Water Resources Technical Assistance Review Act

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

Mr. Chair, let me just start by expressing my extreme respect for my chairman, Mr. Diaz-Balart, our subcommittee, and the staff.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to the Republican fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations, and I do so with regret.

This bill should be our moment to strengthen America and show the world that American leadership is more than bombs, bullying, and illegal tariffs. Done right, this bill could make our Nation more secure at home and abroad. Sadly, it falls painfully short.

Rather than make smart investments in the tools that prevent conflict and build peace and prosperity, the Trump administration has chosen to put us in a war that is costing our country billions of dollars and countless lives with no end in sight.

Real security requires more. It requires diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership.

Real security means showing up before a crisis becomes a catastrophe, before instability becomes extremism, and before conflict becomes war.

This is how we build alliances, and this is how we create trading partners. This is how we stop diseases before they reach our shores. This is how we keep our American sons and daughters from having to fight another war. Yet, this bill hollows out the very tools that have kept Americans safe for generations.

Let's be honest about what has happened. USAID has been dismantled, programs have been terminated, and decades of experience have been cast aside. Clinics are closing, vaccines are going undelivered, and contraceptives are sitting in warehouses.

Children are losing their chance to go to school, families are going hungry, communities are losing access to clean water, and people are losing their lives.

If these cuts continue, researchers warn that by 2030 more than 14 million additional people could die, including 4.5 million children under the age of 5. Think about that, Mr. Chairman, 4.5 million children whose lives could have been saved.

Remember, Mr. Chair, we are all in this world together. When hunger grows, when disease spreads, when poverty deepens, and when hope disappears, instability follows. Extremism finds fertile ground, and America becomes less secure, not more secure.

Yet, at this moment, the world needs more American leadership. This bill tells us to retreat. It proposes $14 billion less in international affairs than just 4 years ago, a cut of more than 23 percent.

These cuts weaken our diplomats, dismantle our development programs, and slash humanitarian assistance. They undermine global health efforts that stop threats before they reach our shores.

Meanwhile, another appropriations bill moves us toward more than $1 trillion in defense spending, the most ever in the history of our country, and our President wants another half a billion dollars more.

Let me be clear, Mr. Chairman. I believe in a strong military. I am the mother of a marine who served in two wars, and I know that we owe every serviceman and -woman more than just our gratitude.

The choice should not be between military strength and diplomacy. American security depends on both. We owe those brave servicemen and - women a foreign policy that does everything possible to prevent the next war before asking them to fight in one.

That is because diplomacy prevents conflict; development reduces the desperation that fuels violence; and humanitarian assistance builds stability. Strong alliances ensure that America never stands alone.

These are not acts of charity. These are investments in American national security. Instead of strengthening our security, this bill walks away from it. It rescinds $1 billion in humanitarian assistance. It turns our back on the women around the world, the foundation of families and communities, by slashing family planning programs and eliminating support for UNFPA.

It expands the global gag rule, imposing ideological restrictions that silence healthcare providers, denying women critical medical information, and conditioning U.S. assistance on compliance with anti- DEI and anti-LGBTQ+ policies.

It even refuses to meet our commitments to the United Nations by not paying our dues. It eliminates funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the U.S. African Development Foundation, institutions that prevent conflict, strengthen democracy, expand economic opportunity, and advance America's interests. It turns its back on building relationships with the growing nations of Africa, the continent with the world's fastest-growing population, rapidly expanding economies, and many of tomorrow's most important partners.

That is not strength. That is surrendering leadership.

When America walks away, who walks in? China walks in, Russia steps in, and extremists fill the vacuum.

This debate is not choosing between hard power and soft power.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill because America's greatest strength has not only been our military power. It is the power of ideals, the power of diplomacy, the power of compassion, the power of partnership, and the power of American leadership.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Walkinshaw).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee and on our committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Sadly, this bill arrives at a time when the Trump administration has chosen to put us into a war that is costing our country billions of dollars and countless lives, with no end in sight. I hope I am wrong, but that is what it looks like.

This bill should be a moment to strengthen America and show the world that American leadership is more than bombs, bullying, and illegal tariffs. Done right, it could make our Nation more secure, at home and abroad. Instead, it is falling painfully short.

A strong America requires both hard power and soft power, because military strength alone cannot prevent every conflict, stop every pandemic, build every alliance, or open every new market for American workers. When America leads with diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership, we make our Nation stronger and safer. When America retreats, our adversaries advance. This bill retreats from American leadership, and it makes America less secure.

Mr. Chairman, I hope and I expect that we can still improve this legislation as it moves through the legislative process. Until then, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support and thank Mr. Diaz-Balart for working with me to include these bipartisan priorities in these amendments. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Tran).

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Fulbright Program is one of the most well-established and prestigious exchange programs in the world.

