H.Res. 1333

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7726 because we know that childcare is not a luxury. It is a necessity for millions of American families. Yet, many communities struggle with skyrocketing childcare costs if they can find any childcare at all. Our economy already loses an estimated $122 billion every year due to childcare shortages, and that is a policy failure.

The bill before us does nothing to reduce childcare costs, increase supply, or improve conditions for providers, and it doesn't even reduce fraud. Instead, it creates uncertainty and red tape for States and providers. While the supporters will be discussing the title of the bill, they are not going to be discussing the substance.

I support efforts to reduce fraud in government programs, but this bill doesn't do that. States are already required to report error rates and undergo compliance reviews of the Child Care and Development Block Grant every 3 years. This bill would require States to triple their reporting obligations, diverting CCDBG dollars away from families by increasing administrative costs. More reporting does not reduce fraud.

H.R. 7726 is also extremely vague. It would allow the Health and Human Services Secretary to designate States as high risk and subject them to additional monitoring without defining what additional monitoring or high risk means, and it provides no additional funding to support these new responsibilities.

Furthermore, it expands situations where the State may be in noncompliance, opening the door for this legislation to be weaponized to withhold funding from an entire State that the Trump administration wants to punish.

The bill also mandates permanent disbarment of providers found guilty of fraud regardless of mitigating circumstances, and it is unclear who gets debarred. Is it the individual who was involved, or could it be the entire franchise operating in multiple States?

In many communities, permanently removing even one provider could leave families without options for childcare. Furthermore, debarment from the childcare program requires debarment from the Child and Adult Care Food Program, so innocent families could lose access to food as well as childcare.

This legislation fails to stop fraud. Instead, it imposes needless red tape and bureaucracy on communities that are already strapped for resources. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from public health and anti-hunger organizations, a couple of dozen of them, that says in part that the provisions of H.R.

7723 which are now in this bill ``would use existing Serious Deficiency process to trigger disbarment, which is problematic because it is a tool that is inconsistently applied and is often triggered by minor errors rather than fraud or misconduct.''

May 18, 2026.

Re H.R. 7723 and Its Impact on CACFP Participation

Dear Members of the House of Representatives: We, the

undersigned organizations, write to oppose H.R. 7723,

Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars in Child Care Act, which could

bar child care providers from participating in the child and

Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) and the Child Care and

Development Block Grant (CCDBG) for unintentional or

inadvertent errors.

CACFP is a federal program that provides reimbursements for

nutritious meals and snacks to eligible providers in rural,

suburban, and urban areas in communities across the country,

and is proven to improve children's health, family economic

stability, and child care quality. This program ensures that

children in every state have access to healthy meals and

snacks at participating child care centers, family child care

homes, Head Start programs, afterschool programs, and

emergency shelters.

H.R. 7723 seeks to bar providers from receiving federal

funds if they commit fraud, but states are already

administering CACFP with strong oversight systems

specifically designed to detect and prevent integrity

concerns. These systems are built from U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) guidance and technica1 assistance.

H.R. 7723 would use the existing Serious Deficiency (SD)

process to trigger disbarment, which is problematic because

it is a tool that is inconsistently applied and is often

triggered by minor errors rather than fraud or misconduct.

In May 2024, USDA began the rulemaking process to update

and improve the SD process, with hundreds of stakeholders

urging USDA to clearly define fraud and provide more

technical assistance. These identified improvements must be

included in a Final Rule to ensure due process and that

children and families do not lose access to quality and

community-based child care due to minor or inadvertent

errors.

``We are also concerned about the chilling effect this bill

may have on child care providers.'' Fear of losing CCDBG

funding over inadvertent CACFP errors could push providers to

withdraw from CACFP entirely, reducing children's access to

healthy meals at a critical time for their health and

development.

We strongly support holding providers who commit fraud

accountable. However, inaccurate or exaggerated claims about

alleged fraud should not be the basis for jeopardizing

children's access to nutritious food and access to quality

and locally-based child care. We urge you to oppose this

bill.

Thank you for your consideration to ensure access to high

quality and community-based child nutrition and child care.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further.

Sincerely,

National Organizations:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME); CACFP Roundtable; Center for Law and

Social Policy (CLASP); Common Threads; Food Research & Action

Center (FRAC); First Focus Campaign for Children; National

Association for Family Child Care; National CACFP

Association; National CACFP Forum; National Farm to School

Network; ZERO TO THREE.

State and Local Organizations:

Alpha & Omega Nutrition Program, Inc. (Tennessee); Child

Nutrition Services (Nebraska); Children's Hunger Alliance

(Ohio); CocoKids Inc (California); Genesee County Interagency

Council (New York); Giving Youth A Chance (Tennessee); Hawaii

Children's Action Network Speaks!; Indy Hunger Network

(Indiana); Lucia Mar USD (California); Marathon County Child

Development Agency (Wisconsin); Marshmallow Home Daycare LLC

(California); Missouri State Center for Ozarks Poverty

Research; Northwest Harvest (Washington); Oppenheim

Consulting, LLC; San Francisco--Marin Food Bank (California);

Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County (California); Tiny

Tots and Little Tykes, Inc. (Minnesota).

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from AFSCME, Education Healthcare Public Services, and SEIU that says in part: ``This bill would enable the administration to withdraw Federal childcare funds abruptly without cause, making childcare less affordable and reliable for working families.''

June 2, 2026.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 5 million members of

the American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers (AFT),

and Service Employees International Union (SEIU), we write

collectively in opposition to Stop Child Care Scams Act (H.R.

7726), which purports to address allegations of fraud in

child care programs. ``This bill would enable the

administration to withdraw federal childcare funds abruptly

without cause, making childcare less affordable and reliable

for working families.'' This legislation would also make it

even more difficult for struggling childcare providers to

keep their doors open. We urge you to vote no on H.R. 7726.

Our unions represent family childcare providers, childcare

centers, programs and services, and preschool employees. Some

of these programs span traditional working hours and others

operate well beyond the traditional work day to accommodate

parents who are healthcare workers on 12-hour shifts, service

members working on bases that operate 24/7, construction

workers who are onsite by 7:00 a.m., and other working

parents who work outside the once traditional 9 to 5. Many

providers already operate on razor-thin margins, working long

hours, overseeing staff and making personal financial

sacrifices, like delaying their own pay, to keep their doors

open and meet payroll. Constant funding disruptions to

childcare will force many providers to reduce services or

close altogether. They deserve better and more timely pay

rather than additional delays and uncertainty. This vital

component of our workforce needs certainty and steady funding

to provide the care needed for America's working families.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration, abruptly and

without justification, illegally withheld funding for more

than 300,000 children in more than 44,000 childcare programs

in five states funded by the Child Care and Development Block

Grant (CCDBG). Another 200,000 children who do not receive

childcare assistance but rely on programs that do, may have

also been affected. Unions and other allies swiftly

challenged these actions in court. Multiple courts ordered

the administration to reverse course. Now, H.R. 7726 would

amend current law to allow these politically motivated,

baseless and deeply harmful funding freezes to resume.

CCDBG is a critically important program for infants and

toddlers, preschoolers, school-aged children, and a crucial

workforce support. Reliable, consistent childcare funding

from the federal government is essential to ensure that

parents can work while their children are wellcared for and

gain critical skills for continued education and success.

CCDBG also supports school-aged children in before and after

care. Further, childcare programs, both centers and family

childcare, need the assurance of stable, consistent funding

so that their work can continue.

CCDBG has enjoyed bipartisan support with champions from

both parties because the investments pay off and the program

is run well. CCDBG is one of the most closely monitored human

services programs with states required to submit detailed

plans to the federal government, track eligibility, conduct

regular provider inspections and report spending to the

federal government. The most recent report from the

Administration for Children and Families' Office of Child

Care's National Center on Subsidy Innovation and

Accountability showed that CCDBG had lower rates of improper

payments than other programs. As a reminder, improper

payments include errors that cannot be solely classified as

fraud, such as inadvertent error.

H.R. 7726 further empowers the administration in its

attempts to weaponize the distribution of congressionally

appropriated funds. Instead, Congress should ensure that

enacted funding is distributed lawfully and without delays

due to political motivations. We urge you to oppose H.R. 7726

and focus on ways to make childcare more affordable for

millions of working families.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth S. Watson,

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME).

Kristor Cowan,

American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

John Gray,

Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Child Care for Every Family Network.

The Child Care for Every Family,

June 1, 2026.

Dear Members of Congress: We, the undersigned

organizations, led by the Child Care for Every Family Network

with the support of the National Association for the

Education of Young Children, National Women's Law Center, the

Center for Law and Social Policy, and the National

Association of Family Child Care, strongly urge you to reject

a package of child care bills--or the ``Stop Child Care Scams

Act of 2026''--amending the Child Care and Development Block

Grant Act (CCDBG) and the Child and Adult Care Food Program

(CACFP).

These bills give the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services unprecedented authority to withhold all Child Care

and Development Fund (CCDF) funding from states without cause

or due process, bar child care providers for non-fraudulent

activity, and burden states with costly activities that don't

improve program integrity. There is no evidence of

significant or widespread fraud in the federal child care

program. These bills will be detrimental to child care access

as they will result in fewer families receiving child care

assistance from CCDF, fewer child care providers willing to

serve families with child care subsidies, and further

destabilize America's child care sector, which is already

stretched too thin. The latest annual survey report from the

National Association for Family Child Care reveals an

unsustainable situation: 35 percent reported earning less

than $10 an hour despite 71 percent working 50 or more hours

per week, and 48 percent reported working 60 or more hours

per week. A recent survey of providers by the National

Association for the Education of Young Children makes clear

that insufficient public investment threatens parents'

ability to afford and access child care.

