H.Res. 580

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule.

Although Bitcoin has been around for over 15 years, cryptocurrencies and related decentralized financial products have exploded in the past few years. Many Americans now own cryptocurrencies, and the industry has seen significant growth.

At the same time, our laws have not kept up with these novel crypto products, and there is wide agreement that Congress must update our laws to appropriately account for crypto assets. However, today's bills are not the answer to that problem.

The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts are bad legislation. They are industry- written bills that give the crypto industry everything it wants at the expense of retail investors, consumers, and the overall health of our financial system. These bills are products of the D.C. swamp that so many of our colleagues usually condemn.

Mr. Speaker, every time our Republican colleagues write a finance bill, it leaves us less safe and more prone to financial crisis. We saw the very real consequences of this when Silicon Valley Bank failed in 2023. That failure was the direct result of Republican legislation that exempted Silicon Valley Bank from Dodd-Frank Act regulations.

GOP proponents of that bill had argued, without evidence, that Dodd- Frank was too onerous and that big banks needed regulatory relief, but it only took a couple of years for their disastrous deregulatory agenda to lead exactly where we all knew it would, with billions of dollars of customer deposits evaporating overnight and with the Federal Government bailing out the bank's uninsured depositors.

This time, Republicans are at it again with two bills that will create a weak and ineffective regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and stablecoins,

allowing exchanges and insurers to continue risky, fraudulent, and illegal practices with limited oversight by the SEC or Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

These bills give the crypto industry exactly what it wants. They get the illusion of a real regulatory regime and the legitimacy that would bestow. They get weak rules that can be exploited and manipulated for financial gain, and they get enforcement mechanisms that are so meager and underfunded that they won't deter bad actors.

We have seen what deregulation gets us. It got us the 2008 financial crisis. It gets us bankruptcies and bailouts, and it ultimately leaves hardworking Americans holding the bag while CEOs get golden parachutes.

It is not like we are talking about deregulating some benign financial product. Crypto stands out as a uniquely risky asset. From the invention of bitcoin until now, the primary demonstrated uses for cryptocurrencies have been speculation, fraud, and money laundering.

You can't really use crypto to buy anything. The coins themselves aren't backed by any profits, assets, or other tangible property. While we have been hearing about all the wonders of the blockchain for over a decade, shockingly few companies actually use it in a way that is essential to their business.

In practice, the main real-life-use case for crypto is money laundering. Crypto is used by Mexican cartels to launder their proceeds from drugs trafficked into the United States. Terrorist organizations fund their operations with crypto, and countries like North Korea use cryptocurrencies to avoid U.S. sanctions and fund their nuclear weapons programs.

In fact, bitcoin and Tether are the payment methods of choice for the fentanyl manufacturers in China that supply the Mexican cartels, as well as other fentanyl traffickers inside the United States. These criminal organizations rely on crypto, and the legislation under consideration today will not disrupt that illegal commerce.

The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts will not do anything to prevent crypto from being used to break our laws or fund fentanyl deaths and senior fraud. These bills do not provide any meaningful regulations to ensure that issuers and exchanges fully comply with anti-money laundering laws. Add to this that cryptocurrencies are used to facilitate billions of dollars' worth of fraud against Americans each year. This fraud comes in the form of scams, especially those targeting seniors, where fraudsters trick people into purchasing fake crypto products and then run off with the money, leaving the seniors with no recourse.

Then there is the institutional fraud, the fraud that comes from the crypto companies themselves. Here we also have a long list of examples, the most notable being the fall and bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, which incorporated itself in The Bahamas to avoid American regulatory scrutiny, gambled with customer funds, and ultimately left its customers penniless because of fraudulent business practices.

There is no other way around it. The CLARITY and GENIUS Acts will not stop these types of fraud from happening, and they will leave regular investors on the hook if they are victims of fraud.

The other glaring omission in these bills is they do nothing to stop the abuse of cryptocurrencies and stablecoins as tools for bribery and influence peddling. As President Trump and his allies have demonstrated on a daily basis, any politician can issue a crypto asset, own the majority of tokens, and then anyone who wants to buy that politician's attention or votes can just invest in the asset. There is no oversight or disclosure requirement. There is deniability on both sides of the transaction. Any person, any foreign country can bribe and buy politicians through cryptocurrency like this. Those who have purchased such coins have been open about their motivations for doing so.

Right before his inauguration, President Trump issued his own coin, the Trump coin, for which he is the majority owner. Millions of dollars of questionable funds, including funds from foreigners and foreign governments, have flowed into this coin, as well as his companies, Trump Media and World Liberty Financial.

All in all, it is estimated that President Trump has netted $1 billion from those crypto schemes, taking advantage of the Office of the President to enrich him and his family.

During the 2024 election, crypto companies donated millions of dollars to elect the President. After he was elected, they donated millions more to his inaugural committee. It is notable that in his first 6 months in office, Trump has dismantled all the regulators that oversee the financial and crypto industries, dropped criminal charges and investigations against various crypto companies, pardoned a crypto exchange that pleaded guilty to abetting money laundering, and pardoned the former owner of the Silk Road who was responsible for selling hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of drugs on the deep web.

Apparently, anyone who seeks to buy influence in this White House simply has to find one of the President's companies or meme coins and make a sizable investment. Emiratis and Saudis are investing in Trump's crypto assets to curry favor. People looking for pardons, dismissals, or preferential regulatory treatment are taking advantage of the Trump crypto scheme. Lawyers and lobbyists are advertising to clients that they can buy a pardon for the right price. It is easily the biggest potential corruption scandal in our Nation's Presidential history.

