H.Res. 682

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. The fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act presented to us without amendment is, against all odds, a strong bipartisan compromise between Republicans and Democrats on the Armed Services Committee.

I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised to see this year's NDAA come to the floor untouched by some of the rightwing extremist policy riders that in recent years have been attached to important bills like the NDAA.

However, this morning in the Rules Committee, Republicans green- lighted dozens of amendments containing controversial poison pills that may very well make their way into the bill. I hope that my Republican colleagues are able to demonstrate some restraint this week and vote down these bad policies. We cannot afford to politicize our national defense.

A good NDAA, like a good budget, is one that is probably perfect for no one. It is the result of compromise and negotiation. In the case of the NDAA, it is oriented around the shared goal of making sure that our Armed Forces continue to be the best in the world.

However, while the FY26 NDAA is strong in many ways, it also falls short in some crucial areas. Above all, it falls short in its lack of meaningful policy to rein in the Trump administration's reckless and illegal actions.

Out of fealty to their dear leader, Republicans have refused at every turn to perform meaningful oversight of this administration, to push back on Trump's worst impulses, and to exert Congress' Article I powers against the executive's repeated overreach. In the context of the NDAA, there hasn't been a single oversight hearing scheduled in the House or Senate to address the ongoing misuse of our military forces.

Of all Trump's abuses, his worst have been in the domain of national defense. Empowered by a partisan Supreme Court and aided by complicit national security staff, Trump has repeatedly used the U.S. military to commit reckless and even illegal acts that imperil our security, weaken our status in the world, hurt our relationship with our closest allies, and endanger our own citizens.

The President claims to have broad, undefined, and unchecked executive power. He has installed corrupt and incompetent appointees who jeopardize our national security and economic stability. He has imposed Federal troops and the National Guard on civilians across America, despite fierce opposition from local residents and political leaders. He has sent armed and masked Federal law enforcement agents to terrorize immigrant communities. Those agents have harassed and detained U.S. citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

The President has initiated multiple politically targeted criminal investigations against his opponents and unilaterally defunded programs that are important to our national defense and our security.

While Republicans gleefully cheer on military deployments in American cities, I bet they would lose their goddamn minds if those troops were sent to their home States which have substantially higher crime rates.

If the real rationale for these deployments is to address high crime rates, States like Arkansas, Missouri, and Louisiana would be at the top of the list. We all know this.

We all know this isn't really why the National Guard has been deployed to D.C. or L.A. or Chicago. As with so many acts by this White House, it is just pretext. It is pretext for an agenda based on fear, intimidation, performative violence, and retribution.

Trump's agenda is about power and self-dealing, not problem-solving. That is all it is. There are no solutions. There are no plans. Time and time again, we have seen this White House reject and defund proven solutions in favor of no-tolerance policies and flashy shows of force.

In the process, this administration has wasted millions in taxpayer dollars with stunts like sending Dr. Phil on an ICE raid with a camera crew.

They sent hundreds of people, many of whom had no criminal record, to a violent, inhumane prison in El Salvador and produced a video of their abuse and humiliation.

They sent uniformed military troops to the streets of American cities, damaging the relationship between our citizens and our Armed Forces.

This past week may have seen the most egregious and violent misuse of military force yet that we know of. Last week, President Trump ordered the extrajudicial execution by the U.S. military of 11 men on a speedboat in international waters, thousands of miles away from the U.S. He then posted a snuff video of that act on social

media. We still have not seen credible evidence or legal justification for that strike.

That killing represents a sinister choice. The Navy and Coast Guard interdict drug smugglers on the high seas all the time. If we knew these men were smugglers and we knew where they were, an intentional decision was made not to stop the ship and, instead, to kill the people on it.

There is no congressional authorization for a President to kill drug dealers at home or abroad. This killing on the high seas is not authorized by international law.

The President cannot declare anyone he wants to be a criminal or an enemy combatant and then summarily kill them. This is the logic used by dictators and despots to disappear and kill dissenters and political opponents. A President who acts as judge, jury, and executioner is flat out un-American. If we allow such conduct, then we are no better than the terrorists and criminals we claim to fight.

Additionally, earlier this year the President approved air strikes against Iran, doing so without congressional authorization and in contravention of the Constitution.

No matter what one thinks about the merits of that attack, this was a flagrantly unconstitutional act.

Taken together with last week's assassinations on the high seas, we now have a President who claims to be able to kill whoever he wants, whenever he wants, and for whatever reason he wants, all without accountability under the law to Congress and to the American people.

Moreover, as we speak of the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution, over the weekend, the President unilaterally decided to rename the Department of Defense as the Department of War in what can only be described as a PR stunt. It is a decision he doesn't have the authority to make.

Whether or not this gimmick will distract from the Epstein files and this administration's economic failures, it will certainly cost taxpayers a fortune, with estimates ranging over $1 billion. Experts predict that our enemies will use the move to portray the United States not as a guarantor of peace but as a threat to international stability.

