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.

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.

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. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

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, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), our chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You heard the chairman of the Agriculture Committee. He is talking about

emergency support for our farmers and ranchers who, by no fault of their own, are being pummeled by drought, natural disasters of all kinds, diseases like the screwworm.

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 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 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, 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, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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, 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 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 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.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, June 24, 2025.

Re Information Concerning Medicaid-Related Provisions in

Title IV of H.R. 1.

Hon. Jodey Arrington,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Brett Guthrie,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Arrington and Chairman Guthrie: You have

asked the Congressional Budget Office for information

concerning changes to insurance coverage that would occur

under H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as passed by

the House of Representatives on May 22, 2025. You asked

specifically about changes related to Medicaid under title

IV, Energy and Commerce.

CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid provisions in

title IV would increase the number of people without health

insurance by 7.8 million in 2034 relative to baseline

projections under current law. Of that number:

About 4.8 million would be able-bodied adults between the

ages of 19 and 64 who have no dependents and who do not meet

the community engagement requirement in section 44141 for

participating in work-related activities at least 80 hours a

month.

About 1.4 million would be people who do not meet

citizenship and immigration status requirements for Medicaid

enrollment but who would be covered under current law in

programs funded by the states.

About 2.2 million would become uninsured because of other

provisions in H.R. 1, including provisions increasing the

frequency of verification of eligibility to enroll in

Medicaid or those that would lead states to change their

Medicaid enrollment requirements in response to federal

policy changes.

CBO estimates that the interactions among the policies

would, on net, reduce the number of people without health

insurance by 600,000 in 2034 relative to the sum of the

estimated effects of the individual policies because some

people would become uninsured under more than one policy.

You asked several questions about the number of people who

would be enrolled in Medicaid under the legislation and about

the number of people who would not have health insurance

under H.R. 1. You also asked about the effects on state

Medicaid spending under H.R. 1.

For the number of individuals estimated to be without

health insurance in 2034 as a result of the Medicaid policies

in H.R. 1, what share would be eligible for other health

insurance subsidies but would be estimated to not

participate?

CBO estimates that of the projected increase of 7.8 million

people without health insurance in 2034, 1.6 million would

have access to, but would not take up, other forms of

subsidized coverage, such as premium tax credits for

insurance purchased through the marketplaces established by

the Affordable Care Act or employment-based coverage; that

number also includes people who would remain eligible for

Medicaid but would not enroll.

For which provisions in H.R. 1 does CBO estimate that there

would be an increase in the number of people without health

insurance resulting from state discretion in the management

of enrollment within their own Medicaid programs? What does

CBO estimate would be the effect on the number of people

without health insurance under those policies?

CBO estimates that enacting several sections would reduce

resources available to states to fund their Medicaid programs

or state-funded insurance programs:

Section 44107 would eliminate the authority of the Centers

for Medicare & Medicaid Services to waive penalties for

payment errors and would reduce federal funding to states for

errors in eligibility determinations.

Section 44111 would reduce the federal matching rate for

people enrolled in Medicaid under the expansion of the

program provided in the Affordable Care Act from 90 percent

to 80 percent for any state that uses its own funds to

provide coverage to certain immigrants through state

programs.

Section 44132 would prevent states from increasing current

tax rates on providers and bar them from creating new tax

arrangements for providers.

Section 44134 would make additional changes to what

constitutes a permissible provider tax and would effectively

limit collections of those taxes in certain states.

CBO expects that in response to those provisions, states

would modify their Medicaid or state-funded insurance

programs to curtail their spending by reducing provider

payment rates, reducing the scope or amount of optional

services, and reducing Medicaid enrollment.

CBO estimates that state responses to those provisions

would increase the number of people without health insurance

by a total of 2.0 million in 2034.

Does CBO estimate that the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1

would result in a net decrease in state spending on the

Medicaid program, before accounting for how states respond to

the federal policy changes, and if so by how much?

CBO estimates that, if combined, enacting all of the

Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1 would reduce the states' total

share of spending on Medicaid by $13.1 billion, on net, over

the 2025-2034 period. Some provisions would reduce state

spending, and some would increase it. CBO estimates that over

the 2025-2034 period, provisions that make changes to program

eligibility and enrollment processes, as well as some payment

changes, would cause states' spending to decline by $214.4

billion. Reductions in federal or other resources available

to state programs would cause states' spending to rise by

$201.3 billion.

What is the number of individuals whose citizenship,

nationality, or satisfactory immigration status is not

verified, but would be covered under current law in programs

funded by states?

CBO estimates that enacting section 44111 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 1.4 million

in 2034 because, in order to maintain the 90 percent federal

matching rate, most states would stop using state-only funds

to provide health insurance coverage to people who do not

meet citizenship and immigration status requirements for

Medicaid enrollment.

What are the changes in the number of uninsured people that

would be associated with provisions aimed at verifying

eligibility for the Medicaid program, specifically sections

44102 and 44108 of H.R. 1?