In short, these bills deny support to children and families

while doing absolutely nothing to strengthen our child care

system or help the millions of families that are struggling

to find and afford the child care they need. Lawmakers must

reject this effort that will destabilize our child care

system and harm the families that rely on it.

The House of Representatives will soon consider legislation

that ignores the real child care crisis and create a

constellation of policies that exacerbate this crisis,

undermining and weakening our current system and doing

nothing to help the millions of families that urgently need

help affording child care. We urge lawmakers to reject the

``Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026,'' which includes the

following bills:

H.R. 7720 Child Care Payment Integrity and Fraud

Accountability Act: This bill treats all states as high-risk

by annual error rate reviews instead of every three years,

despite no evidence of significant or widespread fraud in the

CCDF program. These time-consuming, burdensome, and costly

reviews will mean states have less funding for child care

assistance, while doing nothing to reduce fraud.

H.R. 7721 Combating Regulatory Abuse, Closing Known

Deficiencies, and Overseeing Waste Nationwide Act (CRACKDOWN

Act): This bill would give the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) new power to freeze 100 percent of a

state's child care funds for state administrative errors.

Uses an arbitrary, low-risk threshold standard that isn't

about fraud and eliminates state due process. This doesn't

reduce fraud and would needlessly punish thousands of

families who rely on federal child care assistance and

destabilize a state's child care sector.

H.R. 7723 Safeguarding Taxpayer Dollars in Child Care Act:

This bill requires HHS and USDA to penalize providers

unfairly, including permanently barring child care providers

from receiving federal child care funds and participation in

the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). This puts

providers who haven't committed fraud at risk of losing their

business and could make them less willing to serve families

with CCDF subsidies. This could have a chilling effect on

providers serving families with subsidies, making it harder

for these families to find the care they need. It also means

that more child care programs could close altogether and more

families--including those who don't use subsidies--will have

a harder time finding and affording child care.

Regarding CACFP, the bill would further undermine the

existing and deeply flawed Serious Deficiency (SD) process to

trigger disbarment from the entire program. CACFP ensures

that the participating child care centers, family child care

homes, Head Start programs, afterschool programs, and

emergency shelters serve healthy meals and snacks. States

currently administer CACFP with strong oversight systems

created by USDA, designed to detect and prevent integrity

concerns. SD is inconsistently applied and often triggered by

minor errors--not fraud or misconduct--and should not result

in termination from either CACFP or CCDF.

H.R. 7726 No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act:

This bill would require HHS to permanently bar child care

providers from receiving federal funds for non-fraudulent

actions, such as incomplete paperwork, like missing

signatures. This puts providers who haven't committed fraud

at risk of losing their business if they serve families

paying with CCDF subsidies. It could have a chilling effect

on providers serving families with subsidies, making it

harder for those families to find the care they need. It also

means that more child care programs could close altogether,

and more families including those who don't pay with

subsidies--will have a harder time finding and affording

child care.

H.R. 7724 No Waivers for Fraud Act: This bill would

eliminate HHS's ability to waive a sanction it has placed on

a state. This flexibility is rarely, if ever, used but would

be important to preserve for instances of capricious

sanctioning of states without proof of fraud and more

generally for unforeseen situations in which the Secretary

and state agree that withdrawing a sanction is appropriate.

We urge lawmakers to vote NO on any package that includes

these bills and instead focus on the real child care crisis

facing our country.

Signed,

National Organizations

Child Care for Every Family Network

Center for Law and Social Policy

National Association for Family Child Care

National Women's Law Center

MomsRising

National Association for the Education of Young Children

(NAEYC)

All Our Kin

American Federation of State, County and Municipal

Employees (AFSCME)

Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)

The letter says in part: ``These bills give the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services unprecedented authority to withhold all Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) funding from States without cause or due process, bar child care providers for non-fraudulent activity, and burden States with costly activities that don't improve program integrity.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to an article printed in the MinnPost, the headline of which says: ``Here's what's really happening with childcare fraud in Minnesota. Evidence is nowhere near the epidemic levels a viral YouTube video would suggest--but it hasn't stopped a crackdown on child care funding. Here's the fact check.'' https://www.minnpost.com/state-government/ 2026/01/heres-whats-really-happening-with-child-care-fraud-in- minnesota-explained/?gad_source=1&gad _campaignid=9109082086.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from

Child Care Aware of America that says, in part, ``several provisions in the bill would duplicate existing requirements, create unclear mandates, and ultimately undermine families' access to childcare'' and that the bill ``would impose new sanctions, restrict flexibility, and potentially reduce childcare funding to States.''

ChildCare Aware of America,

June 2, 2026.

Dear Representative: We write to share concerns about the

Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726) that previously

advanced out of the House Education and Workforce Committee

as a package of eight bills. Child Care Aware of America

(CCAoA) supports swift and thorough action when credible

allegations of fraud arise. But any effort to strengthen

current safeguards should do so without causing economic harm

to families, communitIes, or the child care system.

Unfortunately, several provisions in the bill would duplicate

existing requirements, create unclear mandates, and

ultimately undermine families' access to child care. At a

time when child care prices remain extremely high for

families, additional administration burden and cost may cause

providers to reduce enrollment, withdraw from subsidy

programs, or close altogether, further straining access for

families who need care. We urge you to vote no on the Stop

Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726).

There are already robust program integrity processes in

place within the Child Care and Development Block Grant

(CCDBG), with dearly defined roles for both federal and state

agencies. Federal law and regulation require states to

conduct eligibility verification, establish monitoring and

enforcement procedures, review payments, investigate

suspected fraud, and implement corrective action plans where

needed. States must submit detailed plans outlining program

integrity strategies, and they are subject to federal

oversight. In addition, states already report extensive data

on payment accuracy and program integrity. Under federal

regulation, states must report the error rate, the percentage

of cases with an improper payment, the percentage of improper

payments, the average amount of improper payment, and the

estimated annual amount of improper payments (45 CFR

98.100(b)). States are also required to outline procedures to

investigate and recover fraudulent payments, which are

different than improper payments or errors, and to impose

sanctions on clients or providers in response to fraud. The

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has clear

oversight authority, including reviewing state compliance,

requiring corrective actions, and imposing penalties when

necessary.

The Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726) would

impose new sanctions, restrict flexibility, and potentially

reduce child care funding to states. While accountability is

important, reducing funding limits states' ability to operate

the child care subsidy systems that millions of families rely

on. These resources support access to child care, workforce

stability, and the state administrative capacity needed to

maintain strong program oversight. Excessive sanctions and

rigid penalties may discourage child care providers from

participating in the subsidy system, or related programs such

as the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). The result

could be a smaller supply of child care for families.

The bill's administrative requirements would also be costly

to implement. Expanded reporting, monitoring, technology

upgrades, and compliance obligations require significant

staff time and system changes. Because these expenses are

typically covered by Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF)

dollars, increased administrative costs leave fewer resources

available for direct services. As a result, states may need

to serve fewer children, adjust reimbursement rates for child

care providers, or scale back quality initiatives. Increased

compliance risk and reduced flexibility may further

accelerate program closures, making it harder for families to

access care.

Our concerns apply to several of the sections of the Stop

Child Care Scams Act of 2026. Section 5, Improper Payment

Rate Requiring Corrective Action Plan; Conditional

Ineligibility, and Section 10, Fraudulent Payments, focus on

reducing improper payments without making a necessary

distinction between administrative errors and intentional

fraud. That conflation requires states to adopt overly

restrictive payment practices that destabilize child care

provider operations, particularly for small businesses

operating on thin margins. Section IO, Fraudulent Payments,

would add new reporting and compliance requirements that

increase administrative costs and divert funds from direct

services for families and children. Section 6, Cyclical

Monitoring of State Performance, duplicates existing federal

monitoring and review requirements. Section 2, Strengthening

the Authority to Withhold Funds for Fraud, imposes funding

penalties that ultimately reduce resources available to serve

families. Similarly, Section 4, Preventing Fraud in the Child

Care and Development Block Grant Program, would limit

flexibility that states currently use to manage complex

program operations, potentially reducing child care supply.

CCAoA supports thoughtful, targeted efforts to strengthen

program integrity and prevent fraud. However, these efforts

should build on existing systems, preserve clarity in federal

and state roles, distinguish administrative errors and

improper payments from fraud, and most importantly not punish

children and families by destabilizing or defunding the child

care system. As a result, we urge the Representative to

oppose the Stop Child Care Scams Act of 2026 (H.R. 7726). We

welcome the opportunity to work with you on balanced

solutions that ensure families maintain access to safe,

affordable child care.

Sincerely,

Susan Gale Perry,

Chief Executive Officer,

Child Care Aware of America.

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

Mr. Speaker, millions of families rely on safe, stable childcare in their communities. Unfortunately, the cost of childcare often rivals the cost of housing. Many communities lack adequate childcare altogether.

H.R. 7726 fails to meaningfully improve America's broken childcare system, but it does add unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to States and providers, many of whom are already struggling.

Fraud must be addressed, but in substance, not by discussing the merits of the title of the bill. Smart accountability means strong enforcement paired with practical flexibility. Requiring extra reports and punishing States and providers for minor, inadvertent mistakes does not protect children and doesn't even reduce fraud. It does put programs that families depend on at risk and allows the Trump administration to weaponize this legislation by withholding funding from States that didn't vote for him.

