H.Res. 1423

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not strength. That is surrendering leadership.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States with more than $90 million annually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Massie

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, to all my friends on the other side who have held this floor hostage for weeks on end, let me save them the suspense: Nothing changes with this rule.

There is nothing in this rule that forces the Senate to take up the awful SAVE America Act. Nothing. The majority is simply attaching the SAVE America Act on to an unrelated State Department funding bill and sending it across the Capitol. The Senate can and will strip it right back out. Everybody here knows that.

The fact of the matter is that the SAVE Act is never going to become law because even Republicans know it is a disaster that will make it more difficult, if not impossible, for American citizens to vote.

What Republicans are doing here with this procedural move is not some master strategy. It is merely political theater, designed to settle another Republican family feud. If that is enough to flip Members who have held up business for weeks, boy, they are cheap dates.

What this rule does is bring to the floor four bills.

The first would make daylight saving time permanent. Look, everybody has an opinion about changing the clocks. I actually support this bill, but for folks getting crushed by rent, groceries, utility bills, and healthcare costs, is this really the best the majority can do? Is this really the most pressing issue before the American people at this moment?

Then, there are three bills Republicans tried to bring up weeks ago, before their own chaos brought the House to a standstill.

One is the Department of State funding bill that cuts funding for American diplomacy and foreign assistance.

Another would block the use of a merchant code for gun stores, making it harder to flag suspicious purchasing patterns.

Then, there is the so-called Take Care of America's Veterans Act. That title is doing a lot of work. That bill expands some benefits by putting the disability compensation of future veterans on the chopping block, particularly veterans suffering from tinnitus and sleep apnea.

In other words--get this--Republicans want disabled veterans to pick up the tab for other veterans' benefits. That is just plain wrong. How hard is it to understand that we shouldn't rob Private Peter to pay Sergeant Paul?

The Veterans of Foreign Wars agrees. They were in the Committee on Rules last night. The VFW strongly opposes this bill on behalf of the veterans it represents, and it published a political cartoon to protest the cuts. What did the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs do? He and other Republican Members sent a letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs, asking the agency to review the VFW's accreditation. That accreditation is what allows the VFW to represent veterans before the VA and help them navigate the benefits system.

Disagree with the cartoon, fine, say so, but do not use the Federal Government to threaten the VFW's ability to help hundreds of thousands of vets. That sure as hell looks like retaliation to me.

Veterans fought for the right to speak their minds. They should not be threatened by their own government for exercising it, but this is what happens when a majority becomes completely consumed by its own dysfunction.

Meanwhile, Americans are working hard. They are doing everything they have been told that they are supposed to do. Yet, somehow, they can't get ahead. What is this Republican majority doing about any of it? Next to nothing.

One of the bipartisan things that we actually did do to try and bring down housing costs, Donald Trump refused to sign it. He let it become law without his signature because he was angry that the Senate had not passed his voter suppression bill.

I mean, imagine that. Think about how screwed up all of that is. Families cannot afford to buy a home, rents keep climbing, and the President of the United States used a bipartisan housing bill as leverage in his fight over election lies.

That tells us everything we need to know about this party's priorities. They will move heaven and Earth to protect Donald Trump's political power, but when it comes to making life more affordable for regular people, suddenly, they can't find the time. They can't be bothered.

Republicans control the House. They control the Senate. They control the White House. They control the Supreme Court. They still can barely keep the House floor open long enough to do the people's work.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than this chaos, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman by saying that whatever good is in this veterans bill is offset by the bad. Basically, they are saying we are providing veterans' benefits by cutting other veterans' benefits. I mean, this is a shell game.

That is why the VFW is furious, why they are pissed over this bill, why they have told their membership to contact Members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, to oppose it.

If this were a tax cut for billionaires, my Republican friends don't care about an offset. If it is an illegal war in Iran, they don't care about offsets. When it comes to providing veterans' benefits, all of a sudden, we have to find offsets. Those offsets that they have found to pay for this are by cutting other veterans' benefits. That is unconscionable. That is wrong, and everybody should vote ``no'' on that bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to allow the House to take an up-or-down vote on an amendment to H.R. 8595, sponsored by Representative Schrier, which would reverse the cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that were imposed by the Trump administration that could have prevented the ongoing outbreak of cyclospora, a parasite that has already infected thousands of Americans.

Last year, the Trump administration began illegally defunding Federal health and science agencies, firing scientists and researchers, and cutting programs that keep us healthy and safe.