Section 44102 would prevent one part of what is termed the

Eligibility and Enrollment final rule from being implemented,

administered, or enforced through the end of 2034. That part

of the rule changes the way

that states process applications and renewals for coverage

under Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

For example, the rule specifies that states can only conduct

eligibility determinations for people who are aged, blind,

and disabled once a year--less frequently than under some

states' prior practices. The rule also specifies that states

cannot require in-person interviews during eligibility

redeterminations for that group of enrollees. CBO expects

that enacting section 44102 of H.R. 1 would reduce enrollment

as states returned to earlier administrative practices.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44102 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 600,000 in

2034.

Section 44108 would require states to redetermine Medicaid

eligibility every six months, instead of once a year, for

some enrollees. CBO expects that enacting the section would

result in some people being removed from the program sooner

than would occur under current law.

CBO estimates that enacting section 44108 would increase

the number of people without health insurance by 700,000 in

2034.

In CBO's baseline, how many individuals are enrolled in

Medicaid in 2025 and how many are enrolled in 2034? How many

would be enrolled in 2034 under H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline projections, 85.0 million

people will be enrolled in Medicaid this year, rising to 90.0

million in 2034. CBO estimates that under H.R. 1, 79.5

million people would be enrolled in Medicaid in 2034--10.5

million fewer than under current-law projections.

In CBO's baseline, what is total federal Medicaid spending

in 2025 and in 2034? What would total federal Medicaid

spending be in each of those years accounting for the effects

of H.R. 1?

In CBO's January 2025 baseline, the agency estimates $655.9

billion in Medicaid spending in 2025, increasing to $985.7

billion by 2034. CBO estimates that enacting the Medicaid

provisions of H.R. 1 would reduce Medicaid spending by $125.2

billion in 2034, to total $860.5 billion that year.

I hope this information is useful to you. Please contact me

if you have further questrons.

Sincerely,

Phillip L. Swagel,

Director.

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 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 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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress is an absolute mess. The gentlewoman from North Carolina says that our rhetoric doesn't carry a bit of substance.

But let me begin by asking a question of the American people, a very simple question: Are you better off today than you were 1\1/2\ years ago?

It has been 18 months since Donald Trump returned to the White House. Republicans have controlled every lever of power in Washington for over 1\1/2\ years. They control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They even control the Supreme Court.

That is the one simple question to me that matters more than anything else that we will debate today. In fact, it is the only thing that matters, really. Is it easier to fill up your gas tank? Are your rent bills more affordable? Are your groceries cheaper? Have your prescription medicine costs gone down? Does your paycheck go further?

In short, Mr. Speaker, has life gotten easier for anybody over these last 18 months, or has it gotten harder? I think most people, including most Republicans, if they are being honest with themselves, know the answer.

They don't need a politician or a fancy economics degree to say that things are not better. They are not better. In fact, they will tell you that things are worse--much, much worse.

They see it every time they tap their credit card at the gas station. They see it every time they check out at a grocery store. They see it every month when their rent is due, when their electric bill comes in, and when the pharmacist says that their kids' medicine is more expensive. They see it when their paycheck just doesn't go as far as it used to.

This is the Republican economy. These are their prices, and it is their policies that have failed America miserably.

Donald Trump and Republicans promised they would use their power to lower costs on day one. Well, it is year two, and costs are not lower, which by any definition would make that a broken promise.

Mr. Speaker, why are prices up? Why is life harder? Why are things worse off now? The reason is simple: It is because instead of working with Democrats to fight for everyday people, Republicans have made one decision after another to help the rich and the powerful and, basically, hurt everybody else.

I have example after example. Are things better off because of Trump's tariffs, Mr. Speaker? The tariffs the New York Federal Reserve says are almost exclusively paid by American consumers, American farmers, American manufacturers, and American companies, does that make anybody better off?

I don't think most people would say that tariffs have made their lives better. I would say that the tariffs have made their lives worse, more expensive, more difficult.

What about the war in Iran--a new, endless, illegal war, another one of Donald Trump's broken promises? Does anyone think that has made life better for the American people?

Maybe it has made life better for defense contractors. Maybe it has for the crazy neocon warmongers who get a kick out of another war, but not for everyday people.

We have spent probably well over $100 billion on this illegal and reckless war. That is $100 billion. That is not helping make sure that Americans don't go hungry. That is not lowering healthcare costs, lowering people's rents, or lowering gas prices. It is on this crazy war, a war of choice that the President had no plan for.

He doesn't know what the hell he is going to do next. This is nuts. In fact, we are now 5 months into a war that these guys said would only last a couple of weeks. They have declared victory like six times, yet the Strait of Hormuz is still closed. More American troops, sadly, were killed this weekend. Gas prices are back above $4 a gallon. Inflation continues to skyrocket.

Does anybody think that has made life better for most Americans? There has been 5 months of war in the Middle East. I can go right down the line.

Republicans promised better healthcare. Instead, they passed a law that takes hundreds of billions of dollars out of Medicaid and leaves millions more people uninsured. How the hell does that make anybody's life better?

