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.
07Submission of Material Explanatory Regarding H.R. 7148, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026; and H.R. 7147, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026
08Expenditure Reports Concerning Official Foreign Travel
09Memorials
10Explanatory Statement Submitted by Mr. Cole, Chair of the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations, Regarding H.R. 7148, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026; and H.R. 7147, Department...
40 public bills, H.R. 7195- 7234; and 6 resolutions, H.J. Res. 142-143; and H. Res. 1015-1018 were introduced.
Pages H1349-51
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H. Res. 1014, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7147) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes; and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-462).
Page H1349
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Valadao to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1175
Recess
The House recessed at 10:16 a.m. and reconvened at 10:30 a.m.
Page H1183
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026
The House passed H.R. 7147, making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 220 yeas to 207 nays, Roll No. 42.
Pages H1177-83, H1299-H1317, H1330, H1299-H1317
H. Res. 1014, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 7148) and (H.R. 7147) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 214 ayes to 213 noes, Roll No. 41, after the amendment by Representative Foxx was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 427 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 40, and the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 214 yeas to 213 nays, Roll No. 39. Pursuant to section 6 of H. Res. 1014, H. Res. 375 is considered agreed to as amended.
Pages H1177-83, H1183-85
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026
The House passed H.R. 7148, making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, by a yea-and-nay vote of 341 yeas to 88 nays, Roll No. 45.
Pages H1185-H1297, H1332-33
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
Pages H1193-H1297
Rejected
Massie amendment (No. 1 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-462) that sought to prohibit the use of funds made available by this Act to implement section 24220 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, including any requirements enabling or supporting vehicle ``kill switch'' technology (by a recorded vote of 164 ayes to 268 noes, Roll No. 43); and
Pages H1297-99, H1331
Norman amendment (No. 2 printed in part B of H. Rept. 119-462) that sought to prohibit funds for certain community funding projects (by a recorded vote of 136 ayes to 291 noes, Roll No. 44).
Pages H1298-99, H1331-32
H. Res. 1014, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 7148) and (H.R. 7147) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 214 ayes to 213 noes, Roll No. 41, after the amendment by Representative Foxx was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 427 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 40, and the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 214 yeas to 213 nays, Roll No. 39. Pursuant to section 6 of H. Res. 1014, H. Res. 375 is considered agreed to as amended.
Pages H1177-83, H1183-85
Pregnant Students' Rights Act
The House passed H.R. 6359, to require institutions of higher education to disseminate information on the rights of, and accommodations and resources for, pregnant students, by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 47.
Pages H1325-30, H1333-34
Rejected the Bonamici motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Education and Workforce by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 46.
Page H1333
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
Page H1325
H. Res. 1009, the rule providing for consideration of the bills (H.R. 6945), (H.R. 6359) and the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) was agreed to yesterday, January 21st. Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress: The House failed to agree to H. Con. Res. 68, to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress, by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 215 nays, Roll No. 48.
Pages H1317-25, H1334-35
Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of H.R. 7147
The House agreed to H. Res. 1016, directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of H.R. 7147.
Page H1335
Work Period Designation
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he designated the period from Thursday, January 22, 2026, through Sunday, February 1, 2026, as a ``district work period'' under clause 13 of rule 1.
Page H1335
Discharge Petition
Representative Pressley presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 965) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1689) to require the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for temporary protected status (Discharge Petition No. 15). Quorum Calls--Votes: Seven yea-and-nay votes and three recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H1183-84, H1184-85, H1185, H1330, H1331, H1331-32, H1332-33, H1333, H1333-34, and H1334-35. Adjournment: The House met at 9 a.m. and adjourned at 7:31 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: 187 of 396 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about something very important to me, my family, and the majority of Hoosiers in Indiana's Eighth District: the protection of the unborn and the 2026 March for Life.
As a devout Catholic, I am grateful that from my position in Congress, I can support legislation that protects the defenseless unborn and can stand up for their God-given right to survive, a gift that truly should only be endowed upon any of us by the grace of our creator.
It is truly inspiring to witness the multitudes of Americans who journey from far distances across this great country to attend the march.
In my role in the House of Representatives, I am a reliable vote for the pro-life community and have been able to sponsor many pieces of legislation that provide for the needs of pregnant mothers and the life they are carrying in the womb.
I am honored to celebrate each person participating in this year's march, and I am grateful to be in the position to support the hopes of every Hoosier and American devoted to the sanctity of life.
It is my great privilege and fervent promise that I will never give up fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my Republican colleagues to reject the President's proposed takeover of Greenland.
As we celebrate Dr. King's legacy, I am reminded of his belief that the ultimate measure of a person is not where they stand in moments of comfort and convenience but where they stand at times of challenge and controversy.
This is one of the most turbulent and divided times in our Nation's history. As a governing body and as a nation, our individual and collective character is being measured and tested. We must not fail that test.
America must show the world that we truly are a nation built not on hostility but on reasoned diplomacy and the deeper values of freedom and liberty that our forefathers fought for.
I come from a State with a long and proud history of military service, brave
The time is now in which our true character is being tested, and my Republican colleagues must decide if we will honor those who have gone before us or betray their legacy and our deepest values.
I implore this body to act with courage and moral character and reject any future proposals from the President to take over Greenland.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7045, the PROTECT Act, because it is time to repeal section 230 and hold Big Tech accountable for the harm being done to our children.
As a father of two young boys, I refuse to stand by and allow harm to happen to our children when there are no consequences, and these companies walk away without responsibility.
Big Tech has become a digital fentanyl that is slowly killing our children. It is pushing parents to the sidelines. It is acting as therapists. It is replacing relationships with robots. This must stop.
Parents are fighting a system designed to replace them. Algorithms and chatbots fuel addiction, depression, self-harm, and even suicide, all while these companies hide behind section 230.
When social media leads our kids to suicidal thoughts, our children believe they are better off gone, and no one is held responsible. This is a deeply broken system.
I demand accountability. I am standing up for our children, and I am saying that the double standard ends now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Chancellor Sharon Gaber and the exceptional work that she has done leading the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Under Chancellor Gaber's leadership, UNC Charlotte has experienced record enrollment, achieved the coveted R1 status, and made investments that are transforming Charlotte's education landscape and our community.
UNC Charlotte has become a powerful engine for economic growth, driving innovation, workforce development, and research partnerships that benefit Charlotte and North Carolina.
I am also proud to see her work recognized as Charlotte Business Journal's 2025 Business Person of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Chancellor Gaber and the entire UNC Charlotte community on the transformative impact the university has had on Charlotte-Mecklenburg and our State.
This is a proud moment for the 49ers and Queen City.
Mr. Speaker, it is a heartfelt honor to recognize a true American hero, Irvin J. ``Buck'' Price of Tarboro, North Carolina, a World War II seaman first class.
At just 17, Buck answered our Nation's call and enlisted in the Navy. Serving courageously during D-Day aboard the USS LST-285, he witnessed the horrors of war while ferrying personnel and supplies to Omaha Beach. Despite this, he humbly states: ``I was doing my duty.''
Buck's bravery has been recognized with numerous awards, including the French Legion of Honor.
After returning home, he dedicated himself to serving our community and his church, First Baptist, where a plaza will be named in his honor.
As he has recently celebrated his 100th birthday, he is still wearing his uniform well and with pride.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Derrick Rose, an outstanding professional basketball player, whose jersey is being retired today by the Chicago Bulls.
Derrick grew up on the South Side of Chicago and went to Simeon high school. He played much of his professional basketball on the West Side with the Chicago Bulls, which I represent. He played on the same floor and joined the ranks of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, Bob Love, Mickey Johnson, and Norm Van Lier. Mickey Johnson lives in the same neighborhood as I do. Scottie Pippen and Bob Love both grew up in rural America near where I grew up, and we are extremely proud of their accomplishments. Scottie was born in Arkansas, and Bob was born in Louisiana.
Congratulations to Derrick Rose, who is also actively involved in community affairs with youth.
I also take the opportunity to congratulate Mr. Jerry Reinsdorf and the Chicago Bulls and all of these superstars for what they have meant to America.
Mr. Speaker, today we honor the spirit of a son of Chicago whose game carried the heartbeat of a city, Derrick Rose.
From the blacktops of Englewood to the bright lights of the United Center, Rose showed not only talent, but will and determination. He played basketball the way that Chicago lives: fast, fearless, and unafraid of the hard road.
As the youngest MVP in NBA history, Derrick Rose attacked the lane like it owed him something, lifting up the franchise and a fan base that saw itself in his humility.
He never asked to be a sports hero, yet he became one with a quiet grace that spoke louder than the celebration.
Then came the injuries, but Derrick Rose came back again and again, teaching young people that setbacks do not cancel destiny.
Derrick Rose reminded Chicagoans and this Nation that even when you fall, you rise. For that we honor not just the basketball player but a symbol of enduring American grit.
Mr. Speaker, local grocers play a pivotal role in improving access to nutritious food. That is why I joined my dear friend and colleague, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, and State and local leaders on a visit to El Valle de la Sultana Market in Everett, Massachusetts, last Friday as part of my statewide End Hunger Now Tour.
Victor and Martha Gutierrez and Audriana Perdomo own La Sultana markets, which have been providing cultural staples to the people of Everett, east Boston, and Somerville for 30 years. We visited the newest location in Everett, which was stocked with delicious and culturally appropriate foods like fresh produce and meat and heard directly from people who shop at the store for groceries.
Their message was loud and clear. Skyrocketing food prices and cuts to SNAP are impacting their ability to feed their families. Their powerful stories provide me further motivation to fight Trump policies that are driving up the cost of food and to once and for all end hunger now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 842, the Nancy Gardner Sewell Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act,
Named in honor of my mother who lost her battle to pancreatic cancer in 2021, this legislation would expand access to cutting-edge cancer screenings for America's seniors, ensuring Medicare coverage for these emerging tools once they become FDA approved.
I am immensely grateful that this bill was led by Republican sponsor, Congressman Jodey Arrington, and the many organizations and patient advocacy groups who helped us push this bill across the finish line. I am giving a big shout-out to the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, PanCAN, the Prevent Cancer Foundation, the National Minority Quality Forum, and so many others.
Thanks to their tireless advocacy, H.R. 842 is the most cosponsored bill in the 119th Congress with 339 cosponsors in the House and 68 cosponsors in the Senate.
I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation. Rest in power, my sweet mother. We will beat cancer.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great concern about the current state of service in the Social Security Administration.
Last year, the so-called department of governmental elimination, DOGE, diminished the agency's workforce, forcing thousands of employees to quit or be fired. This has left inexperienced staff to handle rising workloads and call volumes with minimal training.
The Social Security Administration has also created new roadblocks to service in the name of efficiency and fraud prevention, requiring seniors and people with disabilities to complete some transactions in person or online, rather than by phone.
Yet, reduced staffing levels at field offices have made it more difficult to schedule a timely appointment.
In my district, the Social Security Administration closed the White Plains hearing office, forcing constituents in Westchester to travel farther distances at a greater expense to receive in-person service.
I implore this body to hold the Social Security Administration accountable and ensure that our constituents receive good, convenient, quality service.
We must immediately provide more funding and reinstate positions that were lost. We will be held accountable by the voters if we fail this task.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7148, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7147, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026; and For...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation.
This morning, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1014, providing for consideration of H.R. 7147 and H.R. 7148.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, under a structured rule with two amendments made in order.
The rule further provides that H.R. 7147, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026, will be considered under a closed rule.
The rule provides each bill 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees and one motion to recommit.
Additionally, in the engrossment of H.R. 7148 after final passage in the House, the text of H.R. 7006, the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2026, and H.R. 7147 will
Mr. Speaker, with consideration of this rule and its two underlying measures, the House stands firmly upon the 1-yard line. We are, indeed, ready to move forward and complete the appropriations process. We are ready to lock in the final components of our 12 fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills.
Additionally, we are ready to further cement our long-overdue return to regular order in this legislative body. It will be a welcome return, indeed, Mr. Speaker.
Here is the simplest of truths that all of us here understand and need to be reminded of regularly: There will never be such a thing as a perfect piece of legislation or a perfect package of bills.
Perfection is a phantom. Many may seek it with the best of intentions, but in the end, it is unattainable. That is just a fact of life that we must understand.
I can imagine that there are Members who want to see more within these measures, and there are some who want to see less. Both positions are to be expected, but here is the bottom line: We should never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
The two appropriations measures under consideration here today, as well as the ones this body has passed previously, all bear the hallmarks of the America First agenda. They meet the priorities of the President and the priorities of the American people. They make sizeable contributions to America's strong posture of defense, our Nation's systems of infrastructure, national security, and research and innovation within health.
As Chairman Cole has noted multiple times over, this process has been Member-driven and deliberate, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. I will also add that this process and the monumental victories that we have achieved thus far signal a fundamental, positive change within this legislative body, a change we should take note of and celebrate.
Let's finish out this process and deliver this final tranche of appropriations bills across the finish line.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the staff on the Rules Committee, both the majority and the minority staff, because they put up with an awful lot. The way this House is being run, the process and procedures, are absolutely awful.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is a clown show, but that would be an insult to actual working clowns who probably lost their healthcare in the big, ugly bill that Republicans passed, but whatever. This is not the way this House of Representatives should be run.
Out of the four appropriations bills before us, only one, the Defense bill, was given an amendment process, where the majority issued a call for amendments.
Overall, 9 out of the 12 appropriation bills this cycle did not receive any call for amendments. In other words, nobody was asked to offer amendments to participate in this process. They were told that their views and their opinions didn't matter.
Last week, Republicans made in order 2 out of 78 amendments submitted to the two-bill minibus that we considered. Again, neither of those amendments had a call for amendments prior. The week before, Republicans made zero amendments in order on a three-bill minibus out of 40 submitted. Only one of those bills had an amendment process prior.
Today, they are making 2 amendments in order out of the 164 amendments submitted to the final appropriation bills before us. They were submitted by Democrats and by Republicans, so 99 percent of those amendments that were offered have been blocked.
The Republicans went on last night about regular order, but they only solicited amendment ideas on 3 out of the 12 appropriation bills that fund our government. Give me a break. This is not the way this place is supposed to be run.
Again, I get it. They are worried about pleasing the rebels within the Republican Conference who always threaten to bring down a rule if they don't get what they want, so I assume that is what happened by making two Republican amendments in order today.
Here is another thing that I noticed in this bill. There is this creation of an ethanol domestic energy council, aimed at kind of buying off people from Iowa, I guess. In the rule, it says this council will be appointed by the Speaker of the House to develop legislative solutions to address the crisis facing our Nation's farmers and refiners.
I asked in the Rules Committee whether the Speaker would only appoint Republicans. The answer was that you can submit whatever you want to the Speaker. It is his decision, but we don't know. So, I don't know whether this is a bipartisan council or just a partisan council.
A question was asked in the Rules Committee: Will it only be Members of Congress on this council, or could members of industry or the energy companies be on this council? We were told that they think it is just Members of Congress, but we don't know.
I mean, I don't know. Those are pretty relevant questions, and this is kind of being tossed in here essentially to buy people's votes.
Here is the deal: To those Republicans who are being bought off by this creation of this new council, let me recall back in September when we were having a debate on whether to kind of extend the pause on Trump's terrible tariffs. All of a sudden, we were told that we had to pause the vote. We went on and on and on for a while, waiting and waiting and waiting, and then we were told that there would be a special trade working group established. The press reported that Congressman Adrian Smith, who is the head of the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, would be the head of that working group, and they would address the issue of tariffs. They said it would be a thoughtful process.
Mr. Smith was before the Rules Committee the other day, and I asked him about this trade working group that apparently bought off Republican votes, Republicans who were concerned about the tariffs. I asked him who the Members are on this trade working group. He said that he talks to all Members. I asked who the Members are on this trade working group, and he didn't have an answer. Do you know why? They never appointed anybody to be on the trade working group.
I asked him how many hearings, gatherings, and meetings this trade working group has had. He couldn't answer that because they never had any meetings. I asked if there were any publications or reports that have been produced by this trade working group, and he couldn't answer that because there were none.
Now, we are being told--now, Republicans who are kind of concerned about the issue of ethanol are being told that we are going to create this council for you, this new working group for you, and you should be happy.
I am just going to say this, with all due respect to my Republican colleagues: Those of you who are bought off by this in order to vote for this rule, where I come from, we have a name for that, and that is ``cheap date'' because that is what this is. At the end of the day, nothing--nothing--will end up happening.
I am just going to say one other thing before I get into the substance of these bills. When I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, I made nearly half of all amendments in order. This Republican majority has blocked 80 percent. That means Democrats--and, by the way, a lot of Republicans, a majority of Republican amendments have been blocked. Let me say that one more time. A majority of Republican amendments have been blocked.
I don't know what is wrong with Members over there, but come on, a majority of Republican amendments have been blocked, and you continue to go along to get along. They are not just blocking us. They are blocking their own Members. There have been 106 closed rules so far in this Congress, more than Democrats had in the entire Congress the last time we were in charge.
Again, I know you have a slim majority, but here is another fact that you ought to let sink in: We have had the fewest votes on the floor in 35 years. I mean, that is what this Congress is all about.
Again, I would just say, as somebody who loves this institution, who believes in this institution--and I know many of my Republican colleagues feel the same way--I mean, things have to change.
This place has become an institution where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. All the issues that I hear about in my townhalls--the high cost of healthcare, rising food prices, the high cost of utilities--we don't talk about those things here.
We are dealing with messaging bills. When it comes to anything of substance, like these appropriations bills, we are basically told to take it or leave it, that our views don't matter. Again, this is not just Democrats, but Republicans, as well.
Mr. Speaker, again, I am grateful for the hard work of the appropriators and their staffs. These bills are complicated, and the hours are brutal. In this political climate, getting anything done, let alone in a bipartisan way, is no small thing.
While no bill is perfect, I agree with the chairwoman that there are provisions in this package that would make a difference in people's lives, and I think, in some cases, in a positive way. The three-bill minibus--Labor-HHS-Education, Defense, and Transportation-HUD--rejects President Trump's proposed $163 billion in cuts. It continues funding for priorities like medical research, NIH, opioid response grants, childcare, and Head Start. It includes badly needed funding to hire more than 2,500 air traffic controllers.
Democrats blocked more than 40 poison-pill riders that Republicans tried to jam in on reproductive care, vaccines, sanctuary cities, and more. I thank Ranking Member DeLauro for holding the line and keeping that garbage out.
I want to talk about something bigger than the line items because, in my view, these bills are being written as if we are still operating under rules that, let's be honest, this current administration does not recognize. The President has shown over and over again that he won't follow the rules. He treats the law like a suggestion. He treats Congress like an obstacle. He treats the Constitution like it is optional.
When we respond with business as usual, that isn't responsible. It is naive. If we don't build in real guardrails, strong, enforceable guardrails, then we are not just funding programs, but we are handing over power. We are writing checks and crossing our fingers that an administration that is proud of breaking the rules will suddenly decide to behave.
Here is the perfect example: This three-bill minibus increases defense spending by more than $8 billion above the President's own budget request, yet it does nothing to rein in this administration's recent illegal military actions around the world, nothing that makes clear that Congress and not the President decides when America goes to war.
The same kind of blank-check governing is also present in the Homeland Security bill. Let's not mince words: ICE is out of control. We are watching Federal agents roll through communities like they are above the law: stopping people, harassing people, intimidating them, and, yes, shooting them.
That is not America. That is not freedom. It sure as hell is not what our parents and our grandparents fought for.
We have history in this country. We know exactly where ``show me your papers'' leads. We know what it looks like when a government decides that certain people don't belong and then builds an enforcement machine to terrorize them into submission.
Yet, here we are, being asked to hand DHS more money with nowhere near the due diligence or the ironclad accountability that this moment demands. Hell, Republicans already supercharged DHS with $75 billion in their big, ugly bill last year. Now, we are supposed to keep feeding the beast? I say hell no. I don't think ICE deserves a single cent more, which is why I am voting ``no.''
I will acknowledge the work that went into these bills. I will acknowledge some provisions that could help people, but I do not trust this President. I do not trust Trump's OMB. I do not trust this administration, which has made lawlessness a habit, to follow the intent of Congress just because we typed it into statutory language.
Call it Trump derangement syndrome, as some of my Republican friends have labeled it. I call it learning from experience. I call it paying attention. This is our last real leverage point. Once we fund it, once we sign the checks, the power shifts. With this President, that is terrifying because he is erratic and lawless.
We tried to put up guardrails. We offered amendments to rein him in. The Republicans all voted them down, every single one of them. They voted against accountability, and they voted against constraints. It is crazy. It tells you everything you need to know, Mr. Speaker. They would rather give him a blank check than do their job as a coequal branch.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most targeted process in two decades. We got the Senate to do its job. I will stack this process up against that of the Democrats when they controlled the process and let the public decide.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the brink of a historic moment. This is a day I have worked toward for a long time. Throughout my time here, I have fought for legislative reforms that will restore a Member-driven process. This is the most Member-driven, principled process in Congress in my time here.
I ran for office pledging to restore fiscal responsibility and Congress is embracing it.
For years, I have urged my colleagues to reject the Washington presumption that nothing can be cut from the budget in order to fund priorities without increasing the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, by the end of this week, Congress will have passed 12 individual appropriation bills that both fund critical priorities while also reducing spending. This is a great moment.
Mr. Speaker, as the House considers this rule and the legislation it advances, I rise to remind all who are present in the Chamber, all Members of this body, and every person in this country that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: ``The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''
Yet, all across America, from Maine to Minnesota to California and everywhere in between, hardworking, law-abiding people in the United States, American citizens, are living in fear of exactly this. They are afraid to go to work, afraid to go to church, afraid to go to school, afraid to go to the hardware store because unidentified, masked agents, often in plain clothes and unmarked cars, are breaking down doors to their homes, are pulling people from their cars, are stopping people on the street, and asking them to show their papers and prove they belong here.
This is not only unconstitutional. It is un-American, and this Congress must do something to stop it. Brave Americans are standing up and saying no all across this country. We have to do that here, we have to do it now, and it starts by voting ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats continue to attack ICE agents in their operations.
During the first year of the Trump administration, ICE arrested 7,000 gang members from America's streets. This includes a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela, an active gang member. The perpetrator's rap sheet includes arrests for homicide, assault, cruelty toward children, domestic violence, and damaged property. He entered the U.S. in 2022 and was released by the Biden administration. ICE arrested him on February 28, 2025, and the Trump administration removed him on September 12, 2025.
ICE arrested a criminal illegal alien from Cambodia, a Crips gang member, who was convicted of homicide, robbery, and battery. He was released into the U.S. by the Biden administration. ICE arrested him on March 4, 2025, and removed him on April 2, 2025.
ICE also arrested a criminal illegal alien from Cuba and Bloods gang member, who was convicted for multiple homicides and burglary. ICE arrested him on October 27, 2025, and removed him on January 6, 2026.
Beyond gang members, ICE has arrested some of the worst perps imaginable, including a 20-year-old citizen of Guatemala who was filming a child being raped.
Mr. Speaker, despite all of this, ICE law enforcement is facing a 1,300 percent increase in assaults against them, a 3,200 percent increase in vehicle attacks, and an 8,000 percent increase in death threats.
If Democrats want to debate the new Supreme Court interpretations of reasonable suspicion, let's do it. If they want to debate the very authorities of ICE stretching back decades over both Republican and Democrat administrations, let's do that. If they want to have concrete debates about the authorities or changes of laws, let's do that. But we should not attack the operational decisions that are directed to one goal and one goal only: keeping Americans safe and upholding our immigration laws.
We enforce our immigration laws, or they are meaningless. We either grant ICE the mission of fulfilling its mandate, or we don't. We either give them the support they need to confront, stand face-to-face, and arrest the world's worst criminals, or we don't.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman just listing off a bunch of criminals, and we don't take issue with arresting violent criminals. Violent criminals should not be on our streets no matter where they are born, and they should face justice. But the issue is that ICE is terrorizing communities and attacking people, including U.S. citizens.
In Minnesota, a U.S. citizen said ICE took him at gunpoint in his underwear, without a warrant, in front of his 4-year-old grandchild.
In another instance, a U.S. citizen went on his lunch break, and masked Federal agents detained him in a choke hold.
In Miami, Federal agents ripped a woman from her car as she screamed that she was a U.S. citizen.
ICE agents in Minnesota ate lunch in a small-town Mexican restaurant. When they were done enjoying their meal, they detained two workers who served them.
In California, a U.S. citizen on his way to work at a food bank pulled over to warn Federal agents that they should wrap up their stop of another individual before school-age children gathered for the bus. Moments later, an ICE officer shot him in the back.
In Chicago, ICE agents stormed an apartment complex by helicopter as families slept and deployed chemical agents near a public school.
Mr. Speaker, ICE is wreaking havoc on people all over this country, trampling over the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens at every turn. U.S. citizens across the country are carrying their passports out of fear of being detained without cause.
There are reports of Native Americans who are U.S. citizens being detained by ICE. Thirty-two people have died in ICE custody in 2025-- 32. It was ICE's deadliest year in over two decades.
In just the first 9 months of Trump's second term, over 170 U.S. citizens were detained by ICE, and nearly 20 were children. Two dozen were held without being able to call lawyers or their family. These citizens have been dragged, tackled, beaten, tased, and shot by immigration agents.
Mr. Speaker, I can go on and on and on. Let me be clear. This is an out-of-control agency at war with communities around the country. They don't give a damn if you are a U.S. citizen. The silence on the other side of the aisle is outrageous, as if this is no big deal. Wait until it happens to you or a loved one.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule. The appropriations bills need to be passed for fiscal year 2026 Defense; Homeland Security; Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education; and Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development.
For the first time in years, Congress is approaching the finish line of passing all 12 appropriations bills in a transparent and timely manner, reclaiming our constitutional power of the purse.
As we approach our Nation's 250th anniversary, this body can take pride in governing as our Founders intended and building a future that is more secure, resilient, and prosperous.
Last November, the American people sent us here with a clear mandate to put America first. This package delivers through critical investments in border security, national infrastructure, and stronger support for our servicemembers and their families.
In North Carolina's 11th District, these funds support essential water and public safety projects including a new EMS base in Swannanoa, water and sewer upgrades at Swain Middle School, an emergency services hub in Madison County, upgraded water lines in Robbinsville, and a new taxiway on the west side at Asheville Regional Airport.
Following Hurricane Helene, these investments aid recovery, eliminate the uncertainty of short-term extensions, and give local leaders the confidence to plan ahead. This is a return to responsible governance, and I am proud to support it. I ask Members to please support this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up S.J. Res. 88, which would allow for an up-or-down vote on whether to terminate President Trump's global tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, on April 2 of last year, President Trump announced he was opposing tariffs on virtually all countries, including our closest allies like the United Kingdom, the European Union, Japan, Norway, and Taiwan--the list goes on--based on a bogus national emergency.
He called it ``liberation day.'' Let me tell you that the only liberation my constituents have felt is money being liberated from their hard-earned paychecks because the price of basically everything has gone up since Donald Trump took office.
The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent over the last year. The price of coffee is up a whopping 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. In total, families paid $310 more for groceries during President Trump's first year in office compared to 2024.
It is now abundantly clear that President Trump broke his promise to lower costs on day one, in large part due to his cost-increasing tariffs. Although the President and his cronies claim that these tariffs are paid by foreign governments, in reality, it is the American people who pay the tariffs.
According to a newly published study, which analyzed $4 trillion in shipments over the past year, American consumers and importers paid 96 percent of the cost of tariffs, while foreign companies shouldered a measly 4 percent of the cost.
Last October, more than 2\1/2\ months ago, the Senate sent to the House on a bipartisan basis this joint resolution to terminate the global tariffs. In this House, our Republican majority has continued to block a simple up-or-down vote. They have basically endorsed the increase in the cost of living for average people.
Speaker Johnson promised his Members that he would create a working group to address the tariffs. We now know this tariff policy working group is a mirage. It doesn't exist. You got taken.
When I ask the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade about the working group, which he was supposedly in charge of, he said he didn't know who was on it or whether or not it had ever met.
Are you serious? Are you serious? Most Republicans, even the ones who oppose the tariffs in private, are continuing to go along to get along with this.
When are Republicans who know better going to stand up against this crazy tariff policy that is raising costs at home and destroying our alliances? It is never too late to do the right thing. By voting to defeat the previous question, we can finally have an up-or-down vote in this body on whether to terminate President Trump's disastrous global tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, we should vote today to end these tariffs and lower costs for everyday Americans. Instead, this House majority is paralyzed by fear, making it one of the least effective in modern American history.
The American people sent us to Washington to address affordability and to lower the cost of healthcare, housing, and groceries. Yet, this Congress has taken fewer votes in 2025 than in any nonpandemic year this century.
Apparently, the majority doesn't think affordability is important enough to vote on. Instead of focusing on prices, the White House has spent the past week talking about invading Greenland or using our taxpayer dollars to buy an island that isn't for sale.
To advance this fantasy, President Trump threatened yet another round of tariffs that would raise prices even further, only to walk back the threats after the stock market tanked yesterday.
Regardless of what the President does, we are a coequal branch of government. We should be addressing affordability right now by passing the resolutions I have offered and resolutions that have already passed the Senate to terminate these tariffs.
When asked to explain why we are not doing everything we can to lower costs for American families, the Speaker responded that the President is exercising Article II powers to impose tariffs. There is only one problem. The President has no Article II powers to tax or tariff. Those powers are explicitly assigned to the United States Congress under Article I of the Constitution.
The Republican majority is more interested in providing cover for Donald Trump than honoring their oath to the Constitution of the United States and deliberately avoiding doing its job to lower costs for Americans.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are watching. The camera of history is recording. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and demand a vote on terminating the tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump has reset our standing in the global market after decades of failed and unfair trade deals put the American economy last.
