people who have been convicted, but that is not what is happening across the country. That is not what ICE is doing.
Eighty percent of the people that they have picked up and that they are detaining have no criminal record. What we are seeing in Minnesota, this door-to-door, stopping people in parking lots, and asking if they are citizens, that is not targeted enforcement. That is putting masked and armed agents on the streets and causing chaos, as we have repeatedly seen.
The Rules chairwoman mentioned one of the people who has been picked up is absolutely someone who probably deserves to be picked up. However, they have had over 2,000 ICE agents in Minneapolis for about 6 weeks, and they have arrested about 20 people who fit that profile.
In addition, of course, they have killed Renee Good. They have arrested American citizens. They have tackled kids outside their high school. They have tackled teenagers working at Target. They have terrorized an entire community. That does appear to be part of the point here is to create propaganda and videos to scare Americans to project this military power in our streets, which, for any student of American history, that is why we left the U.K.
I think that the objection here is to the lawfulness of what has been happening in Minnesota, in Chicago, in L.A., across the country, and the need to really change how things are being done there.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Mr. Hoyer's amendment to the FSGG appropriations bill, which restricts obligating any remaining unobligated balances for the new FBI consolidated headquarters facility until GSA, in consultation with the FBI, submits the contracted and completed architectural and engineering plan for review.
Mr. Speaker, our colleague, Mr. Hoyer, has served with honor for over four decades and has ushered countless pieces of bipartisan legislation through this House.
Now, in this case, all he is asking for is a vote, that the Members of this body vote on an amendment to make sure that before an extremely consequential and expensive decision is made with respect to the location of the FBI headquarters, we receive the architectural and engineering plan that the General Services Administration is supposed to complete. That seems like the least we could do.
Regardless of one's position on Mr. Hoyer's amendment, it deserves a vote on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments and for her support of my amendment. I regret that my amendment was rejected by the Rules Committee, but that is not uncommon. An overwhelming majority of Democratic amendments are rejected, irrespective of merit.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that this amendment comports with the debate that I heard in the Rules Committee yesterday. The substance of that debate was that we need oversight. We need to make sure that we know what we are doing. We need to make sure that what the administration or any administration is asking for comports with the policies of the Congress of the United States.
If we defeat the previous question, we will offer an amendment to the rule that allows the House to simply consider my amendment concerning the FBI headquarters.
I will speak more on that matter later, but I am deeply concerned that moving the FBI to the Reagan Building, as this administration plans to do, would greatly undermine the FBI's security.
This is a picture of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma. In 1995, a guy named McVeigh drove a step van up to the street of the Murrah Building and blew it up, killing 168 people and injuring over 800 people. That is a major artery in front of the Murrah Building.
The Reagan Building was designed as an open and public-private building with public access, public accommodations, and the public coming into the building for eating. It has a big cafeteria. It has a big parking lot that the public uses and is used by city hall, which is located right in the middle--or not in the middle, but surrounded by the Reagan Building.
The amendment that I have simply says: Let's not spend any money on moving the FBI to this building, which the Murrah Building makes very clear, and is why the FBI Director came to me in 2009 to have this facility, the FBI building, moved to a place where you can have security.
We have some number of security organizations. They are all located either in the suburbs or at Boeing Air Force base. Boeing Air Force base is a secured piece of much acreage, so they are not subject to that risk.
All of these agencies, including the CIA at Langley and other agencies, four of which are in Virginia, are so that those agencies can be as secure as we can possibly make them, so that we will not lose people, FBI agents, CIA agents, NSA agents, or whoever, and that we will have those facilities in a secure place. All this amendment says is: Show us the plan to keep our people secure.
The gentlewoman, my friend from North Carolina, said, and I believe she is accurate, that we are all concerned about the lives of people, be they government employees or not. This amendment says: Present us the information, GSA and FBI, that shows us that, in fact, you can make the Reagan Building safe for a security agency.
If the motion is defeated for the previous question, we will offer that simple amendment and give everybody in this Congress the ability to stand up and say, yes, we want to know information before we make this critical decision.
It is not partisan. It is not ideological. It is simply doing what the Congress is responsible to do, and that is have oversight and make judgments based upon the best information they can receive.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
In closing, let me emphasize that this is consistent with what all of us say and was said in the committee yesterday. Mrs. Houchin said it particularly well, and others on the committee, when saying that they want the information necessary to make solid decisions. If we adopt my amendment, that will accomplish that objective.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous question and for the Hoyer amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected over 70 amendments submitted by Members of both parties. This included a handful of amendments that I have submitted, which if adopted, I obviously think would have improved the bill.
I will highlight those amendments in light of the reporting about the chaos at the Department of Justice after its leadership quashed a transparent investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent and instead insisted on opening a criminal investigation into her widow. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and other Trump officials and conservative commentators have tried to brand Renee Good as a domestic terrorist in gross contradiction to known facts, but that is not the key issue here.
Putting aside the refusal to investigate the lawfulness of the agent's use of deadly force under those circumstances, and the heinous implication that Renee Good somehow deserved to die because she objected to the presence of armed and masked Federal agents in her neighborhood and that she was disrespectful, the President's characterization, this investigation, and these comments from Secretary Noem, are the direct result of an underreported and underappreciated effort by the Trump administration to criminalize constitutionally protected speech.
Earlier this year, President Trump issued a sweeping memo, directing Federal agencies to target Americans with criminal and civil investigations on the explicit basis of constitutionally protected speech.
The memo literally defines specific categories of political opinions and beliefs that law enforcement must now
Following this directive, the Department of Justice then changed its policies to direct Federal law enforcement agents to target Americans with criminal investigations for expressing these sanctioned political views or for participating in protests against the Trump administration.
This is the kind of political oppression you would expect to see from authoritarian states like Russia or China, but no, it is here. It is happening at home.
Our Republican colleagues, who are often so quick to complain about censorship or the weaponization of the Federal Government, have remained silent while President Trump has turned the Department of Justice into a tool of political suppression.
Last night, I proposed an amendment to prohibit the use of any Federal taxpayer dollars to investigate or prosecute Americans on the basis of their lawful and constitutionally protected speech.
Mr. Speaker, every single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against my amendment, blocking it from coming to the House floor so our entire body could vote on it.
The First Amendment protects everyone's speech. There are no carve- outs for those we disagree with. Apparently, as we saw in last night's vote, House Republicans do not agree with that fundamental American value.
While Rules Republicans voted down my amendment to protect Americans' right to free speech, they did make in order a questionable amendment from our Rules colleague, Representative Roy, that would defund the D.C. Federal courts and specifically withdraw the salaries for the staff of two Federal judges.
These two judges have been targeted by President Trump and congressional Republicans because they have done their job. They have not bent to the President's will. They have interpreted the law as written. Therefore, House Republicans are taking the extreme position of zeroing out the salaries of their staff. It is a cruel and un- American attack on the judiciary that completely subverts our constitutional order.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, underneath this debate about the appropriations minibus is the difficult reality that House Republicans have abdicated their responsibilities to this Chamber, to the Congress, and to the Constitution. We are not just debating a budget bill. We are debating whether Congress will continue to function not just as a coequal branch of government but as the Article I source of the laws that run our country.
Under Republican leadership, we have seen Congress turned into a rubber stamp. Republicans have surrendered to the whims of a President who sees laws as optional and power as personal.
These two appropriations bills, while necessary for the continued operation of essential government functions, are the limit of how far the Republican Party is willing to go in defying the President.
Unfortunately, Republicans are more interested in protecting power than in responsibly governing for the benefit of the American people. Our job isn't to protect the President. Our job is to fund the government responsibly and to serve as a check on executive overreach.
As masked agents roam our streets, terrorizing our communities, as Trump entertains starting another forever war, and as the Epstein files remain covered up, now is the time for Congress to stand up for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this majority continues to roll up its sleeves and advance the core priorities of the American people and President Trump. We are absolutely exercising our Article I responsibilities by passing appropriations bills.
With our unifying vision and some elbow grease, we are making significant headway that benefits the American people and our entire Nation. The legislative package contained under this rule is yet another commitment that we are seeing through to completion. Its provisions and intent confirm this through and through.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, ``yes'' on the rule, and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 992 Offered by Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7006, Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 992) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7006) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 209, not voting 9, as follows:
Ms. BROWN and Mr. MIN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 7006, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 992 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 7006.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 7006) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bost in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 7006, the Financial Services- General Government bill, which institutes fiscal year 2026 funding for the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations measures.
This Congress has a fundamental responsibility to fund the government, and this two-bill package is our next step toward completing the full 12 bills.
When done the right way, funding the government is not a single vote. It is a process that requires steady, deliberative progress. I am proud to say we are doing just that.
Today marks the second time this month that we are bringing bipartisan, bicameral bills to the floor. We promised the American people a responsible Member-driven process, and that is precisely what we are delivering.
This two-bill package reflects Member input, the America-first agenda, and the collaboration across political aisles and Chambers that serves the Nation.
Advancing full-year appropriations matters because it gives the country certainty and direction. It allows vital agencies to plan, make decisions, and do their jobs based on today's realities and not policies from the past. That is how we move from promises to action and carry out the America-first agenda mandated by the people.
Mr. Chair, those priorities are reflected throughout the measure before us. Through the Financial Services-General Government portion of the bill, Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee Chairman David Joyce advanced important provisions that drive economic growth, uphold consumer freedom, and support entrepreneurship and small businesses, reinforcing the foundations of the American Dream for people and job creators nationwide.
It also advances needed government efficiencies by cutting waste, modernizing technology and cybersecurity, and addressing unused Federal space and buildings. Crucially, it also protects Americans from a supercharged IRS by cutting enforcement and redirecting resources to customer service. This is especially important as we approach tax- filing season and implement the working families tax cut, allowing families to keep more of what they earn.
Just as this package strengthens economic security and accountability, it also reinforces America's security and leadership at home and abroad. The National Security-Department of State measures champion an America-first policy agenda. We replaced the weakness of prior administrations by restoring President Trump's Peace Through Strength agenda. National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart took decisive action to reprioritize funding in support of our Nation's security. This allowed us to eliminate $9.3 billion in spending while reasserting deterrence and leadership.
To protect the safety, freedom, and prosperity of the American people, we showed that focused strategy, not endless spending, is what delivers results. We make critical investments in high-impact initiatives that combat narcotics and human trafficking, confront the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party, and counter terrorism.
We reinforce democracy and human rights efforts, and we defend religious liberty. As both a moral duty and vital American interest, we will not tolerate religious persecution and attacks on faith. Upholding those values strengthens American leadership and advances freedom around the world.
We also eliminate wasteful initiatives, implement the necessary accountability at the United Nations, and prohibit any funds for things like UNRWA or the Taliban. The bottom line: We counter our foes, stand with our friends, and ensure investments are focused on security, keeping Americans safe, and enhancing our global edge.
Taken in its entirety, the package serves a clear purpose: safety, strength, and freedom. That is certainly something that we can all support.
I commend the detailed work of our chairmen, Representatives Joyce and
I thank their accompanying ranking members, Representative Steny Hoyer and Lois Frankel, for their professionalism and engagement in the process. This work demonstrates what we can accomplish through collaboration and respect.
I also particularly thank my good friend and working partner, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and I also thank the superb staff on both sides of the aisle who worked tirelessly to present us with the product before us today.
As I look ahead, Mr. Chairman, to today's vote, I am grateful for the future that I see, one where President Trump keeps his pen ready because full-year appropriations are advancing and certainty is being restored.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their time. I urge all Members to support this bipartisan package, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this package today, which includes the Financial Services-General Government and the National Security- Department of State-Related Programs appropriations bills.
I begin by offering my gratitude to everyone who put in the long hours and late nights to craft this package: Ranking Member Steny Hoyer of Financial Services and Lois Frankel on National Security-Department of State, who led these negotiations and secured important provisions which we could all be proud of.
I thank the Appropriations Committee staff in particular: Matt Smith, Erin Kolodjeski, Philip Tizzani, Ed Etzkorn, and Laurie Mignone, who worked tirelessly to produce this legislation.
I thank our counterparts in the majority, led by my friend, Chairman Cole, and the subcommittee chairs, David Joyce and Mario Diaz-Balart.
These two bills are a continuation of our efforts to reassert Congress' power of the purse, reject $163 billion in cuts proposed by the Trump administration, constrain the White House's abuse of the budget process, and protect Democratic priorities at home and abroad.
This bill supports the small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel the American economy by providing more than $1 billion for the Small Business Administration and increasing funding for entrepreneurial development programs by $13 million.
Small businesses employ nearly half of the American workforce. At a time when so many families are feeling the weight of the affordability crisis and job prospects feel far and few between, we must do everything in our power to increase economic opportunities in the communities that need it most.
In support of this goal, this bill also provides $324 million for community development financial institutions, rejecting efforts by the Trump administration to fully eliminate large portions of this program.
As we look ahead to an election year, this bill increases funding for election security grants by $30 million, providing States and localities with the resources that they need to shore up our election infrastructure and defend our democracy against any form of interference that could deny us the most basic right.
In addition to our right to vote, this bill protects our right to counsel codified in the Sixth Amendment by increasing funding for Federal public defenders by $315 million. This helps to ensure due process is not just a privilege reserved for the wealthy few, but a protection guaranteed to all of us, regardless of status.
This package not only supports democracy at home but advances it abroad. It protects funding to fully meet our treaty obligations, affirming American leadership at the U.N. and other international organizations.
It supports women around the globe, protecting funding for bilateral family planning and the U.N. Population Fund, and it facilitates American cooperation with international environmental initiatives by blocking policy riders that would have prevented our participation.
In fact, there is not a single poison pill policy rider in these bills. Both we and our Republican colleagues agreed to leave these partisan provisions out of this package and pursue a reasonable compromise. I am glad that we could reach this agreement and move forward with a package that isn't perfect, but it is one that we can all support.