I oppose H.R. 7726, which fails to reduce fraud and prioritizes inflexible mandates over the real-world needs of working families.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7892, the so-called No Aid for Ghost Students Act.

Let me say at the outset that protecting taxpayer dollars and preventing fraud in our student Federal aid program is always a good idea. As stewards of public funds, we should all agree that fraud should be identified, investigated, and stopped, but this bill is not about a thoughtful, evidence-based solution as its supporters claim.

The bill would direct the Department of Education to create an identity fraud detection system within the Free Application for Federal Student Aid process and authorize the Department to open accelerated program reviews against colleges.

Mr. Speaker, I have got to point out that the Department of Education just recently, this past April, launched a new identity fraud detection system as part of the FAFSA process. That system is still being tested, and Congress has not seen any meaningful evidence about its effectiveness or its impact upon students. Yet, this legislation would rush to codify requirements and penalties before we know whether the Department's current efforts are even working.

Federal student aid helps nearly 13 million students every year who are pursuing higher education and economic opportunity. However, the bill's creation of vague enforcement standards and punitive mandates, without clear guidance for students and institutions, risk making it harder for legitimate students to access the aid they need to attend colleges.

For example, we don't have evaluations on the effect this bill may have on legitimate students who are incorrectly flagged as suspicious. The bill prohibits colleges from distributing funds to those students until the suspicion is cleared up. These students could face hardships obtaining housing, transportation, or even buying books for who knows how long.

Mr. Speaker, we should allow the Department's new antifraud system to operate and wait for the Department to evaluate the results. The Department should work with colleges, financial aid administrators, and fraud experts to determine what additional tools and guardrails may be necessary. Codifying this new system without assessing its effectiveness just doesn't make any sense.

Moreover, H.R. 7892 could reasonably be viewed as part of a broader strategy to weaponize student aid. The Trump administration has issued numerous threats and made efforts to withhold title IV funding as a weapon to enforce ideological control over educational institutions.

Already, this administration has rewritten the accreditation handbook, threatened funding to select institutions that violate its legally dubious executive orders, and embedded ideological conditions into annual participation agreements.

The bill would give the administration another tool to further target colleges by allowing the Department to initiate and conduct program reviews based on little evidence. In fact, during the committee's debate on the bill, the committee Democrats sought to have a clear definition of what ``reasonable suspicion of identity fraud'' actually means in the legislation.

Regrettably, the bill has made its way to the floor without addressing this concern. As a result, the vague language in the bill would enable the Trump administration and future administrations to weaponize fraud investigations to target certain colleges or States.

Fraud prevention and student access to affordable college education are not competing goals. We can achieve both. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike that balance.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Menefee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter in opposition to the bill from the American Federation of Teachers.

It says, in part: ``H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, is seemingly about cracking down on the real concern about fraud in the Federal financial aid system. However, according to the Secretary of Education's own recent congressional testimony, that fraud is already being successfully addressed with existing tools at the Department of Education's disposal. The main impact of this bill would be to provide the Secretary with a wide- ranging authority to subject colleges to additional review for failing to meet vague and ill-defined metrics around `suspected fraud.' ''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to another article titled: ``The Hidden Power Grab in `Fraud Prevention'--and the Students Who Will Pay,'' from the Alliance for Higher Education and The Hope Center: https://hope.temple.edu/newsroom/hope-blog/hidden-power-grab- fraud- prevention-students-who-will-pay.

It says, in part, ``The bill's operative trigger . . . `reasonable suspicion of identify fraud,' is a broad legalistic term with little history in Federal financial aid policy. This term has typically been used only when referring potential matters to the Department's inspector general, where facts and evidence could be carefully gathered by career employees with experience in fraud investigations. This bill radically expands the agency's powers to make the Secretary the judge, jury, and executioner.''

It goes on further to say that the reasonable suspicion standard ``should require articulable, credible grounds to believe fraud has occurred, not an unexamined `hunch.' It is also critical that such powers cannot be weaponized against perceived political enemies-- perhaps a State or college that isn't politically aligned with the administration.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record another article that is titled: ``Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and Administrators,'' from the Institute for College Access and Success.

[April 27, 2026]

Stop Fraud, Not Students: A Balancing Act for Financial Aid Offices and

Administrators

(Author: Emmanuel Rodriguez)

AI-driven application fraud is rising fast, but without

adequate staffing and resources,

prevention efforts risk blocking the very students aid is

meant to serve.

Applying for financial aid is one of the most critical

actions a low-income student can take to make their

postsecondary education a reality. Completing the Free

Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) unlocks federal,

state, and institutional resources that can bring the coAts

of college within reach. Each year, the U.S. Department of

Education (the Department) selects millions of student

applications for a taxpayer safeguard and compliance process

known as verification. Financial aid verification is split

into three main categories--V1, V4, and V5--all of which are

used to confirm that the income, household size, and identity

information reported by a student on their FAFSA is accurate.

This process can involve submitting tax records,

identification documents, or other materials to resolve

potential discrepancies. While the goal is to ensure that

limited financial aid resources are distributed

appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to

safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays,

confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately

impact the students who can least afford them, and

potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline.

Across the nation, college and financial aid administrators

have warned that the rate of financial aid fraud has

surpassed anything they've seen in the past, with ``ghost

students'' emerging as a major concern. These bad actors are

using stolen or synthetic identities to apply for aid and

enroll in colleges with no intent to attend, instead seeking

to collect financial aid and then disappear. Community

colleges, which often have more open-access admissions and

higher volumes of aid applicants, have been

disproportionately affected by this trend. While this problem

has long existed, the use of advancing technology to scale

fraudulent aid applications has surged as it facilitates mass

enrollment and can even generate coursework that can appear

legitimate.

This is not isolated to one or even a few states. In

Minnesota, colleges flagged more than 7,000 fraudulent or

suspicious applications in a single year. In Nevada, one

college reported over $7 million lost in a single semester

due to fraudulent enrollments. And nationally, federal

investigators have examined more than $350 million in ghost

student fraud cases over the past five years. Unfortunately,

the most staggering numbers are coming out of California,

where colleges have reported roughly 900,000 fraudulent

college applications in 2024 and more than $11 million lost

in aid. While the total money lost remains very small

compared to total aid, the rise in this activity is swamping

limited aid administration capacity and can undermine trust

in the program for key stakeholders, including policymakers

who allocate the funds for aid.

In response, both states and institutions are acting.

Colleges are deploying AI-powered detection tools,

implementing stricter identity verification, or front-loading

identity verification through their application process,

amongst other measures. At the federal level, the Department

is reinstating fraud detection protocols, including identity

screenings and cross-agency data checks. Even Congress has

begun to respond through the recent introduction of the

Student Aid Fraud Oversight and Accountability Act of 2026

(H.R. 7891), the No Aid for Ghost Students Act of 2026 (H.R.

7892), and the FAFSA Verification Efficiency Act (H.R. 7893).

Taken together, these efforts signal a growing recognition

that fraud prevention must be strengthened. But how it's done

matters for students. A lot.

The California Case Study

For the past few years, the California Community Colleges

(CCC) have been fighting an uphill battle against ghost

students who are getting their hands on federal, state, and

even institutional aid by taking advantage of the community

college mission to provide open access to all students no

matter when they start their educational journey.

TICAS has learned from financial aid administrators that

the AI tools they are using to combat this problem are

getting better and increasing detection. Online verification

platforms and methods have replaced paper-based systems,

allowing students to more easily submit required documents

rather than coming in person. And staff at many colleges are

proactive in their student outreach to offer support in

navigating this process, even with limited resources.

Compliance and protective measures taken by California's

colleges, no matter how thoughtfully designed and

implemented, are just one side of this equation. On the other

side, we need to track and center the experiences of students

with the processes--especially as the Department is stepping

in by expanding V4/V5 verification rates. For undocumented

students, students from mixed-status families, formerly

incarcerated students, foster youth, and others who already

navigate institutions with caution, being told ``show me your

ID'' or ``come into the office to prove you're real and that

you are as poor as you reported'' can feel threatening.

Without careful communication, these processes can feel

punitive, invasive, and in today's reality, connected to

immigration enforcement or federal data sharing that students

fear. This fear is not hypothetical, and addressing it will

take time, intentionality, and both fiscal and human

resources.

Yet, across California, financial aid offices are being

asked to do more with less. Adding identity verification on

top of their normal duties of helping students file a FAFSA

or CADAA or navigate processes like Satisfactory Academic

Progress and professional judgement requests are heavy lifts.

The CCC system and its financial aid administrators cannot

sufficiently carry out increased, more complex, and student-

centered verification practices along with their other work

without sufficient resources.

If California wants to protect taxpayer dollars as well as

students' access to an affordable education, the state must

adequately fund financial aid offices to do both well and in

an equitable way. Widely supported budget requests reflect

this reality, such as an existing ask for an additional $10

million ongoing CA Proposition 98 funds to support the

Student Financial Aid Administration (SFAA), which many

advocates support and the Chancellor's Office has uplifted.

Alternatively, California could implement a reoccurring cost-

of-living adjustment to the SFAA base or ensure they earmark

a portion of any Student Support Block Grant investments for

this purpose.

Regardless of the approach, California has the opportunity

to create a national model for balancing program integrity

with student access. To do so, it must begin with a sustained

state investment in financial aid offices to augment

resources that support vital counseling and advising, clear

communication, and secure technology.

Looking Ahead

As policymakers and institutions respond across the

country, it's critical that they all intentionally balance

program integrity with student access. TICAS offers the

following high-level principles to help guide decision-makers

grappling with how to address this issue:

Ensure all verification processes are clear, transparent,

and student-centered, with strong communication to all

affected parties about why verification is happening.

