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.
14Deletion of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
69 public bills, H.R. 9823- 9891; and 5 resolutions, H. Res. 1446-1450 were introduced.
Pages H5173-76
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Hurd to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H5027
Recess
The House recessed at 3:15 p.m. and reconvened at 3:30 p.m.
Page H5153
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027
The House passed H.R. 8800, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 212 nays, Roll No. 278. Consideration began yesterday, July 21st.
Pages H5029-5127, H5153-57
Rejected the Ryan motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Armed Services by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 216 nays, Roll No. 277.
Page H5156
Agreed to
Hinson amendment (No. 34 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755) that prohibits certain foreign nationals from designated countries of concern to access non-public areas of any National Laboratory;
Pages H5036-37
Rogers (AL) en bloc amendment No. 2 consisting of the following amendments printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755)
Cleaver (No. 104) that increases funding to the Combat and Operational Medicine Program, R&D research by $5 million for alpha-gal syndrome research. Offsets $5 million from Combat and Operational Medicine Program, R&D Advanced Development; Cline (No. 105) that requires the Pentagon to review and prohibit the use of covered payment processing equipment, systems, or services tied to foreign adversaries, including China, in contracts with retailers serving the Department; Cloud (No. 106) that adds Recovery of Outlays to Sec. 1862; Courtney (No. 107) that amends the AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act to allow for transfer of three in-service Virginia-class submarines, instead of two; Craig (No. 108) that ensures access for military families to cranial remolding orthosis treatment for babies with deformational plagiocephaly; Crane (No. 109) that requires annual coordination between the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to assess counter- subterranean technologies applicable to illicit cross-border tunnel operations, and directs an annual report and briefing to Congress on findings and recommendations; Crane (No. 110) that requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Education, to submit a report and briefing to Congress on opportunities to strengthen military recruitment, readiness, and end strength through educational partnerships, including JROTC and ROTC programs; Crane (No. 111) that directs the Department of Defense to establish a pilot program to evaluate and rapidly field technologies that identify and control mobile application data transmissions that could expose servicemembers and other defense personnel to commercial surveillance and operational security risks; Crawford (No. 112) that relocates the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Bombing Prevention (OBP) from within the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to the Office of Intelligence & Analysis; Crawford (No. 113) that creates an incentive payment schedule for Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) technicians based on years of experience to encourage continued service, given regular exposure to hazardous conditions (e.g., unexploded ordnance, VIP support); Crawford (No. 114) that directs the U.S. Army National Guard to establish a pilot program to assess and develop National Guard Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) units' response capabilities for homeland defense in the event of large-scale missile and drone unexploded ordnance on domestic territory; Crawford (No. 115) that establishes a pilot program with-in the US Army in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security to provide eligible U.S. Army Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel to attend the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC) as they transition out of the military; Davidson (No. 116) that requires a report to Congress on unconventional threat networks that operate in the Western Hemisphere; Davidson (No. 117) that directs the Secretary of Defense to publish a list of dietary supplement ingredients prohibited for use by members of the Armed Forces; Davis (NC) (No. 118) that requires the Secretary of War to report on opportunities to accelerate development and acquisition of low-cost, platform-agnostic autonomy modules for small, unmanned aerial systems (sUAS); Davis (NC) (No. 119) that requires SECARMY to report on resilient tactical power and battery safety systems to highlight the critical role of battery separators in stabilizing the battery supply chain and ensuring its security; Dunn (FL) (No. 120) that amends Section 152 of the FY24 NDAA by giving consideration to critical minerals derived from recycled and reused minerals and metals to the maximum extent practicable; Dunn (FL) (No. 121) that authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop and implement a methodology to identify and assess dependencies on the People's Republic of China for the processing, refining, separation, alloying, magnet manufacturing, or other midstream production stages of materials critical to the defense industrial base; Dunn (FL) (No. 122) that requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a department-wide medical supply chain risk assessment and develop a classified, prioritized list of high-risk critical medical products dependent on PRC-origin inputs; Dunn (FL) (No. 123) that supports the Secretary of Defense in recovering critical minerals relevant to the defense industrial base from unconventional feedstocks; Elfreth (No. 124) that directs a study on Reserve Child Care programs offered by the services; Elfreth (No. 125) that revises critical minerals reporting and briefing requirements; Escobar (No. 126) that requires the Department of Defense to submit a report assessing the potential use of intergovernmental support agreements for unspecified minor military construction projects; Escobar (No. 127) that requires the Department of Defense to produce a report evaluating opportunities to strengthen the military childcare workforce while expanding employment pathways for military spouses, including assessing staffing shortages, licensing portability, innovative childcare models, and potential recruitment and retention incentives; Escobar (No. 128) that requires DoD to update and standardize pay scales, recruitment metrics, and retention evaluation processes for JROTC instructors as well as collect consistent service- wide data and assess whether the new standardized pay system is improving instructor recruitment and retention; Evans (CO) (No. 129) that amends the FY22 NDAA to allow for the expedited implementation of special incentive pay parity between active duty and reserve components of the armed forces; Ezell (No. 130) that increases Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide by $10,000,000 for ultra-light Group 1 small unmanned aircraft systems for United States Special Operations Command (Program Element 1160405BB, Intelligence Systems Development); Figures (No. 131) that expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Air Force should prioritize the design and development of a Combined All-Domain Wargaming Center at Maxwell Air Force Base to enhance the Department of Defense's strategic training, education, and simulation capabilities; Fine (No. 132) that requires the disclosure of foreign gifts over $50,000 made to military colleges and establishes enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance; Fischbach (No. 133) that requires the Secretary of War, to conduct an assessment of supply chain vulnerabilities related to MicroLED displays used in Department of War weapon systems and platforms; Fitzgerald (No. 134) that requires the Secretary of Defense to seek to enter into an agreement with a multi-university research center focused on physics- based neutralization of threats to human tissues and organs to conduct research on understanding and preventing traumatic brain injuries in the US warfighter within 90 days of enactment; Fong (No. 135) that directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study relating to establishing a supersonic airspace corridor between the airspace of the R-2508 Complex and the broad ocean area; Fong (No. 136) that honors those who died during an Air Force test mission on June 15, 2026, at Edwards AFB, and directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a briefing to the congressional defense committees on the crash once the investigation is complete; Fong (No. 137) that directs the Secretary of Defense to brief the congressional defense committees on the status and availability of medical and safety resources at Edwards Air Force Base for Armed Forces members, Department of Defense civilian employees, and contractor personnel; Foster (No. 138) that designates the National Nuclear Security Administration as the technical nuclear forensics lead; Fry (No. 139) that requires the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to report on the national security implications of restricting exports of rare earth-containing scrap and assess the impact on domestic recycling, defense supply chains, and foreign dependence; Gonzalez (TX) (No. 140) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress within 60 days on the status of funds set aside for powertrain facility completion and facility modernization at Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD), Corpus Christi, Texas; Gooden (No. 141) that revises Section 1541 to include existing platforms and capabilities that will accelerate innovation while reducing delays; Gosar (No. 142) that establishes a sense of Congress regarding naming a warship the USS Phoenix in memory of the 85th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor; Gosar (No. 143) that requires a report on supply of rare earth materials and elements; Gosar (No. 144) that requires a report on the use of copper by U.S. Armed Forces; Gosar (No. 145) that directs the Secretary and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to give preference to domestic uranium and other critical minerals before seeking foreign sources; Gosar (No. 146) that inserts land withdrawal for U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground; Gottheimer (No. 147) that authorizes a Report Authored by the Secretary of Defense to study steps Israel, the US, and Egypt can take to enhance international security measures on the Gaza- Egypt border to ensure Hamas and other actors cannot use tunnels or methods via the Mediterranean Sea to smuggle weapons and illicit good; Gottheimer (No. 148) that requires anassessment of Antisemitism in the Defense Organizational Climate Survey; Gottheimer (No. 149) that increases funding for the National Defense Education Program by $5 million for STEM education and workforce initiatives targeting military students; Gottheimer (No. 150) that increases funding for the DoD SkillBridge program by $5 million; Graves (MO) (No. 151) that establishes a pilot program to adequately and accurately test, identify, and analyze drug use among servicemembers; Graves (MO) (No. 152) that updates Coast Guard authorities to improve the Service's organization and strengthen mission performance; Harrigan (No. 153) that amends the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer (CDAO) authorization to prioritize tracking PRC AI capabilities, and have a strategy for preparedness to counter adversarial AI; Harris (No. 154) that allows anesthesia to be covered by TRICARE for in-office dental procedures for pediatric dentistry; Hern (OK) (No. 155) that requires the Secretary of the Navy to submit a report to Congress on the plans of the Department of the Navy to transition to light-emitting diode (LED) lighting on naval vessels; Hill (AR) (No. 156) that directs the GAO to do a review of the health of the Department of Defense's cyber-related intelligence sharing with State, local, Tribal, territorial, and private sector partners; Hill (AR) (No. 157) that reauthorizes the Defense Production Act of 1950, a set of authorities that allows the President to strengthen the industrial base by providing financial support and allocating resources to meet national defense requirements; and Hill (AR) (No. 158) that authorizes the Secretary of the Army to conduct a no-cost land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard (AR NG) and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on Camp Robinson in North Little Rock;
Pages H5038-56
Rogers (AL) en bloc amendment No. 3 consisting of the following amendments printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755)
Houchin (No. 159) that provides for a two-year program piloting a subscription-based funding model for cyber-physical test and training ranges under the Test Resource Management Center; Houchin (No. 160) that provides for a land swap and land use permissions change between the State of Indiana and Indiana Army Ammunition Reuse Authority; Houchin (No. 161) that directs the Department of Defense to assess existing AI data center security frameworks and tools for risks posed by espionage from nation- state adversaries; Houchin (No. 162) that provides for a report on PFAS destruction technologies available to the Department of Defense and a draft plan for a single high-pass PFAS destruction pilot program; Houlahan (No. 163) that creates a Pilot Program within DoD to test standalone tech to increase supply chain management and medical readiness; Hoyle (No. 164) that directs the DoD to study its military decorations process and report to Congress on ways to ensure award recommendations are handled in a timely, consistent and transparent way; Hudson (No. 165) that directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than June 1, 2027, on the Department's plan to rectify legal claims from contractors that seek compensatory relief from Covid-19 related inflation; Huizenga (No. 166) that to amend the statuary prohibition excluding the transfer of MTCR-controlled technologies to AUKUS partners; Jack (No. 167) that revises the pilot program preemption language by applying preemption to insurance contracts issued to individual policyholders under the pilot program and aligns the bill with the existing regulations section that provides the necessary preemption authority; Jackson (TX) (No. 168) that directs the Secretary of War to issue voluntary guidance for AI contractors developing, maintaining, or operating AI systems for the Department of War to reduce insider threat, espionage, and other personnel-related security risks to sensitive AI systems and infrastructure; Jacobs (No. 169) that establishes a quarterly reporting requirement of the National Security Capital Forum; Johnson (SD) (No. 170) that directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of supply chain vulnerabilities related to displays used in Department of War weapon systems and platforms; Joyce (OH) (No. 171) that requires the Department of Defense to carry out a two-year pilot program to insert suicide prevention resources onto smart devices issued to members of the Armed Forces and to provide training on these resources; Kean (No. 172) that funds research and development for counter-drone technology for the Army; King-Hinds (No. 173) that directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a geothermal resource confirmation study on the island of Saipan, as part of the Energy Resilience and Conservation Investment Program; King-Hinds (No. 174) that directs the Department of Defense to conduct internal base hardening assessments focused on logistics nodes and commercial interfaces at major defense installations; LaHood (No. 175) that prohibits the procurement of certain semiconductors that are manufactured on silicon carbide wafers in the People's Republic of China (PRC); Langworthy (No. 176) that requires the Department of War to provide educational information on newborn screening, state newborn screening panel variations, and available supplemental screening options to TRICARE beneficiaries receiving prenatal care; Lee (NV) (No. 177) that directs the Department of Defense to brief Congress on their efforts to create and implement incentive programs that would encourage Family Child Care providers to expand their services, support military spouses, and provide after-hours childcare, which would support troops and their families, who often work outside of normal business hours due to the global operations they support; Levin (CA) (No. 178) that mandates tenants be notified of the Department of Defense Housing Feedback System (DHFS) upon signing a new lease or renewing an existing lease; Levin (No. 179) that requires a report to Congress on whether the Department met the 5% FSRM spending on barracks requirement (under Section 2814 of the FY22 NDAA) from FY22 through FY26; Liccardo (No. 180) that expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should continue to support the development, integration, and operational use of distributed commercial radar satellite constellations, including MMTI and AMTI capabilities; Lucas (No. 181) that expresses that it is sense of Congress that the Secretary of War should prioritize funding towards the acquisition of combat collaborative aircraft (CCA) to ensure there is a minimal, viable, fielded, and operational CCA capability by the end of FY28; Luna (No. 182) that requires the Secretary of Defense, not later than 180 days after enactment, to develop and submit to the congressional defense committees a plan for the Department of Defense to contribute to a common operating picture to improve domain awareness at the southern land border, and to transmit that plan to appropriate interagency partners within 60 days after its development; Luttrell (No. 183) that makes clarifying correction to Sec. 1706; Luttrell (No. 184) that extends the period of performance of the current DoD trial to treat certain conditions using psychedelic substances to September 30, 2033; Lynch (No. 185) that requires the Secretary of Defense to produce and submit to the congressional defense committees a report examining barriers that have impeded small and medium-sized business' ability to compete for classified contracts; Magaziner (No. 186) that expresses the sense of Congress that the United States reaffirms its unwavering commitment to the AUKUS partnership with Australia and the United Kingdom as vital to maintaining a safe and secure world; Mannion (No. 187) that requires the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on planned investments in advanced sensor and electronic warfare systems for Collaborative Combat Aircraft; Mast (No. 188) that removes the limitation on the number of days of accrued leave for which a member of the Armed Forces may receive payment under USC Title 37 Section 501; Mast (No. 189) that directs the Secretary of War to conduct an independent study comparing military personnel tempo, workload demands, training requirements, and compensation with civilian counterparts to better understand the cumulative demands of military service and their implications for readiness, quality of life, and retention; McCaul (No. 190) that adds a section to the notification requirement in section 221 to notify Congress on potential statutory changes needed to allow for faster testing and development of unmanned systems within the designated corridors; McDonald Rivet (No. 191) that expands credentialed, personalized financial and housing counseling to members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty or transitioning from service; McDowell (No. 192) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a strategy to support the cyber defense of Taiwan through coordination with the Five Eyes partners, including a description of resources, authorities, and personnel required to implement the strategy; McDowell (No. 193) that requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the military power and illicit activities of certain drug cartels, including recommendations for additional authorities or resources to enhance efforts of the U.S. to disrupt and dismantle the military capabilities of the cartels; Mejia (No. 194) that directs the Navy to assess the feasibility and operational utility of gun-launched electromagnetic obscuration capabilities for naval systems; Meuser (No. 195) that expresses the Sense of Congress that the President should award the Medal of Honor to Robert J. Graham who displayed extraordinary heroism during the Vietnam War on May 1, 1966, by repeatedly attacking enemy forces in a severely damaged aircraft under intense fire, saving hundreds of American lives; Miller- Meeks (No. 196) that requires a report from the Secretary of the Army to the Committees on Armed Services that includes an explanation of the status of efforts to produce 155mm artillery ammunition for the Department of Defense; Miller-Meeks (No. 197) that expresses a sense of Congress on the importance of maintaining robust domestic production of M795 155mm artillery projectiles; Miller-Meeks (No. 198) that expresses a sense of Congress that encourages the Department of the Army to prioritize the Rock Island Arsenal Defense Alliance request for the Rock Island Arsenal Child Care Development Center, supporting the readiness of the workforce; Miller-Meeks (No. 199) that directs the Secretary of the Army to conduct a study, using existing funds, on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of converting the energy fuel sources at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant to natural gas; Min (No. 200) that directs the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, to produce a strategy and report for the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program, including storage, mobility, maintenance, cost, and deployment requirements, to ensure that the service can field CCA at scale in contested environments; Moolenaar (No. 201) that directs the Department of War to inventory, assess, and prioritize all military construction and logistics infrastructure projects across the Pacific Islands aligned to 2030, 2035, and 2040 operational requirements; Moolenaar (No. 202) that prohibits sensitive monitoring technology manufactured by a prohibited foreign entity on DoW-owned or -leased rail cars; Moore (AL) (No. 203) that expands a requirement for the Pentagon to report expenditures on the USAspending.gov website to include other transaction agreement expenditures; Moore (NC) (No. 204) that amends Title 10 of the US Code to require the Secretary of the Army to establish the Army Quantum Readiness and Advanced Computing Initiative; Moore (UT) (No. 205) that codifies direct hiring authority to support the Department of War Domestic Defense Industrial Base Facilities and expands the authority to support agencies located on the same installation or base; Moore (UT) (No. 206) that requires the designation of Department-wide and military department service delivery leaders to oversee implementation of the Government Service Delivery Improvement Act and improve servicemember-facing services; Moran (No. 207) that prohibits any FY27 DoD funds from going to any K-12 schools with a Confucius Institute or classroom; Morrison (No. 208) that requires the Department of Defense to report to Congress within 180 days on the average response time to: (1) provide a replacement Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214); and (2) notify the recipient that their request cannot be granted due to a lack of required documentation; Mullin (No. 209) that requires the Department of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the use of operation and maintenance funding for the purchase of small, unmanned aircraft systems; Neguse (No. 210) that directs the Department of Defense to report the average military medical treatment facility patient referral and consult wait times for active duty servicemembers and veterans; Neguse (No. 211) that requires the Department of Defense, in coordination with Federal labs, to establish a comprehensive shared database to help improve public and private cooperation to benefit national security; Neguse (No. 212) that requires the Department of Defense to report to Congress on the timeliness of providing electronic health records to members of the Armed Forces who are separating from active duty;
Pages H5056-66
Rogers (AL) en bloc amendment No. 4 consisting of the following amendments printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755)
Nehls (No. 213) that supports the development and procurement of blast overpressure mitigation devices for small and medium caliber weapons; Nehls (No. 214) that requires the Department of Defense to review existing programs and, where feasible, implement software-based cryptographic protections that strengthen data security without requiring new hardware; Newhouse (No. 215) that prioritizes support and procurement of domestically manufactured silicon anode materials for battery cells and battery systems; Norman (No. 216) that requires the Department of the Army to provide a briefing to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees within 180 days on currently validated insect repellents available to the Army; Norman (No. 217) that prohibits use of CCP- linked financial services providers on Department of Defense devices; Nunn (IA) (No. 218) that prohibits the Department of Defense from procuring, acquiring or utilizing any blockchain network infrastructure originating from a company or individual stemming from an entity or country of concern; Nunn (IA) (No. 219) that directs the Undersecretary of Defense, Acquisitions and Sustainment to develop a plan for the Services towards a comprehensive set of advanced manufacturing practices including AI-optimized robotic forming, additive and subtractive manufacturing, and advanced materials and processing practices for hypersonic research and development; Nunn (IA) (No. 220) that requires the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the effectiveness of the Transition Assistance Program of the Department of Defense and the Solid Start program of the Department of Veterans Affairs in identifying, counseling, and supporting members of the Armed Forces and veterans regarding mental health risks and transition-related stressors during their separation from the Armed Forces; Nunn (IA) (No. 221) that requires the Secretary of the Air Force to report on the feasibility, infrastructure readiness, and cost- benefits of basing permanent, manned flying missions at Air National Guard installations that have runways but lack manned active aircraft; Nunn (IA) (No. 222) that requires the Department of War, in coordination with the Small Business Administration, to submit a report within 180 days, and annually thereafter for five years, detailing how its engagement with SBIC funds and portfolio companies aligns with capital-intensive defense production and manufacturing requirements, including munitions, shipbuilding suppliers, energetics, propulsion components, industrial equipment tooling, and other critical defense industrial-base sectors; Nunn (IA) (No. 223) that reforms Section 1248 of the FY22 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) by extending and expanding the Department of Defense's annual assessments of Taiwan's military readiness, regional allied responses, and U.S. contingency planning in the face of rising Chinese aggression; Nunn (IA) (No. 224) that directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a strategic defense technology partnership between the rapid acquisition offices of the DOD and the Taiwan Ministry of National Defense; Nunn (IA) (No. 225) that authorizes a dedicated Joint U.S.-Taiwan RDT&E program to accelerate co-development and transition of UAS/C-UAS capabilities, aligning bi- lateral innovation with INDOPACOM requirements and delivering scalable, conflict-relevant systems; Obernolte (No. 226) that directs the Secretary of Defense, through US TRANSCOM, to establish a pilot program demonstrating and assessing integrated road-to-rail logistics capabilities; Obernolte (No. 227) that directs DOD to assess demand, identify supply chain gaps, and recommend reforms to strengthen domestic production of turbojet pyrotechnic devices; Ogles (No. 228) that requires the Secretary of Defense to create a plan to include Taiwan in RIMPAC 2028; Owens (No. 229) that directs the Secretary of the Army to report on the efforts of the Army to field Link tactical data link networking capabilities on UH-60M and CH-47F aircraft; Pappas (No. 230) that requires the Department of Defense to submit a comprehensive report on its strategy for the research, development, and deployment of Friction Stir Additive Manufacturing (FSAM) technologies; Patronis (No. 231) that authorizes the President to award the Medal of Honor to six individuals who at great risk to themselves and disregard for their own personal safety attacked and helped to sink three aircraft carriers at the Battle of Midway on June 4, 1942; Pettersen (No. 232) that directs the DoD to issue a report regarding the Space Development Agency's (SDA) optical communications and networking standards as the SDA is distributed to other DoD/IC components; Pfluger (No. 233) that establishes a pilot program for integrated cognitive performance and readiness to modernize existing military resilience programs in support of Warfighter Performance Optimization priorities; Pfluger (No. 234) that closes a loophole in retired rank retention in Title 10, allowing for service members who qualify for active duty retirement to retain their highest rank upon retirement; Pfluger (No. 235) that requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a process for a member to enroll in a transitional health care plan no later than 2 business days following the date of their separation; Pfluger (No. 236) that establishes pilot program to evaluate hardware and software to counter the impact of foreign actors influencing critical equipment in our supply chain; Pfluger (No. 237) that requires the Superintendent of the United States Air Force Academy to submit a report containing a strategy to improve academic outcomes at the Academy; Pfluger (No. 238) that redesignates the position of Dean of the Faculty of the United States Air Force Academy as Provost and Dean of the Faculty; Pfluger (No. 239) that requires the Secretary of Defense to suspend or revoke a security clearance or eligibility for access to classified information for any retired or separated member of the Armed Forces or civilian employee of the Department of Defense who engages in lobbying for Chinese military companies; Plaskett (No. 240) that directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility of utilizing appropriate facilities on the island of St. Croix as an Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps forward operating Base; Plaskett (No. 241) that directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the feasibility of utilizing appropriate facilities on the island of St. Thomas as a Navy forward operating base; Randall (No. 242) that extends the annual cyber resiliency assessment requirement for the nuclear command and control system to December 31, 2035; Raskin (No. 243) that moves the pension funds for the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer Corps to the Military Retirement Fund to ensure all retired uniformed servicemembers receive pension payments during a government shutdown; Rogers (AL) (No. 244) that requires Secretary of Army to maintain minimum inventory of DVH A1 combat vehicles in its Stryker Brigade Combat Teams; Rose (No. 245) that requires the Secretary of War to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services on the fraud scheme perpetrated by Janet Mello, a civilian employee of the Department of the Army who was indicted and pleaded guilty to stealing over $100 million in 4-H Military Partnership Grant program funds; Ruiz (No. 246) that strengthens accountability and oversight of the Department of Defense's compliance with domestic food procurement requirements by directing the DoD Inspector General to conduct quarterly audits ensuring taxpayer dollars are supporting American farmers and domestic supply chains, not foreign competitors; Salazar (No. 247) that conveys certain retired naval vessels to the State of Florida to be used as artificial reefs; Salinas (No. 248) that requires the Secretary of Defense to evaluate the potential and feasibility of next-generation geothermal technologies to meet the power needs of the Department of Defense and strengthen national security; Scholten (No. 249) that directs the DoD to assess applications of noninvasive focused ultrasound technologies, including histotripsy, within the Military Health System; Scholten (No. 250) that requires a study evaluating the use of alternative vessel materials and emerging hull technologies to improve durability, fuel efficiency, operational readiness, and resilience against extreme weather conditions; Scholten (No. 251) that the Secretary of Defense shall assess work-force shortages among aviation maintenance technicians supporting military aircraft maintenance; Scholten (No. 252) that requires the Secretary of Defense to study the state of the domestic tool and die industry, the economic impact of the domestic industry, tool and die workforce shortages, and opportunities to increase U.S. tool and die casting capabilities; Scholten (No. 253) that directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on the feasibility and effectiveness of the use of routine neuroimaging modalities in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of brain injury among members of the Armed Forces due to one or more blast pressure exposures during combat and training; Scholten (No. 254) that directs the Secretary of Defense to submit recommendations for a strategy to construct a sufficient number of child development centers to eliminate wait lists for members of the Armed Forces seeking childcare services; Schweikert (No. 255) that directs the Department of Defense to utilize artificial intelligence in the audit of its financial statements with the goal of achieving a clean audit opinion for the first time; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 256) that establishes a comprehensive Department of Defense effort to identify, assess, and disrupt the defense-industrial supply chains of peer adversaries through enhanced intelligence integration, interagency coordination, and recurring assessments of foreign weapons production capabilities; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 257) that protects the identities of special operators and other personnel involved in sensitive military activities by making the unauthorized disclosure of their identities subject to the same criminal penalties that currently apply to covert intelligence personnel; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 258) that requires the Department of Defense to establish a standardized ``Schedule V'' reporting requirement for major defense contractors and grant recipients to disclose veteran hiring and retention data; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 259) that grants the 54 separate National Guard organizations (which comprise the 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia) greater flexibility to employ national guard personnel for counterdrug missions; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 260) that ensures leadership continuity within the National Guard Bureau by allowing the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau to remain in office beyond the expiration of the normal term when the position of Chief is vacant and a successor Vice Chief has not yet been confirmed by the Senate; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 261) that ensures that the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) seeks and strongly considers input from the Commandant of the Coast Guard regarding Coast Guard capabilities that support national defense; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 262) that authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to maintain a Department of the Navy Library as a centralized institution for preserving, curating, and providing access to historical, technical, operational, and educational resources; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 263) that expresses the sense of Congress that the Secretary of the Navy should name a future aircraft carrier USS United States in recognition of the historic legacy of ships that have borne, or were intended to bear, the name, including one of the original six frigates authorized by the Naval Act of 1794 and the canceled aircraft carrier USS United States (CVA-58); Austin Scott (GA) (No. 264) that expands eligibility for appointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by adding the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to the list of senior military leaders who may be selected for the position; and Austin Scott (GA) (No. 265) that prohibits the Department of Defense from charging members of the Armed Forces for meals provided while serving aboard U.S. naval vessels that are underway or deployed away from their homeport;
Pages H5066-77
Rogers (AL) en bloc amendment No. 5 consisting of the following amendments printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755)
Austin Scott (GA) (No. 266) that requires the Army Installation Management Command to assess and report on the biological readiness of Army installations, including their ability to detect, respond to, mitigate, and sustain operations during biological threat conditions; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 267) that requires the Department of Defense to report on the integration of commercial cyber capabilities into the Joint Cyber Warfighting Architecture (JCWA); Austin Scott (GA) (No. 268) that requires the Commander of United States European Command to report on options for modernizing the Aegis Ashore missile defense site at Deveselu, Romania; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 269) that codifies the Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) in title 10, United States Code, as the Department of Defense's principal institution for special operations education, research, and professional development; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 270) that establishes new reporting and readiness requirements for the Naval Construction Force (Seabees) to support contested logistics, expeditionary infrastructure, and theater sustainment operations; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 271) that expresses the sense of Congress that a future Navy vessel should be named USS Shangri-La to honor the April 1942 Doolittle Raiders and the legacy of USS Shangri-La (CV-38); Austin Scott (GA) (No. 272) that establishes a formal U.S.-Poland Special Operations Cooperation Program to enhance interoperability, share operational lessons, and improve joint capabilities for special operations and irregular warfare missions; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 273) that requires a report on options to improve Moldova's airspace awareness and defensive capabilities through existing U.S. security cooperation programs and partnerships; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 274) that authorizes multiyear procurement and advance procurement for Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 275) that authorizes the increase beyond the total planned procurement of the P-8A Poseidon aircraft beyond 136; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 276) that extends special emergency procurement authorities under section 1903 of title 41, United States Code, to acquisitions supporting Special Operations Forces; Austin Scott (GA) (No. 277) that prohibits the retirement or divestment of E-11 BACN aircraft during fiscal year 2027; Self (No. 278) that requests a detailed study of China's space capabilities; Sessions (No. 279) that requires the Department of Defense to achieve an unmodified financial statement audit opinion for the three consecutive years after 2028; Sewell (No. 280) that extends and modifies authority to carry out a Fiscal Year 2022 services training facility project at Sumpter Smith Air National Guard Base; Shreve (No. 281) that requires the accelerated modernization of the GPS enterprise to enhance the resiliency and security of the Global Positioning System for civil and military purposes; Shreve (No. 282) that requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study assessing the feasibility of enabling commanders of unified combatant commands to independently identify, acquire, and dispose of critical minerals; Smith (NJ) (No. 283) that directs the DOW IG to produce a report on Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) activity over critical military installations, and potential links to foreign adversaries. Also requests an appraisal of counter drone capabilities and authorities provided to installation commanders and their use; Smith (WA) (No. 284) that requires the Secretary of Defense to notify and consult with the HASC and SASC on any changes to evaluation criteria for officers not less than 180 days before conducting the action; Soto (No. 285) that authorizes funds for the Fan-Out-Wafer Level Packaging Program within the Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment Program; Soto (No. 286) that increases the U.S. Air Force's Aerospace Propulsion line by $5 million to accelerate high-hypersonic detonation propulsion research and flight demonstration; Soto (No. 287) that increases the Future AF Capabilities Applied Research account by $1,200,000 for Secure Research Facilities in fast-growing metropolitan areas located in proximity to aerospace industries and facilities; Stefanik (No. 288) that directs the Secretary of Defense to develop, test, evaluate, demonstrate, and transition to production a portfolio of alternative low-cost weapon systems, including hypersonic strike systems, cruise missiles, interceptors, loitering munitions, autonomous systems, and counter- unmanned systems; Steube (No. 289) that facilitates the integration of Open-Source Intelligence into DoD intelligence collection management processes and systems; Steube (No. 290) that provides state, local, municipal, and tribal law enforcement agencies with priority in adopting retired ceremonial horses of the U.S. Army; Tenney (No. 291) that strikes Section 842(c) from the FY25 NDAA; Thompson (PA) (No. 292) that authorizes $16 million for Advanced Naval Casting for Hardware and Operational Repairs (ANCHOR). Decreases Navy O&M, Administration by $16 million to offset; Thompson (No. 293) (PA) that authorizes $15 million for Navy Advanced Manufacturing--Accelerating the Adoption of Naval Aviation Advanced Manufacturing Processes (A4MP). Decreases RDT&E, Defense-wide, Cyber Operations Technology Support by $5 million and RDT&E, Navy, Marine Corps Ground Combat/Support System by $10 million to offset; Thompson (PA) (No. 294) that authorizes $6.4 million for University Research Initiatives to secure U.S. silicon carbide for national security and critical technologies. Reduces Air Force O&M, service-wide activities by $6.4 to offset; Thompson (PA) (No. 295) that authorizes $5 million for University Innovative Materials Process Modernization Research. Reduces Defense-wide O&M, Washington Headquarters Services by $5 million to offset; Thompson (PA) (No. 296) that requires the Secretary of War to submit a report to Congress on the threat of cyber-attacks and AI assisted cyber-attacks targeting University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs); Thompson (PA) (No. 297) that directs the Secretary of War to maintain a partnership between the Department of War and Scouting America in the manner in which such partnership has historically maintained; Turner (OH) (No. 298) that directs an extension of the TRICARE Competitive Plans Demonstration Project program; Turner (OH) (No. 299) that increases the development, prototyping, and demonstration of HALE and HAPS by $5M; Van Duyne (No. 300) that adds long-term care pharmacies to the categories of pharmacies included in the Comptroller General study of the TRICARE pharmacy benefit program; Van Duyne (No. 301) that extends the U.S. Postal Service's authority to issue the Breast Cancer Research semipostal stamp for an additional 10 years; Van Epps (No. 302) that requires the Department of War to submit annual reports to Congress on how effectively successful prototype projects transition into procurement, production, and operational use, including data on transition rates, delays, and barriers facing innovative and nontraditional defense contractors; Van Epps (No. 303) that requires the Department of War to report to Congress on how quickly and at what cost key munitions and weapons systems could expand production capacity, including the investments, supply chain dependencies, and bottlenecks that would affect surge production; Van Epps (No. 304) that directs the Department of War to identify water and wastewater infrastructure systems at military installations that are more than 60 years old, require significant maintenance or replacement, and pose substantial risks to readiness, force health protection, mission execution, or public health if they fail; Van Orden (No. 305) that authorizes the Department of War to procure emergency response maps for Defense Dependent Schools to ensure compatibility with public safety systems in the event of an emergency; Vasquez (No. 306) that directs the Secretary of Defense to invite the first 90 schools on the 2018 Public Schools on Military Installations (PSMI) Priority List to be eligible to submit requests for competitive grants awarded under the program for renovations, repairs or expansions of their facilities; Vindman (No. 307) that adopts language added to the Senate NDAA text which requires an assessment of emergency medical services capabilities at military installations, including the number and distribution of EMS units, staffing levels of EMS personnel, and an evaluation of the systems used to track naloxone distribution; Wagner (No. 308) that directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, to establish department-wide definitions for the terms: Open-Source Intelligence, Commercially Available Information, and Publicly Available Information; Walkinshaw (No. 309) that establishes a pilot program for reciprocal compliance between FedRAMP High certification and DoD's cloud security requirements for DoD networks and national security systems; Webster (No. 310) that Requires a report on the military camping and recreational park program; Womack (No. 311) that directs the Department of Defense to conduct and publish an analysis to evaluate the full life-cycle costs associated with proposed or potential basing locations for F-35 aircraft expected to be delivered between FY30 and FY35; Zinke (No. 312) that amends 10 U.S.C. Sec. 4124 to clarify that both DOD Centers and DOD Laboratories may use partnership intermediaries to support technology transfer and transition into or out of those entities; Kelly (MS) (No. 313) that amends the existing SHIPS for America provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act to strengthen U.S. maritime security by expanding strategic sealift, supporting domestic shipbuilding and the maritime workforce, improving Federal maritime coordination, and increasing the use and competitiveness of U.S.-flag vessels; Ezell (No. 314) that implements parts of Executive Order 14269 on ``Restoring America's Maritime Dominance'' and America's Maritime Action Plan published on February 13, 2026; Burlison (No. 315) that strengthens the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena Records Collection at the National Archives and Records Administration; Carter (TX) (No. 317) that this policy review provision to amended DHA chaperone policy; Moolenaar (No. 318) that amends Sec. 1078 of the FY25 NDAA to add a determination of whether the operation of covered unmanned ground vehicle systems in United States networks poses an unacceptable risk to national security; Luna (No. 319) that requires an annual report to Congress for as long as the executive agent under Section 219 position exists at the Department of Defense; and Luna (No. 320) that strikes the word ``integration'' from Section 219 of the NDAA titled ``United States- Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative'';
Pages H5077-H5123
Self amendment (No. 28 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755) that codifies protections and responsibilities for chaplains and subjects such protections to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (by a recorded vote of 221 ayes to 210 noes, Roll No. 273); and
Pages H5030-34, H5153-54
Harrigan amendment (No. 44 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755) that prohibits use of automated speed enforcement cameras on military installations (by a recorded vote of 232 ayes to 199 noes, Roll No. 275).