While there are certainly some things that I would change about these measures, they are both vastly superior to yet another continuing resolution or a lapse in funding, either of which would afford the Trump administration greater leeway to abuse the budget process, which they have shown an eagerness to do from the moment they took office.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the work that was done in a bipartisan fashion to produce this funding package. I look forward to voting for it, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my very good friend and the vice chair of the full committee and chair of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee, I rise in strong support for H.R. 7006.
This full-year funding bill really carries out our Nation's foreign policy in a historic way in so many different aspects. First and foremost, the bill restores fiscal sanity by reducing spending by 16 percent, which is nearly a $10 billion cut, in recognition of the President's and the Secretary of State's effort to make the Department of State, frankly, more efficient, streamlined, and responsive to the national security priorities.
Within these really, I think, dramatic but necessary reductions, the bill will make sure that the Secretary has the resources that he needs to counter our adversaries--adversaries like China, Iran, cartels in our hemisphere, and the regime of Cuba in our hemisphere.
This bill takes serious steps toward confronting, for example, the regime in Cuba and includes limitations on funding for countries and organizations that participate in the human trafficking of Cuban medical professionals while directing the Secretary of State to revoke visas for officials of countries involved in this grotesque human trafficking.
Mr. Chairman, a smart foreign policy doesn't just require opposing our enemies, although that is a big part of it. It means supporting and standing with our allies, with our friends, who can be a force multiplier in our national security interests.
That is why this bill acknowledges our friends and provides robust assistance for allies, partners like Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Taiwan, and the Philippines, to name a few.
Mr. Chairman, for too long, we have ignored our hemisphere, our neighbors in our own region. This bill changes that and provides special emphasis to key partners in the Western Hemisphere who are aligned with our values and our policies, such as Costa Rica, Panama, Paraguay, Argentina, and the Dominican Republic.
This bill increases funding for counter-fentanyl and synthetic drug programs to stop these deadly poisons from crossing our borders and coming to the United States.
It puts American businesses first, prioritizing diplomatic engagement to favorably resolve commercial disputes, disputes abroad, some of them that have been going on for years, to promote American business and American interests overseas.
This bill also makes sure that we are spending money according to our American values.
It increases support for religious freedom and addresses religious persecution.
The bill also maintains longstanding pro-life provisions and enhances oversight and transparency over those requirements.
It protects free speech and prohibits censorship or disinformation and misinformation programs that violate the right of American citizens.
The bill makes double-digit cuts to U.N. funding and gives the Secretary of State the tools and the leverage to demand much-needed reforms there.
These are historic changes in our approach that the American people have been demanding for decades, Mr. Chairman.
The fiscal year 2026 bill removes controversial funding directives from the CR, like the U.N. climate funds and others.
Throughout this process, the goal is to be good stewards of American taxpayer money, to represent our constituents' priorities within this financial funding and, above all, protect the national security of the United States.
Now, this bill would not be here without the help of so many others in this body. I have got to start with the remarkable leadership of Chairman Tom Cole. We wouldn't be here discussing this if it wasn't for him and his partner on the other side of the aisle, and I am so grateful for their leadership and recommendations. Every single member has made this bill so much better. It has shaped this bill, and I am grateful for the contributions. I do need to thank again my dear friend--and we have had some tough issues--the ranking member, Lois Frankel, who has been an amazing partner in putting this bill together, and, by the way, Chairman Brian Mast, another Floridian, who has been incredibly helpful. I also thank my staff, the amazing staff. This bill never would have happened without them; my clerk, Susan Adams, and the entire majority team, as well as the minority staff.
We have no greater duty to the American people than to protect the security of our country while safeguarding tax dollars.
This bill does that. It protects our national security. It protects the hard-earned tax dollars of every American who pays taxes. This bill plays an integral part in the noble endeavor.
Mr. Chair, for that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. Chair, I thank the former chair and ranking member for yielding. I thank her for her work. I thank Mr. Cole for his work.
Anybody who knows me knows that I am opposed to CRs, but I am for keeping the government open, if those are the only alternatives.
Mr. Chair, this would not be my bill, but I think probably most of the Members on this floor can say that. It is a bill that cooperatively has been made better, I think, as it has passed through the House and Senate in conference.
It provides increases for several key programs for the American people.
That includes a $13 million increase over the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for entrepreneurial development programs at the Small Business Administration. The ranking member mentioned that program, but it is critically important to our communities and to the small business community.
This bill also increases funding for election security grants by $30 million. I created that program, along with Bob Ney from Ohio, when we passed the Help America Vote Act. We all want to make sure our elections are run well. At that point in time, we distributed to the States over $3 billion. This is $45 million for 50 States, not a lot of money, but it is proper for the Federal Government to help pay for the elections that are run by the locals that include United States Senators and Members of Congress.
The judiciary, Mr. Chairman, receives $584 million or a 6.2 percent increase over the 2025 enacted, which is what they asked for. The reason we wanted to do that is to make sure that the courts can act efficiently, effectively, and justly. We also included $142 million or a 19 percent increase for court security. Unfortunately, as we see on our streets today, we are living in an era in which violence is too often repaired to.
Crucially, the bill fixes the funding hole for Federal Public Defender services, which are constitutionally required, providing an increase of $315 million or 22 percent over the 2025 enacted level to meet constitutional responsibilities.
Other programs for the Department of the Treasury, including the community development financial institutions, so critical for small communities and communities of little means, were flat funded in the fiscal year 2025 enacted level, instead of being eliminated. While it is not everything we would want, it is a vast improvement over what was requested.
Even still, Mr. Chair, some of my colleagues may notice my lack of enthusiasm for this final bill.
This bill's $1 billion or 9 percent cut to the Internal Revenue Service below the fiscal year 2025 enacted is particularly concerning to me. I have made this point I think every time we have considered this bill. I might say that we tried to overcome this deficiency and have not yet done that.
It includes a $438 million or an 8 percent cut to IRS enforcement. Now, what does cutting enforcement mean? It means that we have gone from 9 percent in looking at tax returns over a million dollars to 0.6 percent. What incentive is that to people who make a lot of money and who try to avoid taxation? The little guy has to pick up the tab. Mr. Chair, that cut will cost the American people dearly by making it easier for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations to avoid paying the taxes they owe under existing law.
Nevertheless, this bill is better than it would have otherwise been. IRS data indicates that every $1 produces $7. A Harvard study shows that for the top 10 percent, every dollar invested in enforcement brings us $12 in additional revenue in taxes owed but not paid. Who will have to pick up the tab? As I said, hardworking Americans who dutifully pay their taxes.
If you are serious about fiscal responsibility, as I am and as I think many are----
If you are serious, you have to be serious about collecting revenue that is due and owing. That means funding the IRS, which has been understaffed and underresourced far too long.
Now, I am concerned not only by the IRS but also the FBI. For two decades, I have worked to help the FBI move out of the crumbling, unhealthy J. Edgar Hoover Building and into a new consolidated headquarters that meets its security and operational needs. The administration has decided to move the FBI from an inadequate 51-year- old building to an inadequate 28-year-old building, the Reagan Building. Its exposed location and its design as an accessible public- private facility would greatly undermine the FBI security.
I will continue to work on that throughout the year that I have remaining to me.
There was language in the CJS bill that I wanted the Rules Committee to include the same exact language, saying simply that we would oversee the plans of the GSA and the FBI before we spend money. That was the responsible thing to do. I am sorry, Mr. Chair, that we did not do it, but I am going to support this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my very good friend and the distinguished chair of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Cole for yielding but mostly for his leadership together with the ranking member, the lovely Ms. DeLauro, Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Collins and Vice Chair Murray, and Senate Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee Chairman Hagerty and Ranking Member Reed. I appreciate all of their work on this bill.
Separately, I thank my ranking member, Mr. Hoyer. I value his institutional knowledge and his insight on and off this committee. I am sad to see him leave at the end of this Congress.
I rise today in strong support of the fiscal year 2026 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
The breadth of FSGG's jurisdiction is daunting, and there are many who thought we could never get a bill done, let alone a bipartisan one. I thank all the members of the FSGG subcommittee for their hard work, and I certainly thank Kim Betz for her hard work in keeping this program online and on track to be here today. I thank all the members of the subcommittee because we would not be here without them.
The bill we are considering today has a total base discretionary funding level of $26.3 billion. However, when compared to FY 2025 enacted levels for non-Defense discretionary spending, this bill is a $140 million cut.
The Treasury Department is cut by 8 percent from FY 2025 enacted levels, including the IRS. In fact, the IRS enforcement account is below $5 billion for the first time since 2021.
The Executive Office of the President is funded at just over $870 million.
Funding for the Federal judiciary is increased by 6 percent to $9.7 billion, which will support court security and the Federal public defender's program.
Approximately $877 million in Federal payments are provided to the District of Columbia, including emergency security funding for D.C. to support events in the capital, like America's 250 celebrations, Memorial Day, and Labor Day.
Finally, $2.8 billion is provided for the SEC, FTC, FCC, GSA, SBA, and more than 20 independent agencies.
This bill will enable the GSA to reduce the number of Federal properties on the Federal Government's deferred maintenance list. It provides critical funding for national security, including the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence and the Committee on Foreign Investment.
The bill funds bipartisan programs like CDFIs, which support communities and high-intensity drug trafficking area programs that are critical to strengthening this administration's interdiction and fentanyl tracking efforts.
In conclusion, this bill funds critical government agencies and programs and preserves and protects Congress' responsibility of overseeing how these funds are being used.
Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), the distinguished ranking member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member DeLauro for yielding.
I rise in support of the fiscal year 2026 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs funding bill, a bipartisan package that strengthens American leadership and aims to make our country safer, more secure, and more prosperous.
Let me start by thanking our chair of the main committee, Mr. Cole; my ranking member, Representative DeLauro; the members of our subcommittee; and the hardworking staff who helped to get the bill done, the majority team and our Democratic team of Erin Kolodjeski, Laurie Mignone, Ed Etzkorn, and Jenn Miller. A most big thank you to our subcommittee chair, Mario Diaz-Balart. We have known each other for decades, dating back to our time in the State legislature. I am grateful for his fine leadership and friendship.
Mr. Chair, this bill reflects what I believe most Americans want from their elected leaders: to work together respectfully in a bipartisan way to get things done. At a time of global uncertainty, it is critical that we face the world with a unified front.
This bill was not an easy task to come by. We have, in my opinion, and the opinion of many on my side of the aisle, a disappointing reduction in top-line funding. The infrastructure needed to deliver foreign assistance has, in many ways, including the illegal destruction of USAID, been dismantled.
With that said, I am proud to say that we worked hard to produce the bill to affirm U.S. leadership on the world stage, recognizing the reorganization of the State Department and reasserting Congress' constitutional power of the purse.
This bill funds what should be the core missions of the State Department: diplomacy, development, and humanitarian assistance. It supports our diplomats overseas, staffs our embassies, and protects U.S. missions around the world. It invests in global health programs, from HIV to maternal and child health to tuberculosis, stopping infectious and preventable diseases before they reach our shores. It funds humanitarian efforts to respond to natural disasters, assists those displaced by conflict, and provides lifesaving nutrition to the hungry. It protects international basic education so children in poverty and crisis have a chance at opportunity.
The bill empowers women and girls by safeguarding funding for family planning, women's economic empowerment, and Women, Peace, and Security.
It supports access to objective information through outlets like Voice of America, pushing back against Russian and Chinese propaganda.
The bill upholds our commitments to allies like Jordan, Egypt, Taiwan, and Israel. Importantly, it reasserts congressional oversight over critical independent agencies that were targeted for dismantling.
This legislation affirms a simple truth: Foreign assistance is not a charity. It is a strategic investment. At just a small fraction of our Federal budget, it delivers outsized returns for our national security, our economy, and our global influence because we know that hunger, poverty, ignorance, repression, and hopelessness create the conditions where extremism and conflict take root. I can say this as a mother who watched her son put on the uniform and deploy to two wars: By investing in global stability, we reduce the need for costly and deadly military intervention.
Isolation is not an option. When the United States pulls back, our adversaries like Iran, China, and Russia double down. They move in to fill the void, rewrite the rules, expand their influence, and undermine democratic values.
This bill helps ensure that American leadership, not authoritarian influence, shapes the future.
I know we know that we are currently operating under a 2024 budget. Over the past 2 years, the world has changed, and our institutions have changed with it.
This bill reflects those realities and adapts how we carry out foreign assistance in a more strategic and accountable way.
This is a serious, bipartisan compromise with a goal of advancing American leadership around the world. It is my hope that this bill will give the administration the tools and funding needed to make our country safer, more secure, and more prosperous, with the understanding that they must be partners with Congress.
Mr. Chair, I proudly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), my very good friend who is the distinguished vice chairman of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I ask the chairman of the committee to please accept my compliments for all he has done to help make appropriations great again. I have certainly enjoyed watching the statesmanship, the bipartisanship, and the bringing of the appropriations process back to its relevancy.
Mr. Chairman, turning to the NSRP bill, I would like to say that this bill reflects a clear understanding that putting America first also means leading abroad with strength, accountability, and purpose. It strengthens our diplomatic and security tools. It reinforces our alliances, and it counters adversaries who seek to exploit instability around the world.
It sends an important message that strong alliances require shared responsibility. Our partners must contribute to their own defense if they expect continued support from the United States, protecting American taxpayers while keeping our alliances credible. It also
Just as important, this bill cuts off funding pathways that could benefit the Taliban and other terrorist organizations, and it continues to shine a light on Russian atrocities in Ukraine, including the abduction of Ukrainian children. This legislation reflects American leadership, strength, and moral clarity, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Chairman, while the FSGG bill contains many important provisions, I would like to touch base on one key provision that is important to the folks back in North Carolina.
