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.
26 public bills, H.R. 9693- 9718; and 8 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 112; and H. Res. 1430-1436 were introduced.
Pages H4543-45
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H.R. 9368, to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require the provision of identification as a condition of casting a ballot in an election for Federal office, with an amendment (H. Rept. 119-750).
Page H4543
Recess
The House recessed at 2:26 p.m. and reconvened at 4 p.m.
Page H4523
Suspensions
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measures: Designating the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, as the ``Anthony `Tony' J. Gallopo VA Clinic'': H.R. 6007, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, as the ``Anthony `Tony' J. Gallopo VA Clinic''; Designating the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, as the ``Colonel Michael H.
Pages H4472-73
Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic''
H.R. 5362, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, as the ``Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic''; Designating the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the ``Rodney C. Hamilton Sr.
Pages H4473-74
VA Clinic''
H.R. 6963, to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the ``Rodney C. Hamilton Sr. VA Clinic'';
Pages H4474-75
Designating the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs in West Haven, Connecticut, as the ``Captain Paul W. `Bucha VA' Medical Center''
H.R. 4647, to designate the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs in West Haven, Connecticut, as the ``Captain Paul W. `Bud' Bucha VA Medical Center''; and
Pages H4476-78
Designating the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in San Jose, California, as the ``Corporal Patrick D. Tillman Department of Veterans Affairs Clinic or the Pat Tillman VA Clinic'': H.R. 4288, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in San Jose, California, as the ``Corporal Patrick D. Tillman VA Clinic''.
Pages H4478-80
National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027
The House passed H.R. 8595, making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, by a yea-and- nay vote of 217 yeas to 209 nays, Roll No. 247.
Pages H4480-H4528
Rejected the Amo motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Appropriations by a yea-and-nay vote of 209 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 246.
Pages H4527-28
Agreed to
Diaz-Balart en bloc amendment No. 1 consisting of the following amendments printed in H. Rept. 119-749: Cammack (No. 3) that increases funding to programs to combat human trafficking by $5,000,000; Kim (No. 7) that increases and decreases funding for the State Department's Office of the Inspector General by $2M for the purpose of ensuring proper oversight of U.S. taxpayer dollars and prevention of fraudulent/ illegal activities; Plaskett (No. 17) that increases and decreases funds by $1 million to support funding within the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement State Department account for maritime interdiction and counter-narcotics cooperation in the Caribbean; Plaskett (No. 18) that increases and decreases funds by $1 million to support funding within the National Security Investment Programs account to counter Russian and Chinese influence in Africa; Roy (No. 21) that strikes the exemption provision that allows foreign assistance to flow through nongovernmental organizations in countries subject to aid restrictions, ensuring such restrictions apply equally to NGOs and foreign governments; Roy (No. 24) that increases from 30 percent to 50 percent the amount of assistance for Mexico that is withheld pending the required certification; Stanton (No. 25) that increases and decreases funding by $5 million to the American Institute of Taiwan to reaffirm that it is the policy of the United States to sell arms to Taiwan for its self-defense in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act; Stanton (No. 26) that increases and decreases funding by $5 million to supports funding within the Countering PRC Influence Fund to counter increasing Chinese influence in Latin America and the Caribbean; and Tran (No. 29) that increases and decreases funding by $5 million for Democracy Fund at the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to support the annual U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue and express concern about Vietnam's growing restrictions on the freedom of speech, transnational repression techniques, and imprisonment of numerous prisoners of conscience;
Pages H4514-15
Crane amendment (No. 4 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that requires nations to pay the U.S. for military training exercise rather than receive them as a grant or at no-cost;
Pages H4516-17
Steube amendment (No. 27 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that increases withholding of assistance to Nigeria from 50 percent to 100 percent, keeping metrics in place that force Nigeria to take effective steps to prevent and respond to violence in the country; and
Pages H4521-22
Tenney amendment (No. 28 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that increases and decreases funding for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom by $1M to emphasize the importance of ensuring religious freedom and equal access for all with respect to the Temple Mount.
Pages H4522-23
Rejected
Boebert amendment (No. 1 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that eliminates funding for the Fulbright Program (by a recorded vote of 79 ayes to 348 noes; Roll No. 241);
Pages H4515-16, H4524
Fine amendment (No. 6 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that strikes the $139,575,000 for the Global Environment Facility (by a recorded vote of 178 ayes to 247 noes, Roll No. 242);
Pages H4517-18, H4524-25
Massie amendment (No. 8 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that prohibits funds appropriated by the Act from being used for Israel, and accordingly reduces the Foreign Military Financing Program account by $3,300,000,000 (by a recorded vote of 104 ayes to 314 noes with 10 answering ``present'', Roll No. 243);
Pages H4518-20, H4525-26
Massie amendment (No. 9 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that prohibits funds appropriated by the Act from being used for Jordan, and accordingly reduces the National Security Investment Programs, the Foreign Military Financing Program, the Global Health Programs, and other programs accounts, collectively, by $2,100,000,000 (by a recorded vote of 6 ayes to 421 noes, Roll No. 244); and
Pages H4520, H4526
Roy amendment (No. 20 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-749) that prohibits any funds from being made available to the United Nations (by a recorded vote of 136 ayes to 291 noes, Roll No. 245). H. Res. 1423, the rule providing for consideration was agreed to yesterday, July 14th.
Pages H4520-21, H4526-27
Senate Message
Message from the Senate appears on pages H4475-76. Senate Referral: S. 2120 was held at the desk.
Page H4476
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. on Thursday, July 16, 2026.
Page H4528
Quorum Calls Votes
Two yea-and-nay votes and five recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H4524, H4524-25, H4525-26, H4526, H4526-27, H4527-28, and H4528. Adjournment: The House met at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 7:36 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: 132 of 339 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate two State FFA officers from the Fourth District who were recently elected at the Indiana State convention.
FFA is the largest U.S. career and technical student organization. FFA is rooted in farming and preparing youth for careers in agribusiness, science, veterinary medicine, and using hands-on learning techniques.
Katie McClain from Carroll High School was elected as secretary. She is the granddaughter of a former Indiana State representative, Rich McClain, who I had the privilege of serving with.
She is the 2026 Lilly Scholar winner, which has a full ride to Purdue University. Katie was the president of her local FFA chapter at Carroll and the district vice president last year.
Jessie Frazee from Fountain Central High School was elected as the Northern Region vice president. Jessie was the local FFA president at Fountain Central High and the Fourth District president this past year. Jessie is the first Fountain FFA chapter member to become a State officer.
Congratulations to these two amazing Hoosiers. I think they are in the audience. If they are, I ask that they please raise their hand or stand.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life and memory of Maxine Peacock Holley, a devoted public servant of Benson, North Carolina, who passed away at the age of 82.
Maxine dedicated her life to serving others as a teacher's aide, a magistrate judge, and a Benson town commissioner. She was a trailblazer. She was the first woman to chair the Benson Housing Authority and made history as Johnston County's first successful write- in candidate elected to public office.
With deep faith, Maxine showed what it means to love your neighbor. Even while battling cancer, she continued to serve with grace and an unwavering commitment to others.
Above all, Maxine was devoted to her family. She was a proud mother to Reggie, Nikita, and Shawn, and she instilled in them that same spirit of service.
Mr. Speaker, as we mourn her passing, we also celebrate a life well lived: a life of faith, a life of service, and a life of selflessness. I ask my colleagues to join me in remembering her and thanking her for her public service.
Included in that is a massive new healthcare tax that is estimated to raise the healthcare premiums for many Californians by hundreds of dollars. This is something that our State simply cannot afford. When we already have the highest cost of living in the country, this is the last thing that our families need.
What is more, it violates, at the very least, the spirit if not the letter of Proposition 35, passed by voters to limit precisely this kind of a tax increase.
Fortunately, there is a way we can fight back. This new change has to be approved by regulators at the Federal level, and so myself and my colleagues are asking HHS--and we will be conveying this in a letter-- specifically to block the implementation of this plan, to block this tax proposal so that Californians do not suffer another blow to both our democracy and our cost of living.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6007) to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, as the ``Anthony `Tony' J. Gallopo VA Clinic''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of H.R. 6007 to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, as the Anthony ``Tony'' J. Gallopo VA Clinic.
Tony Gallopo proudly served our Nation in the United States Navy. He served courageously and with honor. His service to our Nation did not end there.
Following his service in the Navy, Mr. Gallopo dedicated his life to serving his fellow veterans, working to ensure those who wore the uniform received the care and services and support they earned.
Mr. Gallopo became a trusted advocate for veterans throughout Sussex and Warren Counties, devoting countless hours to improving their quality of life and expanding access to VA healthcare.
He was instrumental in helping establish the VA community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, which opened in 2017 and brought VA healthcare closer to veterans in that community.
His advocacy helped reduce barriers to care and expand access to essential health services for countless numbers of veterans and their families. His community as a whole is better because of all his efforts.
Whether mentoring fellow veterans or advocating for expanding healthcare access, he remained committed to ensuring that those who served our Nation will never be forgotten. Even after decades of public service, he continued asking what more could be done for veterans until he passed in 2020.
By naming the Newton VA community-based outpatient clinic in his honor, Congress would ensure that Tony Gallopo's legacy of service, leadership, and unwavering commitment to the veterans in his community lives on for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, individuals like Tony Gallopo are heroes in our communities, and I am honored to help ensure that Congress recognizes that and never forgets these great American stories.
I thank Representative Gottheimer and the entire New Jersey delegation for leading this effort to recognize an extraordinary advocate for our Nation's veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 6007, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6007, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Newton, New Jersey, after Anthony ``Tony'' Gallopo. I am pleased to have co-led this effort with my colleague from New Jersey, Representative Gottheimer, and pleased to speak in support of this bill today.
Mr. Gallopo was a keystone in the northern New Jersey community. Born in 1961, he grew up in Bergen County, New Jersey, and led a life dedicated to service. Mr. Gallopo was active in his local fire department before enlisting in the Navy.
After serving as a seaman, Mr. Gallopo returned home to become a leader locally in Sussex County, serving as vice commander of the New Jersey Department of The American Legion and commander at American Legion Post 86.
Mr. Gallopo was a tireless advocate, and his dedication to caring for his fellow veterans was unparalleled. Mr. Gallopo hosted roundtables for both students and returning veterans to help them succeed in seeking better job opportunities. His leadership in evaluating student applicants to our Nation's service academies on his congressional district's Service Academy Nomination Selection Committee helped to cultivate the next generation of servicemembers.
Mr. Gallopo was instrumental in the expansion of healthcare for veterans in his community. His advocacy helped lead to the opening of a Sussex County VA community-based outpatient clinic.
Mr. Gallopo's critical role in opening this clinic will continue to benefit veterans in northern New Jersey for generations.
Mr. Gallopo passed away in 2020, but his memory lives on in the countless veterans who have access to healthcare within their local community because of his work. There is no better way to express our gratitude for Mr. Gallopo's lifetime of service to his fellow veterans than to rename the clinic he tirelessly fought to open in his honor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), who is the author of this legislation. He serves on the House Financial Services Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my very good friend from New Jersey as well as my friends on the other side for their support.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 6007. Today, this House will come together and do something simple but important: honor a great American hero.
Mr. Speaker, Tony Gallopo, as you have heard, was a brave Navy veteran, vice commander of the New Jersey Department of The American Legion, and
For years, my good friend did what a lot of people talk about but few actually do. He fought every single day to make sure our veterans got the healthcare they earned and deserved and to make sure they were looked out for. He never forgot anyone, and that is why he was such a special man. We all miss him.
Tony was instrumental in opening the Sussex County, New Jersey, Veterans Affairs Clinic in 2017, the CBOC. He and I worked side by side, cutting through red tape to get veterans real referrals, real specialists, and real healthcare--healthcare that they earned and deserved.
Sadly, Tony passed away in 2020, leaving behind his wife, Betsy; his brilliant daughters, Ashley, Sarah, and Ally; and an incredible legacy of helping those in need. Today's vote on this bill will honor his name and his work at the very clinic he helped to build.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, he literally helped build it. We sat at a picnic bench right outside the clinic many times talking about how we could make it better and how we could deliver more service to veterans.
He never forgot that for a second. He never forgot the country he served, and he never forgot the flag he saluted every day with such great pride.
It is Americans like him we should all look up to. It is Americans like him who built this great country for 250 years. It is why we should honor him today.
This isn't partisan. It is just common sense. It is what we owe every person who ever wore the uniform and protected our great Nation.
I thank his family--Betsy, Ashley, Sarah, and Ally--for sharing Tony with all of us. I know how hard it is right now without him, but his legacy goes on, and it looms large. He lives on. No one has forgotten him for a minute. When we go to The American Legion, we all talk about him. There are pictures everywhere, and he continues to be a light in New Jersey, in our country, and for all of us as somebody we should look up to.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to pass this legislation, and I am so grateful for the bipartisan support. I also urge the Senate--I know Senator Cory Booker has taken the lead on this--to take this up quickly and honor our great hero, Tony Gallopo.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I encourage all Members to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6007.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5362) to name the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, as the ``Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5362, Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic, sponsored by Representative Loudermilk.
Colonel Michael H. Boyce dedicated almost three decades to our Nation as a United States marine, serving in key leadership and operational roles around the world.
Throughout Colonel Boyce's career, he served with the First Marine Division, the First, Second, and Fourth Marine Aircraft Wings, and the First Marine Expeditionary Brigade. He also served overseas in Turkiye, Bahrain, Oman, and Somalia in support of operations to include Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Provide Comfort, Restore Hope, Desert Thunder, and Desert Fox.
Before his retirement in 2001, Colonel Boyce held multiple senior leadership roles, including head programmer for the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Air Warfare Division, head of operational plans at Marine Corps Forces Pacific, and deputy commander of Marine Corps Base Hawaii.
After his military service, Colonel Boyce returned home and continued to serve his community as chairman of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners.
In this role, he advocated for veterans by establishing the county's first
Colonel Boyce's lifelong commitment to veterans and leadership makes this recognition a fine tribute to an extraordinary American.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5362 honors a true American leader who put service above self. I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 5362, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5362 to name the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, after Colonel Michael H. Boyce, a dedicated Marine Corps veteran, public servant, and community leader.
Colonel Boyce was born in Brawley, California, in September 1949 and graduated from the University of Notre Dame in 1971. With this degree in hand, he was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. After attending The Basic School and Army Field Artillery School, he was assigned to the First Marine Division in Camp Pendleton, California.
He continued to wear the uniform for the next 30 years, reaching the rank of colonel with assignments in Hawaii, Japan, Turkiye, Bahrain, and Oman, where he supported operations including Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and Desert Fox. Colonel Boyce also deployed to Somalia for Operation Restore Hope during his time with the Marine Air Group 16.
In 2001, Colonel Boyce retired from the Marine Corps, but that did not mark the end of his service to country and community. He moved to Marietta, Georgia, and became a dedicated member of his local church, alongside several charities and veterans service organizations including Habitat for Humanity, the VFW, and The American Legion.
In 2016, Colonel Boyce was elected as chairman of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners. During his time in office, he led the efforts to make Veterans Day a paid holiday for county employees, established a veterans service office in the county, and opened a VA clinic to expand access to care for local veterans.
Colonel Boyce passed away in January of 2022 and was laid to rest with full military honors in Arlington National Cemetery.
Colonel Boyce's unwavering commitment to service and stewardship is a model to which we should all aspire. Naming the VA clinic that he helped bring to Marietta in his honor is a perfect way to demonstrate our appreciation for Colonel Boyce's life of service.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee for bringing this bill to the floor.
As the Representative of Georgia `s 11th Congressional District and a veteran of the United States Air Force, I proudly rise today in support of H.R. 5362 to name the Department of Veterans Affairs multispecialty clinic in Marietta, Georgia, as the Colonel Michael H. Boyce Department of Veterans Affairs Multispecialty Clinic.
As he was to many, Mike Boyce was a friend of mine, who unfortunately passed away in 2022.
Mike took his duties to our country and our community seriously. Like a true patriot, Mike spent much of his life in service to his community, State, and Nation. Throughout his service in the Marine Corps and later in elected office as the chairman of the Cobb County Board of Commissioners, Mike was a tireless advocate for the health and welfare of our Active-Duty servicemen and veterans. Mike worked to ensure our servicemembers had the tools to succeed and was instrumental in establishing the Cobb County VA Clinic, which remains a vital resource for those who served our country.
Mr. Speaker, recognizing Colonel Boyce through this legislation is a fitting tribute to an American hero whose service and advocacy inspired so many, including myself. I greatly appreciate his wife, Judy, for continuing his incredible legacy.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all Members to support this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 5362.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6963) to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the ``Rodney C. Hamilton Sr. VA Clinic''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6963, to designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the Rodney C. Hamilton Sr. VA Clinic sponsored by Representative Higgins.
At just 17 years old, Rodney Hamilton enlisted in the United States Marine Corps out of Lafayette, Louisiana, to serve his country. He would go to serve in the Korean war, where he was wounded in combat and received the Purple Heart. As a fellow marine, I know that the Marine Corps leaves a mark on every man and woman that earns the title.
For Rodney, this sense of duty did not end when he returned home. He came back to Lafayette and continued serving by working to improve the lives of fellow veterans across southwest Louisiana.
He served in Lafayette city government from 1968 to 1972 and later founded the Southwest Louisiana Veterans Action Coalition, giving local veterans a stronger voice and fighting to make sure their needs were met. That advocacy helped lead to one of his most lasting accomplishments, the establishment of the VA clinic in Lafayette.
When the clinic opened in 2016, it brought VA care closer to home for veterans across the region and reflected years of work by Rodney Hamilton and others who believed Lafayette veterans deserved better access to the care they had earned.
Naming this facility in his honor would recognize a marine, a Purple Heart recipient, and a community leader whose work continues to serve veterans today.
H.R. 6963 is a fitting tribute to Rodney Hamilton, Sr., a man who served his country in war, returned home to serve his community, and never stopped standing up for his fellow veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 6963, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6963 to designate the community-based outpatient clinic in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the Rodney C. Hamilton Sr. VA Clinic.
Rodney Hamilton was born in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 24, 1932. In 1948, his family moved to Lafayette, Louisiana, where he resided for over 70 years until his passing. At just 17 years old, Hamilton joined the Marine Reserve as a member of the Marine Reserve Rifle Corps. He received orders to serve in the Seventh Marine Regiment during the Korean war.
While stationed on the front lines in September 1951, he was wounded by mortar shells and received the Purple Heart for his service. He was reassigned to the First Marine Division's service battalion and was honorably discharged in 1952 with the rank of sergeant.
Back home in Lafayette, Hamilton married his high school sweetheart and the love of his life, Barbara Webb. The couple have 5 children and 12 grandchildren and were together for nearly seven decades.
Sergeant Hamilton became a leading advocate for his fellow Marines and veterans in the following years. He founded the Southwest Louisiana Veterans Action Coalition, and he was an active member of the Marine Corps League, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and The American Legion.
Sergeant Hamilton's advocacy and leadership were instrumental in establishing the VA community-based outpatient clinic in Lafayette, which opened in 2016 and expanded access to medical care for veterans throughout the region. The road that leads to the facility already bears his name in honor of the tireless work that he put into bringing this clinic into fruition.
Sergeant Hamilton's long record of giving back extended even further through his tireless dedication to his community. He was active in his church and several local organizations, including the Chamber of Commerce and the Beaver Club. From 1968 until 1972, he also served in local government as a trustee for public property.
Rodney Hamilton passed away in 2020 and was buried with full military honors. His legacy is one of advocacy, leadership, compassion, and sacrifice. It is only fitting that we honor his contributions by designating the Lafayette VA clinic in his honor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support H.R. 6963, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today, we are actually naming many clinics. This one in Lafayette, the sponsor, Representative Higgins, feels that this is vitally important. With the hecticness around here today, we are hoping that he does make it to make comments on this bill, but we need to move on with our business.
Mr. Speaker, I have no more Members wishing to speak, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak on behalf of an American patriot who was a man amongst men, Mr. Speaker, Rodney C. Hamilton.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6963, which would designate the community-based outpatient clinic of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Lafayette, Louisiana, as the Rodney C. Hamilton Sr. VA Clinic.
This legislative effort, Mr. Speaker, to honor Mr. Hamilton has been in the making for many years. I am proud and humbled to bring it to the floor on behalf of the Louisiana delegation today.
Rodney C. Hamilton, Sr., joined the United States Marine Corps at 17 years old and served in the Korean war. He was wounded, served honorably, and received the Purple Heart. After serving his Nation in combat, he returned home to Lafayette where he continued to serve those around him, becoming a community leader in Lafayette's city government. He was ordained as a deacon, serving as a member of the First Baptist Church of Youngsville, Louisiana, a community near Lafayette.
Mr. Hamilton was a cofounder of the Southwest Louisiana Veterans Action Coalition, serving as a longtime veterans advocate. This marine, Mr. Hamilton, played an integral role in establishing the Louisiana community-based outpatient clinic, which opened in 2016, and the road leading to the clinic was named in his honor in 2017.
I am joined in support by Speaker Mike Johnson, Leader Steve Scalise, Representatives Letlow, Carter, and Fields, and Senators Kennedy and Cassidy in support of this legislation honoring Mr. Hamilton.
Louisiana's American Legion, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the Disabled American Veterans, and Louisianans across the State have offered their strong support to rename this clinic in honor of Mr. Hamilton.
Passing H.R. 6963 will be to honor an American who did so much for our Nation, our veterans, and the people of Lafayette, Louisiana. Not only will this serve as a tribute to our beautiful Nation but would show this body's resolve to remember and honor all veterans who answered the call to serve our Nation and our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6963.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4647) to designate the medical center of the Department of Veterans Affairs in West Haven, Connecticut, as the ``Captain Paul W. `Bud' Bucha VA Medical Center''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4647, the Captain Paul W. ``Bud'' Bucha VA Medical Center Act of 2025, sponsored by Representative DeLauro.
This bill would designate the West Haven VA Medical Center in Connecticut as the Captain Paul W. ``Bud'' Bucha VA Medical Center.
Captain Paul ``Bud'' Bucha was an American hero whose life exemplified courage, sacrifice, and an unwavering commitment to his fellow veterans, both on the battlefield and at home.