Pages H5037-38, H5154-55
Rejected
Issa amendment (No. 30 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755) that sought to authorize the Secretary to approve any eligible investor and cleared investment professional who meets the program's statutory and regulatory requirements to assess potential investment opportunities that match with the Department of War's requirements or potential requirement (by a recorded vote of 207 ayes to 224 noes, Roll No. 274); and
Pages H5034-36, H5154
Grothman amendment (No. 316 printed in part A of H. Rept. 119-755) that sought to require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report detailing options for reducing the number of civilians employed by the Department of Defense by 200,000 (by a recorded vote of 175 ayes to 254 noes, Roll No. 276). H. Res. 1438, the rule providing for consideration, was agreed to yesterday, July 21st.
Pages H5123-24, H5155-56
Stop Insider Trading Act
The House passed H.R. 7008, to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, by a yea-and-nay vote of 232 yeas to 198 nays, Roll No. 280.
Pages H5143-53, H5157-58
Rejected the Magaziner motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on House Administration by a yea-and-nay vote of 211 yeas to 218 nays, Roll No. 279.
Pages H5151-53, H5157-58
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-38, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the report of H. Rept. 119-755, shall be considered as adopted, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House Administration now printed in the bill.
Pages H5143-44
H. Res. 1438, the rule providing for consideration, was agreed to yesterday, July 21st. Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036: The House agreed to H. Con. Res. 113, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036, by a yea-and-nay vote of 216 yeas to 214 nays, Roll No. 281.
Pages H5127-43, H5158-59
Pursuant to the Rule, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-37 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. H. Res. 1438, the rule providing for consideration, was agreed to yesterday, July 21st.
Pages H5138-43
Suspensions: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measures. Consideration began Monday, July 20th. Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Reauthorization Act: H.R. 8205, amended, to amend the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act to reauthorize the provisions of such Act through fiscal year 2031;
Page H5159
Ensuring Federal Purchasing Efficiency Act
H.R. 7283, to amend title 41, United States Code, to amend the time period for certain acquisition-related dollar thresholds; and
Page H5159
Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act
H.R. 1722, amended, to require an annual report of taxpayer-funded projects that are over budget and behind schedule. Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to honor the late Senator Lindsey O.
Page H5159
Graham
The House agreed to take from the Speaker's table and agree to S. Con. Res. 37, authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony to honor the late Senator Lindsey O. Graham.
Pages H5159-60
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, July 23rd.
Page H5160
Recess
The House recessed at 5:07 p.m. and reconvened at 6:45 p.m.
Page H5160
Order of Business
Agreed by unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 89 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative Jayapal of Washington, or their respective designees.
Page H5160
Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran
The House considered H. Con. Res. 89, directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. Further proceedings were postponed.
Pages H5160-65
Presidential Message
Read a message from the President transmitting a notification stating that the national emergency with respect to the situation in Mali declared in Executive Order 13882 of July 26, 2019, is to continue in effect beyond July 26, 2026--referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119- 175).
Page H5127
Discharge Petition
Representative Steube presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1411) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2162) to provide for the protection of the integrity of honey marketed in the United States (Discharge Petition No. 26). Quorum Calls--Votes: Five yea-and-nay votes and four recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H5153-54, H5154, H5154-55, H5155-56, H5156, H5157, H5157-58, H5158, and H5159. Adjournment: The House met at 11 a.m. and adjourned at 9:14 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: 201 of 378 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Celebrating Morgan County Boys & Girls Club 20th Anniversary
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Boys & Girls Club of Morgan County, Indiana.
The mission of the Boys & Girls Club is to empower all youth, and all of our youth, especially those who need us the most, to reach their full potential and to become caring, productive, and responsible citizens.
The Morgan County Boys & Girls Club has provided an indelible mark on the local community.
Every day, youth are coached on positive decisionmaking, participate in sports, learn about science, technology, talk about the arts, receive tutoring, and gain valuable lessons through volunteering in the community.
A healthy snack is provided daily. Youth attend the Boys & Girls Club to reach their full potential to become caring, productive, and responsible members of society.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all the staff and volunteers who have made the Morgan County Boys & Girls Club successful over these past 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the tremendous community contribution of The Hudson Independent, an online publication that chronicles the lives and stories of people, organizations, governments, schools, businesses, and the like, in the municipalities that border the Hudson River in Westchester County in New York: Ardsley, Dobbs Ferry, Irvington, Hastings-on-Hudson, Tarrytown, and Sleepy Hollow.
The team that does this reporting every day is led by Editor in Chief Barrett Seaman and Editor Rick Pezzullo, both experienced journalists with long resumes of achievement. The senior management group President and Chairman Walter Montgomery and colleagues: Robert Kimmel, Dean Gallea, Paula Etzel, and Michael Richards, have guided The Indy, as it is known and loved, from its founding in 2006.
The calendar of local events captures all of the many varied activities of the river towns and featured stories on the
From the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, we salute The Hudson Independent for its commitment to fair and accurate journalism and the communities of Westchester, the river towns, their people, and their stories.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor Jerry Zomorodian and his late wife, Rebecca, Orange County residents who were deeply involved in our community.
Jerry was born in Iran and later came to the United States in 1983 where he met Rebecca. They were married for 43 years before her passing in 2025. Through hard work, the two of them built a life together, owning and operating a small Persian restaurant. They were successful while staying true to their values.
Jerry is proud to be an American. Rebecca was a devoted wife, loving mother, advocate for breast cancer awareness, and a philanthropist who helped her community.
Rebecca courageously fought cancer for many years before it ultimately took her life. She was deeply involved in her community and will be missed by her family, friends, and all of us.
Today, I ask my colleagues to recognize the life and legacy of Rebecca Zomorodian and honor the way she and Jerry helped our community.
A new survey from the Public Policy Institute of California finds that two-thirds of Californians oppose Governor Newsom's ban on gas-powered cars. This ban was imposed by the Governor without so much as a vote in the legislature or the people of California.
The good news is that the will of the people has prevailed.
I introduced a resolution here in Congress to reverse Governor Newsom's ban on gas cars. It passed this House with strong bipartisan support. It has passed the Senate with bipartisan support, and it was signed into law by the President. This is an important win for sanity in California. Californians can continue to drive the car of their choice, and it is exactly the kind of check and balance against the extreme policies in Sacramento that Californians are asking for.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Dr. Patricia ``Patti'' Lopez, a dedicated educator, mentor, and advocate whose life's work transformed the lives of countless children and families in southern Arizona.
For more than three decades, Dr. Lopez served Tucson's students as a teacher, principal, district leader, deputy superintendent, and chief academic officer for Tucson Unified School District. As a former TUSD governing board member, I primarily remember Dr. Lopez for her bright spirit, dedication, compassion, instincts, and smarts.
After her distinguished career in education, she continued her mission as executive director of Angel Heart Pajama Project, helping provide more than 73,000 children experiencing crises with new pajamas, books, and the comfort of knowing that they were seen, valued, and loved.
Dr. Lopez believed that even the simplest acts of kindness could change a child's life. Her compassion, integrity, and unwavering commitment inspired volunteers, strengthened communities, and brought hope to thousands of children when they needed it most.
May we honor Dr. Patti Lopez by carrying forward her example of service and her belief that every child deserves comfort, dignity, and hope.
``Muchisimas gracias''; ``many thanks'', Patti. ``Para todos, descansa en paz''; ``for all, rest in peace.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Sight & Sound Theaters for a milestone 50 years in business.
Known across the world for its Biblical epics on stage and screen, Sight & Sound began with Glenn Eshelman, a Lancaster County dairy farmer, and his passion for art, photography, and sharing his faith.
In 1976, the popularity of Mr. Eshelman's multimedia shows led him and his wife, Shirley, to establish their first theater in Ronks. Over time, they added live theatrical elements and debuted their first full- length Biblical production in 1987.
After their theater burned down in 1997, they built a state-of-the- art facility that would allow for the large-scale productions they are known for today. Since then, they have added a second location in Branson, Missouri, and developed a streaming platform to produce their own movies for the silver screen.
The name, Sight & Sound, is inspired by Matthew 13:13 where Jesus explains his use of parables saying, ``Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear. . . . ''
What began as a humble production company has since exploded into one of the top theater destinations in the U.S. with almost a million attendees each year. Today, Sight & Sound continues to be run by the Eshelman family and has a committed team of over 800 employees.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to recognize Sight & Sound for their strong message and the positive impact they have had across the entire world.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hegseth said we have spent $37 billion on an unnecessary--he didn't say an ``unnecessary'' war, but it is an unnecessary and failed war in Iran--$37 billion and lost 17 soldiers. He says he is going to ask for another $70 billion to fight this unnecessary and failing war.
We have resolved the fact that we can stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon when Barack Obama was President and negotiated a treaty.
Right now, we don't know if they have moved the enriched uranium outside of the place where it was buried underneath a mountain or not. It is suspected they might have. It is a failed war.
Mr. Speaker, I will be willing to vote for a bill that has $70 billion in it when President Trump pays his share by paying his taxes on the $2.2 billion he earned last year, mostly in crypto, which cost the people that bought crypto a billion dollars. That is what they lost. When Trump pays his share, I will pay my share and vote for it. I won't vote for it otherwise.
President Trump, bring your chips to the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their comments to the Chair.
I thank the Speaker for noting that disparaging the President is not appropriate for this House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the contribution of Bill Horn, a man who gave first his service to the country in Vietnam and then went on to be one of the longest serving county supervisors in San Diego County.
Bill Horn wanted more for his family, and he worked hard to do it. While being a county supervisor full time, he also ran successful agriculture.
Mr. Speaker, in his retirement, he did more philanthropic work around the world at his own expense than people will ever know. The unsung hero of Vietnam, our county supervisor, a man of simple means and no ambition, did so much for those who needed him. He will be honored and missed.
Mr. Speaker, in New Mexico, water is life, and it is our economy.
In 1902, the Federal Government recognized this harsh reality, passing the Reclamation Act to make arid Western lands agriculturally productive.
In that negotiation, they gave States like New Mexico the right to allocate and adjudicate its own water resources. Today, those rights are being violated. Don't ask me. Ask Luna County farmers and ranchers who are currently seeing droves of unauthorized wells being drilled by the Federal Government right by their pastures, stealing their water. It has to stop.
For generations, ranching families in this border community have relied on water from the Mimbres and Hachita Basin to sustain their herds and their way of life. When the feds needed water, they bought it or they trucked in. Recently they said: Why buy it when we can steal it?
Our ranchers follow the State's water laws. DHS doesn't, and it appears they don't care either. DHS contractors today are drilling deep new wells in Luna County for border wall construction, depleting this vital water source with no regard for permitting, State law, or the impact to border ranchers.
Mr. Speaker, we all support border security, but we don't support unauthorized well drilling that's draining precious resources. I stand with our ranchers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a beloved Utah family whose lives were lost this past week in a flash flood in Wayne County.
Provo Fire Captain Spencer Long; his wife, Katrina; and their three sons, Reid, Thayne, and Gage, were camping when they were caught in floodwaters.
They are survived by their daughter and sister, Lydia, who now faces this unimaginable loss.
Mr. Speaker, the Longs are among the very best Utah has to offer. Utahns mourn together. No words will adequately express the profound loss that Lydia is now experiencing.
On behalf of Utah, we offer our deepest condolences to her, Provo Fire & Rescue, the city of Mona, and all those who loved the Longs. To many, the thought of continuing without them is unimaginable. Yet, we hold fast in the Heavenly Father's promise that the Lord is near unto them that are of a broken heart.
Mr. Speaker, today we pray that His presence be especially near Lydia and all of those who mourn. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in a moment of silence.
For Lydia and those who mourn the Longs' passing, may God bless and comfort you.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today alongside my fellow Utahns to mourn and celebrate the life and sudden passing of Captain Spencer Long of Provo Fire & Rescue; his wife, Katrina; and three sons, Reid, Thayne and Gage.
They were lost on Friday, July 17, 2026, near Sunglow Campground in Wayne County, Utah, about 165 miles south of Salt Lake City. We are all struggling to deal with the passing of the Long family in such an unexpected and tragic manner.
We are granted each day with no guarantee of the next. Thus, I have come to believe that the highest measure of a life is not found in how long it was lived but in the depth of love, service, and devotion given to others along the way.
By this measurement, the Long family was extraordinarily successful. Captain Spencer Long spent his life answering the call when others were in peril. As a leader with Provo Fire & Rescue, his courage, calm demeanor, and steadfast brotherhood protected countless families across Utah. When disaster struck, Captain Long was always among the first to run toward the danger.
Alongside him stood Katrina, a dedicated mother, a community leader, former Mona city councilmember, and an entrepreneur whose kindness and vibrant spirit enriched every life she touched.
Together, Spencer and Katrina built a home grounded in warmth, service, and adventure. Reid, Thayne, and Gage inherited that same joy for life.
To Lydia, their surviving daughter, please know that you do not carry this unimaginable loss alone. The fire department, your neighbors, and a grieving State surround you with our love, our prayers, and an enduring promise to stand by your side in the days and the years ahead. I am heartened to see the generosity of so many who donated to the fund for your needs going forward. This is just a small token of our long- term commitment to watch over you and provide for your care. I know these many donations are deeply appreciated.
Though this wonderful family was taken from us far too soon, their legacy of selfless service, love, and devotion remains an example to us all. May we honor them by serving one another with the same dedication they showed every day, and may peace rest upon their memories.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438 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. 8800.
Will the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hurd) 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. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with Mr. Hurd in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, July 21, 2026, amendment No. 26 printed in part A of House Report 119- 755 offered by the gentleman from North
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 printed in part A of House Report 119-755.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would attach the Military Chaplains Modernization Act of 2026 to the NDAA. It is supported by the Armed Forces Chaplains Board.
This is not simply a chaplain protection bill. This is a military readiness, religious liberty, and command support bill. This bill builds upon the truth that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court that the First Amendment rights of our military chaplains are not suspended at the doors of the Pentagon.
Our chaplains serve on the front lines, providing for the moral and spiritual well-being of our troops. The Department of War needs statutory clarity.
Despite existing protections in the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, and section 533 of the FY 2013 NDAA, chaplains continue to face obstacles for simply ministering according to their faith.
These sections in title 10 were last updated in 1956 when polls showed that 90 percent of America identified as Christian. The United States is far more religiously diverse now. This is why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unanimously passed to protect religious freedom, and mainly religious minorities, in 1993.
It is high time that title 10 was revised to reflect the diverse faith needs of our servicemembers, while also providing protections for the diverse chaplains that serve them.
The chaplain's ability to freely exercise their religious duties is not only constitutionally protected but is essential to forming the conscience of the warfighter. It is what helps restrain the soldier from committing atrocities while also providing a sense of purpose when facing down death's door.
Faith plays an essential role in forming and feeding the spirit of warfighters with unwavering integrity. This legislation does not create new
It also recognizes the breadth of chaplains' roles. They are not just religious officiants. They are the commanders' adviser on ethics, spiritual readiness, morale, and even suicide prevention.
This does not mean they replace other entities which provide advice or function. Rather, it ensures that chaplains, as spiritual advisers, are given a seat at the table.
Let me be clear: This amendment does not empower chaplains to impose a particular belief. Instead, it protects them from violations of conscience and ensures they can facilitate spiritual care for all faiths. In fact, the amendment also protects servicemembers' ability to access the spiritual care specific to their needs and faith tradition.
Chaplains will continue to connect servicemembers of differing faiths to chaplains representing their respective faiths and equip them with tools to meet their specific needs.
This bill respects and maintains the pluralistic approach of the military chaplaincy program. It also introduces real accountability under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for retaliation or censorship of a chaplain for acting according to their beliefs. This standard is essential to restoring trust.
In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acknowledged the importance of the chaplaincy by vowing to never fail to provide for the spiritual needs of our officers and men.
Mr. Chair, in order for military chaplains to serve our troops effectively, we must give them the legal protection to do so without fear or compromise.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion of the Military Chaplains Modernization Act in the NDAA, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, military readiness is not just physical. It is, indeed, mental. It is emotional. It is financial, and it is spiritual. That is why every branch of our Armed Forces maintains a Chaplain Corps.
Our chaplains are indispensable. They are counselors, advisers, and trusted members of the units and the families they serve. They strengthen the resilience of our force every single day, but chaplains are also servicemembers themselves.
They have assigned duties and responsibilities. Among those responsibilities are two sacred obligations. One is to faithfully practice their own religion and to faithfully protect every servicemembers' right to practice theirs.
A chaplain's faith belongs to their religion, but their duty belongs to every servicemember. That is how the Chaplain Corps serves the entire force without ever asking a chaplain to violate the tenets of their own faith.
A Catholic priest, a Presbyterian minister, or a Jewish rabbi is not expected to lead a Muslim prayer, but they are expected to ensure their Muslim servicemembers have a place to worship and help them identify a lay leader if one is, in fact, needed.
That principle has guided our military for generations because it protects every servicemember and because it respects every faith and even those who have none.
This amendment abandons that principle. It doesn't strengthen the religious liberty. It, indeed, narrows it. It transforms a chaplain's duty to care for every single servicemember into permission to turn some of them away.
Under this amendment, a commanding officer who expects a chaplain to carry out that longstanding responsibility could face punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, in fact, a profound departure from how our military has always understood religious liberty.
The military asks Americans of every faith and those of no faith to serve shoulder to shoulder with one another. Our Chaplain Corps exists to ensure that every one of those servicemembers can freely exercise their beliefs.
This amendment weakens that mission. It weakens the trust that holds military units together and ultimately it, therefore, weakens the force itself.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I am not sure, other than the statements against this amendment, what the opposition my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have from what I said. I failed to hear exactly what their opposition is, other than their statements of opposition to the amendment itself.
Again, I say, chaplains will continue to connect servicemembers of differing faiths to chaplains representing their respective faiths and equip them with tools to meet their specific needs.
There are now 31 faiths recognized by the Department of War, to include Muslims, Jews, Bahai, Sikh, agnostics, and I could go on.
Again, I fail to understand the difference between what my colleague said in specifics with what I said.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
We are in changing times. The ongoing battles, both in Iran and in Ukraine, have taught us an important lesson. That is that large, long- term vendors for production of innovative tools don't work together. The lead time is too long. The requirement for us to innovate at the Department of War simply isn't working. We need to have small, innovative companies to be able to come forward and be given small allotments in order to develop. However, those allotments are seldom sufficient to operate a company for 1, 2, or 3 years to develop and get a contract going.
For that reason, like other startups of all sorts, particularly in the technology field in America, they would normally go to private funding, go to venture firms. But there is a problem. If what you are producing for the Department of War or any other part of our government is classified, you have to say: I have a new product. I can't tell you about it. Trust me and invest.
That simply doesn't work.
More importantly, the requirements from within the government often are not available to the investor. Therefore, it is difficult to get.
My amendment deals with this serious problem in a predictable and controlled way. Our 5-year pilot program simply says that with the permission of the Department of War, individuals within qualified investment firms may receive or update their clearances so that they can be part of the investment decision.
It does not preclude their being excluded for any reason, including-- and I particularly want to note this--companies which have a foreign investment profile would have to disclose and may very well be excluded.
However, the American investment community with American funds is more than sufficient to find, seek out, and invest in innovative companies that can give us a low-cost antidrone product or a low-cost drone, or any other number of critically needed and affordable products.
For that reason, we are asking that the Department of War under this pilot program be empowered to allow for these nonoriginal participants to have, on a limited basis, with controls completely in the hands of the Secretary of War and while he retains full authority to revoke participation for any security violation, foreign ownership, control, influence, or any other concern.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment would give the Secretary of Defense sweeping discretion to grant the highest level of security clearances to an unlimited number of investment professionals without any contract, mission, or defined purpose.
Now, the theory, as we just heard, is that these investors would then conduct due diligence and steer Federal resources toward companies that can support our national defense.
In practice, this would turn our national secrets into another way for the Trump White House to monetize their jobs, putting their friends' wealth over the national interest.
Now, lest anybody accuse me of making a partisan point, let's review some recent history, tying specifically to the individuals in the Trump administration who would be making decisions about how to share our national secrets.
In the weeks leading up to President Trump's military strikes on Iran, reports found that Secretary Hegseth's broker inquired about a multimillion dollar investment in major defense companies.
Earlier this year, President Trump's own leadership PAC sent fundraising emails that offered his donors access to national security debriefings on threats, border security, and foreign adversaries.
Don Trump, Jr.'s venture capital firm has invested in more than a dozen defense tech companies. Subsequent to his investment, those companies secured $3.2 billion in direct government business and $3.1 billion in additional future contract options.
In one case, the White House directly pressured the Department of Defense to provide $620 million in financing to one of young Donald's portfolio companies.
Speaking of the children, the Trump administration recently approved $1.6 billion in Federal financing for a small U.S. company to lead a major mining project in Kazakhstan. That company is not only partially owned by Donald Trump's children, but the deal was negotiated by Secretary of Commerce Lutnick's children.
Hell, even Donald Trump's teleprompter operator is in on the action, having just made $100,000 by betting on Trump's speeches that only he had seen on prediction markets.
Of course, just this past week, Trump Media announced plans to sell early access to the President's market-moving Truth Social posts so that Trump can make money while you front-run the stock market.
To be sure, Mr. Issa's amendment does specifically say that no investor may use classified information for personal financial gain. But I would ask you: Who in the Trump White House is going to enforce that provision? Trump? Lutnick? His personal lawyer, Todd Blanche? I think we know better.
What we have here is an amendment to provide investment professionals with both the means and the motive to engage in insider trading, to help the rich get richer, and to compromise the integrity of U.S. financial markets.
The question that we have right now in this amendment is a really simple one: What do you stand for? If you stand for corruption, vote ``yes''. But if you stand for national security, for integrity, and for capitalism, vote ``no''.
That may be a character test for some in this Chamber, but it is not a remotely close call.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
I am not going to address the items that were said by the opposition because they don't go to the safeguards in this piece of legislation.
Without this amendment, there is nothing to stop the administration from providing, without specific requirements to disclose, classifications to any and all individuals, particularly individuals that are, quite frankly, within companies either doing or wanting to do business with the Federal Government.
It doesn't stop the large companies from having unlimited access to programs that may not be widely understood. As a result, they get an advantage of bidding on something no one knows about.
Instead, what it requires is annual reporting, including to this body, to Congress, to ensure that we can monitor this program. It sunsets. It is not for this administration, but for a 5-year period.
Most importantly, it is extremely limited to private equity investing, by definition in private companies. No part of public companies are affected here, just the opposite.
This is an opportunity for private companies to find investors who can only invest if they have a reasonable knowledge of what the product is asked to be and nothing more, and every one of them must still pass the same rigorous application and retention policy for whatever level of clearance is required.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that these words would help the other side understand that, in fact, Congress gains more control over many of the things being complained about by passing this amendment than by not.
Mr. Chair, I urge support for 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 California (Mr. Issa).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit foreign nationals from designated countries of concern from accessing nonpublic areas of any national laboratory.
This straightforward measure would protect the integrity of America's national labs and the sensitive research that underpins our national security.
For years, we know that the Chinese Communist Party has executed sweeping, coordinated campaigns to acquire American tech and innovation by any means necessary.
Last month, Mr. David Shedd, the former Acting Director of Defense Intelligence Agency, said: Efforts blending cyber espionage, human intelligence, academic collaboration, and commercial investments have fueled China's rapid military and economic rise.
This should concern all of us.
Congress passed a law 2 years ago which prohibited foreign nationals from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea from accessing our weapons labs. This was an important first step, but now we must address the same vulnerabilities in our science labs. These are labs where sensitive but unclassified work on artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and advanced computing are performed.
These are the very labs that the President has tasked with executing the Genesis Mission, a modern-day Manhattan Project, to ensure that the United States wins the race for AI dominance. Yet, at the same time, we are allowing thousands of nontraditional intelligence collectors from our competitors and greatest adversaries to operate inside of these facilities.
We know China's playbook. The CCP will weaponize any expertise it gains militarily, commercially, or economically. Our adversaries are running sophisticated espionage campaigns while we are rolling out the red carpet for thousands of these foreign nationals from proven countries of concern. This is a direct threat to our national security.
Mr. Chair, this amendment simply closes a known vulnerability. It prohibits foreign nationals from countries of concern from accessing any nonpublic area of a national laboratory that receives Defense funding.
Building on those actions taken 2 years ago, this amendment protects the Genesis project and mission and ensures that America, not our adversaries, will reap the benefits of scientific breakthroughs that our scientists achieve.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is unnecessary, and I urge everyone to oppose it.
The Department of Energy Laboratories are on to this problem, and they have been on to it for decades.
Prior to serving in Congress, I spent over 20 years at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, where we had Russian collaborators during the heart of the Cold War. Some of the very first experiments that were done at Fermi National Lab had Russian participants, and we had incredibly competent scientists coming and visiting.
It was actually kind of amusing. When you had a group of Russian collaborators, there would be five brilliant scientists and then one guy who was not a very good physicist. He was the KGB guy, and everyone laughed about it.
We had this under control. It was also a huge benefit to the United States not only because of the brilliant assistance we had to grow our science
That is especially important today because China has basically installed the surveillance state. It is very difficult for us to maintain human assets in China, but this is one of the only opportunities that we have to actually develop high-level scientific assets. From that point of view alone, this is a wrong amendment.
It is not just me who feels this way. Donald Trump's Department of Energy opposes this, and I will just read verbatim their comment on it:
``This amendment effectively imposes an outright prohibition on access to DOE national laboratories for all foreign nationals from countries of concern, regardless of their mode of access. While intended to address security concerns, this sweeping restriction will severely disrupt the national laboratory research and development ecosystem and key administration research priorities,'' from the Trump administration.
``The Office of Science and other DOE lab-stewarded programs have a significant number of international scientists and engineers who serve as employees, users of SC scientific user facilities, or collaborative visitors. These individuals already undergo indices checks and extensive, multi-layered risk mitigation measures prior to receiving Laboratory access. By bypassing these tailored, risk-based protocols in favor of a blanket ban, this amendment will disrupt essential scientific human resources who greatly contribute to domestic scientific competitiveness.''
Mr. Chair, it is not often that I agree with the Trump administration, but they pretty much nailed that one. This amendment is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Mrs. Hinson's amendment has identified a concern about the impact of foreign nationals from countries like Russia, China, and Iran, but principally China. However, this amendment is just unnecessarily restrictive on our national laboratories.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, while I think we can all agree that collaboration is an essential part of research, especially much of the research happening in our national laboratories, we are at a critical point for our country when it comes to national security and making sure that the investments that American taxpayers are putting into these institutions are protected from our adversaries.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 44 printed in part A of House Report 119-755.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harrigan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of my amendment. This amendment does one thing: It bars the Department of War from buying, installing, or operating automated speed cameras on military installations and requires any that are already in place to be decommissioned within 180 days.
These systems are not about safety. They are about revenue. They hand out fines without context, without discretion, and without due process for our servicemembers. We just spent the last few years working hard through the NDAA to increase lower enlisted pay, only to seemingly try to take it away from them.
Make no mistake, this is not just a financial risk. It is a security risk. We have seen what happens when camera networks tied to critical infrastructure get compromised. Reporting this year revealed that foreign intelligence services spent years secretly accessing Tehran's traffic camera network to track the movements of Iran's top leadership ahead of a strike that killed its Supreme Leader. These network systems are an open door for our adversaries to exploit.