One of the programs that Trump cut was called FoodNet, and it helped Federal and State public officials monitor and prevent outbreaks for eight different foodborne illnesses, including cyclospora. Yet, after Trump and his DOGE goons got their hands on this lifesaving program, the government stopped monitoring cyclospora.

That was stupid. It was dumb. Our country is now experiencing a full- blown outbreak of, you guessed it, cyclospora.

For the sake of everyone's health, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can reverse these dangerous cuts.

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 Washington (Ms. Schrier).

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

If there were people watching these proceedings and listening to my Republican friends, they may conclude that they sound a little defensive because they are, and they should be, especially on these veterans issues.

The bottom line is that the VFW, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, strongly opposes the disability benefit cuts that are included in the proposed Take Care of America's Veterans Act.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the entire statement of the VFW and their strong, strong opposition to these cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I trust the VFW more than I trust the Republican millionaires' club that basically populate the United States Congress on their side in this Chamber. The VFW is saying we can do these benefits without punishing other veterans.

I find it amusing because the gentlewoman says we need to find offsets. Well, she voted basically to increase the debt by $4.7 trillion in the big, ugly bill, adding $4.7 trillion to the debt.

Included in that, by the way, is $70 billion, again, unpaid for, for ICE and CBP. Again, they have no problem with doing that. They have no problem with tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and now America's trillionaire, and no problem with tax cuts for them that are not paid for, but when it comes to providing veterans' benefits, all of a sudden they have a problem?

By the way, just for the record, there is a discharge petition that has been filed to basically bring the Major Richard Star Act to the floor without cutting other benefits for veterans. Every Democrat is on that, every Democrat. We can bring this to the floor. We can have this debate. We can vote on providing veterans additional benefits without cutting other veterans' benefits. That is the choice.

When I hear these speeches about, oh, we really are doing all that we can, and we are on the side of veterans, again, the VFW opposes this strongly. They showed up in the Rules Committee, filled up the Rules Committee hearing room yesterday to show their protest, their outrage, over what Republicans were doing.

Republicans don't have to do this. Republicans could provide veterans with the benefits they need without robbing other benefits that veterans need. It is that simple.

This is outrageous. This is outrageous what is going on, and people should not be fooled.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

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

I am glad the gentlewoman decided to go down this pathway because it is not only the Veterans of Foreign Wars that oppose this, but the Disabled American Veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Hispanic Veterans Leadership Alliance, the Black Veterans Project, Reserve Organization of America, Veterans Education Success, Student Veterans of America, Marine Corps League, Marine Corps Reserve Association, Minority Veterans of America, Common Defense, Vet Voice Foundation, National Security Leaders for America, Swords to Plowshares, The Chamberlain Network, Unite for Veterans Coalition, Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans for Responsible Leadership. I could go on and on and on.

The gentlewoman began by mentioning The American Legion. She may not know this, but as we speak, The American Legion in Texas, representing one of the largest memberships of The American Legion, has come out against this bill and is urging The American Legion nationally to now follow its lead and come out against this bill.

The bottom line is, the more veterans' organizations know that they are getting screwed, the more and more they are coming out against this bill. They are in favor of the Major Richard Star bill, which would provide and expand veterans' benefits without taking away other veterans' benefits. It is that simple.

This is a bad bill and, quite frankly, the more people realize what is in this bill, the more they realize the cuts in this bill that will adversely affect the veterans' community, the more and more people will come out against this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate has made one thing very clear. Republicans are not the victims of this chaos. They are the perpetrators of this chaos. There is only one party that controls this floor and all three branches of government. Republicans set the agenda. Republicans write these awful rules. Republicans control the schedule, and Republicans have chosen to spend week after week fighting with one another while regular working people are getting squeezed.

News flash to my Republican colleagues: The American people know the difference between working and pretending to work. They know that passing the same voter suppression bill again and again will not lower their rent. They know that stapling the SAVE Act onto yet another piece of legislation will not bring down the price of groceries. They know that threatening the VFW will not improve veterans' care. They know that changing or not changing the clocks will not change what is in their bank account.

Mr. Speaker, if Democrats were in the majority, we would begin every day with one simple question: How do we make life more affordable for working people in this country?

We would work to build more housing. We would work to lower rents and stop giant Wall Street firms from bidding families out of the market.

We would take on corporate consolidation and price gouging that are driving up the cost of food.

We would lower health insurance premiums and prescription drug prices instead of ripping coverage away to pay for more billionaire tax breaks.

