Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Phil MacNaughton for his many years of dedicated service to the House Armed Services Committee.

After 17 years, this is Phil's last week on the committee. Phil joined the committee staff in 2009 and has been the Democratic lead for the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee since 2011. He has made indispensable contributions to the committee's work and the security of our Nation, spearheading reforms to improve safety, readiness, and effectiveness of naval forces; laying the legislative foundations for the landmark AUKUS agreement; collaborating with the defense industrial base to strengthen our submarine and shipbuilding capacity and workforce; working tirelessly to ensure our Sailors and Marines had the necessary authorities, weapon systems, and capabilities; and leading efforts to secure the most significant acquisition reforms in a generation. Phil exemplifies the qualities of the best professional staff members--bipartisan, collaborative, deeply knowledgeable, politically astute on legislative and executive branch politics; and committed to working diligently with Members on both sides of the aisle to achieve the best outcome. He has modeled the virtues of service, leadership, and dedication.

Phil's outstanding work on the House Armed Services Committee is but one chapter in a lifetime of remarkable service to our Nation. Phil graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 2000, serving on active duty until 2009 and continuing to serve in the U.S. Navy Reserves until 2021, retiring at the rank of Commander.

It has been a privilege working with Phil, and I thank him for his service to the House Armed Services Committee. His departure will be deeply felt, and I wish Phil and his family the best as they embark on this new chapter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Steve Bachmann for his many years of dedication to our country, both through his military service in the United States Air Force and through his time at The Boeing Company.

After graduating with a Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Virginia, Steve became an officer in the United States Air Force. During this time, he earned a Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering from the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. In 2006, after twenty years of military service, Steve went on to join The Boeing Company as Vice President for Legislative Affairs. Throughout his time at Boeing, Steve was known as a dedicated mentor who always made the time to share his knowledge and expertise. An honest and forthcoming friend, Steve brought humor and lightheartedness to tough conversations. After retirement, Steve plans to spend time with his grandkids and enjoying traveling in his RV. It has been a pleasure to work with him for the past twenty years and I wish him all the best.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Steve Bachmann for a lifetime of service to the United States of America and to his community. His legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the Rev. Dr. Sammuel McKinney for what would be his 100th birthday on December 28, 2025 for the contributions he made to our Nation as a civil rights leader who fought tirelessly for social justice and racial equality in Seattle and who served devotedly as the beloved pastor of the Central Area's Mount Zion Baptist Church.

The son of a Baptist minister and grandson of a Georgia sharecropper, the Reverend Dr. McKinney was devoted to serving his community throughout his life. McKinney bravely served during World War II in a segregated unit of the U.S. Army Air Corps. He graduated from Morehouse College in Atlanta after returning home from war, and then he went on to earn a divinity degree from Colgate in 1952. He settled down in Seattle, where he came to lead the congregation of one of Seattle's oldest and largest African American churches for forty-three years as pastor of Mount Zion Baptist Church. He was not only a spiritual guide, but a community builder who tripled the size of his congregation during his time as pastor at Mount Zion. McKinney was a founding member of Seattle's First Human Rights Commission, which successfully fought for the Seattle's first Fair Housing Act, establishing protection for tenants of protected classes and marginalized communities. A lifelong champion for racial justice, McKinney founded Liberty Bank, Seattle's first black-owned financial institution which countered racially biased restrictions on loans to African Americans and expanded opportunities for homeownership in Seattle.

McKinney was a friend to many, including the noted fellow pastor and civil rights leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The pair had known each other from childhood but grew closer friends at Morehouse College. Dr. King visited Seattle only once, after his old friend requested that he come to give a speech in 1961. During his visit, Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of McKinney's influence in the civil rights movement and his commitment to racial equality.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rev. Dr. Sammuel McKinney for a lifetime of service to the United States of America and to the city of Seattle. I am deeply grateful for his important efforts towards protecting our country, advancing social justice, and fostering economic development. His legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I also support this bill. I thank Chairman Rogers, the committee staff, House and Senate. This has truly been a bipartisan process. I am not in love with everything in the bill. There are some other things I would have liked to have seen included, but I really compliment Chairman Rogers and the majority staff for having worked with us throughout that process and worked with the Senate. I thought we had a very good bicameral, bipartisan agreement this year.