Center the experiences of students--particularly those from

vulnerable populations--who may experience verification as

confusing, intimidating, or even unsafe.

Prepare multilingual outreach materials for students and

families whom English is a second language to clearly explain

the reasons for verification, next steps, and other supports.

Avoid unnecessarily expanding verification requirements

beyond the student applying for aid--especially towards

dependents or family members.

Protect student privacy and data security, especially as

new technologies like AI are introduced and used to mine or

filter sensitive data.

Provide adequate funding and staffing so financial aid

offices can have training to understand these processes and

implement them effectively.

If colleges choose to build systems that front-load

documentation and identity verification through their

applications, invest in that infrastructure early and test it

thoroughly to ensure it is as simple and easy as possible to

complete.

It says, in part: ``While the goal is to ensure that limited financial aid resources are distributed appropriately, verification creates a real tension: trying to safeguard public taxpayer dollars without introducing delays, confusion, or additional barriers that disproportionately impact the students who can least afford them, and potentially pushing them out of the educational pipeline.''

Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record an article from StateScoop with a letter from Al Sharpton of the National Action Network, outlining many issues involved in identity verification done by artificial intelligence.

[From STATESCOOP, Aug. 1, 2024]

New York lawmaker questions state's use of identity-verification vendor

(By Keely Quinlan)

In a letter to the state chief information officer, New

York state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raises concerns with the

state's use of AI-powered software from the identity-

verification firm Socure. The company says many of the claims

are false.

In a letter penned this month to Dru Rai, New York state's

chief information officer, state Sen. Jeremy Cooney raised

concerns regarding Socure, a fraud prevention and identity

verification firm used by the state, citing the vendor's data

practices and how it uses artificial intelligence.

The letter from Cooney, dated July 10, asks Rai how the

state's Office of Information Technology Services has vetted

Socure, which in addition to more than 20 state government

agencies and multiple federal agencies, provides New York

state with identity verification services. In an interview

with StateScoop, though, Socure executives said many of

Cooney's claims are simply false and that he misunderstands

how the company's technology works.

Socure's technology relies on AI and machine learning to

analyze several thousand data points to predict fraudulent

identity activity. For governments, it predicts fraud for

resident services, such as by scanning benefits applications.

Fraud is a growing concern for state agencies, which since

the COVID-19 pandemic have seen heightened levels of fraud

across many government functions.

Cooney, who also chairs the Senate Procurement and

Contracts Committee, said how Socure obtains and uses those

data points--many of which would be considered personally

identifiable data--is concerning.

Referring to the company as a data broker, Cooney said the

company ``collects, purchases and stores billions of data

points, including sensitive personal identifiable

information, on New Yorkers without their consent to confirm

their identities.'' While noting that identity verification

``is critical for ensuring equitable access to public

services,'' Cooney said that the potential risks associated

with using AI include preventing people from accessing

critical government services.

``Innovation should never come at the cost of good

governance and transparency,'' Cooney wrote in an email to

StateScoop. ``Given the widespread concerns around Socure's

business practices and the growing recognition of AI's risks,

it is important to scrutinize any work they are doing for New

York state agencies. I deeply appreciate the hard work and

ongoing efforts of the State CIO's office to make sure our

state's digital systems grant every New Yorker secure,

equitable access to state services and uphold personal

privacy.''

In the letter, Cooney also asked Rai whether the state

requires that Socure include a human review of algorithmic

output to ensure it's accurate and not discriminatory, and

whether the state has tested Socure's fraud prediction models

for bias.

``Has the state confirmed whether Socure's practices fully

comply with NY state privacy law, specifically related to its

mass collection of sensitive PII, partnership with data

brokers, and use of social media data?'' Cooney asked in the

letter.

`we are not a data broker'

Jordan Burris, vice president of public sector strategy for

Socure and the former chief of staff in the White House's

Office of the Federal CIO, told StateScoop that portions of

the letter fundamentally misunderstand what the company does,

noting that Socure is not a data broker. Additionally, New

York state has yet to pass a comprehensive data privacy law

that would legally define within the state what constitutes a

data broker. Its data privacy act is still in committee for

the second year in a row.

``We do not sell data to third parties, we do not use it

for marketing. We do not use it to run a marketplace,

offering online discounts for e-commerce, like other

companies in the space,'' Burris told StateScoop. ``We are

only focused on verifying identity and rooting out fraud, and

ultimately, under looking at what is exactly New York State

law today, we are not a data broker, and to suggest otherwise

is simply false.''

Cooney's letter follows at least two other instances this

year in which New York state leaders have levied concerns

regarding Socure and its data practices. Rep. Ritchie Torres,

D-N.Y., in February wrote a letter to Socure CEO Johnny Ayers

over concerns that his company's digital identity

verification software might lead to discrimination.

``You claim your product, `fuses personal identifiable

information (PID validated by thousands of data sources' in

order to prevent fraud,'' Torres' letter read. ``Companies'

abuse of private data can also lead to the unwanted tracking

and sale of people's sensitive health data, genetic

information, religious participation, and location. Given the

lack of transparency around your services, constituents in my

district have expressed legitimate privacy concerns and

demand to know how you source their data, how it is used, and

whether it is equitable for all American communities.''

While Cooney's recent letter claims Torres' letter went

unanswered, Socure told StateScoop it met with Torres' office

to review some of its complaints. StateScoop contacted

Torres' office for comment, but did not hear back before

publication.

data sources

In March, Rev. Al Sharpton of the National Action Network,

wrote a letter to New York State Attorney General Letitia

James citing concerns with Socure's lack of transparency

regarding the types of data it uses to perform identity

verification.

``Socure also collects data from thousands of data sources,

including personally identifiable information (PII), without

providing any meaningful transparency regarding how that data

is acquired, stored, and used,'' Sharpton's letter read.

``Socure scrapes social media, utilizes geolocation

technology, and deploys artificial intelligence technology to

conduct its business. They have no help line, and people have

no recourse should their identity be denied mistakenly. These

practices have historically and consistently hurt

marginalized communities.''

When asked how Socure obtains data to perform identity

verification, Burris said the company buys and otherwise

obtains data from a variety of public and private sources to

``bring in house.'' These sources include public records,

mobile network operators--like Verizon and AT&T--and higher

education institutions, Burris said. He added that Socure's

data scientists evaluate the ``authoritativeness of that

data.''

``I'm not looking to buy data for data's sake. I'm looking

at data for the purpose of what we can do with it,'' Burris

said. ``The only purpose for us having it is to help with

identity verification in particular. . . . And then we even

have a proprietary database that we've built of known

fraudulent identity identities that we've identified over our

12-year existence.''

`pressure testing'

As far as concerns of effects on marginalized communities,

Burris said the company is ``pressure testing'' its AI models

by testing for bias across demographics like age, race,

gender and other protected classes.

On the topic of human review in the identity verification

process, Burris said ``humans are involved all throughout the

process.''

``The question of are human reviewers evaluating every

identity decision fundamentally misunderstands the challenges

that exist with verifying identity today,'' Burris said. ``We

are going backwards if we heavily rely on human reviews to

verify identity. The cost is long wait times, backlogs and

good people who ultimately will continue to be underserved.''

In an email, a spokesperson for the New York Office of

Information Technology Services said: ``We take our

responsibility to protect the privacy of every single

resident accessing state programs or services very seriously,

and have implemented the strongest possible security measures

to ensure it.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about whether or not fraud should be stopped. Everybody agrees with that, like when Trump University paid $25 million to settle their fraud investigation. We shouldn't be debating whether or not fraud should be stopped. We should be debating the provisions of the bill, not the merits of the title.

The question before us is not whether or not we should try to reduce fraud, but whether or not Congress should codify into law a process that has barely begun to operate and whose effectiveness has not been evaluated, especially as it affects students who are incorrectly flagged under the bill. It doesn't add anything to what is already being done. It only codifies what is being done before the program can be evaluated.

We should not substitute politics for due diligence. We should wait for that evaluation. As I said in committee, I was willing to work in good faith to improve the legislation. Regrettably, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle chose not to consider the fixes needed to support students and colleges while also addressing the responsibility to defer fraud.

This bill circumvents deliberative processes, imposes new punitive requirements before we have the facts, and risks creating new barriers for students seeking an education. We should pursue smart enforcement, be flexible when honest mistakes occur, and be informed by evidence rather than assumptions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans with a straight face come to this floor and pretend that these bills are about fraud, waste, and abuse.

What a crock that is.

I mean, you want to talk about fraud, Mr. Speaker? Let's talk about fraud. Let's talk about a President who had to pay $25 million after students got defrauded by Trump University.

Let's talk about how Trump and his family have made more than $4 billion since he became President through crypto schemes, corrupt foreign deals, self-dealing government contracts, shady real estate transactions, and pump-and-dump stock schemes.

Let's talk about the sweetheart deals, the pardons, the loopholes, the contracts, the favors, the corrupt giveaways that seem to follow this administration everywhere it goes.

If my Republican friends want to come down here and lecture America about waste, fraud, and abuse, then they should answer a very simple question: Do they support the deal that gives Donald Trump and his family blanket immunity from Federal investigation or prosecution?

Do they support what amounts to be an unlimited stack of get-out-of- jail-free cards for tax crimes, insider trading, bribes, kickbacks, sweetheart contracts, or any other crimes that could be investigated by the Federal Government?

Is their answer yes or no?