We would make childcare more affordable. We would lower utility bills and end these stupid tariff taxes that show up in the price of nearly everything that people buy.

In addition, we would stay here and we would keep working until the job was done.

Now, I am not saying that every problem would be solved overnight, but we would put real solutions on this floor. We would allow debate. I mean, we don't debate anything anymore. Most of the bills that come to this floor are completely closed, where nobody can offer an amendment, take it or leave it.

I mean, you know, and when something did not pass, we would keep trying. We would keep trying until we got it right, until we helped people in this country. I mean, that is our job. That's what we are supposed to do.

When it comes to veterans, Democrats would fund the benefits that these veterans earned. We would not pit one generation of disabled veterans against another, and that is what my Republican colleagues are doing.

It is really not only frustrating; it is unconscionable. That should not be a partisan statement, by the way, in terms of helping our veterans. That is basic decency.

The American people deserve a Congress that is focused on affordability, not on Donald Trump's long list of petty grievances and attempts to rehash old conspiracy theories from 6 years ago. They deserve a majority that understands that power is not about controlling the floor. It is about using the floor to help people, to improve the quality of life for the people that we represent.

Republicans have had their chance. They blew it. They have wasted it.

I urge my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote ``no'' on this rule. Let us end the chaos and get back to work for the American people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1423 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (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

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

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

Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1423, providing for the House's consideration of four measures: H.R. 139, H.R. 8595, H.R. 9237, and H.R. 1181.

First, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 139, the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled

by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, or their respective designees, provides one motion to recommit, and makes in order 29 amendments.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their respective designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides that once the NSRP Appropriations Act is passed, the Clerk shall add the text of S. 1383, the SAVE America Act, to the bill and transmit it to the Senate as a single item.

Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of business to attend to in the people's House this week, and part of that business is passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

Now, I am sure, as is always the case, that our Democrat colleagues will not be focused on the task at hand for even a mere second in this debate. It would be a miracle if they did, Mr. Speaker. You and I both understand that.

What they will end up doing is ruffling their own feathers, working themselves into a tizzy, and spending their time blabbering on about things that are unrelated to the business at hand. It is very typical behavior.

The rule before us today advances four separate pieces of legislation that all bear a common thread.

Let me say that again, Mr. Speaker.

The rule before us today advances four separate pieces of legislation that all bear a common thread: They serve the interest of the American people.

H.R. 8595 will make America stronger, safer, and more resilient through the championing of America First foreign policy so that our Nation and allies are supported while our adversaries are deterred.

H.R. 9237 is a comprehensive package of more than 60 bipartisan bills which will enhance and reform the delivery of healthcare and benefit services at the Department of Veterans Affairs for the entire veteran community, including military and veteran families.

H.R. 1181 would prevent intrusive monitoring by the Federal Government of Americans who exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

H.R. 139 establishes daylight saving time as the permanent, year- round standard time for the United States and would dispense with the semi-yearly practice of resetting our clocks. For far too long, the American public has spoken out against this disruptive practice. This Congress and this President will bring the stability to American households that our constituents have been endlessly seeking.

Advancing this rule and its underlying bills is the imperative before us today, Mr. Speaker. The American people demand our doing so, and we must act without hesitation or delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people need to take note of the amount of rhetorical smog emanating from the other side of the Chamber, because it is obscene. Our Democratic colleagues continue to weave together an entirely disingenuous and deceptive narrative that Democrats are the ones standing at the forefront of the conversation when it comes to supporting our Nation's veterans. That has never been the case and will never be the case.

If Democrats truly cared enough about veterans, they would spend their time supporting Chairman Bost's bill and not coming up with hack job, so-called solutions that do nothing to reform the VA and deliver high-quality care and service to those who have served this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad that our colleagues across the aisle have chosen this position. It is sad that they can gin up misleading narratives and hawk them around like someone delivering newspapers on a bike.

The bill before us ensures that combat-disabled servicemembers who were medically retired through no fault of their own receive the benefits they earned while maintaining equity across retiree populations.

This is what happens when personalities of the day and political gamesmanship subvert actual legislating, like what Chairman Bost and Republicans have been doing the entire time. The former doesn't deliver for veterans. It treats them like second-class citizens. Their solution is spending more money while delivering fewer outcomes.

Wow, color us shocked. It is a story as old as time.