The chairman is right. The highlight of this bill is acquisition reform, something that our committee has worked on for quite some time. For the last 2 years, in particular, we have been really focused on how to get this right, and this is the most ambitious swing at acquisition reform that we have taken. I know that can sound sort of dry. Acquisition reform doesn't exactly excite people, but it is really important because what it is about is getting the Pentagon to be able to buy the equipment, the innovative equipment, that it needs to adapt quickly so that our warfighters can have what they need to meet the challenges of the modern battlefield. It is way too slow right now, too many programs, way over budget, and not delivering as advertised.

Speeding up that process and delivering a better product is an enormous priority for this country to meet our national security needs, and this bill does that. The House really led on that, and I think it is really important.

There are other key aspects of this bill. We have others outside of the jurisdiction of the NDAA who are part of this, including Coast Guard reauthorization, Foreign Affairs reauthorization, and the intel community's reauthorization. Those are important to meet our national security needs, as well.

There is also a very important component on countering UAS domestically. The threat the drones pose to many of our military installations and other sensitive areas in the country is a real problem. This bill takes a step toward trying to address that. I am also very pleased that this bill does a meaningful job of trying to reassert some legislative authority, to truly be the coequal branch of government that we say we are.

We show strong support for Ukraine with $400 million in USAI. We blocked the President's misbegotten efforts to pull troops out of Eastern Europe in this moment and really reassert the ability of our committee to exercise oversight. We have a fence on the travel budget for Secretary Hegseth until he follows the law and releases the videos for all of the boat strikes that are going on right now in Latin America and also until he gets us the execute orders that by law he is supposed to get to us. We also have a requirement in here that if any senior-level military officer is going to be fired, Congress has to be notified and a reason has to be given.

Overall, I think this bill is a good balance of the interests of both sides, in the Senate and the House, as well. It is a good product that we should be supportive of.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan), the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Davis), who is the vice ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), who is the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Elfreth), a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I will say is we have mentioned repeatedly ``acquisition reform,'' which is such a huge part of this bill and such a major undertaking. It took a long time. We held a lot of meetings with a lot of different defense contractors, think tanks, and former people at the Pentagon to really get an understanding of exactly what is going on so that we could fix it.

Mr. Speaker, ``fix it'' means moving faster and getting more innovative technologies more quickly. There are two people I will acknowledge. The staff on the House Armed Services Committee is outstanding. Collectively, I thank all of them. I cannot possibly name all of them, but I name Phil MacNaughton and Lynn Williams, who are the two members of the staff who worked on acquisition reform and worked on all of those nitty-gritty details that are very difficult to understand to help us produce such a great product. I publicly thank both of them for their incredible work on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I do support this bill. That does not mean that I don't have concerns. I do.

The biggest concern I have is that the Pentagon, being run by Secretary Hegseth and by President Trump, has simply not been accountable to Congress or accountable to the law. I guess it started with Signalgate, when Secretary Hegseth put on an unsecure channel sensitive, classified information that could place our troops at risk.

The inspector general did a report on that. They concluded exactly that, that Secretary Hegseth had unnecessarily placed our troops at risk.

His response to this was to say: I am completely exonerated; no problem.

He didn't even try to fix it.

Also, this Pentagon, unlike any Secretary of Defense whom I have dealt with, simply has not given Congress the information we are supposed to receive and given us the ability to do the level of oversight that we are supposed to do.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill, I mentioned there are things that try to force that forward, and I think that is a positive step. It is not enough.

To begin with, it is in the law that you are supposed to transmit execute orders, when the White House tells the Pentagon what it wants to do, to Congress. It is in the law. Within 30 days, you have to do that. It is not really complicated. It is not a big deal. They just don't do it, and we have been asking over and over again. The lack of respect for the law out of this Pentagon is a huge problem.

Mr. Speaker, let's start with, actually, one other fact. It is the Department of Defense. It is not the Department of War. The law is very clear on that point. We passed a law that called it the Department of Defense.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to call it the Department of War, I think that is a god-awful idea for a whole bunch of different reasons, but okay; come back to Congress, and let's do it. They didn't do that. They just changed it because the law doesn't matter to them, and that has implications. It causes problems. We are supposed to do our oversight for a reason.

Some of those problems are borne out in a variety of different ways. We have the National Guard engaged in domestic law enforcement all across this country. They are not trained for that. They are not supposed to be doing it. It is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, and it is bad policy.