I mean, I am outraged by this, and I think it is corrupt as hell. I think the American people deserve to know why Republicans are so obsessed with attacking poor people but suddenly lose their voice when Donald Trump uses the Federal Government like his own personal protection racket.

That is not what Republicans want to talk about. Their idea of cracking down on fraud is simple: Go after people with the least so they can give more to those at the top. Go after poor families. Go after hungry kids. Go after students trying to get an education. Go after parents trying to afford childcare. Go after pregnant women who need help buying food.

That is what these bills do. That is what these bills do. So let's go through them one by one.

Their TANF bill does not help one struggling family. It gives the Trump administration more power to make the safety net harder to use and easier to weaponize.

Their childcare bill does not bring down the cost of childcare by one penny, not one. It just adds more red tape and more paperwork.

Their student aid bill does not help students. It gives more power to a Department of Education Secretary who has shown zero interest in helping students. It lets them freeze aid based on a barely tested system. And by the way, CBO says it saves taxpayers nothing, zero.

Then we have the agriculture funding bill, and this one is especially rotten. I serve on the Agriculture Committee. I represent farmers. I represent rural communities. I have spent my career fighting hunger, so I know what this bill does.

It hurts farmers. It hurts rural America, and it is a disaster for hungry families.

At the exact moment when families are getting crushed at the grocery store because Trump's economy sucks, Republicans are making it harder for them to buy food.

At the exact moment when farmers are getting squeezed by Trump's tariffs and Trump's war, Republicans are gutting the programs that support them.

At the exact moment when inflation is up and we should be talking about bringing prices down, Republicans are screwing over middle America.

Republicans promised prices would come down on day one. Do you remember that? Well, here we are a year and a half in, and everything is up. Groceries are up. Energy costs are up. Inflation is up.

Their answer to pregnant women paying higher grocery costs is to cut WIC by $200 million, to take nutrition help away from pregnant women and little kids. Who asked for that? Who asked for you to cut one of the most basic, effective, profamily programs that we have? WIC helps pregnant women stay healthy. It helps babies grow. It helps new moms. It helps them buy milk and eggs and vegetables and formula and healthy food, and Republicans want to gut it.

By the way, they want to totally decimate the fruit and veggie voucher, which since 2007 has helped make sure moms of newborns can afford to eat healthy food.

Mr. Speaker, why would you eliminate that? At a time when fruits and veggies are getting more expensive,

why would you slash a benefit to help prevent postpartum moms from being malnourished because they can't afford healthy food?

I mean, Republicans can always find money for another illegal war. They can always find money for billionaire tax breaks. They can always find money for corporate giveaways. But fruits and veggies for a pregnant or postpartum mom, formula for a baby, food for toddlers, then they have a problem?

What the hell is wrong with these people, Mr. Speaker?

I thought they wanted to Make America Healthy Again. I do, too, but here is the problem, Mr. Speaker: You can't say that you care about children's health while cutting the program that makes sure kids can eat healthy. You can't say that you care about wellness while voting for a bill that will malnourish our communities.

This bill does not stop there. It weakens support for Food for Peace, a program that feeds people facing famine around the world. It is a program that buys from American farmers. It is a program that shows the world that America can still do something decent and humane.

Why cut that? Whom does that help?

What kind of people look at hungry kids here at home, struggling farmers, and rural towns begging for investment and say: Sorry, we need the money for billionaires, for slush funds, for White House renovations, and for an illegal war?

I will ask again: What the hell is wrong with them?

Mr. Speaker, their entire agenda is about supporting those at the very top, the Mar-a-Lago class, and the hell with everyone else.

This rule deserves a ``no'' vote, and this cruel, upside-down agenda deserves to be rejected.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman's comments about WIC. It is really hard for me to believe that I am hearing Republicans speak in the way they are.

Let me begin with a basic lesson in economics. First of all, Mr. Speaker, USDA's April 2026 Food Price Outlook makes it clear that prices are not down, they are up. They are skyrocketing. Food prices are up 2.7 percent from last year. Restaurant prices are up 3.8 percent. Beef and veal prices are up over 12 percent. Fresh vegetables are up 7.5 percent. Nonalcoholic beverages are up 4.7 percent, and grocery prices, overall, have gone way up.

These are not my talking points. These are not Democratic talking points. These are the Trump administration's own numbers. After 16 months of total Republican control of Washington, of everything, you control the House, you control the Senate, and you control the White House, these guys passed tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. They imposed the tariffs which are one of the reasons why food prices are going up. They started a war that is driving up food and gas prices.

While they tried to put a good face on all of this, the bottom line is they are at fault here.

Pregnant moms' groceries are going up. The food that they need for themselves and for their babies are not going down. They are going up.

By the way, hunger, I should point out to the gentlewoman, is getting worse in this country. It is getting worse. Mr. Speaker, 48 million Americans are food insecure, including 14 million kids. That is what Republican economic policies have done. It is a national catastrophe, and this Republican Congress is doing everything it can to make hunger even worse.

Let me just say this: WIC helps pregnant women. It helps postpartum moms and babies eat nutritious food. It used to be bipartisan. Even the MAHA report talked about the health benefits of the program, and WIC participation has been steadily increasing.

Now, to the gentlewoman's point, there was a slight dip in participation thanks to the Republican government shutdown. If my friends did their homework and did their research and cared about facts, then they would know that. However, the National WIC Association, the voice of 12,000 service providers across the country, have scientific modeling that tells us that participation is expected to continue climbing.

It makes sense. It makes sense given the fact that food prices are going through the roof. People can't afford their basic necessities. We have been in situations in the past where WIC almost ran out of money. Providers, States, and families were scrambling. New moms were worried that their toddlers wouldn't have access to food. I don't think it is a radical idea to want to make sure that the program is fully funded.

This is also something the gentlewoman hasn't responded to, can somebody explain to me why Republicans are cutting the fruit and vegetable benefit that used to be in this bill? What sense does that make?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentlewoman with regard to her last comment. Rather than respond substantively to a single thing that I said about Republicans cutting the WIC program, Women, Infants, and Children, that is in the name of the program, rather than responding to why Republicans are cutting the food and veggie program, she responds with a dig at trans people, and that is the Republican Conference in a nutshell. It really is.

We want to fight hunger. They want to fight culture wars. That is the difference here. This bill is an attack on the most vulnerable people in this country. For the life of me, I just don't understand where they are coming from. Their arguments just take my breath away. They waste time on culture wars, but they don't give a damn about the fact that there are 48 million people in this country who are hungry, that there are millions and millions of children in this country who are hungry.

I am telling you, by cutting these programs, you are not saving any money. You are creating more problems. If programs like WIC get cut and other nutrition programs get cut, then people can look forward to a life with a whole myriad of healthcare problems that are going to be very costly. You guys are something else.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 8914, which prohibits the use of taxpayer money to create a slush fund to compensate January 6 rioters, MAGA sycophants, senior government officials, and members of the President or Vice President's family.

Mr. Speaker, following President Trump's settlement of his bogus lawsuit against his own IRS, he tried to commandeer nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer funds to bankroll a slush fund for the January 6 insurrectionists and other aggrieved MAGA loyalists.

After the obvious outcry at this ludicrous use of taxpayer dollars, Acting Attorney General Blanche said yesterday that they weren't moving forward with the fund.

Mr. Speaker, that isn't good enough.

Why? Because no one believes them. I wouldn't trust the Acting Attorney General to tell me the correct time. Even the people who stand to benefit from their roles on January 6 don't believe them.

Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role on January 6, told a reporter: ``This isn't an abandonment. . . . I believe even if this fund is killed in courts or at a congressional level, the President will find a way.''

Senator Lindsey Graham, who earlier this year already tried to get millions of taxpayer dollars as payment for the government lawfully subpoenaing his cell phone data, said of Acting Attorney General Blanche's reversal on the fund: ``While I appreciate Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's statement . . . I am still of the firm belief that there are many victims.'' He then went on to argue for the formation of a new taxpayer fund. Just replace the paused corrupt fund with a new corrupt fund. That is what the Republicans are arguing. You can't make this stuff up.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this corrupt fund is not dead, no matter what the Acting Attorney General says. The only way to ensure that this self-dealing taxpayer funded payoff for cop beaters doesn't move forward is to do what the newly free-to-speak-his-mind Senate Republican Whip, Senator Cornyn, said: ``The way to ensure the Trump retribution fund is more than mostly dead would be for Congress to put a stake through it.''

That is exactly what I am offering every Member of this House today: a chance to vote on if they want to kill this slush fund for good or not.

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, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to listen to all this. Food prices are going through the roof, and my Republican friends are arguing that we need to reduce a benefit or cut back on a fruit and veggie voucher. Really?

Mr. Speaker, I will get to another matter. I had just talked about the corrupt January 6 payoff fund and taxpayer money going to people that beat cops. That is sick. It is disgusting.

Now let me talk about the other half of the corrupt deal that I mentioned.

Yesterday, the Acting Attorney General of the United States said that the fund was not going forward. I guess we are just supposed to take his word on that. But he also indicated that the other nefarious part of the deal is still going forward.

Tucked into this agreement that Trump hopes you will not notice is a get-out-of-jail-free card for him and his entire family.

I mean, it is right here. Donald Trump, with the help of his personal criminal defense attorney turned Acting Attorney General Blanche, has drafted a separate agreement granting himself, his family, and his businesses full immunity from any violations of Federal law, criminal, civil, or administrative.

Even if this corrupt settlement fund is killed--which I hope we will vote to kill it--the President, negotiating with his own administration, secured a settlement agreement that grants him, his family, and their businesses full immunity. It is unprecedented. It is stunning, and a brazen level of corruption in self-dealing.