Each year, the best and the brightest globally compete for spots to study in the United States or have American students experience and do research overseas.

The proof is in the results. Fulbright alumni include--listen to this--44 heads of state, 63 Nobel Prize winners, 94 Pulitzer Prize winners, 83 MacArthur Fellows, and numerous national leaders.

Each of these individuals and 450,000 more have had a life-changing experience being exposed to United States culture and values, affecting their impressions of our country for the rest of their lives.

This is a smart investment. May I say, as my mother once said, this is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

This is not just our investment. Mr. Chair, 89 foreign governments also contribute to sending their students to the

United States with more than $90 million annually.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is shortsighted, with all due respect. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time to oppose this prohibition for funding for military education and training unless reimbursed.

Mr. Chair, our International Military Education and Training programs provide significant national security benefits at a very low cost.

They strengthen the ability of nations to partner with our Armed Forces in joint and coordinated operations. They help senior and rising military leaders from countries around the world build ties with the United States. They build the professionalism of foreign militaries, increasing respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democratic civilian control of military.

Yet, many of our partners most in need of U.S. military training do not have the resources to pay for it themselves.

Mr. Chair, I saw my son, a United States marine, go to two wars, and I know many of his fellow, I will call them colleagues, brave patriots, they didn't come home to their families, and

I just want to say for those families, why would we want to undermine one of the most cost-effective tools we have for building our collective security? Why would we want to do anything that would keep our men and women going to war?

General Donovan, commander of the United States Southern Command, said just this year: The return on investment in the International Military Education Training program is clear, with multiple program graduates going on to serve as ministers of defense and chiefs of defense. The trust and relationships built through these programs extend far beyond the engagements themselves and pay lasting dividends for our shared security and will save the lives of our brave men and women who serve our country.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to say, when it comes to our security, our prosperity, the lives of our patriots who put on our uniform, it is, as my mom would say, penny-wise and pound- foolish to pass this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am opposing this amendment that strikes the Global Environment Facility fund.

This amendment would eliminate the United States' contribution to the Global Environment Facility, a multilateral trust fund that provides grant-based funding to developing countries to address global environmental challenges.

It has long had bipartisan support for very good reason. It benefits the U.S. economy and the environment by addressing problems that cross borders and affect our domestic health, safety, and prosperity.

It helps protect tropical forests. It reduces transboundary pollutants like microplastics. It prevents unsustainable fishing and invasive species. It combats illegal wildlife tracking, which transnational criminal organizations use to finance their very dangerous activities.

Even in our own country, we are challenged. Just look around, Mr. Chair. Put on the news. We are challenged by severe drought, rainfall, storms, and heat. It is pretty hot out there. Land degradation and the loss of soil and water health are threatening livelihoods all over the world.

We are continuing to see ever-greater humanitarian needs caused by these disasters both domestically and abroad. We need to get ahead of these crises.

Helping communities cope, especially those with the least means to do so, is not only moral. It is smart. These are problems that cannot be solved alone. Funding for the Global Environment Facility allows us to work together, leverage contributions of other countries, and provide U.S. leadership to tackle these challenges.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment.

Maintaining stability in the Middle East has long been a vital United States strategic interest. What happens there affects our economy, national security, and the safety of our American servicemembers.

As written, this amendment is overbroad in that it prohibits or could limit the use of funds for longstanding initiatives related to peace building, refugee settlement, and U.S. Embassy operations.

This amendment would restrict our country's ability to confront Iran's proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations in the region who are sworn enemies of the United States, Israel, and our allies.

Madam Chair, a 10-minute debate is not the way to change policy as we have a mission of peace in the region and prosperity, both for Israelis and Palestinians.

Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), and I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Madam Chair, there is no question that going forward there needs to be a thoughtful conversation how we spend our foreign aid money. I know we are all committed to that.

My heart breaks for the suffering of innocent people in Gaza. We must find a way to infuse humanitarian support, how to find a peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, but let me tell you how we got here.

Since 1979, Iran has repeatedly called for Israel's elimination while arming terrorist proxies. In the past 3 years, those proxies have launched more than 30,000 rockets, missiles, drones, and mortars into Israel while Hamas hid in their billion dollars' worth of building of tunnels, 450 miles of tunnels, beneath civilian areas to wage war, not peace.

This is not a way to handle foreign policy. I join all rational people who say let's have a deliberate conversation how to move forward, but not with a 10-minute debate on the floor of the House.

Let's have our efforts aimed together to a two-state solution where Palestinians and Israelis can live peacefully and prosperously together.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Massie

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Jordan has remained a steadfast ally of the United States, despite increased complexities in the world and in the region.

Surrounded by Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, Jordan has been an oasis of stability in the region that has commanded U.S. foreign policy attention for decades.

