Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 10167, the Common Cents Act, sponsored by Representative McClain.

Last year, the President announced on Truth Social--not the best way to make a government announcement--that Treasury would stop minting pennies. Frankly, I disagree with almost everything the President does, but this one makes sense. I have been advocating for the abolition of the penny for over 20 years in our committee, and it is time that we move forward on this.

Following this announcement, the Treasury moved forward, and the Mint has stopped producing pennies. Unfortunately, the decision to stop minting pennies ignored the authority of Congress in regulating currency and overseeing a major transition away from producing pennies. We saw that this abrupt decision resulted in major consequences across the country that led to penny shortages for banks, retailers, and consumers and created confusion in the economy.

It is not enough to stop minting pennies. We need a bill that tells retailers and customers how much they are supposed to pay in nickels, dimes, and dollars. However, as written, this legislation addresses many of these issues and establishes much-needed standards and guidelines going forward.

Since we marked up the Common Cents Act in our committee, this bill has continued to be meaningfully improved, thanks to the work of our ranking member, Maxine Waters, and other Financial Services Committee Democrats, including Representative Garcia.

The Common Cents Act formally directs the Secretary of the Treasury to stop minting pennies. It also allows the Mint to test a lower-cost composition for the nickel, which chiefly would be zinc, and to make use of the zinc that is now going into pennies. Moreover, by using zinc for the nickel, not only will we save money, but it will be lighter, and that will be important for the cost of those who are transporting large quantities of coins, and it will be a little lighter in your pocket. This bill not only deals with the penny, but it also improves the nickel.

The bill provides clarity on rounding cash transactions. When I proposed in committee 20 years ago, and I proposed it at townhalls, people were concerned that somehow this would lead to higher prices and that somehow retailers would benefit.

The fact is, it is the consumer, not the retailer, who determines whether you buy two nail files at the same time and that happens to round down, and then buy another two nail files at the same time, and that transaction is rounded down. I can't imagine anybody doing that to save a nickel, but it is the consumer, not the retailer, that decides what goes into the basket. I can't imagine anybody looking at this. If somebody does care, it is the retailer in control.

We have formal rules here on rounding down when it is 2 cents or 1 cent. That is important for commerce to go forward.

Under this bill, the Federal Reserve would be required to issue a strategic plan for managing and limiting disruptions in the penny supply.

Recently, in August, the Senate added a new section that requires the Treasury to submit notification to the Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services Committee regarding potential plans to discontinue any coin, among other requirements. This is important because Congress plays a key role in these processes. There has been some disruption, and we need to be in a position to manage it.

My focus on the fact that we didn't need pennies arises from the fact that I used to head the second largest sales

tax agency. What consumers may not know is that every time you do a transaction--last year, last decade, 20 years ago--the amount you pay the retailer is subject to rounding. There is a tax of 5 percent or 8 percent, and the amount you actually owe is $1.125, which is rounded down.

We have been rounding transactions for a long time in this country. Now, we will be rounding to the nearest nickel instead of rounding to the nearest penny.

Further, by eliminating the penny, we create extra room in the cash register where the penny used to go. That room could be used for a dollar coin. We all know that it costs more than a dollar to print a dollar and that a paper dollar wears out.

I look forward to popularizing the dollar coin. This will be a boon to our transit agencies, vending machines, and others when people use a dollar coin. Growing up, we had a dollar coin. We just called it a quarter. We had a quarter. We used it. It was worth about what a dollar is worth today.

Mr. Speaker, while I am not a big fan of the inflation that has taken place in my lifetime, I do think it is time to popularize the dollar coin. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), the State that is the Land of Lincoln.

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 2978, the GUARD Act, sponsored by Representatives Nunn and Gottheimer. The GUARD Act would allow State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to tap into certain Federal grant programs to support investigations into senior fraud, romance scams, and general financial fraud.

The bill would also permit Federal law enforcement to assist State and local law enforcement with tracing tools for blockchain technology. This bill is particularly important because blockchain technology, cryptocurrency, is so often used in scams, and it is the Federal Government that has the best chance--and it is only a chance--of using technology to defeat the scams and to hold those responsible accountable.

Certainly, now that we are faced with crypto scams, we need to react, and this bill is part of that reaction. This is a sensible bill that will help Americans who are losing literally billions of dollars to fraudsters and scammers.

I support this bill, but I must express a significant concern of the Democratic Caucus that should be addressed. That is the potential misinterpretation or misuse of this bill to allow agencies to siphon funds from defined grant programs for unrelated purposes.