Republicans promised lower taxes, except they chose another tax giveaway for those at the very top, and they pat themselves on the back for the pennies they gave to everyone else. Has that made life better for people?

After 18 months of higher costs, more inflation, new wars, costly tariffs, and stunning, stunning corruption, now they are bringing us a continuing resolution that kicks the can down the road.

They are bringing us a pathetic excuse of a stock trading ban that fails to address the much larger culture of corruption and self-dealing coming out of the White House, and they are bringing us a budget framework authorizing $73 billion for Trump's illegal Iran war, $12 billion as a Band-Aid to help farmers that their policies continue to hurt, and another $10 billion to rig the November elections.

That is nearly $100 billion in new spending with no offsets, meaning this bill could very well increase the debt by over $100 billion. Whatever happened to the old-fashioned Republicans who wanted to pay for things, who didn't want to increase the deficit or the debt? I guess that is a thing of the past.

Not one thing in this reconciliation bill, by the way--not a single damned thing--will be about affordability. Not one thing will lower prices. That is called being out of touch, Mr. Speaker.

There will be time to debate their crummy bills on the floor this week, but this hour is about priorities, and Republicans have their priorities all out of whack. Their agenda has only made things better for those at the top, for the Mar-a-Lago members and CEOs with private jets, the donor class and the corporate special interests. Things are better for them, but for the rest of America, their agenda has been a disaster.

The policies of this Republican Congress are a dumpster fire for everyday people, a total disaster. Their tariffs are crushing people. Their war is driving up costs. Their toxic environmental policies are filling our air with smoke and our food with parasites, and Americans are dying in the Middle East for their war.

Again, Mr. Speaker, when I go back home and I ask people if they are better off than they were 18 months ago, they don't even answer. They laugh because it is such a ridiculous question. It is so obvious that all of us are worse off because of this Republican majority and because of this administration,

which cares only about not hurting the President's fragile feelings and delicate ego.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused. The gentleman who just spoke maybe doesn't know this, but the government funding deadline isn't for months away, and he is scolding us as if it is now.

I am going to tell you what the crisis is right now. It is that people can't afford to live.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina said that our priority is about national security and national defense. I have news for her. National security means more than the number of bombs we have.

It also means healthcare for people. It means whether people can afford food, whether they can afford rent, whether they can afford to put gas in the tank of their car or pay their everyday bills, and whether they have a good job that allows them to support their family. Those are all sources of our national defense and our national security.

I will just say one other thing. I don't know how the hell our national defense and national security are served when the President takes us into an illegal, risky war in the Middle East, a war of choice, that he has no plan for.

Our troops are being put into harm's way, and this President has no plan about how to conduct this war or what the heck he is doing there. That is not national security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do that, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment to H.R. 7008 consisting of the text of H.R. 6731, the Restore Trust in Government Act.

This bill is the Democratic proposal for a more comprehensive and robust stock trading ban than is found in the Republican plan. It is one which also includes the President of the United States and the Vice President.

There is a level of corruption that we have never ever seen in the White House. What is the response from our Republican colleagues? Silence. They are scared of the guy in the White House. They won't challenge this corruption, so he makes billions and billions of dollars while hardworking Americans struggle.

Mr. Speaker, in the first year of his term, President Trump cashed in to the tune of more than $2 billion--billion with a b.

In 2025 alone, the President completed over 21,000 stock trades. His investment accounts grew by over $850 million. He tweets out glowing endorsements of companies after he buys their stocks. Now, he is considering having people pay to get early access to his social media posts so they can cash in, too.

We need to ensure that people can trust their government to work for them and not enrich himself. This means banning stock ownership by Members and by this President.

That is what the Democratic proposal will do. Let the House decide and make this amendment in order. That is all we are asking, is to allow us to have this debate. You can vote however you want.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to respond to the gentlewoman. I am just a little confused. I thought I heard her say that we already have laws to deal with stock insider trading. If that is the case, then why are we doing a bill to ban stock insider trading?

I mean, the bottom line is we are doing it because it is a problem, and our objection is the fact that they are basically excluding somebody who is violating the law in our face right now, blatantly, who is in the White House, who is making countless millions, if not billions, of dollars on some really shady deals. Quite frankly, it makes Richard Nixon look like a Boy Scout.

I mean, the deal is the American people are sick of it. They want us to clean up Washington. That includes Congress, and that includes the executive branch.

I just also would like to kind of highlight kind of the absurdity of all the stuff. We have six different bills that we are talking about here today, but I want to read a tweet from a Republican, Tom Massie.

He says: ``The House will pass a $12 billion bailout for farmers suffering from high fuel & fertilizer prices caused by the Iran war, expensive equipment & parts caused by tariffs, and lower sales prices for commodities due to trade disputes with China. But the GOP is fighting communism!''

The Republican leadership had a big press conference earlier today. It was all about communism, but I have to say to Mr. Massie, I don't think I have heard truer words spoken by a Republican Member of Congress. I really appreciate that, the truth, the accuracy of what the situation is.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Olszewski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you know, one of the frustrating things about kind of where we are in terms of political debate in this country is that issues that really matter to regular people are being ignored or being shoved aside because, quite frankly, Republicans don't want to do anything about it.