Jordan is a vital security partner, including regional leadership in the United States' mission against ISIS. They have been generously welcoming neighbors, hosting over 600,000. I will repeat that again: 600,000 Syrian refugees and 2 million Palestinians. I know I have, and I am sure many of my colleagues have personally visited classrooms in Jordan where we have seen Syrian children educated instead of just being left on the streets.

In recent years, encouraged by the United States, Jordan has taken dramatic steps to increase government efficiency, professionalize human resources, improve access to water, and digitize government services. A strong partnership with Jordan directly contributes to a stronger, safer, and more prosperous United States, but they can't do it alone. They need our support, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 8595 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations bill to the House for consideration and for approval.

Now, let me start by noting the untimely, sad passing of our friend and colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham. As chairman of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee in the Senate, he was my counterpart. We worked together closely on our top priority, the national security of the United States. Senator Graham was a tough negotiator, but always, always, an honorable partner. He will be greatly missed, and our thoughts and prayers are with his family, his staff, and those who knew and loved him.

At the outset, I thank Chairman Cole for his invaluable leadership and commitment to ensuring that Congress upholds its responsibility to provide the tools necessary to safeguard our national security along with his partner in this endeavor, Ranking Member DeLauro.

I also thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Ranking Member Frankel, for the longstanding relationship that she and I have--we have been friends for many, many years--and for her valuable contributions during the bill development process. I will tell you, anybody who knows Lois Frankel, she is tough, but she is always trustworthy.

Mr. Chairman, this bill is very straightforward. If you are a friend or an ally of the United States, this bill supports you, but if you are an adversary or you are cozying up to the adversaries of the United States, then, frankly, you are just not going to like this bill.

This bill is the next step in strengthening our national security while reducing spending. Under Chairman Cole's leadership, House Republicans have delivered nearly $12 billion in responsible cuts within the purview of this subcommittee just since 2023.

The fiscal year 2027 bill continues this work with another $2.7 billion in reductions, yet our national security priorities are funded at or above prior year levels.

The bill maintains $1.8 billion for partners in the Indo-Pacific, including $500 million in military assistance for Taiwan. It provides unwavering support for Israel and fully funds the United States-Israel Memorandum of Understanding by providing $3.3 billion in security assistance.

The bill recognizes the valuable partnerships in the Western Hemisphere which continue to expand and realign under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio.

The bill, again, increases support for our friends and allies, such as Paraguay, Argentina, and Costa Rica. As part of this effort, the bill increases funds to fight the trafficking of fentanyl, which has devastated every community and so many families across America.

It also continues strong support for a democratic transition to freedom for the people of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, and it supports religious freedom in Nigeria and around the world.

Last year, the NSRP Subcommittee, as we like to call it, focused on responsibly transitioning the program PEPFAR to capable partners and to countries that are capable of doing more.

PEPFAR has been and is a great success story, but I think most of us would agree that the program, or any program, should not and cannot just go on forever in perpetuity. So working alongside the administration, countries are now investing significant resources of their own towards their own health, allowing this committee to reduce funding, but--this is key--while maintaining the same outcomes.

Just as critical as what the bill funds--I have talked about some of that--is what this bill does not fund and how it demands accountability for every single tax dollar.

The bill prohibits funds to the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party, and from being used by other countries to repay a debt owed to Communist China. It also prohibits lending to the PRC within the multilateral development banks, something that we shouldn't have to do. This bill does it, however.

The bill continues a key provision adopted in the previous year that blocks assistance to anyone that supports, finances, or facilitates the operations of the Cuban military. It prohibits all assistance to the Taliban and puts Americans first by withholding funds from Mexico until water owed to the United States is finally delivered.

Assessed funding to the United Nations is cut by $1.8 billion. No funds are included for the United Nations regular budget, and funds are prohibited to organizations such as the World Health Organization, the United Nations Relief and Work Agency, known as UNRWA, which actively contradicts U.S. priorities and national security interests.

The bill helps secure justice for victims of the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack, which, by the way, includes 50 murdered Americans, by requiring full accountability for UNRWA staff involved.

A key measure from last year's bill, which was enacted into law in fiscal year 2026, is also maintained in this one, requiring the Secretary of State to consider the U.N. voting record of countries in determining the allocation of funds.

The bill supports full implementation of key executive orders that reflect a clear commitment to a secure border, limited government, free

speech, ending censorship, ending DEI programs, and so much more.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill maintains all longstanding pro-life provisions. It prohibits funds to the U.N. Population Fund and upholds the President's policy on Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance.

These measures, Mr. Chairman, alongside enhanced oversight and transparency, ensure American taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions, a policy that Americans overwhelmingly support.