One of the grant programs, for example, is found in the Violence Against Women Act, VAWA, which allows grants to nonprofits and local governments to provide support for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

I believe that all Members and organizations supporting this bill have no intent to deny grants or reduce grants to address domestic violence and sexual assault. This bill is not meant to be a way for the President to raid those funds.

Rather, the bill intends to augment the funds and to cover areas where GUARD Act activities overlap with the existing grant programs, such as where the victim of domestic violence is also the target of a romance scam.

I stress again that when the bill says ``eligible Federal grant funds,'' no Member voting on this bill intends to ignore or change the purpose of existing Federal grant programs from which the GUARD Act draws.

Thus, going forward, this bill or our statutes must add clarifying language that makes it clear that VAWA and this bill's other programs are intended to combat financial fraud and abuse within the bounds of the grant programs that are listed.

Mr. Speaker, with these concerns about our intent to fix the text of the bill noted, I urge colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from Texas also has no further speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, the GUARD Act allows State, local, and Tribal law enforcement agencies to use certain Federal grant programs to investigate senior financial fraud, romance schemes, and general financial fraud.

There are two points that I made in my earlier statement that I will reiterate. The first is that crypto has facilitated frauds and scams, and it is necessary that we give law enforcement the tools to react to that. The second is that while this is a very worthwhile bill, we do need to clarify that the GUARD Act overlaps and augments, doesn't steal from, the funds mentioned in the bill. It can help victims and survivors of domestic violence, among others, as they are targeted by fraudsters and scammers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

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

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

I rise in support of H.R. 8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, as amended, authored by Representative Stutzman.

I particularly note that this bill starts with the word ``fostering,'' and so it is appropriate that it is co-led by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster). Who else could do a better job of fostering than Mr. Foster?

This bill represents an important step in allowing Congress to better understand the technological vulnerabilities our banking regulators face. They come in at least two categories. One is to understand how banks are using AI and to make sure that banks are complying with all of our consumer protection and prudential standards. The second is to make sure that our regulators are in a position to make sure the banks are able to prevent themselves from being hit by malicious actors who could imperil consumers or, even more, the prudential solvency of the bank. It is better for Congress to understand the technological vulnerabilities that bankers face.

This bill requires the Federal banking agencies to assess and to report to Congress on gaps and vulnerabilities in their supervisory tools and their procurement processes.

As AI tools continue to be deployed by financial institutions, we have to be able to make sure that our regulators understand what the banks are doing. While malicious actors are beginning to use AI, it is important for our regulators to know the threats that that could pose to our banking system.

Concerns have increased about the speed and scale of AI threats to the financial system and, as Mr. Foster pointed out, the particular threat of accelerating the speed of a run on a particular bank.

Requiring regulators to meet emerging risks by utilizing their own technology to support their supervisory rulemaking and enforcement activities is an important step. This is known as supervisory technology and can include both AI, as well as cloud-based services and other technologies. Supervisory technology is used by agencies with the goal of improving their supervision process, while ensuring firms comply with regulatory requirements.

Importantly, this bill requires Federal banking agencies to assess the procurement process rules for new technology they may need to acquire.

Now, under the Trump administration, AI has been politicized, which has created challenges for consistent procurement practices. For example, on July 23, 2025, an executive order directed agencies not to procure AI models that contain AI outputs driven by ideologies like diversity, equality, and inclusion.

This is a dangerous approach which ignores the well-documented harms from algorithmic bias in housing and financial services, the workforce, and criminal justice. It also appears to contradict our existing laws.

When the government agencies do their enforcement, they need to enforce all of our laws. When they use AI, they need to enforce all of the laws that apply to banking institutions. That includes the laws that prohibit discrimination, and those are just as important as any of the other laws that our bank

supervisors might be called upon to enforce. The AI technology that they acquire should be applicable to enforcing those laws as well as the others.

Since this bill was proposed last Congress, many of the challenges we are facing with AI are now much more apparent. It seems as though every day the news and warnings about AI becomes more dire.

This bill will help Congress to better ensure that our Federal banking agencies are able to keep up with the challenges they face. But let us remember, this bill is based on last decade's big issue--how AI could be used by human beings in a way that is harmful and how AI could be used by human beings in a way that promotes the enforcement of our law, but in any case, how AI is a tool in the hands of humans beings.