If there is any crypto regulation we need right now, it is a bright- line prohibition on any elected official profiting off a crypto asset.

Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 15th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which paved the way for corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited money in our elections. Because of this ruling, anyone, for the right price, can buy their preferred outcomes in our elections and in Congress. One need look no further than Elon Musk and the crypto bills that we are considering today to see the impact of the Citizens United decision.

We all know about the millions that Musk poured into the Trump campaign and the White House access he was granted before their abrupt split recently, but the crypto industry also spent a lot of money. It spent money to make these bills happen.

Over the past few years, the crypto industry has emerged as one of the biggest and most aggressive political spenders in American politics. In the 2024 election, crypto emerged as the biggest corporate spender, accounting for nearly half of all the corporate money spent. Crypto outspent every other business lobby by tens of millions of dollars.

While the crypto industry's political spending is enormous, what really sets it apart is the brazenness with which the industry buys influence in Washington. Usually, it is hard to exactly pinpoint a direct relationship between political spending and outcomes, but crypto spending is so in your face that we can actually put a price on these bills.

All in all, the CLARITY and GENIUS Acts cost the crypto industry about $245 million, and that is a conservative figure. That is just the money spent on 2024 campaigns. If you count money spent to hire expensive lobbyists to come to Congress and ply Representatives with industry talking points, the number is even higher.

Crypto's $245 million was spent supporting candidates who backed the industry and defeating candidates who did not. Crypto got a good return on its investment. In the overwhelming majority of races that crypto principals invested in, they got their preferred candidate. Now crypto companies have been able to write their own regulations to ensure they won't face serious scrutiny or oversight, meaning that fraud and money laundering will continue unabated, and investors will be on the hook when the next crypto crisis happens.

Fifteen years after the Citizens United decision, these bills are the direct result. Crypto is a textbook example of the consequences of that decision. The question before us today is, how should cryptocurrencies be regulated? The answer we are getting is with regulations provided by the crypto industry itself.

Fifteen years later, Citizens United has been an unmitigated disaster for

our country. Unlimited spending in politics has corroded our democracy. It has bred cynicism and nihilism in the political process. It has made Americans feel disenfranchised and powerless. It says to every American, your voice doesn't count unless you can pay to play.

Mr. Speaker, we have a political system where any company or any rich person can pay for advertisements, pay for lobbyists, donate to campaigns and PACs and super-PACs, all to buy influence and get their desired outcomes from Congress or the White House.

Time and time again, in every sector of our economy, corporations and the rich have won in Congress, in the courts, in the rulemaking process, and even in decisionmaking by enforcement agencies.

We see the consequences of Citizens United everywhere we turn. It is the reason corporations can screw over workers and consumers with no penalty.

It is why every part of the economy is monopolized by two or three companies that sell poor products and give bad service. It is why we are diving headfirst into a global climate crisis and doing nothing about it.

It is why every time someone runs for office on a platform of putting people over profits, they have to endure attacks from super-PACs supported by billionaires or business interests. Our democracy will remain imperiled so long as the mega-rich can buy influence, votes, and elections.

If anyone was unsure of the consequences posed by Citizens United in 2010, it is now clear, beyond any doubt, that the decision was an abject failure for the country. We have to overturn Citizens United, get dark money out of politics, and make sure our government is accountable to voters and not donors.

To my colleagues here in the House, we don't need to end campaign spending for Members of Congress to do the right thing. Integrity doesn't require authorizing legislation. We cannot allow big money donors to buy or bully Congress. We need to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule also provides for consideration of the fiscal year 2026 Defense appropriations bill. Since taking the majority in the House, Republicans have unfortunately abandoned any pretense of bipartisan compromise to promote our national security by loading every defense bill with radical, rightwing policy riders. These riders have turned what was once a rare area of bipartisan consensus into yet another partisan divide.

This time around, Republicans have loaded the national defense bill with provisions to prevent female servicemembers from accessing reproductive healthcare. They have given a green light to discrimination against LGBTQ servicemembers.

This bill does nothing to address the gross mismanagement of the Pentagon by Pete Hegseth, a man who has leaked classified intelligence, who spends more time in front of his Pentagon makeup mirror and doing press stunts than effectively managing the Armed Forces, and who has prioritized support for bigotry and weird cultural war obsessions like changing the pictures on the Pentagon's website and renaming military bases after Confederate icons.

When this bill is combined with the money spent by Republicans in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the United States is on track to spend over $1 trillion on defense. Every year, we spend more and more on defense. It is not clear that taxpayers are getting a good deal.

After years of consolidation and lax antitrust enforcement, the defense industry has ossified around five major prime contractors, each with a degree of specialization. That means only two or three companies ever compete for major contracts.

The consequences of this consolidation can be found across the defense industrial base. We don't make enough of the weapons and platforms that we need. Production for major platforms is often beset by delays and cost overruns. We spend billions on studies and research programs that don't lead anywhere. Production timelines are always being extended. Delivery times are delayed, and per-unit costs are increased.

In the face of these glaring business inefficiencies, Congress and the Pentagon always give the contractors what they ask for and ask for very little in return.

We need to replenish our weapons stockpiles. We need to quickly field next-generation military assets like the Columbia submarine and the B- 21 Raider. We need to bolster supply chains that support this production. We need to ensure that the Nation has the industrial capacity to respond to a sustained major conflict anywhere in the world.

In order for us to achieve these goals, meet our national security needs, and support our servicemembers, Congress needs to perform real oversight over the Pentagon and defense contractors.