After graduating from West Point, Captain Bucha was sent to Vietnam where he commanded his company during an intense recon mission.
In March 1968, Captain Bucha displayed extraordinary courage while leading his company against a larger enemy force.
Under intense fire, he destroyed an enemy bunker, directed the withdrawal of his men, coordinated artillery and air support, evacuated wounded soldiers, and led the recovery of casualties.
For this, he was awarded the Medal of Honor. His actions saved countless lives and are a tribute to the highest ideals of military service.
Captain Bucha's service did not end when he came home. For decades, he dedicated himself to serving veterans, focusing on those struggling with the invisible wounds of war. After experiencing post-traumatic stress himself, he became one of the Nation's strongest advocates for getting veterans out of the rut and back to living. He challenged the stigma surrounding mental health care and encouraged countless fellow veterans to seek help.
The West Haven VA Medical Center became an important part of that journey. It was there that Captain Bucha received treatment, continued his advocacy, and ultimately spent his final days. Naming this facility in his honor would ensure that future generations of veterans remember Captain Bucha and his service, not only for his actions in combat, but for what he continued to do for his fellow veterans long after his time in uniform was over.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4647 honors a Medal of Honor recipient, a tireless advocate, and a man whose life was defined by service to others.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4647, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4647 to name the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center in West Haven, Connecticut, the ``Captain Paul W. `Bud' Bucha VA Medical Center.''
I thank my colleagues from Connecticut Senator Blumenthal and Representative DeLauro for their leadership to honor Captain Bucha's legacy.
Captain Bucha's dedication to his country exemplifies service. As a young man, he turned down multiple athletic and academic scholarships, choosing, instead, to enroll in the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he was a two-time All-American and captain of the swim team. He graduated in the top 5 percent of his class and number two in the Order of Military Merit.
In 1967, Captain Bucha deployed to Vietnam as part of Operation Eagle Thrust. As commander of Company D, Third Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, he oversaw a motley crew that he lovingly referred to as ``clerks and jerks.'' They went on to become one of the most decorated units by war's end.
As part of the Tet Offensive, in March 1968, Captain Bucha and his men were dropped by helicopter to repel attacks by the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. They found themselves outnumbered by 1,500 enemy troops, and Captain Bucha crawled 40 yards through a hail of gunfire and singlehandedly destroyed a machine-gun bunker with grenades.
He then spearheaded an overnight offensive, spreading his men out to throw grenades to convince the enemy that they were the ones who were outnumbered.
He was also instrumental in enabling the medical evacuation of three air ambulance loads of his personnel.
For these heroic efforts, Captain Bucha was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1970. He considered turning it down, feeling undeserving. Ultimately, he accepted, saying that the medal belongs to his men.
After his service, Captain Bucha taught at West Point to help shape the next generation of servicemembers. He also worked with several veterans organizations to advocate for mental health support, job training, and housing for veterans.
Captain Bucha's connection to the West Haven VA Medical Center is deeply personal. He battled post-traumatic stress disorder for 42 years before courageously seeking help at West Haven, where he received compassionate and skilled care in the final years of his life. He passed away at the medical center in 2024 from complications of Alzheimer's disease.
I understand that our colleagues in the Senate passed the companion to this bill in their Chamber last August and have been waiting for the House to take it up for almost a year. I am disappointed that we are not considering the already-passed Senate bill today. This House should have passed that Senate bill long ago.
A well-deserving veteran such as Captain Bucha should have been honored as swiftly as possible. I am concerned that by not taking up the Senate version of this bill today, it will only further delay this bill from getting to the President's desk for signature. Captain Bucha's friends and loved ones should not have to wait so long to see his legacy honored.
Nevertheless, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I hope that it will become law without delay. I can think of no better way to express gratitude for Captain Bucha's lifelong commitment to service of his community and his country than to name this VA medical center in his honor. I urge all Members to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee and the author of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored and grateful for this opportunity to put forward this legislation. It is legislation that honors a man who embodied the highest ideals of service to his country, his fellow soldiers, and his community, Captain Paul W. ``Bud'' Bucha, a longtime resident of Ridgefield, Connecticut, and a Medal of Honor recipient.
The bill would rename the West Haven Veterans Affairs Medical Center in West Haven, Connecticut, where Captain Bucha received care for PTSD after his service and neurological care for Alzheimer's disease before he passed away on July 31, 2024.
Captain Bucha received the Medal of Honor in 1970 for his heroic service while on Active Duty during the Vietnam war. He distinguished himself with extraordinary heroism while leading 89 men on a reconnaissance mission in Vietnam under heavy enemy fire
The captain's dedication to serving others continued after his time in uniform. He served as president of the Congressional Medal of Honor Society from 1995 to 1999. He advised President Obama on foreign policy during his 2008 Presidential campaign. He served on the board of directors of Homes For Our Troops, a veteran service organization that builds and donates specially adapted custom homes for severely injured 9/11 veterans. He also served as chairman of the Advisory Committee on Veterans' Employment, Training and Employer Outreach Services at the United States Department of Labor.
Even after his death, Captain Bucha's selflessness lives on. His brain was donated to the Center for Human Brain Discovery at Yale University for research.
Naming the West Haven VA Medical Center in his honor is a deserving tribute to a hero who fought for this country. He earned this highest military distinction and then continued to fight for veterans throughout his life.
His legacy, a legacy of courage and compassion, will live on through the care provided to each and every veteran who walks through its doors.
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to propose this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. I hope that we can move it quickly, with the Senate, and bring it to the President for signature.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I encourage all Members to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4647.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4288) to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in San Jose, California, as the ``Corporal Patrick D. Tillman VA Clinic''.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4288, to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in San Jose, California, as the ``Corporal Patrick D. Tillman VA Clinic,'' sponsored by Representative Panetta.
Pat Tillman was born and raised in San Jose, California. He first made his name on the football field at Leland High School, helping lead his team to a Central Coast Division I championship.
He carried that same drive and determination to Arizona State University, where he excelled both as a student and as an athlete.
Mr. Speaker, after being drafted by the Arizona Cardinals in 1998, by 2000, Pat had become the team's star safety. He had achieved what so many young athletes dreamed of. He was playing in the NFL. He had a successful career ahead of him and could have made millions of dollars by continuing to play professional football.
Yet, after the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, Pat Tillman made a different choice. When his country needed him, Pat answered the call. He put the needs of his country above his own dreams, above his own career, and above the life of comfort and success that he already earned.
Mr. Speaker, that is the definition of an American hero. When terrorists struck the Twin Towers, Pat, like so many other Americans, ran toward the fight.
Pat once said: ``A lot of my family has . . . gone and fought in wars. And I really haven't done a damned thing as far as laying myself on the line like that, and so I have a great deal of respect for those that have and what the flag stands for.''
Those were not empty words. In 2002, Pat enlisted in the United States Army. He served with the 75th Ranger Regiment. During his second deployment--I will say that again--his second deployment, while serving in Afghanistan, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Pat's unit came under attack.
Pat died in action while providing cover for his fellow soldiers. Because of his courage, his fellow soldiers were able to escape danger.
For his bravery and sacrifice, Pat was posthumously awarded the Purple Heart and the Silver Star.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4288 is a fitting tribute to Pat Tillman, a son of San Jose, a professional athlete, an Army Ranger, and an American hero who gave up fame and fortune to serve the country he loved.
By naming the VA clinic after him, we would ensure that his story of courage, service, and sacrifice will continue for decades. Those of us who can remember Pat Tillman and remember what an amazing thing he did, to leave a career as a professional football player to serve this Nation and the flag
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4288, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really moved by the chairman's comments about Mr. Tillman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4288 to name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in San Jose, California, after Corporal Patrick ``Pat'' Daniel Tillman.
I thank my colleague, Representative Panetta, for honoring the legacy of this American hero.
Pat Tillman was born in San Jose, California, in 1976. From 1990 to 1994, Pat attended Leland High School in San Jose, California, where he helped lead his team to a Central Coast Division I football championship.
Mr. Tillman was offered a scholarship to play football for Arizona State University. While there, he led Arizona State to the 1997 Rose Bowl after an undefeated season. He earned three consecutive selections to the Pac-10 All-Academic Football Team, a first team Academic All- American honor, and received the NCAA post-graduate scholarship for academic and athletic excellence.
After graduating ASU summa cum laude in 1998 with a bachelor of science, he was drafted to play for the Arizona Cardinals, where he played until July 2002.
Less than 1 year after 9/11, Tillman felt a call to serve his country and enlisted in the U.S. Army.
Mr. Tillman, with his brother Kevin, who joined the Army at the same time, were both assigned to the 75th Ranger Regiment at Fort Lewis, Washington.
As an Army Ranger, Pat Tillman deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and Operation Enduring Freedom in 2004. On April 22, 2004, Pat Tillman was tragically killed by friendly fire while on patrol in the rugged area of eastern Afghanistan.
Pat Tillman was undeniably known as a national hero, and his service reflects that. He was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart medals, and he was posthumously promoted to corporal.
Following his death, his widow, Marie, and his family and friends established the Pat Tillman Foundation, which awards academic scholarships to military servicemembers, veterans, and their spouses.
I can think of no better way to honor Mr. Tillman's legacy and demonstrate our Nation's continued gratitude for his service than to name this VA clinic in his honor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), my good friend and author of this legislation, who serves on the House Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bipartisan legislation to rename the San Jose veterans affairs clinic for U.S. Army Corporal Patrick D. Tillman.
Mr. Speaker, this is more than about just a naming of a VA clinic. This is about patriotism. It is about passion, and it is about progression as a nation.
Now, there is no doubt, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, that Pat was a patriot. After 9/11, he gave up a $3.6 million contract playing professional football to enlist in the U.S. Army.
Mr. Speaker, Pat had a storied football career, be it as a beast on the gridiron for the Chargers of Leland High School in Almaden Valley, San Jose; at Arizona State University as an Academic All-American who graduated summa cum laude in 3\1/2\ years; as an All-American who helped the Sun Devils to an undefeated season and a Rose Bowl berth in 1997; and then, of course, as a professional football player in the NFL for the Arizona Cardinals, where he set a franchise record for tackles in the year 2000.
Mr. Speaker, despite all of that, he felt he hadn't done a dang thing for this great country.
Pat grew up in a family of service who had gone and fought wars. He grew up knowing that his great-grandfather served at Pearl Harbor during the attack in 1941. He grew up realizing that in our democracy, we have an obligation to give back to our country that gives a guy like Pat Tillman the opportunity to play professional football.
He felt that he could fulfill that responsibility by joining the U.S. Army and becoming a U.S. Ranger.
Mr. Speaker, I admit that I did not know Pat Tillman, but when we know about Pat Tillman, all of us--all of us--feel his passion.
He did nothing half baked. He did everything with a full heart: academics, athletics, and of course, the service to our Nation.
He said: ``You should be passionate about everything you do; if not, why do it?'' That was his attitude about life, a passion that is demonstrated by that iconic photo of Pat on the football field that became the foundation for the statue of Pat outside Arizona State Sun Devil Stadium at the entrance of Tillman Tunnel that depicts Pat running, yelling, and hair flying.
That was the passion that drove his success on the football field. That passion drove his determination to do something after our Nation was attacked on 9/11. That passion led him to be all that he could be as an Army Ranger alongside his brother, Kevin, where they were subsequently assigned to the 2nd battalion of the 75th Ranger Regiment.
Now, as an Army Ranger, Pat deployed in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 and then to Operation Enduring Freedom in 2004.
Mr. Speaker, it was on April 22 of that year that Pat was in Khost province in the southeast Afghanistan border region, and on that day he was part of two convoys on patrol in a narrow valley.
As they were going down this valley, they came to a fork in the road where the first convoy was supposed to turn left and the second convoy was supposed to turn right. That was Pat's convoy.
When Pat got to that fork in the road, they realized that it was impassable, and so they followed behind the first convoy to the left unbeknownst to the first convoy.
A while later, the enemies started to ambush the first convoy. Pat's convoy behind a hill heard it, knew what they had to do, and responded. Pat and two other members of that convoy immediately exited their Humvees, got up to a ridge where they could see the first convoy, and then started firing at the enemies up on the hill.
The first convoy, unfortunately, did not know that up on that ridge it was Pat Tillman. Pat's last words were: Cease fire. I am Pat f'ing Tillman.
Now, at first, Mr. Speaker, the Army put out a standard statement saying that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire, but after four military investigations and numerous independent investigations, including one by his own mother, Dannie, the truth came out that Pat was killed by friendly fire.
It was not just Pat's death that hurt. It was the sense of deception that made this story difficult. That is why the legacy of Pat Tillman should also be about progress, what we can do better as an Army, as a military, as a Congress, and as a country to ensure that this never happens again.
Mr. Speaker, Pat was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart and was posthumously promoted to corporal, but something tells me, Mr. Speaker, he wouldn't want it. Similar to this legislation, something tells me that Pat Tillman wouldn't want this recognition.
Well, Pat Tillman may not want this, but as a community and as a country, we want it, and, yes, we need it.
In this day of division and dysfunction, we must always, always be reminded of the sacrifice of the service and the ultimate sacrifice of someone like Pat Tillman. We must always be reminded of his patriotism, of his passion. Mr. Speaker, yes, we must always be reminded that we must always progress as a nation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation renaming the San Jose VA Clinic the Corporal Patrick D. Tillman VA Clinic.
Mr. Speaker, once again, I encourage all Members to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4288.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
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. 8595 and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1423 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. 8595.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Patronis) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 8595) making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes, with Mr. Patronis in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations bill to the House for consideration and for approval.
Now, let me start by noting the untimely, sad passing of our friend and colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham. As chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee in the Senate, he was my counterpart. We worked together closely on our top priority, the national security of the United States. Senator Graham was a tough negotiator, but always, always, an honorable partner. He will be greatly missed, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family, his staff, and those who knew and loved him.
At the outset, I thank Chairman Cole for his invaluable leadership and commitment to ensuring that Congress upholds its responsibility to provide the tools necessary to safeguard our national security along with his partner in this endeavor, Ranking Member DeLauro.
I also thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ranking Member Frankel, for the longstanding relationship that she and I have--we have been friends for many, many years--and for her valuable contributions during the bill development process. I will tell you, anybody who knows Lois Frankel, she is tough, but she is always trustworthy.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is very straightforward. If you are a friend or an ally of the United States, this bill supports you, but if you are an adversary or you are cozying up to the adversaries of the United States, then, frankly, you are just not going to like this bill.
This bill is the next step in strengthening our national security while reducing spending. Under Chairman Cole's leadership, House Republicans have delivered nearly $12 billion in responsible cuts within the purview of this subcommittee just since 2023.
The fiscal year 2027 bill continues this work with another $2.7 billion in reductions, yet our national security priorities are funded at or above prior year levels.
The bill maintains $1.8 billion for partners in the Indo-Pacific, including $500 million in military assistance for Taiwan. It provides unwavering support for Israel and fully funds the United States-Israel Memorandum of Understanding by providing $3.3 billion in security assistance.
The bill recognizes the valuable partnerships in the Western Hemisphere which continue to expand and realign under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio.
The bill, again, increases support for our friends and allies, such as Paraguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica. As part of this effort, the bill increases funds to fight the trafficking of fentanyl, which has devastated every community and so many families across America.
It also continues strong support for a democratic transition to freedom for the people of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, and it supports religious freedom in Nigeria and around the world.
Last year, the NSRP Subcommittee, as we like to call it, focused on responsibly transitioning the program PEPFAR to capable partners and to countries that are capable of doing more.
PEPFAR has been and is a great success story, but I think most of us would agree that the program, or any program, should not and cannot just go on forever in perpetuity. So working alongside the administration, countries are now investing significant resources of their own towards their own health, allowing this committee to reduce funding, but--this is key--while maintaining the same outcomes.
Just as critical as what the bill funds--I have talked about some of that--is what this bill does not fund and how it demands accountability for every single tax dollar.
The bill prohibits funds to the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, and from being used by other countries to repay a debt owed to Communist China. It also prohibits lending to the PRC within the multilateral development banks, something that we shouldn't have to do. This bill does it, however.
The bill continues a key provision adopted in the previous year that blocks assistance to anyone that supports, finances, or facilitates the operations of the Cuban military. It prohibits all assistance to the Taliban and puts Americans first by withholding funds from Mexico until water owed to the United States is finally delivered.
Assessed funding to the United Nations is cut by $1.8 billion. No funds are included for the United Nations regular budget, and funds are prohibited to organizations such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, known as UNRWA, which actively contradicts U.S. priorities and national security interests.
The bill helps secure justice for victims of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack, which, by the way, includes 50 murdered Americans, by requiring full accountability for UNRWA staff involved.
A key measure from last year's bill, which was enacted into law in fiscal year 2026, is also maintained in this one, requiring the Secretary of State to consider the U.N. voting record of countries in determining the allocation of funds.
The bill supports full implementation of key executive orders that reflect a clear commitment to a secure border, limited government, free
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill maintains all longstanding pro-life provisions. It prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund and upholds the President's policy on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance.
These measures, Mr. Chairman, alongside enhanced oversight and transparency, ensure American taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions, a policy that Americans overwhelmingly support.
Now, before reserving, Mr. Chairman, I thank the staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I, frankly, sometimes think that they are not human. Their work ethic is really beyond compare, and one cannot thank them enough, so I thank the staff.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the Speaker for bringing this crucial legislation to the floor. It supports our allies and protects our national security in a smart, efficient, and thoughtful way.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, let me just start by expressing my extreme respect for my chairman, Mr. Diaz-Balart, our subcommittee, and the staff.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Republican fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations, and I do so with regret.
This bill should be our moment to strengthen America and show the world that American leadership is more than bombs, bullying, and illegal tariffs. Done right, this bill could make our Nation more secure at home and abroad. Sadly, it falls painfully short.
Rather than make smart investments in the tools that prevent conflict and build peace and prosperity, the Trump administration has chosen to put us in a war that is costing our country billions of dollars and countless lives with no end in sight.
Real security requires more. It requires diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership.
Real security means showing up before a crisis becomes a catastrophe, before instability becomes extremism, and before conflict becomes war.
This is how we build alliances, and this is how we create trading partners. This is how we stop diseases before they reach our shores. This is how we keep our American sons and daughters from having to fight another war. Yet, this bill hollows out the very tools that have kept Americans safe for generations.
Let's be honest about what has happened. USAID has been dismantled, programs have been terminated, and decades of experience have been cast aside. Clinics are closing, vaccines are going undelivered, and contraceptives are sitting in warehouses.
Children are losing their chance to go to school, families are going hungry, communities are losing access to clean water, and people are losing their lives.
If these cuts continue, researchers warn that by 2030 more than 14 million additional people could die, including 4.5 million children under the age of 5. Think about that, Mr. Chairman, 4.5 million children whose lives could have been saved.
Remember, Mr. Chair, we are all in this world together. When hunger grows, when disease spreads, when poverty deepens, and when hope disappears, instability follows. Extremism finds fertile ground, and America becomes less secure, not more secure.
Yet, at this moment, the world needs more American leadership. This bill tells us to retreat. It proposes $14 billion less in international affairs than just 4 years ago, a cut of more than 23 percent.
These cuts weaken our diplomats, dismantle our development programs, and slash humanitarian assistance. They undermine global health efforts that stop threats before they reach our shores.
Meanwhile, another appropriations bill moves us toward more than $1 trillion in defense spending, the most ever in the history of our country, and our President wants another half a billion dollars more.
Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. I believe in a strong military. I am the mother of a marine who served in two wars, and I know that we owe every serviceman and -woman more than just our gratitude.
The choice should not be between military strength and diplomacy. American security depends on both. We owe those brave servicemen and - women a foreign policy that does everything possible to prevent the next war before asking them to fight in one.
That is because diplomacy prevents conflict; development reduces the desperation that fuels violence; and humanitarian assistance builds stability. Strong alliances ensure that America never stands alone.
These are not acts of charity. These are investments in American national security. Instead of strengthening our security, this bill walks away from it. It rescinds $1 billion in humanitarian assistance. It turns our back on the women around the world, the foundation of families and communities, by slashing family planning programs and eliminating support for UNFPA.
It expands the global gag rule, imposing ideological restrictions that silence healthcare providers, denying women critical medical information, and conditioning U.S. assistance on compliance with anti- DEI and anti-LGBTQ+ policies.
It even refuses to meet our commitments to the United Nations by not paying our dues. It eliminates funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation, institutions that prevent conflict, strengthen democracy, expand economic opportunity, and advance America's interests. It turns its back on building relationships with the growing nations of Africa, the continent with the world's fastest-growing population, rapidly expanding economies, and many of tomorrow's most important partners.
That is not strength. That is surrendering leadership.
When America walks away, who walks in? China walks in, Russia steps in, and extremists fill the vacuum.
This debate is not choosing between hard power and soft power.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill because America's greatest strength has not only been our military power. It is the power of ideals, the power of diplomacy, the power of compassion, the power of partnership, and the power of American leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the chairman and the leader of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chair, I thank my distinguished friend and vice chair of the full committee, Chairman Diaz-Balart, for yielding the time and for his work on this bill.
The fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs bill makes a clear statement about American leadership: We will engage where it matters. We will invest where it counts. We will demand accountability for every dollar spent.
The legislation before us today, Mr. Chairman, implements a clear- eyed and unapologetic approach to our security and democracy efforts.
It leaves no doubt about our Nation's posture. America will not be passive or simply write blank checks. Every investment we make must advance U.S. interests, strengthen our strategic position, and deliver measurable results for the American people.
We are putting our values into action by upholding freedom, promoting economic opportunity, supporting religious liberty, and safeguarding protections that uphold life.
This approach marks a necessary course correction. Unlike previous administrations that prioritized symbolism over outcomes, President Trump and Chairman Diaz-Balart have returned U.S. engagement to a foundation of strength, accountability, and strategic purpose.
On every level, this bill reiterates that it won't be optics but real results that drive our work.
The measure stands firmly with our friends while drawing a clear line against our adversaries. It reinforces
Further, it implements strategic investments that enhance U.S. leverage abroad and combat fentanyl trafficking and criminal organizations. It refocuses our diplomacy on core missions like embassy security, passport services, and promoting American businesses overseas.