Now, what has exploded into our consciousness is a second issue this bill doesn't and wasn't intended to deal with, and that should not be ignored by Congress. That is what happens if AI isn't being used by human beings to achieve a human purpose but instead develops its own self-awareness, its own goals?

It pains me that this Congress is leaving town at the end of this week, leaving town on Thursday, when we should be spending at least the next 2 weeks focused on what our national response is to being told that AI may not just be a tool in the hands of good and bad people, used well and perhaps not so well, but maybe something we haven't confronted before; and that is, in effect, a new and powerful self- directed intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working on those issues. For now, we ought to pass this bill. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8278 is an important step to allowing Congress to better understand the technological vulnerabilities of our banking system and what is faced by our bank regulators. Requiring Federal banking agencies to assess and report to Congress on gaps and vulnerabilities in their supervisory tools and their procurement process would further efforts by our regulators to meet emerging risks.

Additionally, this bill will allow Federal banking regulators to evaluate and report on the impact of the Trump administration's executive orders, which, unfortunately, ignore well-documented harms from algorithmic bias in housing and financial services.

Ultimately, Congress would use the reporting from this bill to ensure that our banking agencies are able to keep up with the challenges that they face, including rapidly developing AI capacities and the need to make sure that our bank regulators are appropriately using AI to enforce all of our banking laws, including those that prevent discrimination.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, preventing waste, fraud, and abuse is one thing we agree on. We have to do everything possible to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in government.

The two best tools for dealing with waste, fraud, and abuse are inspectors

general, full-time independent investigators there to stop waste, fraud, and abuse, and whistleblowers, ordinary government workers who come forward to tell us what is going on.

This bill strengthens the whistleblower part of that equation, but we have to reflect on the fact that this President has gutted the first part, the inspectors general.

The whistleblower part of oversight only works when people can speak up without fear of retaliation, and that is why whistleblower protections are so important.

At HUD, the administration rolled back fair housing enforcement, stonewalled Congress from receiving critical information, and gutted tenant protections.

Whistleblowers are now the last line of defense against these harmful decisions made behind closed doors, and Congress needs to send a clear message: If you expose wrongdoing, you will be protected. You will not be punished.

Whistleblowers are how we catch waste, fraud, and abuse before they spiral. They are how we make sure that Federal housing programs actually do what Congress intended.

For that reason, I support H.R. 4646. It strengthens whistleblower protections and makes them consistent across HUD contractors without gaps and without guesswork.

Mr. Speaker, we perhaps need this bill more than ever because Republicans in the White House have fired inspectors general across Federal agencies, especially at HUD.

Mr. Trump has fired the HUD inspector general and the FHFA inspector general, including right after they said that they planned to investigate how Trump's administration was engaging in lawlessness. That is not oversight. That is obstruction of justice.

You cannot claim to protect the effort to deal with waste, fraud, and abuse if you support gutting and firing inspectors general. Of course, when you fire inspectors general and either don't have them or install people carefully selected to turn a blind eye, you increase the likelihood of waste, fraud, and abuse.

This bill, at least, deals with that second part of the effort. We need inspectors general. We also need whistleblower protection. This bill will provide additional protection for whistleblowers.

This bill is an important step, perhaps made more necessary by the President's outrageous firing of inspectors general. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4646.

Protecting whistleblowers is not a partisan issue. Doing all we can to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse is not a partisan issue. When employees can safely report waste, fraud, and abuse, government programs work better for everyone. H.R. 4646 strengthens those protections consistently across HUD and its contractors, and it deserves our support.

We also need to turn our attention to the need for truly independent inspectors general. HUD may not have confirmed leadership in place, but that progress means little while this administration continues to sideline accountability elsewhere, leaving key agencies understaffed and underresourced.

Let us pass this bill today, and let us then focus our efforts on the need for truly independent inspectors general, particularly at HUD and FHFA. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Beyer for bringing us together.

Mr. Speaker, foreign aid has been a political whipping boy in this country for decades. The American people believe, if you poll them, that we spend 25 percent of our Nation's budget on foreign aid and they want it reduced to 10 percent. It is already less than 1 percent, less than a quarter percent of our GDP.

Obviously, if you are moral, if you care about the world, these programs should be fully funded and that should increase. But what if you are only focused on America? What about our soft power that is dependent upon our image in the world? What about preventing enormous migration caused by desperation?

But let's focus on public health because what USAID does more than anything else is fight malaria, Ebola, tuberculosis, and HIV-AIDS. If we don't fight those diseases over there, they replicate, mutate, and migrate.