Swift and decisive action has brought scores of countries to the negotiating table and numerous new trade deals including with the U.K., the EU, Japan, Australia, Korea, El Salvador, Vietnam, Guatemala, and Malaysia, just to name a few. These trade deals will help grow the economy, protect the American workers, and reassert our global standing.
Our friends have selective memory. Let's remember: When President Biden took office about 5 years ago, he left President Trump's tariffs from his first term largely in place. We didn't hear a peep from our colleagues then. In fact, many of them advocated for keeping those tariffs and embraced the Biden decision.
President Trump is simply doubling down on that successful approach. It seems the deciding factor for Democrats' newfound opposition is grounded in Trump derangement syndrome.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to consider the final four fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills.
These appropriations bills, like the previous eight that came before it, are fiscally responsible and represent a return to regular order. The deliberate and Member-driven approach of this process is a testament to the leadership of my friend and fellow Oklahoman, Chairman
Tom Cole.
This package will strengthen American military superiority and fund the E-7 Wedgetail program at Tinker Air Force Base. It also ends open- border policies of the Biden era, champions measures to make America healthier, and allows the Nation to build stronger, travel safer, and support future growth.
Through late nights and long markups, the Appropriations Committee has done its job, reduced spending, delivered wins for our constituents, and codified the priorities of the Trump administration.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the work that the Appropriations Committee has done, and I encourage my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Department of Homeland Security funding bill. I cannot support funding for a Department that has shown repeated disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the safety of the people it is supposed to protect.
Mr. Speaker, I remind the American people and this body: Every Member of Congress has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution. That means all aspects of it--the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the rights of due process, and the rights of unwarranted search and seizure. Yet, we are failing at this moment because ICE is terrorizing the American people and violating constitutional rights every single day.
We have seen ICE agents and the Department of Homeland Security detain and arrest American citizens without any justification, enter homes without warrants, use excessive force when it wasn't required, and ignore constitutional rights.
They are even weaponizing children in this country, kidnapping them from schools and using them as weapons against their parents. It is morally wrong, outrageous, and not who we are as a common people.
This is a Department that is out of control, going rogue, and needs to be reined in. These are not isolated incidents. They are the result of unchecked power and a complete lack of accountability.
Last night, I offered commonsense amendments to impose basic constitutional guardrails: accountability for abuse, due process protections, and civil recourse when rights are violated. Republicans refused to even consider them.
Without these amendments, this bill gives DHS and ICE free rein to operate unchecked and unaccountable while Republicans in this body continue to look the other way.
The American people deserve better. They deserve safety without fear, enforcement without lawlessness, and a government that follows the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, until the Department of Homeland Security is willing to operate within the rule of law, I cannot
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Foxx for the incredible work of the Rules Committee. I know we worked through the night on something that is very important. That is ethanol--E15, to be specific.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the farmers, families, and small businesses in Iowa's Third District and, really, rural communities across America right now who need someone to be a fighter.
We have a good group here in Washington on both sides of the aisle who are championing the importance of renewable biofuels, giving Americans the freedom to choose cleaner, more affordable, American-made fuel at the pump.
That fuel is E15. E15 is simply gasoline blended with up to 15 percent ethanol, or corn. Ethanol is grown, produced, and refined right here in the United States, often in towns and communities where agriculture is the backbone of the local economy, where every dollar spent at the co-op, in the grain elevator, and at the plants and refineries that support it is directly invested back into the families and communities that produce it.
Authorizing year-round E15 nationwide, a free market approach that is American-made, benefits not only farmers but consumers, the environment, and our national security.
Approximately 33 percent of all U.S. corn produced is used for ethanol, so imagine this the next time you drive down the road: a cornfield where every third row goes toward helping to fuel this Nation.
Permanent E15 could boost corn demand by up to 2.4 billion bushels annually. It would increase our domestic market access for corn farmers and support viability for farmers, manufacturers, and our community.
E15 clearly saves up to 30 cents per gallon. E15 provides higher octane for better engine performance. E15 is vital for national independence, especially in light of national conflicts.
The Nationwide Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act of 2025 aims to authorize year-round E15 sales nationwide to eliminate the annual uncertainty of whether it can be completed.
This legislation that we are leading adds to the billions of dollars that could be grown right here in the U.S. economy. It saves every American, and if you come to Iowa right now, at the local Casey's, it is $1.85 per gallon. That is a pretty good return on investment for your family's minivan or your truck.
Mr. Speaker, right now, Iowa farmers see this not as an abstract policy but a direct threat. This is about demand for their crops, stability for markets, and the ability to plan for the next season without wondering whether Washington will pull them out of their challenges or pull the rug out from under them by failure to act. For Iowa families, this is about affordability.
E15 consistently costs less than standard gasoline. At a time when families are watching every dollar, and this House is supposed to be focused on affordability and cost savings, this is a direct win. For our country, this is energy independence, but what is more, it is national security for all of us.
Every gallon of ethanol blended in our fuel supply is a gallon that we don't have to buy from overseas. It means less reliance on unstable foreign markets and more reliance on American farmers, American workers, American innovation, and American families.
It is good for our economy. It is good for our Nation. E15 is a must- pass bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for raising an issue that he got a working group on--a working group that may meet or not meet, may have members or may not have members, and may do something or may not. Boy, wow, that is something.
Mr. Speaker, today, I recognize someone who has quietly made this place work day after day and vote after vote. Ray Salazar is leaving the House after more than 11 years of service to this institution and to the Democratic Caucus. I want to say plainly and on the record that we are thankful for his service.
Ray started here the way that a lot of great public servants start: by showing up, doing the work, and earning trust. From an internship with Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa, to Whip Hoyer's AmeriPAC, to becoming a special assistant to the Office of the Democratic Whip, Ray learned this place from the ground up.
Ray then served as floor assistant for Whip Hoyer, floor director for Leader Hoyer, and deputy floor director and senior adviser. Most recently, he has been floor director for the Democratic Whip, Katherine Clark, helping Members to navigate the toughest moments, the longest days, and the most important votes.
For the Rules Committee specifically, Members and staff relied on Ray for many, many years. Whether it was getting information about the floor at 1 o'clock in the morning or helping to solve tricky procedural problems, he has been a reliable and valued part of the Rules family.
He is a graduate of Hawaii Pacific University with a background in international relations, national security, and advanced military education focused on joint warfare. He understands the world. He understands the institutions. He understands that democracy runs on people who do the hard work, the unglamorous work.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ray for his professionalism, his steadiness, and his service. We will miss him on the floor, and we wish him nothing but success as he begins his next chapter.
Mr. Speaker, I also thank Mr. Salazar for his work and, actually, all the staff who work so hard around this Capitol. We are very blessed.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that Mr.--I am going to say this in a second--Mr. McGovern is ready to close, and I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, after all the time that we spend together, the gentlewoman can just call me Jim.
Mr. Speaker, let me close with this: Republicans are running this place like a clown show. Over and over again, House Republican leadership shuts down the amendment process. Over and over again, they limit debate. Over and over again, they tell Members to take it or leave it.
Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of all amendments were blocked. We had to have the Speaker up in the Rules Committee this morning because, apparently, the only way Republicans can get their amendments made in order around here is by blackmailing the Speaker and threatening to take down the rule.
Last night, we had Members showing up with serious amendments, amendments aimed at basic accountability, basic guardrails, basic limits on a lawless administration. The leadership's answer is no, one structured rule for the minibus making in order two Republican amendments. Homeland is a closed rule entirely--no accountability, no guardrails, no nothing.
That is not how the people's House is supposed to work, and it is especially dangerous right now because this is not a normal administration. This President has shown he will say one thing and then do another. He will assure Congress and then ignore Congress.
Now, we are supposed to pass funding bills without ironclad guardrails on what this administration can do with that money, whether it is foreign adventurism, whether it is some half-baked scheme about Greenland, or whether it is building out a domestic secret police force that treats human beings like trash.
Let's be honest. If you cannot trust an administration to follow the law, then you don't give them a blank check. That is exactly what this process risks doing.
I want to see this House do its job. I want Members on both sides to be able to offer amendments, to debate them, and to vote on them. I want to see real constraints to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to violate rights, to trample the Constitution, or to fuel an agency like ICE that is behaving like it answers to nobody.
I urge my colleagues: Do not rubberstamp a process that shuns accountability. Don't enable an administration that ignores Congress. Don't
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I thank the gentleman from Worcester.
Mr. Speaker, for months, bipartisan, bicameral negotiations and collaboration have been underway. They have yielded consistent, consecutive appropriations products that deliver upon the Nation's highest priorities.
I applaud Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro, as well as other appropriators, and especially their staff, for the time they have invested in these 12 appropriations bills. It is time to get them across the finish line and stamp our seal of approval on them.
In a moment, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would repeal the Senate's Arctic Frost payout provision.
The House has previously considered this under suspension by a vote of 427-0. This vote reflects a bipartisan consensus.
I cannot overstate how wholly inappropriate it was that the Senate included this provision in the continuing resolution to reopen the government late last year. We must strike down this provision immediately. American taxpayers should not be on the hook for this inappropriate payout.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to bring this process to a close. It is time that we return this legislative body to regular order and move forward with our work. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7148, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. 7147, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026; and For...
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. 1014) providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7147) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes; and for other purposes, and on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina; 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 215, nays 213, not voting 3, as follows:
Messrs. SCHNEIDER and WALKINSHAW changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. TURNER of Ohio and GRAVES changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I was absent for the first three votes today, due to delays in returning to Washington. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 39, YEA on Roll Call No. 40, and AYE on Roll Call No. 41.
Expressing Support for the Designation of May 2025 as "Renewable Fuels Month" to Recognize the Important Role That Renewable Fuels Play in Reducing Carbon Impacts, Lowering Fuel Prices For...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 6 of House Resolution 1014, H. Res. 375, as amended, is considered adopted.
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. 7148, 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 1014 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. 7148.
The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) 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
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 recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The legislation before us is part of the final chapter of the fiscal year 2026 appropriations process. This is where months of hard work turn into results.
You see, we aren't here for just another stopgap, temporary fix. We are here to finish the job by providing full-year funding. Specifically, this package addresses core areas of national consequence: Defense, Labor-Health-Education, and Transportation- Housing and Urban Development.
These aren't abstract concepts on a page. They affect how Americans live, work, learn, and travel every day. That matters because behind every line is an impact: a military family with more certainty in their budget, a senior depending on a rural hospital, a student pursuing technical training for a good-paying job, and a traveler trusting that the plane they board will land safely. These bills were written with those priorities in mind.
Our Defense bill sends a clear message: America's military will remain the strongest in the world. It restores deterrence by strengthening readiness, modernizing capabilities, and reinforcing the defense industrial base. The bill also supports our servicemembers with a well-earned pay raise. Together, these investments ensure our forces can deter conflict and win decisively if deterrence fails.
The Labor-HHS title invests in the long-term strength of the country. We support lifesaving biomedical research, strengthen workforce training, and expand access to care, particularly in rural communities. These investments help students gain skills, workers find opportunities, and communities stay healthy.
Through Transportation-Housing and Urban Development, we keep America moving. From roads and bridges to ports and skies, the bill strengthens the safety and reliability of vital transit systems. It modernizes air traffic control, supports the hiring of needed controllers, and accelerates the deployment of new technologies. It also empowers local communities through programs that promote economic development and provide housing assistance to vulnerable Americans.
This package reflects a nation that is strong, prepared, and ready for the future. These are real deliverables and real wins.
This process has underscored a very important point: Congress can make tough decisions that are necessary to govern this country and chart a bold course with President Donald Trump.
Our objectives were clear, and we followed through. Republicans set out to spend less, and the total FY26 funding does just that. We committed to codifying DOGE cuts, and these bills cut waste and rein in government bloat. We promised to deliver America's agenda, which is why we put President Trump's priorities in place and end the Biden-era mandates. This is what responsible governance looks like.
I commend the detailed work of our chairmen--Representatives Robert Aderholt, Ken Calvert, and Steve Womack--whose stewardship ensured this package was both thoughtful in substance and built to deliver results.
I thank their accompanying ranking members--Representatives Rosa DeLauro, Betty McCollum, and James Clyburn--for their support and hard work.
I also want to recognize the dedicated staff whose work made this possible, particularly our chief clerk, Susan Ross.
This measure is the product of sustained engagement and serious legislating. It advances reforms, delivers full-year funding, and reflects a Congress doing its job.
I thank each Member for their time, and I urge all Members to support this bipartisan measure.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the measure before us today, which includes the Labor-HHS-Education, Transportation-Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Defense appropriations bills.
I will begin by thanking Ranking Member Betty McCollum and Ranking Member Jim Clyburn for their fine work on the Defense and Transportation bills, respectively. Both bills are remarkably strong agreements that serve as testaments to their tenacity as negotiators. I also thank Chairman Calvert and Chairman Womack and my counterpart on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, Chairman Aderholt, for his partnership in reaching a strong agreement on our bill, as well.
None of this would have been possible without the incredible work of the committee staff. In particular, Stephen Steigleder, Jennifer Chartrand, Christina Monroe, Jackie Kilroy, Laurie Mignone, Philip Tizzani, Nora Faye, Ed Etzkorn, and Jason Gray.
Lastly, I express my appreciation for my friend and counterpart on the full committee, Chairman Cole, and the majority staff.
This package is a strong, bipartisan, bicameral agreement that rejects the Trump administration's efforts to eviscerate public services and reasserts Congress' power of the purse.
It rejects efforts to dismantle the Department of Education, instead providing $79 billion in funding for K-12 education programs, financial aid, support for students with disabilities, and much more.
It redoubles our efforts in investments in biomedical research, increasing NIH funding by $415 million, and supporting efforts to develop treatments and cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, ALS, and other deadly diseases.
It provides more than $9 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to protect and promote our Nation's public health. It increases funding for SAMHSA to provide mental health support and to advance our battle against addiction.
This bill supports families feeling the squeeze from the cost-of- living crisis by investing in affordable housing and protecting funding for rental assistance as the cost of housing continues to climb. These and other efforts will prevent more than 4 million American households from being evicted.
Additionally, this package provides funding for a 3.8 percent pay raise for the brave men and women who serve our country in uniform. It increases funding for medical research by $1.7 billion, supporting research to develop treatment for diseases and service-related injuries. At a time of international uncertainty, this bill shores up support for our European allies and does not include any additional funding for operations in Venezuela or the Caribbean.
You can measure the success of these negotiations by the distance between what was initially proposed and what was ultimately agreed to. When you look at the numbers, it is astonishing.
In the Labor-HHS bill alone, we rejected more than $50 billion in proposed cuts. The Transportation-Housing bill provides $46 billion more than the White House had proposed. There are over 50 programs across these two bills that Republicans proposed to outright eliminate but are ultimately funded in this package. I consider that a success.
In addition, this package contains important provisions to rein in the Trump administration. It provides funding levels, removing ambiguity that the White House has sought to exploit in the past. It establishes deadlines for required spending, provides minimum staffing thresholds to prevent agencies from being hollowed out, and increases notification requirements to ensure the administration is
I am proud of the work that was done on these bills, and I encourage my colleagues to support this package.
Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), my very good friend and distinguished chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
Madam Chair, I rise today, again, as my colleagues have, to ask for support for the final FY26 appropriations package. It completes the culmination of a lot of hard work from a lot of folks who fulfilled their commitment to the American people.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, I was honored to lead the effort to rein in spending and secure an America First future, while also ensuring that these bills provide for funding for critical projects and growth around our districts.
I thank Chairman Cole for his longstanding leadership on the Labor- HHS bill and express my appreciation for Ranking Member DeLauro, who tirelessly champions her priorities and so many things in this bill. It is an honor to work with both of them as we have moved this bill forward.
The bill on the floor today balances the need for responsible fiscal stewardship while maintaining key investments in biomedical research, schools, and public health.
Thanks to negotiations on a bicameral, bipartisan level, funding decisions have moved through a very deliberate, very Member-driven process that puts an emphasis on transparency, accountability, and timely consideration.
This bill demonstrates the will of the American people who want new priorities and accountability in government, including priorities that make America healthy again and make America skilled again.
Investments in this bill are directed to where they matter most: into lifesaving biomedical research and resilient medical supply chains, classrooms, and training that prepare the next generation for success.
Enactment and passage of this full-year appropriations bill is vital to implementing provisions that keep our Nation strong, secure, and competitive.
In closing, I thank Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro, again. I also equally thank the committee staff on both sides of the aisle, majority and minority.
For the majority: Kathryn Salmon, James Redstone, Emily Goff, Kirk Boyle, Jaime Varela, along with Megan Medley on my staff, who has worked very diligently on this bill, as well.
For the minority: Stephen Steigleder, who has already been mentioned but needs to be mentioned again, Philip Tizzani, Laurie Mignone, and Jackie Kilroy.
There are so many others that we could name, but those are the folks that were on the front line.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. This is a good bill.
Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished ranking member of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member DeLauro and Chairman Cole for their leadership.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan legislation that will make critical investments in housing and transportation across America.
As ranking member of the Transportation and Housing Appropriations Subcommittee, I will first thank my partner, Chairman Steve Womack, for his leadership and collaborative relationship this year.
As many of you know by now, Chairman Womack lost his wife this past Sunday as we were closing out this bill. He remained by his wife's side during the extremely difficult time, while ensuring we walked away from the negotiation table with a product we can feel proud about.
Madam Chair, having been through that which Chairman Womack is experiencing, I am encouraged and emboldened by his commitment to get this bill across the finish line while managing his affairs back home.
The Transportation and Housing division of this bill includes $113 billion in discretionary spending. This represents an $11 billion increase in the House Republican bill and is $43 billion more than the President's budget request.
The bill reflects a renewed commitment to addressing the cost-of- living crisis and improving the safety of our transportation systems. For housing, the bill prevents the eviction of more than 4 million low- income households served through HUD's rental assistance programs, including those currently served by Section 8 and public housing.
Madam Chair, the bill reinforces efforts to combat homelessness by increasing funding for the Homeless Assistance Grants by $366 million, rejecting the Trump administration's efforts to eliminate Continuum of Care funding entirely.
It protects investments for mayors and governors by providing $3.3 billion for the popular Community Development Block Grants, or CDBG, and sustains funding for the HOME program at $1.3 billion, which spurs affordable housing construction.
It includes $58 million for housing counseling assistance for renters and first-time homebuyers and $8 million to continue legal aid assistance for eviction prevention.
For transportation, the bill invests in the safety of the flying public by increasing FAA operations by nearly $230 million, enabling the hiring of 2,500 new air traffic controllers.
It increases funding for the air traffic control towers and facilities by $824 million above fiscal year 2025, a 26 percent increase.
Madam Chair, it protects investments for continuing Amtrak service along the Northeast Corridor and national network by providing $2.4 billion.
It allocates $3.7 billion in Transit Capital Investment Grants that improve commute times and reduces congestion on our roads.
It includes $100 million for the 2026 World Cup and $94 million for the 2028 Olympics to help transit agencies manage local transportation in support of games across the country.
In closing, this year's Transportation and Housing bill advances investments in our housing and transportation infrastructure, while increasing safety and housing security.
Before I close, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their immeasurable contributions to this bill.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Madam Chair, this includes Christina Monroe, Jackie Kilroy, and Nora Faye, along with Barvetta Singletary on my personal staff. It also includes Doug, Avery, Andrew, and Mary Beth with the majority.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Madam Chair, I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) for his gracious remarks.
Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), my very good and distinguished friend, the chairman of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, and a person who is here at an extraordinarily difficult time to discharge his responsibilities to the United States.
Madam Chair, I rise in support of the consolidated appropriations package before the House today.
With this legislation, we are a step closer to completing full-year appropriations that rightsize our priorities with updated funding levels.
As chair the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee, I would like to highlight that division of this package.
Before I do, Madam Chair, I want to say something about my friend, Jim Clyburn. He is my friend. Though we sometimes differ in our political beliefs, friendship transcends politics.
Madam Chair, the Transportation division is a deliberate shift away from bloated bureaucracy and unfocused spending and back toward the core responsibilities of the Federal Government.
This agreement supports the President's America First agenda by cutting waste, eliminating unnecessary and underperforming programs, and codifying reforms that significantly reduce the size and scope of the Federal bureaucracy across all agencies.
The bill refocuses taxpayer dollars on priorities that matter to the American people: safety, mobility, economic growth, and housing affordability.
We make aviation safety a top priority by providing $22.2 billion for the Federal Aviation Administration, fully funding air traffic control, hiring 2,500 new controllers, and modernizing outdated facilities and equipment to ensure the safety and reliability of our national airspace system.
We invest more than $64 billion in highways, with the overwhelming majority sent directly to the States by formula because we know that it is the States, not Washington, that are best positioned to deliver roads and bridges that improve safety, strengthen freight movement, and support local economies.
The bill also addresses longstanding safety challenges including truck parking and motor carrier enforcement.
At the same time, we preserve housing assistance for the most vulnerable, while promoting affordability through flexible, locally driven programs that allow communities to expand housing supply without the micromanagement of the Federal Government.
We protect seniors, people with disabilities, and families facing homelessness, while ensuring that these programs are managed responsibly. We don't just throw money at programs. We make sure that they are responsibly managed.
Just as importantly, this bill exercises strong oversight by eliminating funding for failed and mismanaged projects like California High-Speed Rail, reducing transit programs, and rightsizing staffing levels at HUD and the Department of Transportation, all without compromising safety or mission effectiveness.
While I am extremely proud of the Transportation division, I would be remiss if I didn't express my strong support for other divisions of the package, notably providing for the common defense, a constitutional imperative. This legislation strategically increases funding to ensure our military continues to be the most lethal in the world.
It supports programs like the F-35 FMS mission at Ebbing Air National Guard Base in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and the E-7 Wedgetail, both of which ensure our military and allies have the capabilities they need to deter threats across the globe. Of course, we have a well-deserved pay raise for our servicemembers.
This bill does what Congress should have been doing all along. It prioritizes national security and the men and women who voluntarily take the oath to defend it.
This legislation also makes investments in biomedical research. We don't create cures or develop medical breakthroughs. No, that is not our job, but we can implement policies here in Washington that provide the resources needed to support our experts.
Moreover, this agreement provides the fiscal discipline and commonsense investments that are not mutually exclusive. It cuts what doesn't work, funds what does, and delivers real results for the taxpayers.
Madam Chair, finally, I will say this about Tom Cole. He has re- engineered the appropriations process. I am eternally grateful. We have strayed away from our fundamental duty of funding the government. In his desire to make sure that the appropriations process is honored and effective, Tom Cole made sure that we arrived at this moment. I am grateful.
Madam Chair, before I close, let me say, as most of my colleagues know and as Mr. Clyburn pointed out, my presence here today in the face of a terrible, personal hardship--the loss of my wife of over 41 years--I hope is indicative of the importance of completing the work on behalf of the American people.
Madam Chair, that is our job. I am grateful for the outpouring of support from Members from both sides of this aisle, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the legislation.
Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, before I introduce my next speaker, I will say that it is an honor to serve in this institution with Chair Womack, and he understands why we are here and what we are about. He has demonstrated that at great personal cost.
The gentleman said something about friendship. In this body, friendship needs to transcend whatever political difficulties or differences that we have, and he is an extraordinary individual, someone who I call my friend, and I am pleased to do that.
We all are in support of whatever his needs are now and for the future. He is an incredible human being, and I am proud to know him.
Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee.
Madam Chair, it was a very rough appropriations cycle at times, so I thank Mr. Cole and Ms. DeLauro for leading us through this and for making sure that our government does not shut down again. I thank them both for their work.
Madam Chair, the staff lost their holiday break and time with their families to get this bill done. Particularly, I thank Jennifer, Jason, Ed, and in my personal office, Ben and Lisa, for all of the work that they did.
I also thank Adam Sullivan and the entire majority staff. A special shout-out to Bill Adkins for his work and dedication to our national security. Bill recently departed to work at the National Reconnaissance Office, and we all wish him well.
Madam Chair, a special warm thank you to Chairman Calvert for working in a bipartisan manner to get this Defense bill done. As always, legislation is a compromise, but I am glad that the harmful partisan riders have been removed.
We know that this process would go much more quickly without having to debate them each year. This bill does include several important provisions to support military personnel and their families. It includes a well-deserved 3.8 percent pay increase. Medical research programs have been increased with a total of $100.7 billion, and that includes nearly $1.3 billion for congressionally directed medical research programs. That is an increase of $620 million above last year.
These programs are important. They support efforts to develop lifesaving treatments for cancer, disease, and other service-related injuries, and these advances in medical research and knowledge will improve healthcare and outcomes for our entire civilian population.
This bill makes $400 million in funding available to Ukraine, and I strongly believe that we should continue to support our Ukrainian allies.
I am also pleased that this bill does not include additional funding to cover operations in the Caribbean and Venezuela. Congress needs to do more to rein in the President's military interventions that have not been authorized by Congress. We should pass a Venezuelan War Powers Resolution to do just that.
The bill also contains language to reaffirm our ironclad support in Congress for our NATO allies and all 32 members. That includes Denmark and, especially, my good neighbor to the north, Canada.
I am disappointed that we were unable to include stronger language making it clear that President Trump needs to keep Greenland free. The future of Greenland is up to its people, the Kingdom of Denmark, not the President of the United States.
Madam Chair, this bill has been negotiated in good faith and in a very bipartisan way. I urge Members to support it.
Madam Chair, we cannot thank Chairman Cole enough, as Chairman Womack said, for his steadfast leadership and his clear-eyed purpose to get us back to regular order and to see this end today with the passage of four final appropriations bills.
Madam Chair, I thank my partner, Betty McCollum, for her hard work and her leadership on her side of the aisle to get this done. It was not an easy process, but we were able to work together to make sure that the men and women who serve in the United States military have reliable funding to keep this country moving forward.
Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of this bill, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2026. This legislation was a bipartisan effort by all four corners of Defense Appropriations.
Today, our country faces a dangerous and increasingly complex threat environment. China continues to advance its military capability at an unprecedented rate. While bloodied, Russia and Iran continue to threaten Europe and the Middle East. Until 1 year ago, our unsecured borders facilitated the flow of illicit drugs into this country, killing thousands of Americans.
This legislation answers the call, providing $839.2 billion for the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to protect America and deter war. This bill protects the administration's America First defense agenda, supports the Department's innovation efforts, and includes my four key priorities.
First, this bill builds a technology-equipped fighting force to ensure that we remain the strongest military in the world. It enhances investments in the fifth and sixth-generation aircraft, including the F-35, the F-47, and the F/A-XX.
This bill supports and prioritizes the modernization of the nuclear triad through investing in the B-21 Raider, the Columbia-class submarine, and the Sentinel ICBM.
It supports the Department's innovative efforts to increase efficiency and production of critical munitions. It also provides $7.1 billion to sustain the Navy ship operations and fund 17 new ships, including 7 battle-force ships, to include 1 Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, 2 Virginia-class fast attack submarines, 3 medium landing ships, and 1 antisubmarine warfare ship. This bill also provides approximately $13.4 billion in support of other Golden Dome efforts.
Second, this bill advances innovation efforts, increases competition, and drives down costs to create a more efficient and effective Department of Defense.
This bill includes a $1.2 billion reduction for efficiencies and to streamline management functions, and it cuts $1.2 billion to support the administration's effort to reshape the civilian workforce. Furthermore, the bill delivers a 3.8 percent pay raise to our heroic military servicemembers and provides $6 billion to transfer authority to help support an agile execution of the administration's military priorities.
Third, this legislation combats international actors who are manufacturing and trafficking illegal drugs into this country. The bill provides $1.1 billion for counterdrug programs. It includes funding for the National Guard Counterdrug Program and maintains the current location for United States Southern Command headquarters, a signal of our Nation's sustained commitment to the Western Hemisphere.
Finally, this legislation prioritizes modernization, innovation, and the industrial base. It provides $18.8 billion for facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization to sustain installations, public shipyards, and other facilities.
This bill supports commercial/dual-use technology and innovative projects by providing $429.5 million for the Defense Innovation Unit, $400 million for the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies, or APFIT.
It includes robust funding to establish the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network and almost $98 million for the Office of Strategic Capital to facilitate over $4.3 billion in loans and loan guarantees for critical suppliers to scale public capacity.
This bill includes an investment in future defense industrial base, which has languished.
Madam Chair, finally, in closing, I thank my entire staff both on the majority side and the minority side who worked diligently together. As the ranking member mentioned, we are losing one of our key staff members who went over to NRO as a deputy director, Bill Adkins. I am sure he is going to do a great job in his continued service for the United States.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs.
Madam Chair, I rise today in strong support of the 2026 Labor-HHS appropriations bill. It represents a clear and moral statement of our national priorities, that we invest in people, in their health, in their education, and in their opportunity to work and thrive, and it lowers the cost of living for everyday people.
The legislation strengthens the National Institutes of Health with new funding for cancer research, Alzheimer's treatment, ALS breakthroughs, and women's health.
It keeps our promise to families with more help for childcare and Head Start, ensuring that parents can work and children can grow and learn in safe, nurturing environments.
It invests in mental health and substance abuse, boosting the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, and expanding opioid response programs, because every life saved is worth the effort and investment.
It reaffirms our commitment to education, protecting title I schools, preserving Pell grants, and supporting career and technical education so young Americans are prepared for the jobs of tomorrow, regardless of their ZIP Code.
This bill reaffirms Congress' power of the purse and our duty to the American people.
It is not just a spending bill. It is a values bill. It says the health and well-being of our citizens is imperative. It invests in America's greatest resource, our people, by funding cures, creating opportunity, and making the lives of everyday Americans more affordable.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this very good bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend, my fellow Oklahoman, and the distinguished vice chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7148, which contains the Defense, Labor-Health and Human Services-Education, and Transportation-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bills.