This bill is about accountability, and nowhere is that clearer than in how it addresses the United States Postal Service's failure in western North Carolina. Nearly 1 year after Hurricane Helene, five post offices in my district remain closed, forcing families, seniors, and small businesses to drive 30 minutes or more just to access basic mail service.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, that is why I fought to include two provisions that bring real oversight and real answers. First, the United States Postal Service is now directed to report to Congress within 90 days with a concrete plan to reopen and restore service, including in western North Carolina. Second, the Postal Service's Inspector General must submit a specific reopening plan for facilities closed due to Hurricane Helene.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member DeLauro for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 2026 Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
I thank Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Lois Frankel and their team for their hard work on this bill.
America is at a fork in the road in our international affairs. Over the past year, our soft power has been decimated. Millions of people in need have been recklessly cut off from vital assistance. Billions of dollars in lifesaving health and food supplies purchased by American taxpayers have been stranded in supply chains, or worse, destroyed. Thousands of public servants, including many of my own constituents, who dedicated their lives to protecting our country and projecting our soft power, were fired.
This bill isn't the one Democrats would have written if we were in the majority, but I want to share why I support it. First, it continues U.S. support for women around the world. Women are one-half of the world's population, but too many still face obstacles to economic opportunity, gender equality, and their fundamental freedoms.
This funding has been a core pillar of U.S. assistance since the 1950s, and it is lifesaving. Estimates suggest that each year, it prevents 17.1 million unintended pregnancies and saves the lives of 34,000 women and girls who otherwise would have died from complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
The UNFPA is a critical piece of that puzzle too. This bill ensures continued funding for international organizations, including UNFPA.
History has taught us that we cannot bury our head in the sand and abandon the international community without consequences for our own national security, and we certainly can't afford to leave women and girls behind. With this bill, this Congress is doing our part to make sure we don't.
Second, this bill protects U.S. leadership and taxpayer investments in global health, including scientific, medical, and agricultural research in my home State of New York.
It funds PEPFAR, which fights HIV/AIDS, well above the President's anemic request. Since 2003, this program has saved over 26 million lives. It also includes funding for programs that support the health of moms and children and fights other infectious diseases that know no borders, like tuberculosis.
Third, it takes steps to further protect American taxpayers from waste, fraud, and abuse perpetrated by this administration.
It maintains important directives on education, conservation, water, sanitation, and hygiene programs. It reins in the Trump administration and reasserts congressional oversight on the uses of funds by increasing transparency requirements. It includes provisions I championed to make sure lifesaving commodities and supplies purchased with U.S. taxpayer dollars can't simply be destroyed.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Chair, while this bill won't right every wrong, it represents Democrats and Republicans reaching an agreement that asserts Congress' authority, pushes back against this administration's overreach, and stands up for proven policies that have made our country and world safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), who is the distinguished vice chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, Long Islanders face some of the highest tax burdens anywhere in the Nation.
At the same time, America, with our $38 trillion in debt, needs to start to freeze and cut spending wherever possible. When we deal with these financial issues, lawmakers in this body would be wise to protect important government services.
Thankfully, the fiscal year 2026 Financial Services and General Government bill, which is on the floor today, cuts spending by $140 million and sends a clear message that Washington is doing its part to ease, not add to, our tax and deficit burden, all while protecting important government services.
That is why I rise today in strong support of this bill.
As vice chair of FSGG, and under the strong leadership of Chairman Cole and Chairman Joyce, our subcommittee worked to deliver a disciplined funding package that addresses the real pressures facing families and businesses back home.
This legislation provides $26.5 billion in discretionary funding to support economic growth, protect individual liberties, and ensure the institutions upon which Americans rely work more effectively for them.
This bill strengthens our financial system and economic security. It responsibly funds the Department of the Treasury, including critical investments in cybersecurity, financial crimes enforcement, and oversight of our adversaries' investments.
It preserves community development funding to help small businesses and manufacturers on Long Island grow, create jobs, and strengthen supply chains without raising taxes.
This legislation also protects taxpayers by modernizing, not weaponizing, the IRS. It cuts excessive enforcement funding by more than $1 billion and prohibits the IRS from targeting Americans for exercising their First Amendment rights.
The bill also strengthens our defenses against foreign criminal networks. In addition to nearly $300 million for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, the bill strengthens the Treasury's counterterrorism and financial intelligence efforts, cutting off funding streams used by cartels, traffickers, and foreign bad actors.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chairman, the FY26 FSGG bill reflects the values Americans sent us here to uphold. I urge support of the bill, and I thank the chairman for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to a narrow- minded, shortsighted amendment that is going to be offered to this bill on the National Endowment for Democracy, prohibiting funding for that important organization.
By eliminating NED's appropriation, U.S.-based nonprofit organizations, local partners, and frontline democracy defenders in dangerous contexts will be put in immediate jeopardy, undermining efforts to support emerging democracies and those resisting authoritarian rule like the brave protesters in Iran.
In places like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Hong Kong, Tibet, Burma and, as I mentioned, Iran, NED provides vital resources for those advocating for freedom. This amendment would halt efforts to provide citizens with accurate information, exposing corruption and brutality of some of these regimes and kneecapping protesters who are pleading for freedom.
If we withdraw our support and abandon democracy defenders, we cede this ground to autocratic regimes which will eagerly step in to replace us and promote their own interests at our expense. This will devastate U.S. national security and the advancement of our democratic ideals.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this terrible amendment when it comes up and show the rest of the world we have not lost our minds nor lost our way.
Mr. Chairman, today we are voting on a two-bill appropriations package that funds Financial Services and our National Security and State Department. This bill keeps the government running, protects America, and respects the taxpayer. This package contains two bills with real cuts, real security, and real governing, Mr. Chairman, not bloated omnibuses, not last-minute shutdown threats or games, but Members on both sides of the aisle who are actually doing the work line by line and in the open.
This package cuts nearly $9 billion compared to last year. Financial Services is flat-funded. National Security and State are cut by a whopping 16 percent. It is proof that we can fund priorities without growing our government.
We rein in Washington by cutting IRS enforcement back to Trump 45-era levels. Chairman Joyce blocked Democratic efforts to tie the administration's hands and help refocus spending so that taxpayer dollars only go where they actually make America safer.
Chairman Diaz-Balart delivered DOGE-era USAID cuts while still funding national security investments. In fact, I was honored to help Chairman Diaz-Balart retain some of these programs under the new banner of national security investment programs at the State Department under the direction of Secretary Rubio.
The bottom line, sir, is if it is not having to do with our national security interests, we are not funding it. We fully fund CFIUS to stop foreign threats from buying up America, keep longstanding pro-life protections in place, and deliver a bill with no poison pills. This package keeps spending below the current continuing resolution and moves us closer to finishing all 12 appropriations bills. They said it couldn't be done. We are going to do it.
The bottom line is, this bill delivers three critical things: safety, strength, and freedom. Two bills, real cuts, real security, real governing, a bill so good the White House just endorsed it.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is so good, the White House just endorsed this bill, and I want to read the last paragraph: ``The administration urges the Congress to support this fiscally responsible bill and looks forward to working with the Congress on the remaining appropriations bills to address key priorities and avoid another disastrous government shutdown.''
Mr. Chairman, I along with Donald J. Trump, the White House, and the OMB Director urge my colleagues to vote for this funding bill. Let's get `er done.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my very good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Cole and Chairman Joyce for their good work on our side of the aisle and the committee at large for producing this constructive, good appropriations bill.
I rise in support of the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
This bill funds key government agencies that are focused on economic stability, fiscal responsibility, and national security. As chair of the House Financial Services Committee, I am proud that key provisions included in this bill were championed by our committee.
My bill, H.R. 1474, the International Nuclear Energy Financing Act, expands U.S. financing tools for civilian nuclear energy projects abroad, helping U.S. companies compete globally while promoting safe and reliable energy as an alternative energy source from opposing nations.
It requires the Treasury to advocate for nuclear energy assistance at the World Bank and other international financial institutions, including the establishment of Nuclear Energy Assistance Trust Funds.
Also included in this funding package is Congresswoman Salazar's H.R. 6892. This is a critical piece of the bill that authorizes a capital increase for the Inter-American Development Bank, IDB Invest, an arm of the Bank devoted to private-sector growth in Latin America. Empowering the IDB Invest helps expand opportunities for U.S. businesses and strengthens their economic partnership and footprint in Latin America and counters growing influence from our global competitors.
We cannot overlook also, Mr. Chairman, the importance of adequate funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is included in this bill. Strong capital markets are essential to American economic leadership, and ensuring that the SEC has the resources, clear rules, and effective oversight to carry out its mission is essential.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his leadership. I appreciate the time today, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this appropriations bill, and I support that this bill invests in the National Endowment for Democracy.
During my time in Congress, I have worked very closely with the National Endowment for Democracy's executive director, Damon Wilson, who is a great leader in democratic efforts throughout the world, and I can attest to the important work done under his leadership.
The National Endowment for Democracy is a critical tool for ensuring that prodemocracy movements have the resources they need to counter authoritarianism and confront human rights abuses. Countries such as Ukraine, Bosnia, and Georgia face constant pressure and interference from Russia, and the National Endowment for Democracy is on the front lines of efforts to ensure democracy and Western values prevail.
Additionally, the National Endowment for Democracy does important work to counter hostile, authoritarian regimes like the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian regime. It is important for us to support this American institution and organization, which is based here in Washington, D.C., that defends our interests around the world in some of the most challenging environments.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this American-first legislation.
Mr. Chair, I think it is fair to say that many within this institution and
In a negotiation, no one gets everything that they want. You compromise for a greater good, and you need willing partners to participate in that effort.
I believe that what we have done here is to show the naysayers that by entrusting appropriations bills to appropriators, we could get the job done. That is what we are doing with six bills already passed and signed and two bills that we will pass today. That is 8 of the 12 appropriations bills, and I believe we are on track to pass all 12 bills by January 30.
Now, if we do not come to an agreement, there are two options. The first option is a continuing resolution, which we can all conclude is no way to run a government. Quite frankly, for me personally, I don't want to turn over the power of the Appropriations Committee to any executive, Democratic or Republican. I believe that the power of the purse resides within the Congress. The second option is a shutdown, which, as we know, is the worst of all possible outcomes.
It hurts the American people, and it really shortchanges the American people. It puts them at risk. It may satisfy a need or an urge that someone here has, but it doesn't reflect well on what happens to the American people. I think we have shown the naysayers that it can be done.
Mr. Chair, I will compliment the chair of the full committee for understanding the need to reassert the constitutional power of the purse entrusted to the Congress through the Appropriations Committee and that we do have to hammer out the bills in a civil way; not for the purposes of the process but for what the consequences are of these 12 bills and the services that they provide to the American people. Whether it is agriculture in rural America, whether it is education and the ability of children to be able to succeed, or whether it is healthcare or transportation, which, in this case, is our role in the world and how we preserve our national security, what we do with our financial circumstances, what we do with our community development of financial institutions to help local communities be able to thrive economically, that is what is within the bills.
It is not just a process. It is the content of these efforts which make that difference and provide what government is here to do: opportunity for people to be able to succeed, to be able to thrive, and to be able to take care of themselves and their families.
Mr. Chair, the strategy and the strength of the Appropriations Committee and its work on behalf of the American people are the heartbeat of the U.S. Government. I am proud to support the bipartisan, bicameral bill that we have fashioned and, again, give credit to both our Republican chairs and our Democratic ranking members for the great work and their negotiating skills to get it done, and to the staff, above all. I am sorry to other staffs, but the Appropriations staff is second to none. They keep our names on the door. They make it possible for these bills to pass.
Mr. Chair, I will just say it is a good package. It reasserts Congress' power of the purse. It does rein in the administration, and it does, for me, protect key Democratic priorities.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support these bills today and to move forward as we continue to look at the next several bills that we have coming up so that we can, by January 30, pass all the appropriations bills and make a difference for the American people.
Mr. Chair, I begin by, number one, thanking my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee. As I said in my opening statement, this is a process, and we are a long way into the process now, thanks, in large part, to her efforts and certainly the efforts of the ranking members and chairs of the two committees whose legislative work we are considering today.
It is important to recognize that these bills together reduce funding. They actually reduce funding. A CR would actually cost us more. They also update, refine, and change language in some cases that is 2 and 3 years old and is simply out of date with the current circumstances.
If we were to fail to pass these bills in these respective areas, then that language would remain intact. I think it is important to recognize that we were able to come to agreements in this way simply because we have a common commitment to a set of principles and a process that really isn't partisan in nature.
I know my friend, Ms. DeLauro, and I know her colleagues believe very much in the Article I power of Congress. We assert that power by passing appropriations bills. I commend my friends for working with us to do that.
I know my friends also believe very deeply in the importance and the power of the Appropriations Committee. So do I. The fact is, we know that to get our job done, at the end of the day, it is going to have to be bipartisan and bicameral. A lot of people are going to have to move or give up some things that they feel very strongly about for the greater good of making sure that the Government of the United States is appropriately funded. We do it in a way that, again, as my good friend Mr. Hoyer said, it is not the bill any of us would have written individually, but the point is, it is a collaborative effort of give and take that has produced something that the vast majority of us can and will vote for today.
This is eight bills into this process. We have a big job in the few days ahead of us till the end of the month, but I share my friend the ranking member's confidence that we can get that job done and that we can be back here and find a way to put all these bills in front of this Chamber for their consideration and also pass them and make sure the Government of the United States is funded on a bipartisan, bicameral basis through the balance of this fiscal year.
Mr. Chair, I share my friend's pride in the product in front of us. I know if she got to write it all by herself, it would look a little bit different. She knows if I got to write it all by myself, it would look different. The point is, this is one we got to write together with give and take, and I am very proud that this committee got every one of its bills out of committee, sat down and worked with our colleagues in the other Chamber on both sides of the aisle, and has produced a product that we know we have broad consensus on.