The bottom line is simple: This legislation recognizes that freedom and democracy are not mere ideals. They are principles that we will actively champion and advance.
Chairman Diaz-Balart's bill directs resources to the highest impact priorities that strengthen America's position while cutting billions in unnecessary spending. This bill delivers security, strategic focus, and results.
Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Florida and Ranking Member Frankel for their leadership, and I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Frankel for her leadership and work on this bill. I also extend my appreciation to Chairman Diaz-Balart and Chairman Cole for their partnership.
I also thank the subcommittee staff: Erin Kolodjeski, Ed Etzkorn, and Laurie Mignone on the minority side, and their counterparts on the majority: Susan Adams, Craig Higgins, Jamie McCormick, Trey Hicks, John Muscolini, Gabriella Zach, Erin McMenamin, and Clelia Alvarado. I thank them all for their work.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. It undercuts humanitarian assistance, undermines global health programs, threatens women's health, and breaks promises to our partners and our allies, while surrendering influence to our adversaries.
After failing to bring this bill to the floor for several weeks, Republican leadership has decided to attach an entirely unrelated measure that would restrict voting access for American citizens.
President Trump has insisted on this measure, despite opposition from members of his own party. He is afraid the American people will voice their vehement disapproval of Republican-led government and the failed policies of this administration at the ballot box in November.
The President's war with Iran has been a catastrophic failure. It has cost Americans more than $130 billion in higher prices so far. President Trump began this war with no plan, no strategy, no objective, no goal, and no understanding of the consequences.
Nearly 6 months into the war, and the Iranian regime is still in place. The Iranian people are not free. Their ballistic missile program is intact. Their nuclear ambitions are unchanged. Their proxies are emboldened, and gas prices are rising. Their leverage is greater than it has been before, and President Trump has not articulated any course of action to bring this conflict to a close that is even remotely intelligible.
The Trump Doctrine is failure followed by failure, chaos abroad, and high costs at home. The bill that we are considering today will only set us up for more failures in the future.
This bill cuts funding for global health programs, particularly in the areas of reproductive health and global health security, making us more vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks that originate abroad.
We are seeing the consequences of this administration's decisions to dismantle the USAID, withdraw from the World Health Organization, and decimate our global health systems in real time, as the current Ebola outbreak in Africa threatens to become the deadliest in history. Because it took so long to detect and due to the challenging conditions, we will likely be working to contain this outbreak for more than a year.
Aid workers are working in active combat zones, putting their own lives at risk from both infection and violence to stop this disease from reaching our shores. Here we are debating a bill that would further choke off resources they desperately need to keep all of us safe.
Let us not forget the Trump administration's choice to dismantle USAID is a moral tragedy. More than 500,000 children have died as a result of these cuts. It is unconscionable.
This bill does not provide any funding for the U.N. regular budget, abandoning one of the longest standing institutions devoted to global peace. Undermining the U.N. only erodes our influence. It also shortchanges American businesses who receive upwards of $2 billion in U.N. contracts both here in the United States and overseas, which is more than our dues.
The bill threatens women's health around the globe, blocking any funds from going to the U.N. Population Fund, which is dedicated to reducing maternal mortality and violence against women and extending family planning to women and girls everywhere.
This includes work to eliminate obstetric fistula, a traumatic childbirth injury that leads to incontinence, infections, kidney disease, and infertility. By failing to provide any funding for UNFPA, the conditions under which millions of women around the world live will only become worse. Approximately 260,000 women around the world died during or shortly following pregnancy in 2023. That is 700 maternal deaths every day, one maternal death every 2 minutes. Eliminating this funding is a moral failure.
This bill also eliminates funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation. Each of these programs strengthen our influence abroad, helping to cultivate relationships with the next generation of global leaders, and prevents crises before they arise.
This bill surrenders American influence to our adversaries. For every step backward we take, they take a step forward. Continually defunding the institutions that support America's international presence will have serious, lasting consequences.
In less than 2 years, the Trump administration has squandered decades of American influence, undermining our ability to persuade other countries to support our values and interests without resorting to the use of force. This bill reduces our ability to reclaim any of that influence for years to come.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), a valuable member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Diaz-Balart and Ranking Member Frankel for their hard work on putting this bill together.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs funding bill. We are talking about security through responsibility today.
This is a bill that does something that Washington doesn't always do: It spends less, and it prioritizes more. It cuts spending by $2.6 billion, compared to last year, while putting American interests and national security first. It also demands fiscal responsibility.
It strengthens oversight of taxpayer dollars, especially, with new accountability for grant programs, to make sure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on woke projects, like a transgender opera in Colombia.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation also makes a simple promise to the American people: If American taxpayers are footing the bill, then more of that money should stay right here in America. It is pretty simple. It should stay in America to support our defense, to support our industrial base, and to strengthen Made in America procurement. When we do spend abroad, it should serve American interests, supporting our allies like Israel and Taiwan.
This bill, Mr. Chairman, is about security. It is about accountability, and
Mr. Chairman, America's strength in the world has never been that we are perfect. It is that, unlike our adversaries, we have consistently aspired to lead by example and with our values.
Building the capacity of a local community abroad to combat deadly diseases like malaria, Ebola, tuberculosis, and HIV is not just the right and just thing to do. It serves American interests. Disease outbreaks do not respect borders, and investments in global health protect Americans at home.
That is why the dismantling of USAID is so dangerous. USAID isn't a charity. It was boots on the ground, a force multiplier for the CDC and our broader national security efforts.
Let's be honest. Slashing foreign aid will not balance the Federal budget. Anyone with a calculator knows you are not going to address the skyrocketing deficit by cutting programs that amount to a rounding error in Federal spending. This is about American values and American security.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I cannot support this bill. It ignores the reality of what has already been lost.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore), an important member who has brought great experience to the subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this legislation, and I thank Chairman Cole and Chairman Diaz-Balart for their leadership on this bill.
This bill reinforces the important work we have championed to combat the persecution of Christians in Nigeria where nearly 100,000 Christians have been killed since 2009.
Last year, President Trump asked Chairman Cole and myself to investigate the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, with myself and Chairman Diaz-Balart going to Nigeria.
Since then, we have worked with the Trump administration to develop a strategy that provides assistance to the Nigerian Government in their defense of Christians while holding President Tinubu's government accountable if they fail.
The U.S.-Nigeria security agreement is already bearing fruit, including eliminating ISIS' number two globally.
This bill bolsters our strategy by conditioning 50 percent of all U.S. assistance to Nigeria on measurable actions to protect Christians. It also puts a spotlight on the Middle Belt where we have not seen nearly enough progress in protecting Christians against Fulani Islamic terrorists.
With this vote, we will express the support of this Chamber for the report we presented to the White House on how to end the Christian genocide in Nigeria.
Mr. Chair, the United States must never turn a blind eye to our persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, sadly, I cannot agree with Chairman Cole. This bill does not send a strong message to our friends, nor does it send an unmistakable message to our adversaries.
Sadly, this bill has zero for Ukraine, our ally fighting the Russian invader. That is a grave mistake and absolutely the wrong approach. It is a dangerous signal at a time when we ought to show unwavering support for Ukraine's defense of its homeland.
Yesterday marked 40 days since the House passed the Ukraine Support Act. That bipartisan legislation would provide Ukraine with an additional $8 billion in loans for military procurement as well as $1.3 billion in direct security assistance.
It also would impose new sanctions that will further erode Vladimir Putin's ability to continue this illegal, immoral, and unjust war. Now, it is the Senate's turn to act.
Over the weekend, America lost a champion in the effort to stand with Ukraine. Senator Graham understood that America's responsibility was to ensure that Ukraine has every resource it needs, but none in this bill. Not just to survive but to win.
Senator Graham died just hours after returning from Ukraine and securing bipartisan agreement on a new punishing sanction bill. I hope that all of us in the House and Senate will honor his memory by continuing to vigorously support Ukraine.
Its drone strategy is creating space on the battlefield for real movement. Something is in the air, and it is the feeling that victory is not only achievable but increasingly within reach. This bill does not send a strong message of that objective. Not the end of the beginning, but finally, hopefully, perhaps the beginning of the end.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Let us be clear: America does not abandon our allies. America does not shrink from the fight. Democracy will not yield 1 inch to tyranny. We should be saying that in this bill. I do not yield my opposition to tyranny.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of fiscal year 2027 National Security and Department of State Appropriations Act.
This legislation candidly and simply delivers on conservative promises, helps put America first while conducting vigorous oversight of our foreign assistance programs. It upholds longstanding pro-life protections, and holds foreign governments that violate religious freedoms are held accountable.
Importantly, this legislation delivers on my number one priority, pushing back on the Chinese-linked foreign scam operations that have bilked Americans out of countless of billions of dollars. It provides the critical tools to fight human trafficking these syndicates engage in and, frankly, rely upon while building up the law enforcement capacity of partner nations to stop these scammers.
Mr. Chair, I support these commonsense provisions in the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and ranking member of our committee for their work, but unfortunately, I rise today to speak about hard facts, not political talking points.
This bill cuts our security and diplomatic resources by $12 billion compared to last year. This is a 20 percent gutting of our global tools in just 2 years.
When we look at where these cuts actually hit, they defy any commonsense strategy for our national security.
First, this bill completely defunds the Inter-American Foundation. This agency funds local community-led programs in Latin America that keep young people out of drug cartels and gangs. One of these very programs cut youth criminal activity by 90 percent. We cannot claim that we want to see a secure border and stop drug trafficking while simultaneously defunding the most cost-effective, proven programs that stop cartel recruitment at the source.
Second, it completely defunds the U.S. Institute of Peace. We are being asked for billions for the Iran war, but they want to close down the tools we have to stop conflicts before we are forced to send our young men and women in uniform into harm's way.
Third, it cuts over $1 billion from the United Nations. When we walk away from the table, we don't leave a vacuum. We just invite China and Russia to step in, take our place, and write the global rules.
Finally, this bill slashes $1.5 billion from emergency humanitarian aid. Cutting off food, clean water, and medicine during historic global instability is a guarantee for more regional chaos and health emergencies that eventually end up at our borders.
These are just a few of the cuts in the bill that compromise our national security and strengthen our adversaries.
Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), but this is proof that you don't have to be on the Appropriations Committee to have a huge impact on the bill.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act.
I commend Chairman Diaz-Balart for his bold leadership to reform U.S. foreign aid over the last several funding cycles. Today, we have a bill before us with additional important reforms.
This bill puts forward a second consecutive year of spending cuts, counters the global climate lunacy agenda, and holds rogue U.N. agencies accountable. Specifically, this bill delivers real solutions on issues I have prioritized over the last several years.
Since 2023, the U.N. has been setting the stage for nations to sue one another for violations of climate change treaties, with the spoils of these lawsuits being for so-called climate reparations. Foreign countries and global environmentalists are seeking to target our country and energy producers at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer.
This bill aligns with legislation I have introduced to block climate reparations.
Secondly, Washington, D.C., has turned a blind eye to the Chinese Communist Party's infiltration of the United Nations, with our taxpayer dollars being used to fund the CCP's malign influence agenda.
The CCP has been successful in winning elections to lead various strategic U.N. agencies and then modifying their policies to the benefit of Beijing rather than the West.
The legislation before us today cuts off U.S. resources to those U.N. agencies that embrace CCP leadership. America should be steering the decisions of these organizations, not the CCP.
H.R. 8595 further advances a bold new agenda of American foreign relations, and I commend Chairmen Diaz-Balart and Cole for their leadership.
Mr. Chair, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, the State Department funding bill that we are considering here fails to meet this critical, historic moment. Our Nation is at a dangerous crossroads. We are at war, a war that Congress never voted to authorize, a war so recklessly managed that our allies increasingly see us as a threat rather than a reliable partner.
Yet, amid this global chaos, Republicans have abandoned investments to make the world a safer, healthier place. Their callous neglect has caused hundreds of thousands of needless deaths along the way.
President Trump has given up our seat at the table. He has put down the torch of liberty and democracy, all so he can glad-hand dictators and stuff his family's pockets. All the while, working Americans get poorer as the direct result of Trump's chaotic decisions on tariffs, immigration, and military action.
Instead of addressing real threats to our security, our interests, and our values abroad, this bill doubles down on petty, partisan culture war riders. This Republican bill includes a provision to suppress reproductive freedom abroad by boycotting humanitarian groups that provide lifesaving care to women and girls.
Is anyone surprised the same party that rips away Americans' reproductive rights and guts our healthcare is running the same anti- choice playbook worldwide?
Experts predict tens of thousands more unsafe abortions and maternal deaths. No part of this is pro-life. When I filed an amendment to strike this expanded global gag rule, Republicans refused to even allow a vote.
This bill does nothing to reverse Trump's America-last self-sabotage, his disdain for our neighbors in Haiti and Venezuela, or his racist refugee exclusion policy.
Instead of holding him accountable for his corruption, it offers Trump a $1.5 billion slush fund. That is $1.5 billion siphoned from law enforcement, peacekeeping, global health, and, yes, directly from starving children.
With the deficit exploding, prices out of control, and Americans crying out for relief, I can't imagine a worse prescription than a blank check for a President out of control.
When this bill came out of our committee, I thought it couldn't get any worse.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
When this bill came out of our committee, I thought it couldn't get any worse. Yet, stunningly, Republican leadership attached President Trump's racist voter suppression bill to it, caving to far-right extremists who held the House floor hostage.
I am voting ``no'' because this Republican bill won't make your family stronger, safer, or more prosperous, unless your last name is Trump.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and on our committee.
Mr. Chair, my constituents in Queens are facing an affordability crisis, and this bill will only make it worse by endorsing a failed America-alone policy that diminishes our presence on the world stage, abandons women and girls, and guts our soft power.
This bill cuts our national security budget by another 6 percent to fund more tax cuts for billionaires and a proposed military budget now exceeding $1.5 trillion. That is a ``trillion'' with a capital T.
It comes after this administration destroyed USAID, clawed back hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid already approved by Congress, and canceled over 80 percent of our foreign aid programs. Existing cuts have already led to an estimated 760,000 preventable deaths and are projected to cause up to 23 million by 2030.
Instead of gutting diplomacy and development to pay for a record Pentagon budget, we should be growing our diplomatic presence and investing in programs that tackle conflict and instability at the roots.
By eliminating funding for the U.N., this bill would cede ground to our adversaries, letting Russia and China reshape the U.N. without meaningful U.S. influence. It also doubles down on attacks on women and girls, gutting international family planning and banning funding to the U.N. Population Fund. Instead of abandoning the world's women and girls, we should be investing in them.
It also locks in the administration's expanded global gag rule, exporting a radical rightwing agenda, politicizing aid, and targeting women, minorities, and LGBTQ+ people--people who look to America as a beacon of freedom, not repression.
Our national security budget is not waste. It is not a playground for radical social ideologies or attacks on the world's most vulnerable populations. It is a strategic investment in America's security, global stability, and the power of democracy.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
This disastrous bill doesn't just turn America's back on the world. It makes Americans less safe and more vulnerable to disease.
An Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda has taken more than 700 lives and infected more than 1,900 people. American citizens have already been infected, and the outbreak will spread if we fail to contain it.
Republicans' solution? Ban the United States from supporting the World Health Organization, the group coordinating the response to the Ebola outbreak.
The story of outbreaks fueled by Republican shortsighted cuts does not end there. Here at home, we are responding to a growing cyclospora outbreak that has sickened more than 1,600 people across more than 30 States, with thousands more cases under investigation.
Public health officials are still working to identify the source of the outbreak. They are facing an uphill battle thanks to Trump and Republicans' deep cuts to the CDC's public health workforce and the program that monitors foodborne illness.
The cause and effect is clear. When Republicans slash public health funding and stop monitoring the spread of disease, Americans get sick.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would strike provisions that prohibit U.S. participation in international public health efforts through the World Health Organization and the pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response accord.
Disease prevention and surveillance at home and abroad protect American families. Infectious diseases do not stop at borders. We are safest when we work with partners around the world to detect outbreaks early, share information, and respond before disease reaches our borders.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill for the State Department and foreign operations.
Last year, the Trump administration illegally dismantled USAID and fired over 1,300 State Department employees.
It rescinded $13 billion for critical humanitarian and development programs, and now House Republicans want to approve legislation that amounts to a 20 percent cut from 2025 enacted levels, locking in those dangerous Trump cuts.
It isn't penny-wise, and it certainly is pound-foolish. Case in point: When the administration cut funding for global health, it ended key disease outbreak surveillance and prevention programs. Now we have the second largest Ebola outbreak on record and are scrambling to protect U.S. livestock from the New World screwworm.
Our Republican colleagues have also made in order many amendments that would further damage our national security interests. Prohibiting funding for the United Nations means abdicating U.S. leadership to competitors like China and Russia.
Prohibiting funding for an ally like Jordan makes zero sense amidst the fallout of President Trump's war of choice with Iran and the devastating humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Cutting off funding for the National Endowment for Democracy, The Asia Foundation, East-West Center, Peace Corps, Millennium Challenge Corporation, Asian Development Fund, and African Development Bank Group further undercuts American leadership and democracy around the world. Sustained investment in our diplomatic and development institutions is essential if you want to prevent wars instead of paying for them.
Mr. Chairman, this bill does not deliver, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Sadly, this bill arrives at a time when the Trump administration has chosen to put us into a war that is costing our country billions of dollars and countless lives, with no end in sight. I hope I am wrong, but that is what it looks like.
This bill should be a moment to strengthen America and show the world that American leadership is more than bombs, bullying, and illegal tariffs. Done right, it could make our Nation more secure, at home and abroad. Instead, it is falling painfully short.
A strong America requires both hard power and soft power, because military strength alone cannot prevent every conflict, stop every pandemic, build every alliance, or open every new market for American workers. When America leads with diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership, we make our Nation stronger and safer. When America retreats, our adversaries advance. This bill retreats from American leadership, and it makes America less secure.
Mr. Chairman, I hope and I expect that we can still improve this legislation as it moves through the legislative process. Until then, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this is a really good bill. I have already talked about it, and you have heard other people talk about it.
It strengthens the national security interests of the United States. It supports our allies. It confronts our adversaries, and, yes, it does all of that while saving taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to including funding for Israel's military in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Program Appropriations Act. I respectfully request that funding for Israel's military be considered through a standalone bill, allowing Members to vote separately on question.
I first made this request in December 2025, when I opposed legislation linking funding for our military with funding for Israel's military. My position has not changed. Today, I again respectfully request that funding for the Department of State and related programs not be linked to funding for Israel's military.
Accordingly, I include in the Record the text of my December 10, 2025, letter to Speaker Mike Johnson. I now believe there should be a standalone vote on all funding to Israel:
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read.
Congressional-Executive Commission on the People's Republic of China
united states foundation for natural security and counterterrorism
nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs
contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development
contribution to the international fund for agricultural development
prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization
prohibition on assistance to governments supporting international
parking fines and real property taxes owed by foreign governments
limitation on the use of funds made available for certain online
The Acting CHAIR. All points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived.
No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part A of House Report 119-749, amendments en bloc described in section 4 of House Resolution 1423, and pro forma amendments described in section 5 of that resolution.
Each amendment printed in part A of House Report 119-749 shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of House Resolution 1423, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part A of House Report 119-749 not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, except as provided by section 5 of House Resolution 1423, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1423, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 3, 7, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, and 29, printed in part A of House Report 119-749, offered by Mr. Diaz-Balart of Florida:
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1423, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendments en bloc, which includes amendments from both sides of the aisle.
The amendments include nine noncontroversial amendments that advance the priorities of both sides, including support for Taiwan, countering the PRC's influence in Latin America and the Caribbean, better leveraging U.S. assistance to Mexico, and increasing funding designated to combat human trafficking.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support and thank Mr. Diaz-Balart for working with me to include these bipartisan priorities in these amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues, the ranking member and others. I urge adoption of these bipartisan amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this en bloc package of bipartisan amendments that includes my amendment, Tran No. 65, which supports the annual U.S.-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue and reaffirms Congress' commitment to advancing fundamental freedoms and human rights in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
As the United States continues to deepen its engagement with Vietnam, human rights must remain central to the bilateral relationship.
The Vietnamese Government continues to restrict freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and peaceful political expression.
Independent journalists like Le Huu Minh Tuan, human rights activists, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens face harassment, arbitrary detention, and imprisonment simply for exercising their basic rights.
A stronger economic and security partnership between our two nations cannot come at the expense of the democratic values and universal freedoms that the United States has long championed.
My amendment supports a critical diplomatic tool to press the Vietnamese Government on these concerns, including the immediate release of prisoners of conscience.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments en bloc.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of fiscal responsibility and protecting Americans from foreign adversaries.
President Trump's domestic policy is defined by his commitment to rid the Federal Government of waste, fraud, and abuse. It is time that Congress followed through on the President's promise.
Last year, the Fulbright Program cost the American taxpayers nearly $300 million, set to be repeated in next year's State Department budget. My amendment returns these funds to the pockets of hardworking American taxpayers.
The President's FY27 budget proposed an 80-percent cut to the Fulbright Program and for good reason. For years, the Fulbright Program acted as a taxpayer-funded handout for trans fanatic, Green New Deal activists and agents of foreign powers seeking to undermine the United States of America.
While the President confronted Fulbright's board of directors about this injustice of their leftist bias, they resigned rather than face the truth.
Every year, nearly 5,000 foreign applicants receive a Fulbright Scholarship. These recipients include citizens of countries with very close ties to adversaries, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, a known pathway for agents of foreign powers to enter the United States and spy on us.
This is an unacceptable risk to the American people and our national security. The Fulbright Program is a bad deal for the American people, and my amendment restores fiscal responsibility and keeps our great Nation safe.
For the good of our country and responsibility to every American taxpayer, we must act to end this harmful and wasteful program.
Mr. Chair, the Fulbright Program is one of the most well-established and prestigious exchange programs in the world.
Each year, the best and the brightest globally compete for spots to study in the United States or have American students experience and do research overseas.