The NDAA is one of Congress' best opportunities to rein in these kinds of abuses of military power, specifically abuses by this President in his role as Commander in Chief. Unfortunately, this bill misses that mark. It lets the President get away with starting illegal wars and committing illegal killings.

Further, Pete Hegseth still has not faced any consequences for leaking confidential information to journalists and wasting taxpayer dollars on makeup mirrors. Tulsi Gabbard has not faced consequences for manipulating intelligence reports that contradicted the President's claims about Venezuelan gangs. No one has been held accountable for firing intelligence officials who claimed falsely that his strikes on Iran had obliterated its nuclear capabilities.

I know that my Democratic colleagues on the Armed Services Committee fought hard for oversight in the NDAA. Unfortunately, the price of a bipartisan bill to support our troops was that Republicans would continue to enable this administration and many of its worst actions.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, House Republicans' efforts to turn a blind eye to the President's apparent misconduct are not limited only to matters of national security. For months, the President and most House Republicans have blocked the release of the Epstein files.

During the 2024 campaign, the President and his inner circle, particularly Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino, all repeatedly promised that they would release the Epstein files, but once they came into office and found the President to be frequently mentioned in those files, they changed their tune.

In the past few months, the President has gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent the release of the Epstein files. His DOJ approved the highly unusual transfer of Epstein's convicted co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, to a cushy minimum-security prison, apparently in exchange for her agreement to distance the President from Epstein's sex trafficking activities. The President has even threatened members of his own party with retribution if they vote to release those files.

These threats appear to be working because House Republicans continue to provide cover for the administration, repeatedly voting down amendments in the Rules Committee that would have forced the release of the Epstein files.

In fact, just this morning, Rules Committee Republicans once again blocked the release of those files, and we have not seen our Republican colleagues stepping up to sign the discharge petition that could lay this issue to rest once and for all.

The longer this goes on, the more it seems appropriate to ask: What are they trying to hide, and whom are they trying to protect? What is the ``wonderful secret'' that Trump and Epstein share?

Mr. Speaker, I bring all this up because the other bill in this resolution, H.R. 3486, the Stop Illegal Entry Act, is another distraction to divert attention from this White House's ongoing issues and the Epstein files. It is a messaging bill that is light on substance, bad on policy, and just something shiny for House Republicans to talk about other than the Epstein files.

The bill purports to be tough on undocumented immigrants, but it doesn't do a single thing to improve our broken immigration system. What it will do is siphon even more taxpayer dollars into the hands of for-profit prison companies. Instead of deporting undocumented immigrants, this bill would require convicted immigrants to serve lengthy prison sentences here in the United States.

Guess who would benefit from that, Mr. Speaker? GEO and other private prison companies that have invested millions in the President's political campaigns.

It is already a crime to enter the country illegally. Despite the propaganda from the other side, prosecutions against unlawful entry are regularly the most prosecuted cases in the United States under Presidents of both parties. Those found in violation of these statutes are already subject to prison sentences and mandatory removal. However, Republicans are proposing to jail undocumented immigrants for up to 10 or 20 years, wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and limited Federal prison space.

American taxpayers are certainly justified in asking our Republican colleagues: Why should we imprison someone who is subject to deportation here in the United States and at that cost to the American taxpayer?

Every day, we are seeing a new atrocity committed by ICE and the Department of Homeland Security. All over America, masked ICE agents, often in unmarked cars, are taking parents from their children, arresting the elderly, arresting law-abiding immigrants, and even detaining citizens.

Trump says he is going after the worst of the worst, but over 70 percent of the immigrants his government has rounded up have no criminal record. In fact, the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are reallocating resources away from investigating major crimes so they can terrorize undocumented immigrants who are just trying to work a job and provide for themselves and their families, including some who were legally present here and had legal status until this administration suddenly reversed it.

For all its bluster, this administration is not doing anything to combat gangs or serious criminals. They are not arresting the worst of the worst or gangs like MS-13 or Tren de Aragua. It is not doing anything about the smugglers and human traffickers at the border.

Instead, ICE agents are scrambling to meet Stephen Miller's quotas by arresting people at work or when they attend court hearings on their legal cases for asylum or citizenship, as they are required to do, and the hell with the impact on the local community, or, in the case of the disastrous raid on the Georgia battery plant last week, the hell with our allies and foreign investment in our country.

In the latest example of how this administration's disastrous immigration agenda is at odds with reality, last week, ICE was directed to make a flashy, high-profile raid at a Hyundai plant in Georgia, arresting over 400

South Korean nationals whom we had explicitly invited to invest in manufacturing here and bring jobs to the United States. This stunt has been a complete disaster. It caused a major diplomatic rift with one of our closest allies and biggest economic partners, and it has given the whole world reason to believe that it is a mistake to move manufacturing to the U.S.

In truth, the Stop Illegal Entry Act is just another shiny object that is supposed to divert attention from the Epstein files and the failures of this administration. Republicans don't actually care about reforming the immigration system. They have repeatedly rejected all attempts to do so. They just want to campaign on telling horror stories about immigrants, regardless of the truth.

All we see from this House majority is distraction after distraction, all to divert attention from the President's failure to deliver on promises to the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. McBride).