Mr. Chair, I will end by commending all those involved. My friend, Ms. DeLauro, always makes a point of how important the staff is in this process, and that is absolutely true. While a lot of people were celebrating the holidays, and appropriately so, that wasn't true if you worked on the Appropriations staff, unless you were one of the lucky three that got their bills done last year. They had a merry Christmas.
Everybody else was working through the Christmas holidays to produce these products. It is enormously complex. There is a lot of work involved, an extraordinary amount of work for the staff. I share my friend's pride in their efforts and gratitude for their success.
Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of H.R. 7006. I will also remind everyone that it is not quite done. We have a lot to do in the next few days ahead of us, but this helps set the precedent, helps move the process along, and gives us a much better chance of success as we deal with these final, critical bills. It will make sure that we both avoid a shutdown and give the American people assurance that the government will be functional, operational, and working in a bipartisan, bicameral process between now and September 30 of this year.
Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of the legislation before us, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
DIVISION B--NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND RELATED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE
Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Judicial Services
federal payment for emergency planning and security costs in the
federal payment for defender services in district of columbia courts
federal payment to the district of columbia public defender service
DIVISION B--NATIONAL SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, AND RELATED
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China
united states foundation for natural security and counterterrorism
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs
contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development
contribution to the international fund for agricultural development
prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization
prohibition on assistance to governments supporting international
parking fines and real property taxes owed by foreign governments
The Acting CHAIR. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
No amendment in the bill shall be in order except those printed in House Report 119-445.
Each amendment printed in House Report 119-445 may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 119-445.
Mr. Chair, I thank the Chairman and the ranking member for getting these bills to the floor in a semblance of regular order, as I described in the Rules Committee yesterday.
Mr. Chair, Republicans rise to offer two amendments today, one of which is the amendment that I am bringing forward right now. That amendment is dealing with what we call general government. It is that portion of funding that deals with a number of areas including our judges and how judges are funded.
One of the issues we have been addressing is the extent to which the President, who is elected to fulfill a mandate, has been carrying out policies that he believes fulfills the mandate the American people gave the President and that Members, my colleagues on this side of the aisle, believe should be fulfilled.
Yet, there have been judges who have been putting their personal preferences and their activist tendencies in front of the will of the people and in front of the policies the President is putting forward in such a way that raises questions about whether they are carrying out their jobs responsibly and in accordance with normal judicial ethics and procedures.
Therefore, I offer this amendment that would reduce the budget of the district court, the D.C. District Court and D.C. Circuit Court, by 20 percent and would take away the staff funding for Judges Boardman and Boasberg.
These two individuals have been particularly egregious in their contempt of the President and have been putting their personal views in front of their duty as judges to carry out the jobs they hold
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.
Mr. Chair, I presume this is a message amendment. I presume that because I know that the gentleman who offered it is bright, knowledgeable, and knows this amendment is clearly unconstitutional.
I am sure he has read the Constitution. He talks about it from time to time. Of course, the language of the Constitution is very clear for exactly the reason that the Founders did not want us to be able to monetarily penalize them for judgments with which we disagreed.
They wanted an independent judiciary. They wanted a Nation of laws and not of men. They wanted a nation of laws that are not compromised by threats of cutting salaries and changing lifestyles so that the judiciary would be, unlike England, who had a king who made the laws. It would be the parliament and the courts.
Mr. Chair, I suggest we withdraw this amendment, with all due respect to my friend from Texas, because surely he would not want to go against the Constitution of the United States of America.
Mr. Chair, I also want to say that I am honored to serve as the ranking member. I would rather be chairman. I am honored to serve as the ranking member with the distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Joyce.
If he would like me to yield to him now, I will. If not, I want to thank him for his leadership of our committee, which has been collegial and positive. I think it has led to this resolution today.
Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously and by the way, let me mention to the gentleman from Texas he is protected by the Constitution of the United States from having exactly the same thing done to him.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Chair, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Sessions, from the great State of Texas for his remarks. I want to tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) that the gentleman who offered this amendment is protected by that same Constitution of the United States from having this done to him. Surely he would want to do unto others as he would want done unto him.
Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Maryland for his comments. I wish him well on his retirement. I look forward to regaling that retirement often over the next 10 months.
Mr. Chair, I would just note that I am reminded of the line in ``A Few Good Men'' when they say ``strenuously object.''
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Chair, I am reminded of that line in a ``Few Good Men'' when they talk about strenuously objecting and somehow that that makes a more emphatic statement.
I would also remind my colleague the way we have drafted this bill is to reduce the budget by 20 percent. Nowhere in the Constitution does it stipulate the amount of money that should be put----
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair. If I need to remind the gentleman of the rules, please let me know.
Mr. Chair, at some point we might be able to get an argument out in some sort of fashion where the American people can see it. I would appreciate being able to engage somebody on the House floor.
Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is, if I can keep my train of thought, Mr. Chairman, what I would say is that this has been drafted specifically--drafted specifically--to avoid the constitutional question the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) raises.
It was directed at the budget. Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about the budget. It was directed at the staffs. It was not directed at the judges.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).
Mr. Chairman, nationwide injunctions are highly disfavored. There was a time that people across both sides of the aisle here recognized that.
A certain judge named Boasberg continually exercises those nationwide injunctions, and that wouldn't necessarily be a problem, except he has repeatedly displayed bias and partisanship.
For instance, without substance or evidence, he complained to Chief Justice Roberts that he didn't think President Trump would comply with judicial orders. That displayed his bias, Mr. Chairman. That displayed his partisanship.
Without legal authority and without precedent, Judge Boasberg ordered the government to turn around planes that were in international airspace, conducting a military operation. That is what he insisted upon.
The appellate court rejected Judge Boasberg's theories regarding that incident. Do you know what Judge Boasberg did? He didn't care what the appellate court said because he is biased. He is prejudiced. Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to come in and explain further why they violated what he felt was his authority, which the appellate court said was not rational.
Judge Boasberg is the one who issued surveillance subpoenas against Members of this body and the United States Senate, against Federal law, Mr. Chair. It was against Federal law.
Judge Boasberg issued nondisclosure orders.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, when we see this pattern and we know that he has displayed and said that he has bias against President Trump, he no longer is a fair arbiter, and he must be reckoned with.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised a point. He has carefully drafted this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, his rhetoric, however, and the other gentleman who spoke has been about an individual, about a judge. Their effort is to indirectly do what the Constitution says they cannot do directly.
This Congress ought to recognize that the Constitution clearly had in mind that you cannot do this, directly or indirectly, when the expressed intent of the outcome of the adoption of this amendment is to cut the salaries of judges with whom they disagree.
That would not be a nation of laws. It would be a nation of men. That, we should hold askew, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, in January, just days into the President's first term, Judge Deborah Boardman issued
Months later, Judge James Boasberg attempted to halt the lawful deportation of violent Tren de Aragua gang members, even ordering a removal flight to turn around in midair. These are not isolated incidences. The D.C. Federal courts have become ground zero for lawfare.
This amendment sends a clear message: Unelected judges are not policymakers, and taxpayers should not be forced to fund judicial activism.
Mr. Chairman, we created this court. We can dissolve this court. We can determine the funding for this court. The fact of the matter is that we have a situation right now where judges abuse their power, plain and simple.
The D.C. Circuit Court and the D.C. District Court are the locus of that abuse. In particular, they have harassed staff members because people raised the question about why you zero out staff.
Mr. Chairman, ask Dan Scavino. Ask Mark Meadows. Ask a number of the people who have been targeted and were harassed by these judges and January 6ers. We should make amends, and we should not fund this court to continue its lawlessness.
Mr. Chairman, I again urge the rejection of this amendment. It is clearly designed to alter opinions based upon the threat of being reduced in monetary ability to proceed.
They disagree with the judge. There is a way to go about that. It is to appeal, not to threaten financial retribution.
Mr. Chair, for the sake of our democracy and the sanctity of something that makes America special, which is a justice system that works unrelated to threats of retribution, I urge the defeat of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment to defund the National Endowment for Democracy.
Although its name suggests a force for good, its mission has drifted far from its Cold War origins. This is a classic tactic of the swamp where bad policy and corruption hide behind a noble title.
I thank Mr. Mike Benz and other patriots. We have learned that this organization has engaged in global censorship, domestic propaganda, and regime-change politics. It has worked to crush populous movements, fuel color revolutions, and run off-the-books operations with plausible deniability.
The Trump administration attempted to defund it earlier this year, but that was reversed because Congress had previously approved it. Now is our chance to change that.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to prevent taxpayer resources from funding this rogue organization that works against our Nation's interests.
Mr. Chairman, I speak again today as a mother of a son, a United States Marines veteran, who came home from two wars.
One lesson I carry with me is this: The conflicts that put our sons and our daughters in harm's way almost always arise in places where democracy has failed or never taken root. This amendment will strike funding for the National Endowment for Democracy and core democracy provisions in the bill, and this would be a serious mistake and a dangerous retreat from American values.
For decades, these programs have supported free and fair elections, independent journalism, civic participation, and access to truthful information--tools that help societies resolve disputes without violence.
In Ukraine, democracy programs help document Russian war crimes against women and children. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, they fight corruption and strengthen the rule of law. In Pakistan, they promote religious tolerance and protect minority communities. Around the world, they expand women's participation in political life, one of the strongest predictors of long-term stability.
These investments are not charity. They are prevention. They save American lives, taxpayer dollars, and future troop deployments by reducing the likelihood of conflict, extremism, and mass displacement that ultimately demand United States' intervention.
From the streets of Iran to fragile democracies under pressure, brave people are risking everything for dignity, freedom, and a voice in their future.
These are the people that these programs support. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and stand up for democracy and for American leadership around the world.
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for those remarks and also thank her son for serving in the Armed Forces. I too served in the Armed Forces, went on three wartime deployments, and I can tell you I didn't fight for any of this: global censorship, domestic propaganda, regime change politics, and many other things that this organization is doing.
Mr. Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment that ends Federal funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, a program that Elon Musk, while leading DOGE, publicly said was a scam, that it was rife with corruption and an evil organization that should be dissolved. President Trump and his administration attempted to do that, and yet here we are trying to fund it.
This program was sold to the American people as a force for advancing freedom, but instead it has become a foreign slush fund.
Let me be clear: Americans should not be forced to finance political outcomes in countries where they have no voice, no vote, or no oversight. This is not America First but a scam under the disguise of foreign policy. Under no circumstances should Congress put foreign governments ahead of those that we were elected to serve.
The United States must lead by example. This means not managing the political affairs of the rest of the world on the backs of the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, before anything else, I will tell you what I have told Mr. Crane privately. I will say it publicly. I revere his service to the country. We must always thank those who served, and he served honorably.
On this amendment, the bill that we are debating right now substantially reduces spending, while strengthening our national security.
Part of the strategy is to ensure that the most effective tools to achieve this objective are strong and ready to deliver, including the National Endowment for Democracy. Now, remember, NED was a brilliant initiative from President Ronald Reagan to fight communism and enemies abroad, and it succeeded, strengthening democracy forces from within and helping to get rid of the Berlin Wall.
Today, the adversaries of the United States are still there, and they threaten democracy and freedom all over the world. NED, just as envisioned by President Reagan, is needed once again on the forefront of fighting the enemies of the United States.
NED and democracy programs have been supporting those struggling for freedom in the most repressive places in the world. In Iran, China, Cuba, and Venezuela, the people are hitting the streets, and NED is there with them. Those who are anti-American tyrannies are where NED is effective, and that is where we need them now the most.
At this critical time, America cannot turn its back to those who are courageously fighting, advocating for freedom around the world. There is nothing better for our long-term national security than democratic transitions within those anti-American dangerous regimes around the globe, and NED is a pivotal part of that, which is why, with great admiration and respect to the sponsor of this amendment, I must ask for a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend, Representative Crane's, amendment.
I take umbrage with the last comments made. If this was such a doggone great program, then why has it been unauthorized by this body for more than 20 years? The reason is it has lost its moorings. It is wandering around. It hasn't complied with transparency requirements. It more closely resembles covert political operations designed to entangle the United States in foreign disputes and undermine diplomatic efforts than support them.
Their board and staff overwhelmingly donate to Democratic candidates. They even demanded the removal of Congresswoman Elise Stefanik from the board for defending President Trump, a clear sign of ideological capture, and that is the biggest problem. They have lost their way. They cannot be trusted. We should not give them another dime.
Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The National Endowment for Democracy supports initiatives for which many of my Republican colleagues proudly proclaimed their support. Advocates in Iran supported by NED have been instrumental in documenting the brutality of the Ayatollah's regime.
Over the last several days, we have seen some of the most egregious acts of violent repression in decades as thousands of Iranian protestors take to the streets. The work of groups backed by the National Endowment for Democracy is more important now than ever.
The only people who benefit when we pull back our support for democracy advocates around the world are the dictators and the despots who oppress them.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment and hold firm on the agreement that we negotiated.
The National Endowment for Democracy needs to change its name to the National Endowment for Censorship.
I hear if we defund programs in Pakistan, Congo, and the Ukraine, all of which--Pakistan has election fraud, Congo has 40,000 child slaves in cobalt mines, and Ukraine is jailing Christians--then we are simply despots and part of the problem, but I disagree. In fact, we have proof that NED actually was a part of deplatforming President Trump, which I don't think the President would take kindly to Republicans supporting its efforts, not to mention their head makes close to $500,000 a year.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to not vote for this. It is a farce, it is nonsense, and our tax dollars should not be going toward it.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona and the chairman of the committee for his hard work on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment because you think about the National Endowment for Democracy, you think the United States is working productively in places like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. If we are, let's face it, we have been an abject failure.
Let me tell you where your taxpayer dollars are really going. Where they had been going is to pressure advertisers to demonetize and suppress American political speech by naming the ten riskiest cites to include the New York Post, the Federalist, Newsmax, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Reason, One America News Network, The American Spectator, and The American Conservative.