Now, before reserving, Mr. Chairman, I thank the staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle for their hard work. I, frankly, sometimes think that they are not human. Their work ethic is really beyond compare, and one cannot thank them enough, so I thank the staff.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the Speaker for bringing this crucial legislation to the floor. It supports our allies and protects our national security in a smart, efficient, and thoughtful way.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the chairman and the leader of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), a valuable member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore), an important member who has brought great experience to the subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Shreve), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), but this is proof that you don't have to be on the Appropriations Committee to have a huge impact on the bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this is a really good bill. I have already talked about it, and you have heard other people talk about it.

It strengthens the national security interests of the United States. It supports our allies. It confronts our adversaries, and, yes, it does all of that while saving taxpayers' money.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1423, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendments en bloc, which includes amendments from both sides of the aisle.

The amendments include nine noncontroversial amendments that advance the priorities of both sides, including support for Taiwan, countering the PRC's influence in Latin America and the Caribbean, better leveraging U.S. assistance to Mexico, and increasing funding designated to combat human trafficking.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the cooperation of my colleagues, the ranking member and others. I urge adoption of these bipartisan amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise in respectful opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado. I share, by the way, and understand her desire to reduce spending. As a matter of fact, since 2023, as I mentioned before, I have cut spending under the purview of this subcommittee by $12 billion.

The bill that we are considering right now puts forward an additional $2.7 billion in reductions. In this bill, the education and cultural exchange programs account is also reduced. It is actually $94 million below the fiscal year 2024 enacted level.

We did cut back funding, but we left in place sufficient funds to support exchange programs that we can show make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous.

The Fulbright Program is the crown jewel of our exchange programs. It allows the U.S. to develop key relationships with senior leaders of national security, technology, business, and entrepreneurship. Also, it strengthens U.S. relationships in fields that advance U.S. interests.

In a recent official trip to South America, I heard directly from President Trump's ambassadors about how the Fulbright Program is a valuable tool to combat Confucius centers from Communist China and other CCP malign influence efforts in this hemisphere.

This is a program that gives us the opportunity to, again, create those long alliances that have been so helpful. It cultivates future leaders who champion our values, not Chinese values, and also, again, combats Chinese surveillance, data breaches, et cetera.

This bill makes large reductions in wasteful programs, but Fulbright is not one of those programs. It is an important facilitator to our national security goals.

Mr. Chair, I very respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairwoman, as chairman of this subcommittee since 2023, I am proud to be a leader in this body in providing unwavering support to our friend and ally, Israel, especially-- especially--after the October 7 terrorist attack.

The $3.3 billion in foreign military financing for Israel included in this bill supports American--our--national security interests overseas.

We see the same terrorists and terrorist entities that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our people directly. When we give Israel the tools and capabilities to eliminate these terrorist threats and to protect their homeland, while including the many Americans who visit and live there, we are making America and the American people safer.

The United States and Israel have worked together on successful military operations like those in the past year to decimate Iran's nuclear program and missile capabilities. Israel is also using the overwhelming majority of this funding to actually purchase American- made weaponry, so it actually helps our defense industrial base and our economy.

We have worked together extensively on developing military capabilities and other capabilities. Because of these advancements for our mutual interest and security, there is currently a discussion of moving to a new security partnership with Israel after fiscal year 2028.

Just to be clear, the assistance in this bill for fiscal year 2027 is under the terms of the existing MOU, memorandum of understanding, which runs for 2 more fiscal years.

This does not, in any way, prejudge the outcome of ongoing negotiations. This is about fulfilling our commitment to one of our closest and most important allies that we have in the entire world at a time when terrorists are butchering people around the world.

We made that commitment because it makes the American people--our country--stronger.

Madam Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Chair, as I have said before with this bill, and I have said it many times: If you are an ally and a friend of the United States, this bill supports you. If you are an adversary, you are not going to like this bill. We have no stronger ally than the State of Israel. This is our commitment under the MOU, which is why I respectfully, but very strongly--very strongly--oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, it is a dangerous world, and the Middle East is a very dangerous neighborhood, but Jordan is one of our most important allies in the Middle East. It is a bulwark against extremism and terrorism. Jordan has been on the front line of the fight against ISIS. It is an essential partner in stopping Iran's terrorist proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

For decades, Jordan has generously hosted refugees from numerous conflicts across the Middle East, but this is the key point: The United States, the American people, are safer because of Jordan. For that reason, it is well worthwhile to make sure that Jordan has the resources it needs to keep contributing to our collective security.

Madam Chair, I urge defeat of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Madam Chair, to conclude, as I said just a few minutes ago, and I said it at the opening of the debate on this bill: If you are a friend or an ally of the United States, this bill supports you. If you are an adversary or you are cozying up to our adversaries, you are not going to like this bill. All of that we do, by the way, while significantly cutting spending.