It also means that the National Guard can't do the job that we are actually paying them to do, which is to train servicemembers to be ready for the fight. They don't have any training dollars.

I met with the TAG, the Adjutant General, for the State of Washington, who told me that they are not able to train because all of that money is going to have our National Guard's members stay in hotel rooms all around Washington, D.C.; Memphis; Los Angeles; and New Orleans. That is something that shouldn't be happening. We should have greater accountability.

I am also concerned about this whole issue of merit. We have heard that we have to get rid of DEI because it undercuts merit, and yet we have generals, inspector generals, and judge advocate generals being fired all over the Pentagon without explanation, many of them clearly highly qualified people: C.Q. Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Haugh, who was the head of the Cyber Command and NSA Combined Command.

These are very talented people. Was that based on merit? There is no merit involved in that. That is about loyalty to Donald Trump. Laura Loomer shows up in the White House and says: I don't like this guy, and he is out.

If we are going to have merit, merit can't mean we are going to make sure that nobody who is not a straight, White man ever gets any possible advantage. That is not merit. That is a built-in bias that focuses on loyalty, not on ability.

I will also say, I don't love DEI programs. You can read anything I have

had to say about this. I am concerned about the way it has been implemented.

The idea that we ought to work to make sure that every corner of our country is represented in our military, I support. And there has been bigotry, bias, racism, and sexism that has made that difficult.

We ought to try to undo that so that we can access all of the talent in this country. Saying that we are going to get rid of all of that in favor of merit that just happens to focus on people who are blindly loyal to Pete Hegseth and President Trump, that is not merit.

I should clarify, I am not opposed to DEI programs. I am opposed to bad DEI programs--we ought to excise those--but we don't do enough here, I think, to correct those problems as we move forward.

I am saving the worst for last: stumbling into wars. Why does all that stuff matter, accountability, oversight, the people's House having a say in all this? It is because that way we don't stumble into bad decisions. We are about to do that. We have already done that in Latin America right now. We have launched a war against narco-terrorists.

President Trump ran on wanting to stop endless wars. You talk about an endless war, treating every single person who is a drug trafficker as a legitimate target for killing is an endless war and a war without authorization or proper legal authority. That lack of accountability and that lawlessness has consequences.

Now, as someone mentioned, we are hearing that we have seized a Venezuelan oil tanker off the coast of Venezuela. The President has spoken frequently about his desire for regime change in Venezuela. That should not be happening. That is not the policy that we should be headed toward. We shouldn't be wanting to go back to the 19th century where powerful countries simply took what they could, and there was no international law.

I have a lot of things that I am concerned about. This bill, even if we did it perfectly, could not fix all of that. The reason I want people to vote for this bill is because we need to reassert the authority of Congress. That whole string side of things that I just listed that we are concerned about, one of the biggest things about that is that Congress needs to exist. We need to be a coequal branch. We need to do our job.

President Trump puts us in a fiendishly difficult position. He disregards us, abuses us, does all this other stuff. Then, if we pass a bill, eventually he has to sign it. It is like, well, should we do that? Yet, if we don't, then we are completely out of the picture.

I will give a sincere compliment and thank you to Chairman Rogers. He worked with us in a legitimate bipartisan way on this bill. There are things that are not in this bill that Republicans wanted in the bill. We got those out because we wanted a bipartisan product. This is a bipartisan product.

This starts moving us in the right direction. Does it stop all those bad things that President Trump and Pete Hegseth are doing right now? No. But it really couldn't. It is a step in the right direction toward reasserting the authority of Congress, which is but one step along a very long road, I will grant you, to try to get some restraint on the lack of transparency, the unaccountability, and the problems that are coming out of this White House and this Department of Defense that is creating all of these problems.

I hope we will vote for this bill, and I hope we will continue working to do more oversight of the Pentagon going forward.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Victor Odermat for his many years of dedication to our country, both through his military service and active support for the Puget Sound military community through Brown Bear Car Wash.

Victor valiantly served in the United States Marine Corps until the mid-1950's, and his dedication to service continued long after his active military duty. Upon graduating from Lakeside High School, Victor entered the University of Washington's NROTC program and would go on to serve in the United States Marine Corps until the mid-1950's. After leaving the Marines, Victor founded Brown Bear Car Wash, which would become a steadfast supporter of the military community. He displayed exemplary work ethic and was widely known for his commitment to ``taking care of the customer.''