They know that their agenda is unpopular. They know that people are struggling with the issue of affordability. They know that people are having a tough time paying their rent, filling up their gas tanks, affording healthcare costs--I can go on and on and on--buying food, and they don't want to talk about that. They know that the American people kind of are sick and tired of what they are doing here, and so they are trying to divert attention.

I just want to address something that happened this morning, and that is the Republican leadership in this House held this wackadoodle press conference. I have never quite seen anything like it, trying to divert attention away from issues of affordability and get people to look someplace else.

Basically, the Republican Party's new favorite talking point is calling Democrats Communists. I mean, oh, my God, Mr. Speaker, I mean, really? Really? Communists? Did we accidentally step into a time machine?

I get it. I get it. They don't want to talk about the real issues, the bread-and-butter issues. They don't want to talk about affordability. I guess my question is, is Joe McCarthy back from the dead? It sounds like that is who wrote all the garbage coming from Republicans about communism. These guys dust off the same, tired, old talking points every time they are backed into a corner.

Every time a new poll comes out saying that their economic agenda sucks, what they do is they change the subject. They try to divert attention. It is pathetic. But, fine, if they want to play that game, let's play that game.

Let's talk about the Republican Party, a party that worships one man above the Constitution in a cult of personality, a party that demonizes immigrants and says they poison the blood of our country, a party that calls the free press the enemy of the people and sics the Justice Department on journalists they don't like.

It is a party that says their political opponents are internal enemies and calls them ``the enemy within.'' It is a party that is okay with invading our allies, including other democracies, and it is a party that punishes their political opponents.

It is a party that has deployed troops on our own streets, that wants to use the American military on the American people. It is a party that believes any unhinged lie, fantasy, and conspiracy theory as long as it comes from one man.

It is a party that tries to lock up Members of Congress for exercising their free speech rights. It is a party that has tried to violently overthrow the results of a free and fair election in the United States of America.

It is a party that, in fact, pardoned everyone who invaded this building on January 6, 2021, and tried to throw out the votes of millions of Americans because the President couldn't accept a loss.

How dare that party lecture anyone.

How dare they talk about communism when their own party has totally lost touch not just with the founding ideals of this country but lost touch with reality itself?

If we are going to start assigning political labels based on conduct, then let's call things by their proper names. The Republican Party has become the party of fascism, full stop. They have become a party of far-right fascists who are hell-bent on destroying our country and our way of life. Every single time they call us Communists, it is nothing more than a projection of their own radicalization. They don't want to talk about that, and they definitely don't want to talk about their higher grocery prices or skyrocketing gas prices or higher inflation or the cost of healthcare or their new endless illegal war that has now cost over $100 billion.

Instead, they scream and they yell because they have nothing else left to offer.

This would be funny, Mr. Speaker, if it weren't so pathetic and so unhinged.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are patriots who love this country enough to fight for it. We are fighting to make it easier for people to afford groceries. We are fighting to try to make it easier for people to afford rent, prescription drugs, and healthcare. We will not be lectured by a fascist Republican Party that offers the American people nothing but lies, fear, endless culture wars, and tax breaks for billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the question I asked at the start of this debate: Are Americans better off than they were 18 months ago?

Think about the family sitting at the kitchen table tonight. The rent is due. The electric bill is higher, and groceries cost more. The gas tank is on empty. A prescription is waiting at the pharmacy. Somebody is trying to figure out which bill they can put off for 1 more week.

That family does not need a lecture about how great Donald Trump is. They know what life costs, and they know it costs more--much, much more--than it did 18 months ago.

Eighteen months is long enough to judge a majority by its choices. There is a lot packed into this rule, a budget resolution, a continuing resolution, a Defense bill, a disability bill, a banking bill, a bill on Congressional stock trading, and a bill to rig the elections. I could go on and on and on.

Republicans could not--could not--find a single provision for us to consider today about lowering the cost of housing, or lowering the cost of food, or lowering the cost of medicine or healthcare or electricity.

There is nothing--nothing in anything we are going to be considering does any of that or focuses on any of those issues. They have time to weaken bank oversight. They have time to combine a watered-down stock trading bill with new restrictions on voting. They have time to bring back bills that failed weeks ago. They have time to protect the President, bail out powerful special interests, and finance another endless war.

However, helping working people somehow never makes the cut. It never makes the cut.

Mr. Speaker, these bills are not just stacks of paper. They are statements on our values. They tell people who matter, who gets hurt, who gets helped, and who are expected to fend for themselves.

The answer from MAGA has been painfully clear, Mr. Speaker: The greedy get protected. The well-connected get rewarded, and everyone else gets told: Sorry, maybe next time.

Again, I ask: Are Americans better off?

The answer is ``no.''

Do the measures in this rule lower their costs, improve their healthcare, make them safer, or give them greater peace of mind?

The answer is absolutely ``no.'' Nothing does that.