To be clear about what this amendment does not do, installation commanders still keep the full authority to enforce speed limits through military police, exactly as they do today. Force protection, access control, and criminal investigation cameras at our facility gates will remain untouched. This amendment targets one narrow thing: automated speed enforcement, and nothing else.
Our troops should not be a captive customer base for a ticketing vendor or a soft target for our adversaries. This amendment closes that door while preserving every legitimate tool that a commander needs to keep a base safe.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I am going to say, I am pretty baffled by this amendment from my friend and colleague, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.
It moves base safety in the wrong direction. Even the Department of Defense opposes this amendment. This amendment would prohibit automated speed enforcement cameras on military installations.
To be clear, these cameras aren't about punishing our troops or their families. They exist to keep bases and military families safe. These cameras keep reckless drivers accountable and have a proven and effective record for reducing traffic accidents and maintaining safe and orderly driving.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, speed enforcement cameras have been found to reduce roadway fatalities and injuries by up to 37 percent.
I want to remind my colleagues that our military bases aren't just for troops to work and train. They are home to schools, youth centers, child development centers, playgrounds, and family housing.
Junior personnel can't usually afford vehicles and are usually having to walk around bases. It is imperative that we maintain traffic safety. The servicemembers and families who live and
I have not heard one shred of data and not one credible argument that this amendment makes our installations safer.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague from California's concern about overall base safety. I think if we step back and actually look at the big picture here, what we are talking about is simply a tax on our lower enlisted personnel.
We have military police to enforce safety standards that are already issued by the base commanders across every installation that we have. At the end of the day, we cannot deny that NIPRNet has been compromised by over 90 percent of our most serious and significant adversaries--the exact same net that these speed cameras would live on.
I think that is a significant concern for the safety and security of our installation personnel and the operations that are ongoing on our installations. For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to strongly support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's argument there, but if the Department of Defense can't maintain the cybersecurity cameras on our own installations, then we have a lot bigger problems.
The truth is that vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of death for our servicemembers.
Why are we even debating this? We should be debating amendments that rein in this administration's reckless conduct on this Iran war or its reckless spending in the Middle East. Instead, my colleagues would rather discuss speed cameras.
The fact is, this amendment restrains the Secretary's ability to allocate security and law enforcement resources to address traffic safety. Prohibiting the use of speed cameras also undermines an installation commander's ability to deploy the appropriate resources to effectively meet the traffic and public safety needs of the installation.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harrigan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be postponed.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, and 158, printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.
Nowhere is this legislation more critical than in California's 20th Congressional District, home to Edwards Air Force Base, the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Naval Air Station Lemoore, and the Mojave Air and Space Port.
I am honored to offer three amendments that support our installations today.
First, amendment No. 136 honors the eight heroes lost in the tragic B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base last month. It directs the Department of War to brief Congress on the cause of the accident.
These brave individuals sacrificed their lives so that we can live in peace and freedom. Their commitment and dedication will never be forgotten.
Second, amendment No. 137 directs a comprehensive study of medical and safety resources at Edwards Air Force Base. Edwards is located in a remote area of our State that is critical for the test work that is performed. I want to ensure that the military members, civilians, and contractors serving at the base have access to the health and safety resources needed to advance their mission.
Third, amendment No. 135 directs a study of supersonic airspace connectivity between the R-2508 Airspace Complex, which includes China Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, and Fort Irwin, and connects to the Point Mugu Sea Range.
These ranges encompass over 56,000 square miles of world-class testing capacity. Combined with the civilian capabilities of Mojave Air and Space Port and NASA Armstrong, my amendment will help better integrate supersonic airspace connectivity and would expand test capabilities for both military and commercial aerospace, keeping America at the cutting edge of defense innovation.
These amendments help ensure our defense installations have the resources, the safety, and the airspace they need to continue leading the way. I urge my colleagues to support them.
Mr. Chair, I thank our chairman for his great work on this National Defense Authorization Act. As always, he has delivered.
Mr. Chair, every day our Nation loses 17 veterans to suicide. These are men and women who survived combat but then lost to a quiet and longer war against the invisible wounds that they carried with them.
Since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, many of them are asking: Was it worth it? Well, we are providing a solution to that problem here today.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Luttrell, for his service as a Navy SEAL and also for introducing this amendment to increase veterans' access to ibogaine. I know personally how much this means to our Nation's heroes because I have talked to them, the Special Operations Association, to people, veterans across this Nation who are clamoring for a solution to their problem, and we have one.
They should not have to travel to Mexico to receive this treatment. Countless vets have told me that they were going to give this one shot before they committed suicide. They went down. They experienced ibogaine, and they came back cured.
Stanford University did a study on 30 veterans with TBI and PTSD, verified through MRI brain scans, where it was demonstrated that ibogaine actually regenerated brain tissue and helped them get over their addiction to opioids and resolve their PTSD and TBI.
This needs to be available in the United States of America now in clinical trials to our veterans. My home State of Texas passed legislation to provide clinical trials to veterans for ibogaine.
I thank my former Governor, Rick Perry, and Mr. Bryan Hubbard, Americans for Ibogaine, for leading this effort. I thank Morgan Luttrell and Marcus, his brother, who we all know from the ``Lone Survivor'' story. Ibogaine saved their lives, and we have heard the testimony from them about the effectiveness of this medicine.
It is time, Mr. Chair, to make this medicine available to our veterans here in the United States at our VA clinics across the Nation.
This amendment--and I thank the chairman for supporting it--will take us to that point where we can now save their lives, where they don't have to worry about suicide and they don't have to be on 30 medications, for God sakes, to treat their addiction, to treat their PTSD when we know we have a medicine that works.
The evidence, the data, and the Stanford study are all there to save their lives. I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure.
Again, I thank all my colleagues, including the chairman and Morgan Luttrell for their support. I thank the Energy and Commerce Committee for their work to bring all of this to the floor, not only today but in future legislation. I also thank the heroes, those who have served this country in harm's way, those who have put their lives at risk who are suffering from these diseases today for their service. We owe it to them to pass this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this en bloc, which includes an amendment that calls on the President to award the Medal of Honor to Colonel Bob Graham of Nuangola, Pennsylvania.
On May 1, 1966, at the height of Operation Birmingham in the Vietnam war, then-Captain Graham flew his battle-damaged F-100 Super Sabre through monsoon weather to reach American troops surrounded by 4,000 enemy soldiers.
He made more than 15 low-level attack passes under heavy artillery fire, knowing full well he may not survive. He not only survived, but destroyed eight enemy gun positions, neutralized over 1,500 enemy troops, and broke the back of that assault, saving hundreds of American lives.
Colonel Graham flew over 500 combat missions across four tours in Vietnam and served this country faithfully for 26 years.
He already earned the Silver Star for his heroic actions that day. However, it is past time that we recognize his actions went above and beyond the call of duty.
I urge my colleagues to support this and finally give Colonel Graham the recognition he has long since earned.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Van Epps).
Mr. VAN EPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to rise today to offer three critical amendments.
Military readiness depends on more than the weapons our warfighters carry. It depends on the infrastructure that supports them, our ability to get new technology into their hands, and an industrial base capable of sustaining them in conflict.
At Fort Campbell, much of the water and wastewater infrastructure is more than 60 years old. A major failure could disrupt military operations and affect the health of military families.
This challenge extends far beyond Fort Campbell. That is why my amendment directs the Department of War to assess critical aging utility systems across military installations and prioritize future investments before failures degrade readiness.
However, readiness also means ensuring our warfighters have the best technology available. My second amendment will accelerate the delivery of advanced technologies to the battlefield, cutting through barriers that too often slow innovation. When conflict comes, we must have the capacity to sustain the fight.
My third amendment requires major defense contractors to plan now for how they would rapidly increase production during a national emergency or major conflict.
We must ensure our military has the infrastructure, technology, and industrial capacity to fight and win. I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment No. 158.
Amendment No. 158 is extremely important to the Arkansas National Guard. That is why I am grateful to have the support of my Arkansas colleagues, Rep. Steve Womack and Rep. Rick Crawford.
This amendment supports the Arkansas National Guard by seeking to codify the proposed land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve on Camp Robinson in North Little Rock.
Currently, there is a strategic mismatch in facility use for the Arkansas National Guard and the USAR on Camp Robinson.
The land exchange will include a two-star division headquarters at Camp Pike, currently occupied by a drilling unit with minimal full-time staff, a unit whose needs would be far better served by an armory.
The second is the Chappell Armory in Arkansas, which was built for traditional drilling units but currently operates as a full-time headquarters.
Amendment No. 158 seeks a no-cost land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and USAR. This would result in a mutually beneficial outcome and ensure better stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
The Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve support the conveyance.
I am pleased that there has been a signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Brigadier General Bridges of the Arkansas Guard and Brigadier General Cook of the Army Reserves.
Amendment No. 158 directly relates to the signed MOA, and it ensures the necessary continuity and stability for the proposed land exchange.
Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 156.
My amendment directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of the quality and effectiveness of the Department of Defense's cyber intelligence sharing with state, local, Tribal, territorial, and private-sector partners.
I drafted this amendment with the Arkansas National Guard to ensure we analyze cyber information sharing to learn how to stop and mitigate cyber threats for homeland defense.
As you may know, the National Guard is uniquely positioned by its capabilities, geography, and manpower to add resilience to integrated critical infrastructure dependencies.
That is why it is critical for the GAO to conduct this review, as it can inform and better unify efforts among federal partners, state-level defenders, and other critical stakeholders to ensure faster warning, mitigation, incident response, and better defense of our critical infrastructure.
This amendment is extremely important to central Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. It is also extremely important to our national security and cyber health.
I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 156.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, and 212 printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama:
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Chairman Hill's amendment to extend the Defense Production Act for an additional 5 years.
For decades, the Defense Production Act has served as an important national security tool. It has continually provided the flexibility to strengthen our industrial base, respond to emergencies, and ensure the United States has resources it needs to meet national security threats at home and abroad.
The Defense Production Act helps keep our supply chains secure, strengthens manufacturing in the United States, and ensures that our servicemembers have the support they need to defend our Nation.
At a time when our adversaries are investing heavily in new technologies and strengthening their own industrial and defense capabilities, we cannot afford to fall behind.
Earlier this Congress, the House Financial Services Committee unanimously advanced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize and modernize the Defense Production Act. I was proud to sponsor that legislation. This reflects a shared understanding that a strong defense industrial base is essential to America's national security and to our economic resilience.
Congress has a responsibility to provide our servicemembers with the resources and support they need to accomplish their mission safely and effectively, and we must ensure there is no gap in essential provisions.
While I am disappointed that this House is not considering the full bipartisan reauthorization of our standalone bill, I do believe it is essential that we provide certainty to our own economy, to our defense industrial base, and to the manufacturers and processors to help keep America secure. This is what a clean, 5-year extension achieves.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 4 consisting of amendment Nos. 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, and 265 printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama:
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 5 consisting of amendment Nos. 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, and 320 printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama:
Subtitle D--Vessels of the United States in International Commerce
CHAPTER 3--UNITED STATES MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY AND STATE MARITIME
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Chair, I rise today to recognize my amendment No. 297 in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, which ensures the Department of War and Scouting America remains in a partnership.
For more than 116 years, Scouting America has endeavored to develop young Americans into leaders of tomorrow through service, physical activities, and community projects.
Scouting helps instill a drive in young people to carry out their duty to God and country, understand the principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems, and take pride in their American heritage, while being prepared to lead their communities.
With more than one million participants who have contributed more than seven million service hours in 2024 alone, Scouts know how to build stronger communities and how to lead people.
Scouting America believes--and through over a century of experience, knows--that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society.
I am grateful for the longstanding partnership between Scouting America and the Department of War. I can think of no better recruitment tool for our military than the lessons learned through Scouting.
Scouts are known as leaders within their communities, and approximately 15 percent of all military academy cadets and midshipmen across U.S. service academies are Eagle Scouts.
Mr. Chair, this historic partnership between Scouting America and the Department of War is a relationship that strengthens our country and ensures our best and brightest become leaders of tomorrow.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Rep. Steve Womack's Amendment No. 311, that I am proud to cosponsor.
Amendment No. 311 seeks to maximize taxpayer value by directing the Department of Defense to conduct and publish a cost comparison study for future F-35 basing locations for aircraft receiving first delivery between Fiscal Year 2030 and Fiscal Year 2035.
As you may know, the next round of F-35 basing decisions is expected in the next 24 months.
This study is critical to arm military decision-makers with objective, data-driven analysis before that decision is made.
The Arkansas National Guard believes that this study is critical to ensuring a complete understanding of the current mission and personnel before future F-35 basing decisions are made.
I agree with the Arkansas National Guard and that is why I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 311.
Mr. Chair, my amendment addresses a stark and increasing threat to our Nation's critical infrastructure, the malicious use of drones, especially their use around critical military installations and law enforcement vessels.
Amendment No. 283 requires the Inspector General of the Department of War to produce a report to Congress regarding Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) activity around military installations in the United States and abroad, sensitive national security sites, military and law enforcement vessels, and the capabilities possessed by installations to counter this activity, protocols in place to coordinate with state and local law enforcement, and the sufficiency of legal authorities provided to installation commanders to address threats both inside and outside the wire.
Over the last several years, there has been persistent unauthorized drone activity around military installations. In 2024, for 17 days a fleet of unidentified drones penetrated the airspace over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, home to advance jet fighters including F-22s, continuing on to the airspace over Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek and Naval Station Norfolk.
Also in 2024, the Department of War confirmed a number of drone sightings over multiple installations in my state of New Jersey, including Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle in my district. Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, also in my district, has seen significant unauthorized drone activity including attempts to smuggle contraband in FCI Dix and other drones whose intent was not clear. Additionally, a Coast Guard Commanding Officer told me more than a dozen drones, in formation, followed a 47-foot rescue boat a mere 100 feet off the stern, as it made maneuvers in the ocean off Ocean County.
Earlier this year, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana--home to B- 52 bombers who play a critical role in America's nuclear triad--was forced to issue a shelter in place order due to reports of unauthorized drone activity. And just months ago, here in Washington D.C., Fort McNair saw unauthorized drone overflights. In testimony last year before the Senate Armed Services Committee, NORTHCOM Commander General Gregory M. Guillot expressed concern over what he called the ``rapidly evolving strategic environment'' and ``the emergence of small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) as a threat to infrastructure and personnel in the homeland.'' He went on to describe the threat as ``widespread'' as ``there were 350 detections reported'' on military installations in 2024.
At the same time, we have seen adversaries--notably Russia and Iran-- make significant investments in drone technology and seen its impact on the battlefield, both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Communist China is a global leader in drone technology and continues to integrate these capabilities into its military doctrine and exercises. It is vital we gain a thorough understanding of adversary capabilities, and their will deploy these technologies to threaten American interests.
Congress has taken steps to address these threats, both the Armed Services Committee and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have methodically strengthened military and law enforcements authority and ability to deploy counter-drone technology in recent reauthorization bills to, yet a further accounting of how widespread this threat is and what, if any shortfalls remain is needed.
Make no mistake, it is imperative Congress ensure that those on the ground and charged with the safety of military installations and the lives of servicemembers and the community at large have the authority and technology necessary to effectively mitigate and overcome these threats to protect the homeland.
I thank the Committee on Rules for finding this amendment in order, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment with a yes vote.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Amendment No. 309 to the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act. My amendment would establish a pilot program to enable the Department of Defense (DoD) to more efficiently deploy modern cybersecurity solutions by accelerating the security verification of solutions that have already received FedRAMP High certification.
FedRAMP is a standardized approach to certifying and assessing the security of cloud computing technologies used across federal agencies, and a FedRAMP High certification is the strictest cloud security authorization level within FedRAMP.
This level of certification ensures compliance with the standards needed to securely handle and process the federal government's most sensitive unclassified information and data.
FedRAMP seeks to create a ``certify once, reuse many times'' model for cloud products and services that provides a secure and cost- effective approach to federal cloud service adoption.
The idea behind this concept of ``certify once, reuse many times'' or ``reciprocity'' as I like to refer to it, is that if a cloud service's security controls have already been certified at a basic level, multiple federal agencies should be comfortable with adopting the service for their own purposes.
For years, DoD has relied on its own assessment and verification process for cloud-based services, separate and distinct from FedRAMP-- however, both DoD's and FedRAMP's assessment and verification processes rely on the same NIST standards and have the same goal, which is to certify that a cloud-based product meets security standards for federal use.
What this means in practice is that both the government and our private sector partners must invest significant time and resources to verify security controls for cloud service deployment not just once, but twice if they hope to make that service available to both Federal Civilian and DoD customers.
Additionally, maintaining two parallel certification pathways has created bottlenecks in deploying modern commercial cloud capabilities, including critical cybersecurity tools, within the DoD--even when those solutions have already been certified for civilian agency use under the same NIST standards through the FedRAMP program.
This amendment would save the federal government time and resources by encouraging reciprocity between the parallel FedRAMP and DoD cloud security assessment processes.
It establishes a pilot program to accelerate the DoD's assessment of cloud-based cybersecurity solutions that have already been authorized under the same underlying NIST standards that the Department's existing assessment process relies on.
In doing so, this pilot will help deliver innovative commercial cybersecurity capabilities to the warfighter more quickly, at a time when cyber threats from our adversaries are growing more sophisticated.
I urge my collegues to support this amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 316 printed in part A of House Report 119-755.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of War to examine options for reducing its civilian workforce by 200,000 positions. For point of reference, at the time that President Trump took office, the number of non-uniformed personnel in the Department of War was about 770,000. There was a buyout situation in which they reduced that number by about 80,000, and since that time, they have felt there were certain positions that they had to refill that they probably shouldn't have let go of, so right now they are sitting around 705,000.
We know that DOGE felt that throughout government they had unnecessary personnel. We have all heard anecdotal evidence of people working in a variety of agencies, but particularly the Department of War, who may not be necessary.
I will point out, since I have kind of looked into this, that I have found shocking anecdotes of people working in the private sector in big companies who manage to get by doing very little work because the companies are just plain too big and people fall between the cracks.
If that is going on in private-sector big companies, Mr. Chair, think how much more likely that is happening in a big organization like the Department of War.
In any event, right now, we are dealing with a situation in which the Department of War is asking for a considerable increase in money, in particular with regard to its authorization bill and also with regard to the other bill that we are going to be trying to pass this week.
Given that, we have to make sure that they are not wasting any money. I think it would be a good exercise for the Department of War to say: We have got at least 705,000 people. What would happen if we had to get rid of 200,000?
Maybe we will find they are all necessary, but I don't think so.
In any event, I think it is good from time to time for big organizations to look and see whether everybody is necessary and what they are doing. For too long, Washington has allowed Federal bureaucracies to grow without regularly asking whether every position is necessary and asking what people are doing.
We can protect national security while also demanding efficiency and accountability. As we know from the proposals that we are going to have to vote on this week, the military certainly needs to find new money and we are broke, so it would be better if they find out whether in their workforce they are wasting money.
In any event, we are going to ask the Department of War to see what would happen if they had to reduce their number of nonuniformed positions by 200,000.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, which would require the Department of Defense to develop plans to eliminate 200,000 civilian employees.
I have news for you: This administration already did that, and I saw the consequences with my own eyes. I had lunch with junior enlisted marines in Hawaii. They told me it took months to fix their broken washing machines, a full year to fix a sink in a barracks room. I saw windows duct taped and mold painted over. Childcare rooms were empty because they had no staff to care for servicemembers' children. When I asked the base commander why it took a year to fix a sink, he said it is because almost all of the maintenance staff took the deferred resignation program, and with the hiring freeze, they couldn't find replacements.
There are 20,000 DoD civilian employees in Hawaii and about 800,000 worldwide. They are essential to readiness. At a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet, they are good jobs. They have been and should remain stable jobs, too, allowing people to serve their country and care for their families.
Bottom line, our war fighters rely on civilian employees for everything, from maintenance to acquisition, to healthcare, to childcare. They keep our subs and jets battle-ready and our servicemembers healthy.
Mr. Chair, it is time we stop treating them as disposable. Instead, we should be investing in the civilian workforce, not continuing to threaten to cut their jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, just one final comment. We didn't say we were going to reduce the workforce by 200,000. We were going to say what happens if we try to do it. I do believe if you get around here and ask people, they will give you anecdotal evidence of people working for a very short period of time.
As far as already dealing with this, there was a buyout. As I mentioned, they bought out several employees who they shouldn't have bought out. Right now, we have reduced the workforce by about 65,000. Again, I think if you ask people in this town, it will not be hard to find people who feel people working in the Federal agencies are not doing a lot. I know that is true in the private sector. It is certainly more likely to be true here.
Mr. Chair, I am a little bit shocked that we won't even allow the Department to do a study. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This amendment requires a report to outline the option for reducing the Department of Defense civilian workforce by 200,000 workers, a very arbitrary number.
It is truly stunning, a continuation of unprecedented attacks on our Federal civilian workforce that we have seen under this administration led by the very top, by President Trump and his Cabinet.
I will remind my colleagues that President Trump established DOGE last year, which resulted in cuts across the entire Federal workforce of over 280,000 employees. Since then, the Federal Government, and particularly the Department of Defense, has absolutely hemorrhaged critical talent, institutional knowledge, and subject-matter experts across our workforce, the men and women that we cannot afford to lose.
Over the last year, we have already seen reductions across the Department of Defense workforce by about 10 percent, over 78,000 workers. In fact, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, already did a study on the Department of Defense's implementation of the 2025 reductions.
They put out their findings in a report on May 29 of this year. This is what they found: The Department of Defense did not consistently analyze the impacts on the civilian workforce reduction either in `25 or in prior years.
A study has been done, and they did absolutely nothing with it. Instead, we are taking up this amendment, which arbitrarily seeks recommendations to reach a target of 200,000 people in reduction before we even understand the impacts of the last set of cuts that have taken place.
Unfortunately, in our country and our national security, we already are paying the price for these reckless attacks on our hardworking men and women who keep our workforce and our Defense Department running. What we absolutely already know is these firings--
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, let's get to the bottom line here. Our responsibility as Members of Congress is to make sure that we have a Department of Defense that is ready. We can't do it with less people. We are losing this institutional knowledge that is so critical for defending our Nation.
Mr. Chair, I am against this. Please reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, just a final comment. I know somebody who bought a company, and he informs me that he found out that probably half of his white-collar employees were unnecessary.
I think if you get around this town and talk to people, you will certainly find a lot of anecdotal evidence. I think it is kind of amazing that the Democratic Party is afraid of a study. Maybe the study will come back and show it is tight as a drum. I don't think so. I am just kind of shocked that at a time when we are asking for tens of billions--hundreds of billions of dollars more for our Department of War, we are not going to do a study on our civilian employees.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the Grothman amendment.
I am proud to live in an Army town and represent the historic Rock Island Arsenal in the House of Representatives. Every single one of my neighbors works to support our troops and make sure that our readiness and logistics keep our country safe.
I find it outrageous that this Commander in Chief and his loyalists think it is okay to possibly kick these true Americans out of the civilian workforce, 200,000 patriots. These are combat veterans. These are experts.
Back home, the Rock Island Arsenal cannot deal with this. Mr. Chair, I will not remain silent when this amendment is dropped at the eleventh hour to decimate our institution. Mr. Chair, I also can't understand how anyone can call themselves America First when they offer plans to possibly throw men and women in uniform out just as casually as taking out the trash. These are patriots.
Mr. Chair, allowing this to move forward wouldn't just eliminate the jobs of 200,000 Americans, it would put our troops at risk, as well. I urge Republicans and Democrats to please honor them with a ``no'' vote on amendment No. 316.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Chair, I am just kind of shocked that we have a lot of people who don't want auditors poking around the Department of War and seeing what they will find out. I will point out the Department of War has not passed an audit for, I believe, almost 30 years. They are somewhat alone in that compared to other agencies. I guess one of the reasons, obviously, that you don't want to do an audit is that you are afraid what you might find out.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank everyone involved in the process. We do this every year, but I think it is really important that we recognize the people who did all of the work to make this bill possible--certainly, the HASC staff, my able team behind me and the team that serves Mr. Rogers and serves the full committee. We worked in a bipartisan way through well over a thousand amendments and two or three times that many ideas to craft together a very large piece of incredibly important legislation. That work should not go unrecognized.
The members of the committee also go out of their way to work in an incredibly bipartisan way, and that is a credit to Chairman Rogers. He makes a real effort to make sure that Democrats are included, that we have a fair conversation, and that we try to get to the best result possible. I think that is incredibly important.
Mr. Chair, I also thank the Rules Committee for their hard work. They have to sort through over a thousand amendments, as well. Of course, the floor staff that has to work through this entire process every year does an outstanding and amazing job. They are dedicated public servants who deserve our very high praise.
In the bill itself, there are things I like and things I don't like. I think it reflects the process overall. I think it does a very good job of doing oversight of getting to acquisition reform, of continuing along the path of how we innovate faster at scale. The chairman has done an excellent job of pointing out the need for that.
We need innovative technologies. We need them in a more cost- effective way. This bill reflects those priorities. It also supports our troops and our families, including pay raises, general benefits across the board, and a real focus on making sure that our servicemembers are taken care of.
I don't like that the SAVE America Act is going to be attached to this. I don't like the gratuitous anti-trans amendments that were added to the bill. There are other aspects of it that I am troubled by, but overall, I respect the process.
The big point I will make today is, I really think we are at a crossroads in this Congress, in the appropriations process, as well, but in the NDAA. We are trying to work in a bipartisan way, and I will say that Mr. Rogers does it. I think Senator Wicker in the Senate does it, but we have to do that against the backdrop of an unbelievably partisan and, in many ways, out-of-control administration and Department of Defense. They are taking us down roads that I think are incredibly dangerous and make it very hard to maintain that bipartisan spirit.
Mr. Chair, I want you to know that I am an incredibly reasonable person. I will work with absolutely anybody. Some people will say I am too willing to work with people, but that is the nature of the democratic process. I don't identify the people I like and don't like, and say if I don't like you, I am not going to work with you.
For representative democracy to work, we have to work with people that we disagree with--many times passionately, strongly--on incredibly important issues. We have done that throughout my entire time on this committee through a fair number of chairs and ranking members.
For 65 years--I haven't been on the committee for 65 years, but we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act. During President Trump's first term, when I was chair of the committee, I worked with the Trump administration. We got a good bill done. The second time, the President threw a little wrench in at the end. In a bipartisan way, we actually overrode the President's veto to make sure that the NDAA got done. This year, we have issues that have risen above the normal flow of partisan divide.
First of all, we have the budget number. When we add it all up--and I know this bill only has $1.15 trillion in it, but baked into the defense budget is another $350 billion in reconciliation. I forget where the supplemental is at these days. I think it is around $90 billion, but you add it all up, and they are asking for $1.6 trillion in the defense budget. That is a 60 percent increase at a time when we are running a nearly $2 trillion deficit.
People are talking openly about what is going to happen when the U.S. has to default in 5 years, 6 years. This is also at a time when, again, we insist on cutting taxes, cutting taxes. No, cutting taxes does not increase revenue. Just because revenue goes up from one year to the next when you have cut taxes--it was going to go up anyway.
The budget office says that the tax cuts cost us $4 trillion over 10 years. When you look at the other priorities that are out there--cuts to Medicaid, cuts to SNAP, inability to invest in infrastructure and housing. The American people are struggling to pay their bills. Then, we are going to put $1.6 trillion into the defense budget. It is not a reasonable thing to ask. We can't work in a bipartisan way on a number like that.
Again, the White House and Department of Defense take an unbelievably partisan approach. They have no interest in talking to us. They are giving briefings just to Republicans on crucial issues. That has never happened before. Through Democrat or Republican, I have never seen anything like this. The unbelievable partisanship is undermining our ability to get to a bipartisan bill, and it starts with the budget.
There are many other issues, like the war in Iran. We are in an incredibly dangerous situation. The costs continue to escalate. We have lost more servicemembers.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, we stumbled into a conflict in the dumbest way imaginable. In the history of the United States of America, we have made some mistakes in wars. This was about as idiotic a thing as I have ever seen, and the cost is to the global economy, our reputation, instability in the Middle East, the loss of service members, and thousands of people wounded.
I know a lot of people say, well, it is terrible because Trump never had a plan. It is actually a hell of a lot worse than that. He had a plan. His plan was that he was going to bomb Iran for 4 weeks, and they were going to give up. That was literally his plan.
People told him in his own administration that was idiotic. It wasn't going to happen, but he did it anyway. Then, when it didn't work, he just thinks if we drop a few more bombs--here we are.
We keep hearing about how the Iranian military is completely obliterated. It is gone. They are defeated, yet the missiles and the drones keep coming. People in the region keep dying, and our service members keep dying.
That is not just a mistake. That is living in an alternative universe. That is not living in the world that we are actually in, and the war continues.
As we support anything in the defense area, we are de facto supporting this war with no end in sight. The way the President talks about it: Oh, we are going to take Kharg Island. We can take Kharg Island. It won't be a problem.
That is insane if you actually follow the military plans. Maybe you can take it, but you have to hold it. They are going to be lobbing missiles at you. We are in an incredibly serious business, and the President is talking about this like it is some sort of bad fiction novel.
We have to hold them accountable for that, and it is not just the war in Iran. We are engaged in a major conflict in Latin America right now, which people don't know about. We are fighting narcoterrorists. We are still blowing up boats. We are partnering with various different countries and killing people down there, all with no transparency.
Then, we have what is going on in Europe. We periodically threaten to pull troops out of Europe. The President and the Vice President and others talk about Europe facing civilizational erasure and really focused on that issue of pulling back from supporting them in any way because--what?--we are not allies and partners.
The strongest alliance, NATO, in the history of this country is regularly denigrated by our President. Now, I know that people want to kid themselves and say, ``Look, he is just doing it so that our NATO partners step up. That is all we want to do,'' but that is not why he is just doing it.
I will give you a great example: Hungary. I was talking with a Department of Defense official the other day. He said our plan in Europe is actually working because NATO is stepping up, and, crucial to that, was that Orban lost so that Hungary supported the support for Ukraine, but our President and Vice President were supporting keeping the dictator in charge of Hungary so that never would have happened.
We are in incredibly dangerous times, and then, we have the President's use of our military domestically, which he has done. He gives a speech talking about election interference, leaving us all to wonder is he going to honor the outcome of this election. What is our obligation to make sure that he does? We are not in normal times.
I am also deeply concerned about Secretary Hegseth and the way he is running the Department of Defense. He, too, has no idea what is happening in Iran, or how we are ever going to get out of that war, but he has also talked about giving no quarter to our enemies.
We accidentally bombed a girl's school and killed 145 civilians. I don't know how long ago now, 3 or 4 months ago. It is obvious we did it. We won't take responsibility for it. Then, the Secretary of Defense comes out and says publicly: No quarter for our enemy. He has served in the military. He knows what that means--no survivors.
The President talks about erasing the Iranian civilization. He talks about bombing civilian targets. Never would the United States of America have done any of those things.
We are in an incredibly, incredibly dangerous time. I wish to maintain the bipartisan nature of this bill--I do, and I know that the chairman does.
But if we are going to do this, we are going to need some Republicans to stand up to the President of the United States and say, no. No, we are not going to get you $1.6 trillion. No, we are not just going to give you a blank check for a war that is totally out of control, not going anywhere, and with no end in sight.
I keep hearing people say: Well, we just have to finish the job, like we are cleaning out the garage, and if we just stick at it long enough--
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Chair, if we just stick at it long enough, we will be done. There is no plan. There is no plan to bomb a target that is going to make Iran change their mind.
We have to stand up and say, no, we can't do those things, and I say all of that again.