Mr. Chair, 98 percent of the political donations coming from the National Endowment for Democracy go to the Democrat Party. This is your taxpayer dollars paying for socialists and communists to subvert the American system, and it ought to be stopped.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Joyce of Ohio) having assumed the chair, Mr. Williams of Texas, 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. 7006) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 992 and rule
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber) 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. 7006) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with Mr. Weber of Texas in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, amendment No. 2, printed in House Report 119-445, offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane) had been postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 119-445, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Roy of Texas; and
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Crane of Arizona.
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. 1, printed in House Report 119-445, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), 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 163, noes 257, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:
Mr. BRESNAHAN, Ms. WILSON of Florida, and Mr. WITTMAN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BERGMAN, LATTA, WILLIAMS of Texas, RUTHERFORD, PATRONIS, CISCOMANI, BENTZ, and SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2, printed in House Report 119-445, offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane), 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 127, noes 291, not voting 18, 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. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Meuser) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weber of Texas, 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. 7006) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 992, he reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill. Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 341, nays 79, not voting 11, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
Ms. ANSARI changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an extraordinary young woman from northeastern Wisconsin who recently saved her mother's life by performing CPR.
While at home sick from school, 11-year-old Josie Pethan was confronted with a nightmare scenario that no child should have to experience. Josie had been reading on the couch next to her mother when her mother had a sudden medical emergency. Josie quickly realized something was very wrong.
Without hesitation, Josie jumped into action, calling nearby family members for help and then contacting 911. She soon spoke with dispatcher Brenda Dawes, who started guiding her on how to perform CPR.
Brenda was able to walk Josie through the proper CPR technique while they waited for EMTs to arrive. When asked about who was in her mind during this traumatic experience, she responded: Jesus.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this remarkable young woman. Because of her decisive actions, her mother is alive today and doing much better.
I also want to recognize and thank Brenda Dawes for her service to our community. Because of her calm guidance and sound advice, a tragedy was prevented. Northeast Wisconsin is blessed to have such compassionate and dedicated 911 dispatchers just like her.
Josie's quick thinking and faith in God will carry her very far in life. On behalf of everyone in Wisconsin's Eighth District, I want her to know how proud we are of her and how happy we are that her mother is doing okay.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and congratulate the many high school teams in Pennsylvania's 17th Congressional District that won their WPIAL championships this fall season. Those champions are as follows:
In football, they are Aliquippa, Avonworth, and Seton LaSalle.
In boys' soccer, they are Fox Chapel, West Allegheny, and Deer Lakes.
In girls' soccer, they are North Allegheny and Fox Chapel.
In girls' tennis, they are Shady Side Academy and Quaker Valley.
In girls' volleyball, they are Beaver, Avonworth, and Eden Christian.
In boys' golf, they are South Fayette and Shady Side Academy.
In field hockey, they are Pine-Richland, Fox Chapel, and Shady Side Academy.
In boys' cross-country, they are Quaker Valley.
In girls' cross-country, they are Shady Side Academy.
Mr. Speaker, I say it a lot: We make champions in western Pennsylvania.
I congratulate all the winners. They make us proud at home.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Frank Zardecki, a devoted public servant and proud Pennsylvanian who passed away on January 11, 2026, at the age of 84.
Frank dedicated more than six decades of his life to serving our Nation. After proudly serving in the United States Air Force, he spent over 50 years at the Tobyhanna Army Depot, where he rose to the role of deputy commander and helped to lead one of the region's most important defense facilities.
Frank's leadership and commitment to excellence at Tobyhanna and his life was exceptional, earning him some of the highest civilian honors in Federal service, including the Department of Defense Medal of Distinguished Civilian Service, the highest DOD civilian service award.
Following his retirement in 2022, he was inducted into both the Army Materiel Command Hall of Fame and the U.S. Army Communications- Electronics Command Hall of Fame.
Above all, Frank was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather who cherished time with his family and his community in northeastern Pennsylvania.
I extend my deepest condolences to his loved ones and thank them for sharing Frank with our Nation. His legacy of service will not be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to honor the remarkable life of civil rights activist and community leader, Joy Atkinson.
Joy dedicated her life to mentoring thousands of Black women to become the next generation of changemakers in Los Angeles, and I was one of them.
Joy was the first person to introduce me to public policy work. Without her, I would not be standing here today as a Member of Congress. Whether advising local elected officials or leading the Los Angeles African-American Women's Public Policy Institute, her integrity, courage, and commitment to building coalitions and creating change never wavered.
In my city, Joy touched the lives of anybody who was anybody. With her unexpected passing, we have not only lost a giant in the fight for justice but also a beloved mother, friend, and confidant. Her legacy will endure as we continue working toward the more equitable and inclusive society in which she so deeply believed.
Mr. Speaker, across my home State of Indiana, I hear the same thing time and again. People work hard. They pay their taxes, and they expect Washington to treat their dollars with respect.
Hoosier hospitality means that we help neighbors who truly need it, but fraud turns this virtue into a target, and hardworking Hoosiers foot the bill.
This is not left versus right. It is honesty versus the dishonest, trust versus waste. For every dollar stolen by fraud, it is a dollar we cannot spend on public safety, on our national security, or on helping working families get ahead.
We owe taxpayers accountability, stronger oversight, and closed loopholes that invite abuse.
Protect the taxpayers. Protect the programs, and punish the scammers.
Mr. Speaker, this past December, the Department of Veterans Affairs released a proposal to cut 25,000 openings nationwide for much-needed nurses and medical staff.
In the New York City area, this would mean a loss of approximately 380 positions. While the VA claims these are unneeded openings left from the pandemic, its own inspector general reported last August that 94 percent of VA facilities reported severe staffing shortages for medical officer occupations, and 79 percent of facilities reported severe shortages for nurses.
It is baffling, but 250 years on, this Nation still struggles to reconcile the way that it treats the men and women who fought for our country after they have traded their swords for plowshares. The same can be said for the caregivers who tend to their wounds, both physical and psychological, in the years after their service.
Scrimping on veterans' medical care or diverting its availability is un-American, and it sends the message to our citizens that this government will not keep its part of the bargain.
I demand that this government invest in the VA system rather than seek its demise. The brave men and women who sacrificed to defend our country deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of Wyoming's remaining World War II veterans, Mr. Bob Willis of Laramie, who recently turned 101 years old.
Mr. Willis served his country as an infantryman during some of the fiercest fighting of the war, including the Battle of the Bulge. While under enemy fire, a German tank round exploded beneath him, and shrapnel struck his side, stopped only by the Book of Mormon, which he carried in his pocket.
Mr. Willis is a true hero. He earned the Purple Heart, helped to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny, and later protected Holocaust survivors in the aftermath of the war.
When Mr. Willis returned home, he devoted four decades to serving the Laramie community as a dentist and raised a family with his wife, Kaye.
Bob Willis exemplifies duty, faith, humility, and service. Please join me in honoring his extraordinary life and service to Wyoming and our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Eric Sirota for his work to expand tenants' rights and reshape the housing landscape.
As director of housing justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law and now as the director of a tenant advocacy clinic, Eric uses litigation advocacy to advance housing equity in Illinois and beyond. His work with the Illinois Fair Housing Coalition led to the passage of a State law prohibiting discrimination against housing choice voucher holders.
Eric co-led the Partnership of Just Housing, a national coalition that improved housing access for people with arrest and conviction histories. As a trusted counsel to countless tenant associations, Eric has maintained his commitment to housing for all.
On behalf of Illinois' Third Congressional District, it is my honor to commend Eric Sirota for his work to ensure safe, just, and affordable housing as a fundamental human right.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the Sharia Free America Caucus, which I am proud to have joined.
Across the world, ideologically driven Islamic movements have destabilized entire regions; displaced tens of millions of people; and fueled terrorism, repression, and violence.
Where civil law is subordinated to Islamic authority, freedom, prosperity, and security collapse. Sharia law is not a personal creed. It is a political and legal system and one that rejects equality before the law, suppresses dissent, and fuses radical religious doctrine with state power. History shows that where Sharia gains influence, constitutional government gives way to coercion.
In Texas, my constituents are increasingly alarmed by the consequences of mass migration and the importation of ideologies that are fundamentally incompatible with our Western civilization.
The purpose of this caucus is clear: to ensure that Sharia never gains a foothold in America--not now, and not ever.
The President cannot take money from the proceeds of seized Venezuelan oil and control it himself via means of a highly illegal and improper offshore slush fund. The President has no constitutional authority to do this.
He doesn't get to create his own secret, overseas slush fund, which is outside of our purview and oversight. This is absolutely insane. We take Venezuelan oil at gunpoint, engage in regime change and nation building, and then the President personally controls the proceeds?
What has happened here? Why do my colleagues give up their power?
Mr. Speaker, where is the Republican opposition to this lawless, half-baked, absurd plan? You know that if any Democratic President claimed this kind of maniacal power, you would be enraged.
So I ask you, Mr. Speaker: Where is the outrage now? Where is the pushback? Do not give this President any more power.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, 2025 was one of the worst years for job growth in decades. In fact, if you don't count COVID, the United States created fewer jobs last year than any year since 2009. You don't need data. Just ask anyone who has been looking for a job. They will tell you no one is hiring.
This weak economy is a direct result of President Trump's policies: the crazy tariffs that are raising costs for businesses and consumers, massive cuts to healthcare, and the political attacks on clean energy that are driving up energy costs.
The President claimed that his tariffs would help American manufacturing, but instead we have lost 72,000 manufacturing jobs since Liberation Day, after years of gains.
What is the President focused on as working people struggle? He is focused on building himself a new ballroom, naming the Kennedy Center after himself, trying to take over Greenland, and selling cryptocurrency out of the White House to enrich himself. None of this creates jobs or lower costs for you or the millions of Americans who are struggling. It is time for the President to focus on the real needs of the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the 68,000 manufacturing jobs lost across our country in 2025 as a direct result of President Trump's reckless tariffs and DOGE cuts.
Why did he visit Detroit yesterday when his insistence on continuing these tariffs actually cuts investment in American manufacturing? It is all backward, and it puts America backward and America's workers backward.
In December, manufacturing jobs continued an 8-month decline that began after President Trump falsely promised these new tariffs would lead to an economic resurgence for American workers.
Instead, his broad across-the-board tariffs have driven prices up for everyday goods and all supply chains. Tariffs create uncertainty in the job market, leaving hardworking families worse off.
When manufacturing jobs disappear as costs rise, Ohio families feel it. Lost jobs and rising costs are not an abstract economic theory for us. They are a harsh reality. Thousands of families I represent have been touched. Another company just closed in Fulton County.
Mr. Speaker, let's make manufacturing more competitive, not less. Let's create jobs in the USA.
Mr. Speaker, do you recall just a week and a half ago when the President of the United States stood in front of the American people and said that he conducted an unauthorized military invasion of Venezuela to save American lives from drugs, but then a few days later told us it was actually about the oil?
Well, if we needed any confirmation that it was not about the drugs and not about saving American lives, look no further than the fact that last night the White House announced that they would cut millions of dollars from substance abuse and addiction recovery programs that save lives in America every single day.
In Donald Trump's America, down is up and up is down, and they will lie to your face every single day if they think it will get them what they want. That is why we are in the fight to stop unauthorized wars, to stop the daily assault on our communities, and to restore the America that we know and to save American lives.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be joined by my colleagues for this Conference Special Order to talk about ways we have delivered for all Americans through our legislative action, committee work, and much more.
Mr. Speaker, to start off, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Buddy Carter.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for hosting this Special Order Hour.
Mr. Speaker, America is back and, like the President says, hotter than ever.
Throughout 2025, Republicans worked to undo the damage of the Biden- Harris administration, resulting in less red tape, bigger paychecks, a blue-collar boom, and a stronger, more resilient workplace.
The United States will always be the land of opportunity, but the previous administration shuttered small businesses, choked economic growth, and enacted countless regulatory measures that hurt families and businesses alike.
I believe in America First. That means a Federal Government that gets
Republicans put America first when we passed the largest tax cut in American history. We delivered no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and tax relief for seniors by lowering taxes on Social Security benefits, because the key to affordability is bigger paychecks, not bigger government.
People are going to be feeling the effects of these tax savings in their pocketbooks this tax season, where Georgia families can expect up to $5,000 in savings. By unleashing American energy, we are bringing relief to families right now.
The national average of gasoline is now under $3 a gallon. That matters to everyone, from the large-scale shipping to the blue-collar worker driving their daily commute.
Mr. Speaker, what we have done in 2025 is just the beginning. As we move to 2026, Republicans are focused on expanding opportunity even further, bringing jobs back home, growing domestic manufacturing, and ensuring the American Dream is within reach for every person willing to work hard, especially our young people.
The key to Republicans' success is that we govern by a simple concept, common sense. It is common sense to use our vast natural resources and unleash American energy dominance because affordable energy means affordable living, just like it is common sense that trillions spent on so-called Green New Deal projects caused runaway inflation at over 9 percent.
President Trump and Republicans are reviving the American Dream by advancing progrowth, proworker, America First policies that help young people build a future, provide relief for our elderly, and strengthen the middle class and everyone in between.
I thank the President for his work on our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his comments. I appreciate his thoughts and for articulating much of that.
Mr. Speaker, last year House Republicans passed the working families tax cuts. This was a reconciliation bill that included monumental progrowth and profamily legislation that lowers costs for American families.
A lot has been said about this. I want to share just a few aspects of this as we are within 6 months in the rear view of when we accomplished this. Again, the largest tax increases on American history would have happened on January 1 of this year had we not completed that, and we got it done 6 months prior to that crisis. I don't know the last time I looked at Congress and found something done that far ahead of schedule. It is usually the last minute.