Instead, the bill before us today would reduce net direct spending by approximately $1.3 billion over the next 10 years. In an era of growing deficits and debt, H.R. 9237 demonstrates that Congress can advance significant veterans' priorities while remaining fiscally responsible and reducing overall Federal spending.

Republicans are focused on targeted relief. This is targeted relief that focuses on combat-disabled veterans, includes additional fairness safeguards, and does not throw money at a problem with the meager hope of things fixing themselves by osmosis.

Let's run through what else you will not find in the cobbled- together, so-called solutions that Democrats are throwing their weight behind.

You won't find a unified Democratic effort to reform the VA's outdated construction and leasing processes that delay the opening of clinics and facilities across the country. In Chairman Bost's bill, Republicans are doing just that.

You won't find the Democratic commitment to ensure that veterans can continue to access the mental health care support services in the communities where they live nationwide. In Chairman Bost's bill, it is there.

You won't find Democratic solutions to slash government bureaucracy that hinders veterans from accessing the care they deserve and earned. In Chairman Bost's bill, they are there.

Mr. Speaker, that is the difference here. All Democrats see is another government program to funnel money into without any commitment whatsoever to improving the lives of those the program serves. They will contort the language they use and the policy gimmicks they cook up to mislead people and organizations into believing mistruths.

VSOs, the purpose-driven organizations that are dedicated to advocating for veterans, have been led to believe that Republicans somehow want to rob veterans of their benefits, but that is entirely untrue.

As is evidenced by President Trump's efforts, the efforts of Secretary Collins at the VA, and the veteran-driven legislation here in Congress, Republicans see veterans and meet them where they are.

Republicans see and understand the problems that veterans face every day and want to ensure that the VA is nimble, responsive, and rightsized so that veterans are not left in the dark and to fend for themselves.

Here is a final little nugget that I will leave you with, Mr. Speaker: The majority of our Republican members on the Veterans' Affairs Committee are indeed veterans. There is only one Democrat on that committee who is a veteran.

I trust veterans to know and understand what veterans need and deserve. People are actually attuned to issues veterans face as opposed to those who simply haven't the slightest clue.

Republicans are the ones with actual solutions here. We are not bloviating like so many have chosen to do. We are fighting for veterans, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on both sides.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great affection and respect for VFW members. In fact, I have great respect and admiration for every organization that represents veterans. It is because of veterans that we speak English here today and that we are the greatest country in the world.

I would like to set the record straight about which veteran organizations are supporting this legislation. We have The American Legion, and I am not going to read the entire quote, but there is a quote here from Daniel Wiley, American Legion national commander, who said: ``For over a century, The American Legion has been the leading veterans service organization advocating for passage of nearly all major expansions or reforms to healthcare and benefits that benefit veterans and their families.''

``After thorough consideration of the legislative and regulatory environment, which included conversations with legislators who both agree and disagree with the bill, we believe TCAVA is the best path forward to get these crucial bills enacted into law.''

``The Take Care of America's Veterans Act represents our Nation's sacred promise to those who serve and those they leave behind,'' said Bonnie Carroll, president and founder of the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors, or TAPS.

The Military Officers Association of America has supported this legislation. The Wounded Warrior Project and 16 other groups support the legislation before us today.

Steve Schwab, CEO of the Elizabeth Dole Foundation, is quoted here: ``This legislation is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to stand with the veterans, caregivers, and survivors who have sacrificed so much for our country.''

Mr. Speaker, I have page after page after page of quotes from these various

organizations that support this legislation. I believe they are correct in supporting the veterans legislation which is a part of this rule.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we don't side with killers. We side with the Constitution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As I said at the outset of this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of business to attend to this week. Our work in service to the American people continues.

We are not in chaos, Mr. Speaker. The four underlying measures of this rule meet the priorities of President Trump, the administration, and the American people. We are focused on commonsense measures.

As we have seen across our country in recent weeks and months, the Democratic Party is being taken over by communists, and we know that communists have never made the world a better place to live.

A vote against this rule and its underlying measures is a vote to deny the priorities of all three of the entities I have mentioned and to deny positive progress. We would all do well to remember that.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Sunshine Protection Act.

This act addresses an issue on which many Americans actually agree, and that is stopping the biannual process of changing our clocks.

Only 12 percent of Americans prefer to switch their clocks twice a year. Far more Americans recognize that the practice is inconvenient and, frankly, disruptive.

Stopping the twice-yearly time change benefits the health and well- being of all Americans. The time change inevitably disrupts sleep patterns and is especially disruptive to the sleep of young children and pets.