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 4849, the Protecting Health Care and Lowering Costs Act of 2025, introduced by Congressman Gray.

Mr. Speaker, in July, Republicans jammed through their big, ugly bill. This 870-page monstrosity includes the largest cuts to healthcare in American history. It takes healthcare coverage away from more than 15 million Americans, American citizens, including 10 million who would lose their care due to the $1 trillion in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act and another $5 million because Republicans failed to extend the tax credits that help make ACA plans more affordable.

These cuts will throw millions of Americans off coverage entirely, bury families in medical debt, and result in hospitals and nursing homes closing, especially in rural America.

In my district, 21,000 people are likely to lose their healthcare. In the gentleman from Georgia's district, 36,000 people are estimated to lose their healthcare.

Mr. Gray's bill would reverse those disastrous cuts, as well as permanently extend the tax credits that help make ACA plans more affordable for millions of Americans.

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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. McDonald Rivet) to discuss our proposal further.

Ms. McDONALD RIVET. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hardworking men and women not just in Michigan but across the country.

Working families in Michigan and across the country are really struggling. There are 200,000 people in my district alone who rely on Medicaid.

While the Republican tax scheme gives huge giveaways to billionaires and breaks to the wealthy, it neglects the ACA tax credits working families in my district depend on to cover their insurance premiums. It cuts Medicaid by $1.1 trillion, kicking tens of thousands of my constituents off their healthcare, and it raises costs for everybody.

Our Protecting Health Care and Lowering Costs Act reverses all of that, and we should pass it today. We aren't just making a point. We are fighting for the retired teacher from Mount Morris who needs Medicaid because her insurance isn't cutting it. We are standing up for the pregnant woman whose rural hospital is at risk of being shut down because of the Republican tax giveaway.

We are raising our voices for the family from Bay City who will have to sit down at the kitchen table to figure out if they should pay for rent or their child's visit to the doctor.

We know that as a result of the billionaire tax giveaway we are going to see premiums rise for working people across our country. The ACA tax credits need to be reestablished now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to discuss what should be disclosed with these Epstein files, all the more reason to bring this bill forward. We can amend it in Rules and carry on from there, but that is not what we are seeing from our colleagues across the aisle. They are trying to bury it, and I assume they will continue to do so.

This House and this Congress cannot afford to continue allowing an unrestrained and reckless President to trample on the Constitution and Congress' powers and responsibilities. Every day brings a new crisis with this White House, and they are all of its own making.

Since Trump announced his tariffs, the U.S. has lost 42,000 manufacturing jobs, tourism is tanking, and unemployment is on the rise. Costs for everything from electricity to groceries to health insurance are up, not down.

In fact, we are facing the biggest increase in health insurance costs in 15 years, even as the cuts in this big, bad bill threaten to bring more hospital closures.

Trump's attacks on the Federal Reserve could cause another financial crisis. Masked agents are roaming our streets, and reports of human rights abuses at ICE detention facilities are growing. Far from ending the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, Trump has amassed naval forces off the coast of Venezuela and could provoke another unauthorized war.

This administration is out of control and Congress must act. Republicans can't keep their heads in the sand. They have already failed to protect core Article I spending authorities, the power to make appropriations and the power to declare war. Continued inaction will only allow more power grabs by this White House to occur.

At every turn, Republicans have fought Democratic efforts to place oversight and enforcement riders in legislation that we are passing. With this NDAA, our Republican colleagues are, again, blocking policies to restrain this President and prevent him from using the Armed Forces as political weapons. This cannot be allowed to continue. We must reject this rule and the Republicans' failed agenda.

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

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

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

First of all, I thank Chairman Rogers, his team, and his staff. The process that we went through in committee was just a model for how to legislate on the National Defense Authorization Act and in a bipartisan fashion. I think, in that process, we put together a really good bill.

The chairman has done a good job of describing it. I won't belabor some of those points except to say that the emphasis on acquisition and procurement reform is so crucial to everything we are doing. In order to meet the national security threats that we face, we are going to have to innovate vastly more quickly than we do right now.

The pace of warfare is simply changing on a day-in and day-out basis: drones, AI, missiles, missile defense, counter-drone technologies. This is evolving rapidly. We simply have to make sure that the best technologies from innovative companies out there in the world have access to the Department of Defense so that we can update and change the way we do business and move more quickly. One of the easiest ways to think about it is we need to focus on solving problems, not on process.

This bill does an excellent job of making those changes. The chairman led an effort over the course of the last year to do a deep dive on these questions so we could come up with a very meaningful bill.

The bill is also excellent in a number of other areas. It continues the really good work from last year on quality-of-life issues, making sure that we take care of the men and women and their families who serve our country. The pay raise and a number of other issues are dealt with in that regard.

I think the bill also reflects a strong statement of what our national security needs are. It fully supports Ukraine. It fully supports the Baltic Security Initiative to make sure that our allies in the Baltics and Eastern Europe are supported. It makes sure that we support Taiwan through the INDOPACOM initiative.