We will hear talks about socialism and communism and all this other stuff to get people to not focus in on the fact that they are getting screwed over.

The American people deserve more than excuses. They deserve more than distractions. They deserve more than another blank check for the people on top from this failed Republican majority. They deserve a government that is on their side. They deserve a government that is on their side, and that is not what they are getting here.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.

We have to do better. We have to do better. The American people are hurting, and my friends on the other side of the aisle behave like everything is just fine and nobody is noticing.

Go and do in-person townhalls in your districts, I would say to all my colleagues who are listening, and you will get an earful. People have had it. They are fed up with the corruption in Washington. They are fed up with the policies that reward the well-off and well- connected. They are tired of getting screwed over.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

about going after waste, fraud, and abuse. The screaming from the other side of the aisle is proof that this is the case. The flak is always heaviest when you are directly over the target.

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.

House of Representatives, Permanent Select Committee on

Intelligence,

June 5, 2026.

Hon. Jodey Arrington,

Committee on the Budget,

House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

Dear Chairman Arrington: Pursuant to Section 301(d) of the

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and rule X, clause 11(c) of

the Rules of the House of Representatives, and in response to

your letter dated May 7, 2026, the Permanent Select Committee

on Intelligence (hereafter ``the Committee'') herewith

provides its views and estimates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2027.

In your letter to the Committee, you requested information

on policy reforms related to improper payments and we have

identified specific proposals within our jurisdiction that we

believe directly relate to the detection of improper

payments, as well as measures needed to improve financial

accountability across the Intelligence Community.

You have also asked us to examine spending to determine if

savings are possible. There is a single program within the

Committee's jurisdiction that falls within the category of

mandatory spending. It is the Central Intelligence Agency

Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS). The CIARDS, which

was established in 1964 and is authorized at $514 million

annually, is a retirement account that has been closed to new

participants for more than 40 years.

The Committee has requested a Government Accountability

Office (GAO) review of CIARDS to ensure its financial

integrity and operational efficiency. Should any potential

for savings be identified, we will pursue them. At this time,

we believe annual appropriations remain necessary at their

current level to provide earned benefits to retirees.

The rest of the classified budget of the Intelligence

Community is authorized in two large programs--the National

Intelligence Program (NIP) and the Military Intelligence

Program (MIP), which are funded through annual discretionary

spending. The NIP includes the budgets of the Office of the

Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence

Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National

Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency,

the National Reconnaissance Office, the intelligence

components of the military services (Air Force, Army, Marine

Corps, Navy, Space Force) and the intelligence components of

the Departments of Energy, Homeland Security (including Coast

Guard), Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of

Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration), State,

and Treasury. The MIP provides additional funding to support

specific requirements of the military services and combatant

commands.

While detailed funding levels for FY 2027 remain

classified, the topline budget requests for both the NIP and

MIP have been publicly released. The total funding requested

for the NIP is $81.9 billion, which is unchanged from the

prior year request. The MIP budget request is $50.0 billion,

which is an increase of $17.0 billion or 34 percent from the

prior year request.

Improving Congressional Oversight of the Classified Budget

By longstanding policy, the Congress has agreed to

authorize, and fund classified intelligence programs without

disclosing to the public the specific funding amounts or

nature of such programs or activities to protect the national

security of the United States. To support the classified

budget, complex mechanisms within the executive branch have

long been leveraged to enable the development, execution, and

performance evaluation of the secret budget and to protect

the classified programs of the Intelligence Community from

discovery by foreign adversaries. Over time, congressional

leaders have sought to balance the need for secrecy with the

need for appropriate financial controls and reporting.

The National Security Act of 1947 prohibits the

Intelligence Community from spending federal funds on any

intelligence or intelligence-related activity unless

specifically authorized by Congress and, when authorized,

only according to the conditions specified by Congress. Each

year, the congressional intelligence committees of the House

and Senate pursue passage of the Intelligence Authorization

Act to provide this required authorization. The most recent

authorization was enacted in December of 2025 as part of the

National Defense Authorization Act. Additionally, there are

statutory requirements for the Intelligence Community to keep

congress fully and currently informed, to submit classified

budget justification materials, and to conduct independent

financial audits.

In 2022, amendments to the National Security Act sponsored

by the Committee clarified that the Director of National

Intelligence must ensure that the programs and activities of

the Intelligence Community are structured and executed in a

manner that enables budget traceability. Statutory changes

also sought to align the Federal Bureau of Investigation's

intelligence budget, as well as those of other intelligence

programs, with the National Intelligence Strategy and the

requirements specified in the National Intelligence

Priorities Framework. Alignment is necessary to improve

accountability and to implement performance measures tied to

requirements established by the President.

However, despite existing statutory requirements, the

Committee continues to identify challenges in oversight of

the secret budget, including a heightened risk of waste,

fraud, abuse, or mismanagement. These challenges stem from

insufficient budget documentation, as well as inadequate

financial systems and related controls. To further improve

oversight and accountability of the budget, the Committee

will be considering legislation clarifying current law to

ensure that the classified budget justification submitted

under section 506J of the National Security Act provides full

and accurate budget documentation (including full and

accurate cost information) for each program, project, and

activity. Proposed changes will also prohibit the withholding

of budget information from the congressional intelligence

committees absent a specific national security determination

by the President--a determination that must be transmitted to

Congress.