That matters because that was a reality. That is what we knew was coming, and we worked hard to accomplish a lot of really key important progrowth elements: no tax on tips or overtime, an increased child tax credit, tax relief for seniors, an increased standard deduction targeted entirely at the middle- and lower-income Americans, investment in rural America. These are just a few of the reasons Americans will see significant increases in their upcoming tax returns.
Mr. Speaker, that doesn't even include the provisions that strengthen small business and encourage investment in American industry.
This year, House Republicans are keeping more hard-earned dollars in working families' pockets, not with the Washington bureaucracy. The tax filing season begins next week, and Americans can expect to see some of the biggest tax refunds in history.
After 4 years of painful inflation, we are cleaning up the economic mess. Real wages and benefits fell 3.9 percent during the Biden-Harris administration, and through the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, real wages are growing faster than prices.
We saw 4.3 percent real GDP growth in the third quarter of 2025. That is substantial. The average since World War II is 3.1 percent. After 3.8 percent in Q2, we continued to exceed expectations there. Economic growth is an important economic indicator with a substantial impact on our annual deficits, and I am confident it will only continue to grow.
Mr. Speaker, 2026 will be about bigger paychecks and lower costs on everything from healthcare to housing to household goods. We are moving forward with housing affordability legislation to lower costs and update financing options. We are streamlining and simplifying permitting processes to create more jobs, reduce costs, and increase wages. We are also lowering healthcare costs. In December, the House passed legislation to cut premiums, expand Choice accounts, provide more affordable rates to small businesses, and expand PBM transparency to lower costs of prescription drugs.
Mr. Speaker, 2025 was a big year for my team and for House Republicans. We passed landmark legislation, and people are going to see the difference because of it.
I am looking forward to 2026 and continuing to work hard for Utah's First District.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material to the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to open the Special Order hour to discuss the expiration of the New START treaty, the importance of arms control, and the urgent need to strengthen global nuclear security.
I thank the Members who will be joining me this evening for their leadership and their willingness to engage on issues that carry existential consequences for our country and for the world.
As many of my colleagues know, I am the only Ph.D. physicist currently serving in the United States Congress. Before coming to Congress, I spent more than two decades as a high-energy particle physicist and particle accelerator designer at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, where we were smashing together protons and antiprotons to make particles that have not been around since the big bang, designing and building the big particle accelerators and detectors, and analyzing the data. I was on the team that discovered the top quark, the heaviest known form of matter.
Because of that background, I feel a special responsibility to engage deeply on issues of nuclear weapons, arms control, and strategic stability, not as abstract policy debates but as matters grounded in technical reality.
Arms control is not about unilateral disarmament, wishful thinking, fantasies of dominance, or trusting adversaries. Arms control is about verifiable limits, predictability, and reducing the risk of miscalculation between nuclear-armed states.
For decades, arms control agreements have helped prevent a catastrophic nuclear exchange, not by eliminating deterrence but by stabilizing it.
The New START treaty, which stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, was signed in 2010 and extended in 2021. It is the last remaining bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation.
New START places verifiable limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems and provides for data exchanges, notifications, and onsite inspections that give us direct insight into Russia's nuclear forces.
New START followed a long line of arms control agreements, from SALT to START I to SORT, that helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal from the Cold War highs of more than 70,000 weapons to fewer than 13,000 today. These agreements were supported by Democratic and Republican administrations alike because they made the United States safer.
Under New START, the United States does not rely on guesswork, on satellite imagery alone, or on worst-case assumptions. We rely on legally binding limits and on verification
Today, that system is fraying. Russia has suspended its participation in New START. Onsite inspections remain paused. The treaty itself is set to expire in less than 1 month.
Anyone who remembers past arms control negotiations understands the gravity of this moment. Negotiating a successor agreement will take years, not months, and we are already past the danger zone.
If New START expires without a replacement, there will be no legally binding limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time in more than half a century. The consequences of that outcome would be serious and immediate.
The United States would lose treaty-mandated insight into Russia's deployed nuclear forces. Both countries would be free to increase the number of deployed warheads on existing missiles. Strategic planning would increasingly be driven by worst-case assumptions rather than verified facts. At the same time, we would face a far more complex nuclear environment than during the Cold War.
China is rapidly expanding its nuclear forces. Russia continues to engage in irresponsible nuclear saber-rattling during its illegal war in Ukraine, and Iran and North Korea continue to change the global nonproliferation regime.
In this environment, allowing arms control to collapse is not a show of strength. It is an abdication of leadership that increases the risk of miscalculation of arms races and, ultimately, nuclear use by design or by accident.
Verification will be at the heart of any future arms control effort, and this is where America's scientific enterprise plays a critical role. Our national laboratories provide the technical backbone for verification, monitoring, and treaty compliance, and they are essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in this area.
As co-chair of the Bipartisan National Labs Caucus, I have seen firsthand how investments in science and scientific talent directly translate into national security.
If you are a Member of Congress, you have the opportunity, if you ask, to go into the room where you see our nuclear weapons taken apart. You talk to the experts about why the design choices were made, what the design margins are, and why they have to be built the way they are. If you walk into that room and see those weapons and think about what they are capable of, if that doesn't make you take your job seriously, you are not thinking clearly.
Verification is not a diplomatic afterthought. It is a scientific challenge that demands sustained investment and expertise.
The choice before us is not between arms control and national security because arms control is national security. It remains one of the most effective tools we have to reduce nuclear risk while maintaining a credible deterrent.
The expiration of New START without a successor would mark a dangerous turning point, signaling that restraint and verification no longer matter.
This Special Order hour is about sounding the alarm, but it is also about reaffirming that Congress has a responsibility to engage. Congress has a role in oversight, a role in funding verification and nonproliferation, and a role in insisting that arms control remains a core pillar of the U.S. national security policy.
The next few years will be decisive, and decisions that we make or fail to make will shape whether the world moves toward stability or toward, once again, unconstrained nuclear arms races.
I look forward to the discussion this evening.
I am now proud to introduce my colleague, John Garamendi of California, a longtime advocate for arms control, with whom I have had the honor of spending a weekend underneath the north polar ice cap in a nuclear submarine.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Foster for bringing us together to talk about this profoundly important situation.
We stand here today on a precipice. In less than a month, the New START treaty, the last remaining major arms control agreement between the Soviet Union, or Russia, and the United States, is set to expire.
If we allow this treaty to lapse without a replacement, then we will be entering a world we haven't seen in decades, a world without limits on the nuclear arsenals of the two largest nuclear powers: Russia and the United States. We will be stripping away the last guardrail preventing a catastrophic return to the unchecked nuclear buildup of the Cold War.
In 1985, President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev declared a profound truth: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. That principle has been the bedrock of global security for nearly 40 years. It led us and Russia to eliminate nuclear testing, to shrink bloated stockpiles, and to prioritize communication over conflict.
Yet today we are close to forgetting that profound blessing. Instead of prioritizing deescalation, we see a resurgence of the same Cold War mindset that once pushed us to the brink of annihilation. We see hawkish perspectives pushing the U.S., Russia, and now China to a new, three-way nuclear arms race.
Proponents tell us that this buildup will make us more safe and that more is better. They tell us that pouring trillions of dollars into a nuclear modernization is the only way to be safe, but nothing-- nothing--could be further from the truth.
Without nuclear arms control agreements like the New START, every new weapon we build only fuels an unwinnable arms race as our adversaries respond in kind. We build. They build. We build. They build. And the cost of this race is staggering.
Let me give you one example, Mr. Speaker: The Sentinel program aims to replace the Minuteman III ICBMs. This single program has already ballooned to cost over $200 billion, an 81 percent cost overrun. We are spending blindly. We are on remote control: more bombs, more, more, and we will be safe.
That is nonsense, just nonsense. We will not be safer.
Instead of doing the hard work of diplomacy, we are being asked to plow billions of taxpayer dollars into a dangerous fantasy: the so- called Golden Dome, a missile defense system. We will be safe. We will build more bombs, and we will stop their bombs.
We are told the system would cost only $175 billion and it will provide the perfect shield. However, a recent working paper showed that this system that actually attempts to defend against the full range of Russia and China will cost as much as $3.6 trillion, a multitrillion- dollar gap between rhetoric and reality.
So what do we get for that price?
The same report concludes that with this unlimited spending, such a system will still fail to be 100 percent effective.
Are we prepared to spend trillions of dollars on a shield that cannot be 100 percent effective?
Oh, well, only if one or two bombs get through, forget about New York and forget about Washington, D.C. After all, who needs Washington, D.C.?
We have to be prepared to think differently. We cannot spend trillions of dollars on a shield that cannot protect us all the while that we are building more and more bombs so that our adversary will build more and more bombs and find a way to evade the shield.
They will. We cannot engineer a technological fix for a political problem. Decades ago we realized the only true shield against nuclear annihilation is not a Golden Dome. It is the hard, unglamorous work of a verifiable arms control treaty.
When we forget the lessons of the past, then we are doomed to make the same mistakes. Luckily, we still have time, a very short time, to do the hard work of diplomacy instead of resting the fate of our Nation, in fact, humanity, on the fantasies of fool's gold.
We still have a choice. We can choose to continue down the path of unconstrained spending and escalation and drift toward a future where security is based upon a perpetual threat of annihilation, or we can choose to modernize our thinking rather than just our
That is why I am a proud cosponsor of H. Res. 100, authored by our leader today and support arms control agreements and negotiated constraints.
This resolution is not just about a treaty. It is about sanity. It is about reaffirming our commitment to arms control, to oversight, and to policy based on reason and restraint, not on fear and reflex.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for organizing this evening. We have 1 month in which to extend the New START treaty or we can fall into an arms race. We have choices. We have time, and we have the power to change.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say the gentleman is absolutely right about the messaging that is surrounding the Golden Dome effort. This is a system that has never been tested against countermeasures that we know our adversaries have. For 40 years physicists have been patiently explaining to Members of Congress and members of the administrations that systems like this will never work at the reliability level that they need. For 40 years we have been howling at the wind, I guess, because we don't have hundreds of billions of dollars to waste on a system that you can calculate from elementary principles that doesn't have a chance of working and has failed the majority of times it has been tried.
For those who have not, please take the time to see a recently produced movie called ``A House of Dynamite.'' It is a recent one that actually talks about what a modern nuclear war would look like from the point of view of the participants who have to make those decisions and the equipment and provisions they have to aid those decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. Foster for gathering us here to help shine a light on what remains the most serious existential threat facing our country and our planet. It is too easy to forget in these days of polycrisis that we are on the brink of a new nuclear arms race.
Very soon, one of the last remaining pillars of the nuclear arms control regime, the New START treaty, is due to expire. This treaty restricted the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals and provide some measure of stability in our bilateral relationship.
Sadly, the Trump administration has failed to do anything to get ahead of the expiration of New START and has done a lot to raise nuclear tensions. The President has made threats, endorsed insanely expensive plans to expand our arsenal, pushed for the resumption of explosive testing, and advocated for an impractical missile defense system that will only encourage our adversaries to accelerate their own weapons program.
I am particularly horrified that the President may choose to ignore the comprehensive test ban treaty which has given comfort and safety to the world for two generations.
Meanwhile, Russia has expressed an interest in maintaining New START restrictions on its stockpile for another year while the terms of a new treaty can be hashed out, but, unfortunately, the White House has not responded to their offer, and it has shown no interest in engaging with China either on nuclear arms reduction, this despite the danger China is dramatically trying to build up its nuclear arsenal. If ever there were a time to talk to China, it would be right now.
It is not hard to guess what happens next if nothing changes. Each side will be adding now weapons to their arsenal for the first time in decades. We would come back to 10,000 nuclear weapons aimed at the Soviet Union, 10,000 aimed at us, to 1,500 to 1,800 each.
Now we are going back to that feedback loop that was reminiscent of the first days of the Cold War. Not only will this cost a tremendous amount of money and put us on an even more dire fiscal trajectory, it will ratchet up the very real danger of a nuclear exchange.
Mr. Speaker, we can already destroy the planet many, many times over with our own existing nuclear stockpiles. Why on Earth do we need to spend more of our scarce resources on these incredibly expensive weapons? We have gone through this cycle before. We were very lucky, but I am terrified we will not make it through again.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It has never been partisan. Republican Presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush have all led on arms control agreements.
I have been critical of my own party's approach to nuclear weapons. The Biden administration, despite campaign promises, refused to adopt a first-use or no-sole-use nuclear policy.
Currently, the U.S. President can order the launch of hundreds of nuclear warheads within 15 minutes, with no oversight or even conversations with the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of Defense, the chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and including Congress. Vesting this much power in one person, particularly this President, is irresponsible, dangerous, and unnecessary.
Given our massive conventional military advantages over our adversaries--think of Venezuela--there is no plausible circumstance that could justify the use of nuclear weapons to deal with a nonnuclear threat.
Removing the specter of the U.S. using nuclear weapons first in a conflict would go a long way toward slowing down this renewed global arms race. I am so glad to see my colleagues here share my concerns. I hope we can make a dent in the common sense here in this Congress.
While I have you here, today I voted against a funding measure that would enshrine the Trump administration's illegal destruction of the United States Agency for International Development, USAID.
Among the litany of illegal, immoral, and illegitimate acts committed by this administration, what President Trump and Elon Musk did to USAID will echo in our history as one of the most evil and pointless decisions made by this country.
Hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people in the world have died already because of this decision so far. Their premature and tragic deaths are the direct moral responsibility of Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and Marco Rubio. They remind me of the comments of an unnamed French diplomat speaking of the horrors of World War I: The war I cannot find it to be so bad. The death of one man, that is a catastrophe; 100,000 deaths, that is a statistic.
Our global reputation and soft power around the world have suffered permanent damage. Our ability to fight future global pandemics and diseases has been crippled, and U.S. farmers have suffered needlessly on top of the hundreds of public servants who were harassed and thrown out of their jobs. Beyond the human cost, far from saving the taxpayer any money, the State Department's own assessments show that shutting down the agency will cost more than $6 billion.