Victor exemplified service and dedication to the military community, he carried this same unceasing devotion to serving those around him. Brown Bear Car Wash backs National Guard and Reserve troops through Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, offering free car washes to veterans on every Veterans Day and donating a portion of proceeds to the Puget Sound Honor Flight. Brown Bear Car Wash has donated over $71,000 to the Puget Sound Honor Flight and is a vital partner to Cathay Post No. 186, helping raise funds for veteran services. Beyond supporting the post, Brown Bear contributes to organizations like the USO, Marine Corps Scholarship Foundation, and Boy Scouts of America, reflecting a deep commitment to the Puget Sound community. Victor has left a resounding impact on all those around him and was a true leader of the communities he was part of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Victor Odermat for a lifetime of service to the United States of America and to his community. I am deeply grateful for his important efforts towards protecting our country and his outstanding contributions to the Puget Sound community. His legacy will not be forgotten.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chair, there are going to be five amendments now that are all targeting the transgender community. I want to make sure we understand a couple of really sort of broad themes and why these amendments are so problematic.

Number one is the transgender community has been targeted and discriminated against aggressively. If my colleagues troll through rightwing radio or online messaging, they are called freaks and weirdos. They are dehumanized on a very consistent basis in a way that has led to violence and discrimination against the transgender community.

On all five of these amendments--just put a little exclamation point on that--it encourages the dehumanization of transgender people in a way that is very, very dangerous. That is number one.

Number two is transgender people exist. That is just a fact. Gender dysphoria is a medical fact. No serious medical person disagrees on that point. It is not even debatable. There are a couple of things that are debatable.

What do we do about it? What treatments are appropriate, given the set of circumstances? Personally, I think it is wide open to have that conversation. What should the medical profession do?

Second, when there is a transgender woman or a transgender man, how does that work in terms of sports and a wide variety of different things with women's sports or men's sports? We can have a conversation about how to fit that in.

Acting like transgender people don't exist further contributes to their dehumanization and the discrimination against them. None of these amendments before us today are even remotely necessary. They are simply an effort to take advantage of a culture war, partisan issue to drive a wedge into this bill. Does it belong here?

On this particular amendment, for a servicemember who has a child experiencing gender dysphoria, what this amendment says is that child doesn't actually exist. That is not really happening.

How is it going to make a servicemember feel when they are trying to take care of their child? I have met with children who went through gender dysphoria and who credit the treatment they received for absolutely saving their lives.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, do they sometimes make mistakes?

I always like to say, I have had three hip surgeries including two total hip replacements. I probably didn't need any of them. It was probably a mistake. I don't see anybody on the floor talking about banning hip replacements because occasionally one is done wrong. That happens.

This decision should be made by doctors and patients. It should not be made by Congressmen and legislators. This is restricting healthcare that could be incredibly necessary for young people and also for other family members. It is bigoted, discriminatory, and unnecessary. I hope this body will turn it down.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute for three quick points.

Number one, this does not restrict medical treatment for anybody else. It has nothing to do with this whatsoever.

Second of all, this doesn't just eliminate sex-change operations. This very specifically eliminates any treatment for gender dysphoria. A lot of times, that is mental health treatment. That is not surgery, and that is not drugs. That is a conversation about that issue. It eliminates it for everybody.

Third, yes, we need to put our servicemembers in the best position to focus on their mission and the fight. If you are a servicemember overseas, Mr. Chair, stationed and fighting, and you have a child who is experiencing gender dysphoria and told that your child, who is in a very dangerous situation, cannot get the healthcare that they need, that is not going to help that servicemember be the best possible fighter they can be for this country.

We should not be denying healthcare to the family members of our servicemembers that they need, and that is what this amendment does.

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

Again, Mr. Chair, we are not talking about sex-change operations. This is just another example of the profound ignorance surrounding treatment for gender dysphoria. We are talking about any treatment.

Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

First of all, I thank the maker of this amendment for making it clear what the problem is: ``trannies,'' ``mentally ill,'' and insulting transgender people. This is exactly what these amendments are about.

It is about a rightwing culture war to try to target the transgender community and make them something less than human. If you listen to those comments, Mr. Chair, you can get a feel for why that is a problem.

Number two, this amendment does not have anything to do with transgender people serving in the military. President Trump has already implemented that bigoted, discriminatory policy to drive them out of the military.