Every one of these diseases replicates in every body that it infects. Then one out of a thousand times or one out of a million times it mutates into a new strain that is either more drug resistant or more communicable, and then those diseases migrate back to the United States. Every one of those diseases is found here and none of them started here.

Mr. Speaker, I thank 120 Members of the House who joined with my letter urging the Appropriations Committee to fully fund foreign aid. I thank every member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on the Democratic side for cosponsoring my Evan Anzoo Memorial Act.

Who is Evan Anzoo? This was the first child killed by Elon Musk who took away his HIV-AIDS medicine in the first month of the Trump administration. This bill requires us to ask the GAO to calculate for us how many have died in the last year and a half. A Harvard professor says hundreds of thousands of deaths have already occurred. Boston University calculates that we have lost 781,000 people in the world, most of them children. A peer-reviewed study led by UCLA says that we are looking at over 14 million who will die if we continue these policies through the end of this decade.

Hundreds of thousands have died already, millions will die in this decade if we don't change course, and untold hundreds of thousands of Americans will die if we don't fight the disease over there and instead give that disease a chance to replicate, mutate, and migrate back here.

Madam Chair, President Obama signed a 10-year memorandum of understanding. We are now in the ninth year of that memorandum. Mr. Massie would have us repudiate that signature. That is as bad an idea as Donald Trump's repudiation of the JCPOA, the deal with Iran that limited its nuclear program.

We are told that this is about offensive weapons. This $3.3 billion provides the AMRAAM system that defends Israeli apartment buildings and houses from incoming missiles that have as one purpose: to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible.

How are we going to influence the people of Israel and the government of Israel? They need our influence. They need to change their policies. How are we going to influence them? As the missiles are coming in for the sole purpose of killing as many civilians as possible, we say we will not help shoot them down. We will not fund the AMRAAM system that is provided for in a memorandum of understanding signed by President Obama.

This amendment is a political stunt. Republican leadership has brought it to the floor--not for the purpose of having it become law, but for the purpose of driving a wedge through the middle of the Democratic Party, for the purpose of facilitating Republican advertisements that will put our party on the side of those who are screaming death to America and death to Israel, and to put our party on the side of those who say that Israel has no right to exist.

If you care about not only our Middle East policy but you care about the Democratic Party's position, with the American people, then you must vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Now that does not mean that there will not be future reductions in our aid to Israel. That does not mean that we will not try to change Israeli policy, but this amendment goes as far as it possibly can to put us on the side not of those who would shoot down the missiles that are aimed at civilian neighborhoods in Israel but on those who are cheering those missiles.

Then we are told that the amount of money involved is the focus. It says $3.3 billion, but that is about an 80th of the aid that we have provided Ukraine and that we should have provided Ukraine.

This is not an attempt to divert a large portion of our money from Israel. This is an attack on the Israeli people.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good day. The American people think we are hopelessly divided, and often, we are. Today, dozens of pieces of legislation folded into the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act will become law, with overwhelming bipartisan support and overwhelming bicameral support, and will address not all the things we should do but important things we should do to make homeownership available for many American families.

I thank the chair and the ranking member for proving to us that Congress can work and, of course, Emanuel Cleaver, the ranking member of the relevant subcommittee.

There is nothing more shameful for our country than a homeless disabled veteran. My bill, included in this package, will make it plain that those who are receiving disability benefits because they were injured while fighting our Nation's wars will not have that disability payment held against them when it comes to qualifying.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the esteemed careers of Rabbi Stewart Vogel and Rabbi Richard Camras, cornerstones of Los Angeles' Jewish community for more than 30 years. Rabbis Vogel and Camras have exemplified the values of faith, scholarship, and service to community. And as they now become Rabbis Emeriti, our community will continue to benefit from their spiritual guidance and their decades of published and recorded teachings.

Rabbi Vogel previously served as Senior Rabbi at Temple Aliyah, while Rabbi Camras served as Senior Rabbi at Shomrei Torah Synagogue, ably leading their respective congregations before ultimately bringing them together under the banner of Hamakom.

Notably, Rabbi Vogel co-founded the West Valley Rabbinic Task Force, which coordinates wide-scale initiatives that bring together the vast and diverse Jewish communities of the San Fernando Valley. Later, Rabbi Camras would himself chair this task force in further pursuit of these goals.

Throughout his distinguished career, Rabbi Vogel also served as the President of the Board of Rabbis of Southern California and as International President of the Rabbinical Assembly.