In my time in Congress, I have supported multiple efforts to require the Pentagon to perform a clean audit with tangible enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. In each case, these efforts haven't garnered the votes for passage because at the end of the day, this body has not been willing to hold the Pentagon and defense industry's feet to the fire.

The Pentagon has failed to complete seven audits in a row. That is seven. Until the Pentagon faces real consequences for being unable to account for the billions of taxpayer dollars it spends every year and failing to comply with congressional oversight, we will never have accountability.

At a time when our Republicans' quest to root out waste, fraud, and abuse has led them to slash funding for American's healthcare and hunger relief, it is astonishing they are willing to write yet another blank check to the Department of Defense with no questions asked, despite growing evidence of cost overruns, mismanagement, and more.

At the end of the day, I want our servicemembers to have every single advantage over our adversaries. I want them to have all the tools, platforms, resources, and weapons systems we can provide. I don't want taxpayers to get a bad deal. I don't want to waste money on overpriced defense contracts that overpromise and underdeliver.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order amendment No. 50 to H.R. 3633, offered by Representative Khanna, which requires the Attorney General to preserve and release any records related to Jeffrey Epstein.

I applaud my colleagues, Representative Veasey and Khanna, for their work to release the Epstein files. I strongly support these efforts and the release of the files.

Last night, at the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected an amendment that would have required the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files, multiple criminal investigations which allegedly documented trafficking of young women and girls by Jeffrey Epstein, a sex offender and financier with whom the President often socialized.

For years, the President and those in his orbit, including Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel, alleged that prior administrations had covered up the identities of the rich and powerful people to whom Epstein had trafficked the girls and the facts surrounding his allegedly suspicious death.

They came into office pledging to seek accountability for the horrific crimes by revealing Epstein's client list and other information, but recently backtracked and refused to release any further information.

There appear to be only two explanations for this about-face. Either the Epstein files did not contain the explosive information that Trump and his allies claimed during his campaign, or this administration is the one covering up what is in the files.

Last night, all the Republicans on the Rules Committee except one voted against releasing the files.

Why would they try to prevent the truth about Epstein's abuse and those he enabled from coming out? That is anybody's guess.

With this previous question, the entire Republican Conference has the opportunity to correct that mistake. They can vote today to release the Epstein files.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), who is the sponsor of the resolution directing the Trump administration to release the Epstein files to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a debate about what Congress should be considering, and my amendment would simply allow Congress to express its will with respect to the release of the Epstein files. This is something our Republican colleagues and certainly key members of the Trump administration have been talking about for years until their recent about-face.

Congress can express its will. We would like to have it put up for a vote. It doesn't block any votes on the crypto bills or the Defense Department funding.

We think that the administration should release these files. It really is a little confusing, I think, why suddenly our Republican colleagues are blocking this, but perhaps it was a mistake. At least one Republican voted with Democrats last night to release the files, so this would just give all of our colleagues the opportunity to say what they have been saying for so many years, that the Epstein files should be released.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

I am not sure what the gentleman from Georgia is talking about when he says that my amendment is offered as a product of radical leftists. I know that it is rare in D.C., but this amendment actually has broad bipartisan support, from the far right, from the far left, and from the middle.

We just want to release the Epstein files. That is why we have offered the amendment, and this body has the opportunity to vote on it.

I don't understand why my Republican colleagues are suddenly so adamant about throwing up procedural hurdles to have the Epstein files released.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Committee on Rules, my Democratic colleagues and I offered multiple amendments to try to improve the crypto bills.

We offered amendments to prevent the President and his closest relatives from profiting off of crypto while he is in office. We offered amendments to protect investors and consumers and allow the kind of government oversight that is needed to protect our economy.

All of these amendments were rejected by committee Republicans.

Last night, as we discussed the Defense spending bill, we also pressed Republicans on how military families will be impacted by the Medicaid cuts in Republicans' big, ugly bill.

About 850,000 military families on TRICARE also receive healthcare through Medicaid, particularly children with special needs. Those families may now see their health benefits cut or taken away as a result of the big, ugly bill. That issue was not addressed in the Defense spending bill.

Our Republican colleagues didn't want to hear it, and I doubt we will be able to prevent them from proceeding with this misguided crypto legislation today.

Yet, I will say this: If these bills become law, we can predict many more crypto scandals and crises and money laundering. A lot of people will lose a lot of money, and no one will face accountability for taking advantage of retail investors. I hope that day doesn't come, but it is bills like this that will determine the future of our financial system.

Do we want a system that promotes speculation, bubbles, Ponzi schemes, and frauds or one that promotes investment in innovative and productive businesses that grow the real economy in ways that benefit all Americans?

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the PQ and rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 580 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 580, providing for consideration of four measures: H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour 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.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as the CLARITY Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Agriculture or their respective designees, provides one motion to recommit, and makes one amendment in order.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of S. 1582, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, also known as the GENIUS Act, under a closed rule.

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

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, provides for one motion to recommit, and makes 330 amendments in order.

Finally, the rule provides for same-day consideration of a measure related to rescissions this week.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on four pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1919 serves as a critical safeguard against the financial power and erosion of individual privacy in the United States, as it would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, CBDC, or using it to conduct monetary policy without explicit authorization from Congress.

I would like to pose a fundamental question to my colleagues. Should the Federal Government have the power to monitor, control, or restrict how Americans use their own hard-earned money? Further, should the Federal Government be allowed to make such sweeping decisions behind closed doors without input from the public or their elected representatives?

At its core, this bill is about ensuring the preservation of personal financial freedom. The American people have a basic right to financial privacy. They have the right to spend, save, and manage their money free from surveillance or interference.