The reason we have alliances and partnerships has to be and is to support our own security. Our partnership with Jordan is indispensable in opposing terrorism in the Middle East. Supporting Jordan helps the national security interest of the United States, which is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 7006, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 7006, the Financial Services- General Government bill, which institutes fiscal year 2026 funding for the Financial Services and General Government and National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations measures.

This Congress has a fundamental responsibility to fund the government, and this two-bill package is our next step toward completing the full 12 bills.

When done the right way, funding the government is not a single vote. It is a process that requires steady, deliberative progress. I am proud to say we are doing just that.

Today marks the second time this month that we are bringing bipartisan, bicameral bills to the floor. We promised the American people a responsible Member-driven process, and that is precisely what we are delivering.

This two-bill package reflects Member input, the America-first agenda, and the collaboration across political aisles and Chambers that serves the Nation.

Advancing full-year appropriations matters because it gives the country certainty and direction. It allows vital agencies to plan, make decisions, and do their jobs based on today's realities and not policies from the past. That is how we move from promises to action and carry out the America-first agenda mandated by the people.

Mr. Chair, those priorities are reflected throughout the measure before us. Through the Financial Services-General Government portion of the bill, Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee Chairman David Joyce advanced important provisions that drive economic growth, uphold consumer freedom, and support entrepreneurship and small businesses, reinforcing the foundations of the American Dream for people and job creators nationwide.

It also advances needed government efficiencies by cutting waste, modernizing technology and cybersecurity, and addressing unused Federal space and buildings. Crucially, it also protects Americans from a supercharged IRS by cutting enforcement and redirecting resources to customer service. This is especially important as we approach tax- filing season and implement the working families tax cut, allowing families to keep more of what they earn.

Just as this package strengthens economic security and accountability, it also reinforces America's security and leadership at home and abroad. The National Security-Department of State measures champion an America-first policy agenda. We replaced the weakness of prior administrations by restoring President Trump's Peace Through Strength agenda. National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee Chairman Mario Diaz-Balart took decisive action to reprioritize funding in support of our Nation's security. This allowed us to eliminate $9.3 billion in spending while reasserting deterrence and leadership.

To protect the safety, freedom, and prosperity of the American people, we showed that focused strategy, not endless spending, is what delivers results. We make critical investments in high-impact initiatives that combat narcotics and human trafficking, confront the malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party, and counter terrorism.

We reinforce democracy and human rights efforts, and we defend religious liberty. As both a moral duty and vital American interest, we will not tolerate religious persecution and attacks on faith. Upholding those values strengthens American leadership and advances freedom around the world.

We also eliminate wasteful initiatives, implement the necessary accountability at the United Nations, and prohibit any funds for things like UNRWA or the Taliban. The bottom line: We counter our foes, stand with our friends, and ensure investments are focused on security, keeping Americans safe, and enhancing our global edge.

Taken in its entirety, the package serves a clear purpose: safety, strength, and freedom. That is certainly something that we can all support.

I commend the detailed work of our chairmen, Representatives Joyce and

Diaz-Balart. Their leadership and careful stewardship of this package ensured that the substance of the bill matched the responsibility of the task.

I thank their accompanying ranking members, Representative Steny Hoyer and Lois Frankel, for their professionalism and engagement in the process. This work demonstrates what we can accomplish through collaboration and respect.

I also particularly thank my good friend and working partner, the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and I also thank the superb staff on both sides of the aisle who worked tirelessly to present us with the product before us today.

As I look ahead, Mr. Chairman, to today's vote, I am grateful for the future that I see, one where President Trump keeps his pen ready because full-year appropriations are advancing and certainty is being restored.

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their time. I urge all Members to support this bipartisan package, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my very good friend and the vice chair of the full committee and chair of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), my very good friend and the distinguished chair of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), my very good friend who is the distinguished vice chairman of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), who is the distinguished vice chairman of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford), my very good friend and valued member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my very good friend, the distinguished chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner), my very good friend and classmate.

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

Mr. Chair, I begin by, number one, thanking my very good friend, the ranking member of the full committee. As I said in my opening statement, this is a process, and we are a long way into the process now, thanks, in large part, to her efforts and certainly the efforts of the ranking members and chairs of the two committees whose legislative work we are considering today.

It is important to recognize that these bills together reduce funding. They actually reduce funding. A CR would actually cost us more. They also update, refine, and change language in some cases that is 2 and 3 years old and is simply out of date with the current circumstances.

If we were to fail to pass these bills in these respective areas, then that language would remain intact. I think it is important to recognize that we were able to come to agreements in this way simply because we have a common commitment to a set of principles and a process that really isn't partisan in nature.

I know my friend, Ms. DeLauro, and I know her colleagues believe very much in the Article I power of Congress. We assert that power by passing appropriations bills. I commend my friends for working with us to do that.