We have a good bill that came out of committee. Also, crucially, the bill was handled in a bipartisan fashion. We debated a lot of different amendments. Some amendments that were problematic we set aside because they were too partisan one way or the other, and we debated the issues that were most important to the warfighter and produced a good product. That is the good news.

The bad news is what came out of the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee was a completely and totally partisan exercise in a way that, frankly, I haven't witnessed on the defense bill since, well, before last year, in which we totally abandoned everything that Chairman Rogers and everybody else put into it in the committee process and said, no, Democrats are irrelevant, this is a Republican bill. That is all we are going to pay attention to.

Of the amendments ruled in order, 222 of them are Republican, 76 of them are Democrat. None of the Democratic amendments are ones that we are going to be debating. The Democratic amendments are ones that are bipartisan and will be going into an en bloc. I know there is a technicality there in that the Meeks amendment is going to be debated, but that is only going to be debated because Chip Roy insisted on it, and it overruled what the majority wanted and voted for in committee, and that is on repealing the AUMFs in 1991 and 2002.

There was no effort whatsoever to include Democratic ideas, while loading it up with some of the most partisan political amendments possible. There are, I think it is, five different attacks on the trans community. The Trump administration has already achieved all of that. This is simply piling it on,

including the worst part of it, which is denying to the men and women who serve in the military and their families any sort of healthcare for gender dysphoria, which is an absolute 100 percent thing, even if you may disagree with how to handle it. There is no treatment for that. That is just a purely partisan, gratuitous shot that we decided not to take in committee for a very good reason.

Equally problematic are some of the crucial amendments that Democrats wanted to debate about oversight of this Pentagon, oversight of what President Trump and Secretary Hegseth are doing. He is posting on social media a threat to use the United States military to invade the city of Chicago and other cities. That is not what the United States military is supposed to be used for. It would be appropriate for Congress to exercise oversight and have that debate and say, no, we are not going to let you use the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement. At least let us have that debate and have a vote on it, go on record and say how we feel about it.

There was also the overpoliticization of the military. That is unprecedented, unseen. Every single inspector general; every single judge advocate general; multiple senior-level staff officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff C.Q. Brown and the general who was in charge of NSA and cyber, General Haugh; were all fired. They were highly qualified. They had bipartisan support, but they weren't loyal to President Trump.

That is not what this is supposed to be about. We should be able to debate those amendments to make sure that the United States military stands up for the American people and it is loyal to the Constitution, not to one person. All of those debates were disallowed.

We will see how the amendment process goes, but it is highly unlikely at the end of it that we are going to have that product that we produced out of committee. That is a shame to this institution.

Again, I emphasize Chairman Rogers has been a great partner. The House Armed Services Committee did a great job. Leadership decided to make this a partisan exercise instead of an exercise focused on the American servicemembers, their families, and making sure that our country has what it needs to meet our national security and defense needs.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Readiness.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Norcross), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Goodlander), who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking

member of the House Committee on Financial Services (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

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

Again, I think, and we have heard from both sides, just an excellent description of what the bill does as it came out of committee and why it is so important.

It is what the Armed Services Committee does. We exercise oversight of the Department of Defense to make sure that we can properly meet our national security needs and crucially make sure that the men and women who serve in our military have all the tools they need. Nothing is more important to that effort this year than acquisition reform, getting them the tools they need quicker and more efficiently, and making sure they get innovative technologies as soon as they need them.

I look forward to that part of it, but the problem is, as I said, the amendment process is very partisan. It is going to lead to a partisan outcome at the end of it.

Also, I do hope that Members on both sides of the aisle will take seriously the concerns about the executive overreach that we are seeing from President Trump and from Secretary Hegseth. I mentioned some of them in my opening remarks, but there are a lot more.

The attack on the boat in the Caribbean just last week, there was no particular legal justification for that. I want to make sure we understand the implications of that. If the President is saying he has the right to use the U.S. military to strike out against any drug cartel anywhere in the world, that is a massive expansion of executive power in the use of his war powers ability, and it is dangerous.

Congress is supposed to exercise some oversight of that. We do not want to be dragged into war with Venezuela, with Mexico, with Colombia, with any number of different countries. If we take the position as the U.S. that we can do military strikes in any country around the world, it is dangerous. It is something we should exercise oversight on.

Also, another thing I didn't mention in as much detail as I would have liked are the efforts to ban books and ban speakers--I did mention the firing of people--all around the basic idea that nobody in the military should say anything critical of Donald Trump. That is a direct undermining of our constitutional republic and of the crucial neutrality of the United States military in doing their jobs.

We have speakers now who are being disinvited from speaking to our military academies if they said something critical of President Trump on social media. That is not a reason to ban a speaker.

Most recently, we have had the instance where even a group of people from the service academies were going to give an award to Tom Hanks, basically for his support for servicemembers, something they have done repeatedly in a number of different instances. He has been very supportive of servicemembers and veterans. The award was pulled because he did a fundraiser for Joe Biden a year ago. That is the politicization of the military and the undermining of our constitutional democracy.