This is a strong package, and as the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies, or T-HUD, I am particularly proud of that portion of this bill. It provides $103 billion in budget authority and supports President Trump's America First agenda. It invests in transportation infrastructure and housing affordability while cutting wasteful spending and reducing the Federal bureaucracy. In fact, this bill codifies DOGE cuts, like reducing HUD staff by 24 percent and DOT by 5 percent, helping to rightsize the Federal workforce.
When it comes to aviation safety, a top priority, FAA funding is increased to $22.2 billion, including $10.3 billion for air traffic control operations, $4 billion to modernize facilities and equipment, and additional resources to hire 2,500 new air traffic controllers. This will help keep America's skies safe.
The bill also invests $64 billion in highway infrastructure, including $879 million for priority needs, such as addressing truck parking shortages and resources needed to improve Tribal transportation.
The package supports housing affordability and community development by providing $3.3 billion for the Community Development Block Grants and $1.25 billion for the HOME program, giving States and localities flexible tools to expand affordable housing.
It also eliminates waste, including $929 million from the failed California High-Speed Rail project, which has been totally mismanaged and is completely indefensible. Nearly $1 billion in Biden-era Green New Deal spending is redirected to critical infrastructure needs. This is welcome news for taxpayers across the country.
Finally, and most importantly, this bill delivers direct wins for Oklahoma's Fifth District, including fully funded runway improvements at the Chandler and Shawnee Regional Airports and critical electric grid upgrades in Edmond, Oklahoma.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member DeLauro and Chairman Cole, and my sincere sympathies to Chair Womack and his family on the passing of his beautiful wife.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the negotiated fiscal year 2026 appropriations package for Labor-Health and Human Services-Education, for Defense, and for Transportation-Housing and Urban Development.
As a new member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, I am pleased to have contributed to the development of this legislation. I thank my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations and the dedicated staff for their tireless work.
Despite serving in the minority, Democrats on the Committee on Appropriations have spent months fighting back against the Trump administration's proposed cuts to critical programs that support our healthcare systems and save lives. These efforts have made a difference.
We secured $7.4 billion for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, SAMHSA, despite the administration's callous attempt just 1 week ago to eliminate almost all discretionary grant funding for the agency. I am pleased to say that Congress exercised its constitutional power of the purse and rejected cuts to an agency that serves as the backbone of our Nation's response to the mental health and addiction crises, which continue to take too many lives in America.
We restored funding for homeless prevention programs, peer support services, and mental health workforce training, and we secured funding increases for State opioid response grants and the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.
In addition, we successfully removed more than 20 partisan policy riders from the L-HHS bill, riders that would have defunded Planned Parenthood, blocked gun violence prevention research, and threatened the safety and dignity of immigrant and LGBTQ communities.
These bills are far from perfect, but they send a strong message to this administration: Make America Healthy Again cannot coexist with attempts to cut public health programs, and Congress will continue to assert our power of the purse and impose necessary checks on the administration.
The Defense and T-HUD portions of this bill also make important investments toward our public health.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
The Defense bill restores funding for Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs of $1.3 billion following massive cuts in fiscal year 2025. Further, it includes over $100 million for PFAS remediation efforts at military installations.
The T-HUD bill includes $295 million for Lead Hazard Reduction and Healthy Homes grants.
More generally, we know housing is healthcare. This bill provides $74 billion in discretionary spending for housing programs.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this package, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scott Franklin), my very good friend and the vice chair of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7148 and the Defense appropriations bill as part of this broader spending package.
Last year, Congress failed our military by relying on a full-year continuing resolution. It froze funding at outdated levels, delayed modernization, disrupted training schedules, and undermined our ability to plan properly. With a yearlong CR, our military cannot adapt, innovate, and effectively deter our adversaries.
Congress did provide additional defense funding through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It addressed urgent needs and closed critical gaps, but one-time funding cannot replace stable, predictable appropriations. Strategic planning, force posture, training pipelines, and modernization all depend on certainty, and Congress has a duty to provide it.
We face real and growing threats. China continues its rapid military expansion and aggressive posture in the Indo-Pacific, while racing to dominate emerging technologies. Russia is determined to destabilize its neighbors and challenge the international order. Hostile actors continue to test American resolve. Recent missions in Venezuela and Iran underscore that these dangers are not hypothetical.
Maintaining our edge requires sustained investment in advanced capabilities, including artificial intelligence. AI is transforming modern warfare by accelerating decisionmaking, improving logistics, and enhancing force protection. Integrating these technologies responsibly requires long-term commitment, not short-term fixes.
This Defense appropriations bill provides the resources our military needs to train, modernize, and remain ready to deter and defeat our adversaries. Passing it sends a clear message: Congress will not allow budgetary dysfunction or uncertainty to weaken America's defense or embolden our adversaries.
Mr. Chair, we owe our servicemembers leadership, certainty, and the tools they need to keep America secure. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for the time.
I rise today because I believe the Federal Government has a responsibility to stand with all communities across northwest Indiana-- big cities, small towns, and neighborhoods--that are rolling up their sleeves to rebuild and create work and wealth for their residents. I want to thank the leaders, Chairman Cole and Ranking Member DeLauro and the staff of the House Appropriations Committee for their hard work, sacrifice, and also for including three community project funding requests for Indiana's First Congressional District.
The funding for the Gary/Chicago International Airport is an investment in jobs and economic growth for our region. The airport is a vital economic hub for northwest Indiana. By expanding cargo operations, attracting private investment, and supporting initiatives pursued by the city of Gary and the State of Indiana, this funding will help bring new businesses, create good-paying jobs, and open the door to new passenger services for the residents.
I am also grateful for the HUD funding that will allow Gary and Michigan City to tackle long-neglected vacant and unsafe properties.
This investment helps local leaders do what they already committed to doing by clearing blight, stabilizing neighborhoods, and putting land and buildings back to use. When we rebuild housing and commercial corridors, we strengthen communities and restore local pride.
These are responsible investments that respect taxpayer dollars and deliver real results for working families. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ellzey), my very good friend and vice-chairman of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bill and I join Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum in saluting the hard work of the Defense Subcommittee staff, and of course, Chairman Cole. I thank my colleagues on the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for working with this body.
As of today, the Biden-era CRs, numbers, and policies will come to an end, and we will pass a bill that addresses the needs of now and the future for our adversaries around the world.
This fiscal year `26 bill invests in the Navy's sixth-generation fighter, an essential high-tech platform designed to succeed across the globe, projecting power from highly mobile airfields--the United States Navy's aircraft carriers.
It also accelerates the Army's investment in the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, a platform essential for the Army to meet the fight in the long distances between islands in the Pacific.
The Navy Reserve will finally get four more KC-130Js to provide aerial refueling, spare engines, and contested logistics in the Pacific Ocean.
Some of the most important provisions in this bill help the Pentagon fix many of its broken and antiquated processes. It gives Secretary Feinberg the ability to accelerate and find, test, and buy the tools that warfighters want and need, both hardware and software.
Remember, it was industrial innovations that won World War II, not a fledgling Pentagon.
Today, patriotic companies across the country are putting their own skin in the game to help our country deter, if possible, and defeat, if necessary, our 21st century adversaries, and we must help them succeed.
Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member DeLauro and Chairman Cole for their hard work.
I rise in support of this Consolidated Appropriations Act. As Republicans continue to slash healthcare, drive up healthcare costs for millions of Americans, and double down on their big, ugly bill that cuts a trillion dollars from our healthcare system, Democrats are fighting to lower healthcare and prescription drug prices for everyday Americans.
Today, we are finally considering priorities Democrats fought for, including authorization of policies and increased funding for important programs. Community health centers, hospitals that care for underserved communities, and teaching health centers will all benefit from these Democratic initiatives in the bill.
The healthcare package includes increased funding for the World Trade Center Health Program, which will ensure our first responders and survivors get the care and treatments we as a Nation promised them.
Democrats also fought to lower prescription drug prices by cracking down on unfair practices by pharmacy benefit managers, as well as guaranteeing access to no-cost generic medications for low-income seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare.
This healthcare package had bipartisan support and was included in an omnibus appropriation bill last year or a year ago and was suddenly yanked by Republicans because of a tweet by Elon Musk when he was in the President's graces. I am glad to see it will finally pass as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act today.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, Republican leaders refused to include the Affordable Care Act enhanced premium tax credits in this bill, which passed the House overwhelmingly earlier this month. I urge our Senate Republican colleagues to stop stalling and extend the ACA subsidies immediately to lower healthcare costs for millions of Americans who are bearing the brunt of the Republican healthcare crisis.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to start by thanking my colleagues in the Democratic Party who did everything in their power to make these bills as best they could under very difficult circumstances.
Over the past month, President Trump has made it his mission to incite chaos and fear in Minnesota. He has taken his quest for political retribution to our communities, and Minnesotans have paid the price.
Through President Trump and Kristi Noem's reckless and lawless ICE operations, the administration has targeted communities of color, ripped families apart, detained U.S. citizens, and made it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs. As a result, it has endangered every single Minnesotan.
Earlier this month, the President's political stunt got a Minneapolis mother, Renee Good, killed. That didn't prompt the President to withdraw ICE or attempt to deescalate the unfolding situation in our cities. Why? Because escalation isn't a symptom. It is the whole point.
I won't vote to give Kristi Noem's ICE one damn penny, but the truth is, I refuse to play any part in this administration's cruel and dangerous agenda. While there are certainly some important provisions in these bills, and I commend my colleagues for working to get them to the place that I know we are now, I can't in good faith support any funding package that enables this administration in any way until ICE de-escalates in Minnesota.
This is not how we operate in America. It is certainly not how we operate in Minnesota. As Members of Congress, we must do everything in our power to fight this administration at every turn, and that means using the power of the purse to curb the President's executive authority.
I urge my colleagues in this body to support me. Enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7148 because for rural communities like mine in Hawaii, this bill isn't abstract policy. It is about whether people can get care and whether caregivers can keep going.
I have met grandparents caring for grandchildren, parents caring for children with disabilities, and adult children caring for aging loved ones, often with no backup and no break.
That is why the 5-year reauthorization of the Lifespan Respite Care Program in this bill, which I was proud to co-lead with Representative Langworthy, matters so deeply. Respite care isn't a luxury. It is the difference between a caregiver burning out and a family staying together.
This bill also reauthorizes the Teaching Health Center GME program, the National Health Services Corps, extends telehealth, and increases funding for critical rural health programs. Taken together, these investments will grow the workforce, expand access to care, and improve health outcomes.
Providers and patients need certainty now. Rural health systems are fragile, and delays have real consequences. Passing this bill will change lives and save lives, and we cannot afford to wait.
Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I am proud, really, to support this funding package because I think it reasserts Congress' power of the purse. I think the process of the Appropriations Committee over the last several weeks has indicated that power of the purse resides in the Congress, and the appropriations process is the implementation of that power of the purse.
I commend the chair of the committee. It has been an honor to work with him on reinstating the fact that the Constitution says that that power of the purse resides in the Congress and that, again, we are the implementers of that power. It rejects the Trump administration's attempts to eviscerate public services. It establishes guardrails to prevent executive overreach, and it protects important priorities that make our communities safer, healthier, and more prosperous.
As the affordability crisis continues to strain family budgets, this package provides $8.8 billion for childcare and development for that block grant, an $85 million increase. Despite efforts by the Trump administration to defund and dismantle health research, this bill boosts funding for the Office of Research on Women's Health by $30 million, a roughly 40 percent increase.
While the cost of housing climbs and rent prices reach untenable heights, this bill invests more than $66 billion in rental assistance programs, a forceful rejection of efforts by the Trump administration to slash this funding by 50 percent.
As we work to provide stable and affordable housing for all those who need it, this bill increases funding for homeless assistance grants by $366 million and protects important housing programs like the Continuum of Care program from being unilaterally dismantled by this administration.
This bill increases funding for medical research programs at the Department of Defense, including $1.3 billion for Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs. These are research initiatives that help develop effective treatments for service-related injuries or conditions, as well as diseases like cancer, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's.
There are $1.2 trillion in Federal spending accounted for in these bills, and through lengthy, diligent, and worthwhile negotiations, Democrats and Republicans forged an agreement that both sides can proudly stand behind. In an era of polarization, this is no mean feat.
I am proud of my colleagues for their work on both sides of the aisle to craft this agreement. These are good bills, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee. There are a lot of things we disagree on, but we do not disagree on the importance of the power of the purse and the Article I responsibilities of this Chamber.
My friend has worked tirelessly and with great distinction and great effort to find common ground and to reassert the power of Congress and the appropriations process. We would not be at the point we are today without all of her hard work, all of her cooperation, and all of her toughness in negotiation as well, and the distinguished staff that she leads. Again, I just want to thank my friend for working with us to get to this point.
Mr. Chairman, I think these are excellent bills, and I think they have been written in a cooperative way between distinguished chairs and ranking members of each of these subcommittees. They know their subjects, and they work hard and well together.
My friend, the ranking member, and I have a common philosophy. We try to push decisionmaking as far down as we can, because I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, in each of the areas we have discussed today: Defense, Transportation-Housing and Urban Development, and, of course, our third bill, Labor-HHS, in all those areas, our subject experts are in the subcommittees. They make the best decisions. Every step up you go from there, Mr. Chair, the less informed the decisionmaker is and the more political the decision becomes.
I thank my friend for working with me to make sure that most of these decisions were made by the members at the subcommittee level. Only very rarely did we have to intervene to solve issues between us.
Again, it is good work, it is important work, it is bipartisan work, and it is bicameral work.
I would also be remiss not to thank our cooperating partners in the other Chamber, Susan Collins of Maine, the distinguished chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and her working partner, the distinguished ranking member, Patty Murray, of Washington. All four of us worked well together, and that is why we are at this particular point.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a combination of three good bills.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, while I am supportive of provisions in the minibus that would fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, especially those pertaining to healthcare, I cannot in good conscience endorse a spending bill that continues to explode our Defense budget. President Trump has already shown that he is willing to use the military against American citizens. He is also pursuing foreign entanglements around the globe, and I will not write him a blank check to potentially invade other countries or pit America's military against our allies.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 7148, the FY2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Due to the perseverance of my Democratic colleagues, the legislation before us today protects funding for Democratic priorities, reasserts Congress's power of the purse, and rejects Republicans' poison pill riders.
In the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS-Ed) appropriations bill, Democrats secured big wins for our public health, our workforce, and our communities. This bill provides a $400 million increase to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a $1.7 billion increase to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and a $364 million increase to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), rebuking the deep cuts made to these agencies in the Republican House bill. These dollars mean that the United States will continue to provide the world with cutting edge medical research, accurate data for health guidance and disease prevention, and support services for those who are struggling with their mental health or substance use. It restores funding to several programs that were eliminated by President Trump and House Republicans, including: Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Research, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau, and valuable Title X Family Planning funding. This bill increases funding for Special Education, protects the Pell Grant, and saves the Institute of Museum and Library Science from closing. It increases funding to Head Start, LIHEAP, and the Social Security Administration, ensuring that from beginning to end, Americans have the best chance at success from preschool to post-retirement.
The fiscal year 2026 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill, which provides necessary funding to house our neighbors and build more affordable housing. The agreement safeguards the Continuum of Care program--a federal program that fosters a community-wide commitment to ending homelessness--from Trump administration attacks ensuring that members of our community are not evicted by President Trump. The agreement also rejects the President's proposal to end the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This is the sole federal program that helps communities build more affordable housing for rent and ownership. Further, Division C of this package funds the Department of Transportation. The bill would ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration can hire 2,500 new air traffic controller trainees to keep our skies safe.
While I have already spoken on the House floor in support of this package, I would like to highlight a few provisions of the fiscal year 2026 Defense Appropriations agreement that I helped negotiate. The bill includes several important provisions that support military personnel and their families, including a well-deserved 3.8 percent pay increase for our troops. Medical research programs received an increase in funding that will help support lifesaving treatments for cancer, disease, and service-related injuries to benefit our service members and civilians alike. I am pleased that the bill does not include additional funding to cover the President's illegal strikes in the Caribbean and Venezuela. More needs to be
While these bills were not in the shape that I would have preferred, I am thankful that we were able to come together in a bipartisan manner to protect the American people from President Trump's most divisive cuts. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan agreement.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in part A of House Report 119-462 shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
DIVISION B--DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
Department of Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Account
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund
DIVISION B--DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
administrative expenses, energy employees occupational illness
birth defects, developmental disabilities, disabilities and health
national institute of diabetes and digestive and kidney diseases
eunice kennedy shriver national institute of child health and human
national institute on deafness and other communication disorders
payments to states for child support enforcement and family support
payments to states for the child care and development block grant
office of the national coordinator for health information technology
historically black college and university capital financing program
office of museum and library services: grants and administration
administrative provisions--office of the secretary of transportation
General Provisions--Department of Housing and Urban Development
Subtitle B--United States-Abraham Accords Cooperation and Security
Subtitle B--United States-Abraham Accords Cooperation and Security
The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order except those printed in part B of House Report 119-462. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of our amendment. This is cosponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy). I regret that we have to offer this amendment.
What I am going to describe will probably sound like a bad science fiction movie, but that is what is written into law. Right now, in law that is going to be implemented, it says, for 2026 and beyond--now, the reality is that technology doesn't exist, but that doesn't keep legislators from imagining things that they would like to do to infringe on civil liberties. However, there is a law that states that every vehicle manufactured is going to have to have a kill switch in it.
The car itself will monitor your driving, and if the car thinks that you are not doing a good job driving, it will disable itself, so the car dashboard becomes your judge, your jury, and your executioner.
Imagine this: We have a snowstorm coming. A mom takes her kids out to go to the grocery store. It is snowing, and they are trying to get some groceries before the big storm hits. She swerves for a pothole. The neighbor's pet gets in the way, and she swerves for that. A first responder goes by. She pulls over.
Her car says: You have one more swerve, and then we are going to ground you. There it is, the next thing she has to avoid, an icy patch in the road. The car has adjudicated her as unsuitable for driving. It disables the vehicle, and there she is stranded.
My question is, how do you appeal your sentence once the technology in your car has judged you to be incapable of driving? Once it has disabled you and your children at the side of the road, how do you appeal that? Do you press a button on the dashboard? Do you start talking to an AI?
What if it really was somebody who was drunk? Are you really going to send a police car after this disabled vehicle? Do we have the resources to do that? There are going to be so many false positives.
The technology is unworkable, which is why the DOT is still in the rulemaking process, asking for feedback on how this thing could even exist. It is just a bad idea, but it is in law, so our amendment would defund that.
Mr. Chair, the bipartisan infrastructure law requires drunk and impaired driving technology to become standard equipment in new cars once a rule has been finalized by the Department of Transportation.
More than 30 people in the United States die every day in drunk driving crashes, and more than 12,000 people a year suffer these preventable deaths.
Using the appropriations process to delay or in any way impede the development of technology to prevent drunk driving is inappropriate and reckless.
What we have before us today is a bipartisan, conferenced bill. It is already a compromise from what Members on both sides of the aisle wanted. Debating and attaching an amendment to this bill risks the entire package.
Mr. Chair, I look forward to the time when we can debate the substance of this amendment because I have some thoughts on the data that I want the administration to be thinking about, but the time for debate on the individual policies is not now.
This amendment, which could delay the technology that would limit drunk driving and save lives, is not the amendment to support. This amendment should not be inserted into this bipartisan bill at this point in the process.
I strongly oppose it and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, drunk driving is a serious problem, but 31 States already have the technology to keep drunk drivers off the road with ignition interlock devices that they can mandate. This technology that is in the law is not going to fix the drunk driving problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend.
Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his work on this, and of course the chairman of the full committee for the hard work on appropriations.
Look, none of us wants to be on the road with drunk drivers. Of course, this was a solution intended to deal with them. All of us want them to be dealt with.
I am going to remind everybody, as my friend from Kentucky just said, there is already legislation in multiple States, dozens of States, that deals with drunk drivers through the ignition interlock system. Probably in your family somewhere, someone you know, you have dealt with this. I know in my family and the people I know, I have dealt with it.
Here is what I don't want to see in America: Everybody, including the ones who don't drink and drive, being punished for the people who drink and drive. I happen not to drink, but I am going to be forced to have this thing in my car.
I am going to tell you what is next. After what Representative Massie has said, the car is going to be the judge, jury, and sentencer for your crime in the car. The next thing is going to be that we need to hook this thing up to the government so we can dispatch the police.
I am just going to tell you what is going to happen next. They are going to be shutting your car off when they decide whatever they decide from wherever they decide it.
I don't know what everyone thinks about due process, the Constitution, - the Fourth Amendment, and the right to not be imposed upon by illegal, unlawful search and seizure, but punishing everybody for this crime, whether they have committed it or not, whether they are going to commit it or not, should be unconstitutional. This shouldn't really be a question.
We all want to get to the problem, and we are happy to work with everybody on all sides to deal with it, but you cannot punish and convict everybody in the country for the sake of the ones who do things that they shouldn't do.
Mr. Chairman, I rise also in strong opposition to this amendment.
In 2023, 12,429 people died in drunk driving crashes nationwide. In Kentucky alone, 198 people were killed. In
Advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology will prevent impaired drivers from illegally operating vehicles and causing deaths and injuries. I understand that my Republican colleagues are concerned about privacy, but the technology being developed does not track the vehicle's location or collect, use, or store any data that would compromise the privacy of vehicle occupants.
Privacy is a concern, and my friends should weigh in on the rulemaking process. NHTSA, the agency involved with this, should work with government agencies that have expertise in this area to ensure that consumer data is secure, anonymous, and protected from unauthorized use. That can and should be addressed as part of the rulemaking process.
It is not right, though. Preventing impaired drivers from illegally operating vehicles and causing fatalities should be a nonpartisan issue, and the work on that needs to continue.
The problem here is that while NHTSA has not finalized the rule, they would not be able to do any work related to the rule or advanced alcohol monitoring technology if this amendment passes. That is going to just cause more deaths from drunk driving.
I would implore everybody: Please, privacy can be addressed, but we should not stop this work from continuing. We can't have drunk drivers on the road. It is not just them but everyone else who is killed and injured as a result of those drunk drivers.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
Every day, 34 families lose a loved one to a drunk driving crash. Drunk driving remains the leading cause of death on our highways. Unfortunately, the problem is getting worse every year, despite interlock devices.
Far too many Long Island families know the pain of a life cut short. I know several families who have lost their children to drunk drivers.
Mr. Chair, these tragedies are absolutely preventable, and we know what a solution is. The bipartisan HALT Drunk Driving Act, which was passed more than 4 years ago, would require new vehicles to be equipped with this new technology, and the change will help save more than 10,000 lives each year.
When Transportation Secretary Duffy testified before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee earlier this year, I asked him to work with Congress to fully implement this lifesaving law. I am proud to say that thanks to my questioning, Secretary Duffy publicly committed to implement this law and help save lives.
Mr. Chair, I am happy to work with the gentlemen on the other side who are concerned about privacy. Together, we can implement technology that addresses their privacy concerns.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to strip out the earmarks within the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education division from the underlying legislation.
This includes over 900 earmarks totaling nearly $1.4 billion in spending of money we don't have.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).
Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Norman for his amendment.
Mr. Chair, my constituents do not send their hard-earned tax dollars to Washington so that they can be funneled to abortion providers or hospitals that mutilate children, yet that is exactly what many of these earmarks do.
A vote for this amendment will remove $3 million for Seattle Children's Hospital, which proudly offers transgender care to children. It would strip $1 million to Lurie Children's Hospital in Chicago, which also provides transgender treatment to minors.
It would remove over $2 million to Kittitas Valley Healthcare in Washington State, a facility that performs chemical and surgical abortions even after 20 weeks.
I realize some argue these dollars are not directly paying for abortions or gender surgeries, but when we give taxpayer handouts like these, we free up resources for these exact practices.
I do not know how any Republican can support keeping these special handouts in this bill. While I wish my original amendment was considered to target the most egregious earmarks, I still urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. Chair, before I get into the specifics of this amendment, I will start with, hopefully, common ground.
In this Chamber, we can all agree that Members know their districts best. I asked a question. Isn't that right? Isn't that what we always assert, that we know our districts best?
Further, we often hear, mostly from the other side of the aisle, about how unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., are making too many decisions about Federal spending.
I don't subscribe to that view because true career civil servants work hard to ensure that programs are executed according to the law, but if my friends on the other side of the aisle want Congress to make more granular decisions about spending, then that is exactly what is happening through the community projects funding process, which we have established.
This is not top down. It is bottom up, and it has been enormously successful since it has been implemented in the last several years for both sides of the aisle for communities all over this Nation.
It is not wasteful, porkbarrel spending, and my friends don't get to have it both ways.
Instead, it is a thoughtful process of House Members and Senators talking to their communities about their needs, balancing those priorities, advocating for inclusion in these bills, and delivering for their constituents in a clear, transparent way.
These community projects have been posted online since last fall and no opposition has been raised. Yet at the
Let me give you some examples.
The amendment would eliminate funding to Seattle Children's Hospital for a behavioral health crisis stabilization unit. The underlying funding would enable Seattle Children's Hospital to create a dedicated space for children needing immediate, short-term psychiatric care.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, the amendment would also eliminate funding to the Ann & Robert Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago for a violence recovery and intervention program. The underlying funding would serve pediatric victims of violence with trauma-informed mental health and recovery services.
Should we not be doing that? Should that not happen for that community?
The amendment would eliminate funding to Rady Children's Hospital in San Diego for pediatric mental health services. We have a mental health crisis in this Nation. It is particularly poignant for children. It is not under the radar any longer. It is out front. The underlying funding is intended to support mental health clinicians in pediatric primary care to improve care for pediatric patients.
This amendment would eliminate funding for the Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems for maternal delivery and new infant projects to replace and modernize equipment across hospitals with labor and delivery units.
This amendment would eliminate funding for Dartmouth Health to construct a perinatal substance stabilization unit.
Let me repeat: Seattle Children's Hospital, the Ann & Robert Lurie Children's Hospital, Rady's Children's Hospital, maternity delivery units, and a perinatal substance use stabilization unit are all at risk.
I will be clear that this amendment is not limited to children's hospitals. It would eliminate funding to hospitals and healthcare services that serve young adults and adults, as well.
It will eliminate funding to the Denver Health and Hospital Authority for infrastructure to allow the hospital to continue to function as a medical safety net for the Denver community.
It will eliminate funding to Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia to purchase modern, diagnostic X-ray technology equipment to strengthen outpatient care.
The list goes on and on and on.
It would also eliminate funding for K-12 education programs, higher education programs, and job training programs.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I agree with Ms. DeLauro. If the communities want these, that is fine. They ought to pay for them. I don't know whether my colleague realizes it or not, but we are $39 trillion in debt and counting. Let me just give my friend examples of some of the things she may have not thought about.
We have $1,599,000 for Eastern Maine Healthcare Systems. It operates a pediatric gender clinic that provides sex-rejecting hormones for gender-diverse and transgender children.
We have $4,008,000 for ChristianaCare Health Services. It provides late-term abortions through 23 weeks.
The Stroger Hospital in Illinois performs abortions through 13 weeks.
The Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago provides transgender treatments.
Temple University Hospital in Pennsylvania provides transgender care for adults.
Any of the communities that want this should put their money up to pay for it. The taxpayers cannot afford it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Representative Norman's amendment, which would prevent my constituents' hard-earned taxpayer dollars from funding woke earmarks and handouts to leftist NGOs that undermine President Trump's agenda and, alarmingly, support taxpayer-funded transgender surgeries for children.
Buried in the minibus package is $14.3 million in earmarks for special interest projects across the country. At a time when our national debt is skyrocketing well past $38 trillion, Members of Congress should be focused on reining in wasteful spending and funding the essential functions of our government, not divisive handouts to NGOs.
Particularly concerning are the millions of dollars in earmarks going to so-called gender clinics and hospitals that push puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and even perform life-altering surgeries on vulnerable children.
This is not healthcare funding. This is not healthcare. It is promoting an ideology that harms children, sidelines parents, ignores common sense, and contradicts President Trump's executive order to restore biological truth and prevent the mutilation of our Nation's children. Plain and simple: Americans' taxpayer dollars should not be funding child mutilation.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, this is a prime example of government gone wild and government programs that are using our money that I think the majority of Americans would reject. If now is not the time, I don't know when is. It will be too late when the investors stop buying our bonds and everything comes to a dead halt in America. We can't let that happen.
Mr. Chair, these earmarks are against every conservative value that is known. The intent of these is wrong. The expenditure of these is wrong. Now is the time we face it and put a stop to these. This is just the first step in a long stairway to get this country back on a firm financial footing.
Mr. Chair, community projects have been successful. It is Senators and Members of the House talking to their communities about their needs, balancing priorities, advocating for the inclusion of these bills, and delivering for their constituents in a clear and in a transparent way.
That is what we ought to be doing, is delivering for our constituents about the needs that they identify for all of us. I urge a ``no'' vote on 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 South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina will be postponed.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fulcher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Walberg, 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. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1014, I call up the bill (H.R. 7147) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1014, the amendment specified in section 7 of House Resolution 1014 is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT, INTELLIGENCE, SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, AND
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) each will control 30 minutes.
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 measure under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7147, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act.
This bill marks the final measure of our FY26 agenda. Our work here is about one of the most important duties, which is keeping the American people and our homeland safe.
This legislation delivers just that and upholds the America First agenda through supporting border patrol enforcement agents, detention and deportation efforts, cutting-edge technology to detect illicit activity, and Coast Guard investments to counter Communist China's aggression in the maritime sphere.
We enhance resources to combat fentanyl and other deadly drugs, while safeguarding children through expanded investigation into human trafficking and forced labor.