This is about healthcare for children experiencing gender dysphoria. What this amendment does is it bans that healthcare treatment for children experiencing gender dysphoria.

I made a series of arguments on the other amendment about why that is such a bad idea, but the bottom line is this is a legitimate problem. The studies have often shown that this is beneficial treatment that is now being denied by the United States Congress.

This is something that doctors and patients should decide. If we want to offer an amendment saying, ``Please look at this issue. Here are some studies on one side or the other,'' and ask the medical community to reach conclusions, then that is one thing, but banning it doesn't make sense.

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

Current law bans sterilization, so that is just a lot of crap about what this is about. Current law bans what she is talking about. What is being banned here is any treatment for gender dysphoria, and that is completely wrong.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

This amendment would be very destructive to achieving peace in Ukraine. I agree with the gentlewoman; that should be the goal.

What has been clear for quite some time is that Putin will only stop his war when it is clear that he cannot achieve his objectives in Ukraine.

President Trump showing weakness on that issue, literally rolling out the red carpet for Putin, has only made the war worse. Ever since President Trump has tried to blame the war on Zelenskyy and Ukraine, Putin has ramped up the war, launching more aggressive attacks than he ever has in the 3\1/2\ years of the war, and most recently, sending drones over Poland, as well.

Weakness invites aggression, and I know the proponent of this amendment has said this many, many times, but apparently she doesn't recognize weakness when she sees it. That is what cutting off Ukraine does.

If you want to stop the war, back the 53-nation coalition that is supporting Ukraine and make it clear to Putin he is not going to win. That forces him to the peace table. Showing weakness, backing off, undermining the coalition only extends the war.

Please defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, sadly, the gentlewoman has had a big part in it. She just voted for a budget that would add $4 trillion to the debt, so I don't know that that is a particularly consistent position.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney).

Mr. Chair, no more money for Ukraine will not end the war. This is absolutely in the interests of United States' national security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with all of the arguments that were made. I think the most crucial point here is that the United States of America is the most economically powerful country in the history of the world. That has been the case since the end of World War II. A large part of that is because of our efforts to work with the rest of the world to maintain peace and security.

Sadly, it just doesn't end at our borders. Peace and security in the world is in the best interests of the American people, and we see the economic prosperity that we have enjoyed because of it. That is what Ukraine is about and why we should continue to support them.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chair, basically, what this amendment says, as the gentlewoman was saying, is that we are a compassionate nation. She is saying that she wishes we weren't, basically, and that we need to stop being a compassionate nation.

This is $115 million. I will remind everybody that the budget bill that the gentlewoman and the sponsor of this amendment voted for added $4 trillion to the debt. Why don't we start there?

There is a basic argument here: Why does the U.S. engage in foreign aid? There are four real arguments for that.

Number one, economics: Again, we are the most economically powerful nation in the world. We have the largest economy. We benefited the most. If we can help other countries generate economies, we have access to those markets. They will buy our stuff. It grows our economy. It has worked spectacularly well for 80 years.

Number two, disease and health: Sadly, those things don't know borders. Ebola and a variety of different other diseases can spread and come back here. If we work with the rest of the world to prevent it before it comes here, that is to our benefit.

The third is a matter of national security and safety. Mr. Chair, 9/ 11 happened because things were going wrong in other parts of the world, and they came here. It absolutely impacted people in the United States of America. The idea that this has no impact on our citizens doesn't matter. It just fails to recognize that it is not the 19th century anymore. It is a globally connected world that impacts us.

The last argument I would make, Make America Great Again: We are supposed to be the most compassionate nation. As we run around the world telling everybody how great we are, how much we are better than everybody else in the world, this amendment basically says: Screw you. We don't care.

We should be a great nation. We should be willing to set aside $115 million in a $14 trillion economy to help other parts of the world that are less fortunate than us. If we want to make that claim, then we ought to live up to it to at least this tiny little degree.

Mr. Chair, this is a heartless and uncompassionate amendment. Please defeat it.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs).

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

Mr. Chair, there are two aspects. One is a budget debate, and it is fascinating. We are having this passionate debate about $115 million, and we didn't, apparently, have that debate when we passed the budget resolution that the sponsor of this amendment voted for that added $4 trillion to the debt.

All those passionate speeches about the debt, the deficit, and its impacts are absolutely real, but how can you ignore that and vote for the $4 trillion debt and be all passionate about $115 million?