A CBDC would explicitly threaten that right by giving the Federal Government unprecedented insight into individual transactions and the potential ability to control or limit access to personal funds.

H.R. 1919 is about one thing: stopping the government from gaining unchecked power over how Americans

conduct their financial lives. It ensures that if any form of digital currency is ever created by the Federal Reserve, it must be debated, authorized, and legislated by Congress instead of unilaterally developed by unelected bureaucrats operating behind closed doors.

The potential consequences are too significant to permit unchecked bureaucratic experimentation with tools that could fundamentally redefine the relationship between individuals and their government without clear oversight risks undermining longstanding economic principles.

Now is the time for Congress to assert its role and ensure that any future developments uphold the values of transparency, individual rights, and a market-driven economy.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, otherwise known as the CLARITY Act. H.R. 3633 delivers a foundational framework that has been missing for far too long, which is clear, consistent rules for digital assets and the innovators building the future of finance.

For years, American entrepreneurs and developers in the digital asset space have been forced to navigate a regulatory maze marked by conflicting guidance, shifting definitions, and enforcement actions in place of actual rules. These inconsistent conditions have stifled domestic innovation, discouraged responsible market participation, and driven capital and talent to more favorable jurisdictions abroad.

H.R. 3633 addresses these issues directly by clarifying the legal status of digital assets and establishing well-defined regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and CFTC, creating a more predictable landscape for market participants while preserving critical investor protections and maintaining the integrity of U.S. financial markets.

This legislation reasserts the role of Congress in setting national policy for emerging financial technologies. It ensures that decisions with far-reaching economic implications are not made through regulatory overreach but through transparent and deliberative processes.

H.R. 3633 is not only sound regulatory policy but also essential economic policy. It will help preserve the United States' leadership in financial innovation, support the growth of compliant digital asset markets, and provide much-needed certainty to investors, developers, and regulators alike.

In an increasingly competitive global financial landscape, this legislation positions the United States to lead with clarity, credibility, and confidence.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of S. 1582, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, otherwise known as the GENIUS Act.

This is not just a stablecoin bill. This is a strategic step toward modernizing the U.S. financial infrastructure for the digital age while protecting the interests of consumers, markets, and the Nation.

S. 1582 provides a comprehensive regulatory framework for the issuance and oversight of payment stablecoins in the United States. It is designed to support responsible innovation, ensure consumer protection, and preserve the role of the U.S. dollar in an increasingly digitized global financial system.

Stablecoins have become an essential component of the digital asset economy, as they offer faster, lower-cost transactions and expand access to financial services. In the absence of a clear Federal framework, however, stablecoin development has outpaced regulation, leaving investors without consistent protections and businesses without clear rules of the road.

This legislation changes that by providing clear, enforceable standards for payment stablecoin issuers, creating practical regulatory pathways through both State and Federal charters and setting strong reserve and disclosure requirements to ensure these assets remain secure and trustworthy.

Critically, this bill prohibits the issuance of algorithmic stablecoins lacking sufficient collateral, guarding against destabilizing risks that could ripple through the broader financial system. Also reinforcing the primacy of the U.S. dollar, this bill ensures that dollar-backed stablecoins are subject to prudent oversight and sound risk management.

At a time when other nations are rapidly moving to define the future of digital finance, S. 1582 ensures the United States takes a prompt and necessary step forward with clarity, credibility, and confidence.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026.

H.R. 4016 provides the critical funding necessary to ensure the readiness, modernization, and global strength of the United States Armed Forces. This bill reflects Congress' enduring commitment to our national defense and to the brave men and women who dutifully and selflessly serve this country with distinction.

At a time of rising global threats from strategic competitors, like China and Russia, to unstable regimes and nonstate actors, America must remain prepared and ready. Deterrence requires strength, and strength requires sustained investment, which is exactly what this legislation delivers.

This bill funds operations, maintenance, personnel, and procurement across all branches of the military, ensuring that our servicemembers have the tools, training, and resources they need to succeed in every domain, including land, air, sea, space, and cyberspace. It provides for next-generation systems and emerging technologies, strengthens our nuclear deterrent, and supports investments in cyber capabilities to defend against 21st century threats.

Importantly, this legislation continues bipartisan efforts to improve military quality of life, including robust funding for servicemember pay increases, housing improvements, and family support programs, believing that those who sacrifice to defend this country should never have to sacrifice dignity or stability at home.

H.R. 4016 reflects a deep commitment to national security, strategic deterrence, and support for those who serve. It targets stability, honors peace through strength, and honors our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, reinforcing global stability, and ensuring that the United States remains ready to respond to emerging threats with confidence,capability, and conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation, urge passage of this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the Record, supporters of cryptocurrency exercised their First Amendment right last election and contributed to many candidates.

In fact, those supporters spent over $50 million in support of Democrat candidates. Supporters of cryptocurrency are not just Republicans or Democrats. These are Americans who are very eager to see us pass the most important legislation for the cryptocurrency industry in history this week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), our Rules Committee chairwoman.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are referring to a tactic Democrats employed, yet again, to try to take control of the House of Representatives through the Rules Committee. They did so because they are desperate to stop us from passing the most important cryptocurrency legislation in the history of our country and because they are, for whatever reason, desperate to stop us from bringing forward our legislation that funds our brave military.

The Republican majority is not going to hand the keys to the House of Representatives to a caucus that, on a daily basis, impugns and denigrates the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump.

To my friends watching at home who support bitcoin and cryptocurrency: Make no mistake. Members of Congress who vote against the rule today are voting against the most important legislation for the cryptocurrency industry in history.