The whole point of this misguided crusade against starving and sick children overseas was to find waste, fraud, and abuse that simply did not exist. This was a case of the very worst of us attacking the very best of us.
I have heard from hundreds of my constituents, former USAID public servants, who dedicated their lives to making the world a better place. Their overwhelming regret is not that they lost their jobs but that the critical work they did to help the poor, the sick, and the starving has stopped.
I am sickened by what this administration has done to USAID and to the world. I will do everything I can to reverse this awful decision.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Foster for convening us together and for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the many excellent points he made, one of which was how foolish it would be for the United States to resume testing of nuclear weapons.
The fact is, the United States has the best database of nuclear test results of any country on Earth by far. If we resume nuclear testing, we will, as will all the other nuclear-capable countries on Earth, they will rub their hands with glee, and soon they will have a dataset of performance of their weapons that is as good as ours. We have a tremendous advantage, and this would be a foolish way to give it away.
I now yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).
Mr. Speaker, at a time when global tensions are rising, the last thing we need is more weapons. That is why it is so important that the New START treaty, set to expire in 21 days, is renewed by the administration quickly and in good faith.
The New START treaty reduced the number of nuclear warheads in the United States and Russia to the lowest level since 1950. This is not the time to start going in the other direction.
Nuclear risks continue to rise, and when we see countries like Russia testing their nuclear delivery systems, the danger grows for everyone, including many Oregonians.
In southern Oregon, the Federal Government rushed to mine uranium in the 1950s to fuel the Cold War. Two open-pit mines outside Lakeview in the Fremont National Forest supplied the material that went to the Hanford site to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons.
When that rush ended, we were stuck with that contamination. It took decades for the EPA to declare the mines as Superfund sites, leaving the land poisoned.
At the Albany Research Center, construction workers built, maintained, and later tried to clean up the nuclear weapons complex, often without being told what they were exposed to. Decades later, workers are still fighting to get screened for cancers and other life- threatening illnesses caused by their exposure to radiation. Taxpayers are still paying the price from the arms race.
The Federal Government has paid out more than $27 million to more than 430 Oregonians who were uranium workers exposed to fallout or downwind of testing. This is what happens when we forget what nuclear proliferation cost us.
Yet, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy plan to spend more than $900 billion over the next decade to modernize our nuclear arsenal.
The cost of the Sentinel ICBM missile program alone has exploded, pushing the cost per missile to $161 million, an 81 percent increase from its original projections. The cost of nuclear acquisition programs will be 11.8 percent of the Department of Defense's planned acquisition costs over the next 10 years. Remember, this is an agency that cannot pass an audit. This is out of control.
We will always find the money for war, but not to take care of our workers or Tribal partners or to compensate the communities who paid the price for that last generation of weapons, so we must act in good faith to ensure an open-ended arms race does not happen.
Nuclear nonproliferation has not been and should not be a partisan issue. We don't need more weapons. We need more affordable healthcare, upgrades to our transportation infrastructure, expansion of U.S. manufacturing capacity, and to focus our taxpayer dollars on things that benefit the American people and that make our communities safer.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to work with any of my colleagues to develop a commonsense approach to limiting our nuclear stockpiles and to keep this administration from taking us down a costly and destabilizing path, which is why I am proud to have cosponsored H.R. 100, which, again, just reiterates my position on nuclear proliferation. I thank Dr. Foster for all his work.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right about the real costs of restarting the arms race.
As a physicist, I have some guilt, frankly, collective guilt for physicists about some of the irresponsible things that were done during the arms race when we said the only thing that was important was to have better weapons and more weapons than our adversaries, and forget about the damage that it can inflict on our American soldiers, our American workers, and the populations downwind.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, Dr. Foster, for yielding me the time and for scheduling this hour on this most important topic.
The threat of nuclear weapons challenges our conscience. It is a threat not just for Americans, but for all humanity and all species of life on our planet.
The idea of nuclear conflict isn't an issue that families normally discuss around the kitchen table, but it is real. It is deadly serious. It demands our urgent attention. We cannot afford to throw our hands up and say there is nothing to be done.
The United States can take concrete action today: Extend the New START treaty. The arc of arms control is one of success led by Presidents of both parties.
Forty years ago, there were 70,000 nuclear warheads in inventories around the world. Today, there are 12,400--far more than we should have, but it is progress.
Arms control is hard work. It involves technical expertise, diplomatic skill, and political will. Today, we need all three. That is because the last control agreement remaining in force between the United States and Russia expires on February 5, in only 22 days.
The New START treaty limits the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads for each party to 1,550, on no more than 700 deployed long- range missiles and bombers. Extension is common sense for our security.
First, New START promotes stability. With the war in Ukraine, tensions between the U.S. and Russia are high. Negotiating an extension offers space within that relationship to lessen tensions.
Second, if not renewed, we risk the possibility that each side will go beyond the treaty's limit in a misguided pursuit of geopolitical advantage.
Third, there is no nuclear strategic gain from deploying more warheads on more delivery vehicles. Our massive, largely invulnerable nuclear arsenal is more than sufficient for deterrence.
Fourth, increasing our strategic forces might incentivize China to accelerate its nuclear buildup.
Lastly, it would cause us to funnel billions more taxpayer dollars into our nuclear arsenal when we should be restoring funding to healthcare, medical research, and food and nutrition programs here at home.
Why is it that we always have money for bombs, but when it comes to helping improve the quality of life for our people, we are told we can't afford it? It doesn't have to be this way, and both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump seem to agree. Both Presidents have spoken favorably of extending New START.
In September, Putin said: ``Russia is ready to continue to adhere to the central quantitative restrictions under the START treaty for 1 year after February 5, 2026,'' if the United States reciprocates. In response, Trump said: ``Sounds like a good idea to me.''
Here we are, 22 days from expiration. The White House has yet to reply to the Kremlin's offer. The clock is ticking.
I ask the administration to respond to the Russians today: announce we will abide by the New START limits, build confidence, and create time and space for negotiation.
President Trump can be a leader for peace. Last year, he said, from the Oval Office: ``There is no reason for us to be building brand-new nuclear weapons. We already have so many. You could destroy the world 50 times over, 100 times over, and here we are, building new nuclear weapons, and they are building nuclear weapons.''
President Trump, I have to say, you are right. He can join Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Ronald Reagan among the Presidents with major arms control wins.
Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I have worked to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. With Representative Jill Tokuda of Hawaii, I introduced H. Res. 317, a resolution that calls on the U.S. Government to return to the negotiating table on nuclear disarmament and to lead a global effort to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons.
I have also introduced, with Senator Ed Markey from my State of Massachusetts, the Hastening Arms Limitation Talks Act of 2025, or the HALT Act. Our bill outlines a vision for a 21st century freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons.
We never thought there would be a need to revive the nuclear freeze movement, but here we are.
Let me quote from Michael Klare, an arms control expert at Hampshire College and a constituent of mine: ``February 6 is likely to bring us into a new era, not unlike the early years of the Cold War, in which the major powers will be poised to ramp up their nuclear warfighting capabilities without any formal restrictions whatsoever. That comfortable feeling we once enjoyed of relative freedom from an imminent nuclear holocaust will also then undoubtedly begin to dissipate. If there is any hope in such a dark prognosis, it might be that such a reality could, in turn, ignite a worldwide anti-nuclear movement like the Ban the Bomb campaigns of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.''
We have a path out of this. Trump can make good on his statement that there is no need for new nuclear weapons. He can extend New START limits on deployed warheads.
For our sanity and for the safety of Americans and all of humanity, let's make the world less dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman from Illinois for leading this effort.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely right. Diplomacy is not a lost cause. There have been some big wins from diplomacy.
Back when I was younger, the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons was higher and then decreased. We convinced, through diplomacy, South Africa to give up their nuclear weapons. At the time of the end of the Soviet empire, Ukraine possessed the world's third-largest nuclear weapon inventory, which they voluntarily gave up in return for a guarantee of territorial integrity--one, unfortunately, which we are not abiding by.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague, Dr. Foster, for yielding, for organizing and hosting this Special Order hour, and for his leadership on nuclear nonproliferation issues.
In my many years as a Member of Congress, I have watched many a fiery floor speech filled with overstatement and hyperbole, grandiose pronouncements laced with exaggeration and puffery, but it is entirely right and proper to say that the expiration of the New START treaty will make the world and every inhabitant blessed to live on it less safe.
Formally, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, otherwise known as New START, caps U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals and underpins onsite inspections.
It is the latest in a series of treaties that have reduced the global nuclear warhead stockpile from a high of 70,000 in the mid-1980s to roughly 12,000 today.
Now that is meaningful, serious progress, but instead of building on that progress, we are weeks away from reversing those hard-earned gains.
On February 5, New START is slated to expire. That expiration will mean the end to limits or verification of the still-formidable nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia.
New START is by no means perfect, but removing these safeguards will create a vacuum, and we all know nature abhors a vacuum. Without these limitations, there are fewer constraints, fewer eyes, and fewer brakes on how Vladimir Putin expands and modernizes Russia's nuclear forces. In this wilderness, we would see a broader breakdown of norms on nuclear weapons.
Both the United States and Russia have openly mused about potentially restarting nuclear weapons testing. After we have worked so hard to bring some clarity to nuclear weapons regimes, we risk the steady erosion of the few safeguards against these terrible and awesome weapons, but the U.S. is not without options or agency.
If this expiration comes to pass, it is because we have allowed it to happen. Russia has offered to voluntarily maintain the New START limits for 1 year. We should take that deal not because we trust Vladimir Putin but because inspections and limits protect us, not him.
Arms control is neither an act of faith nor of naivety. It is an act of cold logic and discipline, a process that reduces the risk of miscalculation, escalation, and catastrophic error. The year will not only keep America and the world safer, but it will also give time to hammer out a new accord.
As the U.S. sits across the negotiation table, there should be no illusion. We know that Putin and his cronies in the Kremlin are adversaries of the United States. They would like nothing more for our Nation to falter, but they are also self-interested.
Both the United States and Russia benefit from a stable, controlled nuclear regime. That mutual self-interest lies at the heart of why New START was signed in the first place. To throw it all away would be a mistake of immense proportions.
While time is short, we can step away from the edge. I add my voice to a host of others calling on, pleading for, demanding action from the Trump administration.
I know the threat of nuclear weapons can often seem so large and abstract, so unimaginable that it becomes easier just to ignore it all, but to say nothing is not an option, especially for someone like me.
Many of my family, my distant family, were in Hiroshima on the day the atom bomb fell. That memory is not just historical. It is personal for me and my family.
Mr. Speaker, the atomic bombs of 1945 caused unimaginable horror. Some died instantly, many over subsequent days and months. Others suffered for the rest of their lives, afflicted with burns, radiation, and cancer.
The modern nuclear weapons of today are orders of magnitude more horrifying. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that these weapons are never used again.
New START is a concrete step toward ensuring that future. It is one where no person--no man, woman, or child--lives under constant threat from nuclear annihilation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Takano for reminding us of Hiroshima.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity for the first time in my life to visit, and the things that stick in your mind are hard to describe.
One of them is they have the steps of--I think it was a bank. Someone was sitting on the steps, having a meal, when the nuclear weapon went off overhead. All that remained of that person after his or her entire body was vaporized was a shadow of where they were sitting on those steps.
The power of these weapons is not easy to describe. I can calculate it. The descriptions of the survivors are worth spending a day just listening to and trying to understand what is at risk here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Foster for having this Special Hour on such an important topic.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen the movie ``A House of Dynamite'' as well as ``Oppenheimer'' the previous year, which introduced a lot of people in the moviegoing world to the development of our first atomic bomb at the Manhattan Project.
It is very important that we go from popular culture to real history and talk about this in terms of the destruction that will occur if we do not continue the New START treaty.
I am a former political science professor. I have taught and written about the history of nuclear weaponry. I am now a Member of Congress, representing southern Nevada. A lot of testing is right in our own backyard. Over the years, I have learned quite a bit about our nuclear legacy, both good and bad.
Nevada was the focal point of nuclear development throughout the Cold War. Over four decades, the Nevada test site, which is located about 100 miles north of downtown Las Vegas, hosted over 900 nuclear tests, more than any other place in the country.
Throughout the 1950s, the visible mushroom clouds often loomed in the distance. They could be seen from the strip, and they became part of a tourist attraction there in southern Nevada.
These tests were conducted for a number of reasons. They were to better understand the power and effects of nuclear weapons, what were the consequences, how could we make them bigger, and how could we make them cleaner. All of these things were part of that testing.
The test site became a real player and had a major role in shaping our policies, both nationally and internationally, regarding testing and nonproliferation.
The radiation given off by more than 100 atmospheric tests had devastating impacts, however. It wasn't a tourist attraction to those downwinders who were exposed. That fallout caused cancer and premature deaths for thousands across the West.
That is what prompted me to introduce the PRESUME Act. It would ensure that radiation-exposed veterans, who did war games there at the test site, could receive their rightful benefits from the VA.
Furthermore, there were 800 underground tests that sometimes vented, and radioactive contaminants came out in the air or the water table. That is a problem we are still dealing with today. Some of you may know the story of the Baneberry shot.
Last year, the Nevada Legislature passed a resolution urging the Federal Government to maintain the moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. That has been in effect since 1992. They cited risk of environmental damage and also health hazards from what had been caused by testing before.
My colleagues may remember that in 2020, the first Trump administration called for a resumption of nuclear testing in the breach of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Back then, I led the charge in the FY 2021 NDAA process to ensure that that didn't happen and that we couldn't resume that testing in the United States.
Pardon my bad French, but ``the more things change, the more they stay the same''; ``plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.''