For my Republican colleagues who are upset about the fund, are you not equally upset by this attempt to put himself above the law? This amounts to granting himself a super pardon. It means he and his family are free to do any activity they please without the possibility of legal consequences.

Now, let me just read a bit of what this agreement says. The entire Federal Government is: forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing any pending claims, whether presently known or unknown, against Trump, his family members, and businesses, or collecting any taxes, fines, or other payments due to the U.S. government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, do you realize what this means? It means the Trumps and their businesses are not only shielded from enforcement of any taxes that they might have dodged, or enforcement of any fines or payments they may owe to the government, but from any and all consequences for violating any Federal crimes or civil law. That means that Trump and his family get an unlimited number of get-out-of-jail- free cards for any civil or criminal violations that could be investigated and prosecuted by the Federal Government.

Now, here are a couple of examples of what Trump could be shielding himself from: one, any liability for insider trading or prediction markets, like Kalshi or Polymarket, that Donald Trump Jr. or any other Trump may be involved with; any bribes or kickbacks paid by Jared Kushner, or any other Trump family member, to the Saudi royal family; any allegations of sexual assault by Donald Trump revealed in the Epstein files, he is protected on that; any secret, no-bid contracts Donald Trump Jr., or any other Trump, steered toward companies he has invested in, hundreds of individual stock trades by Trump or any of his family members or businesses that look like insider trading; and the $100 million comprehensive tax audit that Trump has been fighting since 2010.

If this settlement fund was bad, then this is even worse. Every American should know what the President is trying to do, which is trying to put himself above the law.

I remind my Republican colleagues--and I will remind everybody who is paying attention to this--Donald Trump is the President. He is not a king. He is not above the law. Every Member of Congress has a duty to stand up and denounce this corrupt scheme.

We are talking about fraud here today. What do you call this? What do you call this? The silence by my Republican colleagues, the going along to get along that my Republican colleagues demonstrate each and every day on this kind of garbage, that is complicity. That is complicity, and it is wrong.

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

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

Oh my God, Mr. Speaker, I don't even know how to respond to all of that.

First of all, let me just set the record straight. The gentlewoman said neither myself or anybody on the Democratic side was critical when Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter. That is just not true. I have an article here that says: ``Rep. Jim McGovern Criticizes Hunter Biden Pardon, Disappointed President Didn't Honor Pledge.''

So what she just said is just factually incorrect.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the gentlewoman defend the corruption in the White House, and it is stunning to me. I feel like maybe Todd Blanche wrote those talking points, because that is what I would expect to hear from the Acting Attorney General.

For the record, let's just set the record straight. Remember, Donald Trump sued a government that he runs for $10 billion for leaking information when he was in charge of the same government, with the leaked documents being tax returns, by the way, that every single modern President has released on their own. He promised he would release them. He didn't release them. He won't release them. Why? That is a good question. But every other President not only released them, but we expected them to. Again, what he is complaining about happened under his watch.

The gentlewoman also said that Trump lost a lot of money.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an excerpt from an article in The New Yorker titled: ``Trump's Profiteering Hits $4 Billion.''

He has made billions since he has been in the White House. I don't know what the hell she is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Forbes titled: ``Here Are Donald Trump's 10 Best Stock Trades of 2026.''

Boy, I wonder what that is all about.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about fraud and corruption, Donald Trump has pardoned or issued commutations for 21 people convicted of healthcare fraud at the same time that my Republican friends voted for giving tax breaks to billionaires.

Philip Esformes, convicted of a $1.3 billion Medicare fraud scheme, one of the largest healthcare fraud schemes charged by the Department of Justice, Donald Trump pardoned him.

Judith Negron, convicted of orchestrating $205 million in terms of a Medicare fraud scheme involving assisted living facilities, she has been pardoned.

Jon Michael Harder, convicted of defrauding people of $120 million in investments through his senior housing and assisted living facilities, he has been pardoned.

I can go right down the list of all of these people that have been pardoned.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record all of the rich and connected fraudsters that have been pardoned by this President.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most absurdly corrupt and morally bankrupt administration in our history. To hear my Republican friends defend what is happening, to defend the fraud and the corruption that is right out in the open, is pathetic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the gentlewoman would respond to some of my concerns, or maybe engage in debate, or give me some hope that Republicans actually are upset about what is happening right now with all the corruption and the fraud.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated. People are hurting. They are hurting because of Trump's inflation. They are hurting because of Trump's tariffs. They are hurting because of Trump's illegal war. They are hurting because of Trump's failed economic policies that are driving costs up and up and up.

Instead of doing something--anything--to help bring down costs, they are doubling down on the cruelty. They are literally going after pregnant moms and newborns. Literally, they are taking food out of the mouths of hungry kids.

What kind of mean, rotten, awful people do things like that? I can't believe it. It takes my breath away, Mr. Speaker.

They talk about fraud. They talk about waste. They talk about abuse. What a bunch of baloney.

Why don't they start with the billionaires writing their own tax breaks into the tax code.

Why don't they start with giant corporations ripping people off.

Why don't they start with the sweetheart deals, the no-bid contracts, the tax loopholes, or the people cashing in on the chaos.

Why don't they start with the blanket immunity for Donald Trump and his family with the possibility of tax crimes, insider trading, bribes, kickbacks, contracts for companies that Trump's family maybe invested in or anything else that Federal law enforcement might have a reason to investigate.

No, no. Republicans here in Washington, they go after hungry kids. They demonize poor people. They go after pregnant moms. They go after the families struggling to survive.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. It is morally bankrupt, and people see it.

They see Republicans talk about health while cutting nutrition.

They see Republicans talk about the deficit while handing out favors to the rich.

They see the grift, and they are sick of it. They are sick and tired of it.

They see that Democrats actually believe in something different. Maybe my Republican friends think we are radical. I don't think it is radical to believe people should be able to afford a decent life. I don't think it is radical to believe parents should be able to afford formula. I don't think it is radical to believe that no child in America, the richest country in the history of the world, should go hungry.

What I think is radical is that the far right, radical MAGA extremists who run this place can find endless money for wars, for billionaires, and for corporate tax giveaways while they steal from new moms and kids who are struggling to eat.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is going on in this Chamber, but where is our humanity? Where is our commitment to helping uplift people who are struggling? I say to my Republican colleagues: Where is your heart?

People are looking to us for help during these very difficult economic times, and what they are getting is all the garbage that my friends are bringing to the floor, stuff that does nothing to improve anybody's life.

You want to talk about fraud and you want to talk about corruption? I just gave you a boatload of facts and figures for you to go after.

Instead, when it comes to the Trump White House: Oh, hands off. We are

going to give him immunity, not only for past activity but for anything he does in the future.

Again, nobody, no citizen gets that kind of treatment. Again, he is the President, not the king, and people in this Chamber have to start recognizing that fact. Nobody in this country, even the President of the United States, is above the law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, a ``no'' vote on the rotten underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1333 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

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

Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule, House Resolution 1333, providing for the House's consideration of four bills.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 8646, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, to be considered under a structured rule, with 26 amendments made in order. It provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost Students Act, to be considered under a closed rule. It also provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 7726, the No Funds for Repeat Child Care Violations Act of 2026, to be considered under a closed rule. It also provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8872, the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. The legislation before us this week reflects a straightforward principle: Federal programs should serve the people they were intended to serve. Taxpayer dollars should be spent responsibly, transparently, and accountably.

It should be easy for this simple but important effort to be pursued in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, yet my Democratic counterparts will undoubtedly oppose these bills. In doing so, they will be voting to perpetuate rampant fraud, but that is no surprise since the States flagged for massive amounts of fraud are led by Democratic Governors and State legislatures. Why would they want to clamp down on the fraud Democrats helped perpetuate?

Every week, during debate on the rule, Democrats will use a technique we refer to as gaslighting to accuse and blame Republicans for their own egregious behavior. Let's remember that it was President Biden who eased the rules around Federal childcare billing, which resulted in spending double in some facilities in Minnesota while enrollment stayed flat.

Here we are, doing much more than combating fraud in our legislative package this week. Together, these measures strengthen oversight, close loopholes that have enabled fraud and abuse, support rural America, and ensure Federal resources are reaching the families, students, workers, and communities they were designed to help.

Let me begin with the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The bill makes targeted investments in the programs that matter most to producers, consumers, and rural communities. It continues to support agricultural research, rural development initiatives, and the critical food safety infrastructure that Americans rely on every day.

For States like Indiana, where agriculture remains one of the largest economic drivers, these investments will yield tangible results. Whether it is supporting corn and soybean producers, livestock operations, food processors, or rural small businesses, this legislation strengthens the industries that sustain local economies and help feed the world.

This bill recognizes a simple reality: Food security is national security. Foreign adversaries are increasingly looking to buy up American farmland, influence our food supply, and gain access to critical agricultural resources. This legislation takes important steps to increase oversight on foreign ownership of U.S. farmland, safeguarding against foreign influence and protecting American agriculture from emerging threats.

In addition to these wins, I am proud we secured over $3 million in community project funding in this bill for Indiana's Ninth Congressional District. This funding will support projects, including critical upgrades to wastewater systems in Borden and Moorefield, expanded sewer service in Greenville, and replacing aging stormwater pipe in Austin.

These projects reflect priorities identified by local leaders and will deliver much-needed updates to aging infrastructure, which will expand economic development opportunities and improve quality of life across the district.

I thank Chairmen Cole and Harris for their work on this legislation and urge my colleagues to support it.