Enactment of these changes to law will assist the Committee

in resolving longstanding challenges to congressional

oversight of the budget, most notably the budgets of the

Federal Bureau of Investigation and certain highly classified

programs of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Committee

will also be examining additional changes to ensure that the

development, execution, and performance evaluation of the

classified budget can occur with appropriate levels of

security in compliance with laws and policies necessary to

ensure transparency and accountability.

Financial Management

The Committee is also seeking to address the fact that only

one element of the Intelligence Community has achieved an

unmodified or ``clean'' financial audit. Independent audits

of the classified budget have been a requirement under the

National Security Act since 2014. While the Committee

acknowledges ongoing efforts to achieve auditable finances,

we have noted a longstanding failure by the Intelligence

Community to pursue business system modernization,

transformation and integration required since 2010.

The Government Accountability Office initially documented

the transformation and integration failure in 2018 and

continues to affirm that no significant actions have been

undertaken to achieve the policy established by law.

Modernization and integration are necessary to improve

confidence in the accuracy of the classified budget, to

support budget accountability and to protect the continued

secrecy of classified programs. For this reason, the

Committee will pursue changes to statute clarifying

responsibility for action and will prioritize investments

necessary to achieve the required transformation.

Publicly Available Information and Commercially Available Information

The Committee is also seeking to better understand and to

more effectively conduct oversight related to the acquisition

and use of publicly available information (PAI) and

commercially available information (CAI) across the

Intelligence Community. PAI and CAI are large and growing

centers of expenditure within the classified budget and are

increasingly central to intelligence analysis, strategic

warning, economic security, sanctions enforcement, military

planning, and strategic competition. However, the Committee

has found that budget justification materials submitted to

Congress provide limited visibility into this spending.

A number of efforts are being undertaken by the Committee

to improve budget documentation and related financial

reporting related to PAI and CAI expenditures. This includes

examination of changes to law that would expand enterprise

governance and safeguarding measures for sensitive

commercially available information, particularly datasets

that may contain United States person information.

Accountability Within the Intelligence Community

While there is no indication of pervasive fraud or abuse

associated with the classified budget, it is critical that

those found to have

committed crimes face justice. However, the Committee has

learned that there is a substantially lower likelihood of

prosecution of fraud that occurs within the Intelligence

Community. As of 2025, the Department of Justice pursued only

25 percent of the Intelligence Community Inspector General's

criminal referrals.

In the coming months, the Committee will consider the

extension of law enforcement authority to the Inspector

General of the Intelligence Community with the objective of

increasing successful prosecution rates. Such authority has

been granted to other inspectors general across the U.S.

Government and has merit based on the unique challenges

associated with investigations into personnel affiliated with

classified programs.

Spending Increase Needed to Address Counterintelligence Threats

While reforms are needed to address budget transparency,

financial reporting, and accountability, the Committee cannot

ignore the growing threats associated with foreign

intelligence activities within the homeland. The magnitude of

threats to national and economic security associated with

foreign adversaries and their proxies operating within the

homeland, and against our interests globally, is greater

today and more complex than at any time during the Cold War.

The Committee has determined that--

Foreign intelligence penetrations consistently outpace the

ability of the current counterintelligence enterprise to

detect threats and to act on a strategic level to impose cost

and deter adversary operations.

The United States lacks a sufficiently funded and

coordinated, national-level strategic response to the

counterintelligence threats posed by the People's Republic of

China, Russia, and other foreign adversaries.

To address these problems, the Committee will consider

enhanced budget authority to enable the National

Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) to coordinate

the integration of all instruments of national power to

protect the homeland to counter foreign intelligence

activities. This is a critical statutory responsibility of

the NCSC, which has not been sufficiently funded.

The Committee will also consider options to provide

additional budget authority across the U.S. Government to:

(1) enhance the counterintelligence workforce of Federal

departments and agencies; (2) support programs and

operational activities to achieve national strategic outcomes

(undertaken under the authority and direction of the various

departments and agencies, including those in partnership with

State, local and tribal governments); (3) support the

construction, expansion or modernization of Sensitive

Compartmented Information Facilities to support interagency

cooperation (including with State, local and tribal

governments); (4) support research and development of

counterintelligence capabilities and tradecraft to address

the strategic threats and opportunities associated with

advanced technology; and (5) to support the modernization of

technical security countermeasures capabilities across the

government.

Additional information concerning the counterintelligence

budget will be provided via appropriate channels to protect

classified information. In addition, the Committee is

prepared to work with you to provide the Budget Committee

with the information necessary to understand current threats,

which we believe justifies our recommendation for additional

funding.

Critical Investments in Artificial Intelligence

The final matter on which the Committee will share its

views is related to the rapid advancement of artificial

intelligence. The Committee agrees with the President's

declaration that the United States is in a race to achieve

global dominance in artificial intelligence and supports

additional spending authority to meet this important

challenge.