On October 29, 2025, just last year, Trump announced that he was directing the Department of Defense to again resume nuclear testing in a disastrous policy reversal. It is really not surprising because it is in Project 2025, which is the policy blueprint of this disastrous administration.
Just look on page 399, and you will see that Project 2025 calls for the rejection of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty once again. It would allow testing here at home but would also give a green light to other nuclear powers around the world to start doing the same.
This would put us on a disastrous collision course of catastrophic proportions with Russia and China. It would allow the proliferation of these weapons to nonnuclear States that seek its development. It would also put the health of Nevadans once again in jeopardy.
By foolishly announcing his intention to resume nuclear explosives testing, Trump will trigger a dangerous nuclear arms race that could blow apart our strategy for the last decades and any kind of nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
There is no technical national security or political reason for us to resume nuclear testing. If a power resumes testing because the U.S. is abandoning the moratorium, those countries will develop new types of warheads, close the technical and scientific advantage that we have always had, and be a detriment to our national security.
Furthermore, scientists are already doing groundbreaking experiments and simulations, as our professor knows. They test the existing stockpile to make sure it is safe, secure, and reliable. These subcritical tests are done without an explosion of any kind.
The last time a nuke was tested was 2017 by North Korea. That was a good while ago, the longest period since 1945 that we have gone without a nuclear test. Are we really the ones who want to break that record and start testing again?
For these reasons, I introduced the RESTRAIN Act to prohibit the resumption of explosive nuclear testing and prevent any funds from going toward Trump's misguided policy.
Amidst all this nuclear saber-rattling, the New START treaty that we are here to talk about tonight, which is the last remaining arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia, expires in just 21 days. That treaty caps deployed strategic nuclear warheads at 1,550 each and limits deployed systems for delivery to 700 per side.
Without this treaty in force, there would be no legally binding limits on the size or composition of the U.S. and Russia strategic nuclear arsenals. This would be the first time in over half a century.
Without limits, both countries could expand their nuclear forces without constraint and potentially trigger a renewed arms race internationally just like we had during the Cold War. Letting that treaty lapse without a successor closes the door on incremental progress toward broader, multilateral nuclear arms control.
If President Trump really wants to be the President of peace and really thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, he would stop invading and threatening to invade other countries, he would drop the idea of resuming nuclear testing, and he would make tangible, necessary steps to prevent New START from expiring, to make sure the catastrophic consequences of a new nuclear arms race are averted.
Unless there is dramatic action, the world will be a much more dangerous place after February 4. We cannot let that happen.
Again, I thank Mr. Foster for his time and for allowing me to join him on this important topic.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say Ms. Titus is absolutely right about the fact that there is no necessity to resume nuclear testing.
We have a very extensive program. It is called the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Every year or so, the heads of the weapons labs and the head of NSA have to sign a document to the President that says: If you push the button, these weapons will detonate at their designed yields.
The reason they are confident to do that is we have a lot of test data from the nearly 1,000 tests--many of them took place in Nevada-- and the extensive data we have and the fact that we can then put that data back into simulation programs to get the right answer.
Mr. Speaker, that tells us that these will work and they will work with design margin. Even if small things go wrong, the device will work. That is what our opponents have to know. We don't need to test. If we decide to use them, they will work.
It is an important thing to bear in mind, because our adversaries, many of them, have weapons that they have not tested, and they don't really know how well they will work. We do because we have some of the most, I have to say, beautifully designed weapons that I could ever imagine that could have existed.
Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this Special Order hour, it is important to restate a fundamental reality that nuclear weapons remain one of the greatest existential threats facing humanity. For more than a half of a century, the United States has worked across administrations and across party lines to reduce the risk that those weapons will ever be used.
Arms control agreements like New START have been central to that effort, providing real, enforceable, and verifiable limits on the world's most destructive arsenals. The extension of New START is set to expire, and with it goes the last remaining treaty that limits and monitors the world's two largest nuclear arsenals.
As New START expires without a successor, we would lose onsite inspections, data exchanges, and mutual visibility into the Russian nuclear forces. That loss does not make the United States safer or stronger. It increases uncertainty. It fuels worst-case assumptions and raises the risk of a dangerous miscalculation.
That is why I am proud to be leading H. Res. 100, which calls on both Russia and the United States to continue abiding by the numerical limits set under New START, even in the absence of a successor treaty.
I thank the 24 Members of the House, several of whom spoke here tonight, who have cosponsored that resolution. Maintaining those limits are an essential step to preserve strategic stability while we work on future arms control.
I thank the many organizations and nonprofits who helped drive interest in this Special Order hour and who work every day to reduce nuclear risk. Those organizations play a vital role in public education, policy development, and maintaining dialogue during times when official channels are strained or closed.
Finally, I thank all of my colleagues who joined me tonight in this Special Order hour. Preventing nuclear war has never been a partisan goal, and history shows that bipartisan cooperation is not just possible, but it is necessary. The choices that we make in the coming months will shape global security for decades to come, so I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recommit to arms control, to verification, and to the hard work of reducing nuclear risk.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this building, we had a panel put together to address the situation of the lack of two-parent homes in America and the degree to which it is caused by huge marriage penalties in our welfare system.
The panel consisted of Matt Dickerson of the Economic Policy Innovation Center, Terry Schilling of the American Principles Project, Jamie Gillespie from the White House, Robert Rector from The Heritage Foundation, together with three Congressmen.
The purpose of the program was to provide a framework to deal with the antimarriage bias in American welfare programs. The panel was put together at the request of 16 organizations and other concerned citizens who work with nonprofits.
In addition to The Heritage Foundation and the American Principles Project, Center for Urban Renewal and Education, Advancing American Freedom, AdvanceUSA, Concerned Women for American Legislative Action Committee, the Coalition for Jewish Values, the Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, Eagle Forum, Family Watch International, Faith and Family Foundation, Independent Women's Forum, Students for Life Action, the Family Policy Alliance, and the Faith and Liberty in the Nation's Capital organization all were present.
I, quite frankly, since I have been here, haven't seen such a groundswell of so many conservative nonprofit groups to come together to address such a problem. Yet, this isn't surprising. The number of children born into families without a mother or father at home, missing one, is very high. When I was a child, that number was around 4 percent to 5 percent. It is now around 42 percent.
These groups have gotten together to call on President Trump, Speaker Johnson, and Majority Leader Thune to do something about this. It is not unusual that a single woman, if she marries the father of her child, would lose over $25,000 in benefits.
By the way, when I talk about going from 4 percent without a mother and father at home to over 40 percent, at the time it was 4 percent, we didn't even have abortions. Think about that. Then, in the interim, we had abortions, and still the number of children born into homes without a father at home went up by a factor of more than 10.
There are over 70 government programs available to a single parent with low income, but you lose the benefits of these programs if you marry the other parent who has a decent income of, let's say, $50,000 a year.
I realize that there are great American families of all backgrounds. I, like all of us, know single parents who have done a fantastic job of raising their children. I commend them for that, but I think, also, everyone would agree that it is easier on both the parents and the children if you have two parents there. In essence, bribing a young couple not to get married is not the way to go about doing things.
Programs like food stamps; low-income housing; earned income tax credit; Women, Infants, and Children; Medicaid; Pell grants; and government daycare all are generous programs. You would lose those benefits if you had another parent in the house with an income.
Of course, this changes behavior, as well. I remember talking about this topic about 15 years ago at a Tea Party event in Wisconsin. I talked about Pell grants, which is a program of free college tuition or free scholarships for low-income kids. I was addressing, like I said, a Tea Party group, and like most Tea Party groups, it is usually older men who agreed with me.
Yet, there was a young gal who was tending bar where we had the meeting, and I asked her what she thought about the speech and what she thought about Pell grants, which were, like I said, a grant conditioned upon having low income.
She said that her and her husband got married before they had children, but she told me none of her friends were getting married. They got free college.
I have heard that from other people. That is just one of these programs, Pell grants, which, intentionally or unintentionally, is designed to discourage marriage. Like I said, I rattled off about eight programs. There are about 70 programs that you could lose if you worked your way out of poverty or married somebody who wasn't in poverty.
Usually, what you have to do is you have to keep your income below $16,000 or $17,000, and if you talk to employers who hire people who are making in the $10 to $15-an-hour range, they will always give you anecdotes of their employees who don't want to work extra hours, or they will lose their benefits.
They don't want a raise because they will lose their benefits. This is because in America right now we discourage work, and we actually discourage savings as well, and we discourage marriage as well.
Just yesterday, I heard of another couple. They just had their second child, but they weren't getting married. I didn't dig into it, but I know what is going on when you have people like that not getting married. They realize they don't want to lose their benefits.
Now, the fact that all of these government programs are set up to discourage marriage, is this an accident? Believe it or not, no, I don't think it is entirely an accident, because there are very powerful intellectuals on the left who wanted to get rid of families.
We know Karl Marx himself felt that in order to have a dream universe, you had to get rid of the family.
A woman by the name of Kate Millett, who was around in the 1960s and I think could be described as the mother of women's studies classes, also was adamant that we should try to get men out of the household. I don't think it is a coincidence that she was at the peak of her power in the 1960s when a lot of these programs went into effect.
Now, this problem should have been addressed years ago. It is kind of a well-worn anecdote, but I will say it again. Patrick Monahan, a Democrat U.S. Senator, in the late 1960s put together a study, and he warned the degree to which we had these programs contributing to the breakdown in marriage, but nobody paid attention Patrick Monahan.
Another man who did a lot of work in this area was George Gilder who wrote a couple of books, ``Men in Marriage,'' ``Visible Man,'' ``Wealth in Poverty.'' He first looked into this problem, as some people do, in a ghetto in Albany, New York. He could remember the time right before that when it was a considered real crisis if a woman got pregnant out of wedlock. However, to his surprise, even in the 1970s, it was a cause for enjoyment or a cause to celebrate for the young couple because when the girlfriend got pregnant, she was able to make the rounds and get a free apartment, get free food, get free medical care and, at the time, get free cash from a program called Aid to Families With Dependent Children. Now we have cash from a program called TANF.
In any event, Gilder was a little bit surprised, but wrote books on the matter saying: Hey, wait a minute here. It shouldn't be a cause for celebration when someone gets pregnant out of wedlock. It should be a cause for a little bit of panic and what are we going to do now; but it wasn't in the late 1970s as George Gilder documented.
Here we are today. We did do a little bit of looking at the welfare programs in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, but we didn't go anywhere near far enough.
By the way, George Gilder made another observation. When we talk about the welfare state, it obviously affects the children, it obviously affects the single women, and it affects the men. But according to Gilder, of the three groups, the one who is harmed the most by our welfare system is the men. Of course, the women are hurt a little in that financially it can be a little bit of a struggle. The statistics will show again and again it harms the children, but we have created a society in which men have lost the purpose of raising children and being involved in the raising of their children, being involved in providing for their children. Therefore, in areas in which the welfare culture is widespread, we have a situation that the men are doing drugs, committing crimes because they have no purpose in life.
Here in Washington and other big cities, like Chicago and Milwaukee, they write articles about where is all this crime coming from. And if they would stop and look or talk to any policemen, they will tell you where the crime is coming from. The crime is coming from children from these broken families. If we didn't have these broken families, a lot of the men who are committing the crimes, the men that are just hanging out and doing drugs would have a purpose in life and be more likely to be productive.
I should point out, by the way, that this is a very important thing for the men; but sometimes people say that we need the welfare system because there are no men with decent jobs, and that is why we have to have the government step in.
I have an Indian immigrant friend of mine. It always amazes me how people who come here from other countries have observations that are not made by the native-born who are just used to it. As my Indian immigrant friend said: In America, the woman marries the government. In any event, while the woman is marrying the government, the man has nothing to do, and that is why we have many of these problems.
I, of course, have been in politics for a while now. I have attended a lot of committee hearings, and be it committee hearings on poverty, be it committee hearings on crime, be it committee hearings on drugs, be it committee hearings on depressants, be it committee hearings on people not doing well at school, they always look for how does this happen; but they never address the obvious reason why kids do less well in school or why kids end up committing crimes. They do it because of the total breakdown in the family.
In any event, both for the children and the men and the single women, we would be better off retracing our steps back to the great society years of 1965 and 1966 when, in my opinion, the worst President in our country's history decided to institute these programs and destroy the family. I am not sure that was the motive. I think perhaps the real motive was electoral.
Our forefathers, when they put together our founding documents, warned us that there were going to be some politicians who were going to try to make people dependent on the government in exchange for votes. I think that at the time was maybe the motivation for these horrible programs; but in any event, it is something that we have to address now.
Now, we are going to be doing a reconciliation bill, I hope, sometime in the next 6 months. Almost all of these programs are what are referred to as ``mandatory spending,'' so we can change these programs and do what we can to get rid of the perverse incentives.
I think some of the burden of these folks will have to be put on private organizations because it is a problem no doubt if people are able to get these programs without being confronted with moral choices or moral problems.
In a great book that I am reading, ``The Tragedy of American Compassion,'' the type of people who were involved in providing food for the poor when our country was founded were very keenly aware that programs which indiscriminately gave things to people were actually harmful to people, that you had to weigh in with them on their moral choices, on their work choices. It was, in fact, a negative to set up a program in which one did not look at moral choices that people are making.
In any event, after we have spent about 60 years after the Great Society, 60 years after Patrick Monahan warned us what would happen, it is time for this Congress to address this problem, get rid of the perverse incentives which discourage marriage and get America back to where we were before the Great Society when we had much stronger families, when crime was lower than it is today--I think you would have to say people came out of school better than today, and I think you would have to say the amount of antidepressants consumed was a tiny fraction of what we have today--and really Make America Great Again.
I implore President Trump's administration--we had a representative from his administration here yesterday. I implore them to put together a working group so that we can come up with solutions to this problem over the next few months.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 10 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, January 15, 2026, at 9 a.m.