The proof is in the results. Fulbright alumni include--listen to this--44 heads of state, 63 Nobel Prize winners, 94 Pulitzer Prize winners, 83 MacArthur Fellows, and numerous national leaders.
Each of these individuals and 450,000 more have had a life-changing experience being exposed to United States culture and values, affecting their impressions of our country for the rest of their lives.
This is a smart investment. May I say, as my mother once said, this is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
This is not just our investment. Mr. Chair, 89 foreign governments also contribute to sending their students to the
Mr. Chair, this amendment is shortsighted, with all due respect. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
I rise in respectful opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado. I share, by the way, and understand her desire to reduce spending. As a matter of fact, since 2023, as I mentioned before, I have cut spending under the purview of this subcommittee by $12 billion.
The bill that we are considering right now puts forward an additional $2.7 billion in reductions. In this bill, the education and cultural exchange programs account is also reduced. It is actually $94 million below the fiscal year 2024 enacted level.
We did cut back funding, but we left in place sufficient funds to support exchange programs that we can show make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.
The Fulbright Program is the crown jewel of our exchange programs. It allows the U.S. to develop key relationships with senior leaders of national security, technology, business, and entrepreneurship. Also, it strengthens U.S. relationships in fields that advance U.S. interests.
In a recent official trip to South America, I heard directly from President Trump's ambassadors about how the Fulbright Program is a valuable tool to combat Confucius centers from Communist China and other CCP malign influence efforts in this hemisphere.
This is a program that gives us the opportunity to, again, create those long alliances that have been so helpful. It cultivates future leaders who champion our values, not Chinese values, and also, again, combats Chinese surveillance, data breaches, et cetera.
This bill makes large reductions in wasteful programs, but Fulbright is not one of those programs. It is an important facilitator to our national security goals.
Mr. Chair, I very respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which prohibits funds in this act from furnishing international military education and training without the reimbursement required under 22 U.S.C. 2347(b).
My provision does not create new policy. It simply enforces a reimbursement requirement that has been on the books for nearly 50 years and strengthens accountability for how we spend taxpayer dollars.
Under current law, nations using Foreign Military Financing to purchase military training must pay a rate comparable to what grant recipients receive.
This training was never intended to be free. However, because the 1976 law lacked a real reinforcement mechanism, American taxpayers have quietly absorbed these costs instead. My amendment fixes that longstanding problem.
It applies to Foreign Military Financing-purchased training and similar title 22 programs, and it requires that reimbursement actually be collected before this act's funds can be used to provide that training. Importantly, it does not affect international military education and training grants, nor does it affect training for U.S. personnel.
I offered this amendment because Congress' original 1976 language left the door open for lax enforcement. The law says that foreign nations should pay for instruction from the strongest fighting force in the world, but it never included a means to ensure that reimbursement actually occurs.
This can result in training that ends up free for foreign partners at the expense of American taxpayers. The original policy is not flawed. There is currently a gap in collection, and this amendment closes it.
Our national debt is approaching $40 trillion, and much of that strain comes from years of weak enforcement and lost accountability across government. It is our responsibility to review every line item, even the small ones, because these costs add up.
Given that we already provide substantial protection, personnel, and intelligence support to our partners, we should not absorb the cost of training that Congress has long required foreign nations to reimburse.
Our partners are also welcome to use Foreign Military Financing or their own national funds to cover this training rather than defaulting to taxpayer-funded grants. Some of my colleagues may argue this will strain relationship with our partners. That is not the case.
This amendment only applies where reimbursement is already required by law. It does not touch International Military Education and Training grants or our core training relationships.
Others may suggest this is a minor technical fix unworthy of floor time. I disagree. A gap in reimbursement law is precisely the kind of overlooked taxpayer exposure Congress should address regardless of size.
To my colleagues, the status quo is clearly broken. We face unsustainable debt, and too many programs lack real accountability. It is our duty to reinforce existing laws and ensure we are collecting what taxpayers are owed.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment and relieve hardworking Americans of expenses that they were never meant to bear.
Mr. Chair, our International Military Education and Training programs provide significant national security benefits at a very low cost.
They strengthen the ability of nations to partner with our Armed Forces in joint and coordinated operations. They help senior and rising military leaders from countries around the world build ties with the United States. They build the professionalism of foreign militaries, increasing respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democratic civilian control of military.
Yet, many of our partners most in need of U.S. military training do not have the resources to pay for it themselves.
Mr. Chair, I saw my son, a United States marine, go to two wars, and I know many of his fellow, I will call them colleagues, brave patriots, they didn't come home to their families, and
General Donovan, commander of the United States Southern Command, said just this year: The return on investment in the International Military Education Training program is clear, with multiple program graduates going on to serve as ministers of defense and chiefs of defense. The trust and relationships built through these programs extend far beyond the engagements themselves and pay lasting dividends for our shared security and will save the lives of our brave men and women who serve our country.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, like I said, this is already law. We are clearly just not enforcing it. I will reiterate that we are close to $40 trillion in debt. We are spending $2 trillion annually that we don't have.
As a servicemember myself, I am not trying to say that we don't receive anything from cooperation and training with our foreign partners. The point is this is already law. This is already the law. We are just not enforcing it, and we are not collecting these reimbursements which we are entitled to.
For far too long, the United States has borne the brunt of global defense, and I know it doesn't mean a lot to many people in this Chamber that we are $40 trillion in debt, but we continue to spend money that we don't have.
Again, this is already the law. There is just no enforcement. That is what my amendment would take care of. Again, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I just want to say, when it comes to our security, our prosperity, the lives of our patriots who put on our uniform, it is, as my mom would say, penny-wise and pound- foolish to pass this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not be offered.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in part A of House Report 119-749.
Mr. Chairman, I will start by acknowledging the extraordinary work of my friend, colleague, and mentor from Florida on this overall package, which I do intend to support, but no matter how great a job we do on anything, there is always room to improve.
At a time and a place in which we have a $40 trillion debt, I have an obligation to be looking to save money wherever we can.
My amendment would strike all funding for the Global Environment Facility, which would save taxpayers $140 million. The GEF, as I see it, is a wasteful fund that spends money to bankroll woke climate initiatives, including grants designed to bring countries such as Namibia and Serbia into compliance with the Paris climate agreement, which President Trump withdrew the United States from because it did not reflect American interests and priorities.
My colleagues across the aisle and other supporters of the GEF and green new scam argue that it is America's responsibility to give millions of taxpayer dollars to unelected bureaucrats because the GEF fights so-called climate change.
Let's examine some examples of the important work that GEF is funding with money that we are borrowing from our children and grandchildren: The Women Ocean Guardians project, which seeks ``to strengthen the sustainable use, management, and conservation of large marine ecosystems by enhancing gender-responsive ocean governance, empowering women frontliners in coastal and marine ecosystems and implementing community-led solutions'' because we have got to make sure when we fight climate change it is gender responsive.
Second project, in the Central African Republic, ``to catalyze land restoration and biodiversity conservation through inclusive and gender- responsive landscape governance.'' Again, just think of the absurdity of this, gender-responsive landscape governance.
Then there was a grant given in 2024 in Afghanistan for ``strengthened resilience of rural communities' livelihoods to climate risks and variability in selected provinces in Afghanistan.''
Let me remind all my colleagues that Afghanistan has been under the rule of the Taliban. Do we really think the Taliban is going to use this money to address so-called climate change?
The United States, as I said before, is almost $40 trillion in debt, and that debt continues to grow every single day, every single minute, every single hour that we are here.
I think it is a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars to subsidize an organization that spends money helping other countries comply with an agreement the United States is not even a party to or giving money to the Taliban for any reason, let alone for forestry.
President Trump's budget request eliminated funding for the Global Environment Facility. Congress should follow that example and eliminate this unnecessary $140 million expenditure.
Mr. Chair, I am opposing this amendment that strikes the Global Environment Facility fund.
This amendment would eliminate the United States' contribution to the Global Environment Facility, a multilateral trust fund that provides grant-based funding to developing countries to address global environmental challenges.
It has long had bipartisan support for very good reason. It benefits the U.S. economy and the environment by addressing problems that cross borders and affect our domestic health, safety, and prosperity.
It helps protect tropical forests. It reduces transboundary pollutants like microplastics. It prevents unsustainable fishing and invasive species. It combats illegal wildlife tracking, which transnational criminal organizations use to finance their very dangerous activities.
Even in our own country, we are challenged. Just look around, Mr. Chair. Put on the news. We are challenged by severe drought, rainfall, storms, and heat. It is pretty hot out there. Land degradation and the loss of soil and water health are threatening livelihoods all over the world.
We are continuing to see ever-greater humanitarian needs caused by these disasters both domestically and abroad. We need to get ahead of these crises.
Helping communities cope, especially those with the least means to do so, is not only moral. It is smart. These are problems that cannot be solved alone. Funding for the Global Environment Facility allows us to work together, leverage contributions of other countries, and provide U.S. leadership to tackle these challenges.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I will close by saying this: Irrespective of the ridiculous examples that I gave before, again, the idea that there is gender responsive ways to deal with environmental problems as though somehow men and women would deal with environmental solutions differently, setting all of that ridiculousness aside, I think we have a simple question before us. When you are $40 trillion in debt, Mr. Chair, and the things you are paying for are being borrowed from your children and grandchildren, the question is no longer whether something is a good idea. The question is whether it is worth driving us further into debt to do.
Even if I were to grant that these projects were noble--and I do not--it is not worth borrowing from my two sons and every American's children and grandchildren to do that.
If we do not begin to deal with these problems soon, then we won't have a budget to spend. This is one small step in order to try to get our fiscal house in order.
I hope that all of my colleagues will support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Madam Chair, my amendment is simple. It strikes $3.3 billion of foreign aid to the country of Israel from the State Department funding bill.
We have $39.4 trillion of debt. We have needs at home, which include our infrastructure, our roads and bridges. We have a shortfall in this fund. We have our locks and dams, and we are perpetually trying to figure out new funding mechanisms to come up with. We have homeless veterans. We are sending more money to Israel in this bill than we spend on homeless veterans in this country.
Just to put it in perspective, there are 3,000 counties in this country, and if we divide that into $3 billion, that is $1 million from every county. This is not an insignificant amount of money that is going overseas.
I think we should stop it. We should put them on a diet. They are the biggest welfare recipient of the United States and have been for many years.
Madam Chair, $310 billion has been received by Israel from the taxpayers of the United States. That is in inflation-adjusted dollars since we have been giving them money. That is why I think this amendment is important.
Madam Chairwoman, as chairman of this subcommittee since 2023, I am proud to be a leader in this body in providing unwavering support to our friend and ally, Israel, especially-- especially--after the October 7 terrorist attack.
The $3.3 billion in foreign military financing for Israel included in this bill supports American--our--national security interests overseas.
We see the same terrorists and terrorist entities that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our people directly. When we give Israel the tools and capabilities to eliminate these terrorist threats and to protect their homeland, while including the many Americans who visit and live there, we are making America and the American people safer.
The United States and Israel have worked together on successful military operations like those in the past year to decimate Iran's nuclear program and missile capabilities. Israel is also using the overwhelming majority of this funding to actually purchase American- made weaponry, so it actually helps our defense industrial base and our economy.
We have worked together extensively on developing military capabilities and other capabilities. Because of these advancements for our mutual interest and security, there is currently a discussion of moving to a new security partnership with Israel after fiscal year 2028.
Just to be clear, the assistance in this bill for fiscal year 2027 is under the terms of the existing MOU, memorandum of understanding, which runs for 2 more fiscal years.
This does not, in any way, prejudge the outcome of ongoing negotiations. This is about fulfilling our commitment to one of our closest and most important allies that we have in the entire world at a time when terrorists are butchering people around the world.
We made that commitment because it makes the American people--our country--stronger.
Madam Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I heard a common refrain in my colleague's arguments there that, oh, don't worry, all this money is going to the military industrial complex.
I have a problem with that. It is not a sustainable economy--buying weapons and letting people use them overseas on other people, oftentimes innocent civilians. I am not compelled by the argument that our job is to be here and enrich the military-industrial complex, now called the defense industrial base.
Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
Madam Chair, Israel does not need and, quite honestly, does not deserve more American money for weapons.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has taken Israel down an ugly path. The tragedy of October 7 has become a justification for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Self-defense does not include indiscriminately bombing homes, hospitals, churches, schools, or refugee camps. There were even credible reports of children intentionally shot in the head and chest.
For decades, our Nation gave Israel billions to facilitate peace and a two-state solution. Instead, Israel has chosen more war and more occupation.
Today, it occupies not only Gaza and the West Bank but parts of Syria and Lebanon.
If there are no consequences, why in the world would Benjamin Netanyahu change what he is doing?
Words are not enough. Condemnations are not enough. If we hope to change Israel's behavior, we must use our leverage.
The American people have seen this tragedy with their own eyes. They have made their judgment. They do not support giving Israel more weapons. Do not reward a wrongdoer. Now it is up to us in this Chamber to take action.
Madam Chair, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.
Maintaining stability in the Middle East has long been a vital United States strategic interest. What happens there affects our economy, national security, and the safety of our American servicemembers.
As written, this amendment is overbroad in that it prohibits or could limit the use of funds for longstanding initiatives related to peace building, refugee settlement, and U.S. Embassy operations.
This amendment would restrict our country's ability to confront Iran's proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of the United States, Israel, and our allies.
Madam Chair, a 10-minute debate is not the way to change policy as we have a mission of peace in the region and prosperity, both for Israelis and Palestinians.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which would dangerously undermine American national security.
As Leader Jeffries rightly pointed out, if adopted, it would limit our ability to confront terrorist organizations, like Hamas and Hezbollah, that expressly target American citizens and military personnel. It would make it harder for America to use our relationships with Israel and regional partners to promote a negotiated two-state solution, the only realistic path to deliver on the promise of peace, security, and self-determination for both Israel and Palestine.
I understand the frustration that many Members feel with some of the policies and actions of the current Israeli Government, as well as their concerns about its commitment to the peace process and a two- state solution. However, this amendment would embolden the enemies of peace, those pursuing the complete elimination of Israel and those who seek the death of Jews.
Madam Chair, it is a vote to weaken our ability to engage in the region and a vote against American security, interest, and safety. Vote ``no.''
Madam Chair, as I have said before with this bill, and I have said it many times: If you are an ally and a friend of the United States, this bill supports you. If you are an adversary, you are not going to like this bill. We have no stronger ally than the State of Israel. This is our commitment under the MOU, which is why I respectfully, but very strongly--very strongly--oppose this amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Madam Chair, Israel has the strongest economy in the Middle East. Their debt per GDP is in much better shape than ours. They don't need our money. In fact, they have claimed recently they want to get off of the welfare. I am concerned that the other funding mechanisms they are talking about, or comingling, our technology and supply chains, we will have even less transparency than what is going on here today, so I am opposed to that as well.
I am opposed to all foreign aid. I didn't pick on Israel here. I offered an amendment to defund Egypt and also to defunding aid to Jordan, which we will talk about in a little bit. I am particularly concerned this year about the foreign aid to Israel. There have been 70,000 casualties in Gaza, and I don't think we should be a part of that. American taxpayers should not be conscripted into funding the military adventures of Israel.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Madam Chair, President Obama signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding. We are now in the ninth year of that memorandum. Mr. Massie would have us repudiate that signature. That is as bad an idea as Donald Trump's repudiation of the JCPOA, the deal with Iran that limited its nuclear program.
We are told that this is about offensive weapons. This $3.3 billion provides the AMRAAM system that defends Israeli apartment buildings and houses from incoming missiles that have as one purpose: to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.
How are we going to influence the people of Israel and the government of Israel? They need our influence. They need to change their policies. How are we going to influence them? As the missiles are coming in for the sole purpose of killing as many civilians as possible, we say we will not help shoot them down. We will not fund the AMRAAM system that is provided for in a memorandum of understanding signed by President Obama.
This amendment is a political stunt. Republican leadership has brought it to the floor--not for the purpose of having it become law, but for the purpose of driving a wedge through the middle of the Democratic Party, for the purpose of facilitating Republican advertisements that will put our party on the side of those who are screaming death to America and death to Israel, and to put our party on the side of those who say that Israel has no right to exist.
If you care about not only our Middle East policy but you care about the Democratic Party's position, with the American people, then you must vote ``no'' on this amendment.
Now that does not mean that there will not be future reductions in our aid to Israel. That does not mean that we will not try to change Israeli policy, but this amendment goes as far as it possibly can to put us on the side not of those who would shoot down the missiles that are aimed at civilian neighborhoods in Israel but on those who are cheering those missiles.
Then we are told that the amount of money involved is the focus. It says $3.3 billion, but that is about an 80th of the aid that we have provided Ukraine and that we should have provided Ukraine.
This is not an attempt to divert a large portion of our money from Israel. This is an attack on the Israeli people.
Madam Chair, there is no question that going forward there needs to be a thoughtful conversation how we spend our foreign aid money. I know we are all committed to that.
My heart breaks for the suffering of innocent people in Gaza. We must find a way to infuse humanitarian support, how to find a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, but let me tell you how we got here.
Since 1979, Iran has repeatedly called for Israel's elimination while arming terrorist proxies. In the past 3 years, those proxies have launched more than 30,000 rockets, missiles, drones, and mortars into Israel while Hamas hid in their billion dollars' worth of building of tunnels, 450 miles of tunnels, beneath civilian areas to wage war, not peace.
This is not a way to handle foreign policy. I join all rational people who say let's have a deliberate conversation how to move forward, but not with a 10-minute debate on the floor of the House.
Let's have our efforts aimed together to a two-state solution where Palestinians and Israelis can live peacefully and prosperously together.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 printed in part A of House Report 119-749.
Madam Chair, I offer this amendment sincerely for the American people because the price of housing, the price of fuel, the price of everything is going up because our government, frankly, is spending too much money.
We are borrowing money. We are printing money, and why are we doing this? Are we doing this to support our own infrastructure or our own veterans? No. A lot of this money goes overseas, and one of the recipients is the country of Jordan.
I think we should end foreign aid to Jordan. As our debt approaches $40 trillion, it is more and more urgent.
I have noticed that the money that we sent to Jordan has tripled since 2008. It started out at about $600 million, and now it is $2.1 billion. This is too much. We shouldn't be doing it. Jordan is a monarchy. They do not deserve the support of our democratic Republic of this country. I think we should end the support to their country from our taxpayers.
Madam Chair, it is a dangerous world, and the Middle East is a very dangerous neighborhood, but Jordan is one of our most important allies in the Middle East. It is a bulwark against extremism and terrorism. Jordan has been on the front line of the fight against ISIS. It is an essential partner in stopping Iran's terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.
For decades, Jordan has generously hosted refugees from numerous conflicts across the Middle East, but this is the key point: The United States, the American people, are safer because of Jordan. For that reason, it is well worthwhile to make sure that Jordan has the resources it needs to keep contributing to our collective security.
Madam Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, this is a very simple amendment. I will just say it again. The monarchy of Jordan doesn't deserve the taxpayers' money from the United States.
In 2021, King Abdullah II secretly purchased over $106 million in luxury properties in Malibu, London, and D.C. through 36 offshore shell companies while 16 percent of the Jordanian population lives in poverty.
It has been said that foreign aid can be described as taking money from poor people in the United States and giving it to rich people in other countries, and that is what is happening in this instance.
How much of this money is going to go toward more luxury properties for the King of Jordan? I would like to know that.
There needs to be more transparency in this money and, frankly, it needs to end completely.
We don't have the money. We are in debt. It is contributing to the high cost of living here in the United States. We would be better off spending this money taking care of our own veterans.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Jordan has remained a steadfast ally of the United States, despite increased complexities in the world and in the region.
Surrounded by Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, Jordan has been an oasis of stability in the region that has commanded U.S. foreign policy attention for decades.
Jordan is a vital security partner, including regional leadership in the United States' mission against ISIS. They have been generously welcoming neighbors, hosting over 600,000. I will repeat that again: 600,000 Syrian refugees and 2 million Palestinians. I know I have, and I am sure many of my colleagues have personally visited classrooms in Jordan where we have seen Syrian children educated instead of just being left on the streets.
In recent years, encouraged by the United States, Jordan has taken dramatic steps to increase government efficiency, professionalize human resources, improve access to water, and digitize government services. A strong partnership with Jordan directly contributes to a stronger, safer, and more prosperous United States, but they can't do it alone. They need our support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Madam Chair, to conclude, as I said just a few minutes ago, and I said it at the opening of the debate on this bill: If you are a friend or an ally of the United States, this bill supports you. If you are an adversary or you are cozying up to our adversaries, you are not going to like this bill. All of that we do, by the way, while significantly cutting spending.
The reason we have alliances and partnerships has to be and is to support our own security. Our partnership with Jordan is indispensable in opposing terrorism in the Middle East. Supporting Jordan helps the national security interest of the United States, which is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his strong work on making reforms to this appropriations package. He did it in the previous Congress last year. He is doing it
I would note there are still things in the appropriations process that I am not fond of using taxpayer money for, and the United Nations is one of those things.
The amendment that I am offering here would prohibit any funds in the bill from being made available to the United Nations at all.
The bill continues to fund millions of dollars for the United Nations, despite longstanding concerns over anti-Israel bias, corruption, peacekeeper misconduct, institutional failure, and ways in which the United Nations operates on a regular basis in direct contradiction to the interests of the United States. That is undeniably true for observers of the United Nations, particularly over the last couple of decades and in recent years.
When you are a nation that is $40 trillion in debt, when you are a nation that is trying to figure out how to fund the basics of government and find the dollars that we need to secure the Nation with a strong defense, to modernize our military, to ensure border security, all the things that we need to do while we are still racking up debt to the tune of--by the way, paying for interest on the debt to the tune of over a trillion dollars a year, spending more on interest than we are on our own national defense, it strikes me as an inappropriate use of taxpayer money to continue to send that money to an entity that has been working in such negative ways with respect to our interests as a nation.
Again, I applaud the chairman for all of his great work on things like UNRWA, working in collaboration with me and others on trying to remove that funding--it was very important--the United Nations Human Rights Council abomination, the United Nations Population Fund, other things that I know that the gentleman has been working on.
To be very clear, I am not trying to impugn the bill in any way from that perspective. I just wish to go further.