I know my friends also believe very deeply in the importance and the power of the Appropriations Committee. So do I. The fact is, we know that to get our job done, at the end of the day, it is going to have to be bipartisan and bicameral. A lot of people are going to have to move or give up some things that they feel very strongly about for the greater good of making sure that the Government of the United States is appropriately funded. We do it in a way that, again, as my good friend Mr. Hoyer said, it is not the bill any of us would have written individually, but the point is, it is a collaborative effort of give and take that has produced something that the vast majority of us can and will vote for today.

This is eight bills into this process. We have a big job in the few days ahead of us till the end of the month, but I share my friend the ranking member's confidence that we can get that job done and that we can be back here and find a way to put all these bills in front of this Chamber for their consideration and also pass them and make sure the Government of the United States is funded on a bipartisan, bicameral basis through the balance of this fiscal year.

Mr. Chair, I share my friend's pride in the product in front of us. I know if she got to write it all by herself, it would look a little bit different. She knows if I got to write it all by myself, it would look different. The point is, this is one we got to write together with give and take, and I am very proud that this committee got every one of its bills out of committee, sat down and worked with our colleagues in the other Chamber on both sides of the aisle, and has produced a product that we know we have broad consensus on.

Mr. Chair, I will end by commending all those involved. My friend, Ms. DeLauro, always makes a point of how important the staff is in this process, and that is absolutely true. While a lot of people were celebrating the holidays, and appropriately so, that wasn't true if you worked on the Appropriations staff, unless you were one of the lucky three that got their bills done last year. They had a merry Christmas.

Everybody else was working through the Christmas holidays to produce these products. It is enormously complex. There is a lot of work involved, an extraordinary amount of work for the staff. I share my friend's pride in their efforts and gratitude for their success.

Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of H.R. 7006. I will also remind everyone that it is not quite done. We have a lot to do in the next few days ahead of us, but this helps set the precedent, helps move the process along, and gives us a much better chance of success as we deal with these final, critical bills. It will make sure that we both avoid a shutdown and give the American people assurance that the government will be functional, operational, and working in a bipartisan, bicameral process between now and September 30 of this year.

Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of the legislation before us, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this package today, which includes the Financial Services-General Government and the National Security- Department of State-Related Programs appropriations bills.

I begin by offering my gratitude to everyone who put in the long hours and late nights to craft this package: Ranking Member Steny Hoyer of Financial Services and Lois Frankel on National Security-Department of State, who led these negotiations and secured important provisions which we could all be proud of.

I thank the Appropriations Committee staff in particular: Matt Smith, Erin Kolodjeski, Philip Tizzani, Ed Etzkorn, and Laurie Mignone, who worked tirelessly to produce this legislation.

I thank our counterparts in the majority, led by my friend, Chairman Cole, and the subcommittee chairs, David Joyce and Mario Diaz-Balart.

These two bills are a continuation of our efforts to reassert Congress' power of the purse, reject $163 billion in cuts proposed by the Trump administration, constrain the White House's abuse of the budget process, and protect Democratic priorities at home and abroad.

This bill supports the small businesses and entrepreneurs that fuel the American economy by providing more than $1 billion for the Small Business Administration and increasing funding for entrepreneurial development programs by $13 million.

Small businesses employ nearly half of the American workforce. At a time when so many families are feeling the weight of the affordability crisis and job prospects feel far and few between, we must do everything in our power to increase economic opportunities in the communities that need it most.

In support of this goal, this bill also provides $324 million for community development financial institutions, rejecting efforts by the Trump administration to fully eliminate large portions of this program.

As we look ahead to an election year, this bill increases funding for election security grants by $30 million, providing States and localities with the resources that they need to shore up our election infrastructure and defend our democracy against any form of interference that could deny us the most basic right.

In addition to our right to vote, this bill protects our right to counsel codified in the Sixth Amendment by increasing funding for Federal public defenders by $315 million. This helps to ensure due process is not just a privilege reserved for the wealthy few, but a protection guaranteed to all of us, regardless of status.

This package not only supports democracy at home but advances it abroad. It protects funding to fully meet our treaty obligations, affirming American leadership at the U.N. and other international organizations.

It supports women around the globe, protecting funding for bilateral family planning and the U.N. Population Fund, and it facilitates American cooperation with international environmental initiatives by blocking policy riders that would have prevented our participation.

In fact, there is not a single poison pill policy rider in these bills. Both we and our Republican colleagues agreed to leave these partisan provisions out of this package and pursue a reasonable compromise. I am glad that we could reach this agreement and move forward with a package that isn't perfect, but it is one that we can all support.

While there are certainly some things that I would change about these measures, they are both vastly superior to yet another continuing resolution or a lapse in funding, either of which would afford the Trump administration greater leeway to abuse the budget process, which they have shown an eagerness to do from the moment they took office.