I want to get us back to a reasonable place where we can have a bipartisan agreement, and I hope in the next couple of months we will get there.
I really want people to understand how unprecedented this moment is that we are in.
The President is taking us down a bitterly partisan and divisive road and pushing policies--I didn't even talk about the tariffs that he slaps on our allies at a whim.
Look at Canada. Apparently, there are fires up in Canada, and the wind is blowing south, so it is Canada's fault, and we have to slap a 50 percent tariff on them. This is the way we govern? It is insane, and we need to rein it in.
We in Congress need to stand up and say: No, we are going to begin to get some of this under control. At a minimum, let's have a sensible budget. Let's stop the war in Iran.
I can't support this bill. It profoundly hurts me because I believe in this process. It is the last thing I will say. I will continue to want to work with any reasonable person who shows up in the Trump administration. I don't want to shun them because this body has to work. If we don't pass legislation, then the President has even more power. If the legislative branch shuts down, that simply consolidates more power in the executive branch.
We have to find a way through this, but it is not going to be easy. I want to
Mr. Chair, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I will start by thanking my good friend, Adam Smith, the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, for his work on this bill. Again, this year, we have continued to work in a bipartisan fashion to lead the Committee on Armed Services, and we have done this for years. I could not have a better partner in doing that.
Folks really need to take note of this, because this is the largest piece of authorizing legislation that moves through the Congress. It authorizes over half of all discretionary spending. We lead this committee in a bipartisan fashion. We passed this bill out of committee in a bipartisan fashion, and that doesn't just happen. That occurs because of leadership that we get from both sides of the aisle.
The staff take their cue from the chair and the ranking member--and other Members do--when we conduct our business, and we do it in a bipartisan fashion. It is so important. We are talking about our Nation's security. We are talking about our men and women who put their lives at risk for our Nation, for the families involved. We want them to know that this is not political gamesmanship that is leading up here. This is Members working in a serious, focused fashion to try to get good policy developed that will make their lives better and keep our Nation free and safe.
Adam Smith just does a great job in leading the committee. When he was chair, he led by example, and he has continued to lead by example as ranking member, and I appreciate that.
I also thank the staff for their work. We have an incredible professional staff on the Committee on Armed Services on both sides of the aisle. They do follow our lead, and they work in a very collaborative fashion, and I thank them for that.
We had a little over a thousand Member provisions submitted to our committee before the markup. We had 1,200 amendments offered during committee markup and 1,400 amendments here. The staff had to go through all of that and work it up, and they have just done it in a very professional fashion.
I also thank House legislative counsel, CBO, and the Parliamentarian for their leadership and staff in developing this bill to the point it is at today.
Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks ago, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of our independence. But as many of you know, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps are each celebrating their 251st birthday this year. That is because in 1775, the Continental Congress knew we needed a professional fighting force to secure our freedom.
It was a bold and courageous act that shocked the British and the world. I am certainly not asking for Congress to do anything that courageous.
But for the sake of guaranteeing our freedom well into the future, we need to act now to reverse decades of underinvestment and neglect in our Armed Forces and our defense industrial base.
This bill will do that and much more. It will build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and other adversaries.
I know there are provisions in this bill that some folks disagree with, but understand that this is just a single step in a long process.
Everyone should know that we will continue to work in a bipartisan manner as we make our way through the Conference committee. We will work to produce a bill that can best pass both Chambers and be signed into law.
I urge all Members to help us reach that goal by supporting this bill today and moving it along.
Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Goldman of Texas, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
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 H. Con. Res. 113.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438 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 concurrent resolution, H. Con. Res. 113.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Goldman) 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 concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 113) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the concurrent resolution is considered read the first time.
General debate shall be confined to the concurrent resolution and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the American people suffered through 4 years of lawlessness, incompetence, and habitual failure under Joe Biden and Democratic leadership, one self-inflicted disaster after another: border chaos, rampant crime, feckless foreign policy, spending-induced inflation that we haven't seen in a half a century, a crushing cost-of- living crisis, and the worst regressive tax on working families in this country.
In the historic election of 2024, our citizens gave us unified Republican leadership and an unambiguous and unequivocal message. They said that we want strong, competent leaders, commonsense policies, and a commitment to America and Americans first.
Mr. Chairman, for our part, from day one, Republicans have united and relentlessly delivered in reversing those failed Democratic policies, delivering on the American people's priorities, and restoring America's greatness and the American spirit along with it.
Mr. Chairman, we have been doing this in the face of unprecedented Democratic obstruction. They either didn't listen to the American people in the election of 2024, or worse: They didn't care.
Instead of humble self-reflection and change, the Democratic Party has doubled down on their radical agenda and has hastened their march to Democratic socialism. Their entire strategy has been to resist Republicans and obstruct, obstruct, obstruct the President at all fronts and at all costs, even if it hurts our great Nation, its success, and the safety and security of the American people, sadly.
Exhibit A: The Democrats shut the government down for the first time in history when we presented a clean CR to continue the funding of last year until we could work out an appropriations deal. They rejected it, and their demand was to repeal the safeguards that we put in to prevent illegals and ineligible people from draining the safety net that is there for vulnerable Americans.
Then, they shut Homeland Security down, and they held not only TSA agents and coastguardsmen hostage, but they held the American people and our security hostage for absurd and dangerous demands that would have returned our country back to the Biden border nightmare, along with endangering our hardworking and brave Border Patrol and ICE agents.
The Democrats have gone on time and time again with this unprecedented obstruction. Recently, they blocked the National Defense Authorization Act to protest President Trump and our troops' efforts to stop this radical terrorist regime from having nuclear weapons.
They blocked FISA, which is a critical tool for our intelligence agencies to stave off and thwart terrorist attacks and Chinese espionage and hacking into our critical infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on. Let me tell you what we have done as Republicans, relentlessly, every day, with the commitment to the people who sent us up here. In reconciliation 1.0, we prevented the largest tax hike in our Nation's history, 22 percent, which would have been on top of the 21 percent increase in prices they experienced from Biden inflation.
We gave permanent tax relief to working families and small businesses. We made the largest investment in rebuilding our military, restoring their spirit, peace through strength for the USA. We saved a record $1.6 trillion in rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse that was robbing taxpayers and weakening the safety net for our most vulnerable.
Reconciliation 2.0, unfortunately, we had to burn a reconciliation and go at it again unilaterally, Republicans stopping the defunding of ICE and CBP. That is right. We didn't get a single Democratic vote to fund ICE and CBP, and the only way we turned Homeland Security back on is they wanted to cut them out of the equation. That is what we did with the second reconciliation.
Mr. Chairman, here we are with reconciliation 3.0, supporting our troops in their time of need with just baseline battlefield readiness, bullets and bombs to finish the job and to come home safely and victoriously; strengthening our food supply; and, ultimately, we want to safeguard the integrity of our elections.
We want to restore the American people's confidence because as the Founders said in the Declaration of Independence: ``There is no just government without the consent of the governed,'' and there is no legitimate consent and there is no functioning democracy if the American people have no confidence in this election.
Mr. Chairman, it is not just the President. It is not just MAGA Republicans. Nancy Pelosi, in 2017, said this: ``Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect our democracy . . . `'
Well, you know what, Mr. Chairman? I agree with Nancy Pelosi. We have a duty. We have a duty to safeguard our elections. We have a duty to restore confidence in what underpins the will of the people, their freedoms, our common defense, and the general welfare of every American in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I encourage not just Republicans but my Democratic colleagues to join us in supporting our troops, safeguarding our elections, and saving America.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, as you may recall, 2 years ago, in the election that my good friend the chair referenced, Donald Trump won a whopping landslide of 1\1/2\ points, one of the closest national popular votes in American history, for those keeping score. During that election, he campaigned in my State, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, more than any other in the country. The promise he most often recited at every rally was, and these were his exact words: I will lower your costs on day one.
Mr. Chair, what an abject failure. This Presidency, and the rubberstamp Republicans who enable him, have pushed through an agenda that hasn't lowered costs for the American people. It has only made things far more expensive.
He started over a year ago with the Trump tariff taxes, a tax on most imported goods. On average, this has raised costs by about $1,800 a year for the American family. He then doubled down on that last summer, in July of last year, when the rubberstamp Republicans passed, and the President signed what he used to call the big, beautiful bill, which has become the big, ugly law for the American people. That bill makes healthcare more expensive for the American people while cutting off their food assistance at a time that food prices are through the roof.
Now, here we are, after all of that. We have the Republican reconciliation 3.0. I think that both parties would agree--in fact, the two Presidential nominees 2 years ago happened to, in a rare point of agreement, but they happened to agree that the number one issue on people's minds by far was the affordability crisis, that America had become too expensive.
Isn't it interesting that despite the fact that polls continue to show by an overwhelming majority that is the biggest issue that voters care about, we have in front of us the Republican reconciliation 3.0, 47 pages, 6,560 words, not one word about affordability, not one word about how to bring down costs for the American people.
They are not even trying. We have a President who just doesn't care about the average American family and the affordability crisis. Don't take my word for it. Take the President's own words. ``I don't think about Americans' financial situation.''
This bill reflects that fact. We have in this bill almost $100 billion in new deficit spending. Yes, that is right. The same crowd that loves to cry crocodile tears about deficit and debt whenever there is a President in the White House who is a Democrat, cumulatively now they have added $5 trillion to our national debt, more than any other 18-month period in the history of Congress. They are about to add $100 billion more.
Most of that spending is for President Trump's Iran war, a reckless decision with absolutely no plan on how to achieve victory and how it would end.
The American people paid the price for President Trump's war in terms of dollars and cents. Just look at gas prices. The day before the war was launched, the national average for a gallon of gas was $2.98. Today, it is over $4 a gallon and climbing.
Here, we have another reconciliation bill in front of us--nothing in there whatsoever to bring down costs, nothing to lower gas prices, nothing to lower food prices, nothing to lower the cost of consumer goods, just more spending on the most unpopular war in American history.
That might sound like an exaggeration, a Trumpian exaggeration. No, it is a fact. Going back to the beginning of polling almost a century ago, there is no other war in American history in which the American people, by a more than 2-to-1 margin, disapprove over approve. Only 30 percent of the American people approve of what the President is doing in Iran.
It is no wonder. They are paying the cost. Of course, as expensive as it is for the American family, that doesn't measure up to the ultimate cost: those lives that we have lost already in this war.
Mr. Chair, it is quite clear from the President's own words and the written text of this bill that this President and the Republican majority have no plan whatsoever on how to bring costs down for the American people. What is worse, they are not even trying.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this budget resolution. This resolution unlocks $60 billion in critically needed supplemental funding to support the warfighter and ensure our military readiness.
Without these funds, military training exercises will be canceled, maintenance of equipment facilities and weapon systems will be deferred, munitions procurement will be postponed, and the combat readiness of our Armed Forces will suffer.
This budget resolution will enable us to move legislation to provide $1.6 billion to ensure our servicemembers are paid on time; $17 billion to cover unplanned operational costs such as fuel, training, and maintenance repairs; and $18 billion to replenish the arsenal of critical munitions.
Yesterday, you may have noticed Secretary Hegseth testified before the Senate that, without these funds, we face critical shortfalls that threaten the Department's ability to pay our servicemembers, rapidly replenish equipment and munitions, and sustain vital operations without disruption.
No matter how you feel about the current events, these funds are necessary to ensure our fighting forces remain ready, our troops are paid, and our Nation is safe.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support the resolution.
Mr. Chair, as you heard from our chairman, while our Democrat colleagues are shutting down the Department of Homeland Security and blocking the National Defense Authorization Act in the Senate, we have our troops standing in the gap, risking their lives for the common defense. They need to be refueled. They need the replenishment. They need the resources to be successful. They need to know we are behind them.
Mr. Chair, this bill should really be known as the desperation act because Republicans are so desperate to fund an endless war, so desperate to avoid angering their master at the White House, so desperate to find a way to exclude from the upcoming election many of the very voters that are about to vote them out of office.
Obedient Republicans here today are doing nothing to address sky-high prices that are caused by erratic Trump tariff taxes and unnecessary conflicts.
American families are paying about $1,100 each in increased costs as a result of Trump's operation epic folly, and servicemembers are continuing to pay with their lives. Now, Trump demands that we pay again for his billions of dollars wasted in a quagmire he hasn't the slightest idea how to get out of.
Watching Trump blunder along in such a chaotic, irrational manner has caused many Americans to ask: Is he past his prime, or is he really sick?
Yet, instead of providing an inquiry or a check on his condition, Republicans hand him another huge check today to do whatever he pleases.
To shield themselves from accountability, they also add in this bill not really voter identification, but voter exclusion. They have it all backward. We should restrain the would-be tyrant, not restrain the voters.
This misnamed bill is not about saving America. It represents Republicans' last-ditch effort, grasping for a life preserver before they sink.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the budget resolution.
This resolution includes $12 billion for our agricultural producers. As chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, I know exactly how vital the health of farm country is to our rural communities and our national food security.
The provisions in last summer's Working Families Tax Cut Act provide a much-needed, long-term solution by bolstering the farm safety net, but until those provisions are fully implemented, we will need to help those who feed and clothe us with short-term assistance.
Additionally, producers across the country have fallen to the whims of the weather and will need assistance until they can get back on their feet.
Just as one example, specialty crop producers in my home State of Pennsylvania are experiencing never-before-seen losses due to a late season freeze that wiped out almost entire fruit crops. These sustained losses have plagued producers across the country.
American producers are currently staring down the barrel of $80 billion in uncovered farm losses since 2023. That is even with the commodity program payments and the Farmer Bridge Assistance program that President Trump initiated last fall. In total, American producers have seen $119 billion in farm losses since 2023.
Additional aid is needed to bring our farm economy back to an equilibrium until the updates from the Working Families Tax Cut Act kick in. Policies put forth in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which the House of Representatives passed in April, will also restore certainty to the farm economy, but our producers need relief now.
President Trump answered the call with his recent supplemental request, and I look forward to working with my committee members and the Conference to hear their priorities as we move through the budget reconciliation process.
I appreciate Chairman Arrington for hearing the needs of farmers, ranchers, and foresters in rural America, actually hearing the needs of our great country. When it comes to the agriculture space, if you vote against this bill, you are really voting for food insecurity which leads to national insecurity.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
You heard the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He is talking about
This will affect the food supply. We don't want to depend on China or any country. We don't want to beg any foreign country to feed our families. I thank him for his leadership, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I also thank the distinguished top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Representative Brendan Boyle, for yielding and for his incredible leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this America-last Republican budget that will provide billions of additional dollars to Operation Epic Fury in the Middle East, which has been a complete and total disaster for the American people.
Donald Trump's reckless and costly war of choice in Iran has skyrocketed gas prices on everyday Americans who are already suffering from the failed Republican economy and drowning in its poor management.
Now, Donald Trump has made several promises to the American people upon his return to the White House, all of which it appears to me he has failed to keep.
Donald Trump promised to lower the high cost of living on day one, but costs in America haven't gone down. Costs have gone up, in part as a result of the reckless Trump tariffs that have increased costs on everyday Americans by thousands of dollars per year.
Donald Trump promised to love and cherish Medicaid, but instead turned around and, as a result of the Republicans' one big, ugly bill, cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, costing more than 14 million Americans' access to health insurance and causing hospitals, nursing homes, and community-based health centers, particularly in rural America, to close.
Donald Trump promised the American people that ICE enforcement would be focused on the worst of the worst and would only target violent felons. That is not what has happened. Donald Trump and his violent masked deportation machine are spending billions of dollars for ICE to brutalize and kill American citizens or to violently target law-abiding immigrants, as we just saw in Maine and in Houston.
Donald Trump, of course, promised that he was elected not to start endless wars in the Middle East but to stop them, and then turned around and has gotten us involved in a potentially endless war in Iran, a reckless war of choice that has made life more expensive for the American people while making us less safe, with Iran being stronger now, having a stranglehold over the Strait of Hormuz, a stronger Iran now than they were before Donald Trump's reckless and costly war of choice.
I stand in strong opposition to this America-last, reckless Republican budget, this effort to waste tens of billions of dollars more on operation epic failure in the Middle East.
Mr. Chairman, we express our heartfelt condolences to the additional family members of those soldiers and members of the Armed Forces who have lost their lives needlessly in the Middle East, and we all have a responsibility to continue to stand with them in their time of mourning and their time of great need but simultaneously make sure that no additional heroic, patriotic, brave American servicemen or -women need to die overseas in Donald Trump's reckless and costly war of choice.
We stand in strong opposition to this America-last budget. One of the most important things Members of Congress are solemnly given by the Framers of the Constitution is the responsibility to determine issues of war and peace. One of the most important things that we can do is stand against this reckless war of choice in the Middle East so no more servicemembers have to be sent home dead to their families who have been left behind.
What we should be doing in this Congress is actually using our taxpayer dollars to make life more affordable for the American people, and that is our commitment as House Democrats.
Unfortunately, Donald Trump and our Republican colleagues don't share that commitment. That is not a hypothetical. It is not hype. It is not hyperbole. Look at their own words. Donald Trump, of course, has said: Because we are fighting wars, we can't prioritize things like daycare, Medicaid, or Medicare. That is exactly what is happening right now.
Republicans, in their one big, ugly bill, enacted the largest cut to Medicaid in American history, ripping healthcare away from more than 14 million Americans all across the country, in rural America, urban America, small-town America, the heartland of America, and Black and Brown America. No one has been untouched by the Republican assault on healthcare.
Why is this happening?
It is so that Donald Trump can fund this reckless and costly war of choice in the Middle East.
The reality is, in his own words, he doesn't give a damn about the economic well-being of the American people.
How do we know that?
Donald Trump, in his own words, said that the affordability crisis is a hoax. Donald Trump, in his own words, said: I don't think about the personal financial situation of the American people.
Donald Trump, in his own words, said: ``I love the inflation.''
Mr. Chair, we don't have to wonder why things aren't going well for everyday Americans in the United States right now. It is because, in my humble opinion, President Trump and Republicans in this House continue to act indifferent to the economic well-being of the American people and to actively do things that are hurting everyday Americans financially like this reckless and costly war of choice, which is why we stand aggressively against it.
On issue after issue throughout this Congress, Republicans have adopted extreme policies to make life worse for everyday Americans and to actively hurt the American people. The Trump tariffs are actively hurting the American people, raising costs, including on farm country, by thousands of dollars per year.
The refusal to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits raised health insurance premiums on everyday Americans, more than 20 million people across this country, some by as much as $1,000 in additional expense per month.
People are suffocating and drowning in this Trump economy.
Donald Trump and Republicans in the one big, ugly bill enacted the largest cut to nutritional assistance in American history, a $186 billion cut at the same time that they are funding this reckless and costly war of choice. Republicans have literally ripped food from the mouths of hungry children, seniors, and veterans to sustain the Trump war machine. Republican extremists apparently have money for wars but can't feed the poor.
Our message to the American people is: Don't lose faith. Help is on the way. Regime change is coming to the House of Representatives in November, so keep your head up.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford), who is my friend and the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee for his hard work, as always.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the budget resolution. First off, I want to thank Chairman Arrington and the members of the Budget Committee for producing this budget.
Republican Members of Congress, working closely with President Trump, are the only ones serious in Washington about attacking wasteful Federal spending.
As chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am fighting waste, fraud, and abuse in the classified budget.
HPSCI Republicans are working to force the intelligence community to achieve clean financial audits, and we are working to create a culture of accountability.
In my opinion, there can be no doubt that this administration is also serious
Democrats oppose this budget, and they oppose every action of this House because they want unelected Washington officials to be in charge until President Trump's term expires. Obstruction is their priority because their porkbarrel spending has been exposed and their slush funds are being drained.
To fight their obstruction, we need a budget resolution. We need to stand united as a Republican Conference so that we can have a functioning government.
We need to empower the running of the executive branch by the President the American people elected.
The resolution doesn't include everything each of us might ask for, but it is necessary to keep us moving forward. And I urge all Members to support the resolution.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the budget views and estimates letter of the House Intelligence Committee.
Spending Increase Needed to Address Counterintelligence Threats
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee. He is also a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Chairman, prices are already too high for groceries, housing, healthcare, childcare, and other everyday expenses. However, instead of focusing on lowering costs for working families, the Trump administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are presenting this resolution which will continue policies which have actually made things worse.
With the passage of their big, ugly bill, they cut healthcare, food assistance, and education funding all while adding $4.7 trillion to the national debt, and now they want to add another $95 billion to the debt to continue waging an endless war.
We have a choice. We can invest in working families and ensure that people have access to food, Medicare, Medicaid, daycare, and education, but my colleagues instead are choosing an endless war. That is the wrong choice.
Mr. Chair, we should, therefore, oppose this resolution.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let's not believe the hype, Mr. Chairman. Let's look at the stats from the nonpartisan CBO. The deficit per GDP has gone down by over 10 percent for the first time--because this continues to be their perpetual talking point. In 10 years we haven't seen the deficit to GDP go down.
Republicans came to this town, and we drained the swamp of waste, fraud, and abuse to the tune of $1.6 trillion. That is twice as much as this town has ever cut in the history of the United States of America.
It was Republicans who put forward the Fiscal Responsibility Act and, according to the nonpartisan CBO, saved $2 trillion. Then we put progrowth policies in that big, beautiful bill and unleashed American investment, which is up 10 percent; and growth, which is up. We had a 3.8 and 4.3 in the third and fourth quarter or second and third before the Democrats shut the government down. Wages are up. Inflation and interest are coming down. More money is in people's pockets.
I would say: Promises made, promises delivered.
Mr. Chair, I want to introduce to you the great chairman of the House Administration Committee.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), who is the chair of the Budget Committee, for his work in this regard.
Mr. Chair, we are here today because we can advance commonsense election integrity.
House Republicans have pushed two key commonsense reforms that are not yet across the line.
First, Mr. Chair, you should be a citizen to vote in this country. You have to prove that when you register. Second, Mr. Chair, when you head to the polls to cast your ballot, you have to verify your identity with a photo ID.
Mr. Chair, now is the time for election integrity. It was just revealed in New Jersey that 6,600 noncitizens were admitted and registered to vote. According to The New York Times, nearly 400 of those noncitizens cast a ballot.
Federal law requires States to give voter registration materials to everyone when they get a driver's license. It is a problem.
During the Biden administration, millions of illegal aliens poured into our country. In many blue States, of course, they can get a driver's license.
What is to stop them from registering to vote? Currently, that is by checking a box that they are not a citizen. That is not enough.
Stories like what happened in New Jersey undermine confidence in our elections. It is time to take action. Our commonsense proposals will boost voter confidence, increase voter participation, and ensure that it remains easy to vote but hard to cheat. We have
Mr. Chair, interestingly enough, Chuck Schumer, Democratic leader in the Senate, agrees. In 2018, he was talking about Russian interference. It turned out to be a conspiracy and debunked. He said that they are actively trying to do it again. Russia is trying to do it again. We must wake up to this fact--these are his words: ``We won't be able as a nation to fight back against foreign interference in our elections if the Commander in Chief''--Donald Trump at the time-- ``doesn't even acknowledge that it is a real problem.''
I think this President has acknowledged it is a real problem, and I think the American people have acknowledged it is a real problem. I thank the gentleman for his leadership to restore confidence and integrity to the United States electoral system.
Mr. Chair, it is interesting. We have been having this debate for a little while now. I haven't heard one word from the other side about how their resolution is going to lower costs for the American people. They haven't said one word, which is very consistent with the resolution that they are pushing. Because their resolution also doesn't say one word or have one idea or one plan on how we can bring down costs for the American people.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Chair, the President made some simple promises to get elected: release the Epstein files, end forever wars, and reduce costs.
Instead, as we have seen, the administration has done the exact opposite, which has led to corruption, incompetence, and to increase costs, all demonstrating that this President does not care.
Yet, rather than pushback and prioritize the American people, it appears the majority does not care, as it has put forward a budget resolution that spends more and borrows more just to please the President and promote his pet projects.
This third budget resolution allows for another $95 billion to support the President's war in Iran, paper over damaging trade policies, and pass legislation that will deter legally eligible voters.
I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that the purpose of the budget reconciliation process is supposed to be deficit reduction. Instead, this legislation expands long-term deficits and even violates legal requirements.
I get that for over the past decade Congress has abandoned any sense of normal budgeting process and rejected any talk of serious deficit reduction, but this budget could have been an opportunity for this Congress to advance policies that reduce our debt and actually make life more affordable.
Instead, the President, once again, pushed the Republican majority to put forward a purely partisan resolution that does nothing to lower costs, nothing to strengthen our economy, and in no way exercises fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Chair, that is why I am against this reconciliation legislation. It not only shows that the President doesn't care about Americans, but it also shows that the majority doesn't care about our growing debt and deficit and that Congress' responsibility is to the future of this country.
Mr. Chairman, here is the irony: My Democrat colleagues, every single one of them, voted for $200 billion for Ukraine, for their war that would have been prevented, quite frankly, if we had a strong, competent, Commander in Chief at the time. We didn't. It started. They have sent $200 billion without batting an eye and without giving a penny to offset it. Now they want to talk about offsets when we want to give our troops the money they need to finish the job, be safe, come home. We are proud of them. We stand with them. We are going to support them.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my friend and fellow Budget Committee member.
Today, I rise in support of the SAVE America Act and the Protect America Act because it is about security, and it is getting back to common sense.
The American people are tired. They are tired of Washington playing political games. They want to secure elections. They want us to finish the job in Iran. They want to know that the government is standing with the farmers, ranchers, and producers who put food on our tables every single day.
This resolution does exactly that. It strengthens confidence in our elections with commonsense voter ID protections, gives the troops the tools they need to defend this country, and provides certainty for our agricultural community because food security is national security.
People back home in Georgia understand that freedom isn't free. They will understand elections should be secure, and that our farmers deserve policies that help them succeed.
This is about putting America first, doing what the American people sent us up here to do, and delivering real results, instead of Democratic political theater.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the SAVE America Act and the Protect America Act.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution.
Every day Americans are being confronted with skyrocketing prices at the gas pump and grocery store, and this resolution does absolutely nothing to address the economic crisis created by Donald Trump's economic policies, including his tariffs and an illegal war.
Instead, Republicans in Congress are dumping nearly $100 billion into the budget to fund this illegal war--$100 billion. That could pay the salaries of 1 million elementary school teachers, medical care for 7 million veterans, enough to fund nearly 10 years of school lunches for every child, and so much more.
Budgets are representative of our values and our priorities. It is absolutely clear that neither the President nor congressional Republicans value or prioritize the needs of the American public.
Americans want a Congress that is willing to fix the economy that Donald Trump broke. We are willing every day of the week to do that hard work, to come together to address these pressing issues. $100 billion for something Americans don't want? We have to reject it.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. Chairman, while my Democratic colleagues are counting the pennies on this defense supplemental, remember, baseline battlefield readiness. That is it, just what they need to do their job. It is actually about $67 billion.
Meanwhile, the open-border policies of our Democrat colleagues have flooded our country with millions of illegals. According to NumbersUSA, that is $9,000 per illegal in taxpayer social services, to people who aren't here legally, aren't our citizens, and that is more than we spend on our most vulnerable for Medicaid.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), my dear friend and great vice chairman of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding and all of his work on this, what I call, commonsense resolution, a simple resolution, really, addressing three priorities that the American people support, three priorities that are core functions of government and that are very, very important.
Number one is election security, ensuring that our elections are conducted fairly, securely, and that only American citizens are voting. Voter ID, the American people support that.
Mr. Chair, 80 to 90 percent of the American people support the idea of showing voter ID when you show up to vote.
Number two, this is instruction to the committees. It begins the process
These individuals who are serving us are putting their lives in harm's way every day. The least we can do is ensure they have the tools and equipment they need to do their jobs and to keep us safe.
Finally, the third point in this resolution is ensuring our food supply is secure. Our American farmers work very, very hard every single day to feed America--really, feed the world. They have had some tough times, and this provides the help they need at this time to ensure that they can continue to feed America.
Unfortunately, every Democrat on the House Budget Committee voted against these commonsense provisions in this resolution. The American people sent us here to deliver.
They sent us here to deliver on these priorities. It is a great resolution.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the SAVE America Act as it moves through the House.
Mr. Chair, we gave the Democrats, our friends on the other side of the aisle, opportunity after opportunity multiple times to support what 83 percent of the American people support, which is photo identification to vote in elections in this country.
You need an ID to check in at a hotel and to fly on an airplane--in Mamdani's New York, you need it to shovel snow--but it is not important enough for the cornerstone of this democratic Republic.
The American people aren't fooled. We are not fooled. We are going to do this so that we can continue with this great country of ours and with the confidence of the American people in the outcome of the elections.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This has been a remarkable debate. It seems the other side wants to talk about pretty much any other issue than affordability. They want to talk about Ukraine, which I heard cited.
Let me just correct what the chair said a few minutes ago. This is not the Democrats' war in Ukraine. It is Mr. Putin's war in Ukraine because he launched a brutal, unprovoked invasion on the people of Ukraine. The reason why the United States and our NATO allies have stood together in financially supporting freedom in Ukraine is because it is not just about Ukraine. It is about whether we will have peace in Europe or whether we will repeat the mistakes that got us into World War II.
That used to be a bipartisan consensus, by the way, in this country for the last 80 years until this recent President.
We also then heard an absurd charge that somehow the folks on the other side have brought down the deficit and debt. They even cited the CBO. That is funny because they have tended to ignore the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office when the CBO pointed out their bill last year, their big reconciliation 1.0, according to the CBO, added $4.7 trillion to our national debt, the biggest debt buster bill in American history.
We can talk about all of these ancillary issues, or we can talk about what is the number one issue on people's minds, which is that things are too damn expensive. They want costs to come down. Instead, under this Republican Congress, costs are only going through the roof.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Omar), a very distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Chair, Mr. Arrington recently said that Democrats are counting pennies. That feels like an insult because $95 billion is what Chairman Arrington and the Republicans are asking Congress to approve.
Here is where the money goes: tens of billions of dollars for the Pentagon, billions more for the CIA to continue funding this illegal war with Trump, and billions to help States implement the SAVE Act, legislation that could make it harder for millions of eligible Americans to vote.
Meanwhile, working families are struggling to put food on the table and gas in their tanks, pay their rent, and afford healthcare. Instead of investing in the actual needs of the American people, this resolution pours more money into war and Trump's voter suppression agenda.
This is not counting pennies. This is our tax dollars that you are wasting on death and destruction. This resolution does nothing to help lower costs or help struggling Americans. This resolution does not speak to the values that we should carry or the priorities that we should have when we put forth a budget. This resolution gets our priorities wrong.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to be clear, when the Democrats had total control, they heaped taxes and regulations on our job creators. They attacked, with a whole- of-government force, against domestic energy producers. They waived work requirements for able-bodied adults. They allowed illegals onto our social safety net. They did give a tax break to green energy corporations. They gave tax subsidies to the tune of $800 billion, along with hundreds of billions of dollars in wasted stimulus checks.
Juxtapose that with 127 million Americans getting a doubled standard deduction, 40 million families getting an enhanced child tax credit, 35 million seniors getting the double deduction for seniors, an average of $7,500. Mr. Chair, 7.5 million filers got the no tax on tips, and 29 million filers got overtime breaks, on average over $3,000. By the way, wages are up.
That is what is happening because our policies are delivering for the American people and working families.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), my friend and another member of the Budget Committee from the Tar Heel State.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of the House budget resolution.
This resolution in this reconciliation package builds on the working families tax cuts that were passed into law last year that have lowered taxes for more Americans than probably any tax bill in decades.
I will talk about one thing, though, that seems to get glossed over by my friends on the other side, and that is the SAVE America Act that is in here.