I think it is important that we pull the funds from an entity operating against our interests. It has repeatedly failed to earn the confidence of the American people. It has stood up in solidarity with the worst and most evil countries in the world against our interests and dared to wag their finger at the United States, built on the back of our funding and generosity and, by the way, real estate, to give them a platform to target us and to target our interests, in addition to constantly and consistently going after our friends in Israel.
Madam Chair, the United Nations was created after World War II with a simple mission: to help prevent another global war and promote peace among nations.
Today, it brings together nearly every country in the world to resolve disputes through diplomacy instead of conflict. It coordinates humanitarian relief during wars and natural disasters. It feeds millions of hungry people. It helps vaccinate children, support refugees, and deploy peacekeepers to help protect civilians and maintain stability.
The United Nations has made important contributions to the world. Its agencies have helped eradicate smallpox, expand childhood immunizations, delivered lifesaving food and humanitarian assistance to millions, supported peace agreements, protected refugees, promoted human rights, and helped countries work together to combat disease, terrorism, and other threats.
We are at a time when instability and suffering are almost unimaginable. The United Nations is a primary partner in getting food into Sudan through the World Food Programme, delivering health to children in Haiti through UNICEF, or supporting and monitoring peace in places like South Sudan and the Central African Republic.
This amendment will cut that off. It will cut it all off.
The U.N. also establishes international rules that make global travel, trade, shipping, aviation, and communications safer and more reliable.
Look, the United Nations is not perfect. It should always be held accountable and reform when necessary, but when the world faces challenges that no nation can solve themselves, the United Nations provides a place for countries to work together in pursuit of peace, security, and human dignity.
Madam Chair, I note that it is just not enough for us to say that they can do better. This is an organization that has too often allowed terrorist infiltration within its own entities and sided with terrorist organizations directly against us and our allies. I have seen repeated reports of misconduct involving United Nations peacekeeping operations and too little accountability for those failures.
We act as if the United States is not capable of working on unilateral, bilateral, and other bases to be able to do all the great things we want to do around the world.
My dad is a polio survivor. There are a lot of things that we can do to try to make sure we are eradicating these things around the world. We don't necessarily need a bureaucratic organization that its entire organizational structure and bias is structured against us, despite the fact that we fund the overwhelming majority of its operations.
The United Nations has been operating against our interests. We are asking American taxpayers to continue to take those dollars and give them to an entity that has, in its open statements to the world, been against our interests so many times, time and time again, including siding with some of the worst countries on the Human Rights Council and the biggest abusers of human rights. The United Nations is put and exalted as somehow being those that we should listen to rather than the United States.
Madam Chair, I have heard folks cite what we call the good, the bad, and the ugly with the U.N.
Let me just say again, at a time when conflict, hunger, disease, and displacement are affecting millions around the world, we need a place where all nations can get together.
What would it mean if the United States walks away? If we walk away, who fills the void? Fill in the blank: China, Russia, maybe even Iran.
As I have said before, penny-wise, pound-foolish.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent on advancing American interests, not funding institutions that too often work against them. We are wholly prepared as a nation to be able to address these issues and concerns. You say, what will happen? China, Russia, and the rest of the world fear the United States. They do not fear the United Nations.
Madam Chair, I rise in strong support for my amendment to increase the withholding threshold for assistance to Nigeria from 50 percent to 100 percent, while keeping in place benchmarks that demand Nigeria take effective steps to address the violence and persecution that continue to devastate the country.
Nigeria has faced a horrific wave of violence that its corrupt government has failed to address. For years, and especially in recent months, Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria have been subjected to violence and terrorism at the hands of extremists who are operating with impunity. Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased.
If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of all the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding.
The generosity of our taxpayers is a reflection of the American values we hold so firmly. Never should we allow their hard-earned tax dollars to be funneled to corrupt regimes that fail to uphold religious freedom, fail to adequately confront terrorism, and fail to protect the innocent from persecution. So why are we rewarding a government that fails to meet such a basic obligation?
This amendment is simple. It does not remove the aid conditions in the bill but only strengthens such conditions. Most importantly, it upholds a principle that all recipients of American taxpayer assistance should follow: that they must prove that they are willing and able to respond to violence before receiving any funding.
Simply put, meet the standard before receiving support. That is the accountability that the American taxpayer deserves.
Foreign aid should never be a reward for failure, so as our national debt is fast approaching $40 trillion, why on Earth are we still allowing our ourselves to go further into debt by rewarding corrupt foreign governments that tolerate terrorism within their borders?
When churches are burned, women and girls are abducted, and terrorists operate with near impunity, that is not merely an internal disturbance. It is a direct assault on the freedoms our Nation claims to defend, which our foreign assistance must reflect and uphold.
This is not about punishing the Nigerian people. It is about demanding accountability for their government's complacency and ensuring that our foreign aid is leveraged to defend, reflect, and uphold American values.
Even the underlying bill recognizes the Nigerian Government's failure to meet the standard, yet it still allows for half of the funding to be released anyway.
My amendment withholds all funds until they meet basic standards. Accountability can never be divided, nor should we allow anyone to exploit the generosity of the American taxpayer.
I urge my colleagues to uphold accountability in our foreign aid spending and to vote for my amendment.
Madam Chair, this amendment would eliminate U.S. health development and security assistance to the central government of Nigeria. This would be a serious mistake.
Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation, one of the largest economies, and a critical partner in promoting stability across West Africa.
Our health programs prevent deadly diseases from spreading across borders and strengthen the capacity to respond to future pandemics.
Our development assistance helps reduce poverty, improve education, expand economic opportunity, and address the conditions that fuel instability, conflict, and migration. Our security and assistance helps Nigeria combat Boko Haram, ISIS, and other violent extremist groups that threaten both regional and global security.
If the United States walks away, the challenges will not disappear. Our influence will. China and Russia will be more than happy to fill the vacuum, expanding their economic, political, and military influence at America's expense.
Engagement does not mean writing a blank check. It means using American leadership to promote accountability, to strengthen democratic institutions, to protect human rights, and to advance our national security interests. Walking away would make neither Nigeria nor the United States more secure.
Ironically, this amendment would end the very programs that this provision is trying to support, so it really doesn't make too much sense.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, this amendment does not end all assistance. It only strengthens the conditions and encourages the Nigerian Government to meet them.
Why should we give 50 percent of the money when the Nigerian Government has not met the criteria established in the underlying bill?
We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. Why are we sending funds to corrupt countries overseas that are unwilling to fully address violence and persecution? The generosity of the American taxpayer should reflect American values. We can't be putting ourselves more into debt to countries that are unwilling to uphold our values.
The U.S. should not borrow money to subsidize foreign governments that fail to protect innocent civilians. If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding until the underlying conditions are met.
The Nigerian Government continues to fail to address violence in their country. Why should they still be eligible for funding given their lackluster response to the violence?
Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased.
Madam Chair, the underlying bill contains several conditions for assistance to be made available to Nigeria, which includes taking effective steps to prevent and respond to violence and hold perpetrators accountable; prioritizing resources to support victims of such violence, including internally displaced persons; actively facilitating the safe return, resettlement, and reconstruction of communities impacted by the violence; and allocating sufficient resources to address the aforementioned conditions.
This begs the question: If Nigeria isn't meeting these conditions fully, why should they receive any funding? If they truly want the support of the American taxpayer, then they should be meeting these goals.
Furthermore, while the underlying bill directs prioritization to address the atrocities occurring in Nigeria, they should be showing willingness to utilize the funding provided to address the violence before receiving funds.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Steube).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 printed in part A of House Report 119-749.
Madam Chair, the Temple Mount, or Har HaBayit, as it is called, is the holiest site in the world to the Jewish people. During the periods of the First and Second Temples, Jews from across the land of Israel would travel to the Temple during the three annual pilgrimages. These pilgrims included figures like King Solomon, King Herod, and Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord and Savior.
However, whereas Christians and Muslims enjoy broad access and religious prayer rights at their holiest sites, Jews are severely discriminated against upon the Temple Mount.
Muslims can currently enter the Temple Mount at 11 different gates, but Jews can only enter from 1 gate. Muslims can visit the Temple Mount any day of the week, but Jews cannot ascend the Temple Mount on Friday or Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Muslims have broad access to the Temple Mount and can pray openly upon the Temple Mount. Jews are severely restricted in their visits and do not enjoy the freedom to worship or the ability to wear their tallit and tefillin upon the Temple Mount.
And for the Jews that ascend in spite of all these restrictions, they still face harassment from Muslims upon the Temple Mount.
In fact, Muslim leaders have actively desecrated the site, including the planting and cultivating of trees at the inner courts of the Temple, expressly prohibited by Jewish law. Muslim children play soccer, practice boxing, and have picnics upon the Temple Mount, desecrating its holiness, while Jews cannot even freely worship upon the Temple Mount.
You don't have to take my word for it, Madam Chair. There is photo and video evidence of all this freely available. Individuals like Dr. Melissa Jane Kronfeld have spent extensive time documenting all of this. I thank her for her efforts to draw attention to this critical issue.
Further, when one of my staffers ascended the Temple Mount last year, he was harassed by Muslim onlookers, restricted from visiting most of the site, and was only allowed to be upon the Temple Mount for a very short duration of time.
Madam Chair, it is unconscionable that Jews do not enjoy the same access rights to visit and pray at their holiest site that other religions do. This is a basic tenet and principle of religious freedom, and the U.S. must do more on this issue.
That is why my amendment would emphasize the need for the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom to work to ensure religious freedom and equal access for all with respect to the Temple Mount.
I urge all my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment and to support religious freedom for all and support the rights of the Jewish people to freely worship at their very holiest site, the Temple Mount.
Madam Chair, while this amendment may be well-intentioned, it risks inflaming tensions at one of the most sensitive religious sites in the world.
The Temple Mount is sacred to both Jews and Muslims. It is at the center of competing historical, political, and religious claims.
History has shown that even small changes to access or worship arrangements can spark violence far beyond Jerusalem. For decades, Israel, Jordan, and the international community have worked to preserve the longstanding status quo, not because it is perfect but because it helps prevent broader conflict while difficult issues remain unsolved.
The appropriations bill is not the place to insert the United States into one of the world's most delicate religious disputes.
Religious freedom is a fundamental American value, but lasting progress at the Temple Mount will come through careful diplomacy and respectful, longstanding efforts that preserve peace and stability, not through an appropriation amendment with 10 minutes of debate.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I respect the opinion of my colleague across the aisle, but it was also said that moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was going to be too inflammatory and too dangerous. Many Presidents said they would do it. President Donald Trump did it, and it hasn't proven to be overly inflammatory. In fact, it proved to be the right place and the right thing to do.
I think this is common sense. Why should Jewish people not be able to worship at their holiest site in equal measure that all other religions get to worship at their holiest sites? I think this is a commonsense amendment. I don't think it would be inflammatory. I think it makes sense. It restores dignity, and it also restores fairness to the international religious freedom tenets that we all stand for, foundational type of religious freedoms that we actually revere in this country under our First Amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Ms. Tenney) having assumed the chair, Ms. King-Hinds, 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. 8595) making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1423 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. 8595.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) kindly take the chair.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 8595) making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes, with Mr. Bost (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, amendment No. 28, printed in part A of House Report 119-749, offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney) had been disposed of.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 119-749 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Boebert of Colorado.
Amendment No. 6 by Mr. Fine of Florida.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Massie of Kentucky.
Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Massie of Kentucky.
Amendment No. 20 by Mr. Roy of Texas.
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 A of House Report 119-749, offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 79, noes 348, not voting 9, as follows:
Messrs. PANETTA, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. SALAZAR, Messrs. McDOWELL, EVANS of Pennsylvania, and PALMER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. JAMES, BEGICH, JOYCE of Pennsylvania, ROSE, GOODEN, and WEBER of Texas changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 6, printed in part A of House Report 119-749, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine), 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 178, noes 247, not voting 11, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mr. BEYER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. MOOLENAAR 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. 8, printed in part A of House Report 119-749, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 104, noes 314, answered ``present'' 10, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 9, printed in part A of House Report 119-749, offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 6, noes 421, not voting 10, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 20, printed in part A of House Report 119-749, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is 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 amendment, under the rule, the committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Kennedy of Utah) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Cammack, 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. 8595) making appropriations for national security, Department of State, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2027, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 1423, she reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 1423, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 209, nays 216, not voting 6, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Cammack) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 209, not voting 5, 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.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a historic ceremony at Independence Hall earlier this month celebrating America's semiquincentennial.
On July 2, a group of Representatives traveled to Philadelphia, the birthplace of our country, to commemorate the exact date when the Second Continental Congress voted to declare independence from Great Britain.
Mr. Speaker, the origins of our Republic trace back to Pennsylvania, and Independence Hall has served as a physical representation of the birthplace of the United States.
Within those hallowed Halls, delegates from the original Thirteen Colonies debated in good faith and voted for independence. This building has long been the symbol of freedom and democracy around the world.
Mr. Speaker, Pennsylvania has always been my home, and the Keystone State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, has stood firm in its commitment to freedom and prosperity.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the 37 Members of Congress for traveling to Philadelphia and for their efforts to preserve our legacy for future generations, just as the Founding Fathers intended it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride to recognize a remarkable milestone for Tucson's Academia de Baile Tradicion y Cultura as it celebrates 25 years of inspiring young people--including my own children, nieces, and nephews--from across Tucson and southern Arizona through dance, culture, and community.
For a quarter of a century, Academia de Baile has provided generations of students with exceptional dance instruction, fostered confidence, discipline, and a deep appreciation for the rich cultural traditions that make southern Arizona so vibrant.
I want to congratulate the dedicated directors and instructors whose passion and dedication have made this achievement possible, the students whose hard work, talent, and artistry continue to impress us, and the families whose unwavering support have helped make this academy flourish for so many years.
Academia de Baile is proof of how the arts bring people together, preserve our heritage, and strengthen our communities. Their legacy is reflected not only in the performances on stage but in the lives that they have touched across Tucson and southern Arizona.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Arizona's Seventh Congressional District, I say ``congratulations,'' ``muchisimas felicidades'' to Academia de Baile on their 25th anniversary and wish them many more years of success.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an extraordinary veteran, public servant, and advocate, Ismael ``Izzy'' Quintana, and to congratulate him on his well-earned retirement.
After serving our Nation as a major in the United States Army Reserve, Izzy never stopped answering the call to serve. As the veteran outreach coordinator for BRIDGES PFC Joseph P. Dwyer Veteran Peer Support Program (Vet to Vet), he has dedicated himself to helping veterans in crisis, connecting them with critical resources and ensuring they never face their struggles alone.
Drawing on his military and law enforcement experience, Izzy has trained police recruits to respond to veterans in crisis while helping veterans find housing, navigate difficult circumstances, and access support.
His volunteer work with The American Legion, his church's food pantry, and other local organizations embodies what it truly means to put service above self.
This year Izzy received the New York State Suicide Prevention Center Pair-Up Award. I am proud to recognize him as one of New York's 17th District Veterans of the Year.
Mr. Speaker, his selfless service is an example to us all. I thank Izzy for his extraordinary service to our veterans, community, and country. I wish my friend the very best in his retirement.
Mr. Speaker, as I have recognized the excellent staff members who were working with me in this term, may I also recognize and thank the young people, college students, and recent college graduates who have labored in the inglorious role of intern doing day-to-day grunt work necessary but often boring.
They have given months of their young lives on my behalf, and I am grateful. They are: Isabel Tenney, Anna Barlis, Piper Genkin, Mariana Ortega, Sebastian Rojas, Miles Genkin, Krisna Rivera, Tim Manson, and Tommy Cole.
Mr. Speaker, I trust this experience was a good one and that in the years to come, they will achieve great professional and personal success.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the volunteer firefighters of Beulah, Colorado, for their extraordinary service during the Aspen Acres fire in Pueblo County.
When shifting winds drove the fire toward the town of Beulah, the town's 22-member volunteer fire department stood between the flames and their community. Several firefighters lost their own homes during this fire. Even so, they remained on the line, working to protect their neighbors and the town they call home.
That choice says more about their character than any words I could offer today. It reflects courage, duty, and the deeply rooted sense of community that defines Beulah and so much of Colorado's Third District.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the Beulah Volunteer Fire Department and to thank every firefighter who chose service to others over personal loss.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor Major Antoinette Naddour, an Orange County resident, a veteran, and a person who spent her career serving the homeless and at-risk veterans.
Antoinette began her career after witnessing a surge of servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who were homeless. This motivated her to cofound a Veterans Legal Institute in Orange County where she focused on developing veteran-focused legal services.
This month, she is retiring from her role as executive director of the Veterans Legal Services, but she will continue to make a difference in the lives of veterans serving as an ambassador and supporting fundraising efforts to ensure that our veterans receive the legal help that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, today, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Antoinette Naddour for the profound impact that she has made in the lives of our veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate high school senior Miriam Washut of Lander on winning the grand prize in the Presidential 1776 Award.
This national civics contest challenges high school students across the country on their knowledge of the Founders, the Revolutionary War, and the documents that delivered the birth of our Republic.
Miriam demonstrated her superior knowledge of America's founding at every stage of this national competition, earning her a well-earned prize of a $150,000 scholarship and a trip to the Oval Office where she told the President her plans to attend Wyoming Catholic College.
Mr. Speaker, 250 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed, students like Miriam show the promise of our revolutionary principles carried on by the next generation for another 250 years.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Miriam for making Wyoming proud with her profound interest in America's founding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud Representative of the largest Bosniak population outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina and to stand in solidarity with them.
Over the weekend, we marked 31 years since more than 8,300 Bosniaks were murdered at Srebrenica. Today, we remember the victims and stand with the families and survivors.
Srebrenica should never have happened, and yet it did--not because the world didn't know but because in too many places, the world chose to look away.
As co-chair of the Bosnia Caucus and as a St. Louisan, I will do everything I can to ensure we are reaffirming our commitment to truth and remembrance. We have an obligation to honor that history and to support those who live with its legacy and trauma every day.
Mr. Speaker, right now as we stand in this Chamber, devastating wildfires are tearing across our lands. I thank the brave crews who are working around the clock on the front lines. Their courage is keeping our communities standing. Our prayers are with them.
We especially hold in our hearts the families of the brave firefighters who we recently lost along the Utah-Colorado border, including Emily Barker, Nick Hutcherson, and Sydney Watson.
These individuals made the ultimate sacrifice, and we owe them a debt of gratitude we can never truly repay. Possibly the most frustrating part is that, in many cases, we already have the solutions to deal with these wildfires. We know how to thin overgrown brush. We know how to clear hazardous fuels. We know how to restore health to our forest through proactive management. The obstacle isn't a lack of knowledge. It is bureaucracy.
Decades of bloated regulation delay critical mitigation work for years, but a wildfire does not wait for a multiyear environmental review. The flames do not pause for paperwork.
That is why we passed the Fix Our Forests Act. That is why I introduced the Utah Wildfire Research Institute Act. Our communities cannot afford another year of congressional inaction.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to cut the red tape, pass commonsense and often lifesaving legislation, and protect our lands.
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud that our Michigan chapter of the Huntington's Disease Society of America is Chapter of the Year.
They got their award, and it is an incredible team that elevates the personal stories of so many of our residents. They advocate for increased research funding, improved access to care, and policies that better support our families living with Huntington's disease.
This includes Andy Zeman, who received the Youth Huntington's Disease Award. After losing his birth mother to Huntington's disease and being diagnosed himself, he continues to bring incredible courage and optimism to this space.
I will also honor Dave Stickles, who also received the Marjorie Guthrie Award, for his unwavering commitment to supporting families. I am so incredibly proud of our Michigan chapter.
These national awards recognize advocates who have turned personal hardship into public service. Their tireless advocacy has now helped hundreds, if not thousands, of families living with Huntington's disease. They have given many people a voice, and I am so incredibly proud that they have received this award.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor Moses Lake Police Officer Edgar Salazar for his public service and congratulate him on being named the 2026 Hometown Hero by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Washington.
This well-deserved award is in recognition of Officer Salazar's heroic actions at the Gorge Amphitheater Campground in 2023, when he put his life on the line and helped to prevent a mass shooting.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Officer Salazar for the remarkable courage he displayed that day in saving dozens of lives and for his continued service to the Moses Lake community. He represents the best in law enforcement and we are all grateful for his service.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in honor of Commander Gabriel Edwards, from Oakland, Oregon, who died while serving as the commanding officer of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron 5 in the Arabian Sea.
After 4 days of searching over 14,000 square miles, the Navy declared him lost at sea during an emergency helicopter landing.
Gabriel earned his wings as a helicopter pilot in 2008 and received several awards during his service, including the Defense Meritorious Service Medal. He knew he wanted to be a pilot at just 4 years old.
This is how his wife, Rebecca, described him: ``Gabe has dedicated his life to serving his country with honor, courage, and commitment. He led with humility, integrity, and compassion, always putting his people before himself. To those who served alongside him, he was a respected leader and mentor.''
My thoughts are with Rebecca and their two children during this time. I am glad to know the Secretary of the Navy has directed that Edwards be posthumously promoted to the rank of captain.
His heroism will never be forgotten, and I know all of us in Oregon and around the country thank him for his honorable service. May his memory be a blessing.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 200th anniversary of the First Presbyterian Church of Macon, Georgia.
Organized on June 18, 1826, by the Reverend Benjamin Gildersleeve and Reverend Joseph C. Stiles, the church began with just 25 founding members. Since 1858, its historic sanctuary on Mulberry Street has stood as a landmark of downtown Macon and a fixture on the National Register of Historic Places.
For two centuries, First Presbyterian has served as the mother church to several congregations across middle Georgia and has equipped its members in every area of life through worship, discipleship, fellowship, and mission.
Today, First Presbyterian continues to welcome more than a thousand members, carrying forward a legacy that has spanned wars, revitalization, and generations of middle Georgia families.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the leaders and congregation of First Presbyterian Church on this remarkable milestone, and I thank them for 200 years of faithful ministry to the city of Macon.
Mr. Speaker, tonight, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Toledo resident Betty Ann Amison-Lewis, a community builder.
An erudite woman with a true servant's heart, Betty looked for every opportunity she could to serve our community of northwest Ohio.