Mr. Chairman, I am proud of the work that was done in a bipartisan fashion to produce this funding package. I look forward to voting for it, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), the distinguished ranking member of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Meng), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

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

Mr. Chair, I think it is fair to say that many within this institution and

also outside of the institution thought that we could not get an appropriations process in the U.S. Congress back on track, that we would be unable to pass appropriations bills, that we would face another potential government shutdown, and that we could not make the process work in the way that it has historically worked, which is Democrats and Republicans coming together to hammer out bills that meet the needs of the American people and do this every single year, which it has done historically.

In a negotiation, no one gets everything that they want. You compromise for a greater good, and you need willing partners to participate in that effort.

I believe that what we have done here is to show the naysayers that by entrusting appropriations bills to appropriators, we could get the job done. That is what we are doing with six bills already passed and signed and two bills that we will pass today. That is 8 of the 12 appropriations bills, and I believe we are on track to pass all 12 bills by January 30.

Now, if we do not come to an agreement, there are two options. The first option is a continuing resolution, which we can all conclude is no way to run a government. Quite frankly, for me personally, I don't want to turn over the power of the Appropriations Committee to any executive, Democratic or Republican. I believe that the power of the purse resides within the Congress. The second option is a shutdown, which, as we know, is the worst of all possible outcomes.

It hurts the American people, and it really shortchanges the American people. It puts them at risk. It may satisfy a need or an urge that someone here has, but it doesn't reflect well on what happens to the American people. I think we have shown the naysayers that it can be done.

Mr. Chair, I will compliment the chair of the full committee for understanding the need to reassert the constitutional power of the purse entrusted to the Congress through the Appropriations Committee and that we do have to hammer out the bills in a civil way; not for the purposes of the process but for what the consequences are of these 12 bills and the services that they provide to the American people. Whether it is agriculture in rural America, whether it is education and the ability of children to be able to succeed, or whether it is healthcare or transportation, which, in this case, is our role in the world and how we preserve our national security, what we do with our financial circumstances, what we do with our community development of financial institutions to help local communities be able to thrive economically, that is what is within the bills.

It is not just a process. It is the content of these efforts which make that difference and provide what government is here to do: opportunity for people to be able to succeed, to be able to thrive, and to be able to take care of themselves and their families.

Mr. Chair, the strategy and the strength of the Appropriations Committee and its work on behalf of the American people are the heartbeat of the U.S. Government. I am proud to support the bipartisan, bicameral bill that we have fashioned and, again, give credit to both our Republican chairs and our Democratic ranking members for the great work and their negotiating skills to get it done, and to the staff, above all. I am sorry to other staffs, but the Appropriations staff is second to none. They keep our names on the door. They make it possible for these bills to pass.

Mr. Chair, I will just say it is a good package. It reasserts Congress' power of the purse. It does rein in the administration, and it does, for me, protect key Democratic priorities.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support these bills today and to move forward as we continue to look at the next several bills that we have coming up so that we can, by January 30, pass all the appropriations bills and make a difference for the American people.

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

Chairman, I oppose this amendment. The National Endowment for Democracy supports initiatives for which many of my Republican colleagues proudly proclaimed their support. Advocates in Iran supported by NED have been instrumental in documenting the brutality of the Ayatollah's regime.

Over the last several days, we have seen some of the most egregious acts of violent repression in decades as thousands of Iranian protestors take to the streets. The work of groups backed by the National Endowment for Democracy is more important now than ever.

The only people who benefit when we pull back our support for democracy advocates around the world are the dictators and the despots who oppress them.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose this amendment and hold firm on the agreement that we negotiated.

Mr. Chair, I thank the former chair and ranking member for yielding. I thank her for her work. I thank Mr. Cole for his work.

Anybody who knows me knows that I am opposed to CRs, but I am for keeping the government open, if those are the only alternatives.

Mr. Chair, this would not be my bill, but I think probably most of the Members on this floor can say that. It is a bill that cooperatively has been made better, I think, as it has passed through the House and Senate in conference.

It provides increases for several key programs for the American people.

That includes a $13 million increase over the fiscal year 2025 enacted level for entrepreneurial development programs at the Small Business Administration. The ranking member mentioned that program, but it is critically important to our communities and to the small business community.

This bill also increases funding for election security grants by $30 million. I created that program, along with Bob Ney from Ohio, when we passed the Help America Vote Act. We all want to make sure our elections are run well. At that point in time, we distributed to the States over $3 billion. This is $45 million for 50 States, not a lot of money, but it is proper for the Federal Government to help pay for the elections that are run by the locals that include United States Senators and Members of Congress.

The judiciary, Mr. Chairman, receives $584 million or a 6.2 percent increase over the 2025 enacted, which is what they asked for. The reason we wanted to do that is to make sure that the courts can act efficiently, effectively, and justly. We also included $142 million or a 19 percent increase for court security. Unfortunately, as we see on our streets today, we are living in an era in which violence is too often repaired to.