From our borders and ports to aviation and cyberspace, this legislation delivers the personnel, training, and technology needed to reinforce our defenses and confront those who wish us harm.
It also prioritizes strong and resilient communities by bolstering disaster preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. Subcommittee Chairman Mark Amodei prioritized safety at every level. Even in the face of political challenge, he and the ranking member, Mr. Cuellar of Texas, worked together to produce a serious and responsible bill.
H.R. 7147 is focused on outcomes, not partisan rhetoric. It equips frontline personnel, strengthens enforcement, and provides the certainty DHS needs to carry out its mission effectively.
I thank our Members and staff for their work, and I urge support for this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking Ranking Member Cuellar for his work on this bill. He is a tough negotiator, and this bill is better for his efforts.
I also thank the committee staff. In particular, Shannon McCully, Jamie Wise, and Jim Ellsworth. They spent many long hours and a lot of sleepless nights fighting to make this bill as good as it could be.
The Homeland Security funding bill before us today has gotten a lot of attention over the past few days, and rightfully so. It deals with funding ICE, an agency that has shown itself to be lawless, vindictive, aggressive, cruel, and, thus far, unaccountable both to Congress and the American people.
That is not all that the Homeland Security bill deals with, however. Before I return to the topic of ICE and its funding, I will share some of what else is contained in this bill.
This bill rejects President Trump and Secretary Noem's attempts to eliminate FEMA, increasing funding for the agency by over $870 million, in addition to providing more than $26 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund. It increases funding for TSA by $149 million and provides a pay raise for air traffic controllers and uniformed members of the United States Coast Guard.
This is important funding, and I am glad that these provisions which we fought for were included in the bill. The final product, though far from perfect, is better because of it.
Despite these inclusions and others, it is impossible to ignore the impact that ICE's conduct had on completing this bill. ICE has operated with brutality, terrorizing our constituents, abducting our neighbors, and violently assaulting lawful residents who have done nothing but had the misfortune of crossing ICE's path on their way home from work.
Unfortunately, this month, we saw how this unchecked lawlessness can have fatal consequences with the killing of Renee Nicole Good.
This is a rogue agency. Substantial constraints must be placed on it. During negotiations, we proposed such constraints, but our Republican colleagues refused to include almost all of them.
We sought to prevent any funds from being used to detain or deport U.S. citizens, a commonsense measure. They refused to commit to that.
We proposed prohibiting interior enforcement by non-ICE personnel, like the Border Patrol. That was rejected, as well.
We put forward a provision to ensure that Members of Congress can continue to conduct our lawful oversight of all ICE facilities, uninhibited. That, too, was deemed unacceptable.
Democrats did win some battles in this bill, however. Under this bill, we reduce ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations budget by $115 million. We reduce their detention capacity, providing funding that could only be used for body-worn cameras. We increase funding for the Office of Inspector General, specifically for oversight of ICE detention facilities.
These are good provisions. I am glad they are in this bill, but it is clear that more must be done. ICE believes it can act with impunity, and it is behaving accordingly.
I trust that my colleagues have taken the time to review what is contained in this bill and have determined for themselves what is best for their constituents and communities. I have made my own determination, and that determination leads me to a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei), my very good friend and distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Homeland Security bill under consideration.
As the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I thank the full committee chair, Mr. Cole, my colleague from Oklahoma, for his leadership in helping to return us to regular order and producing a series of bills that will fully fund the government by the January 30 deadline.
I also thank my colleague from Connecticut, the ranking member, Rosa DeLauro, who was part of this combination. We have seen them work before in years past, both as the chairman of the full committee and as folks on other subcommittees that have worked well. It has been a help to all of us, and I thank them all publicly for their professionalism and respect for each other in our process.
I also thank my good friend, subcommittee Ranking Member Cuellar, a real pro. We don't agree all the time, but it is like it has never been a disagreeable experience. There are days around this outfit when, quite frankly, that isn't the case. I thank my friend. I appreciate that. He has been a great partner.
Finally, I will take the time to thank the committee staff on both sides of the aisle who worked tirelessly over the past month to negotiate the product before us. On the majority side are Paul Anstine, Anna Lanier Fischer, Fern Gibbons, Alessandra Ramirez, Ashley Truluck, and Nkosi Thomas. On the minority side are Shannon McCully, Jamie Wise, and Jim Ellsworth.
It was not cool to be on Appropriations during the last 30 days, for sure, and they were real troupers, professionals, and class acts. I thank them all for their dedication and effort.
I also remind everybody, because we get tied up in a lot of stuff, that, essentially, the Homeland Security bill is the Coast Guard, FEMA, TSA, Secret Service, Border Patrol, and ICE. There are other parts in there, but that is the majority of what we are talking about. Homeland, what is that? That is the agencies that take up the lion's share of this sort of stuff.
As the chairmen, we would like to basically think that by having those meetings, talking across the aisle and with our staffs, that what we have produced is a bedrock model for going forward and getting us out of the continuing resolution rut. Continuing resolutions lock us into spending levels that are both outdated and have not evolved like, frankly, the positions on both sides.
The fiscal year 2026 Homeland Security bill under consideration today furthers this administration's goals of undoing the damage caused by the previous administration, starting with the border. This funds the President's priorities, codifies reductions and efficiencies, and operationalizes border security and immigration enforcement investments in the reconciliation process.
Mr. Speaker, let's start with ICE. I know people have lamented that, boy, we really didn't get everything we wanted and all that stuff. It is like, guess what. There is something that we should both be celebrating here today, and it is about ICE.
Since the last administration wasn't real big on ICE, kind of maybe hoped they didn't exist or whatever, one of the things that didn't happen with respect to ICE, like all other law enforcement agencies around, was the use and implementation of body cameras so that we don't have to rely on somebody who happened to have their cell phone and have a good angle, whether they are accusing or defending themselves for whatever they did. This bill funds
Would you like a pay raise for the Coast Guard? This bill does that.
Would you like more infrastructure for the Coast Guard? This bill does that.
Would you like grants for first responders and nonprofit religious worship institutions? This bill does that.
The foundation is undeniable. As the tax on houses of worship has increased over the last few years, we are providing more money for that.
Finally, we ensure that CISA, the agency that is charged with protecting our critical infrastructure, like power and water, has the resources required to prevent attacks from nation-state adversaries like China and Russia.
Simply put, this bill ensures that the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security, who work tirelessly to keep America safe, have the resources and tools that they need to protect this great Nation.
I ask my colleagues to continue to support the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, but first, I want to thank the chairmen of the subcommittees and the full committee and my ranking member for their leadership. Certainly, I also thank the staff on both sides for the hard work that they have provided on this difficult bill.
I represent 280 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Let me be the first to say this bill is not perfect. However, this bill is better than the alternatives of either funding the Department under a continuing resolution or shutting down the government. That is the choice in front of us.
This bill puts real requirements on the Department. It provides oversight and makes targeted investments that directly help States and local communities to make sure that we help folks like firefighters and other folks.
Let me say this: It is better than the alternative, leaving the Department with a blank check, virtually unchecked by the Committee on Appropriations and Congress.
Allowing DHS to operate under a continuing resolution or trying to shut it down, ICE would ensure that they have no direction from Congress.
This bill flat-funds ICE, but at the same time, we also strengthen the oversight of ICE by increasing funding to the inspector general by over $38 million over fiscal year 2025. That includes $20 million to do additional inspections of ICE facilities and $12.8 million to provide oversight of the Department for the funds that they got under reconciliation.
It also provides, as the gentleman said a few minutes ago, $20 million for body-worn cameras, specifically for CBP and ICE, which are conducting immigration enforcement. It also provides funding to increase training for CBP and ICE agents for deescalation tactics.
Let me say this: We did try to fight more. Unfortunately, we couldn't reach an agreement with our Republican friends, but we did not walk away from the work of putting the oversight into law that this bill provides.
We also provide funding accountability to the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services, which is, again, something that they tried to close.
Let me be clear: ICE can operate based on the funds that they were provided under reconciliation, but we cannot say the same thing to other departments or other agencies under DHS, especially when we talk about FEMA. FEMA gets $5.7 billion, including $3.8 billion for Federal assistance, which is a 20-percent increase above fiscal year 2025. Again, that money goes back to help firefighters and disasters.
Again, it also provides money to CISA. As you know, there were cuts, but we are providing money there to make sure that we fight the threats to our critical infrastructure that we are seeing across the country.
Finally, this provides funding in the amount of a $550 million increase for the Coast Guard because, again, we have to make sure the Coast Guard gets the funding, especially when it comes to funding drug interdiction.
Again, I say this: Is this bill perfect? No. However, a continuing resolution provides no oversight, and ICE also gets funding from the reconciliation.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is simple. This bill is better than the alternative.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2026 Homeland Security appropriations bill is the culmination of the hard work of our committee and our staff and provides critical investments to protect the American homeland.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, I know that this bill champions public safety and preparedness. It protects taxpayer dollars and refocuses the Department on its core functions.
With border encounters at a historic low, this legislation fully funds DHS and the effort to detain and remove violent, illegal immigrants from our communities.
In central Washington, we know firsthand the important work done by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. This bill increases FEMA grant programs by 5 percent above their previous levels and restores critical staffing positions lost under the fiscal year 2025 continuing resolution. It also delivers funds directly to communities across the country, including my own Yakima County, to establish a dedicated emergency operation center and ensure timely and well-coordinated emergency response efforts.
The U.S. Coast Guard is fundamental in protecting our border and domestic security. This bill boosts funding for the Coast Guard and provides funding to counter China's footprint in the Indo-Pacific.
Lastly, as a member of the Select Committee on the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, I am pleased to see this bill refocuses the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency, or CISA, on its core cybersecurity mission and rightsizes the agency to preserve critical functions. This includes funding to counter threats from adversarial nations and ensure critical infrastructure systems are protected from these threats.
Mr. Speaker, this Homeland Security bill is the last piece in completing 12 fiscally responsible, bipartisan spending bills. It is a testament to--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
It is a testament to the hard work of the committee and subcommittee leadership on both sides of the aisle and the dedicated staff that spent an untold amount of time to make this process work.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides to support this negotiated bill that provides the resources necessary to secure our borders, protect Americans here at home, and ensure we are being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Speaker, today is not about ICE funding. Republicans already gave ICE $75 billion. Today is about the fact that we have a masked paramilitary force terrorizing our communities.
Republicans had the opportunity in this bill to enact commonsense checks on ICE operations. They refused.
First, they refused to ensure ICE abides by the same laws and procedures as our local and State police: that they are unmasked when on duty, that they actually wear the body cameras, that they wear a name plate identifying who they are, and that they are held responsible for excessive force.
Second, the GOP refused to join us in upholding the Constitution. Not only are these arrests warrantless, but ICE has also now determined they have the right to search your home without a judicial warrant. That is illegal, and it is unconstitutional.
Third, they refused to make sure that the use of deadly force is always
Fourth, Republicans refused to agree to the simple concept that American citizens should not be detained and deported. The people going about their business should not be kidnapped because of the color of their skin or because they are engaging in peaceful protests.
Finally, Republicans refused to prioritize the very real work that DHS does in our communities: stopping fentanyl trafficking, stopping child trafficking, and stopping cartels. DHS is taking those investigators off those cases and putting them on ICE raids. It is at the expense of our national security.
When the GOP can't even agree to commonsense guardrails, it is clear this isn't about immigration. This isn't about security. This is about state-sanctioned terror. This is about the political retribution of a vengeful President.
I will not rubberstamp the Federal Government's use of political violence against its own people, and I am asking every Member to join me in voting ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 2026 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act and urge my colleagues to do the same.
This bill champions public safety, and it refocuses the Department of Homeland Security back on its fundamental mission that was really lost sight of during the Biden administration.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, provides funding to important agencies to defend the Nation against the threat posed by terrorists, criminals, and foreign adversaries.
It aligns with President Trump's agenda to close our border and supports local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers that are deporting dangerous criminal aliens out of our communities.
Mr. Speaker, this bill gives TSA the resources to keep the flying public safe while getting rid of wasteful programs like VIPR.
It supports CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which is securing vital infrastructure from adversaries like China.
It also provides FEMA with the resources it needs to support communities following disasters, and it invests in the Coast Guard, who is keeping fentanyl and other dangerous drugs off our shores and out of our communities.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, puts America first. It protects Americans and secures our homeland, and I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
This year, Minnesota has witnessed a state of unbelievable violence, which has led to chaos and terror at the hands of President Trump and DHS.
Minnesotans are being racially profiled on a mass scale, assaulted on our streets, and kidnapped from our communities. Just the other day, a 5-year-old child was used as bait to get members of his household to come out so masked people in front of this 5-year-old could handcuff and carry family members away.
Masked Federal agents are seizing parents, yes, in front of terrified children, and many of these people we are finding had no record and were here legally.
American citizens and permanent residents are snatched from their cars, and they are taken to detention centers. I worked on one case this past weekend. It was cold, and a woman was warming up her car. She was taken out of her car. She was taken to Whipple. Then she was taken to Sherburne County and then back to Whipple again. Oh, and in between, she had to go to the hospital because of a head injury, and her arms, her wrists, might be suffering permanent damage. This was a citizen, a citizen, mind you.
This is the worst case of mass civil rights violations by the Federal Government in recent history.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, Minnesota stood up to call out these illegal abuses by masked Federal agents, and a citizen, a mother of three in Minneapolis, Renee Good, was shot and killed.
It is happening right here, right now in Minnesota in the United States of America, and it needs to stop now. Not one penny of our taxpayer dollars should go to DHS while our constitutional rights are being violated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my very good friend and distinguished gentleman who is also the vice-chair of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, this moment matters. For too long, we here in Washington have governed by crisis. We rushed preholiday omnibuses, backroom deals, and broken promises.
Mr. Speaker, those days are over.
Today, following President Trump's America First agenda, along with Chairman Tom Cole's unmatched leadership, we are doing what the American people sent us here to Washington, D.C., to do: Put America first.
Mr. Speaker, 12 out of 12 appropriations bills will be passed today, including Homeland Security. These are transparent bills, accountable bills, and fiscally responsible bills.
This hasn't happened in years, and it sends a clear, powerful message back home that the House is back at work. We are back to governing.
These bills strengthen our military, secure our border, invest in health and workforce readiness, modernize transportation, and deliver real savings for taxpayers.
It is peace through strength. This Homeland bill makes us safer at home by deporting illegal criminal aliens.
In the overall bills through our Member-directed investments, we are expanding Skyhaven Airport to improve safety and grow aviation training at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg.
We are launching a workforce training center for ag in Sedalia to prepare the next generation.
We are replacing a failing bridge so first responders, schoolbuses, and commerce can move safely and reliably in Oak Grove, Missouri.
These are reasonable Member-directed investments in America, our true Article I authority.
Mr. Speaker, we are just inches away from the finish line. Let's not slow this down. Let's get over the finish line. Let's deliver now for what the American people sent us here to do: Donald J. Trump's America First agenda backed by 12 appropriation bills passed out of this House, signed by the President. Let's fund our government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Homeland Security funding bill.
We cannot continue to fund an agency that ignores the Constitution, abandons due process, interrupts businesses, and traumatizes families.
Across the country, ICE enforcement is no longer about public safety. It has become a campaign of cruelty and fear. Families are being torn apart with no warning and no plan. Children are afraid to go to school. Homes are being entered without warrants. Workers are being dragged off of jobsites by their hair. People are being abducted when shopping for groceries, going to church, or taking their kids to school. Peaceful
When Members of Congress try to conduct oversight, we are blocked. We are denied access. We are told to look the other way.
This is not law enforcement.
This is not accountability.
That is not who we are as a country.
This bill writes a check for an agency that is violating basic rights while refusing basic oversight. It pours money into detention and enforcement without guardrails, without transportation, and without respect for human dignity.
I want to be clear. Security does not require cruelty. Enforcement does not require lawlessness, and immigration policy should never require us to abandon our values.
Yes, we need border security and an orderly immigration system, but we can secure our borders and uphold due process and enforce the law and protect families. This bill does neither, and until the Trump administration ends these abuses, restores transparency, and respects the Constitution, I cannot and will not support funding that enables this harm.
Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend Chairman Tom Cole for leading the appropriations process as intended by our Founders.
Fiscal year `26 will mark the first time in decades that Congress has funded the Federal Government through all 12 appropriations bills without reverting to a yearlong continuing resolution. As a freshman, I committed to working this process to this end during my time in Congress. I never dreamed I would see it my first year. I thank Mr. Cole for his leadership.
Now, I rise today on behalf of North Dakota farmers and rural communities to support the step included in this measure to move forward on year-round E15.
Farmers are hurting. Across the country, input costs and interest costs are up. Our producers are also dealing with tariff pressures and shifting markets, and at the same time, commodity prices are down. That is a difficult combination for anyone.
The future of many farm families hangs in the balance both in my State and many others throughout the heartland.
Year-round E15 offers immediate relief without costing the Federal Government anything. This is a top priority for farmers in my State and across our Nation. E15 provides an immediate, strong, domestic market for their bountiful harvest.
E15 is homegrown energy. Year-round E15 eliminates regulatory uncertainty that prevents the industry from flourishing. It will add $25.3 billion to the U.S. GDP and support more than 128,000 full-time jobs. President Trump and Secretary Rollins support this effort. Rural America is counting on us to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, please join me, and let's get this done.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, I stand today in opposition to this Homeland Security appropriations bill.
I want to be very clear. The bill that passed out of committee had protections for U.S. citizens against what we are seeing playing out in Minnesota and other American cities. During our debate in the House Appropriations Committee, I successfully amended the bill to include language that would prevent ICE from apprehending and deporting U.S. citizens. When the bill was reported out of committee, it included my amendment.
However, during negotiations, I was told that the White House, Stephen Miller in particular, stripped my amendment from the bill. This means that Donald Trump does not want to protect U.S. citizens.
Let that sink in, Mr. Speaker.
Donald Trump does not want U.S. citizens protected from being detained and deported by ICE.
The Trump agenda has never been about apprehending and deporting the worst of the worst. Their own statistics prove that. Their stories reported by journalists on the ground prove that, and eyewitness and firsthand accounts prove that.
U.S. citizens, alongside lawful immigrants and members of vibrant communities, including children as young as 5 years old, are being targeted by ICE and Border Patrol in the kinds of abuses many of us never believed would happen in America: indiscriminate stops on the streets, racial profiling, people dragged from their cars and their homes, legal observers physically assaulted for documenting abuses, theft and destruction of property, and people being killed by agents.
Violations of law, violations of the Constitution, and violations of civil rights are happening here in America at the hands of the American Government, specifically, the Department of Homeland Security. This cannot stand.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to giving one more red cent to ICE and CBP until we see accountability and reforms in this DHS funding bill. Under Secretary Noem's and President Trump's action, ICE and CBP have turned from law enforcement agencies into something much more dark and much more sinister.
Americans are scared by masked agents roaming our streets arresting anyone in eyesight whom they deem to be a threat, not a court of law. They are terrified that they could be the next Renee Good or one of the many who have died in for-profit detention camps. They worry about sending their kids to school or doing right by the law and attending routine immigration hearings.
It cannot continue. Today, Congress has a chance to act.
Now, I understand that there are some decent parts to this bill unrelated to ICE or the CBP. However, giving more taxpayer dollars to fund this wave of violence without accountability for past abuses and reforms to prevent more tragedies is not just a mistake, it is complicity.
Instead, we need courage, courage to demand guardrails that every single America can support. When there is a shooting or another abuse, an independent investigation should be standard.
Mr. Speaker, when ICE kicks down your door, a warrant signed by a judge must be present. If you are speaking Spanish, Mr. Speaker, or have skin color that is other than white, you should not be detained just because of how you look or the language you speak.
Mr. Speaker, should you encounter an immigration officer, they should no longer be able to shield themselves from accountability behind a face mask.
In the United States of America, nobody should feel like they have to carry a passport in their own country to prove that they are a citizen or a legal permanent resident. No American should be made, Mr. Speaker, to carry a passport in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation because I cannot, in good conscience, vote to spend one more cent on ICE. I will not fund an agency that acts like an American gestapo.
The Trump administration has launched a brutal and reckless campaign to strike fear in immigrant communities across the country, and ICE is on the front lines, using aggressive and violent tactics that too often end in tragedy. I cannot support one more cent for an agency that would recklessly take the life of Renee Good, an innocent and defenseless young woman.
I cannot support one more cent for masked agents arresting U.S. citizens, pulling people out of their homes, tearing children away from their parents,
To support one more cent for an agency with such disregard for the rule of law and basic human decency would be a moral outrage.
Yesterday, at this time, Liam Ramos was at his preschool in Minneapolis, and today, as we speak, he is in a prison cell in Texas against the will of his parents.
Mr. Speaker, what are we doing here?
I am a member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and under the Biden administration, I pushed for more resources to secure the border. I know that we need to enforce immigration laws, but not like this.
They are sending masked agents into American neighborhoods. They are beating people in the streets. They are breaking into homes without a judicial warrant, profiling people based on their appearance or their accent, and detaining them if they don't have their citizenship papers on them.
Mr. Speaker, is this what we have become, a country where everyone has to carry their citizenship papers around in case masked men come and threaten to beat them, detain them, and throw them into a vehicle?
Is that what we have become?
By the Department of Homeland Security's own data, the vast majority of the people whom they have detained have no criminal record at all. They are detaining and deporting U.S. military veterans, children with cancer, and pregnant women. We don't have to do it like this. We can enforce immigration laws without this level of cruelty.
Now they are asking us to give them a blank check to continue funding this. We, as a Congress, need to start doing our jobs and put commonsense guardrails in place.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill until there are real guardrails in the way that DHS is behaving.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening, this is a bill that has gotten so much attention over the past few days, and I think that that is the reality of where we are.
I have watched this bill over the years, and it has always been a struggle to deal with the Homeland Security bill. I thought that we were really on track to be able, this time around, to make some significant progress in the Homeland Security bill, and we were on track to do that.
However, then we watched unfold an unspeakable tragedy in Minnesota: the unspeakable loss of a young woman who was killed.
We have heard from my colleagues from Minnesota not just about the killing of Renee Nicole Good, but of the other unspeakable transgressions by an agency that has made a determination that they are not accountable to anyone, to no law, no rule of law, and even no higher calling of understanding how you treat human beings.
They have run roughshod over United States citizens. No one here believes that criminals in this Nation shouldn't be deported or that they shouldn't face the legal system that we have because the strength of the United States is that we are a nation of laws; that we abide by the rule of law. This agency is defying this at every step of the way, every day, with the sanctioning of the President of the United States saying that we are going to work to increase the pain, that we are going to detain and potentially deport United States citizens.
We asked for some simple reforms: Don't deport United States citizens. Require the training and hiring of personnel that are competent and capable for this job.
Do you know that training has gone from 5 to 8 months to 6 to 8 weeks? The sensitivity around this issue has been broken, and the trust of the American people and the people of Minnesota has been broken. Children are frightened. Families are frightened. There is no need for that in this country.
We need to have the rule of law reinstated. We can't have masked, armed people on the street pulling over anyone that they choose to based on the color of their skin or how they look.
I said this in the Rules Committee when I testified. I actually have two grandsons who are adopted. I have one from Guatemala. Yes, he is brown-skinned, but he is a citizen. He lives in Los Angeles. I find myself telling him, ``Make sure you carry your passport,'' because it scares me that, because of his brown skin, he can be pulled aside, detained, and deported. He is a United States citizen.
My other grandson's parentage is Uzbekistan, but he is a United States citizen. He is a youngster, and he could be snatched up and separated from us.
This is the United States of America. We have watched and focused on Iran. We watched the SAVAK in Iran take people off the street, detain them, kill them, and never heard from them again. We are not going down that road. We cannot go down that road. The Congress cannot take us down that road.
I was hopeful, as the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee--and my colleague and the chair knows this--to get what we need to get done, and we were on the road. We were on a good track, but we have to face the circumstances.
We have to deal with the environment. We have to deal with what has happened in this country. We cannot turn a blind eye. We cannot say let's overlook it because if we overlook it, it will not get better. It is our responsibility now to make it better so that we can turn this around and make this agency work.
I am not for abolishing ICE. There will be a lot of people who are going to be unhappy with my saying that, but so be it. We need to reform it. We need to turn it around. We need to make it work on behalf of the American people, not make it the fear that a KGB, a SAVAK, or other agencies have had in other countries that we oppose. We can't go down the road of making that who we are. It is our responsibility. It is our responsibility.
I have said to my colleagues over and over again: Make the decision based on where your heart is and what you believe in. This is a moment and a vote that says you have to determine what you believe is the right thing to do, and that is the basis on which to do it. I have made that decision, and the right thing for me to do is to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to begin by thanking two outstanding appropriators: Mr. Amodei, the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of Appropriations, and his working partner and colleague, the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar). They have done an extraordinary job on this bill.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric today. Not much of it has anything to do with what is in the bill. The bill itself is a good, strong bill. It is a bill for, frankly, the two Members who worked well together. It is not a perfect bill, as my friend Mr. Cuellar said, certainly not from his perspective, but it is a solid bill. There are no poison pills in this bill.
It focuses on making the American people more secure. It does so economically and efficiently, and it does so in a way that, honestly, should make every member of the committee proud.
This is a difficult bill to bring forward, no doubt about that. Each side has struggled with it over the years. I am very proud that the ranking member and the chairman worked together to bring a bill to the floor. That has not happened in a long, long time. Usually, it just sort of gets muddled in. It says a great deal about their professionalism and their cooperation.
If you listened to the debate, you would think we have law enforcement in chaos and that somehow our country is not secure. Quite the opposite is true. Quite frankly, President Trump
Our borders are secure. They are more secure now than they have ever been. It wasn't that long ago that I was on this floor talking about 15,000 a day, 10,000 a day coming in illegally. That has stopped.
As a consequence of that, crime has gone down, not up. That is a great success for the American people. Drug trafficking is down, not up. That is a great success for the American people. The scourge of human trafficking, the exploitation of usually young women and young men, has been dramatically lowered. That is thanks to President Trump, the people who he has put in charge of our border security and our internal security, and the hard work of our Coast Guard.
There is a lot in this bill that has nothing to do with ICE. We fund the Border Patrol here. Are we supposed to not pay those men and women who have kept us secure? We fund the Coast Guard, which, as my friends point out and the distinguished chair of this committee pointed out, has been refocused on some of the maritime security issues, particularly relating to foreign adversaries as far away as China.
This bill deals with FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. If you are voting against this bill, you are voting against funding the people who will help you in a hurricane and a tornado or a disaster of some sort. Why in the world should they be penalized?
I think we should look at the bill in its totality. We should look at the difficulty of the task that we asked the chairman and the ranking member to do. We should thank them for the hard work and wisdom that they both exhibited in bringing this product to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I do worry about the rhetoric around this bill. I personally believe it is not intentional, but it is reckless encouraging people to believe that we have masses of bad actors in a particular agency. Some of the rhetoric--mostly not on this floor, let me say that--that I have heard in the country about comparing law enforcement officers to the gestapo or the Nazis, that is terrible. That is not true. That is not who they are. That is not what they do. That kind of rhetoric, when we hear it and wherever we hear it from, is dangerous and reckless and wrong.
We have had a good debate here today on a variety of bills, and I will end on a little more positive note.
Mr. Speaker, I, again, thank my friend, the ranking member, for her work. We don't always agree on everything. This bill is probably an example of that, but we work together well and professionally. One of the reasons we can consider this bill separately is my friend made that request and made it very convincingly to me. I know she is a person of good faith, and I will work with her wherever I can.
Again, I thank her for her friendship and leadership. We will not agree on this matter today, on this particular item, but there is much, much more that we agree on than we disagree on. We would not have gotten to this point without working together.
Having said that, I do think this is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. The right thing to do here is to fund the people that protect America, that defend our borders, that help us in times of disaster, and, yes, who find criminals who have come into the country illegally, committed crimes, and make sure they are expelled. That makes America safer and better and more secure.
I thank the President and his administration for doing that. I think we should rally around them and show our support for what they have done by passing this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1014, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of January 21, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 21, 2026, the concurrent resolution is considered read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debated for 1 hour, equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative McGovern of Massachusetts, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to say this twice, once for each of my colleagues over here managing, Representative Meeks and Representative McGovern: There are no troops in Venezuela.
Let me say it one more time for you all: There are no troops in Venezuela.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it was only last month that we stood on this floor debating this same resolution. My colleagues across the aisle defended the administration's claim that unauthorized U.S. military operations in the Caribbean and threats against Venezuela were about what? Stopping drugs.
At that time, I asked a simple question. I asked--and never received an answer--if this was about drugs, why did the President pardon the former leader of Honduras, a convicted drug trafficker who bragged about shoving drugs up the noses of the gringos.
The administration's own actions have since made the truth absolutely clear: This was never about drugs.
The unauthorized January 3 operation was not conducted to address an imminent threat to the United States, nor to advance democracy in Venezuela. Donald Trump has abandoned even the pretense of national security.
He has been very explicit about what his intent is: We are there to take Venezuela's oil. That is what this was about.
He propped up Maduro's regime, praised Maduro's Vice President as a terrific person, and sidelined the democratic opposition, forcing Maria Corina Machado through the back door of the White House.
Meanwhile, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Stephen Miller posture as
Guess what. There is no plan for what comes next. There is no plan to deal with the entrenched military and paramilitary forces spread across a country twice the size of Iraq. There is no plan if the so-called acting President refuses to serve as Trump's puppet, and no explanation of what the President means when he says he is ``not afraid of putting boots on the ground.''
Mr. Speaker, this administration is winging it and driving the United States headfirst into another open-ended foreign conflict that, as history has shown, is destined to backfire in years to come.