As founding director of Toledo's Grace Community Center, Betty devoted decades to others with the same grace for which the community center was named.
She supported young men and women as they navigated parenthood. She offered after-school care to thousands of children and reinvigorated Toledo seniors with a sense of belonging.
Our community will miss Betty deeply. We grieve with her loved ones. Our community celebrates her life and will remember her fondly for the tenacity with which she served others. Her life and legacy will live on in the unrelenting mission of Grace Community Center to better the lives of northwest Ohio families.
To her husband, Morris; her children, Yvette, Anika, Chantel, Alvin, Alysha; stepchildren, Morris, Terrance, Myron; and her beloved grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and other family and friends who will miss her dearly, know that she was profoundly grateful and awed by your love.
May Betty's good work and positive energy live on in your minds and hearts. Her amazing spirit is invincible, and I know it is alive and at work in our community and world. May her life be blessed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Steven Lampley, a devoted husband, loving father, faithful servant of God, and tireless advocate for the people of southwest Missouri.
Steve was a genuinely good man. He loved his wife, Kathy. He loved his children, William, Rachel, and Hailey. Nothing made him happier than spending time with them, whether hunting, fishing, camping, or just being together.
More than anything else, that is how I know Steve would want to be remembered.
The values that guided Steve at home were the same values that guided his service to our community. A lot of people complain about the state of our government, but Steve believed the answer wasn't just to complain. It was to get involved, and, boy, did he do that.
Through his work with the Greene County Republican Central Committee and the Missouri Republican Assembly, he devoted countless hours to strengthening the grassroots and serving his fellow Missourians, spending his own time and money driving to Jefferson City, advocating for legislation, and getting bills that protected people's constitutional rights across the finish line.
If you knew Steve, you knew he never asked someone else to do something he wasn't willing to do himself. He stepped up when leadership was needed, treated everyone with dignity and respect, and quietly went about doing what he believed was right.
My prayers are with Kathy, William, Rachel, Hailey, and everyone who loved Steve. May God comfort them in these days ahead, and may they always find peace in the life and legacy that he lived and the example that he leaves behind. May he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, there are some people who build companies, and there are others who build confidence. George E. Johnson did both.
He understood something this Nation too often refused to see--that Black people did not need permission to be beautiful, brilliant, or prosperous. We simply needed the opportunity to define ourselves.
Through Afro Sheen, he did more than create a successful business. He challenged a culture that had spent centuries teaching Black men and women to doubt the beauty that they saw in the mirror.
Every bottle that left his factory carried more than a product. It carried a declaration that Black enterprise could flourish and that Black excellence could employ thousands, inspire generations, and transform neighborhoods. His success was not measured merely in dollars, but in dignity. He proved that ownership is more than economics. It is self-determination.
George Johnson, a beloved family friend, invested not only in hair care, but in human care. He invested in communities, education, churches, and young dreamers who needed someone to believe that greatness could look like them.
He understood that wealth finds its highest purpose when it creates opportunities for others. His legacy reminds us that freedom is incomplete if it cannot produce opportunity. It reminds us that equality is unfinished if it cannot nurture enterprise, and justice remains unfinished if the gifts of a people are ignored.
Today, we honor not simply a businessman but a visionary who helped America become more fully itself by insisting that Black genius belonged not on the margins of its history but at its very center core.
Mr. Speaker, may we remember George E. Johnson not only for what he sold but for what he restored: confidence, possibility, and pride.
May his life continue to remind every child who dares to dream that the greatest investment one can ever make is in the limitless potential of one's own people.
To a beloved friend and an outstanding American, I love you, and I honor you, the honorable George E. Johnson.
Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Helen DiGirolamo of Bensalem, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, who we sadly lost on July 10, 2026, at the age of 98.
Born in Philadelphia in 1928, Helen was a cherished member of the St. Ephrem Church in Bensalem for 55 years, where she rooted her life in faith, in service, and in her community.
In her younger years, she loved bowling. Throughout her life, she was known for her exceptional cooking, especially during the holiday gatherings with her family surrounding her at the table.
Helen was preceded in death by her beloved husband of 45 years, Eugene, and their daughter, Janice. She is survived by her children, Gene and Joanne; her son-in-law, Michael; seven grandchildren; and 11 great-grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, her son, Gene, was so good to her in all of her years, particularly her later years, when every single Sunday he dedicated to spending time with her.
Helen DiGirolamo will be deeply missed, but her spirit will live on in the family and the community she so dearly loved.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
Mr. Speaker, we rise tonight to acknowledge that DOGE is, indeed, dead.
Mr. Speaker, the scandals, the gossip--when New Mexicans tune in to see what is happening here in Washington, it feels like they are tuning into an episode of a reality TV show rather than another day in the people's House, but the messiest House isn't an overseas villa. It is the White House.
The President has a lot of messy friends and a lot of messy breakups, but the biggest breakup of all was the breakup between President Trump and Elon Musk 1 year ago.
One day, Elon is sending a love letter of hundreds of millions in campaign donations to the President's campaign, and the next, he is wondering where it all went wrong. After all the insults, all of the public arguing, and a very public divorce, today, we are here to say to Elon Musk and his so-called Department of Government Efficiency: I am so sorry, but you have not been chosen, and you will be dumped from the villa.
Now that the season of DOGE is over, it is time to look back and have a reunion episode and answer the question on everyone's mind: Where did it all go wrong? Was it all talk, or did Elon actually deliver on his promises because when DOGE was created and Americans heard what they were up to, there were some very big promises. He said that he could save $2 trillion by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse across the Federal Government.
Well, the honeymoon is over, and I think the numbers say it all. He didn't even save a fraction of that amount. In fact, what we know is that due to disruptions in government services and firings and litigation, he may have actually cost the Federal Government more money than he saved.
In fact, here is what we know about DOGE's impacts: Large-scale loss of experienced Federal employees. Our agencies lost tens of thousands of employees through layoffs, deferred resignations, early retirements and hiring freezes.
They reduced the institutional knowledge of generations across our agencies and made it impossible to do basic functions that our communities needed: Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and our nuclear agencies who protect the nuclear and national security of this country.
They disrupted government services. Agencies were unable to process basic functions. They attacked Social Security. They laid off thousands of veterans across our Federal Government who had served this great country and given their sacrifice in service, only to find themselves eliminated by a cheap date in the West Wing.
Legal challenges--we don't even know how many lawsuits there have been in the wake of DOGE--personnel actions, agency restructuring, illegal orders, withholding of funds, and many, many more that are still awaiting to be adjudicated by the courts.
Let us not forget that they stole your data. That is right. They came in talking a big talk, saying that they were going to digitize our Federal Government and modernize it and help us actually make the government work for the people. It was a front for stealing your personal data--your IRS data, your Social Security data, your bank account data. They not only went into the most private systems of the Federal Government and stole your data, but they exported it and gave it to private companies.
This is not just a run-of-the-mill exercise of modernizing the government. They stole your data for a profit, for campaign advancement, and to ensure that they would be able to continue to access your data for power.
In addition to that, they broke key aspects of our Federal Government. They disrupted contracts. They gave themselves private contracts. They gave away billions of dollars in Federal taxpayer dollars for defense contracts to their friends, for NASA contracts for their friends, for weather service contracts for their friends. They disbanded decades of scientific research on every single continent across this planet.
The reductions in workforce not just impacted the functioning of the Federal Government but disrupted local economies across the country, especially in our rural communities.
Let us not forget the most consequential impacts that we know came as a result of Elon Musk's dangerous date with the White House, and that is the dismantling of the USAID. We know that, as a direct result of the dismantling of public health programs that have been in place across the world for decades, that literally thousands of children across the world died as a direct result.
Medicine, food--they came in claiming that they were trying to cut waste, and they left food for starving children to sit in warehouses and rot while children did not have anything to eat.
They let medicine expire in warehouses and actually threw it away rather than give it to people for whom it would save their lives.
What do they have to answer for it as they have come here to testify before Congress? Is there any remorse for the lives that were lost? Is there any remorse for the thousands of children whose lives were taken because they could not access medicine? Is there any remorse for the thousands of nonprofit organizations who serve our communities every day who have been impacted? Is there any remorse for the hundreds of thousands of Federal workers who they fired and whose lives they disrupted?
No. There is no remorse. And let me tell you this: This has been one toxic relationship since the very beginning.
So here is what we know. DOGE, you are voted off the island, and we do not want to ever see you back here again.
The American people want efficiency. The American people want a government that serves them. The American people want to make sure that their leaders care for the communities that they live in and will care for them.
The American people do not want toxic billionaires trying to steal their taxpayer dollars and dismantling the basic services that keep them well.
So we bid good-bye to DOGE. We say farewell. We won't miss you. We won't miss you as you leave the island and take your big exit.
What we will say is that we will continue to fight every single day for the American people. We will continue to actually work to make this government work for the American people, to actually cut real waste and real fraud and real abuse and the real abusers who are sitting in the White House and committing waste, fraud, and abuse on the American people every single day.
We will commit that when we take back this House, when we take back the White House, that we will fight for a nation that fights for our people. We will bring a new deal to this country that serves the working people of this country, that invests in housing and healthcare and food, that protects the environment, that fights for climate action, and that cares for the human dignity of our people.
That is our promise. We don't want any more toxic relationships. We just say this: The American people deserve better, girl, and we are here for you.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the 119th session, I was ready to work with anyone to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the government. We are here to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars, and we should want our government to be efficient.
That is not what happened. We started with a bipartisan congressional effort, and then President Trump appointed Elon Musk, who stood there with a chainsaw, brought in a bunch of unqualified DOGE bros, who said that they were going to make $2 trillion in savings from the Federal budget, but made no meaningful impact in spending.
They tortured and went after our public employees that cost the taxpayers $10 billion through the deferred resignation program. Mr. Speaker, 300,000 Federal workers were fired or urged to retire, including 100,000 veterans.
This wasn't done in a strategic way. People were fired without understanding what their jobs were. For instance, off the Oregon coast, they fired the people who knew how to operate the tsunami warning system. That isn't rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.
They shut down promising innovations, like direct file, at the request of big businesses that stood to financially
They slowed response time to complaints made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which had previously helped return $21 billion to Americans.
They purged USAID by getting rid of 83 percent of USAID projects. Impact Counter estimates that 757,000 people died, mostly children. We lost the benefit of soft power that we had when we invested in this very effective program.
They tried to end NIOSH and canceled $3.8 billion in NIH grants. They laid off 1,300 critical Federal workers from NOAA.
If you want to talk about government overreach and small government, that is not what happened with DOGE. They gained access to personal data, like our Social Security numbers, our tax returns, and our health records.
Waste, fraud, and abuse still exist in the Federal Government. For instance, if we want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, let's start with the Pentagon that failed the last eight audits. There is a ton of waste, fraud, and abuse.
They have awarded more than $208 billion in contracts to companies that have been cited for repeated or willful violations. Why are we not addressing that?
We should want government to be more efficient. We should want to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. I will work with anyone to make that happen.
Instead, we gave a chainsaw to a trillionaire who made his money off of Federal grants, Federal research, and Federal projects, and we cut critical investments to make our government work better for the working people.
On July Fourth, DOGE shut down. It doesn't intend to publish a final report because they would have to report a giant failure that cost taxpayers $10 billion. I say, good-bye, good riddance, and let's not do this again.
Mr. Speaker, there are so many things to be said about DOGE and the waste of money and lives that happened over the course of the year and a half that it was officially on the books.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a moment to talk about our country at a crossroads. Do we continue to use American taxpayer dollars to fund the killing of civilians, children, and families abroad, or do we finally say, enough?
Today, I took a vote for the children, for peace, and for the future of this country, by voting ``yes'' on an amendment to block $3.3 billion in offensive military aid. This is money that should be used to build roads, to build housing, and to lower the cost of food and childcare for families who are struggling right here in the United States.
I did not come to Congress to write blank checks to the military. I did not come to Congress to write blank checks to foreign militaries to bomb civilians, and I did not come here to support an unending and illegal war in the Middle East.
That is why I chose today to block offensive military aid. Today, I choose our people over weapons. I choose peace over war. I choose accountability over silence, and I will continue to choose that every single time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as we close out this debate and the broken promises of DOGE and this administration, let us be reminded that when President Trump and Elon Musk first created DOGE, the American people were promised that it would cut waste, fight fraud and abuse, and save the taxpayers $2 trillion across the government. Many of us hoped that was actually true because cutting waste, fraud, and abuse is not a partisan issue. It is just good government. All of us want a government that actually works for the people of this country.
Actions speak louder than words. When it comes to the legacy of DOGE and this administration, its actions speak for themselves. Instead of cutting waste, they cut over 100,000 jobs of veterans across the Federal Government, veterans in my district who worked at the VA and across our Federal agencies, who wanted nothing more than to continue their service to this country.
They cut workers in charge of maintaining our nuclear stockpile, only to scramble to rehire them. They fired some of our Nation's top scientists, who were responsible for making sure our national security is taken care of.
They attacked Social Security. They fired thousands of workers across the Social Security Administration, including in my district where people were struggling just to get access to their basic needs being met.
DOGE cut back hours and fired hundreds across New Mexico. It pushed seniors, children, and veterans to the brink.
Instead of saving taxpayers money, DOGE cost taxpayers billions of dollars in lost productivity, lost revenue, and the cost to hire essential civil servants they fired. Instead of fighting abuse, DOGE gave the richest man on planet Earth direct influence over government decisionmaking and access to our personal and financial data.
We will never know the true damage that DOGE did because the administration won't even release the final information or final report explaining what they did. This is not okay.
Let me say this to this administration: You better bet we will be investigating every inch of what you did through DOGE and your behavior in the administration.
The American people deserve transparency. The American people deserve a government that works for them. The American people deserve a government and leaders who tell the truth. The American people deserve accountability for their taxpayer dollars. The American people deserve respect, especially those who have served this great Nation.
Even though DOGE's disaster is officially over on the books, we already have another agency whose job is to find waste, fraud, and abuse. We will continue to investigate what happened through DOGE. We will continue to do the work of improving our government, and we will continue to investigate what has happened.
Our question is: After all that has been said and done, will the Republicans of this body continue to support the lies that this administration has put forward through DOGE? Will they continue to support the dismantling of our Federal agencies, as is happening right now at the Department of Education, as we stand here, and the Education Committee?
Will they continue to raid agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and steal money from the taxpayers?
Will they continue to allow this administration to steal your taxpayer dollars and give it to the military to bomb civilians overseas?
Will they continue to allow an out-of-control President to make billions of dollars in self-dealing while lining his pockets and demolishing the White House or will they actually stand up for the American people?
That is the real waste, fraud, and abuse, and that is the real corruption, a President who is wasting our taxpayer dollars on an unending and illegal war, painting a pool filled with algae, a golden ballroom, and trying to put his name on the Kennedy Center, spending millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars litigating over illegal actions he has taken since taking office, all while giving private contracts to his own family members and the very man who started DOGE in the first place.
While DOGE may be over, let the lesson be that when we take back the House, we will hold them accountable. We will build a government that works for the American people, that is stronger. We will stop billionaires from coming in and using their money to achieve their own political ends and line their own pockets.
We will stop the self-dealing not only in the White House, but that happens in this Chamber. We will work to get big money out of politics, to end Citizens United, and to ensure that we have a system that actually represents the people of this country.
We will rebuild better the agencies that were dismantled. We will create a whole new generation of public servants who want to serve this great Nation, and we will bring a new deal for this country that is about results, that is about dignity, that puts people and services ahead of profits and not empty promises.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are here today to celebrate the end of this dark chapter and bring DOGE to a conclusion.
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 ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the topic of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In 10 years, the deficit will be greater than every penny spent by the Federal Government between 1789 and 2023. As we celebrate our 250th, this is the time to reflect on it and to focus on it. I am going to share something tonight that is going on every single day, specifically about trying to find the opportunity for deficit reduction.
I have another colleague who will be here momentarily as well, but this is, obviously, an evergreen topic, something that we are constantly focused on, something that members of the Budget Committee, members of the Bipartisan Fiscal Forum, members of various groups that focus more heavily on this than maybe some other issues.
I am proud to count myself as part of that. I remember voting against debt ceiling increases that didn't have some type of spending reduction, even when my own side was proposing them, that didn't have some type of spending reduction, a spending cap, or even a fiscal commission. There are many solutions. It is a key aspect, and it is something that we need to reflect on.
In President Trump's first year, as we started the 119th Congress, taking that first entire year, calendar year 2025, and comparing it to calendar year 2024, a very unique thing happened: We had about $360 billion worth of deficit reduction.
We ran an approximately $1.8 to $1.9 trillion deficit over the last few years, and it has gone up considerably since COVID, during President Biden's 4 years. The first year that Republicans had the White House, House, and Senate, we had an extraordinary feat of $360 billion worth of deficit reduction.
There were spending constraints. There was restructuring of how we approached some of the student loan aspect of the budget, various elements within the entirety of the appropriations process from different agencies across the board that were pulling back and withholding some of their planned spending. That, mixed with revenues from tariffs, created a $360 billion deficit reduction. It doesn't get reported much, doesn't get talked about.
A portion of that tariff money after the SCOTUS ruling will be refunded back, so of that 360, there will be money going back ultimately to some of these companies that are involved in this. The world of tariff and trade policy will continue to play out where you will still get revenue to help us offset some of the deficits.
I have been critical of some of the tariff policy. I have been supportive of some of the tariff policy. I want two specific things from tariffs. I want them to be consistent. If they are going to exist, I want them to be consistent, something the companies, business folks, and families can plan on, as well as be a positive contributor to reducing deficits. I think there is an opportunity to do both of those things, and we are seeing that play out.
I am going to talk a little bit tonight about what is actually going on with one of the most important aspects of the constant churn of us reducing deficits, and that is what is taking place within some of our administrative agencies on finding fraud. I am going to share some anecdotes and some data. I look forward to doing that.
Before I do that, I have a colleague here who is going to share a brief message. I yield to the gentleman from the great State of North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. Speaker, our national debt has now surpassed $39 trillion, and every second that we fail to address it, that number continues to grow, placing an even greater burden on future generations.
Families across western North Carolina understand just a simple truth: You can't spend money that you don't have. They balance their budgets, make difficult decisions, and expect their government to do the same. Unfortunately, Washington has spent far too long doing just the opposite.
Decades of unchecked spending have left us with rising interest payments, growing deficits, and fewer resources available for the priorities that really matter.
As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I have worked to ensure that we are good stewards of every taxpayer dollar. That means supporting our national defense, strengthening border security, helping communities recover from disasters like Hurricane Helene, and funding the essential functions of government while still looking for every opportunity to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
Through the fiscal year 2027 appropriations process, House Republicans continued efforts to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars by identifying several savings, reducing unnecessary spending, eliminating wasteful programs, and ensuring funding is focused on the Federal Government's core responsibilities.
We didn't create a $39 trillion debt overnight, and we are not going to solve it overnight, but every responsible spending decision moves us in the right direction.
The American people deserve a government that lives within its means, just as they do every day. It is time to restore fiscal responsibility, reduce the deficit, and leave the next generation with a far stronger financial future.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his message and focus on very important issues.
Mr. Speaker, as I was mentioning, there is no question that we have a major issue in front of us. Over the last 18 months, I have gone back home and had a chance to share a lot of the specifics as to the gains that we are making from the reductions. I want to just highlight some of this.
Our Federal debt continues to grow unsustainably, and major trust fund programs face looming insolvency. To add insult to injury here, there is rampant fraud across our country.
If we want to get a handle on our national debt, then we also need to address what I will call the invisible tax on the American people. The data is staggering. The Government Accountability Office estimates that the U.S. Government loses as much as $500 billion in Federal funds every year to fraud. Half a trillion dollars is wasted because fraudsters and scammers cheat our systems. That is $4,000 per American household every year completely wasted. If there is one thing that infuriates every American, it is the waste of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars.
I find that in my own life. My wife and I are budgeting. The part that is frustrating is that it is not that we don't have to spend or invest in areas, but we have to eliminate the waste. Families are working hard to play by the rules, and fraudsters are stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from childcare programs,
To address this, the House Republicans recently passed the Stop Child Care Scams Act, forcing accountability when States repeatedly fail to fix fraud and serious program violations.
Fake ghost students are draining $180 million in financial aid that should be helping hardworking American students, so I am supporting ID verification before tax dollars to support those programs go out the door.
Our reports have exposed fraud in States like Minnesota and California. They have industrial-scale theft, and it has gone unabated for years. Even States like Florida have had many issues in this regard.
One-third of all hospices in the entire country are in Los Angeles, and CMS estimates that at least one-half of those are fraudulent. Eight hundred of those hospices have now been suspended. The numbers I had from just a couple of months ago were that they suspended licenses of 400. They have even had a chance to do more, but they
They identified, through good data analytics, investing in targeting the right areas where we anticipate there being significant fraud, and they are taking action. If somebody reaches out and says, ``Wait, what is going on? Why did you cancel our license?'' if they are a legitimate business doing legitimate work, they can show that. The overwhelming majority were actually pinpointed. They suspected some level of fraud, and it appears to be very accurate.
Another anecdote that I just got recently, just this week, from a meeting with members within this agency, CMS, is that they have sent letters to the Medicare patients. Patients in hospice care are signed up for treatment with a number to show they are in hospice care. They have an opportunity to send correspondence to these folks just confirming that they have initiated hospice care.
Mr. Speaker, 15 percent have come back from States--I think the exact States were in the Southwest, California, Nevada, and, I believe, Arizona. Those three States came back with 15 percent of the people whom they were sending letters to saying, no, they are not on hospice. The majority of that was focused in this area. For some reason, the Los Angeles area went rampant in this hospice world. Ninety companies were associated with one address.
I have worked in the durable medical equipment industry before. There is equipment, call centers, and a workforce. You can't run 90 companies out of one location, Mr. Speaker, but this is what these dedicated men and women within our organizations within this administration are going out trying to find.
These are real numbers. These are real examples. This is not made up.
When I get the chance to go back and share this at home, they are really frustrated. They are also proud that this type of fraud doesn't stem from Utah. It is a moment of some recognition that States have a huge responsibility to play with respect to how these programs are implemented, and the States need to do a good job.