Crucially, the bill fixes the funding hole for Federal Public Defender services, which are constitutionally required, providing an increase of $315 million or 22 percent over the 2025 enacted level to meet constitutional responsibilities.

Other programs for the Department of the Treasury, including the community development financial institutions, so critical for small communities and communities of little means, were flat funded in the fiscal year 2025 enacted level, instead of being eliminated. While it is not everything we would want, it is a vast improvement over what was requested.

Even still, Mr. Chair, some of my colleagues may notice my lack of enthusiasm for this final bill.

This bill's $1 billion or 9 percent cut to the Internal Revenue Service below the fiscal year 2025 enacted is particularly concerning to me. I have made this point I think every time we have considered this bill. I might say that we tried to overcome this deficiency and have not yet done that.

It includes a $438 million or an 8 percent cut to IRS enforcement. Now, what does cutting enforcement mean? It means that we have gone from 9 percent in looking at tax returns over a million dollars to 0.6 percent. What incentive is that to people who make a lot of money and who try to avoid taxation? The little guy has to pick up the tab. Mr. Chair, that cut will cost the American people dearly by making it easier for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations to avoid paying the taxes they owe under existing law.

Nevertheless, this bill is better than it would have otherwise been. IRS data indicates that every $1 produces $7. A Harvard study shows that for the top 10 percent, every dollar invested in enforcement brings us $12 in additional revenue in taxes owed but not paid. Who will have to pick up the tab? As I said, hardworking Americans who dutifully pay their taxes.

If you are serious about fiscal responsibility, as I am and as I think many are----

If you are serious, you have to be serious about collecting revenue that is due and owing. That means funding the IRS, which has been understaffed and underresourced far too long.

Now, I am concerned not only by the IRS but also the FBI. For two decades, I have worked to help the FBI move out of the crumbling, unhealthy J. Edgar Hoover Building and into a new consolidated headquarters that meets its security and operational needs. The administration has decided to move the FBI from an inadequate 51-year- old building to an inadequate 28-year-old building, the Reagan Building. Its exposed location and its design as an accessible public- private facility would greatly undermine the FBI security.

I will continue to work on that throughout the year that I have remaining to me.

There was language in the CJS bill that I wanted the Rules Committee to include the same exact language, saying simply that we would oversee the plans of the GSA and the FBI before we spend money. That was the responsible thing to do. I am sorry, Mr. Chair, that we did not do it, but I am going to support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me.

Mr. Chair, I presume this is a message amendment. I presume that because I know that the gentleman who offered it is bright, knowledgeable, and knows this amendment is clearly unconstitutional.

I am sure he has read the Constitution. He talks about it from time to time. Of course, the language of the Constitution is very clear for exactly the reason that the Founders did not want us to be able to monetarily penalize them for judgments with which we disagreed.

They wanted an independent judiciary. They wanted a Nation of laws and not of men. They wanted a nation of laws that are not compromised by threats of cutting salaries and changing lifestyles so that the judiciary would be, unlike England, who had a king who made the laws. It would be the parliament and the courts.

Mr. Chair, I suggest we withdraw this amendment, with all due respect to my friend from Texas, because surely he would not want to go against the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mr. Chair, I also want to say that I am honored to serve as the ranking member. I would rather be chairman. I am honored to serve as the ranking member with the distinguished Member of this body, Mr. Joyce.

If he would like me to yield to him now, I will. If not, I want to thank him for his leadership of our committee, which has been collegial and positive. I think it has led to this resolution today.

Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously and by the way, let me mention to the gentleman from Texas he is protected by the Constitution of the United States from having exactly the same thing done to him.

Mr. Chair, I thank the Chairman, Mr. Sessions, from the great State of Texas for his remarks. I want to tell the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) that the gentleman who offered this amendment is protected by that same Constitution of the United States from having this done to him. Surely he would want to do unto others as he would want done unto him.

Mr. Chair, I urge strenuously the defeat of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has raised a point. He has carefully drafted this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, his rhetoric, however, and the other gentleman who spoke has been about an individual, about a judge. Their effort is to indirectly do what the Constitution says they cannot do directly.

This Congress ought to recognize that the Constitution clearly had in mind that you cannot do this, directly or indirectly, when the expressed intent of the outcome of the adoption of this amendment is to cut the salaries of judges with whom they disagree.

That would not be a nation of laws. It would be a nation of men. That, we should hold askew, Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I again urge the rejection of this amendment. It is clearly designed to alter opinions based upon the threat of being reduced in monetary ability to proceed.

They disagree with the judge. There is a way to go about that. It is to appeal, not to threaten financial retribution.

Mr. Chair, for the sake of our democracy and the sanctity of something that makes America special, which is a justice system that works unrelated to threats of retribution, I urge the defeat of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.