Also included in the rule is the No Aid for Ghost Students Act. Federal student aid was created to help Americans earn a degree, learn a trade, and build a better future. It was never intended to become a slush fund for fraudsters or identity thefts, and that is exactly what is happening.

Bad actors are exploiting the system by using stolen or fake identities to submit FAFSA applications, enroll in classes, collect taxpayer-funded financial aid, and disappear once the money has been issued. The result is millions of taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. Every dollar stolen by a fraudster is a dollar taken away from a student trying to improve their future.

Under the leadership of Secretary Linda McMahon, the Department of Education has already prevented more than $1 billion in attempted student aid fraud through stronger identity verification and fraud detection measures.

This bill builds on that success by making sure taxpayer dollars go to students, not scammers. It strengthens identity verification requirements, requiring schools to verify suspicious applicants before aid is distributed, and it holds institutions accountable when basic safeguards are ignored. We need to restore the integrity of the Federal student aid system and ensure taxpayer dollars reach the students they were intended to help.

Next, Madam Speaker, I will turn to the Stop Child Care Scams Act. Childcare assistance programs are designed to help working parents afford quality childcare so they can provide for their families and pursue economic opportunity. These programs are a lifeline for millions of Americans, but when taxpayer dollars are lost to fraud, it is not just taxpayers who suffer. The families who depend on these services suffer, too.

For years, the Child Care and Development Block Grant program has been vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, yet despite repeated warnings, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars remain at risk.

Recent reports have uncovered troubling instances where providers received Federal childcare assistance funds without actually serving eligible children and families. Shockingly, during a congressional Oversight Committee hearing, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz recently admitted his State had known about the fraud in its childcare assistance program since 2012 yet took no action. That is unacceptable.

When that happens, families who rely on these services are the ones who ultimately suffer, particularly the hundreds of thousands of families in need of childcare assistance vouchers currently sitting on a waiting list.

The Stop Child Care Scams Act takes commonsense steps to protect both taxpayers and families. It cracks down on providers who attempt to game the system by increasing transparency, strengthening oversight, and adding additional auditing requirements.

Just as importantly, it helps ensure providers caught committing fraud in one program cannot simply move to another State or locality and continue their theft of taxpayer dollars.

My Democrat colleagues are going to say this bill is going to make childcare assistance less available. In fact, it does the opposite. It helps ensure these resources reach the children, parents, and providers they were intended to serve, protecting them from being siphoned off by fraudsters.

Lastly, let's turn to the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act. For nearly three decades, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program has helped low-income families meet basic needs while promoting the values of work, personal responsibility, and self- sufficiency.

A key strength of TANF has always been the flexibility it provides to States to decide how these funds will best be used.

Congress intentionally designed the program to allow States to tailor services and benefits to the unique needs of their communities, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all, top-down Federal approach. But as we have already discussed, flexibility must be accompanied by accountability.

Today, TANF is one of the few major Federal assistance programs that is not required to measure and report improper payments under Federal program integrity laws. Let me repeat that. Under TANF, States are not required to report improper payments.

As a result, taxpayers and policymakers often lack basic information about how these funds are being spent and whether these resources are actually reaching the families they are intended to serve.

Recent Government Accountability Office reports have uncovered a major oversight failure within the TANF program that should concern every taxpayer. This bill requires accountability while still preserving State flexibility. It requires States to track and report improper payments, helps identify and reduce waste and fraud, and ensures Federal funds are directed toward the low-income families that they were designed to serve.

A common thread, Mr. Speaker, among each of these bills before us today is that taxpayer dollars should be used responsibly, and taxpayers should have confidence that their hard-earned dollars are being spent for the purposes intended, safeguarding limited resources and directing them to where they are needed most.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This bill provides $8 billion for WIC which is the level needed to serve expected participation.

As the Appropriations Committee crafted this bill, they worked with USDA and OMB to get the most recent program data. This funding level reflects that participation, participation that has been declining, and it is not projected to be as high as originally estimated for fiscal year 2027. USDA also expects to have sufficient carryover funds.

Remember, Mr. Speaker, WIC is 2-year funding, and they expect to recover more unspent funds from the States. With the lowered participation estimates and increased carryover funds, $8 billion will fully fund the program full stop. It is completely false to believe that there will be people kicked off of the program. Funding this at the level necessary to meet the need is exactly what we are doing in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear my colleague acknowledge that pregnant women carry babies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Taylor).

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the WIC cash value voucher funding for the fruit and vegetable benefits since my colleague has mentioned it.

I am not sure if my colleague has noticed but the pandemic is over, thank goodness.

Chicago-area union teachers are finally back to work. We can leave our homes, shop where we want to, and we can return to pre-COVID funding levels and re-center our spending to meet the need.

Let's be clear, we are not eliminating the benefit for fruits and vegetables. We are not even taking it back to pre-COVID levels. We are simply restoring parity to meet the need.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the accusations that have been made in this Chamber today against the President of the United States, a government contractor criminally leaked the President's private tax returns. He was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

The President had every right to fight back. The President took no money from the settlement, not a single dollar. He received a formal apology. A man who has lost billions of dollars since entering politics to serve this country asked for an apology, and that is what he got.

When concerns were raised about the fund, the administration listened and pulled back.

The weaponization of government against political opponents must end. That is exactly what the President is fighting for and what the settlement represents. The people crying foul today are the same ones who cheered when the President's financial records were illegally leaked. The outrage is not credible. Democrats were silent as President Joe Biden pardoned, preemptively in some cases, his entire family.

Democrats today insist on deflecting from the issues we are here to talk: fraud. Republicans have sounded the clarion call on waste, fraud, and abuse that exists within the Federal Government. Meanwhile, Democrats have been content to use hyperbole and vitriolic attacks to hide behind the fact that they have no desire to ferret out this systemic waste, fraud, and abuse that is plaguing our programs.

There is fraud in our Government programs. We have known about it for decades. Democrats seem content to live with it. Republicans in Congress have been consistent in going after it, despite the head-in- the-sand posture by our Democratic colleagues. We went after it in ObamaCare in H.R. 1, and, guess what, the CBO stated that premiums would go down as a result of our work. We went after Medicaid fraud, especially involving illegal immigrants. By the way, a Federal court recently ordered officials to turn over Medicaid information to ICE enforcement.

We went after waste, fraud, and abuse through our rescissions package. Once again, Democrats refused that premise ever existed, even though it is right in front of their eyes. One just needs to look at the ever-revealing childcare center fraud in Minnesota. The universe of money that stands to be squandered by overbilling could reach in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Worse yet, it has been discovered before, as I mentioned, as has the glaring inability for Minnesota to properly create any enforcement checks. Just earlier this year, the inspector general of Minnesota released an audit that randomly sampled payments to childcare centers in 2023, finding an astonishing 11 percent of government outlays have problems related to attendance and proper payment, and that was simply based on a random sample.

Here is a direct conclusion from the attorney general's report: A lack of oversight to ensure accurate and complete attendance documentation could increase the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse to the CCAP program.

The scandal comes on the heels, also, of the worst COVID fraud scandal ever perpetrated: the $250 million Feeding Our Future criminal fraud enterprise in Minnesota that literally robbed taxpayers of funds intended to help hungry children. An early reporting is potentially discovering concentric circles around individuals and families involved in that criminal enterprise, including these childcare centers.

Before that, in 2019, the State's legislative auditor revealed it could literally prove at least $6 million in fraud from previous years, believing the true number to be greater.

It is not limited to food benefits either. ABC News reported that the student loan fraud that is targeted in this bill we are considering this week, known as ghost students, had thousands of colleges across the country with sophisticated thieves becoming a scourge. The scammers, using stolen or fake identities to enroll in classes online and sign up for Pell grants and loans, then disappear once they get the money, robbing the Federal Government of hundreds of millions of dollars and leaving an untold number of victims in their wake.

There are really only three responses to fraud once it is exposed: You attack it, you cover it up, or you minimize it.

The legislative auditor in Minnesota previously accused the Walz administration of minimizing or dismissing allegations of fraud, citing a shoot-the-messenger attitude. One media outlet characterized Governor Walz as a hands-off leader when it comes to seeking accountability for episodes of fraud and mismanagement on his watch.

Which path will our Democrat colleagues take now that this fraud is being revealed? Will they root it out as we have, or will they turn a blind eye in the mode of Governor Tim Walz?

Just a few months ago, the Massachusetts State Auditor released the Bureau of Special Investigations annual report for fiscal year 2025, which exposed nearly $12 million in public assistance fraud across thousands of cases in the State, including $4.1 million in food stamp fraud. Mass Health, the State Medicaid and CHIP program saw more than $1.3 million in fraud.

Another report, published in April of 2026, found that more than a billion dollars was improperly spent on food stamps in Massachusetts between 2022 and 2024. The cases show just how deep and widespread the fraud is in Massachusetts.

A transportation company allegedly billed Mass Health more than $3 billion for rides that never happened. A tiny bodega, only 150 square feet, somehow pushed nearly $7 million in food stamp trafficking, ringing up a half a million dollars a month like it was a big box store.

One man living illegally in the country stole a dead U.S. citizen's identity for decades, even serving prison time under the alias. After release, he used the same alias to apply for food stamps, stealing thousands in benefits. A State employee even flagged his food stamp application with a note: death match. Yet, it was still approved.

In 2026, fraudsters used more than 100 stolen identities to funnel food stamps into a restaurant supply scheme, stocking up on hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of wholesale meat, all paid entirely on the taxpayers' dime.