Also, it is not true that we do nothing for the American people. It is somewhere around a $6.5 trillion budget. This is $115 million. Let's not act like we are not funding those other priorities. We are funding those other priorities.

The second piece of this is, does this benefit the United States of America to spend this money to help the rest of the world deal with disasters? As I explained earlier, it 100 percent does.

Would it make sense for us, as the gentlewoman has suggested we are doing, to fund every single crisis all around the world? No, it wouldn't, and we don't.

We spend $115 million to try to help the rest of the world with public health disasters and natural disasters, which does benefit us.

All the arguments about the debt and the deficit, please don't take those seriously from a group of people who just voted for increasing the debt by $4 trillion. This is $115 million that is absolutely in the best interest of the United States of America. It will help us.

Mr. Chair, please defeat this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We have dealt with this issue on a number of levels. It is already in the underlying bill. This expands it to any organization that is deemed to be engaging in fact-checking. Basically what this amendment has done--and it is in law from last year; now we are making it permanent and expanding it--is basically if you are an organization that checks for factual accuracy, we don't want to do business with you, which is just a remarkable statement in terms of how we approach this. I think we should want people to check facts.

For example, it is not the Department of War. It is the Department of Defense. It is in the statute. It is the law. The President can say whatever he wants to say, but the law still says it is the Department of Defense. If he wants to put into the law that he is going to change that, that is fine; but it is factually inaccurate to say that it is the Department of War.

Yes, the statistics seem to show that rightwing news agencies score lower on factual accuracy. There are two reasons possible for why that happens. One is the bias that the gentleman, the maker of the amendment, says. The other is that they are more likely to be factually inaccurate, which seems to be the more likely outcome.

I also want to make clear, we are not excluding anything. In fact, this amendment is what excludes things. If you are an organization that checks facts, we are going to exclude you from who we are going to do business with.

I would just let out a heavy sigh at this moment about how do you engage in that sort of conversation? If you want to take a close look at this and say: The way you are checking for factual accuracy, we think it is wrong. We don't think you are being fair. We don't think you are doing this right. Okay. Fine.

Now we are just going to say: Don't look. Don't check. Don't think about it. It is your truth.

We are going to go with--the leftwing version of this is: Your truth is as much truth as anybody else's. The rightwing version of this is: We are going with alternative facts.

I still want to live in the factual universe. If you join me in that cause, let's defeat this amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would make a couple of quick points.

Madam Chair, first of all, I am not remotely saying the left is right and the right is wrong or anything like that. This amendment says we are not going to even examine the question. That is the problem I have. I fully admit the left is wrong frequently. I think we ought to factually check that. Here, we are saying don't factually check that.

While we are on the subject of facts, COVID played a little bit of a role in our recruitment problem. I don't think anyone who is being fair about analysis would dispute that. Again, here we hear: Oh, no, it wasn't COVID. It was the fact that, where we advertised, we didn't place it here.

Madam Chair, come on. COVID is what impacted our recruitment, which is why I think we should allow people to check facts. It is not that the left is always right. They are frequently not. Believe me. I live those arguments back home in my district, and I argue the other side of it. I just think we should at least try and figure it out.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cisneros).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Chair, actually he made my point. He just fact-checked me. Good for him. I disagree, which I will get to in a second, but he fact-checked me.

What their amendment does is it doesn't allow that. It just allows it to hang out there. They can't fact-check it.

The facts are recruitment picked up a year before Trump came back in office. We all know this. Recruitment improved for a long time. There was a bit of a lag in time, yes, until 2022 and 2023. They caught up with the lag. Recruitment improved for a year before Trump showed up in office. It continues to do well.

I would say that that argues it was, in fact, COVID that drove it. I would love to have that discussion. I would love to have people check out facts and have a debate and not cut off all fact-checking.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to please oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I claim the time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I have no opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

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

There are three things I want to do in the closing here. First of all, I want to really recognize the efforts of all of the staff that were involved in bringing us to this point to get the bill to the floor: certainly the House Armed Services Committee staff, and the bipartisan staff, ably led on both sides of the aisle.

This is a long process. Thousands of amendments are generated, thousands more ideas that they have to work their way through to get the bill through the markup and get it to the floor.