I am proud to say that Utah has been deemed to be very strong in this case. I am really impressed with the professionalism of what I am seeing. They continue to go and identify this. They are using good data analytics to be able to figure out where the potential might be next and go after it.
It is something that I share tonight as we highlight these issues of deficits, that this is going on daily, and as part of that first year of success of $360 billion, this is part of it. This is the type of stuff that Americans love to see because it is wasteful and fraudulent. People need to be held accountable. That is all taking place and happening.
Just this week, the Labor Department sent a strike team to New York to crack down on unemployment insurance fraud that is costing taxpayers an estimated $2 million a day. New York recorded more than $750 million in improper unemployment insurance payments and $507 million in fraudulent payments just last year.
House Republicans are focused on making sure the services get to the people who actually need them and are not wasted or stolen.
In the Ways and Means Committee, we have worked to put new guardrails on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program to mitigate improper payments and ensure States are paying their fair share for this critically important program.
Empowering agencies to investigate and root out fraud and making targeted investments into fraud prevention and recovery programs is a giant step forward.
For every dollar Medicare spends on monitoring programs, the government sees almost $25 in savings. Mr. Speaker, you will see Dr. Oz communicate this, and you will see his team communicate this. They have team members under Dr. Oz's purview who have said: I will come back and work in this job again.
They worked in the first Trump administration. They said: I will come back if we can be even more laser focused and really go after the fraud.
That was Dr. Oz's mission, and that is what his team's mission is. They do an incredible job of explaining and sharing with us the proper information. It is not hyperbole; it is not rhetoric; it is literally data. They talk about these numbers with respect to spending a dollar on these efforts, site visits, sending out communication to find out if they are truly actual patients on hospice. That takes a little bit of resources, but we are getting back a strong yield from that, $1 for $25 in savings.
For every dollar Medicare spends on monitoring programs, the government sees almost $25 in savings. We need more programs like this to root out fraud and recover improper payments.
To that end, I am working on legislation that will allow more of the money recovered by the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program to be reinvested directly into the fraud prevention program. The areas that this money needs to be reinvested back into are the trust funds and also back into the programs that will help us continue to be strong in this regard.
Earlier this year, House Republicans passed the Fraud Prevention and Accountability Act, legislation that strengthened fraud prevention across the Federal Government and help protect taxpayer dollars from fraud, scams, and abuse.
Families are stretching every dollar right now. Fraudsters are cashing in on taxpayer-funded programs like childcare, student aid, and safety-net programs. Americans play by the rules. Scammers should not get rewarded.
This is the right fight. Every dollar stolen through fraud is a dollar taken from workers, families, seniors, veterans, and small businesses that actually need the support.
We have got enough excuses, loopholes, and taxpayer money disappearing into fraud and abuse. Our government programs have a problem, and our taxpayers are the ones paying the price. These are the loopholes we are closing. We are cracking down on this and holding negligent State leaders accountable. We cannot lower our deficit without addressing the fraudulent spending throughout our country.
For a year and a half, Republicans have shone a light on the amount of fraud, abuse, and the sheer waste. We are reducing the deficit by cutting this spending, and it is happening on daily basis.
As I mentioned earlier, the data that I have here, I was told several months ago that they had canceled 400 licenses and only heard back from 12. That is obviously a green light to then reach out and identify more. If you cancel a license and you don't hear from that company or those stakeholders, you have definitely nailed that right aspect of finding that fraudulent activity.
It is a point that I hope that every American can really understand. This is not a partisan issue. Everything back here becomes partisan, but if you look at it and just actually take the data, this is a sensational thing that is going on, and it is going to continue to go on for the duration of this administration.
We must continue to courageously work to solve this crisis, and we cannot let it get too late.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to bring Utah's sound fiscal policies to Washington on the House Budget Committee, and I will continue to fight for the American family as we seek to give our children a better economic future.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New Jersey?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud co-chair of the House Democratic Caucus' Defend the 14th Amendment Task Force.
This month, we mark the 158th anniversary of one of the most important amendments ever added to our Constitution.
Forged in the aftermath of the Civil War and paid for by the blood, sweat, and tears of Black freedom fighters and their allies, the 14th Amendment declared that every person born in these United States is anointed with inalienable rights and responsibilities, never to be infringed upon by the actions of any State or entity.
Together, with the 13th and 15th amendments, it marked what historians call: The second founding of our Nation, an effort to build a democracy that truly includes everyone.
History reminds us that writing rights into our Constitution is only the beginning.
For decades after Reconstruction, millions of Black Americans were denied those very rights through segregation, voter suppression, and racial violence.
The Constitution had not changed. What changed was whether or not our country chose to enforce it. It took generations of organizing and sacrifice before Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and began making good on the promise that existed for nearly a century.
That history matters because it teaches us an important lesson: Constitutional rights do not appear or disappear overnight. They are built or weakened piece by piece, action by action. Court decisions, legislation, political rhetoric, actions that slowly erode the institutions designed to protect our democracy.
Viewed in isolation, the current challenges to birthright citizenship, due process, equal protection, and the freedom to vote may seem like isolated political actions, but viewed together it becomes crystal clear that our Constitution and the promise of our second founding is under attack.
What is more? It is clear that it is our duty as true patriots to combat it. That is why House Democrats created the Defend the 14th Amendment Task Force.
Our mission is simple: Defend the constitutional rights that generations of Americans fought to secure. Our rights are not guaranteed simply because they are written down. They endure because people defend them.
The generations before us marched, organized, and sacrificed to make the promises of the 14th Amendment real. They understood that democracy requires participation, accountability, and constant vigilance.
Now, that responsibility belongs to us. Every generation faces a defining test. For generations that ratified the 14th Amendment, it was whether America would finally recognize citizenship and the humanity of those who had been enslaved.
For the generations that marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, it was whether every American would have an equal voice at the ballot box.
Our generation faces a different question: Will we preserve those constitutional guarantees for the generations that follow? As long as I have the privilege of serving in this House, I will continue fighting to protect that promise for every family, community, and generation to come.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is only as strong as our willingness to defend it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud co-chair of the Defend the 14th Amendment Task Force because I believe in one simple truth: The 14th Amendment is now under siege.
For more than 150 years this amendment has stood as one of the greatest promises our Nation has ever made: That every person born in this country is entitled to equal protection under the law and that no government may deny anyone due process simply because of who they are or where they were an immigrant from.
It was born from one of the darkest chapters in American history. After slavery ended, our Nation faced a choice: We could preserve injustice under a different name, or we could expand the promise of freedom.
The 14th Amendment was our answer. It declared boldly that citizenship could not be rationed, equality could not be optional, and liberty belonged to all of us.
Today, that promise is being tested. This administration has made no secret of its willingness to chip away at the constitutional protections generations of Americans have fought, marched, bled, and even died to secure.
They are using every tool at their disposal to weaken the very rights that safeguard us all. For me, this fight is deeply personal.
I was born in the Jim Crow South, little place called Waxahachie, Texas. I came of age in a nation where equal protection existed only on paper long before it existed in practice.
I marched with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference starting when I was 15 years old. The SCLC was led by a young preacher by the name of Martin Luther King, Jr. I marched because I believed America could become what it claimed to be. I believed that the Constitution should protect every citizen equally. I witnessed firsthand what happens when governments decide some people deserve fewer rights than others.
The progress we celebrate today did not happen by accident. It happened because brave Americans demanded that the 14th Amendment finally be honored. It was the Equal Protection Clause that became the constitutional foundation for Brown v. Board of Education, ending legally sanctioned segregation in our public schools.
It was the 14th Amendment that strengthened the fight against discriminatory voting laws, housing discrimination, and unequal treatment in employment.
It was the 14th Amendment that has protected interracial marriage, expanded equality for women, safeguarded the rights of people with disabilities, and affirmed the dignity of LGBTQ Americans.
Time and time again, when our Nation has taken a step toward justice, it has done so because someone stood up and insisted that the words of the 14th Amendment actually meant what they say. That is why attack of any kind on equal protection and due process are not isolated legal disputes. They are attacks on the very foundation of modern civil rights.
They are attacks on the constitutional principle that tell every child they matter before the law. They are the attacks on the guarantees that protect workers from exploitation, families from discrimination, religious liberty, voting rights, and the simple expectation that government must treat people fairly.
When government weakens these protections for one group, it weakens them for everyone.
History teaches us that constitutional rights are rarely lost all at once. They are chipped away slowly, one exception, one excuse, one precedent at a time until Americans wake up and discover that what once seemed guaranteed has quietly disappeared.
We cannot allow this to happen.
Our constituents know what is at stake. They understand that the promise of America has been bigger than politics. They know that the Constitution belongs to every American, not just those in power.
As the co-chair of the 14th Amendment Task Force, I stand with my colleagues in defense of one of the most important guarantees ever written into our Constitution. We will defend equal protection. We will defend due process. We will defend, yes, birthright citizenship. We will continue fighting until the promise of the 14th Amendment is not merely something we celebrate in history books, but something that every American can experience in their daily lives.
The struggle to perfect our Union has never been easy, but every generation is called to protect the freedoms it inherited. Now, it is our turn.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Mejia for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, the 14th Amendment means what it says: ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . .'' Those are the words on paper.
Donald Trump and Stephen Miller attempted to rewrite the Constitution through an executive order banning birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants. It is the same legal arguments that were first used when a white supremacist wanted to deny U.S. citizenship to Chinese Americans.
Four Supreme Court Justices dissented in the ruling to protect the 14th Amendment. That tells us that we are not safe from these continuous attacks from Donald Trump and his administration on our Constitution, on our freedom, and on our neighbors.
We know that the White House is currently scheming to have Trump's activist Supreme Court rehear the case that upheld the 14th Amendment, that upheld birthright citizenship.
This is all part of a larger agenda to dehumanize Black and Brown people in this country, to strip away their rights, and to normalize questioning who belongs here. Who is American enough?
It is why Republicans have funded Donald Trump's immigration agenda by $200 billion and why on the 158th anniversary of the 14th Amendment, my colleagues and I launched the Defend the 14th Amendment Task Force.
Our goal is simple: to defend the Constitution, to coordinate oversight and public education efforts, and to respond strongly to the Trump administration's attacks on our rights, on our freedom, on our Constitution, our country, and our communities.
We will stand up to these attacks on civil liberties. We must continue this fight to ensure that the citizens of the United States are protected and that nothing erodes these constitutional protections. It is our duty. It is our responsibility, and it is the oath we swore when we took this public office.
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to be a co-chair of this task force and so proud to stand here in defense of our Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Aguilar and my fellow co- chairs, Representatives Cleaver, Randall, Simon, and Subramanyam, for their leadership in launching the Defend the 14th Amendment Task Force.
This work is about protecting the Constitution's promise that every person deserves equal protection, due process, and the full rights of citizenship.
Those principles have shaped generations of progress in our country, and they are worth defending today just as they were 158 years ago. We owe it to those who came before us and those who will follow us to ensure that that promise endures.
Mr. Speaker, and to the room, I apologize. I was doing a tour for a former firefighter, who actually was paralyzed in the scope of his duties, but we were close.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take 1 or 2 seconds here to try to straighten this out just a little bit.
The presentation tonight is going to be a little bit technical. Sorry about that. If you don't like math, if you don't like demographics, if you don't actually want to deal with the math I am going to give you, now would be a good time to go find something on Netflix.
I have been trying to make a point over and over around here that our borrowing is terrifying, and it is much worse than almost anyone is willing to talk about.
We actually had some of the Joint Economic economists meet with some of the Penn Wharton modelers over the last couple of days. When they used their population statistics, some of the coming years are even uglier than we get from CBO, what we get from OMB, and actually what we get from some of the other scorers.
Let's actually just sort of start this and put this in perspective and then understand there are solutions. You don't pay off the debt, but you can stabilize it.
What is the number one driver of U.S. sovereign debt? It is shocking how many of even our brothers and sisters here in this building get the math wrong. It is demographics, and it is the one thing we are really not supposed to tell the truth about.
Next year, there is a model that says we will have fewer under 18 than we had 20 years ago, but we will have almost double 65 and up than we had 20-plus years ago. It is baby boomers, and we have gone decade and decade without enough children. It is just math. Is that Republican or Democrat? It is just math.
Once again, all right, let's do this. For those of you who have actually paid attention over the years, you have noticed that over the time we talked about discretionary outlays. Today, it is down to about 25 percent. What is blue here is what you remember that Congress actually gets to vote on. What is red here is almost all formulaic, and that is part of the problem.
As Members of Congress today, we could all hold hands, sing kumbaya, love each other, get rid of every dime that is discretionary--now, that is nondefense and defense, but it is what we vote on--and you still couldn't balance the budget.
Remember, last year, for every dollar we took in, we spent $1.43. So far this year--and, look, I am hoping it bends back down, but this year, the number is even worse.
Interest this year, our model--just interest, total interest, so the interest we have to pay back the trust funds, the interest we have to pay the people who are willing to buy U.S. bonds, it is the second biggest expense in the Federal Government, so Social Security, interest, Medicare, Medicaid and ObamaCare subsidies, defense--once again, remember, defense, the thing that is in the Constitution, is actually number five.
That interest may come in close to $1.3 trillion this year. That is about 20 percent. One of my charts is going to say 19, but my math is closer to 20 percent of all tax receipts go just to pay interest.
I am going to say this two or three times in different ways. In 9 budget years, we have a model that says 30 to 33 percent of all the tax receipts will go just to interest. So you pay a dollar. In 9 years, what happens if a third of that money's function is just covering the interest on the debt pileup?
It is important to understand this chart and why I show it. I start with it all the time.
All right. Let's keep doing this.
Net interest as a percentage of total revenues would approach 30 percent, and understand, we have a model that actually is over 30. It is actually as high as 33 percent.
Here we are. Right now, we are in this slot here, so 19 to 20 percent of all of our tax receipts is going to interest in 9 budget years.
This should terrify you. How many bridges, how much helping people get healthy, how many benefits is the interest paying? No. I mean, it does benefit those who buy the bonds, and there is the Ray Dalio theory that it is still money circulating back into the economy, but it is money that does not go to meet the mission of the Federal Government. It is basically paying for past spending.
The ethical question here is: Is borrowing a tax hike? Now, for some of the antitax groups--I love them. I would cut spending dramatically. I voted that way, and I am in a tough district.
Let's be honest, what is the running joke here, Mr. Speaker? No one ever got unelected by spending too much money.
It is sort of perverse, but the bond market will basically be running the Federal Government in the next few years because of the influence it will have and the damage it can do to us.
That is a percentage to understand.
Let's actually dig in a little bit more. The boards, because I started late, are all upside down. So forgive me, I am going to be bouncing these around.
The rising national debt will lower wages. This is something we have been looking at over and over. We keep talking about affordability. Two weeks ago, I brought an academic paper and showed some charts that basically said if mortgage rates--a 30-year home loan rate today is what? Today, it is running 6.5, 6.7. If we weren't borrowing as much money as we are today, it would
The next time someone is talking about we need to do stuff on home affordability, we absolutely do. One of the most powerful things we could do is actually convince the bond markets that the borrowing isn't going to keep going up and going up, that actually the Federal Government--and, remember, it is federal governments all over the world just bingeing because of their demographics. They now have their retirement populations. They need to finance those benefits, and almost everything we are doing now is on borrowed money.
Just to understand, there is a principle out there, whether it be your home loan being actually over a full point higher in interest rates because of Federal Government borrowing, but we are also suppressing your wages. Because that capital, when it is in the market, helps a business, plant and equipment, keep investing in more productivity. Higher productivity actually means you can pay people more.
Remember your old high school economics class? The two ways you raise wages: inflation--well, that doesn't get you anything; it just means your wages go up, but your purchasing power has gone down--or productivity. You are making more whatever you did because you invested in plant and equipment or better processes or better technology. That technology can't be financed because the Federal Government pushed up interest rates and consumed the capital.
All right, that hopefully is making sense.
Let's do this. Remember I was trying to talk about housing affordability? This is also another chart to just sort of understand what this means. On an average-priced home in my marketplace, which is the Phoenix, Scottsdale, Tempe sort of area, a home is just a little under $500,000 with no downpayment, so we just mortgage the whole thing. What if you could get what our model says, if we weren't borrowing so much, and get a 5.5 percent rate in today's market?
If you actually look at what we have done to mortgage rates, that differential costs homeowners several thousand dollars over that year, just to understand what this does.
Let's have a little more fun here. Now, I did this one because I am going to do a whole section here on labor force participation. You go, who cares?
It is a big deal, and we are seeing some really funky numbers out there in some of that, and some of it is because we are getting older. Some of it is younger people are entering the labor force later, but there is some hope on that side of the ledger.
But there is some difficulty here. So I decided I would actually grab a couple of slides from Arizona just to sort of demonstrate labor force participation rates in Arizona. You see this red line here? So the blue is America.
Why has Arizona crashed? Well, we actually had some problems. Arizona, particularly the Phoenix and Tucson area, had become sort of the back office, the call centers, the back-office accounting centers of America. Much of this type of job has now become automated, and now we are starting to see it in our job numbers and the number of people who are actually choosing to leave the labor force because they are older and they actually have given up looking.
But take a look at this chart, and you start to understand what we are seeing, and this number is actually fairly recent. This is as of May 2026, so this is old data.
We always think of Arizona as being this remarkable growth center. The reality right now: We have stumbled, and we are going to have to really do some things to actually start to deal with the reality of what is going on in our labor market.
As you actually take a look at it even further--just because I love my State and I care--this is the national unemployment rate. You see this spiking here? This is basically us right now, particularly what has been happening over the last several months. Our employment rates are actually really starting to spike up more; we are starting to see a real differential in Arizona compared to the rest of the country. This is what happens when you don't fixate on bringing the next generation of employment into your marketplace.
All right? So let's geek out a little bit more. I am going to show you this chart because it is absurd. It is a chart that makes me-- Social Security actuaries basically published a report, what, 3 weeks ago, and, yes, I have a tabbed copy, and I meant to bring it up here, but we were out doing the tour.
I want you to see something. You tell me how the Social Security actuaries came up with this number. So right here, this is actually the U.S. population and they have it falling and falling and falling. So a little beyond--so call it 2027, and then, suddenly, they have the U.S. population coming back up.
We don't see this on Census Bureau data. We don't see this in some of the university data. We don't see this on some of the population statistics groups. Somehow the actuaries for Social Security actually say that we are going to get several years down. The population is going to--you know, birthrates are going to continue to fall. Fertility rates are going to continue to fall, but then, suddenly, magically, they are going to come back.
And that is why so many of us are so concerned about the long-run numbers they have published, because this growth rate in fertility population, I don't think matches reality.
When you have people talking about in 6 years to 6 years and 3 months, the Social Security actuaries have the trust fund being empty, but don't worry, because the long-run rate is we are in real trouble. But it actually has, we believe, completely unsupportable population statistics in it.
All right. So that was my attempt to mock the Social Security actuarial report.
I am sorry for me going fast, but I only have about 20 more minutes to try to do this.
This chart is really, really important, and it is new to us.
So net entries into the labor force. If the Social Security trust fund is empty in 6 years and 3 months, if the Medicare trust fund is empty pretty much at the same time, the model says that if we follow the law, those of us on Social Security will take a 22 percent to 24 percent cut. That means the doubling of senior poverty in 6\1/2\ years to 7 years from now.
The Medicare trust fund will be empty. One of our problems in the Medicare healthcare spending is that we refuse to have a conversation of how to lower healthcare prices. We keep having discussions of how to manipulate and do financial engineering on healthcare. So we have turned healthcare into a financing issue instead of the adoption of technology, where you can functionally wear your own medical lab, you can use technology to actually refer yourself, those things. Because we are terrified to actually explain to the armies in our hallways who are here lobbying us that in less than 7 years, Medicare spending will double.
It will go from $1 trillion last year to some 6 years to 7 years from now, $2 trillion, and, at that time, the trust fund is empty. If you are a hospital, you are taking at least a 12 percent cut.
This is what is happening in the numbers. Why this is important is that: One of the ways you grow an economy is either with a stable or growing population, and particularly if that population has risen in skill sets. That is why so many countries around the industrialized world fight like hell for talent-based immigration.
You don't bring mass poverty across the border. You go out and recruit really smart people, because they pay a hell of a lot of taxes. This chart is basically saying that in just a few years, our labor force actually starts to decrease, and that is 2.8 million in 2030. That is how many years from now, Mr. Speaker? It is 2026. So think of this. In 4 years, the data says that the U.S. available labor population actually starts to shrink by over 2.8 million people.
Now, you tell me. How am I supposed to make the money, the math, the data, and the finances work for these programs? You have to do the unified theory of--whether it be a talent-based immigration system, the adoption of
All right. Look, this is a complicated board. It doesn't work on television. It doesn't really work on a floor speech, but I just need you to understand that what we are looking at is because we are aging as a population without enough young people, that our percentages of who are available to us--this is 2026. This is 1977. It would basically explain that when I was a kid in the 1970s, for every dollar we spent on seniors, we spent almost $7 on people who were functionally young.
Today, that number has flipped, and it has just flipped because the demographics have flipped. It is the same thing as what happened here with who is available to be in the labor force.
Much of our labor force population now is much older. The jobs available for the young are half what we had when I was young. It is just baby boomers.
We knew people were going to turn 65 for how many years? I mean, this place, in some ways, is so incredibly absurd in its unwillingness to basically do basic math. I remember sitting in a statistics class in around 1981, and the professor then was talking about what baby boomers meant to the economy. Here I am, a Member of Congress all these years later, and it is like we are just now discovering it.
All right. Here is actually something--it is hopeful, but the next slide will actually take the wind out of your sails.
So prime-age labor force participation, so the people we consider sort of in their prime working years, actually, we are doing really well here. Some of the growth in the economy, some of the investment in the economy, for prime age, we have 84 percent. But here is my problem: Labor force participation of those 55 and up has been crashing.
There are lots of reasons to debate this and discuss this. Is this skill sets? Is it the adoption of technology? Is it the wealth effects of as asset prices have gone up so much, we have people who are able to retire early? It is a combination of everything, but these workers are often our most productive.