I beseech my colleagues who appreciate, support, and invest in cryptocurrency to study today's vote. Do not let those who vote against us today come around during election time to ask for support as they claim to fight for this incredible industry. Judge them by their vote today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Houchin).

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

I join the millions of Americans who want accountability for anyone who committed crimes with Jeffrey Epstein. But I ask you: Can you really trust the same radical leftists who presided over one of the greatest scandals in American history, a coup in Joe Biden's White House in which unelected staff actively sought the destruction of our country?

Can you really trust the same radial leftists who sought to segregate those of us who opted to make medical decisions for ourselves during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Can you really trust the same radical leftists who have spent the last decade trying and failing, trying and failing, and trying and failing to tear down President Trump, one of the greatest Presidents in American history?

Can you really trust those same people, who are trying to stop us from passing the most important cryptocurrency legislation in history and appropriations to fund our brave military today?

A vote against today's rule is a vote against cryptocurrency and our Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Moore) to speak to the most important cryptocurrency legislation in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House has the ability to advance four pieces of legislation under this rule:

H.R. 1919, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act prohibits the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, CBDC, that undermines Americans' rights to financial privacy.

H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as the CLARITY Act, establishes clear, functional requirements for digital asset market participants, prioritizing consumer protection while fostering innovation.

S. 1582, the GENIUS Act provides a clear regulatory framework for the issuance of payment stablecoins in the U.S.

H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026, provides critical resources to strengthen military readiness, support servicemembers and their families, invest in next-generation defense capabilities, and ensure that the United States can meet global threats with confidence and resolve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026.

Before I begin getting into the bill, I recognize the work of my staff: Jennifer Chartrand and Jason Gray on the minority side; and Ben Peterson and my defense fellow, Lisa Lawrence, on the other side.

Of course, I also recognize the work that we do with Adam Sullivan and all of the fabulous majority staff. I thank them all for their hard work.

Mr. Chair, I thank my ranking member, Chairwoman DeLauro, as well as Chairman Cole for their work on this bill. I especially thank Chairman Calvert for his friendship and leadership on this subcommittee.

The chairman had to write this bill without a full budget request. Those are unprecedented circumstances, and I know the process was difficult.

Mr. Chair, turning to the bill, the fiscal year 2026 Department of Defense Appropriations Act totals $831.5 billion. That is the same level that DOD is currently operating at under the full-year continuing resolution.

This bill was written without having any of the full fiscal year 2026 budget request in front of us. That is a huge problem, and let me explain why.

The Defense appropriations bill is this committee's largest discretionary funding bill. It is a complex piece of legislation. It deals with a wide range of national security issues, such as the construction of ships and submarines, the launch of technology and advanced satellites, and the development of hypersonic weapons. Most importantly, it supports our servicemembers and their families who bravely serve our Nation.

It is in the best interest of our Nation for our Defense bill to be written the right way, and that is done with thorough analysis. The DOD's programs require a detailed annual review because these programs naturally ebb and flow over time.

The only way for our subcommittee to analyze this information and write a thoughtful and informed bill is to review a full budget request.

Mr. Chair, I want to take a moment just to illustrate that. These two poster boards represent a single DOD program that we fund. This is the future long-range assault aircraft. This is an advanced helicopter for the Army. This poster shows the 9-page Congressional Budget Justification documents for this program from last year's budget request.

These documents represent critical granular details that the subcommittee needs to properly evaluate the DOD programs. It not only shows us what the request is for, for the coming fiscal years, but also what is expected over the next 5 years.

That detail for the next 5 years is how we can see if the program is still on target compared to the previous year. Why is this important? We don't have clean audits from the Department of Defense except for the Marine Corps.

These documents are the only way we can track money. These documents are part of the normal budget process that every administration and Congress has operated under. This year, because President Trump's administration failed to submit a full budget request, what do we have to write this bill?

Mr. Chair, I call your attention to the second poster board. The number we see here is one line. This represents all that we received on the future long-range assault aircraft to write this bill.

Mr. Chair, it is nine pages of background on one hand and one number on the other. This administration gave us almost no information to make decisions. That is completely unacceptable.

I wonder what the majority's action would have been if the Biden administration had failed to submit a budget request. The fact is that we did not have President Trump's plan for his Defense priorities when this bill was written. This makes this bill, unfortunately, an incomplete product.

For example, Golden Dome at this point is merely a concept and not a full plan. None of us have been briefed on how the administration intends to spend $175 billion or deliver it in 3 years. The analysis by DOD is incomplete. We don't know how the money for Golden Dome will impact future Defense bills.

Another example is the cost to deploy the National Guard around the country to do Homeland Security's job. In June, we found out the cost to deploy 4,000 California National Guardsmen and 700 marines to Los Angeles was $134 million. Now, Secretary Hegseth is reviewing a request from the Department of Homeland Security to deploy more than 20,000 National Guard troops across the country. To what end is that goal? Is it to turn the National Guard into the national police? Well, I don't agree with that.

The National Guard is intended to be used for specific purposes. Yes, they are used in States when natural disasters occur or, yes, even in times of civil unrest when their Governors call them up. Then there are the title 10 missions, when they are deployed overseas or in times of national emergency, like on September 11.

Deploying 20,000 troops has a serious budgetary impact.

Secretary Hegseth did not give us a complete budget. We don't know what thought went into this, the duration of these deployments, how much they will cost, or where the funding will be pulled from to pay for them.