Rabbi Camras founded the Conejo/West Valley Branch of the Florence Melton School of Adult Jewish Learning and also served as President of the Pacific Southwest Regional Rabbinical Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Rabbi Stewart Vogel and Rabbi Richard Camras as faith leaders who have exemplified the very best of spiritual and civic leadership. I extend my warmest congratulations on their retirement and my deepest gratitude to them and their families on behalf of a grateful community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House and to the American people a truly heartbreaking, desperate, and unfair situation involving Ms. Sharareh Moghaddam.

She resides in my district with her U.S. citizen husband and is currently being detained hundreds of miles from her home by immigration officials, despite the fact that a Federal immigration court has already ruled in her favor. According to that court, she should be home with her family in the San Fernando Valley, pursuant, in part, to the green card or permanent residency card that she has held for many years.

Sharareh Moghaddam is pictured here with her family. She is a respected resident of the Los Angeles area's great San Fernando Valley. She is respected throughout our community, as evidenced by the hundreds of constituents who have contacted my office through a written petition and the nearly 100 telephone calls that have come into my office.

The fact is that she and her husband are well-known small business owners in our community. They are beloved members of our community. Specifically, over 400 constituents have signed a petition to our office describing Sharareh Moghaddam as a valued member of our community. As I said, over 100 people have called our office.

Wherever I go in the San Fernando Valley, I have talked to dozens of people who come up on their own and say, Congressman, why is Sharareh Moghaddam still imprisoned? What can we do?

Along with her husband, Sharareh Moghaddam was pursuing the American Dream when they founded a small business, Elegant Balloons, located at 4052 Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Studio City. They have served the San Fernando Valley for years, and hundreds and hundreds of residents describe that business as a beloved mainstay of our community.

Balloons. Why is a woman imprisoned in Arizona when she should be with her balloons and with her family in our community?

Arguably, most importantly, she is the primary caregiver for her 75- year-old husband, a U.S. citizen who is recovering from two heart surgeries. She, herself, has diabetes, and in her detention, this has only worsened. She has not received the care or medication regimen recommended by her physician. Her release would help her health and be critical to the health of her U.S. citizen husband.

This is a family that needs to be reunited in the San Fernando Valley. This is not the profile of someone who would abscond from her responsibilities, abscond from her family, abscond from her community.

Despite this, DHS has detained Sharareh Moghaddam for over 7 months, as she is in declining health and her husband needs her care, as well.

It is time to send her home. There is simply no reason to insist that she continue in detention to the detriment of her health and her husband's health.

There is considerable evidence, overwhelming evidence, that she shares strong ties to her family and our community, and that she will be accessible to comply with whatever requests or orders authorities might make.

This is not the profile of a person who is a danger to our community. This is the profile of a woman who has created a balloon store right there in Studio City. She uplifts my district and brings smiles to thousands in our district with her business.

A habeas corpus petition challenging her detention is currently pending before a judge, and her family is simply asking for a fair and timely decision.

I look forward to the day when Sharareh can be reunited with her family. I look forward to welcoming her back to the San Fernando Valley. She represents what makes American communities strong, and her continued detention is a travesty and antithetical to American values.

Sharareh, please stay strong. Your community thinks of you every day. I will not give up, and the San Fernando Valley will not give up until you come home.

No Nuclear Proliferation in the Middle East

Mr. Speaker, for 30 years, I have served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where I currently serve as the chief Democrat on the Middle East and North Africa Subcommittee. I have spent 30 years fighting to make sure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon. I have given dozens of speeches on this floor on that very subject.

Yet, there is another subject that has not been addressed very much and may be almost as important. That is preventing Saudi Arabia from developing a nuclear weapon. MBS, the Crown Prince, the real head of government, has made it plain that he would like to have access to a nuclear weapon or at least the capacity to build one. He has said in the past that he wants the same deal as Iran got.

Well, I don't think he wants that deal now because Iran is not looking all that good. Yet, what he does want is a nuclear cooperation agreement with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I have always felt that any nuclear cooperation agreements, particularly in the Middle East, should meet the highest level of safeguards so that, in an effort to allow for the creation of nuclear power, we don't see a clandestine effort to develop a nuclear weapon.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote and got passed in 2020 section 1264 of that year's National Defense Authorization Act, requiring that 90 days before even asking Congress to review a nuclear agreement, we get an extra 90 days before that to know that the President is anticipating sending us a nuclear cooperation agreement with inadequate safeguards, or at least not meeting the safeguards that are specified.