The Intelligence Community must make investments, pursuant

to the strict oversight of Congress, in recognition of the

dramatic shifts that are occurring in artificial

intelligence. However, absent additional budget authority for

the rapid fielding of capabilities--capabilities emerging

within the commercial marketplace today--there is a risk that

the Intelligence Community and Department of Defense will be

outpaced by adversaries, most notably China.

To be clear, this is not a problem of innovation in

America, which is leading in this critical field. Instead, we

see a serious problem associated with the adoption of this

technology by those charged with protecting the national

security of the United States. Specific information

concerning artificial intelligence investments planned by the

Intelligence Community in FY 2027 is classified and can be

made available separately.

Conclusion

In the coming months, the Committee will consider statutory

changes to improve oversight and accountability with respect

to the classified budget. We will also work to ensure budget

authority is appropriate to address unprecedented and growing

threats, particularly threats associated with foreign

adversary operations within the homeland and the rapid

advancement of artificial intelligence.

Thank you for your support as we work to bring these issues

forward in the House. If you or the Members of the Budget

Committee have any questions about the views and estimates

expressed in this letter, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Eric A ``Rick'' Crawford,

Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the support of the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1438 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and produced the rule, H. Res. 1438, providing for the House's consideration of H. Con. Res. 113, H.R. 9770, H.R. 8800, H.R. 8884, H.R. 7008, and H.R. 6955.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8800, the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act, under a structured rule and makes in order 320 amendments.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees, and one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides that upon House passage of H.R. 8800, the Clerk shall add the text of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, to the bill and transmit it to the Senate as one bill.

The bill further provides for consideration of H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees and one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 113, establishing the congressional budget for fiscal year 2027, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7008, the Stop Insider Trading Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 6955, the Main Street Capital Access Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 9770, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2027, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, the rule and its six underlying measures are a direct reflection of our Republican majority's expressed commitments on multiple fronts.

Contrary to the predictable and entirely incoherent hubbub that will reverberate from the other side of the Chamber during today's debate, Republicans remain at the helm, like we always have, and remain focused, as we always have.

It is okay to tune out those on the other side of the aisle while they are blathering on, Mr. Speaker. Their fevered, political rhetoric does not carry an iota of substance.

There is a great deal of business to attend to this week, Mr. Speaker. All of us understand that time indeed is of the essence here.

Let's talk for a moment about that business.

H. Con. Res. 113 begins the process to provide urgent, necessary resources for our Nation's firefighters, reinforce election integrity measures, and support the hardworking men and women of our agricultural community so that our Nation's food supply and food security remain as strong as they possibly can be.

H.R. 9770 upholds Congress' explicit Article I duties to fund the Federal Government so that its operational continuity does not lapse or is subjected to the same disgraceful political subterfuge that our colleagues across the aisle engaged in last year.

H.R. 8800, the keystone of Congress' mandate to provide for the common defense of the Nation, delivers for our Nation's servicemembers, allocates the resources necessary to maintain a strong posture of defense and deterrence, and confronts waste, fraud, and abuse head-on.

H.R. 8884 allows disabled Americans, who want to join the workforce to better their own lives, to do so without having to worry about whether their disability benefits will disappear abruptly.

H.R. 7008 prohibits Members of Congress, their spouses, or dependent children from purchasing publicly traded stocks, while also implementing the requirement--that the American people overwhelmingly support--of requiring a photo ID to vote in Federal elections.

It is entirely disingenuous for the other side to use fear-mongering tactics to scare people into believing that Republicans are trying to take away anyone's right to vote. That is downright false.

Finally, H.R. 6955 makes life more affordable for Americans, while also empowering Main Street, by ensuring that community lenders are no longer burdened by ill-advised mandates that make it harder for them to serve families, small businesses, and local economies.

That is the business at hand, Mr. Speaker.

We are not here to entertain the ever-so-tired ranting and raving from our colleagues across the aisle that the sky is falling, the world is ending, or any kind of absurd political musings they may want to spout off.

We are here to do the people's business, the business that makes America stronger, more secure, and more prosperous.

As we celebrate the 250th year of the greatest country in the world, Republicans are working hard to strengthen America and help it endure.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just note that our priorities are not out of whack. The number one role of the Federal Government is the defense of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Fuller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are skirting very closely to having their words taken down when they call out individual Members.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues sometimes ask who is to blame for the lack of trust of Members of Congress. It is Members of Congress and the press who call into question acts that are done by Members of Congress that are totally legal.

We already have laws in place against insider trading. There have been a couple of Members of Congress who have been prosecuted for that, and that is appropriate, but the Stop Insider Trading Act will prevent that.

I believe, and Republicans believe, that no lawmaker should profit off of insider information. I frankly don't know how people get the insider information, but the top line of the legislation we are bringing here, the Stop Insider Trading Act, led by Committee on House Administration Chairman Bryan Steil, will ensure that lawmakers cannot use their positions to profit off insider information, if there is insider information.