Time change also is associated with an increase in the rate of heart attacks and strokes in the days immediately following the change. Disturbingly, studies have shown that the increase in stroke rates after the time change is even higher for some of our most vulnerable populations. For example, cancer patients' stroke rates increase by 25 percent, and people over the age of 65 are 20 percent more likely to have a stroke in the days following the time change.

The Sunshine Protection Act would implement permanent daylight saving time and stop the twice-a-year change that disrupts our sleep and our health.

Taking this action will increase the sunshine hours in the evening, allowing many Americans to leave work for more sunlight in the winter months, not darkness. The increased evening sunlight will also provide a needed boost to our tourism industry. Extra sunlight means more time at the beach, more time eating out at restaurants, and more time doing outdoor leisure activities.

In my district along the Jersey Shore, tourists can enjoy beautiful coastal areas with serene beaches, embark on fishing ventures along the Atlantic Coast, enjoy a nice outdoor concert from iconic musicians in places like Asbury Park, and so much more. Last year alone, New Jersey welcomed more than 120 million visitors to our State, and they contributed more than $50 billion to our State's economy.

Our tourism industry needs the boost today more than ever. The Trump administration's policies, including high visa fees and the detention and harassment of legal tourists, have discouraged travelers from visiting our country because they simply do not feel welcome.

Meanwhile, Americans are facing an affordability crisis, forcing families to

make difficult tradeoffs, including forgoing summer travel. For communities like mine that rely on tourism for our local economies, an extra hour of daylight can make all the difference.

Extra daylight also helps to deter crime. Researchers at the Brookings Institution found that criminal incidents decreased during an hour of sunlight added to the evening following the springtime change. Making that extra sunlight permanent will help keep our communities safer.

All of these benefits clearly explain why 19 States have already voted to adopt permanent daylight saving time if Federal law changed because, right now, it doesn't allow them to do that. These States recognize the benefits, and it is time that Congress allows them to reap those benefits.

For States that have already chosen to follow permanent standard time due to the unique needs of their climate or location--and that includes Arizona and Hawaii--under this bill, they can continue to do so. Other States are allowed under the legislation to adopt permanent standard time prior to the bill's enactment.

Ultimately, the benefits of stopping the biannual changing of the clocks are numerous and clear. Moving to permanent daylight saving time will bring much-needed evening sunlight to communities across the United States.

It is time we finally end the process of springing forward and falling back. I urge my colleagues to support the Sunshine Protection Act, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Soto), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter), another member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the issue that was mentioned that in 1974 Congress voted to move to permanent daylight savings time and then reversed that decision.

I think that 50 years later, things are different. First of all, in the 1970s, when that was the case, things have changed in the sense that schools have pushed start times later in many districts, including in my district and dramatically fewer kids walk to school. Also, remote and hybrid work has had significant impact on Americans' commuting patterns. Things are not the same today as they were in the 1970s in terms of what people did and how they worked and how they went to school.

Passing this bill now also in the peak summer months gives everyone-- and that is schools, workplaces, transit systems--time to plan for this change well in advance of the darkest winter months, and I think that is important also. I am also confident that we are setting ourselves up to succeed this time around so Americans can reap the benefits of eliminating the time change.

Again, it is the time change that really is the problem. Most of us, whether you are for permanent daylight savings time or permanent standard time, don't want to see the switching back and forth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to really stress, again, why I think that the status quo is bad. I mean, obviously, some people here--I think a majority--would like to see a permanent daylight savings time and some who I think are in the minority would like to see a permanent standard time.

However, the bottom line is we just can't continue the status quo, Mr. Speaker, because the science and research really is clear. It shows that springing forward and falling back twice a year is harmful to our health. It makes Americans less safe, and it is very unpopular.

Studies have shown increases, as I mentioned before, in heart attacks and strokes, mood and sleep disturbances, and hospital admissions in the days after a time change. Studies have also shown that increases in stroke rates with the time change are even higher for some of our most vulnerable populations, and that includes seniors, for example.

The bottom line is, Americans' safety is put at greater risk in the days after a time change, and disrupting our sleep has been shown to lead to higher rates of fatal motor vehicle crashes, crimes like robbery and workplace injuries.

Whether or not you agree what should be permanent, the bottom line is that sticking to the status quo and continuing to change our clocks is really the worst option. I am going to stand with the 56 percent of Americans in a recent poll who prefer a shift to permanent daylight savings time to give families more sunlight in the evening hours.

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

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