I think we need to exercise oversight of that. We had a number of amendments that would have at least given this Chamber the opportunity to debate those. They were all silenced.

We need to continue to be a democracy. We need to continue to support free speech. I think part of our obligation as Congress is to exercise that oversight when that impacts certainly what is going on at the Department of Defense, as it clearly is.

We will see how the amendment process goes.

Again, I will close on a positive note. The bill was put together in a very bipartisan and effective way in committee. It really addresses crucial issues to make sure that we support the men and women in the armed services and their families and also meets our national security and defense needs.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

Mr. Chair, I am now pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Chair, I urge support for the amendments en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Wilson amendment.

Mr. Chair, this is actually a very, very dangerous amendment. I want people to understand what it does. Broadly speaking, it does two things. One, just for any sort of entry onto a defense property--I want to make sure I get the language exactly right here. It makes unlawful entry onto a defense installation a crime, regardless of intent.

Defense installation covers a wide range of areas. Even if a person doesn't have any sort of criminal intent, if that person is on the property and it is determined they weren't basically allowed on there, that makes it a crime.

The far worse part of this refers to it makes it a felony to enter a national defense area. National defense areas are enormous. One of the things that the Trump administration has done is they have designated wide swathes of our southern border a national defense area. We are talking thousands of miles here. If a person goes onto that area without permission, they are committing a felony. They are guilty of a felony.

The gentleman has focused on immigrants coming across the border without documentation. Across that border, there are a whole lot of people who go out and ride ATVs or they go hunting or whatever. There is no way on Earth we will be able to know all of this land that just suddenly in the last several months became a national defense area.

We are going to place people at risk of committing felonies for where they walk across land. This is a horrible idea. Please, Republicans and Democrats, we should not want to criminalize the behavior of people in the United States to this degree.

It is a very problematic idea that is going to place many people at jeopardy of being charged with a felony, and felonies are very serious.

We should not be doing this. There is a better way to deal with this area.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

Madam Chair, may I ask how much time is remaining on both sides.

Madam Chair, all of those things that have been said are already illegal and already have been taken care of. The Chinese who were doing espionage, as the gentleman said, were caught. Espionage, unsurprisingly, is a crime. There is no need to enhance the criminal procedures.

People coming across the border with an intent to commit terrorist acts is also a crime. That is taken care of.

What this is doing is criminalizing a wide range of behavior that has nothing to do with that. Please, let's be able to have two thoughts in our heads at one time. Terrorism, espionage, and crime are already dealt with, but now the gentleman is saying that if you enter onto any military installation or any defense area, Madam Chair, which is, again, thousands of miles across our southern border, nobody is going to know whether or not they are walking onto this territory. There is no way on God's green Earth that they are going to know.

If they do, under this bill, they will now be guilty of a felony. If their plan was to commit a terrorist act or engage in espionage, they are going to be criminals anyway. We are now going to do this to your average American citizen just walking across territory.

Madam Chair, it is a very bad idea, and I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett).

Madam Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. I will just say I support the amendments en bloc, and I urge passage.

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

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Randall).

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

Madam Chair, I support the en bloc package. I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3838.

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

Madam Chair, the bill before us today carries a different short title than the typical NDAA. It is the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery Act, or SPEED Act. We did that to underscore the very significant reforms this bill makes to the Department's acquisition process.

The Pentagon's current acquisition process is failing our warfighters. It can take 10 years between identifying a need and delivering the capability to the warfighter. By that time, the threat has changed, the costs have ballooned, and the solution is outdated.

The SPEED Act will cut through layers of red tape and deliver for the warfighter at speed and scale. It accelerates the requirements process from nearly 3 years down to 90 days. It streamlines bureaucracy. It prioritizes commercial solutions and fosters an environment where innovation can flourish by removing barriers to entry and bridging the valley of death. It modernizes outdated and overly burdensome regulations that slow delivery and inflate costs.

Most importantly, it drives much-needed cultural change; so no more rewarding paper pushers over problem-solving. The SPEED Act fosters a culture of agility and responsible risk-taking. We worked closely with the administration on this effort, and I am pleased to say they support it.

Fixing acquisitions will go a long way toward ensuring our warfighters are the most capable fighting force on the planet. Properly equipping our warfighters is critical, but so is ensuring that we recruit and retain the best and brightest. Toward that end, the FY26 NDAA continues to make improvements in the quality of life for our servicemembers.

This bill supports the Trump administration's 3.8 percent pay raise for all servicemembers; authorizes nearly $3 billion for construction of barracks, family housing, dining facilities, medical facilities, childcare centers, and schools; prevents the Department from reducing healthcare billets to avoid shortages at medical facilities; and it improves servicemember access to mental health services.

Our committee will continue to make improving the quality of life for servicemembers a priority. We need a ready, capable, and lethal fighting force because the threats our Nation faces, especially those from China, are more complex and challenging than at any point in the last 40 years.