The Stop Insider Trading Act has a prohibition on stock purchasing. It bans Members, their spouses, and their dependent children from purchasing securities issued by publicly traded companies. It requires Members to file a public notice at least 7 days but no more than 14 days in advance for any intended stock sale with the Clerk of the House of Representatives or the Secretary of the Senate. Then, if a Member of Congress, spouse, or dependent child decides not to sell a covered investment, the Member must publicly withdraw the notice prior to its expiration.

There are penalties, Mr. Speaker, for violators. They will be assessed a fine equal to $2,000 or 10 percent of the value of the transaction, whichever is greater, and then any net gain realized from a transaction. This is designed to make sure that Members do not take advantage of any potential information or advantage that the Member has.

Mr. Speaker, we want to restore public trust in this institution. Members are doing their jobs diligently. They do not want to be under a cloud. News outlets and social media accounts have garnered significant attention for aggregating the stock trades of Members of Congress.

Under the STOCK Act of 2012, lawmakers are prohibited from using nonpublic information for their own financial benefit, but many Americans have become concerned that the STOCK Act is insufficient and stronger measures must be implemented.

The Stop Insider Trading Act will increase transparency and reinforce to the American people that Members are working for them, not themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the voter ID provisions in this bill amend the Help America Vote Act to require States to obtain a photo ID from an individual to vote in person in a Federal election or to require a copy of the photo ID to be submitted with a ballot cast other than in person.

These requirements do not apply to an absent uniformed services voter or an individual provided the right to vote other than in person by the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act.

The bill permits voters to use several different forms of photo ID: a valid State-issued motor vehicle driver's license that includes a photo of the individual and an expiration date, a valid State-issued identification card that includes a photo of the individual and an expiration date issued by a State motor vehicle authority, a valid United States passport for the individual, a valid photo identification card for the individual issued by the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs, or a valid identification document issued by a Tribal government that includes a photo of the individual and an expiration date.

While my friends across the aisle claim the bill will prevent individuals who cannot afford a photo ID from voting, this is nothing but false alarmism. The Supreme Court has held photo ID laws are constitutional only where the State provides a photo ID to those who do not have them. In other words, a photo ID requirement in the bill is not a barrier to voting for someone who cannot afford to pay the typical photo ID fee.

The data supports that Democrats are being disingenuous when they claim this bill would suppress voting. The nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research tracked 1.6 billion data points over an 8-year period. This massive amount of data confirms strict voter ID laws have no statistically measurable negative impact on voter participation.

This comprehensive, multiyear study found zero negative impact on overall registration or turnout, no drops in participation among minority or young voters, and an increase in Hispanic participation in some ID law States.

Photo ID as a form of verification is a part of American life. Americans must show an ID to participate in a wide range of everyday activities, including boarding a plane, entering government buildings, cashing their checks, buying a gun, and enjoying Olive Garden's Never Ending Pasta Bowl.

Politico just announced that more than 6,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in New Jersey and have been voting since 2023. This is clearly an issue which must be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I think after that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we live in the greatest country in the world. We just celebrated the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We have a lot more to be talking about, about the founding of this country, and I hope people will pay close attention to that.

We do have a government that is on the side of the American people. We believe in capitalism. Our friends across the aisle constantly talk about how much people need to be paying more in taxes. We believe on the Republican side that the people have a right to what they have earned and not that the government should take their money and spend it the way the government wants to spend it.

Let me remind our colleagues that just 1 year ago H.R. 1 delivered the largest middle- and working-class tax cut in U.S. history. Low- income workers realized the largest percentage reduction in their tax liability.

Yes, we indeed care about the American people and the fruits of their labor. Nearly 40 percent of taxpayers have claimed one of President Donald Trump's signature cuts this year.

This tax season over 7.5 million filers claimed no tax on tips, with an average deduction of over $7,000. Over 29 million filers claimed no tax on overtime with an average deduction of over $3,100, and over 35 million seniors have claimed the enhanced deduction for seniors with an average deduction of over $7,500.

We do, indeed, care for the American people in allowing them to keep the fruits of their labor.

More than 5.5 million Trump Accounts have been opened with 1.4 million eligible for the $1,000 pilot program contribution. Nearly 40 million families have claimed the enhanced child tax credit, and over 127 million filers, or 90 percent of all tax filers, have claimed the permanently doubled standard deduction.

We do, indeed, care for American taxpayers.

I am not at all surprised by the recent rant from our colleague when one-half of the Democrats could not vote for a resolution against socialism.

Mr. Speaker, it is really no secret that this is a week of monumental importance in the people's House. The rule and six underlying measures carry with them a commitment to deliver upon the priorities of the President, the Nation, and the American people.

Some are quick to write off the progress that this Republican majority has made thus far, and they are dead wrong in doing so.

This week, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to build upon that progress in just the one issue I discussed, H.R. 1.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the distinguished Democratic leader of the House.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee

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, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

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

to bring down costs for the American people.

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, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo), a very distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

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.