The President proposes, and Congress disposes. That is the way our system works in the Constitution. There are consequences for not following this process. We may end up buying too much of one platform and wasting taxpayer dollars, or we may end up buying too little of another, leaving a gap in our capabilities to defend our country.

When we write this bill without seeing the full budget request, we fail to maximize the buying power for the taxpayers. It is deeply unfortunate that the Trump administration and OMB, in particular, have put the committee in this position.

This bill also includes many of the same poison pill riders that were in previous House versions of the Defense bill. These partisan social riders should never become law. They lead us down a road that, once again, may result in a full-year CR.

Last year's CR was bad enough. A second one would be a catastrophe. Our national security cannot afford to lose another year.

Once again, this bill limits the ability of service personnel and their families to receive the reproductive healthcare they deserve. Women make up almost 20 percent of the military services, and many women servicemembers live in States that have limited or banned access to reproductive care.

Once again, the provisions that disenfranchise gay, lesbian, and transgender servicemembers are included in this bill.

These poison pill riders will not go unnoticed by our troops, and they will impact recruitment and retention.

As I told Secretary Hegseth last month, we have witnessed a deliberate effort by the Trump administration to silence and diminish the achievements of minorities and women in the military. Their dedication, heroism, and sacrifices on behalf of our Nation deserve recognition and not erasure.

As a former history teacher, I acknowledge the uncomfortable truths about our own history. Acknowledging them is the only way we move forward together.

Since World War II, the Department of Defense has made great strides in building a military that is more reflective of the population of the Nation it defends. That should be celebrated. It should not be reversed. That is how we build a more perfect Union together.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably, at this time, I will be unable to vote for passage of this bill. I cannot recommend that my colleagues support it. I will work with Chairman Calvert in the future as we go through conference to make sure that we can, together, hopefully, produce a bill we can both support.

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

As the Chair pointed out, I rise to designate the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. I was done with full debate.

Mr. Chair, I think I have a slightly different script.

We are friends, and we will get through this.

Mr. Chair, I would like to engage with the gentleman in a colloquy, and I would like to rise on an issue of great importance to me and many Members on both sides of the aisle.

Would the gentleman like me to continue?

Mr. Chair, that is the status of Afghan nationals living in the United States under temporary protected status.

For 20 years after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, the United States maintained a significant military and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan.

As part of that effort, we asked the people of Afghanistan to trust the United States and to work with us to support the Afghan National Government and build a new future for their nation.

Obviously, we did not succeed. Tens of thousands of Afghans stood shoulder to shoulder with U.S. troops and diplomats serving in Afghanistan over two decades. They did so at great risk to their own lives and the lives of their families.

When we withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, we evacuated over 100,000 Afghans.

Why?

It is because we knew what would happen when the Taliban would return to power. Those Afghans and their families who had assisted U.S. operations would be subject to the vengeful retribution of the Taliban. Not all of those who were evacuated came to the United States, but many did.

The least we could do to repay their assistance was to help the Afghans who risked everything for us to start new lives. The temporary protected status designation that they received was essential to keeping them safe.

As of this January, there were 11,685 Afghans legally present in our country under TPS.

Many of these families are waiting for their Special Immigrant Visa application process to be completed. This is a process that involves rigorous background checks and requires verification of their work assisting the United States, but it can take up to 7 years for an applicant to receive their visa.

That is why it is deeply unfortunate that the administration has allowed the temporary protected status for Afghanistan to expire last night. I have asked the administration for a 90-day extension of TPS protections for Afghans in the U.S. while we work on a legislative solution. That is because for the Afghans who will be sent back under this, this is their worst nightmare, and we know how it will end. Not only will this cost them their freedom, it will cost many of them their lives.

Congress must act to prevent this.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, the chairman, for his comments, and I absolutely agree with him.

This is the Defense bill that we are debating, and jurisdiction for this issue resides in the Homeland Security Subcommittee. However, we know there is bipartisan support in the House and Senate to protect Special Immigrant Visa holders and applicants. That was demonstrated through the bipartisan passage of the Additional Afghanistan Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022.

I have spoken with Members both Democratic and Republican who served in Afghanistan, and they have told me that this is an important issue for them, and they want to find a legislative fix. My hope is that we can find a bipartisan political consensus as the appropriations process moves forward.

Mr. Chair, America must stand with the allies who supported us in our two-decade war in Afghanistan, and that is the least we can do.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations full committee.

Mr. Chair, may I ask the chairman if he is prepared to close, and I will give my closing statement.

Mr. Chair, I understand if the chairman has someone come, just so he knows that.

Mr. Chair, we have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Chair, I thank the Members on the House floor for the patience they have had with my voice this evening.

The fiscal year 2025 appropriations process was a complete disaster, in my opinion, and it was the result of the first full-year continuing resolution for the Department of Defense. Our national security cannot afford for that to happen again.

We must do everything together in our power to prevent that. That means working in a bipartisan way to make these poison pill riders come out of this bill.

I look forward to working with Chairman Calvert and the Senate to improve this bill so that we can avoid another full-year CR. Let us give our servicemembers and their families the bipartisan Defense bill that they deserve.

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

Mr. Chair, I support this package of en bloc amendments to the Defense bill that are in the interest of Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I support this package of en bloc amendments to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chair, I support this package of en bloc amendments to the Defense bill that are in the interest of Members on both sides of the aisle, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chair, I support this package of amendments en bloc No. 4 to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members of both sides of the aisle. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I also support this package of amendments en bloc to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members of both sides.

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

Mr. Chair, I also support this package of amendments en bloc to the Defense appropriations bill that are of interest to Members of both sides of the aisle. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I also support this package of amendments en bloc to the Defense bill that are of interest to Members on both sides of the aisle.