The FY26 NDAA counters the threat from China and ensures mission success in the Indo-Pacific. The bill extends the Pacific Deterrence Initiative to enhance U.S. posture in the region. It funds the Taiwan Security Cooperation Initiative by $1 billion, fully funds

the military exercises with allies and partners in the region, and it authorizes more than $1.5 billion in critical military construction projects we need to carry out operations in the Pacific.

Furthermore, the bill increases the lethality of our forces to prepare for and deter global threats. The bill authorizes over $22 billion in shipbuilding for additional submarines and surface vessels, $38 billion to ensure air dominance with a new generation of fighters, $15 billion to restore America's arsenal of munitions, and $142 billion to research and development of innovative new technologies our warfighters need to win on future battlefields.

This is a strong, bipartisan bill that delivers for our warfighters and deters our adversaries. It will fundamentally reform the defense acquisition enterprise. It will continue historic improvements in the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families. It will build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and other adversaries, and it will deliver on President Trump's Peace Through Strength agenda.

Madam Chair, I urge all Members to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, July 30, 2025.

Hon. Mike Rogers,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr.Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 3838, the ``SPEED Act.'' Thank

you for collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on

the matters within our jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further

consideration of this bill. However, by forgoing

consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over any subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees, should it become necessary, and ask that you

support such a request.

We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 3838 and request a

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

Madam Chair, I echo the ranking member's comments. This is a very bipartisan product that came out of committee. It is a good product, and it deserves this Chamber's support. He has been a great partner in fashioning what we bring to the floor today.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), chairman of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DesJarlais), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), my friend and colleague and the chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman), who is the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon), who is the chairman of the Military Personnel Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire), an outstanding freshman member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), another outstanding member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

I first thank my good friend, the ranking member, for his leadership. He has been a great partner in this process, and I am very proud of the work we did together in putting together a bipartisan bill.

I also thank our staff for their outstanding work, as well as the House Legislative Counsel, CBO, the Parliamentarian, and leadership staff on both sides of the aisle.

This is a very important bill. It provides critical authorities to our warfighters that keep us safe.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 682, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nunn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Baird).

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

Mr. Chair, this bipartisan en bloc package is comprised of amendments worked in advance with the ranking member. I thank the Members for their contributions to the NDAA and their commitment to national security.

Mr. Chair, I urge Members to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I offer amendment No. 10 as the designee of Mr. Pfluger of Texas.

Mr. Chairman, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, also known as the CMP, was created in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt, who felt too many Americans were, at best, mediocre marksmen. President Roosevelt ordered the Army to work with gun clubs and other civilian groups to improve the country's national defense by teaching marksmanship.

In 1996, Congress established the CMP as a federally chartered 501(c)(3) corporation that places its highest priority on serving youth through gun safety and marksmanship activities that encourage personal growth and build life skills. These member organizations range from the Army's Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, 4-H clubs, Boy Scout groups, summer youth camps, and gun clubs.

This amendment would allocate additional surplus military weapons from the Department of the Navy and the Department of the Air Force to the CMP to further their mission of educating youth on the importance of gun safety and marksmanship activities.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the gentleman is conflating gun violence statistics at large with the Civilian Marksmanship Program. They not the same thing.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program is selling basically antique weapons, surplus weapons, from the various services to collectors who buy them as collectors. The proceeds go into a trust fund that then funds the gun safety and marksmanship training I talked about earlier. It is a very worthwhile program. I urge its support.

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

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 682, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong).

Madam Chair, I, too, support the en bloc package comprised of amendments worked in advance with the ranking member.

I thank the Members for their contributions to the NDAA and their commitment to national security.

I urge Members to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

This bipartisan en bloc package is comprised of amendments worked in advance with the ranking member. I thank the Members for their contributions to the NDAA and their commitment to national security.

I urge Members to support the en bloc package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this is a bipartisan en bloc package comprised of amendments worked in advance with the ranking member.

I thank the Members for their contributions to the NDAA and their commitment to national security. I urge Members to support the package, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 682 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 682, providing for consideration of two measures.

The first measure is H.R. 3838, the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 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 Armed Services or their respective designees, provides for one motion to recommit, and made 298 amendments in order.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3486, the Stop Illegal Entry Act of 2025, under a closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on two pieces of legislation. First, H.R. 3838, the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026.

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Adam Smith, one of the top priorities of the bipartisan fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act was to reform the defense acquisition system and equip our armed services with the technology they need to deter national security threats.

Mr. Speaker, as anyone who follows this process knows, it can take more than a decade before new capabilities are finally deployed. By then, the threat has changed, the technology is outdated, and the programs are over budget.

This bill cuts red tape and shifts the focus of the defense acquisition system from compliance to quickly and cost-effectively fielding new capabilities to ensure that our Armed Forces are the most lethal and effective fighting force in the world.

Implementing the Peace Through Strength agenda, the fiscal year 2026 NDAA codifies over 45 executive orders and legislative proposals from President Trump. It fully funds top defense priorities, revitalizes the defense industrial base, and grows manufacturing jobs in America, all while pressing our NATO and other allies to pay more for their own defense.