For those of my colleagues who deny this is warmongering, there is still a U.S. aircraft carrier parked in the Caribbean. Tens of thousands of young American men and women remain on standby. If the President wants to drag the United States into a war that the American people don't want--they don't want this--he must come to Congress first.
The debate belongs on this floor. We have all asked for what the cost has been and what the cost will be to the American people. There have been no answers to that either.
Let's be equally clear. Venezuela is not the end of this recklessness. In exchange for a rules-based system the United States built to extend our influence around the globe, Donald Trump is reducing the United States to a regional bully with fewer allies and more enemies. This isn't making America great again. It is making us isolated and weak.
Donald Trump's new world order is not new. It is the old logic of empires. Might makes right. The strong take from the weak. It is the same backwards worldview that Vladimir Putin uses in Ukraine and the same logic China will cite when it looks at Taiwan. We have seen where that road leads. It leads to endless conflict.
To my Republican colleagues, the American people want us to lower their cost of living, not enable war. Now is the time for my colleagues to stand by their oath of office and end this dangerous game before it is too late.
It is time for Congress to reclaim our Article I authority that the Constitution gave us and say that enough is enough. A President is not a king. He is not an emperor. Without an act of Congress, he cannot invade a nation and set us down the road of war.
Let us stand up and do our responsibilities. Let's see where Congress stands. Let's have a vote on this floor and see where the majority of the Members of the United States House of Representatives is. The people deserve to know.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying something simple that shouldn't be controversial in the people's House. On questions of war and peace, on questions of life and death, Congress is not supposed to be a potted plant. We don't get paid to outsource hard decisions. We don't get brownie points for showing up.
Our Founders weren't naive about threats, but they were realistic about power. That is why they chose to entrust Congress with the power to make war--not the President, not the courts, not the States--but the elected Representatives of the people.
Call me crazy, but I think if we abdicate that power, we are not only doing a disservice to the people we represent but we are violating our sacred oath of office, our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The last time I brought up this resolution, I was told it was premature because there had been no strikes in Venezuela. Let me quote what my Republicans friends said in their own words.
Chairman Mast said: `` . . . this resolution to me doesn't make much sense because we are not in hostilities inside Venezuela.''
Congressman Keith Self said: `` . . . which is not necessary, as it removes our Armed Forces from hostilities against a country where there have been no hostilities.''
Congressman Warren Davidson said: `` . . . is the contention that this is a present condition, that there are U.S. Forces in violation of the War Powers Resolution, or is it a hypothetical future?''
Congressman Tom McClintock said: ``If the President launched an unprovoked attack on Venezuela . . . without congressional declaration, we should have this debate. Until then, I think Democrats would do well not to cry wolf on such an important matter.''
Even Susie Wiles, the President's own Chief of Staff, said that if he were to authorize some activity on land, then we would need Congress.
We got lots of smug lectures from the other side. Guess what. On January 3, 2026, not only did Donald Trump authorize land activity in Venezuela, but his administration did not come to Congress beforehand. We were not even the first group that he talked to after the attack on Venezuela.
I guess the best we can get from the current majority here is that there is never a good time for Congress to assert its war powers. It is either too soon or it is too late.
I don't think it is too late because we are still dealing with the consequences of this unauthorized and unlawful military strike. Nicolas Maduro, a brutal tyrant, was removed from power. The Trump administration replaced Maduro with his own damned vice president. Is that the big victory that my friends think we should be celebrating? Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
They left in power the same illegitimate regime that rules through oppression, fraud, and violence. They left in control the same security apparatus that violates people's rights. They preserved the same corrupt cartel state.
Am I missing something here? From what I can tell, the President put our troops in harm's way without congressional consent, all so that he could replace one dictator with another dictator. Everything is the same except the face at the podium.
Now the President says he is the one running Venezuela. I don't even know what the hell that means.
He says we control the oil. What happens if the Venezuelan people don't want that? Will he send troops into Venezuela? What is the clearly defined mission here? I don't know what it is.
Look at what has happened since he claimed he is in charge. Repression has gotten worse. Security forces are interrogating people at checkpoints, confiscating phones, and detaining journalists. Again, I ask: What was this all about? We don't know what will happen next.
Whether you support Trump's actions or oppose them, shouldn't we all agree that we should have a debate on this stuff and that we should authorize an expansion of military forces if that is what is in the future? That should be a debate. We should have a vote on it. That is all we are asking here.
This is crazy. We can't be asleep at the switch. There is no oversight, no hearings, and no votes. It is just blind obedience to the executive. That is not the way this place is supposed to run.
If my colleagues respect this institution, the House of Representatives, they will vote ``yes'' to stop this madness from going any further than it already has. We ought to vote on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, neither of my colleagues bothered to say anything about what their bill they are bringing forward actually does. They didn't say a word about it. Let's quote their own bill for them, since they clearly don't want to talk about it.
They want to ``remove U.S. Forces from hostilities in Venezuela.'' That is what the bill says. Anybody can go and read it, black ink, white paper. Let's get straight to the point.
The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela. I know they all predicted there was going to be some forever protracted war, but we were never at war with Venezuela. There are no boots on the ground. Democrats are asking us to vote on a resolution about a situation that literally does not exist.
We do not have anybody there in Venezuela fighting. There are no tanks on the ground in Caracas. There are no snipers in the tree line. It doesn't exist. Again, we are not at war.
Maybe they are conferring about that right now. Let me confer with my colleagues a minute.
Are we at war?
I confirmed with my staff we are not at war.
Are there any troops on the ground?
I confirmed with my staff also there are no troops on the ground.
Mr. Speaker, they should confer with their staff. I see them doing that.
Their Senate Democrat colleagues tried to bring this exact same resolution to the floor of the Senate, but even the Senate was smart enough to pull it because they didn't want to be embarrassed. Let's say it again. We are not at war.
Most of the Democrats predicted that we were going to be in some forever war. Which, again, by the way, they said after the strike hitting the Iranian nuclear facilities, their nuclear infrastructure, they all said we were going to be in a forever war. We weren't.
Then they said the same thing years ago when President Trump killed Qasem Soleimani. We were going to be in this forever protracted war. Guess what. We weren't. We haven't been, not for one moment since then.
My Democratic colleagues are batting zero in predicting forever wars. Operation Absolute Resolve was a law enforcement action to bring Nicolas Maduro, an indicted narcoterrorist with a $50 million bounty, to justice. President Trump finished the job.
Thank you, President Trump, for finishing the job.
It was literally over before breakfast. I have been in war. I can tell you that an operation that is over before breakfast is not a war.
The Department of War--let me say this again--is not engaged in any hostilities within the Venezuelan territory or with the Venezuelan military. They are not in tank battles. There are no tactical operations centers there. There are no convoys. There are no U.S. mess halls over there. There are no field hospitals. There are no trenches with infantry soldiers shooting at each other. We were not even there long enough for soldiers to heat up an MRE.
That is what we eat in the field in the military, guys.
Yet, just to give you a level of peace of mind because you are curious about this, Secretary Rubio confirmed in his letter last week that no U.S. Armed Forces are in Venezuela. He also confirmed that, should there be any military operations that would put our forces into hostilities with Venezuela, that the administration will provide the appropriate notifications to Congress; he literally said this in his letter.
What is this really about, this resolution that you all refused to even say a word about in your opening statements? It is about spite. It is about the fact that you don't want President Trump to arrest Maduro, and you will condemn him no matter what he does, even though he brought Maduro to justice with possibly the most successful law enforcement operation in history.
Your hypocrisy is clear, as you chant and you lead your no kings protests, but when it comes to taking down a dictator, you crawl into a corner. You curl up, and you start to cry about it.
This is about your base having protests to free Maduro. This is about appeasing your far-left friends. Now, whether my colleagues want to admit it or not, the world is a safer place because President Trump had the backbone and the stones to do what nobody else would: bring Nicolas Maduro to justice.
Let me say this as affirmatively as possible: If anybody votes ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution that my colleagues didn't want to describe, they are stupid. Because, again, there is nobody at war and there are no forces in hostilities in Venezuela. It would be like them calling me today to take a pie out of the oven that we all ate a month ago.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened in the Senate? They had a vote. First, five Republicans joined Democrats, but in his general style, two of them were very threatened by the President and had to reverse their vote the next week.
We need to have the vote here and see if the courage that the five first showed and the three that continued to show, whether my colleagues on the other side are going to have the courage to stand up and do their jobs and make sure that the power that we have in the House of Representatives to oversee the executive branch and not just be a patsy to this executive branch exists.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, not much surprises me anymore, but to sit here and to listen to the storied House Foreign Affairs Committee, chaired by somebody who calls the opposition stupid, to hear our motivations as we stand up for a fundamental constitutional prerogative mocked through ad hominem attacks, shame, sir. Shame.
We are here because we are standing for our constitutional right to be consulted on the most consequential decision that the United States can make: whether we engage in hostilities and put young men and women at risk.
The chairman's summer stock theater and cringey antics notwithstanding, this has nothing to do with whether there are troops on the ground in Venezuela. We will stipulate to your argument, pathetic as it is, Mr. Speaker.
What this is about is whether what we saw happen 3 weeks ago will happen again. There were boots on the ground 3 weeks ago, and we didn't know about it. This resolution is about saying that on the most consequential thing that this Congress can do, we have a voice--the Representatives of the people, the Article I authority.
Let's set aside Venezuela. I won't use that term again. Let's stand up for our constitutional rights to be consulted for what may happen tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, or next week. Not much surprises me anymore.
Mr. Speaker, I have watched my majority friends completely abandon their policy positions, brutally anti-immigration because of this President, obliterating free trade, completely leaving behind everything that the Republican Party used to stand for, praising Vladimir Putin, and attacking our NATO allies.
Mr. Speaker, policy flexibility is not the worst thing in the world. I wish it weren't happening because of the reason that it is happening, but policy flexibility is one thing. Yet abrogating your constitutional duty to be consulted into authorized force and then to be mocked for it, shame, sir. Shame.
We need to stand up as an institution and say that we get consulted on the most consequential things that we can do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Once again, Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just say to the distinguished chairman that his arguments are: It is either too early, or it is too late.
Our troops were on the ground. Our troops were shot at. They were wounded. Thankfully, they are home and they are safe. With this, all we are saying here is that if you are going to expand and utilize the military again, you come to Congress and ask for a vote.
That is not just our prerogative. It is our responsibility. It is in the Constitution. That is our damn job. If you don't want to do it, do something else. Yet it is our responsibility.
In terms of the gentleman's interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, I will simply suggest that maybe he and his team go to the Congressional Research Service and get a briefing to understand how it works, but this is our responsibility. It is our job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
Mr. Speaker, it is really devastating to listen to the other side talking about how we somehow were not supposed to be told when boots went on the ground before. Somehow, we were lucky enough, by God's grace, that
The U.S. military is being used against Venezuela without congressional authorization, without transparency, and in ways that appear only designed to benefit the very powerful amongst us--the oil companies--and not the Venezuelan people, and certainly not our American people to whom we are obligated to represent. It is as simple as that.
The American people don't want their sons or their daughters sent into harm's way for their missions to Venezuela or to Greenland or to anywhere else that are undertaken just to enrich corporations and the most wealthy amongst us and cronies of the President's, and to do nothing in the process to lower the cost of living, to help families afford housing or healthcare, or to secure a future for our children.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I am struck by the fact that we are at a place where we have maligned others in the past for brutish isolationism and for colonial instincts that we have long condemned in our own adversaries.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to vote ``yes,'' to do our jobs so that we may reaffirm our authority and rein in reckless action.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, I will say that this will probably be the only apology that they will get out of me today: I apologize for talking about the resolution and the text of the resolution that they still refuse to talk about. They are not willing to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mast for yielding and for his leadership on this critical issue.
Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, we are not at war with Venezuela.
Nicolas Maduro is a murderer, an autocrat, a narcoterrorist, and a thug who has oppressed his own people, stolen elections, and turned a once prosperous and free country into a desperate nation that millions have fled.
Most importantly, as for the action that the United States took against him on January 3, he is a criminal, an indicted fugitive from U.S. justice.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have demanded Maduro's removal for years, after the stolen 2024 election, the fraudulent 2018 election, and the Constituent Assembly power grab in 2017.
In fact, H. Res. 1409 of the 118th Congress is a Democrat-sponsored resolution with the unambiguous title of ``Standing in solidarity with the Venezuelan people and condemning Nicolas Maduro's attempt to steal the Venezuelan Presidential election.''
Here is another Democratic hit, H.R. 8741 of the 118th Congress, pointing to the threat to our homeland, defining Maduro as a person of concern who has engaged in a ``long-term pattern or serious instances of activity adverse to the national security of the United States, the security of critical infrastructure of the United States, or the safety and security of United States persons.''
Who can forget Democrat-sponsored H.R. 5670 of the 118th Congress that succinctly called for ``an end to the usurpation of Presidential authorities by Nicolas Maduro.''
Instead of celebrating President Trump's historic leadership on this issue and the unmatched operational excellence of the United States military, law enforcement officers, and the intelligence community in carrying out this historic and heroic effort, House Democrats are once again putting politics before protecting the American people.
Mr. Speaker, this hypocrisy is evident in the message coming from congressional Democrats. Earlier this month, Chuck Schumer stated that President Trump ``seems content to drag our country . . . into an endless war with no plan, no transparency, and nothing but wishful thinking.'' Nothing could be further from the truth.
Operation Absolute Resolve was a masterfully, meticulously planned law enforcement operation supported by the U.S. military.
I don't know how much clearer we must be with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela. None of the actions taken by the Trump administration to execute an arrest warrant on a criminal constitutes war.
The Trump administration has briefed both Chambers of Congress in detail on the operation to bring Maduro to justice, an action the Democrats in this Chamber would have celebrated had it been carried out by the feckless and failed Biden administration.
Additionally, Secretary Rubio confirmed again to Congress on January 14 that there are currently no U.S. troops in Venezuela and that the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces into future hostilities will be undertaken consistent with notification of the War Powers Resolution if required.
Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of House Democrats is palpable this afternoon in this Chamber.
I urge each of my colleagues to vote down this deeply flawed resolution and instead thank President Trump for continuing to take historic action to place the safety of the American people first.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Mast for his partnership and leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The last time we were here, the chairman was talking all about drugs. Yet, today, I have not heard anything about drugs. The President said it was about drugs. That was the imminent threat to the United States, allegedly. We don't hear anything about drugs. We don't hear anything about democracy. All we hear about is oil and taking those resources.
The fact of the matter is, they talk about ``we are not at war.'' I know that an aircraft carrier is still sitting right there where we led the attack before, where the attack took place. I know there is a blockade taking place right now, so our military is still right off the shore of Venezuela.
I know that we want to make sure that we take care of our responsibility as Members of the House of Representatives and have the oversight and safety of the President, should he decide to strike again, come to the Congress first.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Deluzio).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for the time.
Mr. Speaker, to respond to the notion of hypocrisy, that we should rely on the Secretary of State's notification when required, we were not notified--the Congress did not receive notification--or asked for authorization before Americans were sent to fight and to bleed in Venezuela.
Seven Americans were wounded in that military operation. There is a functional blockade of Venezuelan oil. As others have pointed out here, Mr. Speaker, an aircraft carrier strike group sits nearby, poised to again send Americans into Venezuela should the President order it.
Let's talk about hypocrisy. In the 118th Congress, this body voted on two War Powers Resolutions to remove Americans from hostilities that had not been authorized by the Congress. In those two votes, 52 Republicans and 47 Republicans, respectively, thought that Congress ought to have a say about our war powers. What has changed? The party of the occupant of the White House. Be consistent, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps talking about the resolution, and here it is. I did talk about the resolution, and let's talk about the resolution again. I have it right here. It is two pages.
The way the resolution is written is to comply with the War Powers Act. The resolution would simply prevent further escalation. If you are watching at home, read it yourself, H. Con. Res. 68. The reason we think we need to do that is because the administration already did not get permission before escalating the first time.
By the chairman's logic, the only time we can ever have a vote is if there are physically boots on the ground. That just is logically insane. It doesn't comport with the way the War Powers Act is written. By his logic, the President should be able to launch a preemptive nuclear war without congressional authorization. That is nuts.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ryan).
Mr. Speaker, we face a fundamental question here: Who makes the decision to send our most precious resource, our young men and women in uniform, into harm's way? Is it a five-time draft dodger who has called them suckers and losers, or is it the American people with us as their voices?
Mr. Speaker, I was on the receiving end of this same chicken-hawk bs for 27 months in combat in Iraq, and I don't need to be lectured by my colleagues. We all know how that went: thousands of American lives lost; trillions of dollars spent not on one, but two forever wars over the last 20-plus years that we should not have started in the first place; and, most importantly, no honest conversation with the American people about what would be required, what blood and treasure would be spilled halfway across the world.
Now, we are seeing it all play out again. History doesn't repeat, but it certainly rhymes. We in this room had the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State come to Congress before the end of this calendar year and blatantly lie to our faces and, more importantly, lie to the American people. Why? Because they know it isn't right or popular.
The last thing, Mr. Speaker, the American people want is another regime change war, a forever war for oil. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and to not repeat history.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there it was again, a forever war. President Trump has never brought America into a forever war. Any operation he has conducted is pretty much done before breakfast, just like Venezuela.
I think my Democrat colleagues can't wrap their heads around that something can be about more than one thing at a time. It can be about Maduro and his lawlessness. It can be about drugs. It can be about the people of Venezuela. It can also be about making sure sanctioned oil doesn't flow around the globe. It can be about more than one thing.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my friend.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. As Chairman Mast has said, there are no troops in Venezuela.
Look, the only purpose of this resolution, let's be clear, is to counter and stop narcoterrorism and drug traffickers in this hemisphere.
I know that so many on the radical left are upset that Maduro, the head of the Cartel de los Soles, was picked up and brought to New York to stand trial. These narcoterrorists are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans every single year because of drugs. Every time the U.S. eliminates one of these drug boats, it actually saves American lives.
Let's talk about what is actually going on. While there are no U.S. troops, the men and women of the Armed Forces, what they are doing is they have struck 35 drug boats smuggling drugs that kill Americans. They have seized seven oil tankers attempting to evade sanctions.
It is very simple. Let's not protect those drug dealers, those cartels. Let's protect the American people. The way to do that is to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, again, my Democrat colleagues are not speaking about the words of the resolution, the basic grammar. It says: Remove forces from hostilities. There are no forces in Venezuela. They can't just make up words. I know they like to do that. They like to say plural pronouns can be used on one person and things like that, but they can't just make up grammar. Write the bill right if you want to do it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), an individual who has truly been fighting for democracy for the Venezuelan people, who wants them to have the right to vote, an individual who has stood and is trying to keep their TPS status so they are not forced back into the regime of Maduro.
I rise in support of this resolution because I simply do not trust this President to truly prioritize democracy and the will of the Venezuelan people.
I represent one of the largest Venezuelan communities in the country. Many of my constituents fled brutal repression under Chavez and Maduro. Most of them were glad to see Maduro captured and face justice, and so was I.
Maduro is a murderous criminal who tortured, imprisoned, impoverished, and oppressed his people. He stole elections, jailed his opponents, drained his nation's wealth, and unleashed the largest peacetime refugee crisis in history.
Mr. Speaker, 8 million Venezuelans were driven into exile.
I was glad to see Maduro held accountable, and this resolution, as my colleague who just spoke, Mr. Diaz-Balart, would clearly know, would not preclude operations like the one that arrested him, especially if the administration finally does what they should have already done: come up with a day-after plan for democracy, present a coherent strategy to Congress, and make a case to the American people.
Arresting Maduro does not fix Venezuela because Maduro did not destroy Venezuela by himself. He relied on criminal affiliates who helped him cling to power. Delcy Rodriguez, Jorge Rodriguez, Diosdado Cabello, Vladimir Padrino Lopez, all of them share Maduro's guilt, but instead of being thrown in jail, they were left in charge.
The machinery of repression was left in place, and the democratic hopes of Venezuelans are being left behind.
My constituents who celebrated Maduro's capture are horrified to see President Trump normalize relations with the same regime that forced them to flee. This President must not make the U.S. complicit in the brutal repression of Venezuelans which continues today.
Yet, Trump continues to jeopardize the lives of lawful Venezuelan immigrants by forcing them back into the chaos after he terminated their TPS.
Trump has lavished praise on Maduro's hand-picked replacement, Delcy Rodriguez, who ran the regime's torture dungeons. Meanwhile, he has dismissed and demeaned Venezuela's democratic leaders like Maria Corina Machado and president-elect Edmundo Gonzalez.
In fact, President Trump hasn't said one word about seeking democracy or human rights in Venezuela.
If Congress backs military action, then democracy, stability, and safety for Venezuelans should be the objective. But those aren't President Trump's goals. He only speaks about getting a cut of the regime's oil sales and ignores their ongoing repression.
I have no illusions about the dangers this regime poses. I am open to the idea that military action may be needed to achieve democracy. If Trump truly cared about Venezuelan democracy, he has tools at his disposal. He has broad authority to defend our national security interests. He could employ covert action, enforce vigorous sanctions, support civil society groups on democracy's front lines, and take action, as he does, against cartels and narcoterrorists. He could use his ``tremendous leverage'' to push for elections in human rights because this resolution doesn't block any of that.
Instead, Trump is just seeking profits for the same Big Oil companies who propped up Maduro for years. He moved on his own with no plan for democracy, and he swapped out one dictator for another and declared mission accomplished.
My vote today isn't about the means that this President used to capture Maduro. Presidents should use the power they have to be tough on dictators who abuse their own people. But given his utter disdain for democracy and his callous disregard for the chaos and violence to which law-abiding Venezuelans are being deported, I simply
For all we know, Trump plans to deploy troops to protect the regime's oil facilities, not to liberate Venezuelans. I have known Maria Corina Machado for years, but this week I was able to finally meet her in person for the first time. She is remarkable, inspiring, and I have total faith in her selfless dedication to bring Venezuela out of darkness. More importantly, Venezuelans have faith in her.
When she spoke, she discussed the essential momentum the democracy movement needs and the danger of allowing this lingering dictatorship to reinforce its grip on power. She told us conditions on the ground are dire, that we cannot allow the regime and the military militias to strengthen their hold on power.
Maria Corina has a vision to resurrect Venezuela, and there is a U.S. role to see it through. That is why it is so disturbing that her White House meeting ended with no firm commitments, no timeline for elections, and no guarantees from President Trump.
Instead of opening a pathway to democracy, this President is focused on opening offshore accounts to hoard Venezuelan oil money.
So I support this resolution because of my faith in Maria Corina Machado, not in spite of it. It is rooted in an ongoing commitment to standing resolutely with Venezuelans to demand an end to this illegal regime. It is aligned with my belief that a transition to democracy led by Maria Corina Machado and Edmundo Gonzalez must take place.
I hope I am wrong about the President's motivation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I hope I am wrong about the President's motivations, and he brings Congress a real strategy to transition Venezuela to democracy. I hope he was moved by Maria Corina Machado's vision and not just her Nobel Prize. I am a show-me person, not a tell-me person, and so far President Trump has shown that he is more concerned with seizing Venezuela's oil than freeing Venezuela from dictatorship. ``Hasta el final''; ``Until the end.''
Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is now running Venezuela from Washington.
On January 3, the President ordered a military operation to capture Nicolas Maduro and install the President's hand-picked successor, Delcy Rodriguez, as the interim president.
President Trump went to war, removed a leader, and established a puppet government.
The President executed this transition when the most popular opposition leader, Nobel Prize winner Maria Corina Machado, was out of the country. If he wanted to, the President could help her return to Venezuela. It is telling that he is not.
Article I of the Constitution of the United States makes it clear that Congress has the sole authority to declare war.
The President, in taking these actions without our consent, has trampled on the separation of powers and taken the American people into yet another war that they do not want and cannot afford.
People are wondering and they are asking: What was it for? Was it to remove the socialists? No, the socialists are still in power. Delcy Rodriguez is a true believer in the same ideology and party that Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro championed.
Was it to remove drug dealers in the hemisphere? No, the same Venezuelan Government that he says is dealing drugs is still in charge because of him.
So clearly this is not about socialists, and it is not about drugs.
Donald Trump has said this is about oil and enriching multibillion- dollar companies over the will of the American people.
Congress, unfortunately, has not stood up to his despotic actions.
He is not listening to Congress or to the American people. He has threatened military action against Greenland, Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Panama; and he has threatened to keep sidestepping Congress if you will let him.
At a time when Americans are struggling to pay for rent, groceries, and childcare, they don't want us to spend billions in Venezuela. They would rather we spend that money here.
But somebody is getting rich.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump has set up offshore bank accounts in Qatar outside the U.S. system, and only he knows where the money is going.
There is a $500 million slush fund that the President is controlling right now. We are not going to benefit from that.
Now, I ask my colleagues who have not joined us: How long will you stand by and be on the sidelines of the most consequential decision a country can make, to go to war?
Are we a Congress or are we cowards?
Will you stand up for the American people, and do what is right?
Mr. Speaker, it is always a laughable argument when Democrats try to say the President is enriching himself.
Just as one example, in this case you don't see him collecting a $50 million bounty for bringing in Nicolas Maduro, a bounty that the previous administration agreed with, because he is never in it for the money. He is in it for America every single time.
I would encourage them to talk to their colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and ask her if things are better or worse for Venezuelans today than they were under Maduro.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
My friend, the chairman, referred to stupidity in debating this resolution. I would like to talk about hypocrisy and illiteracy. Ten days before Joe Biden left office, he raised the bounty on Nicolas Maduro to $25 million. Now, I don't know if my Democratic colleagues thought that he would go: Wow, $25 million, maybe I should just turn myself in.
I would like to believe that when they put that bounty out there they actually believed he should be removed from office.
There is an old Twitter post from President Biden that said: ``Trump talks tough on Venezuela, but admires thugs and dictators like Nicolas Maduro.''
Guess what, Mr. Speaker.
I think President Trump showed in actions, not words, that he was determined to remove a drug lord, and that is what Nicolas Maduro was, from power.
The President doesn't have to let us know every time they go and arrest somebody who has broken the law. That is exactly what happened here.
Now I want to talk about illiteracy. My friend, the chairman, talked about people not understanding what is in the resolution. Before I got to Congress, I used to complain about really long bills that no one read before they voted on them. Well, this one is six lines long, and it doesn't talk about things like my colleague spoke about like escalation. This resolution deals with escalation.
That is not what it does. It is six lines, and two of them say this: ``Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Venezuela . . . ''
There aren't any there.
They proposed to have us vote on something that is irrelevant because the action they want to stop is not taking place. There is no war there now.
I think what my colleagues are is shell-shocked because after all of these years of empty comments condemning Maduro, empty statements by them, empty statements by Joe Biden talking about how bad of a man he was, we finally have a President who actually went and did something about it.
That is what President Trump did. We should be proud. We should be thanking him. We should be supporting him for what he did, and we should be voting down this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what kind of man, when a woman earned the Nobel Peace Prize, Maria Corina Machado, said that he wanted it, and she, trying to fight for democracy, came in, and he took it. He didn't earn it.
What kind of man does that?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).
Mr. Speaker, the military intervention in Venezuela left us with uncertainty, instability, and insecurity. As a veteran, I commend the military operation to remove Maduro on January 3, but as an American, it left uncertainty for the day after. By replacing one despot with another, we are uncertain as to the government, to the oil, to the cartels, and to the future of democracy in Venezuela.
This type of military adventurism can also create instability not just in Venezuela, but in the region, and that creates insecurity for the United States.
As we saw this week about Greenland, the President wants spheres of influence rather than stability from a rules-based order. Instead of standing up to China and Russia, the President just wants to impress them by acting like them, rather than being better than them.
That is what happens when we have a President that doesn't just want his own sphere of influence, he wants his own sphere of governance, especially when it comes to putting boots on the ground.
This War Powers Resolution would not only prevent that in Venezuela without further congressional approval, it will also demonstrate that this Congress can actually act like a coequal branch of government and fulfill our responsibilities under the United States Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this War Powers Resolution because the integrity of this institution is in question.
Every Member of this House has a duty to uphold the Constitution's system of checks and balances by exercising its Article I powers entrusted to us.
The executive's military exercise to capture the leader of Venezuela represents one of the most blatant usurpations of congressional authority we have seen in modern times. If we ignore it, then we are not merely acquiescing to executive overreach, we are rendering impotent our branch of government.
Thomas Paine said in 1776: ``A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.''
Some of my Republican colleagues may feel obligated to acquiesce because it is our party occupying the White House. It is our party who is the Commander in Chief, but the precedents we tolerate today will inevitably be used against us tomorrow when the reins of power change hands. That is precisely why our loyalty must be to the Constitution and not to any party.
If our country wants war, then Congress must vote on it. We are the voice of the people. There is a reason so many of our offices bear a Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Flag. It is a solemn reminder of the human cost of war and our obligation, not the obligation of a single executive or a private circle of special interests, to decide when to go to war.
Even the executive branch knows that Congress had the authority, not them.
Do you remember the night of the invasion, Mr. Speaker?
It was the Attorney General who explained this was just a law enforcement action that the military was merely assisting.
That is the problem we have because then it became obvious that we were undertaking a military exercise. If the unilateral use of force was not enough, then the executive has compounded this abuse by seizing Venezuela's oil revenues, selling them, and depositing that money in U.S. Treasury-controlled accounts overseas.
So now the executive presumes the authority to appropriate money. That is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution is unambiguous: ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law . . . ''
There was no law, and there has been no law to appropriate this money that was seized in an act of war.
If we allow an executive to seize foreign resources and direct spending from pillaged accounts without congressional authorization, then people no longer have a voice in their government, and Congress' power of the purse becomes moot.
If the executive believes war is justified, then let Congress declare it. If the executive believes foreign assets may be seized, spent, and appropriated, then let Congress appropriate them. That is how a Republic functions.