I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago Republicans boasted about how they would provide billionaires with tax cuts they don't need by stripping healthcare from 17 million Americans, shuttering hospitals across the country, and starving 12 million families, including millions of children.

These billionaires are the same individuals who proudly gave millions of dollars to President Trump's campaign. They literally bought votes during the last election and even sponsored Stalinist military parades to celebrate the President's birthday.

No one should be surprised that these same Republicans' next order of business is to validate, legitimize, and endorse the Trump family's corruption and efforts to sell the White House to the highest bidder.

S. 1582, the so-called GENIUS Act, establishes a woefully deficient Federal framework for dollar-denominated payment stablecoins in the United States. Stablecoins are a form of digitized private money. Unlike other types of crypto, these coins claim to always maintain their value, often one coin for $1.

Nevertheless, that promise of stability is precisely what causes stablecoins to be subject to bank-like runs where the public rushes to sell their stablecoins at the first whiff of instability, making a bit of bad news into a full-blown financial crisis.

It was for this reason that when I was chairwoman of the committee, I sought to create a Federal framework to oversee these stablecoins and ensure that consumers are protected. I worked with the Biden administration and former Republican Chairman Patrick Henry to craft legislation.

We achieved that goal, and I posted that legislation earlier this year. We wanted to create a strong Federal system to oversee this type of crypto market that protected consumers, our national security, and financial stability.

Unfortunately, the election of Donald Trump ended those bipartisan efforts and brought a significant new challenge to stablecoins. That challenge was the Trump family's brazen corruption using crypto to sell access in exchange for official acts.

It just so happens that those stablecoins are one of the main vehicles Trump is using to make his corrupt crypto billions. The Trump family's crypto company, World Liberty Financial, launched a stablecoin called USD1 in April.

Shortly after that, the Abu Dhabi-backed investment from MGX bought $2 billion of Trump's coins to make an investment in Binance, a company that had been under investigation for numerous legal violations. Trump and his family will make tens of millions of dollars just on that transaction from the interest earnings alone. That is Abu Dhabi's money.

More concerning, by passing this bill, Congress will be telling the world that Congress is okay with corruption, okay with foreign companies buying influence, and okay with criminals buying Trump coins to seek pardons and beneficial treatment.

Each of my colleagues surely can see how this is a blatant conflict of interest. Democrats and the rest of America do, as well. It is why I introduced the Stop TRUMP in Crypto Act, to ban the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress from crypto corruption. If we do not ban elected officials in S. 1582, including the President or Vice President, from crypto corruption, each of us will be complicit.

Let me be clear on this point because there has been a lot of misinformation. This bill has a policy statement that elected officials like Members of Congress and Senators, as well as government officials, cannot issue their own stablecoin.

Are my colleagues aware who Republicans did not ban? Get this straight. The President and the Vice President are the only elected officials that can have a crypto business. Why are the Republicans protecting the President so he can make billions and billions more?

Don't just take my word for it. Earlier this week, Chairman Hill confirmed this much in the Rules Committee. Anyone who says the bill stops the President's company from issuing stablecoins is not telling the truth.

Yet, even if we adopted such a ban, the GENIUS Act, sent over by the Senate and apparently unable to be amended, is still bad public policy. S. 1582 creates the appearance of a Federal framework for stablecoins, but it does not provide the Federal Government with the full authority it needs to ensure that all stablecoin issuers comply with the law.

The bill also creates risks for consumers who will be stuck in a lengthy bankruptcy process if a stablecoin ever fails.

Additionally, it leaves the door open for foreign firms that present a major national security threat, including targets of sanctions, all to appease those in the Trump family's inner circle which has ties to those shady entities.

Yes, I am talking about Tether, the foreign stablecoin issuer everyone knows has been used in terrorist financing, organized crime schemes, and other horrible acts but which the Secretary of Commerce has close ties with.

Let me give one more example of why this bill is just bad for America. The very heart of this bill is that stablecoins will, in fact, be stable because they will be backed one to one with solid, safe assets. I invite anyone to read the bill.

While some of the reserves are cash and short-term Treasury securities, this bill allows for uninsured deposits. We already know how dangerous these deposits are. When Silicon Valley Bank failed, Circle, the largest stablecoin today, had $3 billion locked up in uninsured deposits and needed the Federal Government to rescue it. That isn't all.

A stablecoin issuer is also permitted to hold bitcoin as reserves. That is because someone added language in this bill late in the night that added new definitions and language to the bill.

The language allows for a stablecoin issuer to use any money received under repurchase agreements that are a means of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a foreign government.

Do my colleagues know what Trump's favorite strongman, the dictator of El Salvador, adopted as a legal currency? He adopted bitcoin.

This highly volatile cryptocurrency will now be eligible to be a reserve backing your stablecoins. It is truly absurd and dangerous and will lead to consumers losing their money and the taxpayers being called on to bail out the financial system.

It is for all of these reasons that I submitted several amendments to this bill, none of which were made in order by Republicans, because the President has rejected any conflict of interest language that binds him.

One interesting point is that even Chairman Hill himself inserted language at the end of the so-called CLARITY Act that the House is separately considering this week that actually amends the GENIUS Act.

Mr. Speaker, you heard me right. Rather than amend the GENIUS Act, which our own chairman saw had problems, he put his changes at the end of the CLARITY Act.