The overwhelming majority of Americans support voter ID when it comes to voting. My home State in North Carolina, a little over a decade ago, adopted it, and we have actually seen even greater voter participation since doing so.
I raise the question to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Have they not seen the news that just showed where 6,600 votes were cast in New Jersey by noncitizens?
Voter fraud is happening. That has been discovered. That is documented. The SAVE America Act--which is a part of this, voter ID-- makes it very clear that for someone to vote, they need to be a citizen as required by the Constitution. They also must present a form of ID.
This is easy, simple stuff. That is in this resolution, as well. Those who vote against this resolution also vote against this commonsense reform where we want it easy to vote but hard to cheat.
I will say, Mr. Chair, that I am very proud of what the Budget Committee has done in building a responsible budget that funds critical needs right now with our military, with threats that we have against us from around the world, and, at the same time, responsibly spends money and maintains these tax cuts that we passed.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Chair, Republican leadership has claimed that this proposal will address our Nation's most immediate priorities. That could not be further from the truth.
This budget gives this administration a blank check to continue their war of choice with Iran. It makes it harder for Americans to exercise their fundamental right to vote. Most importantly, it fails to meaningfully improve the lives of everyday Americans.
Those are certainly not the priorities my constituents have asked me to fight for. My constituents worry about their ability to go to their doctor, yet this budget doesn't have a dime for healthcare.
They worry about their ability to put food on the table, yet this budget will do nothing to lower the cost of groceries.
They worry about their utility costs and how much it might cost to fill up their car with gas, yet this budget makes no effort to lower energy costs and will keep gas costs high by continuing President Trump's senseless war with Iran.
They worry about Presidential overreach, yet there is nothing to rein in this lawless administration.
This budget does not have anything for the people of New York's 20th Congressional District, so I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this farce of a budget. Let's stop the pain. Let's stop the consequence. Let's go forward with progress. Defeat this resolution.
Mr. Chair, I mentioned earlier that the Republican Party is united and unrelenting in delivering for the American people. That doesn't happen without a fearless leader and the legend from Louisiana, my dear friend, Mr. Steve Scalise.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).
Mr. Chairman, I thank my dear colleague from Texas for yielding.
I am truly going to miss him, but he has got a lot of great work left to do as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, not the least of which is this important resolution, which is being brought forward, Mr. Chairman, a resolution that is critical to ensuring the hallmark of democracy, and that is the right to vote: one person, one vote.
If we look at all of the things that we have been working with President Trump to do to make life more affordable for working families, over and over again, we see nothing but obstruction from Democrats. It is sad to say. It is sad to see.
The American people are watching a party that has become a rudderless ship running off the left edge, socialists taking over. Watching what is going on to that other party, look at some of the things we have been able to do, even with their obstruction: working to produce more energy in America so we can lower costs for American families, while every Democrat voted no, and working to lower tax rates for working families. Yes, no tax on overtime is a benefit that has helped over 30 million Americans. These aren't the millionaires and the billionaires that Democrats go fight for every day. These are hardworking families making under $100,000 a year, many of them shift workers and law enforcement officers.
Maybe they voted against that bill because they want to defund the police, not help police officers and firefighters have a little bit more money in their pockets. With no tax on overtime, no tax on tips, somebody making $32,000 a year on average has thousands more in their pocket now because of the work Republicans did.
How did Republicans pay for it, Mr. Chairman? It was paid for by putting antifraud measures in that bill--yes, going after theft of American taxpayer dollars and not just small-time folks.
There are foreign countries operating with criminal organizations in States like Minnesota. We saw it. We documented it. It couldn't be stopped because we needed the measures. We tried to work with Democrats on it, but for whatever reason, every step of the way they blocked it. They blocked it until we put it in the reconciliation bill. Then when the tools were in place, President Trump was able to go out and recoup not millions but billions and tens of billions of dollars that we were able to take out of the hands of people stealing your money, and we put it in the pockets of hardworking families.
Overtime workers, waiters, waitresses, senior citizens who now have a tax credit, all of that we paid for with money that was being stolen. Every step of the way, Democrats opposed it. They would rather the theft of your tax dollars go to fraudsters than hardworking families have their money back. Their obstruction is nothing new, Mr. Chairman.
Then we get to today, where we say: Shouldn't we make sure our men and women in uniform have the tools they need to do their job safely? Shouldn't we make sure that our farmers get the relief they need so we can keep working to lower food costs? Oh, by the way, can't we ensure the integrity of the American vote?
These are basic things that most Americans understand. Democrats in Washington don't. They go back home and give Fourth of July speeches. Then they get on an airplane, and a transformation happens. They get up here, and they start voting against the wishes of the American people over and over again. Why? Not just to defend fraudsters.
If we know that requiring a picture ID, just something so basic that every American understands--which, by the way, those same Democrats have to show that picture ID to get on the airplane to come up here and vote for socialist policies. But they don't want that to be the case when you vote. They would say: Don't worry. There is no fraud. There is no fraud.
Well, why is it just that today's New York Post uncovered yet again what we have known all along? In New Jersey, they just admitted 6,600 noncitizens are on their rolls, many of them voting, voting in elections, illegals on their rolls voting. They document in this article many elections that were decided by just a small number of votes. In fact, the margin of the theft, the stolen votes are that margin. This can be stopped just by requiring a picture ID.
Then some would say, well, then, why would anybody be against that? They will hide behind all of these other ruses, but they will vote ``no.''
We have got a bill later today to say: Well, let's ban Members of Congress from trading stocks, and people are going to watch the board on an issue that every American understands. Almost every Democrat is going to vote ``no.'' People will say why is that? Because it requires a photo ID.
What is so harmful about that? A person can't go get an unlimited bowl of pasta at Olive Garden without showing a photo ID. Can we at least have the Olive Garden standard when we protect democracy and the franchise that we have to keep this great democracy? That is just requiring that you prove you are who you say you are.
This, Mr. Chairman, is such a fundamental principle. It is not hard to explain to the American people, but it is actively opposed by Democrats in Congress.
It just begs the question: Why? Who are they protecting? Who are they protecting with the ``no'' vote, Mr. Chairman? If they know illegals are voting in many of these States where they don't require photo ID, then why would they vote against the requirement? Why?
It is a great question. Every American, Mr. Chairman, is going to be able to watch this vote and know where their Member of Congress is.
It is critically important for accountability that we all stand up and be counted. I am strongly for this. I think it is critical we protect the sanctity of every American's right to vote. If somebody else is stealing your vote because they are voting illegally-- thousands in New Jersey--then it takes away your right to vote, Mr. Chairman. We ought to be protecting everybody's right to vote, especially those people who are legally allowed to vote, not people who shouldn't be allowed by law to vote.
Let's pass this important resolution and get it over to the Senate so they can do their job and get this to the President's desk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, our majority leader actually just referenced something in which I can report to the House I have personal experience. Having ordered the bottomless pit of pasta at Olive Garden, I can confirm, no, you do not need an ID. What an absurd claim.
This is what we have heard throughout this entire debate. Republicans talk about Olive Garden. They talk about IDs. They talk about Biden. They talk about Ukraine. They talk about anything and everything to distract from this core fact: They have absolutely no plan or agenda whatsoever
According to the Joint Economic Committee, Trump's inflation all told--the combination of his tariff taxes, the combination of all of the laws that they passed for the last 1\1/2\ years, the combination of increased gas prices because of this reckless war in Iran--all told, the average American family has paid out of pocket $3,100 more for goods and services as a result of the Trump Republican inflation.
So I can understand why, with that abysmal record, Republicans wish to talk about anything except for the number one issue on the minds of the American people.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.
Mr. Chairman, there is a great scene in the movie ``Jurassic Park'' where the scientist says: You guys are so preoccupied with whether you could, you forgot to ask whether you should.
I think the Republicans have been so preoccupied with counting votes to see if they can do the President's bidding that they have forgotten to ask whether they should.
First, they brought a budget bill to the floor of this House that took away people's healthcare and food so they could give billionaires and corporations the largest permanent tax break in American history.
Next, President Trump said: I need $70 billion more for the ICE agents acting as my personal police force. They are going around and using kids as bait, ripping apart families, murdering American citizens on the streets of our country. Republicans said: Fine, we will do that.
Now, Trump wants another $95 billion for his forever war in the Middle East. Mr. Chairman, 18 Americans are dead. There is a 19-year- old coming home in a coffin this week, never to spend another holiday or birthday with her family.
Everything from gas to groceries has gone up, and America is less safe because of it. But Republicans say: Absolutely, no problem. We will do it.
Is there anything Trump wants that Republicans will say no to? I think the answer is no.
Democrats offered commonsense amendments that said let's lower the cost of healthcare, let's lower the cost of goods, and let's end corruption. Republican Members said no to all of them. I even offered an amendment that said you can't use $400 million of taxpayer money to build your ballroom vanity project. What did Republicans say? Fine with us. We will do it because we can. But should you? No.
Mr. Chairman, I respect my friend from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but this false narrative is perpetuated every time Republicans actually go after the waste in this town and the fraud that is being perpetrated on the taxpayers and the vulnerable who need these programs. They start saying that we are kicking the vulnerable off and we are throwing them into the streets.
All I ask you to do is look to the nonpartisan CBO, once again, and I include this letter in the Record, Mr. Chairman.
Sec. 71102--Moratorium on Implementation of Rule Relating 0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Sec. 71106--Payment Reduction Related to Certain Erroneous O O O 0 * 0.1 0.2 * * 0.1
Sec. 71107--Eligibility Redeterminations.................. O O O.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Health Insurance (Percent)a............................... n.a. 53 38 38 33 33 35 36 36 37 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Congressional Budget Office. These estimates are subject to considerable uncertainty. CHIP = Children's Health Insurance Program; FMAP = federal medical assistance percentage; n.a.; not applicable; * = fewer than 50,000 people. CBO's cost estimate for P.L. 119-21 is available online. See Congressional Budget Office, estimated budgetary effects of Public Law 119-21, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II
of H. Con. Res. 14, relative to CBO's January 2025 baseline (July 21, 2025), www.cbo.gov/publication/61570. a. Subsidized health insurance consists of the premium tax credit available to some enrollees for insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act, as well
as Medicaid and employment-based coverage. This table presents supplemental data for Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Brendan F. Boyle, the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, the Honorable Jeffrey A. Merkley, and the
Honorable Charles E. Schumer concerning the distributional effects of Public Law 119-21 (August 11, 2025), www.cbo.gov/publication/61367.
Mr. Chairman, the only people who aren't on the Medicaid rolls today who were on them before were illegals in this country that Joe Biden and Democrats allowed to siphon money away from Americans, people who were ineligible, or people who were able to work but who refused to work for the generous support of hardworking taxpayers.
We stand on that proudly. We stand by it, and I believe the American people support us at every step of the way.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), my friend from the Hoosier State and another proud member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Budget Committee for this strong resolution.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House budget resolution. This framework is an important step of protecting our elections as well as supporting our troops. As Members of Congress, we have a responsibility to the American people to safeguard the electoral process. Yet, the Senate has been unable to do so.
Over 80 percent of Americans agree that you must show proof of citizenship and ID to vote, and this budget framework moves us closer to enacting these reforms.
In addition to protecting our elections at home, U.S. servicemembers are working day and night to be sure that Americans are safe from a nuclear bomb in Iran and to advance peace in the Middle East. Our military is the most lethal fighting force known to man, and they are depending on us to help them finish the job. We must be courageous to support these men and women by supplying the resources they need.
We owe Americans secure elections along with a strong national defense to preserve our great Nation. Therefore, I
Mr. Chairman, is this Groundhog Day? We must be stuck in some kind of infinite time loop because Republicans are trying to ram through a third unpopular, deficit-busting resolution that does nothing to lower costs for Americans. This is on top of cuts to healthcare and their continued investments in cruelty.
Unfortunately, this is actually happening. Republicans are trying to pass another bad budget, and all this for the farm aid that Republicans are touting as necessary because Trump's illegal war in Iran and chaotic tariffs jacked up costs for farmers.
The billions in defense funding that Republicans claim is necessary for Trump's choice to wage the illegal Iran war depleted our stockpiles, and the only necessary action that my constituents are imploring Republicans to take, lowering costs for the American people, is completely missing from this failing effort.
Republicans are running up billions of dollars on America's credit card so that they can send our servicemembers to fight another forever war in the Middle East. They are working to pass a voter suppression bill that won't secure our elections but will make it harder for Americans to vote.
My Republican colleagues tell Americans that they are working for them. The American people are smarter than that. They know what Republicans are doing, and they will not forgive them for what they have done.
I urge every Member to vote ``no'' on this latest bad budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my dear friend and another proud member of the House Budget Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that this is not what a budget resolution should be used for, but, unfortunately, necessity commands it.
Reconciliation gives us a powerful tool to bring mandatory spending in line with revenues. Unfortunately, the exigencies that we face have left us with no choice but to use this process to assure that we can replenish our arsenals and strengthen the integrity of our elections.
The minority Democrats have vowed to obstruct these necessities in the Senate at a time when we are at war with Iran and at a time when public confidence in our election process is at an all-time low.
Reconciliation, which this solution sets in motion, is the only path that we can take to achieve these vital measures. I regret the circumstances that force us to employ reconciliation for this purpose, and I pray for the day when Congress fulfills its legal duty to enact a real budget resolution that sets our country back on the road to fiscal health.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will correct the Record.
Moments ago, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee referenced a letter from CBO on June 24, which he alleges, according to him, cited that the only people who lost their Medicaid coverage because of the bill they passed last summer were illegals.
That is not at all what the letter says. I have it here in front of me, and I will be happy to submit it to the Record at the end of this debate.
Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear, however, that what CBO has found is that the bill they passed last summer, reconciliation 1.0, will kick more than 15 million Americans off of their healthcare coverage. Already, 8 million have lost their healthcare coverage with at least another 7 million to go.
This is a healthcare crisis in this country. It was entirely created by the other side.
Mr. Chairman, I thank all of the speakers who we have heard from in this debate for their comments.
Mr. Chair, the choice could not be more clear. The American people asked us to lower their costs. Instead, this Republican majority has delivered higher prices, less healthcare, more debt, and now tens of billions of dollars for a reckless and unnecessary war.
This reconciliation effort does nothing to lower the cost of groceries or the cost of housing, healthcare, energy, or gas. Not one provision provides meaningful relief to working families. They don't even attempt to do so. There is not one word on any of the things I just cited.
What it does do, however, is add nearly $100 billion to the deficit, make new voting restrictions, and hand President Trump another massive check to continue a war that is driving up prices here at home and exacting a devastating human toll.
Sadly, three American servicemembers lost their lives this past weekend, bringing the total number killed in this conflict to 18. We mourn them. I think I can speak for the entire House when I say this. We mourn them. We honor their service and sacrifice, and we keep their families and loved ones in our thoughts.
Yet, the best way to honor their memory and to protect the brave men and women who are still serving our country is not to continue sending them into harm's way without a coherent strategy, a clear objective, and an achievable endgame. It is to end this war that President Trump has so badly botched.
Democrats stand ready to work with anyone serious about lowering costs and improving the lives of the American people. This resolution does neither. We have a gentleman in the White House who campaigned on the slogan: America First.
Does the Chair remember that? Their bill in front of us is America last.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to make this quick because I want to say something about my ranking member. In case I don't have time, let me say it now: what a gentleman, what a statesman. This place would work a lot better if you had the tone, the commitment to civility and to just being constructive around here. When you can agree--we don't agree on this. He is impassioned. I am impassioned. What a good man. The people of Pennsylvania must be very proud of Brendan Boyle. I am.
We need to support our troops. This is emergency funding. We need to support our producers who give us food security. That is a national security issue. We do it every year.
We need to give the American people the confidence that this and every election going forward is fair and accurate. We need that for this great Republic to succeed and to thrive in the future.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my fellow Members of Congress to support this important piece of legislation. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-37 shall be considered as adopted. The concurrent resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read.
The text of the concurrent resolution, as amended, is as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Crawford) having assumed the chair, Mr. Alford, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 113) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036, and, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, he reported the concurrent resolution, as amended by that resolution, back to the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, I call up the bill (H.R. 7008) to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House Administration printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-38, modified by the amendment printed in part B of House Report 119-755, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include additional materials on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Stop Insider Trading Act. There is a lot of talk in this town about draining the swamp and cleaning up Washington. Today, the rubber hits the road. Good governance matters, and the Committee on House Administration is leading the way.
Under current law, Members of Congress are required to publicly disclose their stock trades. The disclosures lack details and are often filed months after a transaction.
This lack of transparency and the continued practice of Members purchasing stock is fueling public frustration. It is time we ban Members of Congress from being able to buy individual companies' shares of stock. Doing so removes even the appearance of impropriety.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to pass transformational congressional ethics reform. This is the first congressional stock trading ban to receive a vote on the floor of the House. Today, every American will know where their Member stands.
If you want to day trade, there is a place for that. It is called Wall Street. If you want to come to Washington, you should be working on behalf of the American people.
In addition, this bill also includes a commonsense proposal that we have advanced through committee on voter ID. Voter ID strengthens election integrity and is nonpartisan and common sense. In this country, you have to show a photo ID to fly, to open a bank account, to buy a beer, and, more recently, to enjoy a never-ending pasta bowl at Olive Garden.
You don't have to show an ID to vote in States like Minnesota, Illinois, California, and others, which are literally not doing the job of securing our elections, when the easy task of photo ID is in front of us.
Mr. Speaker, it is a simple concept: To vote in a Federal election, you need to show a photo ID. Twenty-four States already require a form of photo ID to vote. This bill, of course, allows provisional voting if someone forgets their ID when they go to the polls--again, common sense.
That is why it is so popular with the American people. They understand it. They know the need for this commonsense reform. Photo ID will help strengthen election integrity, bolster voter confidence, and increase participation. That is a good thing for our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, these two proposals will clean up Washington and strengthen the integrity of our elections.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we are considering here today is a remarkable display of cynicism, even for this institution, even for this Republican leadership team.
The American people are desperate for us to clean up the culture of corruption that pervades Washington. Americans see their elected leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue enriching themselves, some to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. Headline after headline: Members of Congress tipping off insiders to reap huge payouts from prediction markets, and Members of Congress buying up private stocks just days before Pentagon announcements that will balloon their financial portfolios.
What are Speaker Johnson and House Republicans doing about this? They are pretending here on the floor today to address the issue. They are pushing the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act, a name meant entirely to trick the American people.
This bill, quite simply, is a sham. The bill allows Members of the Congress to continue owning and trading stocks. That is right. The so- called Stop Insider Trading Act actually allows Members of Congress to own and trade stocks.
Even this half measure--or should I say quarter measure--goes too far for Republican leadership. How do we know? What is the tell? How do we know that the Republican posturing is all performative and that Republicans do not want a stock trading bill ban to become law? They have added a poison pill to this bill. They have added provisions that have absolutely nothing to do with stock trading and everything to do with their obsession with the 2020 election.
That is right, the SAVE America Act is back, yet again. The American people keep cutting the head off this bill, flooding phone lines of their Members and Senators, demanding we block this anti-voter bill. So far, their voices are being heard. The resistance is working.
Like the Hydra, these heads keep growing back: the SAVE Act, the SAVE Act again, the SAVE America Act. They have attached it to CRs, continuing resolutions. They attach it to a spending bill, funding the State Department and other completely unrelated agencies.
The President tried to force it on the American people through illegal executive orders blocked by the courts. Now, Republicans come limping back from a losing fight. Sometimes you should just stop.
Let's acknowledge the reality of what we are doing here: Republicans have corrupted their so-called stock trading bill with a decaying piece of the SAVE America Act corpse.
The bill we are considering today would force voters in America to surrender photocopies of their photo IDs in their mail ballot envelopes. This isn't just a voter ID bill. It is a bill to destroy vote by mail, something the President routinely rails against, despite the fact that the President routinely uses mail-in voting himself, the kind of double standard Americans have come to particularly enjoy from this President.
It is a bill that would dispatch millions of American voters to Kinko's--some of us are old enough to remember Kinko's; I guess it is now FedEx--or Staples or the public library to scan and print their IDs, to shove those IDs into their mail ballots, risking their constitutional right to a secret ballot if not packaged properly, to send their ID copies off to election offices in the hopes that the ballot will be counted, that the ballot won't be discarded on the counting room floor.
Some might ask why these ballots would be at risk of being thrown out. It is because the bill would explicitly exclude forms of voter ID that millions of Americans are accustomed to using today.
You use your student ID, your ballot will be thrown out. Your concealed carry permit: Ballot thrown out. Your employer ID: Ballot thrown out. Your Tribal ID without an expiration date on it, which is common on Tribal IDs, you get the picture: Ballot thrown out. I could go on and on.
Those sitting at home watching this might think they know that Washington, D.C., is a dysfunctional place, but they can't be that irrational, can they? Surely, election officials and voters would have time to prepare for this seismic shift in American elections, right?
Sorry to say, they would be overestimating how much House Republicans care about voters, about election officials, about elections themselves because this bill would take effect in 90 days.
When is 90 days from today? Well, it is October 20, 2026, 2 weeks before the midterm elections. That is right, Republicans are trying to force a massive change to American voting law--eradicating mail voting as we know it--right in the middle of the final month of an election, 2 weeks before election day.
We still have a system where the time, manner, and places of elections are run by State legislatures, State officials. By October 20, those State officials, State legislatures, will have already mailed out millions of ballots to voters. Voters will have already returned some of these ballots.
What are election officials to do? Count the ballots cast with student IDs on October 19 and shred the ones that arrive after that, on October 20? Is that what they are going to do? Who is going to train election officials about what IDs to accept, what to do with mail ballots missing photocopies, and when will they do it?
There will be chaos, complete shambles. This bill is plain absurdity, written in ink printed in the Congressional Record.
Lest we forget, confusion is the point, chaos is the point. Republicans know that they will lose in November. They know that people strongly, strongly object to their handling of the economy, the war in Iran, and the immigration fiasco, which has resulted in the death of American citizens. They know the verdict in November will not be kind to them and shouldn't be, so they have one hope at winning--disruption, disarray, subversion.
That is why they have redrawn congressional maps from coast to coast in the middle of this year, of this term, the middle of this decade. That is why they keep trying again and again to change the rules in the middle of the game.
If they want to force States to make massive, extreme, last-minute changes just days before the midterm elections--States forced to retrain staffs, reprint ballots and ballot envelopes, and the process-- with what time, what money?
Some might ask who is going to pay for all this. This is a seismic change. It won't be Washington, not House Republicans. They are too busy trying to pay for an unconscionable war in Iran, a war that has led to the tragic deaths of 18 American servicemembers, a war that no one asked for and certainly no Americans want.
Republicans will send American taxpayer money to the Middle East but not to local election offices. They simply don't care about them. They don't care about the price of their gas, the price of their groceries, the sanctity of their ballot. They do not care.
Again, I ask, who will pay for this? Sorry to break it to the viewers watching this, but they will. Their family, town, city, county, State, local election administrator, Republican and Democrat, are required to bear the burden of this change.
This is an unfunded mandate, plain and simple. I remember hearing for years from my Republican friends: no unfunded mandates. This is the mother of all unfunded mandates, 2 weeks before an election, costing tens of billions of dollars. They are going to get stuck with the bill.
This is a fiat from a Washington awash in corruption telling Americans how to run their elections. Do you know who else will pay for this? America's democracy.
I say again, this bill is not about voter ID. It is about ending a voter's ability to cast a free and fair ballot. For the sake of American elections, I strongly, strongly urge the House to reject this zombie bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Chairman Steil's bill, H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
As Members of the United States Congress, it is our job to preserve the integrity of this institution and take seriously the responsibility placed on us by our constituents.
This legislation will bring about a more transparent and accountable Congress and will be a strong measure to restore the American people's trust in this institution.
While older laws have prohibited Members from using nonpublic information when trading, they did not go far enough. More robust measures should be put in place, and that is exactly what this bill does.
As the American people have seen, Members of this body have become extremely wealthy from trading the stock market while in office, and it is precisely because of this that the American people have lost faith in Congress and in government.
We are elected to this office as a privilege to serve in this Chamber, not a right, and we should not be using our positions for our own personal and financial gain.
The American people need to be reminded that we are working for them, that we have taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution, not our own bottom line.
My colleague claimed that this bill is a poison pill because the SAVE America Act is included, which we have passed multiple times out of this House, with not any support from the Democrats.
The Democrats are opposed to voter ID and proof of citizenship. They cannot win elections based on their own bad ideas. They have to continue with the fraud and cheating.
We know that our voter rolls are outrageously dirty, that there are millions of ineligible voters on the rolls. I personally here in D.C. have received four ballots in the mail, of which I have not solicited anyone.
We have chaos because they will not vote for the SAVE America Act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I yield to my friend, I didn't say this in my opening comments, but it is remarkable, if we are working so hard and endeavoring to convince the American people that they can have faith in what we do as it relates to insider information and moving markets, I find it extraordinary that we would not include the President, Vice President, or members of the Cabinet or the Supreme Court in a bill to make sure that they are not participating.
In fact, this is well known, and it has been well reported: Since Inauguration Day of last year, President Trump has had more trades individually than have all the Members of the United States House and Senate. That is 535 Members, and do you know who out-traded them all combined? President Trump. He is not in this bill. He is not in it. The Vice President is not in it. The Supreme Court is not in it.
In fact, the President, Truth Social, is about to enter into selling access through an app that people will pay for that will give them information on market moves.
It is extraordinary that we would somehow suggest that we are protecting the public's interest, that we care deeply about restoring faith in Washington, when there is a hole that you can drive many semi- trucks through if we are really trying to clean up this country and restore faith with the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), my colleague from the Appropriations Committee.
As a Member of Congress, I don't own any individual stocks because, as a byproduct of my job, I get inside information on many publicly traded companies.
We don't let people with insider information buy stock because it impacts markets and threatens public trust in a system that so many of our retirement dollars are in.
However, this bill before us puts Members of Congress above the law. It is not a real congressional stock trading ban like other bipartisan measures. This is a weak alternative. It is like Velveeta to real Wisconsin cheese.
It has been said that this bill has loopholes so big a Qatari jet could go through them. It still allows Members to hold stock. It still allows Members to buy stocks with dividends. It still allows family members to buy stocks for others for any reason. It is basically the opposite of a real stock trading ban for Members of Congress, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
This bill continues the corruption of what marks too much of what is done in Washington. Mr. Speaker, please don't support this Velveeta and weak bill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a comment that was just made by my colleague, in particular, what we refer to as the spousal exception. It is very important to know.
The legislation before us on the Stop Insider Trading Act applies to a Member, a Member's spouse, and the dependent children of that Member. There is what we call the spousal working exception, so if a Member's spouse works in a capacity that engages in stock, think of a life insurance salesman, maybe your spouse is selling life
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Steil for his dedicated hard work on getting this bill to the floor. It wasn't easy.
Mr. Speaker, public service is a privilege. It is not a pathway to personal profit. Yet, too many Americans look at us here in Congress and wonder if that line has been blurred, not proven, not assumed, but simply questioned. That question alone is a problem.
Mr. Speaker, that is because when lawmakers consistently outperform Wall Street, then people start asking questions. They start doubting. They stop trusting in us.
For example, Mr. Speaker, there is even a Member here in our body who entered Congress years ago with a net worth in the thousands, and yet now has a net worth of well more than $200 million. That is exactly why this matters, Mr. Speaker.
When I came to Congress, I made it quite clear: We should not be trading individual stocks while we are making decisions that shape our economy. That is why I introduced the PELOSI Act to draw a bright, unmistakable line, no stock trading, no gray area, and no doubt, to be above the appearance of impropriety as Chairman Steil said.
The very legislation we are debating today from my friend, Chairman Steil, advances that same principle. It says that if you have the privilege of serving in this body and serving your constituents, Mr. Speaker, then you don't get to personally profit from the markets that you help influence.
This isn't complicated. The American people shouldn't have to wonder if their Representative is working for them or watching their stock portfolio on their phones here on the House Chamber. Let's remove that doubt. Let's restore trust to this body. Let's raise the standard of each and every one of us here in this body today.
If I wanted to, I could have made a lot of money in the last 3\1/2\ years I was here trading stock and probably would be able to afford an apartment somewhere in D.C. However, I don't, and like a lot of Members who don't trade stocks, I sleep on my couch in my office.
Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?
I sleep well. I sleep well knowing that I am doing the right thing.
In closing, I grew up in the Church of Christ down in Baytown, Texas. I worked for a while in West Palm Beach. There was a preacher there named Dan Jenkins who used to say all the time: It is always right to do right. It is always wrong to do wrong. It is never right to do wrong, and it is never wrong to do right.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the right thing to do, not just for the American people, but for our body to restore trust to us.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest the gentleman from Missouri ought to read the bill before the House because everything he just said would not be cured by what he just talked about.
In fact, you may still, under this bill if it became law, and thankfully it will not, you could still own stock, Mr. Speaker.
Let's say you own Boeing stock and you happen to be on the Armed Services Committee or a Defense appropriator, Mr. Speaker, and you sort of say to Pentagon officials: Boy, I really like this equipment that Boeing is producing or Northrop Grumman if you happen to own them, or other companies, great companies, but you may own stock in the company.
There are many ways for you, Mr. Speaker, to drive up that stock price and wait as the owner of that stock to manipulate the situation until the stock price rises and then you sell it. That is a trade. That is ownership of stock. Mr. Speaker, that is the ability to influence stockholdings you have when you come to Congress.
This doesn't divest it.
The gentleman made a great speech, and I really appreciate it. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything to do with what the bill does.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, you can have private stock. There are reports that people have purchased private stock in companies that then became public that then were sold to public companies and made windfalls here.
Mr. Speaker, you could still do that under this bill. You can engage in crypto, Mr. Speaker. You can buy commodities, and you can participate in the prediction markets.
The notion that somehow Americans should see this bill pass and relax and suddenly feel as if the people making public policy decisions in Washington suddenly won't be doing anything in their self-interest but will, instead, be doing it in the interest of the American people--it is a word I used earlier--I contend, is exactly what this is. It is a sham.
This will not fix anything, and that is what it is intended to do, to not fix anything, but to make people believe that we have addressed it. We haven't addressed anything.
That is not what this bill is.
Mr. Speaker, when you add the element of really trying to subvert this election, there is nothing that argues for this bill. This isn't even a partial way of getting it done. This is a diversion, and it is intended to get people to feel better about something when they shouldn't feel better at all.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).
Mr. Speaker, two things can be true at the same time. I can support voter ID requirements, which I do, and I can support banning Members of Congress from trading stocks, which I do, and I am in compliance.
I can also oppose this bill because it is not an honest attempt to do either.
This bill's stock-trading provisions do not go nearly far enough. In this bill, Members can retain their investments that they already own, preserving the very conflicts of interest that a real ban would eliminate.
Instead, also in this bill, Republicans are attaching new barriers for Americans to vote by mail, requiring photocopies of a very narrow set of acceptable IDs, more narrow than those required in the State of Texas. They are so narrow that a very similar bill was vetoed by a Republican Governor in the State of Ohio. They put more burdens upon voters without access to copiers and more strain on election officials.
If Republicans really wanted to ban Member stock trading, then bring us a really clean bill, and I will vote for it. In fact, I offered amendments to this bill, and Republicans rejected them all.
Additionally, congressional ethics cannot become a Trojan horse for voter suppression.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who has been a champion of this topic. We would not be here on the floor of the House of Representatives with an opportunity to pass this stock trading ban without his work.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Wisconsin, Chairman Steil, for his incredible work on this, his leadership, his friendship, and making sure that we are here today and getting this done. It has been a partnership I have been happy to engage in.
I am proud of the legislation that we put forward.