My colleague is still not talking about the six lines of the resolution that says to remove forces from Venezuela. They are not talking about it because there are no forces in Venezuela.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution because it is nothing more than a weak and pointless attempt to attack our President and undermine our national security.
We conducted a 40-minute operation to remove a drug-trafficking narcoterrorist, and Democrats are acting like we started world war III.
For that brief, targeted action, they now insist Congress must step in and tie the President's hands.
Let's be clear about how ridiculous this resolution truly is. It orders the United States to withdraw forces from Venezuela, yet there are no U.S. forces in Venezuela to withdraw. You cannot remove troops that don't even exist. That alone shows how unserious Democrats are in this effort.
They also claim the act to remove Maduro was unconstitutional, which ignores Article II and decades of bipartisan precedent where Presidents have undertaken limited military action without a declaration of war.
Clinton acted in Kosovo. Obama acted in Libya. Most similarly, George H.W. Bush captured drug-trafficker Manuel Noriega back in 1990. No one screamed constitutional crisis then. In fact, those acts were celebrated by both sides, and they were upheld by Federal courts.
The bottom line is that Nicolas Maduro is a criminal defendant charged by the United States Department of Justice for narcoterrorism and drug-trafficking offenses, including conspiring to import cocaine into the United States and related weapon charges. He has run his regime like a cartel: flooding our country with poison and destroying American lives.
This was not an act of war. It was an act of law enforcement. This resolution does nothing to protect the Constitution, nothing to make America safer, and nothing to stop the drugs killing our communities.
Mr. Speaker, oil over democracy. Trump has made clear his priorities, accepting ruthless suppression by Maduro's comrades so long as the oil profits flow to him as the self-described acting President of Venezuela.
With one major oil company describing the country as uninvestable, Trump has absolutely no winning strategy to secure any benefits for the American people.
He doesn't just want to be king of America. He wants to be king of the universe. He wants to be a Putin or a Xi, disrupting the global order that bipartisan American leaders made possible to prevent another world war.
Imperialism, starting wars around the world wherever Trump's latest whim takes him, will not Make America Great Again. It will make us much less safe.
To found this country, Americans got rid of one despotic king. We don't need another one. Instead, we must demand an accountable President by adopting this important resolution and asserting the power of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I have still not gotten an answer to the only question that matters today: Why did we strike Venezuela, spending taxpayer money and putting American troops in harm's way to replace Maduro with his own Vice President, someone who is an illegitimate ruler who is just as ruthless and evil as Maduro?
I don't know why we did that. What was the point? Not a single one of my colleagues can answer that question because they have no answer. They know voting for this resolution is right.
If people want to put our troops in harm's way, if they genuinely believe more military action may be necessary in the future, if that is what you believe, whether to defend oil fields or to do something else, then you shouldn't just pound the damn lectern and wave the flag. You need to come before this entire Chamber to move a bill to authorize the use of military force.
My friends should have the guts and backbone to put an Authorization for Use of Military Force on the floor. Spell out the mission. Spell out the objectives. Tell the American people how long it lasts, what it costs, why it matters, and how we get a legitimate, democratic government in Venezuela. Have the guts to vote. That is all this resolution is requiring, but don't give me this bs about how before the strikes it was premature to vote, and now it is too late.
I have seen this movie before, Mr. Speaker. It always starts with the White House telling us that it will be quick, clean, and over in a matter of days. Then, months later, years later, you get troops deployed, kids coming home in caskets, and taxpayers paying for endless quagmires that never end, and the same people here on the floor telling us that we are premature or crying wolf are suddenly nowhere to be found.
That is the truth, Mr. Speaker. Wars are easy to start, but they are hard as hell to stop.
This resolution ought to pass no matter what you believe about further military involvement in Venezuela. What it says plainly is that if the President is contemplating further military action, then he has a moral and a constitutional obligation to come here and get our approval.
The people we represent did not send us here to be potted plants while the White House sleepwalks us into another mess. If this administration wants to escalate, make the case to the American people. Get consent through their elected Representatives. Follow the Constitution.
Let me tell you what I think. I think this was all so that Donald Trump could get a good headline. I think it was so he could distract from the lousy economy and the fact that he is still covering up the Epstein files. I think it is about theft because the oil being taken from the people of Venezuela is being sold off and used to finance a slush fund in Qatar controlled by, you guessed it, Donald Trump.
I don't think I have ever seen such a brazen example of corruption in my life. The President of the United States put American troops in harm's way so he could steal oil from Venezuela and deposit it into his own pocket. I think it is a disgraceful thing to do.
It is time for my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to grow a spine, obey their oath, and do their damn jobs. You should vote ``yes'' on this resolution, whether you support President Trump's actions or you disagree with them.
All this says is simply that if he wants to expand military operations, he has to come to Congress. It is that simple. It is not complicated. This is about the Constitution. This is about our oath. This is about representing the people who sent us here. I mean, to do anything less is a dereliction of our duty.
I can't even believe that this is controversial, the idea that somehow we don't want to vote on whether to authorize the use of military force, whether it is in Venezuela or anywhere else.
What is wrong with my colleagues who think this is such a big leap that this is somehow not justified? Read the Constitution.
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, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The last time I was on this floor, I had a question, and I still have that same question. I heard Members on the other side talk about the President trying to protect the American people. In fact, I heard someone--and I understand why Nicolas Maduro was indicted.
I am going to ask the chairman again. I don't know whether he wants to answer this question, but if that is true, why did the President of the United States pardon a former leader of Honduras, the former President, who was convicted of drug trafficking, who bragged about shoving drugs up the noses of the gringos? Why did the President of the United States pardon him?
I yield to the gentleman from Florida to respond to my question.
Reclaiming my time, yeah, okay, that is funny. It is because he does not care. It never was about drugs. It was always about oil. That is why. He doesn't care. That is why he took the Nobel Peace Prize from someone else who earned it. He doesn't care. He cares about one person--himself--and enriching his family and his friends.
Mr. Speaker, this War Powers Resolution introduced by Representative McGovern would put an immediate end to this administration's reckless military interventions in Venezuela. We cannot allow the Constitution to be usurped by one President who believes he can unilaterally declare war, invade a sovereign nation, and buck the rules-based international system we helped build.
If the House fails to check President Trump's aggression today, it will not end in Venezuela. I know the White House is paying close attention to this vote, and if we don't stand now and reassert our Article I power over matters of war and peace, we will have abdicated one of our most solemn responsibilities and reduced ourselves to a rubberstamp and become no better than the Duma in Russia.
Our constituents sent us here to lower their costs, not to sit on our hands while the President keeps doing what he pleases. Let us make sure we pass this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me answer some of the questions that my colleagues put up.
Why did President Trump take Maduro? It was to protect the homeland of the United States of America, as he has done with action after action after action. It is the same reason that two Presidents put a warrant, a bounty, on Nicolas Maduro--not just President Trump, but also President Biden. That is why Nicolas Maduro was snatched up, because of his poisoning of the people of the United States of America.
Again, something can be true and also be true about another action and another action and another action. It was because of the bounty. It was because of the warrant. It was because of the drugs that he was bringing to the United States of America. It was because of his partnership with China, Iran, and Russia, to be their foothold in the Western Hemisphere for their nefarious activities. It was because of the illegal shipments of oil that they were moving on Russian ships to China that were coming out of Venezuela. It was because of a lot of things that this took place.
Does the President have a plan for the future? He does, 100 percent: free and fair elections, freedom for the people of Venezuela. Ask the people of Venezuela if that is what they want. Ask the people of Venezuela if they are better today than they were before
President Trump has brought hope to our homeland by protecting this homeland that has been ignored for so long. He has brought hope to so many others around the globe, the people of Venezuela, people across the Middle East, people across Europe, people in place after place because of his actions.
He is the peace President. He has proven it over and over again. He has never been the President of forever wars. He has yet to create one. He has only worked in limited operations that protect the homeland of the United States of America and done the best job of it in the history of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 21, 2026, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the bill (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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1009, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 6359.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Michigan?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Pregnant Students' Rights Act, legislation that affirms a simple but powerful principle: Expecting mothers should be encouraged to pursue their education like any other student.
Pregnant students often receive incorrect guidance or no guidance at all on how to navigate classes while pregnant. In many cases, women feel pressured to end their pregnancies or risk academic failure despite protections that exist now under Federal law.
The Pregnant Students' Rights Act requires schools to clearly communicate what accommodations and protections pregnant and parenting students are entitled to. That includes excused absences for medical needs, the ability to make up missed work, and protection from discrimination and retaliation.
More specifically, this bill requires information to be emailed to students at least once each academic year and appear in student handbooks at orientation, at student health or counseling centers, and on the institution's website. When students know their rights, they are empowered to stay enrolled, stay engaged, and succeed.
This legislation doesn't burden colleges. It simply increases transparency by helping schools communicate consistently and avoid confusion or unnecessary disputes.
This is a commonsense, compassionate measure that promotes transparency and ensures pregnant students have the support they need to create a better future for themselves and their child.
Mr. Speaker, let's cherish life for both the child and his or her mother who dreams of academic success. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Pregnant Students' Rights Act and stand up for the dignity, opportunity, and educational success of every student.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.
This bill requires schools to provide pregnant students with information about on campus and community resources and accommodations to assist them in carrying a baby to term while they pursue an education.
Unfortunately, instead of sharing unbiased and comprehensive information, this bill requires schools to distribute only partial information about a student's rights under Title IX and selective information and resources that solely encourage students to carry a pregnancy to term.
It provides no information about rights and accommodations for students who may find themselves in a medical situation that requires an abortion. Now, repeating the idea that comprehensive information must be provided does not make it true.
Title IX entitles the students to the information, but this bill only requires some of that information to be provided. Now while the bill's proponents continue to assert that students are
By shielding students from health information, resources, and the rights that are available to them, Republicans are denying them the ability to choose what may be best for them and their families.
Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just have to go back to the same argument that we had in committee.
We don't prohibit schools from giving a full panoply of information. Our concern is that they haven't been.
Pregnant students have been left without full information, full information that comes and is required by law under Title IX on all aspects of medical care, of counseling, and of opportunity. But sadly, that has been left out as far as saying if you are pregnant and you want to continue as pregnant in this school, we are going to support you in that.
Title IX gives all of the information. We are not going to be redundant. We are just making sure that you also include, young lady, if you are pregnant and you want to continue in school, we are going to do our best to help you and provide all the resources. I just wish we could catch hold of this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), the sponsor of this commonsense, compassionate, and helpful bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time and for his excellent work in shepherding this bill through the Education and Workforce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support my bill, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act. This is a commonsense piece of legislation because when Roe v. Wade was rightfully overturned in 2022, the next chapter of the pro- life movement began. We were all given the opportunity to help strengthen our support for unborn babies and for new moms.
As a mom of two, this issue is personal for me. I know that when you are pregnant, there are about a million questions that are going through your head at any given time. You have the doctors' appointments. You have new financial responsibilities. Pregnant students have so much on their plate as they are working to balance school and have a healthy pregnancy at the same time.
I think it is just unacceptable that so often they would choose between finishing their education and having their baby, despite the Title IX protections that are already in place.
Under Title IX, pregnant students have the right to stay in school and finish their education and achieve their career goals. However, the academic disparity does exist because of limited resources and support for pregnant students.
These women may fear institutional reprisal, loss of athletic scholarships, or even negative impacts on their academic opportunities and their standing. Those fears and anxieties are not just unjust to women but they are a poor reflection of how our higher education institutions treat pregnant students.
Higher education institutions and universities have a responsibility to empower all their students, all of them, to succeed, including pregnant students. They deserve to be treated with respect and surrounded with care and love. That is what this piece of legislation is designed to do.
I have visited pregnancy resource centers in Iowa and met with so many of those who have dedicated their cause to life, many of whom have traveled right here to Washington, D.C., for the March for Life this weekend. It may be a snowy March for Life this weekend.
It has been inspiring to me to see all of the pro-life community spring into action to really help our expecting mothers and their babies to thrive because that is what this movement is all about. It is about recognizing the sanctity of every life and valuing life at every stage.
It is crucial pregnant women know they have people standing behind them, resources available to them, and that they are entitled to these accommodations on campus. Completing an education as a mother is not only empowering for the student but vital to ensuring a strong future for her child, for our next generation.
The Pregnant Students' Rights Act amends the Higher Education Act to require our colleges and universities to clearly distribute information about pregnant students' rights and available resources through student handbooks, emails, websites, and orientations, while promoting accountability when those students' rights are violated.
It is troubling that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so dug in on their pro-abortion stances and agenda that they would oppose providing pregnant students with information on their rights and resources available to them to continue their education and have a healthy pregnancy.
Supporting women who choose life should not be a partisan issue. Every woman who completes her studies while pregnant strengthens our families, our communities, and our workforce. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will help to vote to empower pregnant students and support this vital life-affirming legislation.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a step in the right direction to creating a culture of life in our society and a step that we must take as we continue to pursue policies that help our families to grow and thrive from Iowa and beyond across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Bobby Scott, for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, like so many women across the country, I struggled for so many years to get pregnant. My husband and I tried everything that we could do to start a family of our own. Being a mom for me was what I always wanted to do. I wanted to be the best mom that I could be.
When we finally succeeded, I remember that I had never really been so happy. All the prayers I prayed to God, I finally felt like my prayers were answered. The moment I prayed for, for years, was happening. I wanted to tell everyone that I was going to be a mom, but one day I woke up covered in blood.
It is hard to describe the agony of a miscarriage. It is hard to describe the heartbreak and the utter helplessness. You fall directly into pain and despair.
After my second miscarriage, I wondered if God ever had plans for me to be a mom. When I got pregnant a third time, I was completely overjoyed. At 4 months, I was rushed to the hospital where I learned I had suffered a fetal demise. That means a stillborn.
My doctors thought it would be safer to end the pregnancy naturally. For 2 weeks, I carried my stillborn child within my womb, within my belly. For 2 weeks, I carried that lost pregnancy.
For 2 weeks, I carried my dead fetus as they waited for me to go into labor. I never ended up going into labor on my own. When the doctors finally induced me, I faced the pain of childbirth without the hope for a living child.
This story is uniquely mine, but it is not just my story. Millions of women in our country--women in this room, women all throughout America, women that people here actually know and love--have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth.
Congress should be making sure that women are aware of all of their rights, not just cherry-picking the ones that we want to highlight over others to make a point about abortion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, for the women in your life whose stories you don't even know, for the women across the country whose lives you may not even understand--the choices and the environments that they live in--and for the women in America who have gone through things some people can never even imagine, I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided bill.
It is not that we are not trying to empower women who are making choices during their pregnancy. That is not it at all. Let's make sure that they are empowered with every tool, every resource, and every bit of information they deserve to make the choices they need to make about their lives, their bodies, and their pregnancies.
This body should not determine what decisions they make for themselves. We talk about God. God gives us choice. God gives us choice to make the decisions that we believe are best for ourselves. We have no right to take those choices away from them.
Mr. Speaker, I ask every colleague on the other side of the aisle--I have been there. I have had to make choices. Let's do the right thing and make sure that every woman has the full breadth of the ability to make the choices that she needs to make.
Mr. Speaker, to my dear friend and colleague from Georgia, as she has discussed that tragic story with me before, my heart does break. Having experienced that in my own personal family, as well, I understand what she is saying.
I am just not capable, I guess, of communicating that this bill is affording all the questions to be answered and all of the issue to be addressed. It also gives pregnant women, who are blessed to be able to continue carrying to completion, the opportunity to also know that their academic opportunity will continue, as well. That is all we are attempting to do.
My heart breaks with that story, but my heart also says we want to make sure--that is why I appreciate Representative Hinson's bill--it expands the opportunity for the information that is given.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), chair of the Congressional Family Caucus and also a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6359, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker, college can be a challenging environment, especially for pregnant women. Many feel forced to choose between motherhood and their education. Nearly 30 percent of all abortions in the United States are performed on women in college.
Title IX already protects the right of pregnant women to stay in school. However, many of them face a lack of resources and support. Some even fear punishment and a loss of scholarships simply for carrying their baby to full term while taking classes.
The Pregnant Students' Rights Act requires colleges and universities to inform pregnant women of their rights and protections. This includes information on modified class schedules or excused absences.
This bill also requires universities to inform pregnant women how to file a complaint with the Department of Education if their Title IX protections are violated. Let me be clear: No woman should ever have to choose between finishing her education or experiencing the joy of motherhood.
To my colleague on the other side, I have had a similar situation also, but I do want to thank her for acknowledging that the life within her was a baby. Women are fully capable of raising children and getting an education at the same time. I know because I did it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Hinson for her leadership on the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6359, a bill that claims to protect pregnant students but actually mandates that they get less, not more information about their rights.
If the sponsor of this bill and the majority party actually believed in supporting student parents, then they would take real action, not just grandstand on the House floor because the March for Life is this weekend.
The bill before us today requires the dissemination of incomplete information, but it also comes after House Republicans have worked alongside the Trump regime to dismantle and weaken the Department of Education and protections for students who file complaints around Title IX violations, among other things.
It has dismantled subsidized loan programs and financial aid. It has decimated Medicaid, the number one payer for births in this country, in order to pay for tax breaks for the ultrawealthy and fund ICE's violent reign in our communities.
If we believed in supporting student parents, we would put more money into childcare subsidies, more money into financial aid, and more money into food assistance so that the women in college, the people who are students who get pregnant, who have a tough decision to make, would have all of the resources and support they need to make the decision that is right for them.
It is not our job to tell a student what decision is right for them. It is not our job to tell any high school graduate that they need to go to college, right? I hear Republicans say that all the time. I tend to agree. I believe that students deserve all of the options and all of the support to make the choice that is right for them.
Yet mandating incomplete information while gutting the programs that would allow a pregnant student to choose to stay pregnant and to choose to complete school is a fallacy. It is political theater, and it is doing a disservice to the students who we are purporting to support.
I have had a chance to work with a lot of students who have become pregnant, both from around the time I was in junior high, when a friend of mine had a pregnancy scare, to a time when I was in college, to being a volunteer in the bay area where I was on a rapid response line in case someone needed to take a bus 3\1/2\ hours from their college campus into the city. That is because that was the only place they could access either maternity care, OB/GYN care, or access abortion care. We have not funded healthcare in rural communities across the country. We have gutted programs that provide actual support for pregnant people.
This is a joke. This let's make sure they get an email with all of the information. It is unserious.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and to take serious action to support students, pregnant or not.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will make a few factual comments in response and also provide some information relative to my colleague's previous comments.
Republicans just passed working families tax cuts, which gave American families the largest tax cut in American history. Under the bill, the typical family will get up to $10,900 in additional take-home pay. Households earning less than $100,000 will get a 12 percent tax cut compared to July 2025. Equally as important, if not more so, the child tax credit will double to $2,200 for more than 40 million American families.
That is taking into consideration the children that come from pregnancy who are born. We are not leaving them without resources. The working families tax cuts promotes life by putting hardworking families first, ensuring that they keep their hard-earned money in their pockets for their necessary uses.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I suggest that that big, ugly bill gave tax cuts primarily to the wealthy, but, meanwhile, it cut healthcare, Medicaid, SNAP benefits, and ran up trillions of dollars in additional debt.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from over 50 organizations representing civil rights, labor organizations, youth advocates, women's rights, reproductive rights, and others.
Mr. Speaker, they describe the Pregnant Students' Rights Act as: ``a thinly veiled anti-abortion law which would not address key barriers to pregnant students' educational attainment, but would instead further shame and stigmatize people for their pregnancy outcomes.''
They further say: ``This bill that purports to `protect the rights of pregnant students' falls far short of the protections that are actually necessary for pregnant and parenting students and their children.''
It points out that if you really want to be serious, there are some things that we could actually do to support the students, such as: explicit protections under Title IX; nondiscrimination protections at the State and local level; accessible and affordable childcare; access to early childhood education and pre-kindergarten services; transportation services; and others that would actually make a difference.
Mr. Speaker, we have constantly heard that they are providing comprehensive information and not amending Title IX. The fact is that Title IX does have comprehensive rights that are listed under Title IX that are comprehensive.
This bill, however, only requires partial information about those rights. When only partial information is given, that could have fatal consequences to women. Tragically, women have died because of anti- abortion legislation that was passed in some States that require women to be close to death before they can have what could have been a safe abortion if performed earlier. If they mistime it and get closer to death than they thought, many have actually died in those circumstances.
Legislators voted for those laws. We have to note that we should not allow colleges to withhold information that could save women's lives.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this bill would not pass under that situation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a list of significant pro-family, pro-life medical community members, family research members, and students in support of the Pregnant Students' Rights Act.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Scott for his leadership and for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill because, among other reasons, the information that is required is incomplete and biased.
As written, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act is unfairly limited regarding the information it requires colleges to provide to students and the students it chooses to support. It does not include information about comprehensive family planning resources, and it only supports pregnant students who carry a baby to term.
Simply put, the bill fails to support any student with a different pregnancy-related outcome.
I, like my colleague from Georgia, had a wanted pregnancy. I was past the first trimester when I had an ultrasound, and the doctor said this was not viable, not a viable pregnancy, so they sent me to the hospital to have a procedure.
My colleagues might think that is terrible, but had I been in a post- Dobbs world or a State where that wasn't possible, I could have just been made to wait and risk my reproductive health. I went on to have two healthy children because I had that procedure.
The intent of this bill is clear, Mr. Speaker. It is clear from the text. It is clear from the debate. It is certainly clear from the timing. It is another attempt to have politicians interfere in the intensely personal decision of when and whether to have a child, a decision that should be made only by the pregnant student, not by Members of Congress.
In the wake of Dobbs, many States have prohibited or tried to prohibit healthcare providers and health plans from offering or covering certain reproductive healthcare services. These anti-abortion efforts have disproportionately harmed some students whose access to services and information is affected by their geographical barriers, depending on where they are in college.
Pregnant and parenting students deserve access to a full range of family planning resources and reproductive healthcare options that keep them healthy and on track for academic success, regardless of where they go to college.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would make clear that institutions of higher education will also provide medically accurate and comprehensive information and resources about all reproductive healthcare services, including contraception and abortion rights.
The biased, anti-choice effort underpinning this bill will make it harder for students to make informed decisions about what is best for them. Promoting partisan legislation that fails to address the full healthcare needs of students does not promote academic success.
Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a decision that belongs to the pregnant student, not to Members of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of this amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Oregon?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, State abortion bans have undermined healthcare for pregnant women, causing women to experience life-threatening health conditions and complications, with some women tragically losing their lives because of laws that legislators voted for.
Now, House Republicans are going to make things worse by limiting students' access to information about available resources, including information about their right to receive accommodations and protections under Federal civil rights laws available to pregnant or parenting students on college campuses. Women should have access to all relevant information so they can make informed decisions about their futures.
By requiring schools to provide only some information that encourages students to carry a pregnancy to term, this bill could unduly endanger students' health by keeping them in the dark about their rights and resources available to them.
The supporters keep saying that they are not amending Title IX, which entitles students to all of this information. They keep ignoring the fact that this bill only requires that some, not all, of that important information be provided. Repeating a misrepresentation does not make it true.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to reemphasize that this bill is about ensuring pregnant students know the rights given to them under Title IX, which cover all the concerns that my colleagues, with all due respect, on the other side of the aisle say they want included. Title IX includes all of that.
We want students to know the rights given to them under Title IX without creating excessive regulations or requirements for colleges and universities.
Despite what some of my colleagues have said today, the Pregnant Students' Rights Act doesn't promote a certain viewpoint or ideology. It simply affirms a basic principle, and that principle is that pregnant students deserve to know their rights when pursuing an education.
I don't believe that to be too radical, Mr. Speaker, and I don't believe the American people do either. In fact, for years, many of my Democratic colleagues acknowledged that abortion is a serious and difficult decision and supported efforts to ensure women were not forced into it by a lack of resources or support. They joined in passing legislation to help women who choose to continue their pregnancies. Yet, today, some of those efforts are being undermined unless amendments that explicitly promote abortion are included.
It is deeply disappointing that some of my Democratic colleagues have chosen to turn this straightforward transparency bill into an abortion debate, implying that support for pregnant students is contingent on including pro-abortion provisions. Why must an innocent baby ever be seen as an enemy or obstacle to success?
This bill also does not provide medical advice or dictate what specific resources colleges and universities may list. For that reason, I would encourage those who oppose this legislation on those grounds to carefully re-read the bill's plain language. We all know that when individuals know their rights, they are able to make informed decisions that are best for them, their families, and their futures.
Mr. Speaker, this is why I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1009, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 7147) 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 bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, nays 207, not voting 4, as follows:
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. STEFANIK changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1014 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 7148.
Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine) 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. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with Mr. Fine in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2, printed in part B of House
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 119-462 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Massie of Kentucky.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Norman of South Carolina.
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 part B of House Report 119-462, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), 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 164, noes 268, not voting 4, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mr. JAMES changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. FLOOD changed his 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 part B of House Report 119-462, offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 136, noes 291, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fine) having assumed the chair, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania, 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. 7148) making further consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 1014, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, 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 the passage of the bill. Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5- minute vote on:
Passage of H.R. 7148 will be followed by 2-minute votes on:
The motion to recommit H.R. 6359;
Passage of H.R. 6359, if ordered; and
Adoption of H. Con. Res. 68.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 341, nays 88, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (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, offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 216, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is 1 minute remaining.
Messrs. LANGWORTHY and FLOOD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. LEE of Nevada and Mr. MIN changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Removal of the Use of United States Forces for Hostilities Within or Against Venezuela
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 68) to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent resolution.
This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 215, not voting 1, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the concurrent resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate two families that were awarded Century Farm status at the Pennsylvania Farm Show last week.
Agriculture has a long history in the Commonwealth and has been one of the State's first industries. For the prosperity of the State, it is important to preserve these farms and pass them to the next generation.
Pennsylvania leads the Nation in the number of preserved farms, and the Century and Bicentennial Farm programs recognize the commitment and hard work that these families have endured to keep their farms in production.
This year, two families from Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District were presented with the Century Farm status.
Jeremiah Keck is a resident of DuBois, and the Keck Family Farm dates back to 1860. Their farm and barn were built in 1931 and are still used. Some historical photos of their farm are preserved in the Library of Congress. Their farm is one of the 40 Century Farms in Clearfield County.
Scott and Cheryl Kinter, from Smicksburg, have farmed almost 100 acres of land since 1867. Indiana County has 56 Century Farms.
Mr. Speaker, I thank these families for their hard work and their dedication to the agriculture industry.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate my neighbor, Helen Moraga's, 100th birthday.
Helen graduated in 1945 from Santa Ana High School. After graduating, she played shortstop on an all-female professional baseball team in Orange County.
Later, Helen married Frank Gomez Moraga, a fellow Orange County resident, and they raised their three sons in the same neighborhood they grew up in.
Helen and Frank were married for 60 years and shared 12 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren.
At 100 years young, Helen loves reading, gardening, and spending time with her friends and family.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the 43rd anniversary of the devastating Roe v. Wade decision. For nearly 50 years, Roe distorted our Constitution and did great harm to our Nation.
The decision was not rooted in the text of the Constitution. Instead, the Court invented a constitutional right grounded in a vague, undefined concept of privacy that the Court itself struggled to explain.
Roe silenced voters, sidelined legislatures, and eroded respect for the judiciary by turning judges into policymakers. Worst of all, it cost millions of innocent lives.
In overturning Roe, the Supreme Court rightly corrected a grave legal error and returned authority to the States where it belongs. That restoration of constitutional order was long overdue.
I also bid hello and welcome to my friends from the Center for Arizona Policy who are in the gallery today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Ms. Terri Denison as she retires from an outstanding career as Georgia district director of the Small Business Administration.
Since 2002, Terri has been a steadfast advocate for small businesses and entrepreneurs, ensuring that they have the resources and guidance needed to grow and succeed.
Terri's leadership was especially vital during times of economic uncertainty. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, she was instrumental in helping Georgia's small businesses navigate unprecedented challenges. Terri worked tirelessly to connect businessowners with relief programs, which provided stability and hope in the midst of crisis.
I offer my deepest gratitude to Terri for her devotion to Georgia's entrepreneurial community, and I celebrate her
On behalf of my office, Georgia's Sixth Congressional District, and the United States House of Representatives, I congratulate and offer best wishes to Terri on her retirement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Oliver ``Ollie'' Jenkins, a proud Bronx native whose presence left a lasting mark on his family and community.
Born and raised in the Bronx, Ollie came from a close-knit, hardworking family whose small businesses were fixtures in their neighborhood. Those values stayed with him throughout his life.
In 1971, Ollie answered the call to serve our country, enlisting in the United States Army and serving honorably, including time stationed in Germany. Like too many veterans, he later carried the invisible wounds of service, facing PTSD with courage and the steadfast support of those who loved him.
Ollie was gentle, kind, and unforgettable, known for his laugh, his jokes, his love of karate and Bruce Lee, and for proudly representing the Bronx everywhere he went. He was a devoted father and grandfather; a loyal brother, uncle, and neighbor; and a familiar, beloved presence in our community.
Ollie leaves behind a family who cherished him deeply, especially his daughter, Colby, and a legacy built in love, perseverance, and deep faith. May his memory be a blessing to all who knew him.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize The Remedy Church and its congregation as Ohio's 13th Congressional District's Champion of the Week.
This past weekend marked a significant milestone as The Remedy Church celebrated 5 years of faithful service to God and community. Under the leadership of Pastor Deante Lavender and Arnalesa Lavender, affectionately known as Pastor Lav and Pastor Lesa, The Remedy Church is dedicated to welcoming everyone from our community with open arms.
They are guided by the motto, Love Christ, Love People, Build Community, and the mission to ``teach Christ boldly, love our city deeply, and build lasting and strategic partnerships that transform lives.''