It is not surprising, given the lack of oversight, that TANF fraud is so pervasive. Just take a look at Colorado where 135 cases of theft were reported by Pueblo County. Benefit recipients, in one week alone, totaled $73,991 in losses, including 40 TANF Colorado Works customers totaling $19,344.

This is just a short sample, Mr. Speaker, of the fraud committed in primarily Democrat States that we know about.

It is Republicans, once again, that are heeding the call, the request of American families, to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and protect our tax dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and inquire if the gentleman is ready to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy that there is at least some agreement in this debate today from my Democrat colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We agree, as it was mentioned today, that pregnant women carry babies. What a momentous day in this Chamber.

Democrats insist on deflecting from these issues, though, the ones we are talking about today, because it is their leadership in Democrat-run States and their lax policies that have led to rampant fraud. It is no wonder that they are trying to deflect from that conversation about the fraud that their policies have allowed to perpetuate.

Mr. Speaker, the measures discussed here today reflect a clear and consistent commitment by House Republicans to restore accountability, improve program integrity, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used as intended. From agricultural investments that support rural communities to safeguards against fraud in student aid, childcare, and TANF, this package represents practical solutions to ensure that every Federal dollar is accounted for and, again, targeted to meet the need.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``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. 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. 8646, 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 today to bring before the House H.R. 8646, the fiscal year 2027 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations bill.

I thank Appropriations Committee Chairman Cole for his leadership and quickly moving the fiscal year 2027 appropriations process forward.

I also recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, and the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee ranking member, Mr. Bishop, for their work in getting us to this point.

I appreciate the conversations Mr. Bishop and I have had, and while we may not agree on everything in the bill, I know that we are much closer to agreement than some of today's debate and rhetoric may show.

For fiscal year 2027, the subcommittee's discretionary allocation is $26.27 billion, a $380 million, or 1.4 percent, decrease from fiscal year 2026 enacted levels.

In a setting of $2 trillion deficits, these modest spending reductions are necessary.

This legislation reflects a clear, necessary commitment to fiscal responsibility, while ensuring that America's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities remain a top priority and that all Americans have access to a safe food and drug supply.

This legislation builds on the successful efforts of the Trump administration to root out fraud, waste, and

abuse, shrink the Federal bureaucracy, and make USDA programs more farmer friendly.

It sets USDA on a responsible and sustainable spending path that will make both the Department and our Nation stronger.

Under President Trump's and Secretary Rollins' leadership, every taxpayer dollar will be spent in the pursuit of putting all American farmers and ranchers first.

I would like to highlight a few areas where the legislation supports the administration's efforts to refocus the Department on its core mission by prioritizing essential functions in a fiscally responsible manner.

The bill provides $1.16 billion for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, to support the Department's efforts to protect our producers from highly pathogenic avian influenza, New World screwworm, and other foreign plant and animal diseases.

The legislation continues to invest in the delivery of farm programs, disaster assistance, and crop insurance to farmers by prioritizing funding for farmer-facing functions.

Following the budget request, the bill moves $50 million of Farm Service Agency IT funds from FSA to the Office of the Chief Information Officer to continue to invest in and implement USDA's One Farmer, One File Initiative.

After accounting for this transfer of funds, no matter what you will hear from the nay-sayers, the bill actually increases overall funding for FSA staff, including for county office staff.

The bill provides important investments in critical agricultural research that will keep our producers on the cutting edge of technology and production practices.

We maintain funding for USDA's flagship competitive grant program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, and protect capacity funding for our land grant universities to ensure our farmers and ag workforce remain competitive with China.

This legislation continues to fund vital rural development programs, including critical infrastructure investments in water and wastewater systems and housing programs, as well as increasing the loan authority for the business and industry and rural electric programs due to increased demand.

For the Food and Drug Administration, the bill provides $3.36 billion in direct appropriations. With increased user fees, FDA has a total budget of $7.1 billion to enable the agency to keep food, drugs, and medical devices safe and effective, as well as advance the Make America Healthy Again initiatives highlighted in the President's budget.

Finally, let me discuss WIC. The bill provides full funding of $8 billion for WIC, which is about 3 percent lower than last year's enacted level, but USDA data clearly shows that WIC participation has been declining and is not projected to be as high as originally estimated for fiscal year 2027. USDA also expects to have sufficient carryover funds to meet all the program needs, if necessary.

With lower participation estimates and increased carryover funding, the $8 billion allocated will fully fund the program. Let me say it one more time. Despite what the naysayers will claim, WIC is fully funded for its needs. No women or their children will lose or be denied coverage.

I believe a credible evaluation of this legislation will conclude that it balances the funding needs of the USDA, FDA, and CFTC while being responsible stewards of our constituents' hard-earned tax dollars. As Mr. Bishop has said, this is a good faith effort to meet the moment, and there are critical things that warrant support.

I am pleased that the bill received bipartisan support out of committee, and we want to keep working with the minority as we move forward in this process.

In closing, I ask for Members' support of this legislation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to reemphasize that WIC is fully funded. Given the decreased participation rate and fully funding the reserve, WIC is fully funded.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair, I will just remind the Chair that we actually provide an additional $250 million in business and industry loans for rural business and industry, and given that there are 100,000 fewer participants in WIC, we fully fund the program.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Madam Chair, I remind the Chair that if you have over 100,000 fewer WIC recipients, why would you budget for them?

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

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

Madam Chair, just to keep the record straight, we actually increased funding for New World screwworm by $4.5 million this year. We count on timely amendments being submitted, but when you submit something just before the bill comes to the floor--we will work with the gentlewoman and we will work as we go through the process to address the threat. We have been addressing it, and we will continue to do it. But that is the reason why the amendment was not included.

With regards to the FDA, the comment was made that somehow we are decreasing funding to the FDA. Just so everyone understands, Madam Chair, there are two sources of funding for the FDA: discretionary funding and the funding based on user fees.

When the funding based on user fees goes way up, we can decrease the discretionary to keep the level adequate. Overall funding for the FDA is up $150 million this year. It has not decreased. Yes, the discretionary part has decreased. But we are making the companies who use the FDA pay the balance, and I think that is good for the American taxpayer.

However, just to resolve anyone's fears, our FDA funding goes up $150 million under this bill.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, let's address the nutrition programs as yet once again.

The SNAP participation rate year over year from February '25 to February '26, that is the last month we have data from, is down 7 percent.

Thank goodness 7 percent fewer Americans actually need the food, need SNAP assistance. So what did we do? We decreased the budget 6 percent. We actually didn't even decrease the budget as much as the participation rate went down. SNAP is fully funded.

Let's talk about WIC. February '25 to February '26--the last month we have available is February '26. Year over year, a decrease of 150,000 people on WIC. That is about 2.5 percent. That is exactly what we decreased the budget by. Why would we budget for people who don't exist?

In the setting of a $2 trillion deficit, why would we put that money in a bill? We have a reserve, $150 million reserve in WIC. God forbid that participation rate goes up because of economic principles or maybe more Americans have children, the money is there. WIC and SNAP are fully funded for the participation rate. Anything else you hear is scary rhetoric.

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

Mr. Chair, let's review some of the things we have heard and some of the facts about the bill.

I will start by saying that when Gallup polls the American public, the American public thinks that 43 cents out of every Federal dollar is wasted. That amounts to 43 percent of the Federal dollar wasted, in the minds of Americans. The President was elected to increase the efficiency of the Federal Government, realizing that Americans think 43 percent of the money is wasted.

Mr. Chair, this bill reduces the spending from the enacted level by 1.4 percent.

Now, Americans are probably going to be disappointed because they think that we are wasting 43 cents on a dollar, so why are you only cutting it by 1.4 percent? Because we carefully looked at the programs. We think that is the start we need to make to deliver the assistance that our farmers, ranchers, and rural populations need, given the context that we have to make the government work more efficiently. We think that is what this bill does.

Let's talk about the wastewater. Again, there are two buckets of what affect water and wastewater management in rural areas: a bucket of grants and a bucket of loans.

The grants have been decreased somewhat, but grants make up 10 percent, roughly, of the amount of money available for wastewater programs in rural areas.

We maintained a billion dollars of loan authority for those programs. It was maintained in the bill. We recognized that these rural communities need help, and we generously make loans available to the communities that could not otherwise find funding anywhere else.

We talked about the FDA. The FDA has a $150 million increase when you count on the fact that what we did is said if companies using the FDA for licensing and approval are paying a user fee, and those user fees are going up, the amount collected is going up, we can decrease the amount that the average American taxpayer has to throw into that kitty. That kind of makes sense.

I think that is what the American taxpayer would want. If those drug companies are making money on licensing those drugs, they should pay more of the cost of licensing the drugs. That is exactly what happens under this bill.

We talked about WIC and SNAP. I will just reemphasize that the participation rate in both programs goes down, so we lowered the amount that we allocate to those programs proportional to the decrease in participation rates. That is just good accounting for the American people.

Mr. Chair, this bill achieves a balance that is not easy with a $2 trillion deficit, a $40 trillion debt, and an American public that believes the Federal Government wastes 43 cents of every dollar. This achieves the balance we need to maintain funding to the programs that are necessary and to make sure that we deliver for our farmers, ranchers, and rural communities. Again, we delivered to the nutrition programs while keeping in mind that we have to be very good stewards of the taxpayer dollars because there aren't enough of them to go around.

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

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 1333, I offer amendments en bloc as the designee of Chairman Cole.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of this amendment. This is a bipartisan set of amendments en bloc, which includes priorities from Members on both sides of the aisle.

I appreciate Ranking Member Bishop working with us on these amendments and ask for your support.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

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