Let me say that again to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: I am proud of the legislation that we put forward. It is, in fact, good legislation.
Let's back up 1 minute and talk about the problem. Right here, according to data I have got right now, 11,000 trades totaling between $600 million and $900 million of legislators over the last year.
We have got one Member, a Democrat, $79 million of 406 trades; one man, a Republican, $75 million on 1,000 trades. A Democrat, $55 million on 3,923 trades.
I could keep going on a bipartisan basis. I want to make clear that it is a bipartisan problem.
I want to take a minute to say that we should recognize the bipartisan nature of the work that it took to get here, even though there is some disagreement here now.
I have got friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Morelle, Seth Magaziner, and others I have been working with closely to try to advance this cause, and I want to thank them because they have worked in good faith to try to address this issue.
I want to be clear to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I have often heard excuses. It says: I have a right to trade equities. I have a right to trade stocks. Let me be very clear: You do not have that right. There is no such right guaranteed in the Constitution.
It is a privilege to serve in the United States Congress. When you come to Congress, you are supposed to set that aside. You are supposed to come here and serve. You come here for 2 years, 4 years, 6 years, 8 years--preferably not 40. You set down your personal interests, and you serve.
Unfortunately, a lot of Members have been violating the spirit of that. That is why we are here today. We passed legislation in 2012 that made a lot of this transparent.
Today, we have legislation on the floor that I am proud of, that would stop the ability of Members of Congress to acquire equities and would have significant transparency and presale requirements before you can sell equities you hold.
Yes, I had legislation that would have required divestiture. I prefer that approach, but you have to build a coalition in a body. I think this is a giant step forward.
I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and my colleagues on this side of the aisle would recognize that and praise it. If we did that, it would be night and day in this body if people were not allowed to acquire Microsoft while you are voting on technology; acquire Lockheed when you are voting on Defense; acquire pharma or Big Insurance when you are voting on healthcare policies when you are supposed to be focusing on the American people and not focusing on your portfolio. That is where we should be as a body.
I am proud that we are bringing this legislation forward today. I hope that everybody will support it, regardless of which side of the aisle you are on.
Obviously, I am the lead author also of the SAVE America Act. That legislation has been offered on the back of this bill. I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should support it. I don't think they are supporting it for a lot of political reasons. I am not going to debate that here because right now we are talking about this bill addressing stock trading.
I will say one thing that I think merits being said: I think we should be having a straight up-or-down vote on this stock trading bill. That is what I think. I think my friends who worked in good faith to do that deserve that on both sides of the aisle. I am going to end up voting for this because I support both measures. I am not done this year demanding that we have a straight up-or-down vote on stock trading. You can't, whether you are on this or that side of the aisle, hide behind the SAVE America Act for your opposition to what we need to do to change the culture of this institution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Steil and my friends who I worked with on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Roy, whom I have had a chance to be in a number of meetings with on this issue, about restoring faith and trust in America. Recognize, I came to Congress and sold all of the stock that my wife and I owned. At the time, as I recall--it has been many years--Microsoft, Google, Alpha, a number of technology stocks. If I had come here under this bill, should this become law, I would be able to continue to hold onto all of them. Honestly, depending on what committees I serve, I can do a great deal to make sure that my investments were guarded, that they were protected, that they were furthered.
It is not supposed to be the way this functions. That is not what we have been talking about. Holding on to stock when you are in a position to affect markets is wrong. Simply put, it is wrong. We should end it. Require the divestiture of stock by Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and members of the courts. That is what we should be doing.
Anything less than that, particularly when you continue to hold stock, continue to trade by selling stock, when it is appropriate for you and your portfolio, and even to be able to take dividends from stock you own and reinvest and buy more stock--that is allowed under this bill, as well.
Others have pointed out Democratic Members and recognized them. There are glaring examples here. However, to reiterate the point, this bill would not prevent insider trading. It would just trick the American people into thinking we are trying to do something about corruption when we are not.
Take one glaring example. In December of last year, a Member of the House Republican leadership purchased up to $250,000 in private shares of Elon Musk's xAI. Within days, the Department of Defense announced an expanded partnership with xAI to provide Grok AI tools. Convenient timing, no doubt. I am sure most Americans would love to have participated in such convenient timing.
This Republican Member of leadership, who sits on the Armed Services Committee, including on the subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation, just happened to buy xAI stock shortly before the Department of Defense's announcement. They sure did. That is what they did.
It gets worse. Earlier this year, Elon Musk's SpaceX acquired xAI soon thereafter. SpaceX launched an initial public offering, and the value of the xAI shares this Member of Congress had acquired skyrocketed. In fact, the Member may have made as much as a 60 percent return on the Member's investment, if liquidated at the right time, potentially a $150,000 profit on a $250,000 initial investment. That is extraordinary.
Yet, this bill that the Republicans are purporting would restore trust in America would not have in any way impeded the ability of a Member to do that. If that isn't extraordinary, if that is not an indictment on what is happening here, I don't know what is.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Krishnamoorthi), my dear friend.
Mr. Speaker, I have helped lead bipartisan efforts to ban stock trading by Members of Congress, and I am deeply frustrated that the majority refuses to take the issue seriously enough at this crucial time when Congress' stock is at an all-time low.
We should not be playing partisan games on this. The Republican majority is pushing a bill that still allows Members of Congress to hold, sell, and even buy certain individual stocks. They have paired it with the SAVE America Act, a voter suppression measure, that would make it harder, not easier, for Americans to participate in our elections.
I agree with Congressman Roy on this particular point that we should have an up-or-down vote on the bipartisan Restore Trust in Congress Act, which we have all supported, which has over 200 signatures, I believe, as a discharge petition. It finally bans trading by Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children.
Mr. Speaker, Congress is not a casino, and it is time we proved it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership and his dogged determination to bring this to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I am a proud original cosponsor of not only this bill but every other bipartisan bill that is not here. The record for me is clear on this.
Last year alone, Members made, according to my count, over 13,000 trades, totaling over $600 million with 202 representatives and 56 senators trading, both Republican and Democrat. Every single year, at some point, somebody publishes a list of the Members that were most successful in trading.
You will never see my name on there because I don't own any stock, no commodities, no crypto, none of it, because, Mr. Speaker, I came here to
Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsor, the chairman, the author of this bill, for his dogged determination. I am glad we are going to vote on it, and everybody is going to see.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I go back to a comment I made earlier in my opening about the timing of this bill and the effective date. Ninety days from now is October 20, 2 weeks before election day. There will be millions of ballots, mail-in ballots, absentee ballots. Several years ago, this Congress passed the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. For uniformed and overseas persons who are eligible to vote, UOCAVA ballots will already be en route to voters.
Voters will have already cast ballots, perhaps in the millions, by that time.
How are election administrators across the United States supposed to comply with this new Federal law dropped right in the middle of the final weeks of the 2026 midterm elections? It is effectively election malpractice.
It is creating discord. It will create countless questions. I don't know who is going to pay for the retraining. I don't even know how one would do the retraining. Election workers are going to be stuck, as I envision it, with envelopes which will need to have not only photocopies--by the way, I don't know where any of this information gets stored after the fact.
Is it going to be in a vault somewhere? Is a voter's driver's license or proper ID going to be kept somewhere? By the way, how will they make sure that when someone, as they will no doubt do, puts their ID in their ballot, eliminating any chance that they have secrecy of their ballot--who is managing that? The local election administrators?
They are going to train all their workers within 2 weeks of election day on a brand-new system that has never been done anywhere in this country. I went through this in the Rules Committee. Most of the IDs in most of our States, even the most conservative States in America, have broader ID requirements than this.
Student IDs are not allowed. Most States allow it. All kinds of IDs that people have, they won't be able to use them anymore. Texas won't be in compliance. Florida won't be in compliance. The Governor of Ohio just vetoed a bill like this, which effectively criticized the intent of the bill and said it wouldn't do anything for voter security.
How does this all happen? The purpose of the change is to throw election administration into disarray. I don't know how we can see it otherwise. At the very least, if you were thinking about this, you would make it effective next year or the year after to give local administrators time to prepare and probably give them some resources so they could do all manner of things necessary to comply with admittedly a bad law. But at least it would be something you could say with a straight face was serious or an attempt to be serious.
This isn't serious. This is creating discord. It is reckless. It is irresponsible and ultimately will, once again, put the question in front of American voters of: Are they really sure they should have confidence in our system? I think it is clear some people want Americans to doubt our system, which, by the way, they should have confidence in.
These election administrators, Democrats and Republicans, at the local level care deeply about their work. They see this as a sacred trust. People are getting in and voting, and there is no design to have all manner of things that they suggest happen. It is simply not true.
That is why people will look at this and will look at January 6, 2021, and will look at all these things and conclude rightly that all we want to do is create discord and subversion of this democratic system.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), my colleague, friend, and partner on the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to expose this package for what it truly is: a protection plan for powerful insiders disguised as a crackdown on insider trading.
The so-called Stop Insider Trading Act does not ban congressional stock trading. It leaves major loopholes open, including trading in private companies and other markets.
During committee markup, I offered a simple amendment to close these loopholes, freeze existing portfolios and stop dividend reinvestments, but my Republican colleagues rejected it. They chose protecting themselves over accountability and transparency.
Now, they have attached this watered-down stock trading bill to legislation that makes it even harder for Americans to vote, especially women in traditional marriages like mine where I changed my name and took on my husband's name.
The voter ID act eliminates trusted registration methods, restricts acceptable IDs, and creates unnecessary barriers between American citizens and the ballot box.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Members of Congress should serve the public, not profit from public office.
That is why I strongly support the Stop Insider Trading Act, which would prohibit Members of Congress, their spouses, and dependent children from purchasing individual stocks.
I have worked to lead by example by placing all of my investable assets into a blind structure that is managed by independent professionals. I do not direct, influence, or participate in any investment decisions, and every transaction occurs without my input, without my prior knowledge, and without my direction.
That approach goes above and beyond current House ethics rules. It is past time that this entire body be held to that higher standard.
Public service is a public trust. I urge every Republican and every Democrat to vote ``yes'' and to hold every Member of Congress to that high standard that the American people deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the American people have lost trust in this institution, and banning stock trading in Congress and in the administration is actually one way to fix that.
In 2025, Members of Congress and their families executed over 13,000 trades. President Trump's own family trading has helped add billions to their net worth.
That is why we should be debating a real stock trading ban like the Restore Trust in Government Act, one that would ban Members of Congress, the administration, and their families from owning, buying, or selling individual stocks.
Instead, House Republicans only allow us to vote on a toothless, watered-down stock trading bill. Plus, to make sure that this fake stock trading ban doesn't move in the Senate, they throw in the SAVE America Act, which would disenfranchise millions of Americans.
I ask: Why are we afraid to put a comprehensive stock trading ban on the floor and have it apply to the President, too?
Let's vote on a real stock trading ban and vote ``no'' on this fake ban with voter suppression.
Mr. Speaker, over 80 percent of Americans believe Members of Congress shouldn't be trading stocks and benefiting off insider information. Yet, while Americans have made their
Americans deserve to know they have honest representation that puts their interests first in Washington, not career politicians looking to get rich.
That is why I am proud to rise in strong support of this Stop Insider Trading Act to restore trust in Congress and bring accountability that the American people are asking for.
Congress is not a VIP club for lifelong insiders to enrich themselves. We are here to serve the American people, and the American people have given us a clear mandate.
This is not partisan. It is not controversial. Stopping insider trading should be the easiest decision we make this week. Let's get this done.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his leadership and partnership.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are pushing a voter suppression bill that would severely restrict the mail ballots that seniors, rural Americans, and so many others rely on, and would throw our elections into chaos late in the cycle while people are already casting their ballots.
They are doing this at the behest of Donald Trump, who continues to obsess over his 2020 election loss and promote election conspiracy theories.
They are trying to trick us into supporting their voter suppression bill by calling it the Stop Insider Trading Act and including watered down language that would still allow Members of Congress to own stocks and to trade stocks with only some new restrictions.
Make no mistake, this is a trap. This bill is to make it harder for eligible Americans to vote. The Republican leadership is trying to trick us into supporting it by calling it a congressional stock trading ban, even though it doesn't actually fully ban congressional stock trading.
This bill also does nothing to stop the biggest stock trader in Washington, President Trump, who has made millions of dollars trading stocks for the companies that he regulates--tech companies, healthcare companies, defense companies, and more.
The American people are sick of corruption. The American people are sick of politicians getting rich off of inside information while working people struggle. The American people want a real stock trading ban for politicians in Washington.
Last year, I worked with reformers on both sides of the aisle, including Mr. Roy, whose partnership I very much appreciated. Republicans and Democrats wrote a strong bill that will actually ban congressional stock trading with no loopholes and no gimmicks. That is what the American people want.
Mr. Speaker, for this reason and at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules permitted it, I would have offered that motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would replace this Republican voter suppression bill with the Restore Trust in Government Act, our bill to fully ban stock trading in Congress and the Oval Office. Mr. Speaker, 190 Members have signed on to support this bill, and it is time to bring it to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Rhode Island?
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Steil for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are now 200 million good reasons to vote for this bill, because that is exactly how much Members of Congress made in trading stock, most of it insider information contributing to their $200 million in take home.
Now, here is the reality. Most Members of Congress are not trading stock on the job. Most of them are not day traders. They are in their districts.
The reality is true; 35 Members of Congress beat the S&P 500 last year. As my colleague on the other side of the aisle just highlighted, one of the biggest stock trader wins in this is an app called Autopilot that tracks the trades of Nancy Pelosi and her husband.
In the last 3 years alone, their stock trades have gone up more than 200 percent. Nobody believes that this is just Washington being smarter than Wall Street. Everyone recognizes that somebody here is getting ahead while the rest of America is falling behind.
Let's talk about real solutions to hold Members accountable. Republicans wish to end insider trading happening in Washington, and it starts by legislation that Republicans are leading today.
One of the first bills that I led on the floor was to make sure that we could stop this level of stock trading. When I came to Congress, I had very little stock to begin with--with 20 years serving in the military--but I sold it all because I think it is important that Members of Congress prioritize oversight and prioritize their constituents, not get rich while serving.
For the first time, there is a bill before us that bans congressional stock trading, and it has reached the House floor with a lot of hard work on both sides of the aisle.
To my colleagues back in Iowa, watch this vote. Watch who talks about ending stock trading and who delivers on ending stock trading. Watch who is committed beyond the rhetoric to holding Washington accountable. Together, Republicans are working to clean up Congress and working to secure our elections.
These are two easy votes on the floor today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, to end stock trading by Members of Congress, because trust in our democracy cannot be a luxury item. It must be the everyday expectation of every American.
For too long, the public has watched the headlines that read like a civic lesson gone wrong: elected officials buying and selling stocks in industries they regulate, profiting from information the public will never see. That is not merely unseemly, it is corrosive. It eats away at confidence in this institution, and confidence once lost is not easily rebuilt.
Banning congressional stock trading is a simple proposition. If someone serves the public, they serve only the public. They don't get to play the market with one hand while writing the rules with the other. They don't get to benefit from the power the people have loaned them.
This reform is about fairness--for the teacher saving for retirement, the nurse investing in her future, the small business owner trying to build something that lasts. They play by the rules. They deserve a Congress that does the same.
Mr. Speaker, this is our chance to say clearly: Public service is a public trust. Let us honor it.
The fact is this bill bans stock trading. And, yes, it requires photo ID, something 80 percent of Americans agree with. People just saw what came out yesterday by one of our former colleagues, the Governor of New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill, announcing that 6,600 non-U.S. citizens were added to the voter rolls in New Jersey and nearly 400 of them voted in the election. Voter ID ensures the sanctity of our elections and ensures confidence by the American people in our elections.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this legislation, and the American
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I will close by saying this. The bill before us is a crude combination of two completely unrelated bills--the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act and the Voter ID Act.
The Voter ID Act is, of course, already a crude reformulation of the SAVE America Act.
I have addressed both parts of the bill individually. Neither of them deserves passage. Frankly, neither of them deserves much serious debate.
The first, the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act, is not a stock trading ban. Despite what everyone has said today, it simply is not. Get the bill. Download it. Read it. It doesn't require people to sell stock that they own.
The bill is a vote to allow Members of Congress to continue to own and trade individual stocks. I don't know how to be clearer than that.
The bill would let Members of Congress keep every single share of stock they own.
The bill would allow Members to liquidate their holdings at any time, obviously when it is profitable for them. There is no divestiture required in this bill.
The bill does nothing to rein in the unprecedented, absurd, and deeply offensive corruption currently taking place in the White House. The bill is silent on the President.
I would note again that so far this year, the President has traded more securities than the entire Congress combined, all 535 Members of the House and Senate. Does anyone believe for a minute that the President has less influence on the markets than individual Members of Congress? Judge that for yourself.
Then there is the second fully distinct part of this bill: voter suppression provisions taken right from the SAVE America Act.
House Democrats support voter identification. Democrats have included responsible ID provisions in the Freedom to Vote Act and have offered amendments at committee making this point crystal clear.
The bill before us, however, would create a more restrictive regime than any currently in use in this country. It is more restrictive than Florida and more restrictive than Texas. The bill would eviscerate mail voting as we know it, forcing voters to include photocopies of their ID every time they mail a ballot.
This measure is so extreme the Republican Governor of Ohio, Governor DeWine, vetoed a similar statewide measure because it would burden voters without preventing fraud.
This bill would throw our elections into chaos, the effective date being October 20 of 2026, 90 days from today, right in the middle of this midterm election. In 90 days, tens of millions of Americans will have already cast their ballots by person and by mail. This bill would upend the November midterms, and that is exactly the point. That is exactly the goal.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this rehash again of the President's top legislative priority: the SAVE Act. I urge its defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we close out today, I begin by thanking leadership for giving us this opportunity. Congress has not had a bill on the House floor on this topic with this opportunity before.
I thank Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, Whip Emmer for their work on this. I also thank the Members of this body who have doggedly worked on this issue, in particular Congressman Chip Roy, as well as Brian Fitzpatrick, Tim Burchett, Anna Paulina Luna, and others for their feedback and work throughout the process to get to this point.
Before us is the Stop Insider Trading Act.
Mr. Speaker, I will touch on a handful of things that came up today about what is in and what is not in the bill. I think this is important for the American people to know.
Some of the arguments made today are what I call a Goldilocks argument: The bill doesn't do enough. The bill does too much.
Let's take this moment to take a real and substantive step forward. I will begin as I close by discussing what is in the bill. The bill ensures that Members and lawmakers cannot use their positions to profit off of insider information.
Mr. Speaker, insider trading is already illegal, and individuals who engage in it should be held accountable by the full force of the law. However, as we know, prosecuting insider trading is actually quite difficult. It is why this bill is so important to provide a bright-line rule to remove even the appearance of impropriety that someone has leveraged their position for financial gain.
Under this bill, Members, their spouses, and their dependent children are prevented from purchasing individual companies' shares of stock, period, full stop.
The question then becomes: What if a Member arrives in Congress with stock in their portfolio? Say they are saving up for their retirement or their children's college education. We provide an opportunity with 7 days advance notice to be able to make that sale. That 7 days of advance notice tells the American people what is going on in advance rather than current law, which allows a 30-day filing after the fact.
This prevents Members from being able to profit off of any insider information they may gain in this institution.
Mr. Speaker, the violations and penalties associated with this bill are steep: a fine equal to $2,000 or 10 percent of the transaction, as well as a disgorgement of profits. Violators would be forfeiting any gain realized if they fail to comply with this legislation.
The legislation is critical in restoring trust in this institution. One of the challenges we face is that this institution 15 years ago passed the STOCK Act, publicly disclosing any trade a Member of this institution makes. However, the disclosure rules lack detail and are filed a month after the transaction.
When you couple that with the increased attention to Member trades, in particular, through social media accounts, it has fueled public frustration. I believe this is our opportunity where we can simply stop Members of Congress from trading individual stocks, period, full stop.
Doing so removes even the appearance of wrongdoing. Americans should be confident that individuals working here are working on their behalf, not on behalf of their own financial interests.
This bill is coupled with the Voter ID Act. In jurisdictions across this country, States that neighbor mine, like Illinois or Minnesota, or as far away as California or New York, voters can go to the polls on election day and cast a ballot without providing proof of their identity.
Our Voter ID Act implements commonsense election integrity measures by requiring voters to show photo ID when casting a ballot in Federal elections.
Mr. Speaker, 24 States already require some form of photo ID to vote. The bill simply takes this standard and makes it nationwide.
Both of these provisions are commonsense reforms, but, in particular, the Stop Insider Trading Act is a moment when we can take a tremendous step forward in the ethics here in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, and in this institution.
At a period of time when Americans are struggling to gain confidence in Congress, this legislation before us gives us that opportunity to begin restoring the trust.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues in this body today to vote in favor of the legislation before us, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
The previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1438 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. 8800.
Will the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong) 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. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, with Mr. Strong in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 316, printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) had been postponed.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part A of House Report 119-755, on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 28 by Mr. Self of Texas.
Amendment No. 30 by Mr. Issa of California.
Amendment No. 44 by Mr. Harrigan of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 316 by Mr. Grothman of Wisconsin.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote after the first vote in the series.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 28, printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, noes 210, not voting 5, as follows:
Ms. DeGETTE and Mr. CORREA changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. BICE and Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 30, printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), 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 207, noes 224, not voting 6, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Ms. BOEBERT changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 44, printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harrigan), 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 232, noes 199, not voting 6, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mr. PANETTA changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 275.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 316, printed in part A of House Report 119-755, offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), 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 175, noes 254, not voting 7, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendment, pursuant to the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Goldman of Texas) 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. 8800) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2027 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House Resolution 1438, she reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The question is on the amendments.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5- minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on passage of the bill, if ordered; the motion to recommit on H.R. 7008; passage of H.R. 7008, if ordered; and adoption of H. Con. Res. 113.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 216, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Cammack) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. ARRINGTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 7008) to amend chapter 131 of title 5 to require certain restrictions on stocks for Members of Congress and their spouses and dependents, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner), on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, nays 218, not voting 2, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2027
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on adoption of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 113) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2027 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2028 through 2036, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the concurrent resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, nays 214, not voting 1, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the concurrent resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for Als Reauthorization Act of 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 8205) to amend the Accelerating Access to Critical Therapies for ALS Act to reauthorize the provisions of such Act through fiscal year 2031, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 7283) to amend title 41, United States Code, to amend the time period for certain acquisition-related dollar thresholds.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 1722) to require an annual report of taxpayer-funded projects that are over budget and behind schedule, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 37) and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
Making in Order at Any Time Consideration of H. CON. RES. 89, Directing the President Pursuant to Section 5(C) of the War Powers Resolution to Remove United States Armed Forces From Hostilities...
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 89 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York and Representative Jayapal of Washington, or their respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of July 22, 2026, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the concurrent resolution is considered as read.
The text of the concurrent resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The concurrent resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida, Representative Meeks of New York, and Representative Jayapal of Washington, or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will take some of my time and give recognition to those who we have lost in the fight to end the Iranian terror regime. I am going to say their names, going to tell you where they served, and I am going to show you their photo:
Sergeant Angel S. Rampersad, United States Army;
Private First Class Isabella Gonzales, United States Army;
First Lieutenant Tyler James Feehan, United States Army;
Sergeant Michael Emmanuel Swinton, United States Army;
Lance Corporal Kevin Melendez, United States Marine Corps;
Tech Sergeant Tyler Simmons, United States Air Force;
Tech Sergeant Ashley Pruitt, United States Air Force;
Captain Curtis Angst, United States Air Force;
Captain Seth Koval, United States Air Force;
Captain Ariana Savino, United States Air Force;
Major John ``Alex'' Klinner, United States Air Force;
Sergeant Benjamin N. Pennington, United States Army;
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Robert Marzan, United States Army;
Major Jeffrey Robert O'Brien, United States Army;
Sergeant Declan J. Coady, United States Army;
Sergeant First Class Noah L. Tietjens, United States Army;
Sergeant First Class Nicole M. Amor, United States Army; and
Captain Cody A. Khork, United States Army.
The sacrifice of these servicemembers will never be forgotten by me, and
That is what these servicemembers have been fighting against. That is what they gave their lives fighting against, a regime that has been attacking and taking the lives of United States of America's servicemembers and citizens for years.
To belittle this mission is to belittle and demean the very service these members gave their lives for. Their sacrifice was not meaningless. This operation is bringing a reckoning for the hundreds of times Iran has attacked and killed people of the United States of America.
What were those times? I am not going to go all the way back to the Beirut bombings. I wouldn't have time for that in tonight's debate with the time that we are limited to. I am only going to go back for the last couple of years to talk about what Iran has been doing to the United States of America, though my colleagues will argue that there has never been any imminent threat against the United States of America by Iran.
IRGC naval forces capture 10 American sailors and two boats.
Separate incident: Four patrol boats from Iran's IRGC attack the USS Nitze.
Separate incident: United States Naval Ship Invincible attacked by multiple approaching IRGC fast-attack boats, small attack boats.
Separate incident: IRGC vessel attacks USS Thunderbolt in Persian Gulf.
Separate incident: Iranian drone attacks the USS Nimitz as fighter jets are landing.
Separate attack: IRGC naval personnel place and detonate limpet mines on two Saudi-, one UAE-, and one Norwegian-registered ships.
Separate incident: IRGC Navy attacks four ships--Saudi ships, Norwegian ships, and a UAE ship.
Separate incident: IRGC Navy attack one Japanese ship and one Norwegian-owned ship as they transit the Gulf of Oman.
Separate incident: IRGC shoot down U.S. aircraft operating over international waters, over the Strait of Hormuz.
Separate incident: IRGC Navy seizes British-flagged, Swedish-owned tanker, and they hold the crew hostage for more than 2 months. On that same day, the IRGC also detained a Liberian-flagged tanker.
Separate incident: Iran attacks, by helicopter and drone, a U.S. Navy ship in the Strait of Hormuz.
Separate incident: IRGC Navy attack and seize Hong Kong-flagged tanker.
Separate incident: 11 IRGC Navy small boats attack five U.S. Navy vessels.
Separate incident: Iran vessels attack U.S. ships, including U.S. Coast Guard cutter.
Separate incident: Iranian personnel board a Liberian-flagged tanker.
Separate incident: IRGC attack and seize South Korean tanker, in the Strait.
Separate incident: Tanker MT Mercer attack by Iran off of Oman, killing two people.
Separate incident: Asphalt Princess attacked off of UAE, boarded by Iranians.
Separate incident: Iranian forces seized two Greek vessels as they attacked them.
Separate incident: Tanker Pacific Zircon was hit by an Iranian drone.
Separate incident: Iran's Navy capture off the Marshall Islands a Marshall Islands-flagged tanker.
Separate incident: IRGC seize Panamanian-flagged oil tanker in Strait of Hormuz, in international waters.
Separate incident: Iran Navy seize Marshall Islands-flagged oil tanker St. Nikolas while transiting the Gulf of Oman.
Separate incident: IRGC seize containership MSC, in a helicopter, and also raided in the Strait of Hormuz.
Separate incident: IRGC seize another tanker, the Talara.
Separate incident: IRGC seize foreign oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
Separate incident: U.S.-flagged tanker attacked by Iranian gunboats in the Strait of Hormuz.
The list goes on and on. I could keep reading this for probably another at least 10 minutes with the pages that I have of these.
That is what our U.S. servicemembers are fighting against, an Iran that chooses to wage war against the United States of America day in, day out, week in, week out.
Prior to Epic Fury ever beginning, the 30 months prior to Epic Fury beginning, Iran attacked us over 350 times. That is what our U.S. servicemembers are fighting against, the Iran that, prior to Epic Fury ever beginning, killed three U.S. servicemembers at Tower 22. That is what our U.S. servicemembers are fighting against.
My colleagues will say that no imminent threat ever existed. They are the same colleagues that used to tell us we should use any and all means necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Why? Because they recognized back then that that is the Iran that we have been dealing with day in, day out, week in, week out, year in, year out, the Iran that has been relentlessly attacking the United States of America tankers and containerships, United States Navy vessels, Coast Guard vessels, firing on our personnel in Iraq, Syria, Jordan, anywhere in the Middle East that they could fire on them.
What has changed since these attacks? Everything that I listed off happened well before Operation Epic Fury. What has changed? The Ayatollah that ordered the attacks on our bases, on the bases of our allies, is now rotting 6 feet under.
What has changed? Their navy that carried out countless attacks on our cargo ships, all those that I listed off just now, the navy that was attacking, seizing, holding hostage, they are sitting at the bottom of the waters that they used to float in.
Their Air Force that carried out attacks on our bases and against our allies, they have been grounded and obliterated.
Those are just a couple of the things that have changed.
This was not a war of choice. This was not President Trump's war of choice. This is and always has been Iran's choice that they made each and every day for the last 47 years. What I gave you were just some of the incidents of the last couple years.
We simply said: No more wars. Instead, we are putting a stop to the old ones. This ends here. This ends now.
That country, their IRGC, their proxies that have been attacking us endlessly will no longer exist and will not obtain a nuclear weapon, whether my colleagues forgot that they voted to say that or not.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to today's War Powers Resolution that asks for the removal of our U.S. Forces, as my colleagues have done week in and week out, forgetting about every single thing that our servicemembers are out there fighting against, I urge a ``no'' vote on their legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the hardest part of this job for me for all the time that I have been in Congress, all the bills that we have to vote on-- when I put my hand up and swore that I would abide by and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, that Constitution also says that Congress determines when we send our women and men into war. I have had to vote on that several times previously in this Congress. It is a responsibility that is tough, to make that determination of when our men and women are sent to war. Presidents, based upon that Constitution, should come to this body and make their case, and then we have the awesome responsibility of making the determination of whether or not they should or should not. Those have been the toughest votes for me to have and for me to make as a Member of the United States Congress.
Unfortunately, in this instance, we didn't have a voice. My heart goes out to the 18 members of the United States armed services who lost their lives. To them, their families, they are patriots, just as Mr. Mast doing his service and Mr. Crow and Mr. Moulton.
I thank them for their service because if this Congress says, Go to war, they put their lives on the line. I wish I had the opportunity to talk to all 18 families who lost loved ones in this war. Unfortunately, I can't do all 18.
One of the three that lost their life over the last weekend, Sergeant Angel Rampersad, is from my district, my constituent, in Ozone Park, New York, who was killed on July 17 in Jordan. I am going to visit that family when I get back to New York on Friday. My office has already reached out to them. I am going to have a flag flown on top of the Capitol.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Representative Jayapal's Iran War Powers Resolution because I believe that the President needs to come to us so that we can make that decision and take on that responsibility, as the Constitution says.
Let me be clear: This body has already spoken. The War Powers Resolution passed with bipartisan support in the House and in the Senate. The Trump administration was required to end its hostilities against Iran. It has not.
A dual-Chamber concurrent resolution has never been struck down by the courts, certainly not in the war powers context. Any claim otherwise is simply wrong.
I will also be introducing legislation that would require the Speaker to bring suit against the administration to force it to abide by Congress' vote on the War Powers Resolution.
We are here today because the administration broke the law. Three more U.S. servicemembers have made the ultimate sacrifice for an illegal, unauthorized war that the American people don't want.
This administration has never sought an Authorization for Use of Military Force from Congress, and most Republicans in this Chamber continue to enable it.
As I have said before on this floor, this war has achieved none of our core objectives, and more bombings will not change the reality that is on the ground.
With respect to Iran's nuclear program, its hard-line regime, its closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or any of its malign practices, none of that has changed. Addressing those threats requires diplomacy, not more war. Diplomacy must be led by seasoned diplomats and nonproliferation experts, not real estate developers.