Building upon last year's NDAA, which focused on servicemember quality of life, this bill supports a 3.8 percent pay raise for all servicemembers, improves housing and DOD schools, and expands access to healthcare and childcare.

To deter our adversaries, the fiscal year '26 NDAA focuses on countering the threat from China, bolsters Taiwan's defense, and supports Indo-Pacific allies and partners. Additionally, this bill continues to focus on countering threats to our national security from Russia, North Korea, Iran, and other foreign terrorist organizations.

To counter emerging threats, the bill focuses on rapidly deploying new, innovative technologies to our warfighters while strengthening nuclear deterrence and missile defense.

To further secure our border and fight drug trafficking, the fiscal year '26 NDAA fully funds the establishment and enforcement of national defense areas along the southwest border of the United States, authorizes DOD to provide additional support to Customs and Border Protection, and authorizes President Trump's budget request of nearly $1 billion to combat drug traffickers.

Finally, the fiscal year '26 NDAA reforms programs and saves taxpayer dollars. It saves over $20 billion from DOGE cuts and DOD workforce reforms, limits funds available for senior leader travel until DOD makes progress toward fully passing an audit, and overhauls military construction to reduce costs and expedite project delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues and House Armed Services committee staff for all the work that went into creating this strong, bipartisan legislation that should pass with overwhelming support.

Mr. Speaker, moving on, the rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 3486, the Stop Illegal Entry Act of 2025. While existing law criminalizes both illegal entry and illegal reentry to our country, often the punishments are not sufficient to defer aliens from illegally reentering the country after committing crimes or being removed from the United States.

In fact, of all the aliens charged with illegal reentry in 2023, more than 70 percent had criminal records, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 3486, if enacted, gives Federal officials more tools to prosecute aliens who illegally enter the United States.

It requires between 5 years of imprisonment to life imprisonment for an alien who illegally enters the United States and is later convicted of a felony. It requires between 10 years of imprisonment to life imprisonment for an alien who illegally reenters the United States after being removed following a felony conviction.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of legislation, and I urge passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you don't like President Trump, that is fine. If you don't like the legislation, that is fine. However, for a Member of the House to walk down here and to intentionally take the name of the Lord in vain on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States of America is just a new low for this institution, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is a sad day for our country, and it says a lot about how far society has fallen. While I know, and I actually read the Book of James yesterday, the tongue is hard to tame, that was an intentional use of language taking the name of our Lord in vain on the floor of this House. I am going to leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the Chairwoman of the Rules Committee and the toughest lady in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing that can make Affordable Care Act plans affordable. It was a gift to the insurance industry from the Democratic Party.

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

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

I commend Chairman Comer for the work that is being done in the Oversight Committee. I commend the courage of the victims who came forward. I should have commended the courage of the victims that came forward to Congress last week and met with Members, including the Speaker of the House of Representatives, before I even commended Chairman Comer for his work on the Epstein files.

The key to the Epstein files is the flight logs and the tax records, neither of which is mentioned in the Khanna-Massie language. We are pushing forward.

Chairman Comer is doing a good job. I commend him and the bipartisan work that is being done on the Oversight Committee. I commend the victims for coming to Washington and doing this.

I apologize to the victims for the gamesmanship that is being played at their expense by the other side of the aisle in the Democratic Party. I think they support, from what I understand, what is being done in a bipartisan manner in the Oversight Committee. We are going to continue to push forward that way.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it wasn't a speedboat. It was a panga full of drugs. I would rather that so-called speedboat, as they call it--I call it a panga full of drugs--be at the bottom of the ocean than another American be at the bottom of a six-foot hole because of drug overdoses.

I personally think the President and the Secretary of Defense made the right choice, and I hope they will do it again. In fact, I challenge them to do it again.

Mr. Speaker, this week the House can advance two pieces of legislation under this rule. H.R. 3838, the Streamlining Procurement for Effective Execution and Delivery and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026, significantly improves the defense acquisition system. The act implements the Peace Through Strength agenda and restores lethality to our Armed Forces. It secures America's borders and improves the quality of life of our servicemembers.

The fiscal year '26 NDAA reforms key programs and saves taxpayer dollars, resulting in a ready, capable, and lethal fighting force. This legislation will deter China, defend Israel, and counter Russia, North Korea, Iran, and other foreign terrorist organizations, including the drug dealers riding around the oceans with pangas full of dope.

Finally, this act strengthens our nuclear deterrence, builds the Golden Dome, and grows our Nation's strategic space capabilities. This is bipartisan, must-pass legislation that every one of my colleagues should support.

Additionally, H.R. 3486, the Stop Illegal Entry Act of 2025, simply strengthens current law to deter criminal aliens from entering and reentering again and again the United States and gives Federal officials more tools to prosecute aliens who have illegally entered the country and are convicted of a felony or who try to reenter the country after removal following a felony conviction.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is the second of five--only five, and I think there should be more--amendments regarding gender-affirming care, trannies, you name it.

Castration is not a mistake, by the way. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to say that castration is healthcare and there is nothing more dehumanizing than going after the trannies out there.