Earlier this year, The Remedy Church moved to downtown Akron, further establishing themselves in the greater Akron faith community. Their reach goes beyond the church doors, as they have fed thousands, housed hundreds, and ministered in prisons and throughout the community.
My husband, Kevin, and I recently had the pleasure of attending a service at The Remedy Church, which was also their fifth anniversary. We were moved by the enthusiastic spirit of fellowship, joy, and genuine camaraderie that filled the sanctuary.
I sincerely congratulate Pastor Lav, Pastor Lesa, and The Remedy Church congregation on their fifth anniversary. May they continue to grow, serve, and be a blessing to both our community and the Lord and Savior for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Deputy Insurance Commissioner Steve Manders, a dedicated public servant who passed away on January 17 at the age of 64.
This recognition celebrates a man who gave 38 years of faithful service to the State of Georgia, rising to the role of deputy insurance commissioner, where he exemplified steady leadership, expertise, and integrity in protecting consumers and overseeing our insurance marketplace.
Steve was a devoted family man. He is survived by his wife of 39 years, Mindy; daughters Merritt and Morgan; and three cherished grandchildren.
Steve found great joy in golfing, fishing, and creating lasting memories with his family. Steve was also a respected baseball umpire who proudly officiated the College World Series three times, reflecting his passion for the game he loved.
Steve's life of service, family devotion, and strength is truly inspirational and leaves an enduring impact on our State.
The State of Georgia is stronger because of Mr. Manders, and he will be missed dearly.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of abolishing ICE.
ICE is out of control. Just in the past month, against American citizens, ICE has shot and killed a 37-year-old mother of three, tear- gassed a 6-month-old baby in his parents' car, and hauled out a grandfather in 14-degree weather in nothing but his underwear.
Thanks to Donald Trump and Kristi Noem, our communities constantly live in fear of those who are supposed to protect them.
When an agency structure consistently produces harm instead of justice, there is no way to reform it. We must abolish ICE.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Laramie, Wyoming's very own Frank Crum for his performance and touchdown in the Denver Broncos playoff win versus the Buffalo Bills this past weekend.
As an offensive lineman, it is not often that Frank finds himself open downfield. In fact, this was Frank's first reception and first touchdown of his NFL career. Frank's touchdown is the result of an unwavering work ethic and a commitment to excellence.
Following a commendable collegiate career at the University of Wyoming, Frank went undrafted in the 2024 draft, but he did not let that deter him. He signed with the Denver Broncos as an undrafted free agent. Frank showed grit and determination, working his way up the roster to become a key piece of the Denver Broncos' offensive line.
Frank's dedication and commitment paid off this weekend, as he scored an iconic touchdown that was key in the Broncos' 33-30 victory.
Please join me in recognizing and celebrating the hard work and successes of Wyoming's Frank Crum.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate one of my staff members, Anthony Uribe, who is being recognized by the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce as a Young Professional of the Year.
Anthony joined my staff in 2018, when he was a senior at Sacramento State, as an intern. He came on as a staff assistant and has been working his way up. Anthony has shown grit and perseverance, representing the Sacramento communities of North Sacramento, Del Paso Heights, and Natomas. He is a great extension of what we do.
Anthony is innovative. One of the best Anthony stories is that, as a staff assistant, you have to pick the Member of Congress up early in the morning
For those in Sacramento County, he got me from Elk Grove to the airport in 10 minutes flat. Maybe there was a little bit of speeding there.
I congratulate Anthony. I wish I was there with him for the awards ceremony. It is a well-deserved award.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, I introduced legislation to cut off all funding for California's high-speed rail project and today, in an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, the House passed this measure as part of an appropriations bill that will soon be signed into law.
This is fantastic news for American taxpayers and for California taxpayers as the high-speed rail project is the biggest public infrastructure failure in United States history. It was supposed to be done in 2020 and yet now in 2026, no track has been laid despite spending $18 billion.
The estimated total cost has ballooned from $33 billion to $128 billion, and even The New York Times found that it is not on pace to be finished this century.
With the success of this legislation, our Federal tax dollars in California can go where they are needed when it comes to transportation and that is to improve our failing roads, to alleviate traffic, and to actually improve the quality of life for Californians.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a friend and a pillar of Riverside: Roger Ransom, who died on December 28, 2025, at the age of 87.
I knew Roger for many decades. He was smart, funny, and unfailingly insightful. It was deeply fortunate for all of us that he should have spent so long at University of California Riverside as a distinguished professor of history and economics.
His brilliance shone through in the wide range of books, articles, and papers he published across his storied academic career. Beyond his ability to write and to do research, he also showed a special ability to teach and mentor students.
It is a testament to Roger that he never let his curiosity abate, writing his final book even in his final months of his life.
Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to his extraordinary wife, Connie, his entire family, and all of the innumerable lives he touched along the way. Rest easy, Roger. You have earned it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my bill, the Care for Military Kids Act, that was included in the appropriations package for 2026 that just passed the House.
As a proud Representative of Virginia's Second Congressional District, home to one of the largest Active-Duty military populations in the United States, advocating for those who serve our country and their families is one of my top priorities.
Unlike civilian families, military families often need to move every 2 to 3 years, not by choice but by obligation.
When relocated to another State, servicemembers uproot their whole lives to answer the call to serve and their families often sacrifice a great deal.
For servicemembers who have dependents with disabilities, the sacrifice can greatly impact their livelihood. Unfortunately, with every move, dependent children must re-enter entirely new State health systems with new Medicaid rules, new waiver programs, new provider networks, and long wait lists.
The Care for Military Kids Act would ensure that any dependent of an Active-Duty servicemember - currently receiving long-term care services through a State administered Medicaid plan, will remain eligible should their family be stationed outside the State, ensuring our servicemembers do not have to choose between serving their country and getting their children the critical care they need.
Mr. Speaker, I was grateful that this important piece of legislation was included in the appropriations package for 2026.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my horror at what we are witnessing in Minnesota. Kristi Noem's DHS has been working with no oversight and no accountability. The irresponsibility and recklessness are costing human lives.
ICE is terrorizing our communities, indiscriminately racially profiling, using force against peaceful protesters, barging into people's homes without warrants, preventing doctors from treating their patients, blocking students from their classrooms, snatching children, elderly people, pregnant women, veterans, active military, and American citizens from our streets.
Republicans have been silent while this administration terrorizes people in communities and violates the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.
What will it take for the majority in this Congress to speak up? Where is your line?
Our communities deserve the dignity of safety and justice, not the cruelty of silence and complicity. You can stop this. Please stand up. Stand up for the Constitution, stand up for freedom, stand up for liberty, stand up for justice, and stand up for humanity.
Mr. Speaker, in rather sad news, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Dr. Eddie Floyd of Florence, South Carolina.
Dr. Floyd was a lifelong Gamecock, a respected physician, a pillar in his community, but more than his titles, he really embodied a life of service to others.
From his decades caring for patients to his more than 40 years of leadership at the University of South Carolina, including serving as chairman of the board of trustees, Dr. Floyd believed in investing in people and in the future of our State.
He loved his community. He loved his family. He loved his alma mater certainly, and he worked every day to make all of them stronger. He leaves behind a legacy of service, leadership, and kindness.
Mr. Speaker, my prayers are with the Floyd family and with everyone who had the privilege of knowing him. South Carolina is a better place because of his service.
Mr. Speaker, in just 1 short year, our constituents have already begun to suffer the consequences of the Trump administration's agenda to undo lifesaving environmental protections.
The latest rollback is expected to target key parts of the EPA's 2015 and 2024 coal ash rules. Coal ash, a byproduct of coal combustion by power
The effects of these toxins on the human body include increased risk of heart disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.
Certainly protections, like monitoring ground water and lining legacy coal ash ponds to prevent contamination, are common sense, but these requirements are at risk of being weakened. Delaying coal ash cleanup puts public health in danger.
Make no mistake who those rollbacks are for: Polluters who would rather poison ground water than pay a little bit more to protect the public. We should be accelerating cleanup, not creating loopholes that allow toxic waste to sit leaking and unregulated for years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to join me in speaking out against this attack on the rules protecting us from coal ash.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the legacy and life of Timothy C. Hess, a loving husband, father, and grandfather, who passed away peacefully on November 26, 2025.
Tim Hess was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on October 11, 1949, and raised in St. Petersburg, Florida, by Curt and Joan Hess.
After graduating from Milligan College, Tim began his professional journey at The Sea Pines Resort in South Carolina.
In 1975, he moved to Nelson County, where he played a pivotal role in opening a staple of Virginia's Fifth Congressional District: Wintergreen Resort.
At Wintergreen Resort, a location known by many Virginians, he met the love of his life and wife of 48 years, Lynne, and raised their three children: Greg, Lauren, and Paul.
Over the next five decades, Tim became a respected agent, broker, developer, and managing partner of the Wintergreen Real Estate Company.
Mr. Speaker, Tim Hess will be deeply missed, but he will be remembered for his legacy in Nelson County and in the many lives he touched. Please join me in honoring his life of service, conservation, and kindness.
Mr. Speaker, instead of holding ICE accountable for their horrific behavior, including their violent occupation of American cities like Minneapolis, Republicans voted on giving ICE billions of dollars to terrorize our communities. It is beyond shameful.
ICE operates with no meaningful oversight and continues to act with impunity, even as it carries out violent operations that have cost lives.
I am sick and tired of seeing Republicans reward a rogue agency that inflicts harm on our communities. Congressional Republicans greenlit sending $400 million more to ICE detention and $370 million more to ICE enforcement. This is on top of the unprecedented $170 billion the agency received in Trump's big, ugly bill.
ICE has tormented our communities. Let's be clear: What we are witnessing from ICE is not law enforcement. It is State-sanctioned violence. A woman was killed by ICE.
Mr. Speaker, our communities deserve safety and justice, not militarized crackdowns and murder.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to celebrate 75 years of leadership and public service by the Municipal Water District of Orange County. This milestone isn't just about longevity. It is about leading through change and planning for the future.
Municipal Water District of Orange County was founded on a simple, yet powerful, idea. Regional collaboration is stronger than working alone. By uniting local agencies and securing access to imported water supplies, the district has helped lay the foundation for Orange County's economic growth, public health, and quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, 75 years later, Municipal Water District of Orange County remains a model of responsible governance and regional cooperation. It is well-prepared to meet the next 75 years with the same leadership and integrity that has built Orange County into what it is today.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate them on 75 years, and I thank them for serving our community.
Mr. Speaker, last week, a mother of three, a U.S. citizen, was killed in broad daylight. You would think in that moment Republicans would find their voice to speak out against the cruelty of this administration. Her children were robbed of memories that make a life, and they won't have their mother there for them.
This week, ICE, DHS took this 5-year-old boy, Liam Ramos, from his family and from his community. This is what Liam's teacher says about him:
``He is very friendly. He comes into class every day, and he just brightens the room. His friends haven't asked about him yet, but I know that they'll catch on.''
Mr. Speaker, what they will catch onto, those 5-year-olds, the age of my daughter, is that this government, this administration, House Republicans have failed the American people. They failed our communities. They failed to keep us safe in the name of something that the Trump administration has lied to the American people about.
This is the face of the people you are taking from our communities, from their families. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that you have not found your voice to speak out against it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with gratitude, with pride, and with purpose to honor a son of Chicago, Mr. Derrick Martell Rose. From the hard concrete of Englewood to the shining floor of the United Center, his journey has been a testimony that greatness can rise from any ZIP Code when faith meets discipline and talent meets sacrifice.
When Derrick Rose became the youngest Most Valuable Player in NBA history, he did not just break a record; he broke a ceiling. He showed our children that brilliance can be humble, that power can be quiet, and that excellence does not require abandonment of one's roots.
When injury knocked him down, Derrick Rose got back up, not bitter, not broken, but better, still believing, still becoming. Today as his jersey is lifted to the rafters, we lift a lesson. We can stumble and still stand. We can fall and still fly.
Derrick Rose is not just an MVP of basketball. Mr. Rose is an MVP of resilience, of hope, of our sweet home, Chicago.
Mr. Speaker, Roe v. Wade was overturned by the decision in Dobbs. It was January 22, 1973, when the U.S. Supreme
We have tried for years. I actually met my wife, Marie, in the pro- life movement 50 years ago at college--more than 50 years ago. We do believe, like so many of my colleagues, that life is a gift to be protected and preserved, and that birth is an event that happens to every one of us. It is not the beginning of life.
To think that somehow the unborn child is a throwaway and nothing but an entity that can be destroyed at will is very, very inhumane. We need to speak out, as we are doing.
I would point out to my colleagues--and I will be very brief and yield to my colleagues who are here--there are more than 2,700 pregnancy care centers throughout the United States, working to help women choose life. Each and every one of them is an oasis of love, compassion, empathy, respect, and care for mothers and their precious children.
Yet, some States and lawmakers, including my own State of New Jersey, seek to discriminate against pregnancy care centers by violating fundamental conscience rights, including trying to compel these centers to participate or be complicit in abortions. We saw that especially in California.
The Knights of Columbus has released a poll which found that 83 percent of Americans, including 79 percent of Democrats, support pregnancy resource centers. We wouldn't have known that, watching the debate just a couple of days ago on Michelle Fischbach's very, very important piece of legislation, Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act. It did pass. I thank her for her extraordinary leadership and courage.
We found during the Biden administration that he was actually working toward a rule that would have precluded any kind of TANF funding--food stamps and the like--to pregnancy care centers to be administered and provided to their clients.
That would have been so cruel to say that, no, we are dealing with this woman who is poor--they are not all poor that go there, some are indigent, but they need help. All of a sudden, we find out that Biden wanted to say that those centers can't participate in this program. Mr. Speaker, six States do, I am happy to say, and they do provide TANF funding.
Again, Michelle Fischbach's bill--and I have more to say during this, but I would like to yield to her. She is in a Ways and Means Committee meeting now. It is underway. I thank her for that leadership. I can't say how important these pregnancy care centers are.
I have been working with them for over 50 years. Louise Summerhill from Canada started the first group of them called Birthright. They were there to say: Look, we love you. We will help you. All of the centers that are now in existence do an amazing job. They are global. Again, there are 2,700 of these tremendous centers in our country. We have got about 55 of them in my own State alone.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach) and thank her for her legislation this week.
Mr. Speaker, I have known Representative Smith for many years through the pro-life movement. He and his wife, Marie, have dedicated so much time, energy, and effort to promote the culture of life and making sure that women, their families, and their babies are cared for and supported.
I thank Representative Smith and his lovely wife, Marie, for all that they have done. He is an inspiration in this movement and this fight to make sure that babies are protected.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much for his comments, but the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) has done so much by leading us through this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heart full of gratitude, not only for the privilege of serving the people of western Minnesota but for the significant step the House took yesterday of passing the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act.
This is more than just a legislative win. This is a victory for every woman who has ever felt alone during a pregnancy. It is a victory for every father who wants to provide for their child, and it is a victory for the thousands of pregnancy resource centers across our Nation that offer a hand to hold when an uncertain path is faced.
We didn't just vote for a policy. We voted for hope. For me, the pro- life movement has never been just a political platform or a set of talking points. It is personal. As a mother and a grandmother, I have seen the miracle of life at every stage, from that first grainy image on an ultrasound that everyone clings to, to the incredible moment of feeling a child's first kick, and then that moment when you get to meet that child face to face for the first time.
Those memories drive me to ensure that every woman in this country has the support that she needs to experience those same miracles with confidence rather than fear.
My journey in public service has been shaped by these moments. From my time in the Minnesota State Senate to my role as the co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, my mission has been simple: To ensure that our laws reflect the beauty and the value of every human life.
Being pro-life means so much more than being anti-abortion. To be truly pro-life is to be pro-woman and profamily. We must acknowledge that, for many women, an unexpected pregnancy comes with fear, uncertainty, and financial strain. Our response as a movement and as a government must be one of clear and tangible support.
We need to be able to tell mothers that they are not alone. The pro- life movement is a positive one, a movement that surrounds women and their children with hope and support.
I have fought to advance policies to make it easier to raise a family, whether it was expanding the child tax credit, supporting maternal healthcare, or streamlining the adoption process. Our goal is to create a culture where every mother feels empowered to choose life because she knows that she has the resources to flourish.
I have stood firmly for the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act because every child who enters this world deserves the same medical care regardless of the circumstances of their birth. I have advocated for the Hyde amendment, ensuring that the conscious rights of millions of Americans are respected and that taxpayer dollars are not used to fund the destruction of human life.
These are not extreme positions. They are compassionate positions. They are positions rooted in the belief that a society is measured by how it treats those who have no power, no vote, and no voice. My goal is to build a country where every child is welcomed in life and protected by law.
Tomorrow, thousands of Americans, many of them young students and family, will descend on our Nation's Capital and across the country at State marches in every corner of the country. In my home State of Minnesota, they gathered today at the State capitol, even in the extreme cold.
They will march, determined to build a culture of life, a culture that supports a father who wants to be present, a mother who is finishing her education, and a child who is waiting to take their first breath.
The pro-life movement is often characterized by what they are against, but with the passage of the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, we have shown what we are for. We are for the mother. We are for the baby. We are for the family.
As the marchers arrive in Washington tonight and tomorrow morning, let them know that their voices have been heard in these Halls. Let them know that we will not stop working until our laws reflect the beautiful truth that every life is a gift from God.
I am proud of the work we have done, and I am even more hopeful for the work we will do tomorrow and into the future.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for her very eloquent remarks, and as former president of the Minnesota Senate, where she was a great leader there. I thank the gentlewoman for her work on all of these
Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), who is a great voice, has great strength on behalf of the family and the unborn child, and has a number of bills that she has offered dealing with the life issue.
Mr. Speaker, 53 years ago, the tragedy of Roe v. Wade was decided, and 65 million innocent lives are not here. It is hard to even calculate the loss that this has been. God created them. God had a purpose for their lives, and God meant to bless the world through them.
Perhaps they were teachers who could have nurtured the next generation, doctors who could have cured cancer, lawyers who could have defended the defenseless, or musicians who could have written the next great symphony.
Thankfully, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe, returning the issue of abortion to Congress and the States. Since Dobbs, 17 States have acted to protect life from the moment of conception.
Still, there is so much work to be done. An equal number of States now allow abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, including my home State of Illinois.
Last year, this body took a significant step forward by defunding Planned Parenthood in the working families tax cut, resulting in 50 of their clinics closing.
By the way, Planned Parenthood is not pro-choice. They are pro- abortion. If they were pro-choice, they would want women to make informed choices, which is why I want to pass legislation requiring an ultrasound to be done and a waiting period before a woman has an abortion.
The greatest privilege of my life is to be a mother of 7, grandma of 23, and soon to be a great-grandma. That includes being a grandma to two children with Down syndrome, one born to us and one adopted.
Every time I meet young couples, I encourage them to have one more. Psalm 127 reminds us that children are a heritage from the Lord.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Smith for his leadership in defending the most vulnerable. I look forward to working with the gentleman and our colleagues to secure more pro-life victories.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) for her great leadership. Her voice is always there, and I thank her so much for that.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), who is co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus. He also is the author of laws when he was in the legislature in Missouri, and he is a doctor and really gets it, and also has another degree in law. He is the package. He does it all.
Mr. Speaker, for decades under Chairman Smith's leadership, the House Pro-Life Caucus has worked as a strong coalition for life, and I am grateful to serve along with the gentleman as a caucus co-chairman.
Today, we remember the 53rd anniversary of the erroneous and lawless Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. When the Court held that the 14th Amendment's reference to liberty protected a right to abortion, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court empowered the abortion industry to kill millions of unborn children.
A research paper published in the ``American Journal of Public Health'' two decades after Roe found that the Supreme Court's decision caused a 4.5 percent decline in births in States where abortion was not already legal. Vast numbers of babies were never born.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in one of the biggest victories for life in American history. Dobbs v. Jackson rightfully upheld that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, returning the authority to regulate abortion to the American people and to their elected Representatives.
The Constitution makes no explicit reference to obtain an abortion. The Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to give a license to kill.
Unlike the post-Roe era, where births noticeably declined, Dobbs v. Jackson ushered in the current pro-life era. A study from the Journal of the American Medical Association found that from the Dobbs v. Jackson decision on June 24, 2022, through the end of 2023, 22,000 more babies were born in States that enacted pro-life laws.
Even though Dobbs v. Jackson saved many lives, our work to defend the unborn is far from finished. For decades, Federal tax dollars have supported disturbing, outdated, and ghoulish research on tissues obtained from aborted babies. Biden's National Institutes of Health devoted roughly $53 million to human fetal tissue research in both 2023 and 2024. Despite spending millions of dollars on this barbaric research, it has failed to produce any meaningful medical breakthrough. Not a single therapy depends on aborted fetal tissue research.
At the same time, proven and ethical alternatives exist. Lifesaving treatments, such as insulin for diabetes and Herceptin for cancer, were developed without fetal tissue research. Umbilical cord blood is used to successfully treat thousands of patients with blood disorders, and adult stem cell therapies have benefited over a million people worldwide, addressing cancers, blood diseases, and autoimmune diseases.
There is no justification for continuing to fund research using aborted fetal tissue. That is why I introduced the Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act, which blocks all Federal funding of research using human fetal tissue obtained from an induced abortion.
Earlier this year, I met with NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya to discuss this, and he agreed that it is high time to end aborted fetal tissue research at the NIH.
That is why I am happy to say today that the NIH announced that they will no longer support research with human fetal tissue. This is a huge victory, and I thank Dr. Bhattacharya for his work righting the ship at NIH. Now it is time for Congress to finish the job by passing the Protecting Life and Integrity in Research Act to make this change permanent.
Finally, I want to applaud the thousands of pro-life champions who will be attending tomorrow's March for Life here in Washington, D.C. Your courage and advocacy are vital to advancing the cause of life.
The fight for human dignity is a worthy cause. Never give up fighting for unborn children who cannot fight for themselves.
Scripture tells us that God has a plan for every human life before it comes into existence on Earth. In Jeremiah 1:5, God tells the prophet Jeremiah: ``Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I dedicated you.''
We also read in the book of St. Luke that Elizabeth's baby leapt in the womb upon hearing Mary's greeting. That baby that leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb was none other than John the Baptist, who prepared the way for the Lord and baptized him in the River Jordan.
Please continue to keep your elected officials in your prayers as we strive to promote a culture of life.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman). I would just point out for the record that she has 34 years as a litigator, is admitted to practice in several States and the United States Supreme Court, and is a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Smith for the honor of being able to speak this evening.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight as we mark with sadness the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, a ruling that for decades removed the most basic and fundamental right we hold, the right to life itself. I stand here unwavering in my conviction that every human life is a sacred gift and deserves our protection.
Life begins at conception, and it is our solemn duty as lawmakers to defend those who cannot speak for themselves. We should never tire of advocating for the most vulnerable among us, and we must continue striving for a culture that cherishes life at every stage.
Since the Supreme Court returned authority over this issue to the States with the Dobbs decision, millions of Americans have exercised their democratic voice, but our work is not done. We must keep pushing for laws that protect life, support families, and uphold the values that make America a beacon of freedom and justice.
May we rededicate ourselves to defending the unborn and promoting a society where every life has dignity and every voice is heard.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde). He is a combat veteran who served for 28 years, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and just has been, again, outspoken and very effective over these years on defending the unborn.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Smith for holding tonight's Special Order. It is so very important.
Fifty-three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most horrendous and devastating rulings in its nearly 237-year-old history. On this solemn anniversary, we pause to remember the unborn babies who had their lives unjustly stolen under the evils of the Roe v. Wade decision.
This treacherous ruling paved the way for the murder of more than 63 million unborn children. These precious souls were denied their first and most fundamental right: the right to life.
Our Declaration of Independence rightly proclaims that we are endowed by our ``creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' and ``that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.'' That is right, the responsibility of government is to secure these rights, to preserve the right to life.
Our God-given right to life should be universally recognized as a blessing, not flagrantly disregarded in an attempt to justify the murder of innocent, unborn children.
While our Nation will never know the friends, colleagues, and leaders lost to the evils of abortion, it is our solemn obligation to honor and mourn these unborn lives. That is why, both this Congress and last Congress, I have proudly led a resolution to recognize today, January 22, as the day of tears.
In addition to this somber recognition, may we also give thanks to God Almighty for his gracious blessings of the victorious Dobbs decision, which effectively overturned Roe v. Wade.
Dobbs marks an incredible, historic victory in the fight to protect the unborn. Yet, we must remain ever vigilant, using every tool at our disposal to uphold and defend the sanctity of human life.
Tomorrow, I will be participating in the March for Life right here in Washington, D.C. As an unapologetic pro-life conservative, I am proud to be part of this fight because every life is invaluable, worthy, and made in the perfect image of God.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), who has four committee assignments: Budget, Judiciary, Education and Workforce, and Oversight and Government Reform. I don't know where he finds the time, but I do thank him for his great leadership on pro-life.
Mr. Speaker, this is a weekend chosen to be the week that Roe v. Wade went into effect in 1973 and that we mourn the deaths of the millions of Americans whose lives were cut short by abortion.
It is particularly sad that recently the abortion rate in this country has been going up. That is a stain on our country and, quite frankly, a stain on the churches that are failing to educate our young people on the importance of keeping every life going.
It is interesting that, in Wisconsin, abortion was illegal from around 1850 until Roe v. Wade went into effect. At that time, there were no ultrasounds. Medical care was a fraction of what it is today. Despite the fact that medical care was worse than it is today, everybody knew that abortion was horrific, ultrasound or not. I don't believe there was a strong effort made until Roe v. Wade to legalize abortion in the State of Wisconsin until the Supreme Court did it.
We have to ask ourselves, the people: What has happened? What has happened to young Americans? Right now, to be honest, politically, to run pro-life in the State of Wisconsin, or at least in many States around the country, is a negative.
When I first got involved in public life, I think the majority of people were broadly considered pro-life. Now the opposite is true.
Why is that? Who do we blame for the fact that acceptance of abortion has gone up over the last 9 or 10 years?
I am going to suggest the churches have to be more vocal and do a better job of educating people about this issue.
Like I said, in today's world with ultrasounds, in today's world with such great medical care that it would be virtually impossible to have serious consequences after having an abortion, it should be easier than ever to make people pro-life. Unfortunately, that is not so.
So what I will do today is I will challenge the churches and anybody out there listening, members of a church, the laity, the priests, the ministers, to do what they can to educate the childbearing women in your church or of childbearing age of the horrors of abortion and the importance for everybody to do what they can to prevent these precious lives from being cut short.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the distinguished chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. He is also the chair of the House Values Action Team.
Mr. Speaker, it is great to have a chance to address the House on this anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision and to recognize the tragedy that took place in 1973.
Of course, the Dobbs decision as we know rightly returned this issue to the American people and their elected Representatives. But our work continues to make sure that the lives of the unborn are protected both on the State and on the Federal level.
I want to just say thank you to Chris Smith and the chairs of the Pro-Life Caucus for their continued work on the pro-life issue. Having served with Chris Smith for many, many years here in the House of Representatives, I can tell you this is an issue that he takes very seriously, as he should, and for his leadership we applaud him. I thank him for all his hard work and all that he does in chairing the Pro-Life Caucus.
Also, I want to thank the marchers for life for organizing a powerful and meaningful day that we will have tomorrow as Americans across the United States unite in their commitment to celebrate and defend life.
Here in Congress it is one of my greatest honors to be a voice on Capitol Hill for the most vulnerable among us: our unborn children.
For me, my pro-life stance is deeply rooted in my Christian faith and belief that all human life is precious, and it is a gift from the almighty God. Defending the unborn has long been one of my highest priorities, and the first term I got elected to Congress, one of my first votes was cast in favor of life.
This is a celebration of life to celebrate the Dobbs decision. It is a celebration of lives that have been saved thanks to advocates like March for Life. I would like to thank every advocate for their unwavering dedication to this cause. I look forward to continuing our work together until every child is guaranteed our most fundamental right, and that is the right to life.
As I have said before, no argument made by the other side can triumph this one undeniable fact, and that is abortion stops a beating heart.
Mr. Speaker, may God bless you, and may God bless the unborn in this country and around the world.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman, especially for his leadership as
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my comments, today first, by noting how grateful I am to the Members of this House who speak out with compassion and boldly in defense of the unborn and equally of their mothers.
Abortion has two victims--three if there are twins--the babies and then their moms. Then there is even extenuating damage done to the family that is grossly underappreciated with father's rights being abridged and completely set aside with this so-called abortion decision.
Let me point out to my colleagues that the purveyors of death and their enablers in politics, the media, and academia aggressively foster a culture of death, denial, disrespect, and discrimination against babies and employ an endless array of deceitful tactics designed to trivialize and mask the cruel and ugly reality of abortion, presenting the violence of abortion as a so-called right.
One only has to look beyond the slogans and surface appeal arguments to find the harsh reality of abortion. The abortion pill mifepristone is baby poison. It kills the unborn child by starving the innocent baby to death.
I do a lot on world hunger. I do a lot on domestic hunger. Mr. Speaker, I believe in the importance of nutrition. Two global food security acts have passed this House as my bills. In the past they went on to become law. I believe in it strongly, and, yet, mifepristone, the abortion pill, starves the baby to death.
I had a meeting with the Secretary General of the United Nations Guterres in my office a couple years ago, and he, too, believes in alleviating and ameliorating world hunger. I said: Mr. Secretary General, how could we be simultaneously looking to mitigate the damage of crop failure, famine, and all the others and its implications for food insecurity while simultaneously starving an entire segment of society, unborn babies, to death? How could we do that? He had no answer. His staff had no answer.
We have to face these realities and stop looking askance and looking as if they don't exist. It is a horrible reality.