We need our European allies, our Gulf partners, and, yes, our adversaries back at the table because just bombing without strategy, Mr. Speaker, is not a foreign policy. It is a tantrum. It is a tantrum by a President who cannot clean up the mess that he has made.
Let us make no mistake: The President's tantrum is why gas prices are back over $4 a gallon, and they will keep climbing now that the Houthis have threatened their own blockade of the Red Sea. That tantrum is why American troops are under fire. It is why our munitions stockpiles are being drained, and it is why we are teetering on the edge of the forever war we warned this would be.
To my Republican colleagues, this war is indefensible. Deep down, many of them really know it. I say: Let's just simply uphold the oath that we took when we took this office, uphold the Constitution of the United States. Stand with us, and let's make clear once again that this President is not a king. He is not a dictator. He is the President of the United States. But there are two bodies called the House of Representatives and the Senate that are equal to the executive branch.
He cannot go around this. It is in violation of the Constitution, and he cannot wage war without our consent.
If Republicans still believe this war should continue, then I say, fine. Vote in support of this measure and demand the administration come to this Congress and demand that he tells us what his plan is, how it is going to end, and how much money it is going to cost the American people. Also he should follow the Constitution as the law requires.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the United States House of Representatives to pass my War Powers Resolution to end President Trump's illegal and unconstitutional war in Iran.
Let me be clear: We should not have to be here, yet again, voting on another War Powers Resolution. For the first time in history, both the House and Senate passed a War Powers Resolution to rein in this reckless war and reassert our constitutional authority under Article I, Section 8 to authorize the use of military force.
However, the President is, once again, showing his contempt for Congress and for the Constitution, continuing this destructive, deadly, and costly war despite Congress having already passed a War Powers Resolution that has the force of law declaring that this war must stop.
Instead of respecting Congress' Article I sole constitutional authorities over war, the President has doubled down on more illegal strikes, escalating the situation in the region and leading to more Iranian strikes that killed two United States soldiers as well as an additional servicemember who was killed during a controlled detonation of a downed Iranian attack drone.
Gas prices across the country have gone up again. The memorandum of understanding has turned into a deadly memorandum of misunderstanding with the Iranian Government continuing to utilize leverage over the Strait of Hormuz.
This is an illegal and unconstitutional war waged without authorization from Congress and at a tremendous cost of a total of 18 U.S. servicemembers who have lost their lives and hundreds more who have been injured.
I give tremendous honor and respect to our servicemembers, those who serve, those who have sacrificed their lives, including U.S. Air Force Captain Ariana G. Savino who is from my home State of Washington.
The cost of this war is incalculable. Not only have we lost 18 U.S. servicemembers, but this war has been waged at the cost of thousands of civilians who have been displaced or killed in the region, and all on the backs of U.S. taxpayers who desperately want this administration to focus on the crisis of their pocketbooks: The basic inability of Americans in the richest country in the world to afford healthcare, gas, groceries, and housing.
From the beginning, this war has had no clear mission, no strategy, no end goal. It has been driven over and over again by a President who won his election by telling the American people that he would end forever wars and instead has launched us into more forever wars to distract the American people from the real issues they are facing at home.
As the secretary of forever wars, Pete Hegseth, announced, we have already spent $37.5 billion on this illegal and unconstitutional war. Donald Trump has called affordability a hoax, stated that we have no money for healthcare, and refused to sign a bipartisan bill to help address the housing crisis that this country is facing. Today, on the House floor, Republicans have put bills forward to demand $1.15 trillion for the Pentagon, the only Federal agency that has actually failed eight consecutive audits, and he is about to put another $73 billion into this illegal war.
What an insult to the tens of millions of Americans who have lost healthcare and nutrition assistance, all to pay, initially, for $4 trillion in tax breaks for giant corporations and billionaires.
Again, let's be very clear. The American people are paying the price of this war literally through our tax dollars that Donald Trump refuses to spend to benefit the lives of Americans here at home; through the lives of our United States servicemembers who ask only that their willingness and their pride in serving be rewarded with our real thoughtfulness of purpose before sending them into war; through the pain at the gas pump and the grocery store as prices continue to tick up; through the broken relationships with allies around the world who no longer believe that the United States is a real partner to them; through the sacrifices of the American people who desperately want this administration and this Congress to focus on making their lives affordable so they can actually thrive rather than just barely survive.
Regime change, Mr. Speaker, doesn't work. It never has, and it never will. In Iraq, more than 4,000 troops were killed and 32,000 were injured. In Afghanistan, 2,400 troops were killed, and 20,000 were injured. Those two wars alone cost at least $2.4 trillion, and neither led to freedom or peace for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the toll on our own people--lives lost and ruined, PTSD, wasted dollars--is immense.
We have got to stop thinking that bombs are the answer. They are not. Let us remember that it was Donald Trump in his first term who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, a landmark agreement negotiated by President Obama that required 2 years of careful negotiations to restrict Iran's ability to enrich and stockpile enriched uranium and to ensure regular inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities, supply chains, and uranium mines. Had the JCPOA been left in place, we would not be in this situation today. It would have worked to minimize Iran's nuclear threat and strengthen Iranian civil society instead of slapping sanctions on and deepening the brutal regime's hold.
I want to thank Ranking Member Meeks for his tremendous leadership on this issue. I want to thank my Democratic and Republican colleagues who are voting for this bill for their clarity of conscience and of Constitution. I also want to thank Congressman Crow for his partnership on this War Powers Resolution as well as the bipartisan group of Members who have cosponsored, many of whom have served in uniform for our country and uniquely understand the immense sacrifice and duty of serving in our Armed Forces.
I hope that there are even more on the other side who listen to this debate and are moved to join us in passing this War Powers Resolution with even more strength in votes than the last one. Our Founders knew that going to war was one of the most solemn decisions that our country would face and that it had to be debated and authorized only by the elected Representatives of the people of the United States of America, Congress, not by a President who ignores his obligation to the institution and his obligation to the people of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this War Powers Resolution. We must end this war now.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, both of my colleagues said forever war. I stood here and read for about 15 minutes about the attacks that Iran has been leveling against us just for the last couple of years: 350 attacks, 30 months, 200 wounded, four killed. That is the forever war. It has been going on for 47 years, but that is just the last 30 months of the forever war Iran has been waging against us.
To end a war that is waged against us every single day, you have to end the people that are waging that war. That is what is taking place.
Mr. Speaker, part of our job in Congress is to answer tough questions. When the people have tough questions, they deserve honest answers.
The toughest question I have ever received in my life is not here in Congress but in Iraq from an 18-year-old lance corporal, who simply asked: Sir, why am I risking my life for this?
There are a lot of young Americans, the best of the best, those few brave enough to put their lives on the line for our country and for all of us here, who are asking that question today. Why am I risking my life for this?
They are asking that question today as they fight and die in a war Trump did not need to start, a war that he is not winning, a war that has made Iran more dangerous, not less, and a war that is costing every American back home, though none more so than the American heroes and their families who have already made the ultimate sacrifice for this folly.
As of this past weekend, the casualty toll from the war has risen to 18. There are 18 Americans dead in a war that Congress never voted to authorize. In addition to the heroes we have already lost in this war prior to this weekend, we now mourn the lives of Private Isabella Gonzales, First Lieutenant James Feehan, Sergeant Angel Rampersad, and Sergeant Michael Emmanuel Swinton.
When the military commander in charge of this operation came before the House Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago, I asked him: How many more Americans have to die for this mistake? He refused to answer, just as Trump and his henchman Hegseth have refused to take any responsibility, any accountability for this massive failure of a war, for losing this war to Iran.
Yes, part of our job in Congress is to answer tough questions, though it is easier here than out there in the Middle East.
Part of our job is also to ask tough questions, tough questions of this administration before it kills more Americans in this mistake. Too many of our colleagues refuse to do so.
Thankfully, a large number of Democratic veterans do not. We are asking these tough questions of the administration on behalf of the American people and on behalf of our troops. They all demand answers.
That is why we have demanded this vote. It is long past time for a plan, we are long overdue for accountability, and we are tired of the President losing this war and making it worse for our troops and for everyone here at home.
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Enough of the President's war in Iran that has been an utter disaster for everyone except Iran and maybe China. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Enough is enough.
Mr. Speaker, I join all Americans, my colleagues, and Chairman Mast in mourning those lost who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, once again. I honor greatly the service of the chairman. We served in these wars together. He knows sacrifice. He, in fact, sacrificed and gave more than I did.
He also deeply understands the threats. He was right when he outlined those threats. Iran is a malignant regime. Iran does and has posed a threat to Americans, as has North Korea, Russia, and many other regimes, countries, and terrorists around the world. The important thing is not just to recognize the threat and say if there is a threat that we automatically have to go to war, because that is the start of the analysis, not the end of it.
The next questions and the important questions are what do we do about it. Do we go to war? Do we assemble a coalition? Do we use sanctions? Do we use soft power? How do we meet that threat? It is a fact that in the 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan we stopped asking that essential question and just assumed that war was the answer and would solve it. That is what led us to 20-plus years, trillions of dollars, and thousands of American lives lost for wars that ended poorly.
I am unwilling to not learn that lesson.
I want to be really clear about Iran, in particular. There was no intelligence showing that Iran was proceeding with the development of a nuclear weapon. If there was intelligence, we would be having a different discussion here. There wasn't, and that fact matters.
That leads us to the second part of it: What do we do? How do we meet this threat that has been posed for 40-plus years? What is clear is that Americans are done with an endless cycle of conflict in the Middle East.
When I was in Afghanistan, our adversaries, the enemies that we fought, would often say: Americans have all the clocks, but we have all the time. They simply want to wait us out knowing that we will just spend more money, have more combat deployments, that we will just continue to do it year after year until we wear out.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
When I am facing my constituents who are losing their homes, losing their farms, and losing their healthcare, who can't answer the simple question of how this is making them safer or how this is improving their life, I can't answer that. I am unwilling to perpetuate yet another quagmire and endless cycle of conflict.
It is time for us to restart the accountability loop here in Congress. All these rules, all the authorizations that we debate, why it matters is because this Congress, this body, has the duty to take a vote, to have this debate, and
Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to learn this lesson from the last 20-plus years and end this endless cycle of conflict. Let's bring our folks home. Let's focus on healthcare, housing, and meeting the needs of our constituents and serving our military families in the way that they need to be served.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that I thank him for the recognition of my service, and I recognize him for his service, as well.
I am proud to have brothers in arms, but I cannot let what was said, that is unequivocally false, stand.
Number one, North Korea and Russia have not killed 4 Americans, wounded 200, and attacked over 350 times in the 30 months just prior to Epic Fury beginning. There is no comparison. That is what Iran has done.
Unequivocally, Iran was working to develop a nuclear weapon in their research facilities and development facilities of Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. You need only listen to the words of Iranian generals and the Ayatollah in the last couple weeks and months saying they will not cease their pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Don't take my word for it. Just listen to the words of the Iranian leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this vote is a vote of conscience. We are begging our colleagues here in Congress to stand up for our fellow Americans, for the Constitution, and for our Article I powers that our Founders thought so carefully about when they wrote the Constitution.
This war is remarkably unpopular. It is so unpopular that it is America's least popular war since polls began, and that has been true since the first bombs were dropped. This war is unpopular even amongst President Donald Trump's own supporters.
Back in May, only half of self-proclaimed MAGA Republicans thought that the war was worth the cost. Now, 2 months later, only about a third do. That is a 13-point drop in just 2 months. Amongst all Americans, a staggering 70 percent disapprove of this President's handling of the war and almost two-thirds of all Americans, including over half of MAGA supporters, blame Trump's war on Iran for their rising prices.
I think it is important for us to understand that these moments of conscience in our country require a strength of conviction and courage that our constituents expect us to have.
When they elect us, they expect us to honor the oath of office that we took. They expect us to understand the implications of the responsibilities that are conferred on us by that United States Constitution. They expect us to vote regardless of party for the thing that will keep Americans safe. They expect us to take care of the needs that they have right here at home.
What we have seen over and over again is a refusal of this administration to do that. The lack of clarity about the reasons for this war are quite remarkable. The administration has continued to flip-flop between claiming that we have won the war and then later that more bombs are needed.
After Operation Midnight Hammer in June 2025, the Trump administration told us that U.S. strikes on Iran had destroyed their military and obliterated nuclear programs. After the initial strikes on Iran, Secretary Hegseth said that the Iranian military was ``destroyed'' and ``made combat ineffective.''
In April, he declared Operation Epic Fury was a ``historic and overwhelming victory'' and that the United States achieved ``every single objective,'' but this is plainly false, and the American people know it.
Months after Hegseth claimed victory, Iran continued to strike American assets in the Middle East, kill American servicemembers, and close the Strait of Hormuz. The administration has clearly gotten us into a war that they have no clue how to get us out of.
Americans deserve a clear strategy, not shifting explanations that change by the day. They deserve thoughtful diplomacy, not tweets like the one the President just released today: ``From this point forward, any time the Islamic Republic of Iran shoots at a ship in the Strait of Hormuz, whether it be by missile, rocket, drone, or any other device or weapon, the United States will bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT, including those located next to, or in, the Capital City of Tehran. Thank you for your attention to this matter, President Donald J. Trump.''
This is irresponsible behavior from the President of the United States. It is irresponsible behavior on the backs of War Powers Resolutions that passed in a bipartisan way in both the House and the Senate, telling the President to end this illegal and unconstitutional war.
It is irresponsible behavior that is going to lead to more deaths of United States servicemembers and civilians around the world. It does not deescalate. It does not create coalitions of allies. It does not do anything to address the issues that Americans are facing right here at home.
Mr. Speaker, I close where I started. This is a vote of conscience. This is a vote that requires us to find the strength to do what is right for the American people and to send the clearest, even stronger message to this President of the United States that the United States Congress, the House of Representatives, is reasserting our authority over war. This war must end. Vote ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that it has been 144 days of a senseless and a pointless war. The President says he is there to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon. In his first term, the President ripped up the JCPOA, as the gentlewoman from Washington has indicated.
I was in Congress at that time when the JCPOA was implemented. The United States was not by itself. It was a well-thought-out, diplomatic document that was produced that was clear. It wasn't something that was done by individuals who heretofore only was involved in real estate. It was done with diplomats around the world and even some of our adversaries in Russia and China, the P5+1.
I traveled several times to Geneva to have dialogue and conversation with the head of the IAEA, and I, along with some other colleagues, was told that at that particular time, for the first time, they had their eyes on Iran and its nuclear capabilities. They had cameras watching everything. All of the individuals said that Iran was, at the closest, a year to a year and a half, and could not progress because of what we were doing in a collective manner to prevent them from having a nuclear weapon.
The IAEA was there until when? The President ripped it up.
That is when the cameras and the watching of what was taking place there and the agreement that had been made through a diplomatic channel ended, and Iran pushed us out. That is when we no longer could see what was taking place.
Diplomacy was preventing Iran from having a nuclear weapon without the Strait of Hormuz being closed, without the death of the men and women of our military, without the cost of rising prices of food because fertilizer couldn't get through the strait, or the cost of gas. We had allies with us.
Are we better off now when we are doing all of this basically by ourselves? Because everyone advised this President of the United States not to do it.
Mr. Speaker, with 18 lives of servicemembers, too many Iranian civilians, including more than 100 schoolgirls, and injured countless more, tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent, and the administration still refuses to give us a full accounting of where that money went.
Now, even as they refuse to explain the cost, guess what? They are asking for billions more for a war that they
But you know what, Mr. Speaker, the House and the Senate have spoken. They have already voted in a bipartisan way to end this war. Today, let's vote again, and I believe we will get an even greater margin in this House.
Let's not give this President another blank check to wage an illegal war. This is not what the Constitution demands of us. This is not what our constituents expect of us. They expect us to do our jobs. They expect us to abide by the Constitution of the United States of America. They expect us to stand up and tell this President that this illegal war must come to an end once and for all.
Vote ``yes'' on this War Powers Resolution, and let the American people know that we will not be altered from doing our job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to begin by agreeing with something that my colleague said. We didn't ask for this. We didn't ask for Iran, again, as I have said already, to attack us over 350 times in just the 30 months prior to Operation Epic Fury. We did not ask for that.
I want to read from the concurrent resolution offered by my colleague from Washington: ``Remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,'' with the exception of forces that would ``prevent the United States from defending itself, its Armed Forces, its diplomatic facilities, or allied states, from imminent attack.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) to tell us which units, which ships she would like removed.
Mr. Speaker, I would read from the resolution again: Remove United States Forces from hostilities against Iran, except for those that are tasked with defending it, its armed forces, its diplomatic facilities from imminent attack.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) asking what forces she would like removed.
Mr. Speaker, I would again respond to the chairman by asking: When will we have a single classified briefing, a single hearing in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on this war?
Is the chairman prepared to say that we will have that hearing on this war?
Why are we so afraid of having a public hearing on the issue of whether or not we should be at war in Iran? Where is the chairman's commitment to the American people?
Mr. Speaker, again, we have an author of this bill that is demanding U.S. Forces be removed, and the author of this bill has absolutely no clue what forces she wants to remove. That is beyond irresponsible, to say the least, to write a resolution, bring it to the floor, demand something with the weight of this issue, a nuclear-armed Iran, an Iran that has been attacking us, killing our people for years--350 attacks, 4 dead, 200 wounded just in the 30 months before Epic Fury began. She says remove all forces--that is the legislation before us--and has no clue what forces she wants to remove.
There are a lot of adjectives I could use, but my words will be taken down if I start to use them, so I am going to close.
My colleagues keep saying that this is a war of choice. The Islamic Republic has made their choice. They chose to attack Americans every day. I read off for 15 minutes the attacks that have been coming against us. They chose to support terrorist proxies, killing of Americans and our allies to develop weapons of mass destruction and missiles to reach out and touch our homeland and our allies.
They also chose to scrap the MOU that President Trump put in place when he ended Epic Fury and to again engage in hostilities and attempt to extort the world for shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
We do have a choice, Mr. Speaker, and sometimes the only choice is whether you are going to hit back when you, yourself, are getting hit. We have been hit, day in, day out--I read it off--and for the first time, we are finally responding.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the previous question is ordered on the concurrent resolution.
The question is on adoption of the concurrent resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I celebrate Sarah Finch of Vance County, the winner of North Carolina's First Congressional District Art Competition.
Her remarkable painting, ``Bloom After Abandonment,'' portrays a Ford Ranger left in Mother Nature's care, reminding us that even after something is forgotten, beauty and new life can still emerge.
Sarah's artwork reflects not only extraordinary talent but also the creativity, resilience, and promise of the next generation in eastern North Carolina.
May her achievement encourage other young artists to pursue their dreams, to share their unique stories, and to never underestimate the power of their creativity.
I congratulate Sarah and thank her for reminding us that hope can bloom in the most unexpected places.
Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, Kate Shishkovsky, passed away earlier this month after a long battle with cancer.
Kate was an absolute powerhouse. She served as the Livonia Democratic Club president where she promoted Democratic values and progressive policies. She revitalized the club, transforming the organization into one of the largest, most active in the State of Michigan. It became of local force, just like her.
It is weird not to see Kate at the meetings anymore, but her legacy and presence is still felt in the room.
Beyond her volunteer work and service, Kate balanced a career as an attorney while raising two daughters. She returned to school to follow her passion for nursing.
Instead of resting in retirement, Kate worked every single day to defend our democracy and the rights of all residents, especially those who were historically marginalized in the city. Not even a cancer diagnosis slowed her down.
I will miss Kate dearly. I will miss Kate's calm presence, her subtle sense of humor, and her warmth that radiated every single day and everywhere she went.
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 gentlewoman from Utah?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Utah for yielding.
Many Californians have been shocked to learn that our State legislature and Governor just imposed what the California Tax Foundation calls ``the largest tax increase in State history.''
For a State that already has the highest taxes in the country and the highest cost of living, that is really saying something.
As part of this, the Governor and legislature in Sacramento have imposed a massive tax increase on healthcare that is going to cause California families to have to pay up to $400 more for healthcare premiums.
This is something that Californians simply cannot afford, and it is all the worse given that California voters already said that this kind of tax increase is barred. It is a double blow to democracy and affordability.
Fortunately, there is a way that we can fight back to stop it. I am writing a letter putting forth a formal request, joined by my colleagues in the California delegation, for the Department of Health and Human Services here at the Federal level to block this tax increase, which does require Federal approval.
We will be sending this request out by the end of this week, and it is my hope that California taxpayers can be spared yet another increase in our cost of living that so many Californians simply cannot afford because of the extreme policies coming out of Sacramento.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Child Action for celebrating 50 years of service to the Sacramento community.
Child Action is a nonprofit organization that has been supporting children and families since 1976. Rooted in the qualities of compassion, community, and support, Child Action has provided affordable and quality childcare to over 19,000 children throughout Sacramento County.
When childcare is affordable, educational, and accessible, it greatly benefits the whole regional economy. As chair of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education, I know full well the impact that Child Action's subsidy program and eligibility lists provide to deserving families with the necessary financial support. These forward-looking initiatives allow parents to seek employment or educational opportunities while still being able to support their families.
In addition to the programs for families, Child Action also provides support and training to other childcare providers in the Sacramento region, raising the quality of care in the field while growing local businesses in the process.
Partnering with like-minded stakeholders is just another way that Child Action enhances the quality of life in our community. They are, indeed, a pillar of compassion and care by supporting other childcare providers and guiding children and families toward brighter futures.
I was honored to attend Child Action's Golden Gala in the city of Rancho Cordova. The evening was filled with connection, care, and support as guests raised awareness for programs that continue to provide high-quality care to those who need it most in our community.
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize Child Action for 50 years of service to the Sacramento region.
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of National Zookeeper Appreciation Week, I rise today to recognize an outstanding zookeeper in my district, Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary Zookeeper Amy Van der Molen.
Amy has been a zookeeper at the Zoo Sanctuary since 1994. Prior to that, she worked as zookeeper at the Fairytale Town Park in Sacramento and is an educator at the Sacramento Zoo Interpretive Center. During her career, she has cared for birds, reptiles, omnivores, and carnivores.
During her tenure at the Folsom City Zoo Sanctuary, Amy has overseen the care of many animals, including 13 bears, 8 mountain lions, 2 tigers, 5 wolves, and many others.
As part of her zookeeping job, Amy participates in vet procedures for the animals in her care, creates behavioral and environmental enrichment, performs positive enforcement training, participates in keeper chats for guests to educate them about animals, and shares the Zoo Sanctuary's mission of teaching responsible behavior toward all animals.
Amy has created the Annual Art Program where animals use their feet, nose, or other body parts to paint with nontoxic washable paint on a canvas. These paintings are sold in the zoo gift shop and have even been part of art shows at a local art gallery in Folsom and have sold at various special events and fundraisers to benefit the Zoo Sanctuary.
Amy's love for her work and for the animals under her care is evident as she has been quoted as saying: ``During my career, I have loved every single animal that I have worked with, but of course there are a few that I will never forget and will always be a part of me. I have been eligible,'' she said, ``for retirement since January of 2025, but I love my job and my animal family. I don't see myself leaving anytime soon.''
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives, I am honored to recognize zookeeper Amy Van der Molen for her service to the Folsom community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate former City of Folsom Fire Chief Ken Cusano on the occasion of his retirement, following 28 years of service and dedication to protecting the Folsom community.
Chief Cusano attended Folsom High School and received his bachelor's degree from Sacramento State.
Since joining the fire department in 1998, Chief Cusano climbed the ranks, starting his career as a firefighter paramedic and eventually taking the title of chief in October 2020, which he held until his retirement.
Throughout his time as chief, he led a team of over 90 professionals and was known for strengthening the department during a time of unprecedented growth in the city.
During his tenure, Chief Cusano lent his expertise in the design and construction of Fire Stations 39 and 34 and the remodel of Station 38. In addition to the new fire stations, Chief Cusano also played a key role in creating a medic unit and hiring extra personnel to keep up with the rapid growth of Folsom.
Under the chief's steady hand and leadership, the mental health of the men and women in the department became a priority. The forward- thinking approach was evident when the department introduced the region's first peer support dog and other proactive approaches to support the resilience and mental well-being of all department employees.
The chief's dedication to the quality of life in his community could also be found with new initiatives, such as helping to implement a social host ordinance to deter illegal fireworks, as well as the seasonal closure of certain open spaces which posed fire risks.
Chief Cusano has played a vital role in helping to shape Folsom's future. He faced his job and its challenges with a spirit of doing everything he could to keep the community safe. He will undoubtedly be missed by the city's grateful residents, businesses, and the men and women in his department that he called home for almost three decades.
On behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am honored to join the community in recognizing Fire Chief Ken Cusano's retirement. I thank him for his 28 years of
Mr. Speaker, I solemnly rise today to honor the life of Brad Tatum, who passed away earlier this year.
Brad will be known not only as the publisher of the Orangevale View, but as someone who cared deeply for small businesses, youth athletics, and his family and friends.
Known as the heart behind the Orangevale View, Brad took pride in sharing the good news that enhanced the quality of life throughout his beloved Orangevale. This free, biweekly newspaper's stories were not only insightful but brought people together with a common touch.
Brad's gift for selecting stories that reflected his sense of pride for the community could be seen through the ways that he highlighted local heroes, businesses, and the Casa Rams athletic program. His prose and choice of which stories to feature positively impacted Orangevale and the surrounding communities.
Brad will undoubtedly be missed by his children, grandchildren, siblings, friends, and the more than 37,000 readers who enjoyed learning about the latest FFA achievements, breakfasts at the Grange, and all the other happenings that make Orangevale a special place. His dedication to his community will not be forgotten. The impacts he made will live on in the lives he touched and the stories he wrote.
Therefore, on behalf of the United States House of Representatives and California's Third Congressional District, I am honored to recognize Brad Tatum for his many contributions to the Orangevale community.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and express gratitude for my dear friend and chief of staff, Andrew David, who is seated next to me here.
Andrew has served by my side for over 9 years. We have toiled together to serve we the people.
I have great sorrow in my heart that Andrew is leaving the office. He has accepted a beautiful and meaningful position in our home State of Louisiana, and I have an odd mixture of tremendous joy that Andrew is embracing the illuminated path before him and that he and his beautiful, amazing wife, Holly--who is seated in the gallery; also a native of our beloved Louisiana--are returning home, having served their country with honor here in this, the people's House.
I rise, Mr. Speaker--unscripted, through only the words that the Lord has etched upon my heart--to speak in gratitude of what this man has brought to me and my family and my congressional service for nearly a decade.
Andrew has been an unwavering counselor for me through some very difficult and challenging times and decisions. He has never strayed from the deepest core principles that we attempt every day to embrace as we conduct the business of our congressional service.
As a man, Andrew through the years became perhaps my dearest and most trusted, most immediately available source of sound counsel. I have no doubt--good sir, good lady--that I would have failed to perform my service for we the people time and again had it not been for the quiet, calm, and steady counsel of Andrew David.
I am reminded, Mr. Speaker, as I see the words that we who are honored to serve in this Chamber gaze upon every day in the stone above your podium: In God We Trust. We effort to be worthy of what it is to be His child and to serve in this, His anointed house.
I am reminded this day of His words in Genesis 7:1, when the Lord said to Noah, ``Come into the ark, ye and your household.'' ``Come,'' Mr. Speaker, He said. He didn't say, ``Go into the ark.'' He said, ``Come.''
This is understood to mean that the Lord was already present there. The goodness of the Lord was present there before Noah entered that challenge of entering the ark and traversing the storm to begin anew.
When I came to D.C., I had no experience, no political background. I had a clear understanding of what I thought perhaps should be a servant to we the people in the House of Representatives. When I was elected in 2016 and I came here to this august body, I did not know that the Lord had already placed His goodness. It awaited me. The Lord had prepared a counselor for me, His unworthy son. That man, that goodness, is Andrew David.
We shall continue to serve. We will endeavor every day to be worthy of service to we the people in His Chamber of what it is to be children of God, the most high.
I will strive to be worthy of being called David's friend and brother. I thank him for his decade of service by my side. God bless him as he embraces the illuminated path before him. I wish him luck. I know that great joy awaits him and his beautiful family in our beloved Louisiana.
The Fourth of July fireworks are over, and the barbecue leftovers are long gone. Now we have the rest of the year to continue to reflect on America's founding 250 years ago.
John Adams believed that independence should be celebrated with solemn reflection. In that spirit, I sponsored a speech competition for the high school students in Utah's Second Congressional District and asked teenagers to write about what America means to them.
Tonight, I will read the two winning speeches as well as a little bit about the two students who wrote them. These speeches were selected out of a pile of speeches with blind reading, so I didn't know who had written them.
Kambree Giles is a student at Millard High School in the Second District. She is entering her senior year. She lives in Meadow, Utah, a town with fewer than 350 people, where she is an active member of her school's FFA chapter. After graduating, she plans to serve an 18-month proselytizing mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
This is her speech:
George W. Bush said, ``For we are given power not to advance our own purposes, nor to make a great show in the world, nor a name. There is but one just use of power, and it is to serve people.'' I love this quote because it shows just how America should be. I ask you: What are you doing to help the people around you, and therefore to help this country?
I believe that this country is a country of love and freedom. Each of us has the unique opportunity to help those around us. If we love those around us, we can make someone feel better. Love is the first thing I think of when I think of what this great country is. This country means being able and willing to be a helping hand. We all have the freedom to help those around us. We never know just how much of an influence that can be.
When people think about this country, they should be inspired and feel proud to call it home. I want everyone who hears this to be inspired to show kindness and feel the sense of pride that this country brings. Every time I stand up to say the pledge or when I hear the national anthem, I feel a sense of pride to be able to call this country my home. I get teary-eyed because I know what this country stands for and the lengths kindness has gone to keep it free. The most important thing this country stands for, for me, is kindness.
If anything is taken from my speech, I hope everyone that hears this leaves feeling a stronger sense of pride for our country. If we want America to stay great, we must choose to keep it great by treating all of its people with kindness, lifting others up instead of putting them down. This country immediately needs more kindness.
Thank you, Kambree.
The second one is from Rylee Moore. Rylee is the second winner of our America 250 speech contest. She is also from a small town, Delta, Utah, where she attends Delta High School and is entering the tenth grade. Rylee's words reflect love for our Nation's history and faith in its future.
This is Rylee's speech:
America means so much to me because it is a place where freedom meets opportunity, where people from all over the world, not just America, can come together to live, work, and dream. In my opinion, America represents being able to make a difference
To me, America is also about standing up for what is right, working hard to make things happen, and better the world around us.
It is far from perfect, but with the freedom to speak our mind and fight for justice, great communities are created. I am proud to live in a country that supports freedom and opinion.
In conclusion, America brings hope, opportunity, and a place where I can imagine and create a bright future for myself as well as others.
Thank you, Rylee.
Kambree and Rylee are young, and their words reflect well on them, their families, and Utah, where they were raised. Like them, I am grateful for our country and excited about the next 250 years of American goodness and freedom. I thank each of the high school students who rose to the challenge and wrote a speech. I sincerely hope that each of them learned something new and that their love for this country grew even just a little bit.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much, and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this evening, I have real pleasure to send positive messages forward on so many of the phenomenal citizens that I represent here and their life stories.
I rise today to celebrate an extraordinary Ohio educator, Cassy Dornbusch, from Ottawa County, Ohio, Congressional District 9. She was honored by the Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools as the Outstanding Elementary Teacher for the 2025-2026 School Year, this year.
For 33 years, Cassy has been a reading specialist at Benton-Carroll- Salem and a builder of futures. With patience, compassion, and unwavering belief in every child who walks through her door, she has helped students discover how to read, yes, but more importantly, how to believe in themselves.
In every word of encouragement, Cassy shapes the confidence, curiosity, and resilience of young minds. Her impact lives on in the voices, dreams, and successes of her students.