Certainly, the Rules Committee staff works overtime processing all those amendments, as well as the floor staff. I thank them all very much for putting up with this. This process was not as bad as it has been in the past. I am not

sure that is a good thing, but there was a lot less stuff that came out here.

Everyone has to do so much work on this to make this happen, so I really thank the staff for their incredible work. It is a fine testimony to how vital government employees are to making our country run, and I really appreciate that.

Second, I thank Chairman Rogers, all of the members of the House Armed Services Committee, and their respective staffs for the product we produced out of committee. It was a bipartisan product that really focused on what we needed to do to make the Defense Department better and make sure that we support the men and women who serve in the military.

There are all manner of external issues that really are focused more on partisan advantage one way or the other that typically get thrust at us. We resisted that and stayed focused on the policy. It is not that there aren't disagreements on that policy, even partisan disagreements, where Republicans tend to be in one place and Democrats tend to be in the other. However, it was all around the focus of what is the best way to run the Department of Defense, and that is a legitimate debate to have. Chairman Rogers handled that incredibly well. It was a very fair debate, a fair discussion, and we produced what I think was an excellent product.

It is worth remembering what is in that base bill. The single biggest thing is acquisition reform, which is every little bit as important as it is boring to talk about. It is hard to dive into the details of who is making this decision, the other decision.

The bottom line is, it just takes too long now to buy the equipment, to update and get the innovative technologies that we need in the modern world. The pace of change has never been this rapid--AI, drones, counterdrones, all manner of different technologies. We have got to get those in the hands of the warfighter vastly more quickly and vastly less expensively than we currently do, and the focus in this bill is absolutely right to deal with this.

We also continue to prioritize quality-of-life issues for the men and women who serve in our military and their families, as well we should. There are a lot of very good provisions in that bill, and we produced that product.

The Rules process was a different thing. It was a very, very partisan exercise in which if Republicans made requests, they got them, including the weird little thing that we just went through with some financial services issue, which I don't understand why that is in our bill. It shouldn't be. Well, I do understand why it is in our bill, because the Speaker has a very difficult time saying no to people that he ought to say no to. We need to work on that.

That created a partisan process out of what was a bipartisan process. In and of itself, that is problematic because what it means is Democrats do not get to adequately participate in the process. We didn't get any of the amendments in the debates that we wanted, not a single, solitary one. Meanwhile, all manner of different issues that are pure culture war, partisan issues were allowed in. I fear that many of those are going to pass. We will see. If those amendments are defeated, we will wind up in a different place, but if they pass, we will have a bill that is no longer bipartisan.

This year, as Ms. Houlahan just highlighted, there is one particular thing that was problematic, and that is we are not exercising oversight of the Chief Executive in the manner in which we should. We have become vastly more partisan in that regard as well. I have served under--I am going to lose track of how many Presidents. I think it is five now. Every single one of those, Republicans would always have complaints about a Republican President and Democrats would have complaints about a Democratic President, now not as many as would go the other way, to be sure. But there were always efforts when we would, on a bipartisan basis, say no, the executive branch shouldn't do that. We are going to stand up for Congress.

This is the first term I have ever seen that completely silenced. There is no effort whatsoever for Congress to criticize anything the President does. That is a problem. That upsets the balance of power, the checks and balances that were put in place by our Founders to make sure that we continue to be a constitutional Republic, a Nation based on the Constitution and laws, not on any one individual.

We see that played out most starkly with the way the United States military is currently being used in our cities, in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and even the specter of the President threatening the city of Chicago that he will invade them like a scene from ``Apocalypse Now.'' That should trouble everybody. I don't care whether you are conservative, Democrat, Independent, Republican, liberal, whatever. You should be troubled, even if, by the way, as I do, you have profound concerns about crime in our areas.

I have profound concerns about the way some of those cities are using the criminal justice system. I have concerns in my own area.

I have concerns in my own area. The answer to that is not sending in the United States military.

The way I have come to sum it up is: Crime is a problem. Fascism isn't the answer. More police and stronger communities, that is the answer.

We need to exercise oversight on that because it violates the law. It also undermines the readiness of the United States military. They are supposed to be trained to defend us against our enemies and adversaries, not to engage in domestic law enforcement. We should have a conversation about that and exercise oversight.

We also have the problem with the whole Signalgate thing, where classified information was shared in a way that it should not be shared, and there should be no disagreement on that. We didn't exercise oversight on that either, so stepping aside from all of these issues, simply letting the President do what he wants to do.