Let me also point out to my colleagues that the abortion pill--about 60 percent of all the abortions now are procured through mifepristone in the United States. It is very dangerous to women. Bill Clinton and his FDA Commissioner Kessler went over and begged that Roussel Uclaf, who then was marketing this abortion pill, send it to the United States.
Where does the FDA commissioner come in saying we need this baby poison? It doesn't cure anything, unless you construe an unborn child to be a tumor or something that needs to be vanquished and excised, and of course, they are not.
They are God's gift to each and every one of us, and every one of us here today at one time was in that stage of development as the unborn.
What we have now found out, which is what we have known for years, is that based on the most recent study by the group, the Ethics and Public Policy Center--it is the largest study ever done, ever, nothing even comes close, and they did it in a way that almost takes out bias in terms of reporting--they found, and, again, this is the biggest study we have ever seen, that more than 1 in 10 patients experience a serious adverse event from the abortion pill, 1 in 10. That is 10.93 percent.
What are these damages? These damages are serious infection; sepsis, which could be life threatening; hemorrhaging; and a number of other adverse events.
Do you hear Planned Parenthood ever saying, oh, the pill carries with it all of these deleterious effects to women? Never. They tell lies that deceive women and they say that, oh, it is very, very safe.
I am very critical of the FDA for all these years. They did sham studies on this over the years. We pointed it out. Nobody listened, and now this study breaks through and says: Please, the women need to know that there are very serious consequences to this abortion pill.
Let me also say to my colleagues that, yes, everyone in the pro-life movement who can make it will be at the March for Life tomorrow here in Washington. Thank God that the growing number of young people in this country are pro-life, rejecting the very surface appeal argumentation that has been used to dismiss and trivialize the beautiful life of an unborn child and, again, the terrible effects that these abortions have on women.
Today, and it will be announced officially tomorrow, the Trump Administration has just announced a comprehensive new policy protecting life in foreign assistance. It is humane, life-affirming, and rejects the culture of death which we have been exporting all over the world by hijacking our foreign aid for very good projects such as malaria alleviation and PEPFAR, which is a good program, but it was hijacked by the Biden administration. The recipients of that funding were told: Change the policies of the country where you are working to have abortion on demand.
The only reason PEPFAR didn't get reauthorized in the last Congress was because of that, because he had hijacked it. Unfortunately, that is not what we signed up for. We wanted to mitigate mother-to-child transmission, and I did the reauthorization of it for 5 years several years ago. I really believe in it, and I was shocked, dismayed, and angered that the Biden administration took that money and used it for things that it was not intended to be used for.
The new conditions that have been now promulgated--the rule goes into effect shortly, Monday, I believe--actually conditions $30 billion in foreign aid to serve humanitarian and health needs around the world instead of bankrolling U.N. entities and NGOs that promote and perform abortion violence.
Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how discouraged I am that the WHO has become just another Planned Parenthood, and they push abortion on demand right until birth. There are no conscience rights, Mr. Speaker. If you are an OB/GYN or a nurse or anyone else, you can't say: Please, I don't want to be involved. Governments would have coercive power to say: You do that, or else you are not licensed any longer.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues, too, that a Marist Poll that was released today found that a huge majority of Americans, 69 percent, oppose using tax dollars to support abortion in other countries. Mr. Speaker, twenty-nine percent are for it. I would point out that for the Independents it is 59 percent. Republicans are even higher, and Democrats are tied in terms of those who support promoting global abortion and those who do not, but 69 percent in the aggregate feel that way.
At this podium in 1985, I offered the amendment to defund the UNFPA because of its forced abortion complicity which was shameless--it is the same today, in China, especially--but also to protect the Reagan Mexico City policy which has now been reiterated and strengthened by the Trump administration.
This is really important, lifesaving work, and I am shocked and dismayed, again, that so many people don't see the very simple fact.
The next time you see an ultrasound, Mr. Speaker, of children or your grandchildren, just remember those very children at that very age are being dismembered or chemically poisoned by this abortion pill. Again, I don't know how anybody defends dismemberment abortions.
What got me into this movement way back when, in 1972, was when I saw the effect of a dismemberment abortion. Limbs were hacked off, and decapitation of the head was seen as a benign procedure called a D&E. I am just shocked that people don't see that that is violence against children. Equally, it is violence against mothers.
Mr. Speaker, I call on everyone who might be watching this: Please pray for this movement. Pray for the mothers. Pregnancy care centers are filled to
I have met with so many. During the Michelle Fischbach bill the other day I talked about one woman who was trafficked. She was trafficked for years. She was helped by a pregnancy care center who just loved her and helped her with her child both during the pregnancy and afterward. Now she is running a pregnancy care center because she cares so much that no other woman experience whatever the trauma is that she had gone through. I do thank her.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is my good friend and colleague.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the leader of the Pro-Life Caucus, for his longstanding leadership and commitment to this virtuous cause. He has made an amazing difference. Perseverance is what defines this movement, and we are so grateful for his leadership in this country and for this important cause.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Tatum Elizabeth Dale, a proud Kentuckian, a dedicated public servant, and one of the best people I have ever had the blessing of serving with.
Tatum was my district director, and she passed away at the young age of 35 years old on Christmas Eve from complications of moyamoya. For over 15 years, Tatum served side by side with me for the people of the Sixth Congressional District and the Commonwealth she loved.
She held almost every job a person could hold in my office: scheduler, field representative, deputy district director, district director, and, finally, deputy chief of staff.
She earned every role not through ambition but through trust. Titles never defined Tatum. Results did.
Tatum was Kentucky through and through. She grew up on a farm outside of Murray where she learned the values that would guide her entire life: hard work, humility, faith, loyalty, service to others, and the cause of life. Those values shaped everything she did.
She knew our district better than anyone else. She knew the communities, the leaders, the families, and the history. She remembered names, conversations, and details others would forget. Constituents didn't see her as a staffer or my district director. They saw her as an advocate who listened, followed through, and fought for them. She was Tatum. She wasn't the Congressman's chief of staff. She was Tatum.
Tatum had a special devotion to eastern Kentucky. She knew the hollers and the highways, the county judges and the community leaders, and the unique challenges facing those communities. She made sure that they were never overlooked.
One of the best examples of that commitment came in Menifee County where she loved the people and she loved the community. She took on the U.S. Forest Service over the proposed removal of the safety buoys at Cave Run Lake. Tatum singlehandedly organized, advocated, and ultimately won, protecting tourism, safety, and local economic development. When the county newspaper ran a front-page story about this victory, she proudly displayed it in her office throughout the rest of her career.
She also poured herself into addiction recovery efforts, helping establish the Sixth District addiction recovery working group and securing millions of dollars in Federal grants for Narcan distribution, counseling, recovery services, and transitional housing. Her work saved lives.
She was a fierce advocate for our veterans and helped set up and worked for our veterans in casework with the veterans' coalition.
Beyond government, Tatum lived her faith. Through her church, she participated in mission trips to Haiti where she served children living in deep poverty. She loved them, she prayed for them, and she gave them hope. Service for Tatum was not confined to a job description. She made a difference wherever she went.
Inside our office, Tatum was the heartbeat of our team. Her leadership philosophy was simple: last to eat, first to fight.
She mentored young staff, protected her colleagues, and demanded excellence, always with kindness. She showed up early, stayed late, and never asked anyone to do anything she wouldn't do herself.
She was also my most trusted adviser. She knew when to challenge me-- she did--and she knew when to steady me. She made me a better Congressman, and she made our team better public servants.
Kentucky lost a daughter who honored her home in everything she did. Our office lost a leader, our communities lost a fierce advocate, and all of us lost a friend.
Her legacy lives on in the lives she helped, in the problems she solved, and in the example she set for what public service should be.
Tatum Dale served others every single day of her life. She loved people. That is why she did it. She did her work beautifully. We will honor her best by carrying forward the standard she set.
Rest well, dear Tatum. You are missed, you are remembered, and you will never be forgotten.
Mr. Speaker, please allow me to begin by applauding President Zelenskyy of Ukraine on his exceptional and historic remarks in Davos, Switzerland, earlier today.
I heard an astoundingly unapologetic plea by a new world leader whose remarks resounded across our globe as he championed the cause of liberty in our modern era.
Despite his own nation being bordered by tyranny, on almost all sides, rooted in Russia and all of its repressed client states, he raised his valiant voice strong and clear before the free world's leaders.
They all know that today's spider web of tyranny is spinning and stretching its ugly net from Russia to Brazil, India, North Korea, and South Africa, seeking a global necklace of repression and domination.
Yet, at Davos today stood the unvanquished, courageous leader of the poorest and most embattled nation in Europe. On behalf of his valorous people, he delivered his eloquent plea.
Bravo, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. You singlehandedly challenged the scions of the global order. Your firm supplication and urgent request for liberty were extraordinary, rising far above global niceties.
You delivered the raw choice, as our own Nation's Founders did: Liberty or tyranny?
Your clear invitation for these leaders to choose forward hangs in the balance, and your plea is historic, passionate, soulful, inspiring not just world leaders but people everywhere as they weigh recalibrating the dial for liberty.
It is your voice that history will remember, rising to energize our world forward from inside the grim, fierce cauldron of struggle that is Ukraine.
For any freedom lover to miss your message would be a tragedy, for if your words, coupled with the ongoing martyrdom of your people, do not give rise to crescendos of applause and recommitment, then will liberty cede its worth to dictators, charlatans, plunderers, and fools?
Your call is to bold leadership from a new generation of freedom lovers. Let us all rise to answer that call. Freedom means never surrender.
Bravo, Ukraine. Bravo, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. You inspired freedom lovers across our globe.
Mr. Speaker, on another front, today, Vice President JD Vance traveled to Toledo, Ohio. He came to talk about the Trump administration's so-called record to bring jobs and help grow manufacturing in our region.
This came as quite a surprise to me. Indeed, his words were empty because his administration's reckless tariffs and disastrous trade wars have increased manufacturing job losses not just in our region of Ohio but across our Nation.
The Wall Street Journal documents that, over the last year, manufacturing
The Trump administration's reckless tariffs and disastrous trade wars are straining the pocketbooks of our workers, farmers, and consumers. Prices keep rising for everything--food, housing, utility bills, lumber, and cars. This is true across the entirety of our northwest Ohio region, in both urban and rural communities.
Vice President Vance says he is now interested in lowering drug prices, but his party consistently voted against those efforts, which were championed under a prior Democratic administration. I know because I voted to help cap insulin costs at $35 a month for seniors on Medicare. I voted for prescription drug negotiations that are saving seniors thousands of dollars as we speak here tonight.
Unsurprisingly, the Vice President avoided discussing the awful, unwise decisions by his administration to rip away almost $150 million from the city that he was in by taking away $45 million from the Libbey Glass Company to purchase two new glass furnaces that were to compete against Chinese, Mexican, and French producers. We are known as The Glass City. He took it away. He didn't bring us anything; he took it away. The money evaporated. Even though Congress had passed it--it had all been vetted and everything--they took it away. That hurts a manufacturing company which is a lodestar company in our community.
Then, his administration canceled--are you ready for this?--$57 million more for another manufacturing company, Owens-Illinois, which competes globally.
Then, if that wasn't enough, they canceled over $16 million for our local Kraft Heinz facility in the agricultural sector to compete against foreign products.
Another $28.5 million was taken away from our region via rescissions over the summer for major repair work in the heart of our city on Front and Main Street, on the side of the river that he traveled to. The streets he rode over should have been repaved, but they took away the money. He didn't mention them because he helped cancel them.
That is over $146 million that would have helped to invest in new possibilities to modernize our entire region. Those investments were critical to American manufacturing, with new-age furnaces and technology, not only to compete with foreign glass producers but also to help reduce emissions here at home for the people who work in those plants and to make work safer for our workers. How would you like to sit in front of a 98-degree furnace all day long?
Now, the administration has announced plans to eliminate $14.6 million in Ohio from the Ohio Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which has launched dozens of small and midsized regional food businesses driven by the creativity of our people. The U.S. Department of Commerce used to care about those businesses, the small, creative new launches, like Willy's Fresh Salsa, which just got into Winn-Dixie. That was invented by a gentleman who came from Toledo. There is also Gertie's Premium BBQ Sauce. That is a product on our shelves created through that program to create wealth, opportunities, and jobs.
So many more, dozens and dozens of these companies, have been created, and jobs. Why destroy something that is working? Can somebody tell me how else do we sprout and grow our local economies?
I thought when the Vice President said he was coming to Toledo, he might help announce the $20 million in Department of Transportation RAISE funds, which had been awarded to improve connectivity in Toledo's heart, in our Junction neighborhood, in the downtown, in the heart of our city on both sides of our Grand Maumee River, but that announcement never came.
If this administration really wants to help Toledo, they better stop driving backward. Mr. Vice President, can you please bring our check which the administration owes us?
All of these awards were passed by Congress, authorized, appropriated, and signed into law. Our community should never be shortchanged. Our taxpayers send their dollars here. They have a right to get them back. Our people work too hard for a living. We need to respect them, and we need to build our communities forward, not backward.
Mr. Speaker, I now turn to a very important issue that arose today because of something that happened with Speaker Johnson.
America's farmers are hurting. They need every bit of help Congress can deliver. So do truckers and working families paying more for groceries and at the pump just to haul goods, get to work, and move around their communities. Prices are going up, not just in America's heartland, but across our great country.
Republican leadership today had a chance to authorize year-round E15, a commonsense blend of ethanol and gasoline, but guess what. They walked away from it again.
Instead, and I can tell you this for the farmers I represent, half their income comes from raising grains that go into fuels. Without that market, they wouldn't exist.
This is serious business for agricultural America, and instead, Speaker Johnson has set up another delay, a council set to report back within another month on next steps.
Next steps on what? We want to make E15 year-round. That is not too complicated. That may sound like progress with another task force, but we don't really need it.
Farmers want E15 year-round. They can't keep punting our farmers up field. The time to act is now. The solution is within their hands. Why did they delay?
Let's hope this process the Speaker has now set up for another month or 6 weeks is not just another fig leaf for more delay. Year-round E15 sales protect our small refineries, too.
Can Congress achieve this so-called compromise? Ohio farmers and refiners are already hurting. Let's stand up for biofuels and for our farmers. Surely, the hardworking farmers across all of the counties I represent would benefit.
What America makes and grows, makes and grows America. Let me just say to the Speaker, ``please, shake a leg.''
Mr. Speaker, I will move on now to remember someone that was an extraordinary American.
It is my great privilege, Mr. Speaker, to offer deepest gratitude on behalf of Ohioans and Americans as we recognize the life of an honored and indefatigable public servant in the truest sense.
Steven D. Fought was born in Rapid City, South Dakota, on June 2, 1954, and passed recently at 71 years young. He passed from this life after a truly valiant final fight, on January 10, 2026, in Nebo, North Carolina, surrounded by his beloved family.
Steve was a precious and trusted friend, a brilliant adviser and public servant, incorruptible, compassionate, acerbic, and funny all at the same time, with a twinkle in his eye, you can just see it, and hearty laugh to tie it all up with a bow.
One colleague described him as the most intelligent, frustrating, hardest working, disorganized, nicest person they ever had the pleasure and honor to work with.
Steve Fought truly loved his country and the democratic process. He was always both an ardent participant and learned scholar of democracy. He floated in books. Steve was a lifelong student, earning degrees in literature, history, business administration, and law. He never stopped learning.
He loved baseball. Do not get in his way when there is a baseball around and basketball, as well. He was at one time the ``beloved Little League coach of Celina, Ohio.''
He was always reading, always learning. He could call up any fact. He conversed with the depth of knowledge which at times was actually astounding.
Steve Fought began his professional career as a newspaper reporter. He paid attention to details, and he followed that pursuit with decades in public service, first with the State of Ohio and then with the United States Congress.
He served under then-Secretary of State Sherrod Brown in Columbus, our capital, and would later serve in his office for a decade here in this House. It
Following his service with Sherrod Brown, Steve would join our office where he became a trusted adviser, serving as our legislative director for 5 years and then transitioning to communications director for nearly a decade.
Even in retirement, he continued in public service at the local level for the city of Toledo. He even ran for Congress in a long-shot bid to succeed the retiring Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner.
Though he came up short, Steve believed that everyone deserved a choice and that no one should receive a rubber-stamped, gerrymandered seat in Congress without having to work for it.
He always fought the good fight. His favorite music was Aaron Copland's ``Fanfare for the Common Man.'' Steve loved this land and worked to preserve its future. This was embodied in legislation he drafted to add an international designation to the Detroit River and Ottawa National Wildlife Refuges, which border our dear neighbor to the north, Canada.
He was an avid proponent for countless species and preserving unspoiled lands. Steve helped us to cement our region as the home of the biggest week in American birding, which today attracts birders from around the globe.
To the last, he was an active participant in the American experiment. He wrote Op-Eds and organized, kept reading and studying, even through his final, difficult illnesses.
Steve Fought's life is beautifully summed up by his nephew: ``Steve was many things to many people and had a knack for somehow being everywhere all at once. In addition to being a public servant, he was a deep thinker and conversationalist, a world traveler who visited 41 different countries, a voracious reader and eternal student, a big- hearted hellion, an old hippie who loved rock and roll and bluegrass music, a Zags basketball fanatic, and a passionate champion for underdogs everywhere. But most of all, until the very end, Steve was an outspoken believer in the decency and value of common people, the collective public good, and the principles of democracy, diversity, and equality. He was loved deeply by his family, his friends, his associates from work, and will be severely missed.''
Our Nation expresses deepest gratitude for the selfless service of Steve Fought, his true friendship, his humanity, and his abiding and honorable service. We celebrate the difference he made with a lifetime of intention and of active citizenship for this beautiful land and our people.
Those who know him can rest assured they will never ever meet his likes again. May God protect him, bring him peace, and allow his spirit to soar with the eagles.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to enter this into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Robert ``Rex'' Baumgartner, a true American hero, a man of the law. Rex embodied the very best of our Nation: honor, respect, bravery, duty, and unwavering courage.
Born in east Toledo, Rex answered the call to serve early, joining the United States Air Force and serving as an air policeman and sentry dog handler around the globe. He later dedicated over four decades to the Toledo Police Department.
His instincts, integrity, and fearless commitment to justice as a detective made our community safer and stronger. His work earned him countless honors including induction into the Birmingham Hall of Fame and the National Law Enforcement Officer Hall of Fame.
Even after retiring, he continued to serve, spending another 15 years at the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office, focusing on protecting the elderly from crime. He retired at the young age of 83. He truly made a difference in a lifetime of extraordinary public service.
Yet, Rex's greatest legacy was the love he poured into his family and community. He was a mentor, a coach, a storyteller, and a steady hand. He was always present, always giving, always leading with heart.
For over 30 years, Papa Rex made Halloween camping trips legendary. From silly costumes to spooky decorations, he poured his heart into making those weekends memorable. They became traditions that his kids, grandkids, and now great-grandkids will carry on for years to come.
Beyond all the arrests, titles, and awards, Rex was wise. He told the best stories, made everyone laugh until they cried, always showed up when he was needed most, and taught everyone how to live with integrity, humor, and genuine heart.
With his beloved wife of 62 years, Linda; his children, Debbie, Patti, Robert, and Julie; 13 grandchildren; 10 great-grandchildren; and countless other family and friends who loved him dearly, I join to celebrate a life of purpose and courage well-lived. May his example forever inspire all those who knew him.
I thank the Speaker for allowing me to enter his life into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of William ``Bill'' J. Darah, Jr., of northwest Ohio, a husband, father, grandfather, and Toledo businessman.
Bill Darah embodied the American Dream through hard work, integrity, and devotion to family. For more than four decades, this truly good man helped clothe our police officers, firefighters, workers, building Superior Uniform Sales with grit, wisdom, and a gift for bringing people together.
He was so friendly. He was a natural leader, a storyteller, and a man whose word mattered.
Bill's life was deeply rooted in faith, in heritage, and in routine, whether it was at St. Elias church, the Monday cousins' lunch he sustained for 45 years, or cheering for the Yankees, the Rockets, and the Buckeyes.
Yet, at the center of everything was his family. His pride in his family was unmistakable. They include his wife, Amira; his daughters, Natalie and Alyssa; and his grandchildren.
This week, Bill would have celebrated his 76th birthday. Today, we wish him in memoriam a happy birthday. We honor a life truly well- lived. May his memory be eternal.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to enter his story into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight with a heavy heart and deep gratitude to remember Sydney M. Boisselle, a young woman whose life proved that impact is not measured in years but in courage, character, and how we lift others.
Sydney shattered expectations. She became a leader in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 8, a teacher in the trades, a voice for women, and a standard-bearer for excellence. She worked hard, spoke honestly, laughed loudly, and made room for others to grow. She was, as all those who loved her say, pint-sized and full of spice, unforgettable in every way.
Above all, Sydney loved fiercely: her family; her friends; her dog, Waylon; and the community she served. In her final act, she gave the gift of life itself through organ donation, offering hope to families she would never meet.
We honor the strength of her family who made this courageous decision with love and grace. Sydney's passing reminds us that even in sorrow, goodness endures. One life lived fully and generously can change the lives of many.
Sydney Boisselle was a shero to working people and to so many who came to know her. May her name be honored forever. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to enter her story into the Record.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Timothy Haase, a devoted son, brother, caregiver, and the steady heart of Dino's Family Restaurant in Maumee. I know Dino defines family not just as his family but the family he created, as he created
For more than two decades, Tim showed up before dawn, fed neighbors with kindness, and reminded us that dignity lives in every service. His tragic loss on New Year's Eve has left an empty chair at the counter and a deeper ache in a community that loved him and that he helped build, a community of people.
We also honor the family that Dino's created. In a simple diner, friendships were forged, stories were shared, and strangers became regulars. A community was brought closer together.
Owner Dean Yakumithis and his team built a place where hard work mattered. Coffee stayed warm. People felt seen and appreciated. Though the doors have now closed, the spirit of that table endures in every single life that Tim touched. There were thousands.
Let us keep Tim's memory alive by caring for one another, watching out for our neighbors, and cherishing the small places that bind a town together. Every person is a part of that necklace of life in America. May his light guide us forward.
On behalf of northwest Ohio, we offer gratitude, prayers, and an enduring promise to remember.
Mr. Speaker, we will take about 1\1/2\ weeks off now, as we go back to our districts, meet our constituents, and do our factory tours.
Prior to leaving, I think it is important one more time to address what I think is the most significant issue this Congress and next Congress and that this President and the next President is going to have to deal with. How we address this issue will determine whether America fundamentally changes or not. That issue is immigration.
We see it on the TV every night. We see the obnoxiousness going on in a church in Minneapolis. We see the horror and unfortunate death of a woman who was protesting. There are demonstrations all around the country.
First of all, let's define the current situation. Right now in America, every year about 800,000 people are naturalized. We don't talk about that enough. We spend all the time talking about people who are sneaking into this country. We don't talk about the fact that over 800,000 people every year become new citizens.
In addition to that 800,000 new citizens, 500,000 people come here on work visas. Another 500,000 come here on student visas. People being what they are, many of these people on visas stay in the United States anyway.
In addition to that, the United States is one of the few countries in the world in which we have birthright citizenship. We have new citizens. If a woman from China flies into San Diego, has a child, and comes back, the way we are interpreting the law right now--which, of course, is wrong--but the way we interpret it is that child becomes a U.S. citizen.
When you look at all the ways you can become citizens, it is not surprising that today over 15 percent of the people in the United States of America were born abroad. That is an all-time high. As we analyze what we have to do on this situation, we ought to remember: If we do nothing, we are already at an all-time high in the number of people who are in the United States who were not born here.
As far as the over 800,000 who were naturalized, that is about four times what it was when I was a child in the 1960s. Again, we have nobody to apologize to as we are not letting people into the country. There are four times as many people being let into the country as when I was a child.
We just got done with President Joe Biden, and, of course, we don't keep track of the exact numbers, but he was allowing about 8 to 10 million people into the country. In addition to all of these other people, 8 to 10 million people were being allowed into the country, crossing our southern border illegally.
What do we do about this situation as we are being flooded with people from other countries?
First of all, we have to worry that the people coming here are not what John Adams said should be required to come here. They are not necessarily a moral and religious people. They may not respect our Constitution. When they eventually participate in our elections, will they vote for the limited government that our forefathers felt that we needed, a limited government that is required?
Most countries built on elections wind up collapsing, and they collapsed because people go to the polls and just say: What can my government do for me? I will quote John Kennedy here as far as what he felt we needed in this country. He said: ``Ask not what your country will do for you--ask what you can do for your country.''
Those are the type of people we need at the polling booth. Unfortunately, over time--and I am including carpet welfare in this as much as anything--we have more and more citizens when they vote saying: What will you give me? Are you going to give me more food? Are you going to give me free medical care? Are you going to give me free daycare?
In other words, what they do is they want the government to give them more money that they didn't earn on their own. That would be the end of America if these are the type of immigrants we are getting in.
I also want to point out that when we look at the people coming here, some of our inflammatory people talk about racism. I hate it when they talk about racism, but I do want to point out that, now, when you look at people who are naturalized who come in here, I want to rattle off the ten most common countries that citizens become naturalized from: One, Mexico; two, India; three, Philippines; four, Dominican Republic; five, Cuba; six, Vietnam; seven, China; eight, El Salvador; nine, Jamaica; and ten, Colombia.
Do you notice anything about those ten countries? Not one of those countries are sending us immigrants who are primarily European in nature. I should maybe qualify that. For whatever reason, the diversity bureaucrats have decided to tell us that people, say, from Cuba or the Dominican Republic are not European.
I have always felt it was odd the way they define this. You can have a family who moves here from Spain to Cuba, hangs around Cuba for 80 years. They come to the United States, and they are not considered primarily European even though their ancestry is in Europe.
In any event, the way we consider things now, none of the top ten are primarily European. As far as people saying that we have this horribly racist country, I think it would be odd for a racist country to let the ten most common nationalities to come here, all what our leftwing friends would call people of color.
In any event, we have to ask ourselves: How do we handle this huge influx of people coming into the country? If people come here and lie and say that they are coming here for asylum, it seems to me that the only alternative is to remove them, or we have no immigration law, right?
If the word gets out that you come to the United States and, as long as you don't break laws, as long as you are not an armed robber, as long as you are not a drug dealer, you can stay here forever, everybody will come here. That is like having no immigration law at all.
In any event, right now, we have the bizarre situation in which people are deciding that we don't have to enforce our current immigration laws. We have people like--I am from Wisconsin--the Governor of Illinois and the Governor of Minnesota, in essence, saying that we do not want ICE in our States. Same thing with the ridiculous mayor of Minnesota.
What would happen if the word got out that, if you come illegally into the United States, all you have to do is find your way into Illinois or Minnesota or perhaps New York or California, and the immigration laws will not be enforced?
I will tell you what would happen. What would happen is, in a given period of time, I think we would find ourselves--I am sure it would be easy to find 100 million Chinese who would come here; 100 million people from
In order to preserve our country, we have to limit the number of new citizens at 800,000, or maybe even less.
It is scary that we have so many citizens who are so blind that they can't see that we are losing our country. If we allow unlimited immigration in the country, that is exactly what would happen.
I should also point out that things are different than they were 60 years ago. When I was a child and they showed pictures of countries abroad, you would see starving children. You would look at their stomachs.
Nowadays, the amount of poverty in the Third World is a fraction of what it used to be. In some of the poorer countries of the world, we have the same problem as we do with the poor of this country. They are obese.
Okay. It amazes me sometimes when you look at the TV and they are showing other countries around the globe, how they have high-rise buildings in the background. I am sure they are not as wealthy as, say, New York City, but they clearly are not poor as we thought of poor 60 years ago. These people frequently have more than enough money.
So the question is what to do, and that is why I think it is the biggest problem that we have in America. If people like the Governor of Minnesota or the Governor of Illinois or the Governor of California get their way, the America that we are used to is going to disappear, and it will be replaced by people who may not be protecting our country or keeping the current law or the current Constitution or the attitude of less government going.
We are almost certainly going to get people who turn America into the countries they came from, countries in which there is socialism, in which you have socialists; countries in which elections become contests of who are you going to give to more? America will become not only poorer, but America will become much less free.
We must enforce our immigration laws. It is going to be messy in some cases, particularly because we have horrible mayors and horrible Governors who want to ignore our laws. They want to fundamentally change America, but our President, whoever that President is, has to have the courage and the moral steel to stand up to these people and remove people who don't belong here.
Anybody who feels guilty about that, again, I remind you: 800,000 people a year, almost all what liberals refer to as people of color, are coming here already. We have nothing to apologize for if we hold the number of people here to those numbers.
There are some people who feel that we need more people here for our farms, more people here for our hotels, more people here for our factories. If that is true, Congress can expand the number of work visas that are available, but it doesn't mean we open up the floodgates of the southern border and whoever can come here should be able to come here.
Part of the problem as well, in addition to bad mayors and bad Governors, is bad clergy. I think they are apparently not familiar what is in the Bible as far as respecting the law. Every country around the world has immigration laws. They have laws that have to be respected. Unfortunately, we have some clergy who, I guess, were bored preaching about the Gospel, bored preaching about God, and they have decided to adopt the leftwing orthodoxies of let everybody come here. They, of course, have a lot to answer to as well.
I challenge Americans at the polls, when you look and see what issues your Congressman or, even more, your mayors or Governors are running on, are you going to vote for people who are going to keep our America great, not people who are going to say no immigrants whatsoever--like I said, nationalizing 800,000 a year. Are you going to elect people who are not going to be foolish people who let an unlimited number of people come here? Because if we do that, America, the America that we grew up in, is going to be gone for our children. It is going to be gone for our grandchildren.
In any event, that is, I think, the most important issue today because if we don't win on that issue, our country is done.