One recently shot two young schoolchildren in Minnesota. It is a mental illness, and it needs to stop. We can stop it in our military right now.

In last year's NDAA, we took the important step of banning TRICARE from covering medical interventions to treat gender dysphoria, which would result in the sterilization of children.

This is a strong statement by the Congress in opposition to the mutilation of kids. However, the language allows the Department of War to continue to perform an array of gender-affirming child abuse on military dependents and to continue to mutilate our servicemembers.

My amendment is simple. It would prohibit TRICARE, across the board, from covering or furnishing the chemical or surgical mutilation of our warfighters and their dependents under the guise of healthcare.

Our government should not be in the business of mutilating our fellow citizens, particularly our warfighters, with our tax dollars and with your tax dollars, Mr. Chair.

This does not serve to advance our national security. It serves only to advance a dangerous and radical ideology that the American people have soundly rejected. Not only have the American people rejected the chemical and surgical mutilation of their fellow citizens, but much of the science doesn't support it, as well.

The science of playing to the delusions of these individuals is not compassionate. It is cruel. Numerous studies have shown that not only do these cross-sex hormones dramatically increase the risk of infertility and sexual dysfunction, but they actually increase depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among those for whom these medical procedures are performed.

The purpose of our military is to fight and to win wars. It is to create warfighters, killers, not to participate in the latest progressive fad.

Under the Biden administration, we diverted money away from readiness and lethality to promote extreme gender ideology and to fund sex changes in our military.

Under the Trump administration, we have finally recognized gender dysphoria for what it is, a mental illness which precludes military service.

Our armed services are not a laboratory to study the effects of irreversible surgeries or hormones. Our service does not exist to provide experimental treatments to those whose conditions should be disqualifying. These people are mentally ill and should not be serving in the United States military.

This amendment says clearly the purpose of our military is to defend the United States, not validate identity politics. It makes sure TRICARE serves the mission of protecting health, not undermining it.

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

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

Mr. Chair, if not wanting to castrate kids is a rightwing culture war, then sign me up because this is not the kind of thing that should be happening to children or military dependents anywhere in our country.

Castrating kids is not healthcare either. We are talking about something very permanent. We don't allow our kids to be tattooed until they are adults. We don't allow them to drink or smoke or vote until they are adults. The gentleman is saying that it is okay to castrate a kid because of this weirdo, freak ideology.

Yes, these are weirdos. These are freaks. These are people who are mentally deranged and mentally ill. This should not be funded by American taxpayers.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, women have fought for decades to have equal opportunity in education and athletics. As the first woman to graduate from The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, no one understands that fight better than I do.

Unfortunately, these hard-earned rights women have fought for are now literally under assault. Misogyny disguised as acceptance has forced mediocre male athletes into women's locker rooms, forcing women to undress in front of them, robbing women of opportunities, and have left some women with lifelong scars.

My amendment would prohibit the superintendents of the service academies from allowing a cadet or midshipman who is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designed for females.

It is an indisputable fact there are significant physical, biological, I dare say science or scientific, differences between men and women. Biological men generally have greater muscle mass, bone density, cardiovascular capacity, and physical strength than women do. This is very obvious.

Allowing men to compete in women's sports is patently unfair and robs women and girls of accomplishments and opportunities.

Over 900 medals in women's sports have been won by biological men, stolen from women who worked hard to earn them.

Women have fought hard to earn records that have been shattered by mediocre men, men pretending to be women, mentally ill men pretending to be women.

This is a travesty and discourages women from competing at all. This was the case last year when multiple college women's volleyball teams forfeited rather than face a team with a biological male athlete, rather than face a traumatic brain injury when the next man hit them in the face with a volleyball.

There is nothing honorable about robbing women of opportunities, invading their privacy, and jeopardizing their safety in athletic competitions. Allowing biological men to participate in women's sports is incompatible with the values of our servicemembers, our service academies, and basic notions of fairness and good, old-fashioned common sense.

I urge all Members to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, imagine being a woman on the floor of the House of Representatives, screaming--I dare say screeching--into the microphone to put your daughter in danger or to have your daughter's scholarships, your daughter's skills, and your daughter's opportunities stolen from her because some guy--some mentally ill, deranged, weird freak of a man--thinks he is a woman because he can put on a skirt and wave his willy-nilly around in a locker room, that he somehow is equal to a woman and that he is going to take away her rights.

We fought for so long for rights as women. We didn't get the right to vote until, what, 1919 or 1920? In fact, in the State of South Carolina, we didn't elect our first Republican woman to the U.S. House of Representatives, to Congress, until 2020. I was sworn into office in January of 2021.

We have fought hard. There are so many opportunities for women. Yet we have never had a female President of the United States. I am not going to let some guy in a skirt come around to take opportunities away from our daughters, from future leaders, or a future President one day because somebody is mentally ill and thinks they can steal those opportunities away from your daughter.

It is not going to happen, not on my watch. We can start with the service academies and protecting these women who are going to fight valiantly, to serve, and to protect our freedoms in our country, here and abroad, to make sure that opportunities are not stolen from them by the mentally ill.

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