Mr. Speaker, you may be asking why he would do that. He could just offer his amendments to the GENIUS Act. The reason is that House Republican leadership has given up our power as the United States House of Representatives to work the will of our Members on behalf of our constituents and make changes to any legislation that the Senate sends us. Instead, we are simply taking the language directly from the Senate with no amendments, even when the chairman and other House Members know that this bill is flawed.

Unfortunately, because President Trump demanded the bill be passed without any changes, that is what the Republican Congress will do.

One of Chairman Hill's changes to the GENIUS Act addresses a key concern I have had from the beginning, which is that Facebook and any other Big Tech company should not be allowed to issue their own stablecoin.

That would violate a longstanding separation of banking and commerce in financial regulation, and our chairman's amended language would help close this loophole.

Unfortunately, the GENIUS Act allows Elon Musk's X to issue its own stablecoin and creates a pathway for Facebook to do the same.

For these reasons and many more, I strongly oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology, and Artificial Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), who is also the vice ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), who is also the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.

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. 4016, 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 offer H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2026.

I start by thanking Chairman Cole for his leadership in this process. I thank the Defense Subcommittee ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for her partnership and friendship. Finally, I thank the Defense Subcommittee staff for their tireless work on this year's bill.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 4016 provides $831.5 billion for the Department of Defense and the intelligence community. While this is relatively flat discretionary funds enacted in fiscal year 2025, coupled with the recently enacted Reconciliation Act, it provides nearly $1 trillion to modernize and sustain our Armed Forces.

Today's threat environment continues to grow more complex. Russia remains an aggressive actor. China's values continue to clash with ours as they advance their military capability. Now more than ever, the United States requires strategic investments to defend and protect the American people. Preventing harmful actors' aggression amplifies the need to develop and field the capability that provides America the military advantage we need.

First, this bill champions America's military superiority in a variety of ways. It enhances investments in fifth- and sixth-generation aircraft, such as F-35s, F-47s, and F/A-XXs.

The bill prioritizes modernization of the nuclear triad through investments in the B-21 Raider, the Columbia-class submarine, and Sentinel.

This bill also provides approximately $13 billion for missile defense and space programs in support of the Golden Dome effort. Innovation in our Defense Industrial Base and workforce remain cornerstones to providing America a competitive edge. This bill builds on successful prior initiatives through combined funding of $1.3 billion spread across DIU, the Office of Strategic Capital, and APFIT.

Furthermore, $1.5 billion is provided to support the Maritime Industrial Base by investing in critical supply chain and workforce training.

Drug trafficking, including fentanyl, remains a very serious crisis across America and throughout the United States and poses a national security threat. This bill protects the homeland with this in mind.

It combats international actors who facilitate drug trafficking and manufacturing by investing $1.15 billion to counter drug programs, including increasing funding for the National Guard efforts.

Following the administration's lead, this bill leans forward on shaping a more efficient and effective Department of Defense by reducing $6.5 billion, almost 45,000 civilian employees.

Mr. Chair, altogether, this bill is a good bill. I encourage its passage, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.

McCollum) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Would the ranking member like to enter into a colloquy?

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman to enter into a colloquy.

Yes, please.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.

As the gentlewoman points out so powerfully, for over two decades, Afghan interpreters, translators, and contractors stood side by side with U.S. servicemembers in some of the most dangerous circumstances imaginable. They knew they were risking their lives and the lives of their loved ones to support the United States in our mission to bring justice to those who attempted to harm our way of life on September 11, 2001.

The Biden administration's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2021 was, quite simply, a failure. It is heartbreaking that we needlessly lost 13 servicemembers at the hands of terrorists during the chaotic evacuation of Kabul Airport.

Following the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, we promised not to leave those Afghans who supported us behind. Many left their home country to come to America under Special Immigrant Visas in order to escape the possibility of death as reprisal for their actions.

Some applications for Special Immigrant Visas are still waiting to be approved. Further, many fled repressive Taliban rule and have been afforded temporary protected status given the unstable situation that still exists in Afghanistan today.

We should be clear that the Special Immigrant Visa background check process is robust, but that diligent process can take time, which is why it is critical that those Afghans who still have Special Immigrant Visa applications pending should be given protection to remain in the United States until the applications are adjudicated.

As the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that this is not just about keeping a promise, it is also a matter of national security.

Future partners and allies around the world are watching how we treat those who helped us in Afghanistan. For every Afghan ally left behind, there is a broken promise and a stain on our credibility.

I look forward to working in a bipartisan manner to fulfill our duty and ensure that our Afghan partners receive the justice and safety they have earned.

Would the distinguished ranking member agree that we have a moral obligation to ensure that every qualified Special Immigrant Visa applicant receives the protection they deserve?

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Minnesota.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I have no speakers presently, so I would be prepared to yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I offer amendments en bloc, as the designee of Chairman Cole, en bloc No. 1.

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial messaging amendments and were supported by both sides. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I have no additional speakers. I yield back the balance of my time on en bloc number 1.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I offer amendments en bloc, as the designee of Chairman Cole.

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial messaging amendments and are supported by both sides.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time on en bloc No. 2.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ellzey).

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time on en bloc No. 3.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I offer amendments en bloc, as the designee to Chairman Cole.

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial amendments and supported by both sides.

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

Mr. Chair, I support en bloc No. 4, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 580, as the designee of Mr. Cole, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial amendments that are supported by both sides.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).

Mr. Chair, I encourage Members to support en bloc No. 5, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial amendments supported by both sides.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Chair, I encourage Members to vote ``yes'' on en bloc No. 6, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 580, I offer amendments en bloc as the designee of Mr. Cole.

Mr. Chair, these are noncontroversial amendments, and they are supported by both sides.

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

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