Then, internationally, the last point, this attack on that boat down in the Caribbean is incredibly problematic. This is an expansion of the war powers of the President that we have never seen before.

If the President has the power on his own, without even notifying Congress, much less with us exercising any oversight of it, to declare war on any drug cartel in the world whenever he wants to, then our Constitution, Article I, pretty much ceases to have meaning.

We just had an amendment to repeal the AUMFs. I listened to some of those arguments. I support that amendment. I think it was a good argument. The argument was for Article I, for the United States Congress playing a role. We have abdicated that role at this point in a way that we have never done before.

That is a problem. It is something that the Rules Committee should have permitted us to really debate through a series of amendments on the floor, and they did not. I am troubled by that. We will see how the amendment process goes.

Again, beneath all of that is a really good bill that a lot of very good people worked very hard to produce. I hope that when we get through the end of this process and actually pass the bill and send it off to the President, we get that bill back, because it is really important that we pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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 missed today's votes due to a flight cancellation. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 213 and YEA on Roll Call No. 214.

Mr. Speaker, I missed yesterday's votes due to weather delays. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 191; YEA on Roll Call No. 192; and YEA on Roll Call No. 193.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize William ``Bill'' Leonard Chin for his many years of dedication to our country, both through his military service and active involvement within the Seattle Chinese-American and Veterans communities.

Bill valiantly served during World War II in the U.S. Army with the 93rd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron in the Central European Campaign and the Battle of Rhineland, and his dedication to service continued long after his active military duty. Upon graduating from Seattle University, Bill pursued a career as an accountant at Boeing and then as a life and health insurance broker, where he spent over 50 years serving numerous clients in the Seattle Chinese community. He displayed exemplary work ethic and was widely known for his willingness to help others.

Outside of his career, Bill carried this same unceasing devotion to serving those around him. He played an instrumental role in creating the Oriental Restaurant Association in 1970, which provided a healthcare plan for Chinese restaurant workers. He was also a committed member of Cathay Post No. 186, where he served as Commander and contributed to fundraising efforts for the Kin On Nursing Home and youth scholarships. Additionally, Bill served as the English secretary for the Gee How Oak Tin Family Association and the Bing Kung Association, and as an officer of the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce. He left a resounding impact on all those around him and was a true leader of the various communities he was part of.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Bill Chin for a lifetime of service to the United States of America and to his community. I am deeply grateful for his important efforts towards protecting our country, advancing healthcare access, and fostering connection. His legacy will not be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life and legacy of Ruth Clapp, one of my earliest employees and a loyal public servant to the constituents of Washington's Ninth District.

Before joining my team, Ruth had already established a life of meaningful service. Her work at the World Association for Children and Parents (WACAP) reflected a lifelong commitment to the belief that families, in all forms, matter. That belief would carry through every piece of work she did from the day she answered the call to join my team as a caseworker.

What was supposed to be a temporary, part-time role turned into seventeen years of relentless dedication. Over those years, Ruth became a cornerstone of the office. Her reputation extended far beyond our district. People from around the country reached out--not to the office, but to Ruth--because they knew she would get the job done.

Whether it was an immigration case, an adoption, a visa crisis, or helping someone reunite with family, Ruth took every issue personally. She fought for constituents as if they were her own loved ones--and in many ways, they were. She fiercely advocated for individuals and families caught in the immigration system, helped countless people through difficult legal mazes, and never let up.

And while her professional accomplishments are remarkable, those of us lucky enough to know her personally know that Ruth also had a softer, deeply generous side. She was a talented quilter who would quietly craft beautiful gifts for staff members welcoming new children. She loved her family deeply. Her commitment to immigration work was a natural extension of her devotion to them. And, of course, we'd be remiss not to mention her favorite drink: a strong gin and tonic, a detail that feels just as Ruth as anything else.

Ruth made me and our team better. She made this country better. Her impact isn't measured just in policies or case numbers, but in the lives she touched. Through her work, families were reunited, futures were restored, and faith was renewed in the idea that government can, in fact, work for the people.

So today, we remember Ruth not just as a colleague, but as a mentor, a fighter, and a friend.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize Ruth Clapp for her distinguished career and life of service. Her legacy lives on in the work we continue to do, and in every person whose life she changed for the better.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 83.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 7.