As she starts her well-earned retirement, we thank Cassy for her dedication, her heart, and the lasting difference she has made in each and every life. Our rocket future is brighter because of her.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Paul Hollenbeck, an architect, mentor, and rare lifelong community builder. His precious insights to build progress forward in every corner of our city of Toledo is unparalleled.
Paul was an astounding, creative, humble citizen, and he embodied the community's hopes in every nook and cranny, and he rarely got attention. He was very, very humble. He didn't look for notoriety. He believed deeply that places matter because people matter. He spent his life proving that belief brick by brick, neighborhood by neighborhood, project by project. He was unrelenting.
I knew Paul as a friend and as a doer. He didn't just talk about civic responsibility. He lived it, and he set an example for others to follow.
Through his leadership in creating the Toledo Design Collective, his vision for downtown Toledo, or his quiet mentorship of young architects and community leaders, he reimagined the redevelopment of urban spaces and neighborhoods, literally rebuilding America in this new century. He breathed new life into every corner of our community.
Paul always demonstrated a focus on the future, and that good design for people is about dignity, access, opportunity, and respect for our built environment. He understood that cities are living places, shaped by generosity and care, and he gave Toledo both.
Paul brought people together, listened closely, and always asked how we could do better for the next generation.
He leaves behind the Design Collective, The Collaborative building, and revitalized neighborhoods. More importantly, he leaves behind a grateful family, grateful friends, a grateful community, and a civic spirit we all can carry forward by innovating and caring for the precious legacy of our built environment in the largest fresh watershed in the entire Great Lakes. Paul Hollenbeck's legacy will live on in the voices, the dreams, and the successes that have happened across our region.
I say to his family, to his friends, and to the architects with whom he spent so much of his life: Congratulations. Job well-done, Paul Hollenbeck.
Mr. Speaker, our northwest Ohio region is lucky to have countless educators who guide our young people and help them grow into strong leaders of tomorrow. One of these educators is Andre Cowell.
A retired Toledo detective now teaching criminal justice at Washington Local School District's Whitmer High School, he brings 25 years of field experience to the classroom.
Mr. Cowell's deep compassion extends to every student he encounters. A former student at Whitmer, Alivia Garcia, who wasn't even a student of Mr. Cowell's, spoke so highly of the impact he made on her life, I thought it was worth sharing here in the Halls of Congress. There are such good people everywhere, and he showed her true kindness in the wake of a difficult time in her life following the passing of her boyfriend.
Mr. Cowell welcomed her into his classroom when she needed an ear to listen. He let her know if you ever need anything, I am always here, and you know where to find me.
He kept his word and stays in touch with Alivia to this day.
Mr. Cowell is a shining example of someone worthy of congressional recognition.
The Whitmer community in northwestern Ohio is blessed to have an educator like Andre Cowell. He is a model of a man for others, sharing empathy and integrity for the generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to return to my alma mater, St. Ursula Academy in Toledo, Ohio, earlier this year to join the students at a sports rally that featured student-athletes--a lot of them. The event recognized the senior young women for their achievements.
Special recognition was lauded on the 22 members of the dance team who, once again, prevailed as State of Ohio champions this year. These Arrows well represented our State and the academy at the UDA National Dance Team Competition earning a silver placement in jazz and a bronze placement in pom.
I was able to present a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol to Coach Morgan Losby and her team of extraordinary dancers--boy, are they precision dancers--as our community honored their stellar performances this season.
Mr. Speaker, please allow me to applaud all these disciplined student-athletes at St. Ursula Academy including those in--get ready-- basketball, gymnastics, swimming and diving, crew, lacrosse, tennis, track and field, soccer, softball, volleyball, and golf, in addition to the dance team.
Congratulations to them all for their hard work and perseverance as they enjoy their hard-won plaudits and pursue their passions into the future. We know they will do well.
Mr. Speaker, a serious issue is facing our continent. Right now, wildfires are ravaging our neighbors in the Canadian Province of Ontario which Ohio adjoins through Lake Erie. Many First Nation communities have been forced to evacuate. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of forests have burned.
However, our northern neighbors were not the only ones who suffered. Just last week, in my hometown of Toledo, Ohio, hazardous air quality ranked among the highest levels in our Nation. As winds blew the smoke into northwestern Ohio, our community was at risk for the grave health concerns that accompany wildfire smoke: asthma attacks, heart attacks, and weakened immune systems.
Burning forests remind us that environmental challenges like air pollution and wildfires, which will continue to be exacerbated by climate change, do not
Joint efforts and collaboration are necessary to make both of our countries safer, healthier and more resilient. America belongs to all of us, no matter what side of the border one lives on. As allies working together, we can heal our freshwater and forest systems in our precious, bountiful, and life-sustaining freshwater region.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have urged Americans: Please lower the temperature. Political extremism and dangerous divisions among Americans are still cause for serious reflection.
We have seen it time and again throughout our history, and we have seen, sadly, assassination attempts on the President, on former Presidents, on lawmakers at the State and Federal level, Supreme Court Justices, Governors, and many more.
Last month, as the LGBTQ community celebrated Pride Month, families nationwide marked Father's Day. We saw another escalation that compels me to raise the issue of political extremism once again.
A cruel and heartless person anonymously sent a false tip to State police in Michigan in an attempt to falsely claim that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and his husband, Chasten, had abused their twin 4-year-old children. Child Protective Services investigated competently and professionally and quickly realized that no abuse had taken place. That false flag proved to be a traumatic experience for the parents and their precious children alike.
Dear Citizens of our Nation: Hatred is unacceptable. It is still alive and well in some corners and in some places in America. Call it out. Cruelty must not be our standard, and it should not be allowed without rebuke.
I am sorry the Buttigieg family had to endure it. Loving families should live free of bigotry. We all need to lower the political temperature. Be kind. Be kind and be soulful.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that the leaders of this Chamber need to allow a return to regular order. We are far from that.
We see the constant churn of failed rule votes, budget bills hopelessly behind schedule, Congress sent home, dozens and dozens and dozens of days wasted going away from this Chamber rather than passing the bills that are critical, such as appropriation bills not receiving consideration in the timetable allowed, and with a hail Mary pass pivoting to congressional continuing resolutions instead of passing bills to effectively govern.
The Appropriations Committee worked on each of our 12 bills. We did our job and tried to move them forward.
For weeks, the Energy and Water Development bill impacting every Congressional District in our Nation has been purposefully delayed after a rule to consider it failed for no good reason.
Now we head home. We are being sent home again for the August recess and district work period without Speaker Johnson allowing our work to be completed to fund our country for the coming fiscal year.
The fiscal year ends the last day of September. The new fiscal year begins October 1. This Congress has failed in its duty. The clock is ticking even louder.
I wish the leadership of this Chamber cared about returning to regular order. We are living through great disorder here, but they seem to be fine kicking the can down the road.
This hurts every American family. As they prepare income tax forms, people can't get answers. It hurts the Department of Veterans Affairs. They can't hire the staff they need. It hurts every single American calling in to the Federal Government and trying to get answers to questions they have because of understaffing and uncertainty.
This isn't the way to run a country of 340 million people. Someone has to restore regular order to this Congress and this House.
My fellow appropriators and I stand ready to do this work. We have done our work. The question is: Will this speaker and his team choose to meet our constitutional responsibilities in Article I? It is not at the end of the Constitution. It is not an amendment. It is Article I of the Constitution to meet our constitutional responsibilities to pass these critical bills to run the government of the United States, or are they going to cede the field again to more uncertainty and chaos?
Mr. Speaker, the President's reckless and power-hungry administration has made yet another attempt to stifle the rights of millions of hardworking Americans.
He implemented a lawless database that violated privacy rights. He compiled citizens' private Social Security information to illegally distribute that to States eager to purge voter rolls.
This is on top of the administration's secret plan, alongside Speaker
Mike Johnson here in this House, to cut hard-earned Social Security and Medicare benefits.
Not only was this data collection started under Elon Musk and his DOGE illegal team, a myriad of so-called data was fabricated and inaccurate.
Americans were mislabeled as noncitizens or deceased by the database. They had their voter registrations canceled without any notification whatsoever:
Thank goodness for the work of prosecutors and an ethical district court judge for blocking their illegal action. The damage has already been done.
I urge every citizen listening, especially those who are senior citizens, go to a website called vote.org to check your registration status to ensure your rightful access to the ballot box. That is Vote.org to check your voter registration status to ensure your rightful access to the ballot box itself.
Sadly, you and I both know that this will not be the last time this administration and their billionaire buddies try to limit your sacred right to vote.
This year, please make your voices heard, check whether or not your name is registered as a voter that can vote this November or an early vote in your State if that is allowed. Check your voter registration at Vote.org.
Compensating Veterans with Disability Pay and Retirement Benefits
Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in strong support of the bipartisan Major Richard Star Act.
Servicemembers injured in the line of duty have already given so much to our Nation of their substance. They should not be forced to sacrifice again when they return home to their families.
Many of these disabled veterans are unable to work full-time. They often face insurmountable challenges for the rest of their lives. Many are denied the full compensation they deserve for all their service.
The Major Richard Star Act will correct this injustice by rightfully compensating these veterans with disability pay and retirement benefits.
That is why I am a cosponsor of the bill and have signed the discharge petition to bring this essential piece of bipartisan legislation to the House floor for a fair up-or-down vote.
I urge my colleagues who have not signed on to this petition to support our veterans and stand with me on their behalf. We are just three signatures away from being able to vote on and pass this bill which already has 337 bipartisan cosponsors. Let's bring it forward, and do the job.
Mr. Speaker, I implore you to bring this monumental legislation for a clean vote, so we can give something back to those who have given so much for all of us and the generations to come. I ask my colleagues to sponsor the Major Richard Star Act, just sign the discharge petition. We only need three signatures more, and we can move this bill.
Mr. Speaker, let's try something I have never done before, but I also need to sort of lock something down. Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone from your staff watching--and we said we would make it public--
There will be lobbyists who will yell and scream. There will be activists who make their money. Mr. Speaker pro tempore, over and over and over around here, we spent the last few months--as a matter of fact, I came behind this microphone probably half a dozen times talking about waste and fraud and walking through all the things we found.
How many bills have we moved through here that actually take those things on? Turns out it is harder than you think because the fraud, as it turns out, it is fairly easy to identify. It is a little hard to stop. Often, it is money that has already gone out the door, so we have to hunt someone down, try to collect the money, and put someone in jail.
When you hear the term ``waste,'' it is often our fault. We designed a program that has leakage, or certain companies have found ways to take advantage of it, certain bureaucracies.
I will give you a simple example. This is going to make sense in a moment. In New York City, in the last 5 years the number one job creator turns out to be a Medicaid program for home visiting. Think of that. The number one job creator for half a decade in New York City is a Medicaid program. Even when the leftist Democrat Governor of New York says, yeah, it is fraud, maybe we could do something together.
We have worked over and over and over to try to write bills. Many of them are very uncomfortable because they are complex. They require changing things in what we call entitlements. They are moral, and they are necessary. I hope I am not a fool.
One year ago, when we actually did part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Family Tax Cut Act, yes, we had an obligation to extend the tax policy and do some of the pro-growth things. When we came back, many of us thought we had negotiated an agreement that when we did the second reconciliation bill, we were going to start to save the future of this country, save the future of the economy, convince the bond market we weren't going to continue to borrow ourselves into oblivion.
It turns out--and this isn't solely the Speaker's fault--it was really hard to convince a lot of our Members how difficult it is to go home and tell the truth about math.
Mr. Speaker, if your staff is out there listening, I expect you and this institution to keep your promise to our team, that we are going to take these bills seriously, we are going to bring in the leadership from the committees, and we are going to pound it out how we move them forward. There is a reason--I am sorry, I don't mean to sound like a melodramatic jerk.
How many of you get our daily debt? The Joint Economic Committee actually built a system where every single day, every workday, we reach into the Treasury's management system where they have these charts and graphs, and we capture what was borrowed today, what was brought to market today, and what was sold today.
Who in this room, the handful of us who are here and hopefully the thousand televisions we are on, understand over the last 12 months--if I do the last 12 months average, $93,763 is what we are borrowing every second. Every second, we are borrowing over $93,000.
I understand some of these numbers bounce up and down because we also had some refunding issues after the last debt ceiling issue a year ago, but in the last 12 months, we, as a government, have borrowed $2.948 trillion if you just want to do this fiscal year.
Here is the publicly sold debt, and over here is the money we borrow from the trust funds, which we do pay interest back. We have to intellectually be honest: It is borrowing.
Often we quote what we borrowed from the public because that is in the public bond market, but when we borrow from the trust funds--Social Security, Medicare, railroad, retirement, everything else. We pay an interest. We owe it back.
We are now at $2.022 trillion in borrowing this fiscal year. This total year, the original projections were $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion. We are heading to borrowing $2.3 trillion. I know it is hard to see 12 zeros. I know no one cares, but just understand, this is really crappy.
Maybe we all understand this number. At the current rate of total borrowing--remember, net borrowing is borrowing from the public. Gross borrowing is borrowing from the public and from the trust funds. Anyone want to take a guess how many days it takes us to borrow another trillion dollars? It is 123 days.
Every 123 days, we are ticking off another trillion dollars. Total U.S. debt as of today is $39.660 trillion. By the end of this summer work period, whatever we want to call it, we are going to be at $40 trillion.
Doesn't this make anyone pucker up, or is the joke that is often said here, never near a microphone because we would be an idiot to say in front of a microphone, no one ever gets unelected by spending too much money because the public wants it.
In 6 years, when you are on Social Security and you are getting a 22 to 24 percent cut in your check, and we double poverty of seniors, 7 years from now when we double the number of baby boomers who live on the street, maybe some of this will make sense, that we should have done something much sooner, but math is math.
Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I am a little exercised this week-- and you have been in conference with those things. I accept I have been a bit of a jerk. I am just trying to find some way to be heard. I have been doing the same damn thing behind this microphone for 15 years, and it has only gotten worse.
Something is wrong when--I am number four in Ways and Means. I chair Oversight in Ways and Means. I chair the Joint Economic Committee. We have a handful of Ph.D. economists who are just smart, yet I walk into a room of my brothers and sisters, Democrats, even Republicans, with my charts and almost get booed because we don't want to hear it.
We are going to bring down this Republic, and it is not going to be some mob coming over the border. It is going to be our own fiscal insanity.
Remember, in about 25, 26 months, the majority of our spending, not tax collection, spending, will go to our brothers and sisters who are 65 and up. We are functionally an insurance company with an Army.
Last year, for every dollar we took in taxes, we spent $1.43. If you do the basic math, and forgive me, I did this off the top of my head. If I make a mistake, send me an angry text like everyone else. I think right now, so far this fiscal year, for every dollar we are taking in, we are spending $1.47.
I am sorry the staff has to sit here and hear an idiot like me constantly coming back up behind this microphone and saying the same thing week after week, but what do we do to cut through?
I am going to show a couple boards here. If you are the public and run into a Member of Congress or someone running for Congress, look at them and don't say, what more are you going to give me? I want more money. Ask them, how are you going to save the country? Because about a week ago, our team met with, I think it was the Penn Wharton Budget Model, and the paperwork and the discussion I had with them after, I walked out of the room and my stomach hurt.
They had numbers where in 14 years we hit a wall. They had numbers saying 12 to 14 years--I am going to show you that I have it even sooner on some of our data--interest is the number one expense of this government. It surpasses Social Security. There was a discussion if we go with current policy--and we are going to talk about that, current policy, not current law, because this is the scam we keep doing here.
We keep extending our spending and extending these things. The current policy in 14 years, the United States actually can't sell any more bonds. We have hit the wall. We hit a debt spiral. I have been here 16 years.
All right. Let's do this. Let's run through these boards.
Everyone has seen this over and over because, traditionally, I start with this one. This is just the pie chart. If you
I need you to understand Social Security is the number one spend. Interest is the number two spend. Medicare is the number three spend. Medicaid and the ObamaCare subsidies are the number four spend. Defense is number five.
How many times do we get liberals saying if we just cut defense, we will balance everything? No. Interest will be bigger than all of defense this year.
It is not that hard. When we talk about these reconciliation bills, and now we are talking about possibly doing a fourth one, and that is what I am banking my sanity on is most of this red--now, you don't get to do anything on interest. Interest we owe.
Remember, this is net interest. Gross interest is actually closer to like--sorry. We will be close to $1.280 trillion because we owe the interest back to the trust funds.
The other parts here are what we call mandatory. We owe Medicare. We made a deal. We owe Social Security. We made a deal. Does that mean we can't do things to revolutionize the cost of healthcare and Medicare and make it more accessible, more efficient, more price effective?
When we think, we actually will spend $350 billion over the next 10 years in duplicative MRI scans, X-rays, ultrasounds, CTs. How about this crazy idea of: Hey, I got a scan. Put it on your phone so when you go to your next doctor, they hit the button and it is there on the screen.
There will be an army of lobbyists who work for companies that make money on the duplicative scans, and they will fight us and embarrass us. Maybe they will hire social media stars. I tried do a reform and a fix on some of the things we saw from the MedPAC report where it was costing us hundreds of billions of dollars of waste, not fraud.
The Department of Justice may actually have an opinion on this one. It was on Medicare part C. We call it Medicare Advantage. The next day, some marketing firm defending one of the insurance companies was hiring social media stars to beat the crap out of me for talking about trying to fix the bleeding of Medicare Advantage.
That is one of the reasons we get so cowed around here. We are trying to explain why we are trying to save these systems, and there is so much money in that waste. Part of that money goes to beat the crap out of us to stop us from reforming government.
Let's actually walk through something, just a simple concept. A week or two ago, I did a presentation here showing you the academic literature and the things that our economists have worked on showing that government borrowing has made your mortgage one point higher.
Today, when you go out and try to get a new 30-year loan and it is, what, 6.7 today, it would be 5.7 if we weren't grabbing so damn much money out of the marketplace.
We are partially responsible, if not substantially responsible, for affordability in America. But when we go home and do a townhall or meetings, it is person after person that wants more money from us.
Maybe Congress is just basically representing the interests of the public. They don't care about the bankruptcy, the stress, those things. Technically, governments don't go bankrupt, but basically what we are going to have to do is monetize this debt.
Don't laugh at me. My wife and I are the same age. We have a 4-year- old boy. He was here a couple of weeks ago, cute as can be, just turned 4. For his fourth birthday, he wanted to go to work with Daddy. We need 104 percent of his lifetime earnings, every dime he will ever make in his life, plus another 4 percent, just to pay for Federal Government pensions: Social Security, Medicare, military. That is 104 percent. This is what we have done to our kids.
Now, part of it is because we have so few children and so many of us that have gray hair. It is called baby boomers. It is just math.
So I'm trying to explain a simple concept. We do more borrowing and spending, but we also have this thing called leakage. That is where we have misdesigned programs, and outsiders, businesses, insurance companies, bureaucracies have figured out how to bleed those programs because we screwed up on their design and haven't been willing to go back and turn around and fix them.
We end up having to borrow more money. When we borrow more money, we push up interest rates. When we push up interest rates, we have just made everything less affordable. We have created this doom loop. The only way to break it is to convince those markets we are not just going to keep borrowing like crazy.
Then we have these charts, and I keep trying to explain this. There is this concept--it is a big word--interest fragility. Interest goes up, and it beats the ever living crap out of us.
Think about what has happened today. Today, I believe the 10-year bond closed at 4.65, 4.67. It is functioning at pretty close to the highest it has been in a year and some of the highest it has been in many years.
Let's play a game here. Let's assume that it is 60 basis points, 70 basis points higher than the average we were having before. Remember, you are going to keep having people say: Well, the reason the interest rates are up is because of the war in Iran. They were ticking up before that because of the worldwide battle for capital. Other countries are also bingeing on debt. We have data centers and other things coming to market bingeing on debt.
We are all competing with each other. Because when you borrow money, you are borrowing from the world's pool of savings. It could be your savings account, your pension, a family in China. We all put our moneys into our banks and savings institutions and investment institutions. That is what is referred to as the world's savings pool. Ray Dalio talks about this repeatedly.
The problem is our need for the savings or the need for the borrowing is now starting to outstrip the world's excess capital. When that happens, interest rates go up.
When you take a look at what we are doing right now, for the fun of it, let's just say it is only 60 basis points and it is over the next 10 years. Just that bond interest rate we have had recently over the last couple of months, it is $2 trillion of additional interest over the 10 years.
It is called interest fragility, little bits of interest increases, and you are basically borrowing $40 trillion. That little bit kicks us in the head, and that is how you start to head toward that interest debt spiral.
Let's actually dig into this: 30-year Treasury yields are approaching their longest stretch above 5 percent since 2007. It is here. It is not some theory of mine. You know, Schweikert is an idiot. He is going to talk about interest fragility. No one cares. Ta-da, it is here.
I can show you some interest rate future contracts out there. Jamie Dimon, I think it was yesterday--and I am reading a third-party article--is basically saying he would not buy long-term U.S. debt, the tens, twenties, thirties. Should that tell us something? Because expectation is interest rates are going to go up, because when interest rates go up, the existing bond crashes in value.
You have got to understand. It is here. It has begun. If we as a body don't start to convince the bond market that we are starting to get control of our ravenous borrowing, that bond market is going to run this country. Because--what was it--Carville basically said in the nineties, talked about how the bond market basically shaped policy.
Our debt is dramatically bigger today, and our competition for borrowing--how do I put this?
Mr. Speaker, how many of us believe the United States is the most creditworthy country in the world? We have the most liquidity in the markets. We are the reserve currency, though we are starting to lose that because of the way we treat our currency and the way we borrow.
When Greece, Spain, and these sorts of countries can sell a 10-year bond cheaper than the United States--Greece can sell it substantially less expensive. So can Spain. When Italy can sell a 10-year bond cheaper than the United States, should we start to worry?
Last I looked on one of my industrialized countries list we were like number 13 on the credit stack.
You have got to understand what is going on here. This is one of the ones that just stresses me out. Maybe I shouldn't drink so much coffee, and maybe I should double up on my hypertension medicine.
But outside of that, let's take a look here: Gross interest will surpass Social Security in 2037. This is 10 budget years from now. Our math is now saying--now, when we say gross interest, that is the interest we are paying back to Social Security, Medicare, all of the trust funds, and what we have to sell to the public. This is baseline policy, not current law, baseline policies. We have been doing it. I need you to think about something. This is with no wars. This is with no pandemics. This is with no disasters. In functionally 10 years interest is our number one expense of the United States Government.
Someone out there help me have the language to move people's hearts and their intellects. This is terrifying. I know we are not supposed to tell our voters this because we are supposed to happy-talk about how much more we are going to give them.
In 6 years and 2 months, the Medicare trust fund is gone. If you are in healthcare, your hospital is getting a 12 percent cut. How many are going to get to see their doctor at that hospital?
During that time, the spend on Medicare goes from $1 trillion to $2 trillion. It is demographics.
One or two more boards and then you will be rid of me.
More than 30 percent of the Federal revenues will go towards interest in 9 budget years. We have actually done a stressor on this. So the math right now--and this is sort of baseline policy--in 9 budget years, you pay a dollar of taxes, and 31 cents of that--so this is all taxes. This isn't just income tax. It is not just tariffs. It is all taxes, and 31 cents of that dollar--and in my model because I had a couple of other stressors and slightly higher interest rates built in, but this was using the CBO baseline interest rates, which were already above, it was 33 percent.
Are you ready in 9 budget years to have 30 to 33 cents out of every dollar just paying interest? This isn't crazy. This is actually already in our numbers. It is just that no one dives into them and digs through and goes, oh, dear Heaven, how could this be our country?
We are going to avoid actually having the conversation until we get back and the Speaker will keep his promise to our team that have been working on this for a couple of years now of optionality. Yes, it will drive the lobbyists insane. It will drive some of the groups insane and some of the bureaucracies insane because they don't give a damn about the future of this country. What they care about is their current paycheck. I am going to save the future of this country, or at least give it one more shot before I leave here.
These two are really, really important and absolutely dystopian, and I know it is hard to read.
Interest costs are projected to eventually consume more than half of all revenues. Not tax revenues, not income tax. All revenues. But here is the punch line. I know this chart is a little hard to read, so I don't know if the camera can pick it up.
When we are saying the 50 percent, it is just the red baseline. If interest rates were to go up to 5.2 percent--Mr. Speaker, what is the 30-year bond at right now? It is pretty much at 5.2 percent. I know that is not our blended rate, but you see the elevation.
At current interest rate models, which is actually at 4.2 percent-- which I believe we are now well above because the 2-year is at 4.2 percent.
Functionally, let's take a look here, and it looks like by about 2041, which sounds like a long time--it is about to become the 2027 budget year. It is not that long from here--it is half of all revenue.
If interest rates go up, this is actually the collapse of your Republic because you will owe more interest than every tax receipt, every tariff, every corporate tax that everything we sell can produce. The interest load takes us over. It is called the death spiral, and we are not that far away.
Some of this starts to hit where you are hitting 80 percent, 90 percent in 14 years from now. You have to understand that those higher interest rates actually just brutalize us as a country.
Mr. Speaker, and to the team, last board. I do wish you were allowed to applause and be happy for these things.
This is Federal interest costs under various interest rate scenarios. Look, this is a little more the way--if you and I were playing economists, we actually don't do dollar amounts. We do percentages of GDP because the GDP can grow. But often it is inflation so when we actually start to look at the actual numbers, we actually, right now, estimate this year's borrowing--now, think of this.
The Treasury Secretary, the Budget Director, our own budget team, we all said that we are going to--actually, hundreds of us, I think, actually cosponsored a piece of legislation. We are going to only borrow 3 percent of GDP because we are going to grow at 3 percent of GDP, except we have a problem. As of today, interest is at 3.1 percent to 3.2 percent of GDP--not borrowing. Interest is already over that target.
Does anyone pay attention to the actual math, or do we just tell each other stories? But when you start to see the gradual interest rates, we are actually starting to hit a world where I am believing a model where a decade from now, we could be having 11 percent of the entire economy just be interest.
Remember, CBO's numbers from the beginning of the year--and the numbers are worse today--had us, in 9 budget years, total borrowing in 2036 being $3.1 trillion, $2.1 trillion of that just being interest, and the math is worse today.
We are not going to pay it off, but we can stabilize it. By stabilizing it, the growth of the economy, those things, we have to get through the baby boomers. It is just math. It is not personal. I am not saying something to hurt someone's feelings. It is math, and I know Congress and much of our politics now are a math-free, fact-free zone.
The bond market will live in facts, and, eventually, it is going to kick us in the head unless we can do some tough things to convince it that we are creditworthy.
Mr. Speaker, I am yielding back because I think I used my half hour. I apologize if I hurt someone's feelings. Please send me a note. I already have prewritten apology notes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Darlyn Martin of Richmond Hill, Georgia, a happy 100th birthday.
Dar celebrated the milestone with a surprise party at Magnolia Manor Senior Living Facility. She was surrounded by friends, family, fellow residents, Richmond Hill Mayor Christie Cox, a DJ, cake, balloons, presents, and dancing.
When asked for her secret to a long and happy life, Dar credited staying active and never backing down from a new challenge.
Her birthday also marks what would have been her wedding anniversary with her late husband, a reminder of the family she built in our community.
As she looks ahead to her second century, Dar's wish is simple: that things look brighter for everybody in the future.
Georgia's First District is fortunate to call Dar Martin a neighbor, and I join her family, friends, and the entire Magnolia Manor community in wishing her a very, very happy 100th birthday.
Honoring Georgia Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Georgia Library Service for the Blind and Print Disabled for being recognized at the 2026 Library of the Year by the Library of Congress.
The GLS is a free library service that reaches over 11,000 Georgia residents of any age who are unable to read standard print due to physical, visual, or reading disability. The system offers magazines and books in braille or audio forms and uses postage-free mail or downloads to reach patrons across the State.
This honor by the Library of Congress shows how the GLS makes incredible strides to reach people in all
I congratulate GLS on this remarkable achievement and dedicated service to the people of our State.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor The Church of Christ Holiness unto the Lord as they celebrate their 100th anniversary.
Founded in 1926 in Savannah, Georgia, by Elder Major Solomon Bennett, the church is dedicated to the headship of Christ while preaching the pure Gospel.
Their name was chosen from Scripture such as ``Church of Christ'' from Romans 16:16 and ``Holiness unto the Lord'' from Zachariah 14:20.
Through the late 1920s and 1930s, the church expanded throughout Georgia through evangelical outreach, revival meetings, and spirit-led ministries.
Today, the church has experienced a new expansion with ministries throughout Georgia and Florida.
I congratulate the church on its longstanding commitment to discipleship and its continued effort to grow its congregation.
I congratulate the church on this remarkable milestone, and my prayers will be with them as they continue working through Christ.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Command Master Chief Tracy Crihfield of the Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia's First District.
A native of Clendenin, West Virginia, Crihfield enlisted in the Navy in 1996 as a submarine sonar technician. He graduated from Navy A School before reporting to his first command, USS West Virginia, at Kings Bay in 1997. He went on to serve aboard the USS Maryland, the USS Wyoming, and the USS Rhode Island.
As chief of the boat on USS Tennessee and USS Georgia, he helped lead the successful integration of enlisted women on submarines.
He later served as command master chief of strategic weapons facility, earning a strategic systems programs award 2 years in a row.
I thank Command Master Chief Crihfield for nearly three decades of service to our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Trish DePriest of Georgia's First Congressional District for her 34 years of dedicated service to the people of southeast Georgia.
Born and raised in Wauchula, Florida, Trish got her start as a receptionist at WTOC before Congressman Lindsay Thomas hired her as a caseworker. She went on to serve 22 years as casework manager for Congressman Jack Kingston and then continued the legacy of service in my own office.
Serving over three decades, Trish helped constituents with everything from passports to veterans benefits to Federal tax issues. She earned a reputation as a trusted problem-solver for Georgians.
Trish was married to her husband, Roy, for 50 years until his passing in 2012. Roy served as an engineer with the signal department at CSX railroad. Together, they raised two children and were blessed with four grandchildren.
Georgia's First District thanks Trish DePriest for her decades of faithful service to the people of southeast Georgia. We love her and thank her for her service to our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of Commissioner Scott Sweeney, a devoted public servant who spent decades strengthening public education across Georgia.
Scott served 8 years on the Cobb County Board of Education, including a term as board chairman. He went on to chair the Georgia State Board of Education, improving education policy for the entire State. Most recently, he served as the commissioner for the State Charter Schools Commission of Georgia.
Those who worked alongside Scott remember both his leadership and his character. He prioritized students' success, health, and safety, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Georgia's schools faced unprecedented challenges.
He brought decades of business experience to his public service, helping Georgia's schools operate more efficiently while keeping students at the center of every decision he made.
Scott truly had a lasting impact on Georgia's students, educators, and families.
Our thoughts are with his wife, Sandy, and their family during this incredibly difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Parker's Kitchen, which was recently named the Wounded Warrior Project's 2025 Corporate Partner of the Year.
Headquartered in Savannah, Parker's Kitchen has long demonstrated its commitment to supporting the men and women who have served our Nation.
This year, the company contributed $375,000 to the Wounded Warrior Project, helping provide life-changing programs and services to wounded veterans and their families across the country.
Parker's Kitchen founder, Greg Parker, continues to emphasize veterans as an essential part of the company's team, acknowledging that their sacrifices make possible the freedom we enjoy each day.
Wounded Warrior Project CEO Walt Piatt praised Parker's Kitchen's unwavering support, noting that partnerships like this make it possible to help veterans not only return from service but truly come home.
I thank Greg Parker and his entire team for their continued commitment to Georgia's First District's strong military community.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 14 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, July 23, 2026, at 9 a.m.