So just understand that prime working-aged people are actually doing really well working and being in the labor force. Those of us who are older, we have been disappearing like crazy, and we actually see that in our productivity numbers.
All right. Mr. Speaker, I warned you this was going to be a little geeky.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona has 10 minutes remaining.
Excellent. I am probably going to use every one of them. No, I will try to go as fast as I can here.
The U.S. population age 65 and up, and I go back to 2011: 41 million. This year, I have 63 million.
Okay. Wonderful. I am one of these. I am basically 64. Now, understand, my wife and I are both 64, and I have a 4-year-old and a 10-year-old, so we are very optimistic about the future, or we are out of our minds, but we all knew this was happening.
We did what to shore up the trust funds? We did what to basically incentivize our brothers and sisters to stay in the labor force if they wanted to?
We had dozens of things--I have been here 16 years, and I have spent most of that time trying to get this place to actually deal with the reality of let's save Social Security. Let's actually save Medicare. Let's do those things that help us grow. Let's adopt the technology so we can crash the price of healthcare.
I have had some success on the edges, but I lose to the armies of lobbyists that are in the hallways here that lose their minds because we may change their business models.
Mr. Speaker, we are now borrowing about $90,000 every second. Today, we will borrow about $7 billion. The current burn rate so far this fiscal year, just this fiscal year, we are going come in close to $2.2 to $2.3 trillion of borrowing, and yet, we have higher interest rates.
How long is the bond market going to keep saying we are going to finance you because how much of the benefits that our brothers and sisters who are older have earned we are actually borrowing the money?
Seniors per hundred workers--and actually, here is just the simple math. How many of us grew up always hearing you have got 23 people per retiree, and that is how we finance Social Security? I have shown some charts here where in the end of a decade from now, you have about 2.3, and it is this: In 2011, we had 21.9 working-age folks per senior. Today, actually, that number has eroded 47 percent increase in that change. It is almost a 50 percent change in that time, and it actually steepens. Part of the steepening isn't because we have more seniors. It is also because we have substantially fewer young people.
All right. Mr. Speaker, 65 will continue to grow as a share of the population. In 9 budget years, 21.4 percent of the population will be in their benefit ages. Our system wasn't prepared for this. In 25 or 26 months from now, I should have double checked the math, over half of the Federal spending will go to those of us 65 and up. That is not half of the tax receipts.
Remember, if we are borrowing $2.3 trillion on top--but think about that. Our government functionally is an insurance company with an Army.
All right. This is actually one of my intense frustrations. Let's take a look. The trustee's report projects this significantly more optimistically than the other sources. Remember I showed you a chart there, and I was somewhat mocking the trustee's report, basically saying they have this magic thing where fertility rates crash and crash and crash, and that is within the next 9 years, and then suddenly, magically it explodes upward. No one else has that.
Here is the Medicare and Social Security actuary's trustees saying, oh, well, we are going to go along, but magically when we get to 2030, they are going to start to go up. This has created a distortion. That is actually why you see groups like my Joint Economic Committee, Penn Wharton, so many of the others, saying the trustees are missing it. The debt the United States is in is dramatically more devastating.
Mr. Speaker, 2030, 2035 isn't that far away.
I am sure we are all going to get together and decide we are going to do a debt deficit commission. I am sure we are all going get together and lay out the incentives of how we actually manage this crisis. I am sure we are going to do those things to convince the bond markets that we are creditworthy because here is part of the frustration.
Greece, today, can sell a 10-year bond cheaper than the United States. Greece today has a better forward credit rating than the United States. We are now 13 or 14 on the credit stack where other countries can actually sell a 10-year bond cheaper than we can.
And I keep wondering. I have been coming behind this microphone for almost a decade and a half. We have been introducing pieces of legislation that could revolutionize the costs of healthcare, could actually make government dramatically more efficient, and I almost can't get a single Member of Congress to consponsor any of this legislation because you have to go to war with all the lobbyists because it means changing the bureaucracies or the business models out there. It is like they basically have this attitude: Screw the society. Screw my kids. Screw your retirement, as long as I don't have to tell the truth about the math.
Today, your government borrowed about $90,000 a second. Yesterday, we borrowed about $90,000 a second. Tomorrow, we are going to borrow--that is like $7 billion today. We will argue for hours here on the floor for millions.
I need you to see a chart. If this is a billion dollars, if this is a trillion dollars, millions is basically this tiny little--the lack of calculators here is a destruction of this Republic.
There are those who actually tell me, David, it is waste and fraud. It is this and that. I have done presentations to show you our best calculations of waste and fraud. It is a problem, but it is a sliver because the majority of what we call waste and fraud is actually the waste. It is the way we have designed programs.
Mr. Speaker, I don't believe my brothers and sisters here are actually willing to do the hard things and tell the truth about the math and then redesign these programs because it means getting the crap kicked out of you by the lobbying and the business models out there. That means creating a revolution of taking on the debt and deficits.
We will pay a remarkable price for the fact that the Penn Wharton models within a decade had us actually already approaching the no-go numbers of being able to sell our U.S. debt. At that point the bonds explode, and the bond market runs this country.
Mr. Speaker, the South Carolina House delegation is humbled to pay tribute to our beloved late U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham. We have several Members here tonight to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. Norman) of Rock Hill.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank Congressman Wilson for organizing this tribute to a dear friend of all of us, not only in South Carolina but all over every State in this country.
I wish everyone could have been in the Senate well when Darline, his sister, took the oath of office from the President pro-tempore of the Senate and then took the desk that Lindsey had occupied for 24 years in the Senate. It was moving. It was a tribute to Lindsey Graham that she was able to do this and appointed by Governor McMaster.
Lindsey understood that success in South Carolina meant looking out for every South Carolinian. Whether it was a major defense project or a small-town infrastructure need, he fought to bring Federal resources back to South Carolina and make sure that every corner of our State had a voice in Washington, D.C.
From securing the Medal of Honor for a marine, Major James Capers--it was a 5-year timeframe to work to get Major Capers the Medal of Honor, Lindsey was a part of that--to supporting our military installations, strengthening our border security, defending the rights of States and advancing priorities that benefit South Carolina, we worked side-by- side on issues that mattered to those back home.
He believed in delivering results, not just making speeches. He knew that the work of elected officials is measured by what they accomplish for the people they represent, and he consistently fought to ensure that South Carolina received its fair share of opportunities.
We didn't have to agree on every issue. Lindsey never had an enemy that I knew of, and you could disagree with him while not being disagreeable.
When there was an opportunity to move the State forward, Lindsey was willing to put the work in. This was evidenced to me when I went on a trip to Munich, Germany, back in 2020. I think it was a 4-day trip.
I watched him go to every meeting of every country that was there primarily to share our ideas and to bring companies back to the United States, which benefited every State in the Union. He had a passion for that, particularly a passion for Ukraine and other countries that he had a belief in.
His legacy will include far more than legislation. He will be remembered in the communities that benefited from his advocacy, the veterans he fought for, the historic sites he worked to preserve, and the love he continuously included and worked for for countless South Carolinians.
Lives were improved, families benefited from the efforts that they showed. He had a constituency staff second to none. If you called Lindsey Graham's office, he did what he could to help you out, regardless of whether you were from South Carolina or not.
He was a funny man. Like any good comedian, it is not what he said, it is how he said it.
Lindsey Graham made his life work for the betterment of South Carolina and the betterment of others. He will be sorely missed in this State and sorely missed by Darline, who he raised and adopted after both parents died.
We thank him for a life well lived. Again, I thank Joe for having this moment to recognize a great man.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Norman for his heartfelt comments.
Indeed, I agree with and appreciated talk radio show host Kelly Nash, WVOC, who correctly began statewide broadcasting Monday that South Carolinians are heartbroken upon learning of the passing of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham on Saturday.
I will always be grateful for my decades-long association with Senator Graham, as we served together. He was the South Carolina Air Guard Staff Judge Advocate, and I was the South Carolina Army Staff Judge Advocate serving together. Courageously, after one of our drill days, he announced to me his candidacy for the State House from Oconee County, South Carolina.
I immediately congratulated him, but then I caught myself, and I remembered that, in fact, nobody from our party had ever been elected from Oconee County to the State House. Indeed he made history and became the first Republican elected from Oconee to the State House of South Carolina.
Sunday morning, when I spoke with President Donald Trump, I knew he shared the grief of all South Carolinians. It was just heartfelt to hear him as we reviewed the service of Senator Graham, understanding that he truly was a champion for peace through strength, dedicated to public service, his military career, his service as a veteran, and his service in the State House, U.S. Senate, and in every way backing up the people of South Carolina.
Senator Graham's last week of life was symbolic of his dedication for America. He attended the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkiye. While he was there, he met with President Ahmed al-Sharaa of Syria. It was really very significant because he had been skeptical, as many people, about the new Government of Syria. He, upon meeting with President al-Sharaa, identified that President Donald Trump was correct, give Syria a chance, and so it was exciting that he announced that he looked forward to actual progress with the new Government of Syria to be working with the United States.
Additionally, he next went to Kyiv, Ukraine, where he met with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. While he was there, it was so impressive that he had the opportunity to also visit a drone manufacturing facility to see the extraordinary success of the people of Ukraine, who are going to be victorious over war criminal Putin.
With the development of drone technology, indeed, the people of Ukraine are an inspiration. While he was there, he was able to announce that in working with President Donald Trump that there would be sanctions on war criminal Putin and on Russia. Indeed, it is so meaningful that indeed as soon as we got back to Washington, the U.S. Senate--I thank Senator John Cornyn and others--have made it possible that there will be a Russian Sanctions Act which, indeed, will be in the name of Lindsey Graham as the Lindsey Graham Russian Sanctions Act. It will be so impressive to help back up the people of Ukraine.
Additionally, when Senator Graham arrived back in Washington on Saturday, how incredible that he had the strength and fortitude to have a very long conversation with President Donald Trump to review the activities of the week and the successes that he saw of the Trump administration to provide peace through strength, but suddenly there was sudden death right after the phone call.
With that, myself personally, when I learned of the passing of the Senator, I was at Souda Bay in Greece visiting Navy personnel of the U.S. Navy to, indeed, thank them for their service. As soon as I heard about the passing, within an hour, I sent a tweet: ``With the passing of Senator Lindsey Graham, he will always be cherished as an American patriot, tireless for peace through strength, successful defeating totalitarians. All three generations of the
The three generations of the Wilson family begin with my wife, Roxanne, and myself. I am really grateful our son, Attorney General Alan Wilson, who we have really been so appreciative, was to be on the Lindsey Graham Republican ticket as the nominee for Governor of South Carolina in November. The Wilson family is so happy to work with persons and now with Darline Graham, what a wonderful person.
Then our third generation actually, Houston Wilson of SMU served as a Graham U.S. Senate floor page. Over and over again, our family appreciates personally and the people of South Carolina are so grateful for the service of Senator Lindsey Graham.
I am very happy that we have been joined by Congressman Russell Fry of Surfside Beach, and I now yield to him.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Joe Wilson for organizing this fitting tribute to a statesman who we will surely miss. I join my colleagues here both from South Carolina but really around the country, and indeed around the world, in mourning the passing of our senior Senator, statesman Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey was more than just a Senator. He was a dedicated public servant, a fierce advocate for South Carolina, and an even better person and a great friend. His life, his legacy are the people and the lives that he touched, the energy that he brought to public service, the dedication to issues, the enjoyment of a good argument, even when you disagreed with him, and the humor that he always had really in almost every situation. It really was kind of a hallmark of who he was.
He was from central South Carolina, born to working-class parents who died very early. He was placed in an incredible predicament, at 21 years of age, to take care of his 13-year-old sister. What an insane thing to think about in our country right now, that somebody would do that and that they would not just try to do it--a lot of people would try to care for their siblings--but that they would be successful in that endeavor and really stop and take a moment and make sure that your number one mission was the success of your family and your young sister.
Lindsey's entire world was turned upside down when he lost his parents, but he did a remarkable job. I think that shows who he is as a person.
He has had a lot of titles, Mr. Speaker. He was in the State legislature; he was a Congressman; and he was our Senator for 30 years. In South Carolina, we have Senators for a long time. Thirty years is a long time in this body, and what a mark it is that he left.
Some people come up to Washington, D.C., and hit ``yes,'' hit ``no,'' and think that they have done something impactful, but Lindsey Graham was a mover and a shaker. He really understood how to maneuver and how to work with people to accomplish something.
I think it was said by Mr. Wilson earlier that even when you disagreed with him, he found something that we could work on together. That is a hallmark of who he was.
I first saw Lindsey when I was 18 years old, and he was campaigning for the first time for the United States Senate. It was after 9/11. He was in Congress at the time but was campaigning. Our President then, George W. Bush, was campaigning with him in Columbia, South Carolina. I just remember at such a young age, just the moment after 9/11, how impacted the country was and the feeling of unity. Certainly, the President captured that at the time. He captured that, and it really helped land him in the United States Senate.
I, fortunately, interned for him. It was an interesting summer because Lindsey always liked to tackle tough issues. He didn't come up here to not be in the middle of the fray.
President Teddy Roosevelt talks about the man in the arena, that even if he fails, he does so striving valiantly. That particular summer, Mr. Speaker, was the summer that he tried to tackle comprehensive immigration reform, which landed him in a lot of hot water from both sides of the political aisle.
I just remember that summer. Of course, I loved it. I had never been to D.C., but I loved the experience of fielding phone calls and seeing how our government works. That was who he was.
Later, Mr. Speaker, when I got elected to Congress, the Senator jokingly asked if I wanted my desk back from when I was an intern and my old headset back, but the scars from that summer were still fresh. I did not take him up on that offer.
The great thing about the Senator that I would say, just as a person who grew up watching his career and then being part of Team South Carolina and fighting for the State, was that he really invested in people. He would work with Congressman Wilson's office and Congressman Clyburn, the whole delegation. He would work with our new addition, our fantastic addition, Mrs. Biggs, to try to find ways to advance issues that she was working on.
He worked on things that mattered to South Carolina, whether it was an appropriation for a firehouse in Cheraw, South Carolina, whether it was a piece of legislation that he and I worked on, the Logan Federico act, it would be a phenomenally good change in the way that we track violent criminals in this State.
He always had his finger on the pulse of what was going on. He was always thinking about how to make the lives of South Carolinians and the American people a little bit better.
Everyone knows how impactful he was not just in the Senate but with the White House. He was the unofficial whisperer to President Trump, how to navigate and have success in this body and in this town, making sure that you are delivering an agenda that the American people elected you to do.
That takes real courage, that takes guts, and that takes a lot of long days and evenings navigating that endless array of traps that you could fall into, Mr. Speaker, but that was who he was. He didn't sit around and wait for things to happen. He was always in the middle, trying to make sure that we were delivering on the things that we said we would.
It was always an honor, Mr. Speaker, to work with him and Mr. Wilson, of course, and this whole delegation. It matters greatly. His loss is going to be tough to deal with just on a personal level but also on the way that he helped deliver for South Carolina.
In 2 Timothy, the Apostle Paul writes: ``I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me but also to all who have longed for His appearing.''
My friend, Lindsey Graham, has fought the good fight. He has kept the faith. Although unexpectedly, I know he is reunited with his parents. He has received that crown, and in the midst of that beautiful reunion, he has heard the words: Well done, My good and faithful servant.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Russell Fry from the Seventh District. Indeed, 2 Timothy is a proper reference from the Bible of a person whom we so admire.
We are so fortunate to be joined this evening by the Congresswoman from the Third District of South Carolina, Sheri Biggs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. I really appreciate the leadership of Congressman Wilson and Congressman Fry's friendship.
Mr. Speaker, today, South Carolina mourns the loss of one of its most dedicated public servants, Senator Lindsey Graham. I can't tell you how many calls I have gotten this week, some of them not even our constituents and some of them not even from the State of South Carolina. I think the impact that Senator Graham made was worldwide, as my colleagues have already mentioned.
I know this week Governor McMaster appropriately named Darline to fill her brother's term, and I applaud that decision. We wish her success and Team South Carolina is here to assist in anything that she may need during her term.
Lindsey's story was a South Carolina story. He was raised in the town of Central, which is in my district. He learned the value of hard work in his family's restaurant.
After losing both his parents while attending college, he became the guardian of his younger sister, Darline, putting family before himself and demonstrating the character that would define his life.
As a healthcare provider, as a psychiatric mental health practitioner, I can't help but think about what that must have been like for that young man, the enormous responsibility and how he put everything before his own self. From that moment on, service became the defining purpose of his life.
Senator Graham earned his law degree. He served our Nation in the United States Air Force, retiring as a colonel after more than three decades. He devoted over 30 years to representing the people of South Carolina in the statehouse, in the United States House of Representatives, and in the United States Senate.
His commitment to service, his love for South Carolina, and his unwavering devotion to the people he represented will leave a legacy that endures for generations.
I have had members of the military call in this week to express their sincere condolences for our loss in South Carolina.
He was a friend to South Carolina, but he was also a friend to other States and other nations. He will be missed dearly.
Throughout his career, he was a steadfast champion of our conservative principles. Not everyone agreed with his politics and his policies, but one thing I think that we can agree on is that he did love his State and loved his country.
He fought hard to shape the conservative Supreme Court as we know it today. He defended the sanctity of life. He championed our servicemembers and veterans. He remained one of the strongest advocates for our allies abroad.
I was thinking earlier today, when we were in Seneca, South Carolina, with some Members who were supporters of Israel. We talked about our faith. I remember him standing in front of that congregation. It was at a church, and he was so passionate about his work and those people. He didn't hesitate for 1 minute to talk about his faith. Those are the things that I will remember, how strong he was and how he didn't waver one bit.
Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Senator Lindsey Graham's extraordinary life of service and in praying for his family and all who mourn his loss.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Sheri Biggs for her words. Indeed, it is such a great honor for all of us to serve with the gentlewoman.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 9 minutes remaining.
Indeed, I am grateful because I wanted to really bring to the attention of the American people and to the people in South Carolina the deep affection that President Donald Trump had for our senior Senator Lindsey Graham.
In fact, the White House statement upon his death is so clear, and that is that President Trump reflects on the life and legacy of Senator Lindsey Graham following his sudden passing this weekend. It is a really touching situation. President Trump describes the loss as deeply personal. ``He's a tough one to lose. He was great. He was unique in every way . . . I just can't believe it. He was like a member of the family to me. It's very tough, actually. He was such an advocate.''
Additionally, President Trump reflected on his final conversation with Senator Graham: ``It's devastating. I thought he was fine. He called me last night . . . What a terrible loss it is. He was a great politician. He was a natural. There are very few of them. He was a natural politician. He got along with everybody.''
Additionally, President Trump singled out Senator Graham's passionate defense of Brett Kavanaugh as a stand-out Senate moment. ``I think his finest moment was his defense of Brett Kavanaugh, who's a terrific guy and was treated very, very unfairly by the Democrats . . . I think it was a top 10, maybe a top 5, moment in the history of the Senate. It was an incredible display, and he did it from the heart. He felt strongly about Brett, and he did it from the heart, and he turned the whole thing around.''
President Trump praised Senator Graham's political skill and ability to build relationships. The President says: ``He got along with everybody and yet, he was a tough cookie in a lot of ways. Honestly, he was a great politician. People don't realize what a good politician he was . . . This man was a great politician. He really got it.''
Additionally, he reflected on the broader legacy of Senator Graham: ``We lost great man. He was a great man. He was a great politician, and he was a kind man . . . The real loser was the United States of America. We lost a great person, a kind person, a very smart person . . . Everything for him was about work. It was about loving the country.''
It has been really so remarkable to see the outpouring around the world: There were calls from members of the National Assembly of Bulgaria, from the Bundestag in Germany, and from the National Assembly in Thailand.
As Congresswoman Biggs has so carefully and clearly stated, worldwide Lindsey Graham was appreciated for what he has done for Peace Through Strength, to our rebuild our military and alliances around the world.
Additionally, I am very grateful that there were a number of editorials that I hope people will look up. For example, it was very meaningful to me, the New York Post had a wonderful tribute to him, indeed: ``Washington in shock as Senate stalwart dies suddenly at 71 Death of a Patriot.'' How clear that is. The article further identifies what an extraordinary individual the Senator was.
With that, they also had an editorial that truly was meaningful, in that the sudden passage of Senator Graham ``immediately brought well- deserved, fulsome tributes from across the political spectrum, but actions can speak louder than words--and his colleagues in Washington and his beloved South Carolina have clear opportunities to honor his legacy by continuing it.
``Specifically, the House and Senate can pass the additional `secondary' sanctions on Vladimir Putin's Russian war machine that Graham pushed in recent months.'' Indeed, that is being done today.
Also, I want to commend that there has been a remarkable editorial that I hope some people read from The Wall Street Journal: Lindsey Graham, the Senator was an influential voice for global world leadership.
I want to thank the chairman of the Republican Party, Drew McKissick, for his heartfelt tribute from the South Carolina Republican Party that truly indicates the love and affection that the people of South Carolina have for Lindsey Graham.
Then it goes on to I am really grateful for the National Review-- which was the initial conservative publication for so many of us and with a South Carolina connection--William F. Buckley, Jr. and the Buckley family of Camden, South Carolina. The National Review had a wonderful review by Jeffrey Blehar on July 14, indicating what an extraordinary individual Senator Lindsey Graham was.
Then it continues with references by other publications from around the world as to the accomplishments of Senator Lindsey Graham and all of us that have had the opportunity to serve with him.
I also want everyone to know that the other Members of Congress had different conflicts, but bipartisan Congressman Jim Clyburn wanted to extend his greatest sympathy. He and Senator Graham really had a great working relationship. It was bipartisan.
I am grateful to the Congresswoman from the First District, Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who indeed has been grief-stricken and released statements.
I appreciate the statements from Congressman William Timmons of Greenville, Congressman Ralph Norman, Congressman Russell Fry, Congresswoman Sheri Biggs, and Senator Tim Scott. We are so fortunate, the Federal delegation that we have is so tied together with deep appreciation of the service that each of us have had.
Mr. Speaker, I am humbled to be here tonight to pay tribute to a great American, a great patriot, and a South Carolinian who will always be cherished.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 36 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 16, 2026, at 9 a.m.