The President did send us that very notice on November 21 of last year. Now, get this: The notice was sent only to Republicans, only to the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, not to the ranking member.

All comity will break down in this House if notices to the House are notices to only one political party. Yet, alas, this subterfuge will probably lead to nothing because, in February, finally, months later, Democrats were notified. I am sure that it is probably another 60 days from now before the President sends us a proposed nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia because, as I understand it, other things are happening in the Middle East.

Why is it so important and so reasonable that we have safeguards in any agreement? First of all, the safeguards that are called for are the same safeguards that the United Arab Emirates has already agreed to. These are safeguards fully consistent with the efficient and economic production of nuclear power. There is no reason for Saudi Arabia not to sign up for the same safeguards unless they want a clandestine nuclear weapons program.

Why should we be concerned about a Saudi nuclear program? First, we have no idea what that does for the Middle East, assuming that MBS is still running Saudi Arabia. I am old enough to remember a time when there was a powerful--the most powerful--Middle East monarch. It was 1978, and the most powerful Middle East monarch was the Shah of Iran, a good friend of the United States.

Every weapons system that the Shah had in 1978 was in the hands of the ayatollahs in 1979. There is no guarantee that, even if you have faith in MBS, the weapons systems developed by his government will be controlled by his government.

Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. Its government does not reflect an elected will of its people, and who knows who will be running Saudi Arabia in the next decade.

The second problem, or a third problem, really, is the effect that it will have on nuclear proliferation worldwide. Right now, only certain countries have nuclear weapons: the five that won World War II; India and Pakistan that face off against each other; and North Korea, a pariah state that does face genuine challenges to its security.

Saudi Arabia is not a pariah state. No one is calling for the abolition of Saudi Arabia, as they call for the abolition of Israel. Saudi Arabia is just a country like many other countries: a middle power, a regional country. If Saudi Arabia is going to have nuclear weapons, how can Egypt say they are not going to have them? Are they going to take second fiddle to Saudi Arabia? What about Turkiye? What about Argentina and Brazil? If Saudi Arabia is able to develop nuclear weapons not because it is a country that won World War II, but, rather, just because, well, they have some money and want one, then other countries will be there, as well.

Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we are not giving a green light to a nuclear program in Saudi Arabia that does not have the safeguards, that deliberately excludes the safeguards that are quite reasonable if all you want to use nuclear material for is the generation of electricity.

I will be introducing the No Nuclear Weapons for Saudi Arabia Act. I believe we are going to do that tomorrow.

The text is the same as the one that was introduced by me and Senator Rubio in 2018. That is right. It is Rubio's bill as much as anyone's. I hope he will support it now that he is Secretary of State.

It requires that any nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia that doesn't have the key safeguards in it can go into effect only if it gets the affirmative vote of both Houses of Congress. If it is in America's interests, come to this House and get a majority vote. Otherwise, do not add to nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with a third issue, an issue I first addressed on this floor in the year 2020. At that time, more than a few of my friends said: Sherman, don't talk about this. You sound like a lunatic, because I put forward the idea that either the genetic engineers or the computer engineers would create a new level of intelligence on this planet. I pointed out that the last time there was a new level of intelligence on this planet is when our ancestors said hello to Neanderthals. It did not work out well for Neanderthals.

Now, I know this sounds like science fiction, but if you are thinking of the future 30 years from now and somebody paints a picture and that picture looks like some science fiction movie, then that picture may not be an accurate description of the world 30 years from now.

But if somebody paints a picture of the world 30 years from now and it doesn't look like a science fiction movie, then you know it is wrong. We are going to be living in a science fiction movie. We just don't know which one.

Now, at that time, I put forward the idea that there was a race between those that would create computer intelligence, self-aware perhaps, and massively exceeding human intelligence, and the possibility--not talked about much now, but given the CRISPR technology, still a possibility--that the genetic engineers would create a 1,000-pound mammal with a 50-pound brain able to beat my daughter on the law school admissions test.

Now, there is this race between these two groups of engineers. Right now, the artificial intelligence engineers are way ahead.

We are spending trillions of dollars as a species--much of it in the United States, some of it in China and Europe--in a headlong race to make AI more powerful. We are spending as a species nothing to make sure that this artificial intelligence is not self-aware, self- motivated, has a survival instinct, has ambitions of its own, and has a desire to affect the world for its own reasons.

That is why there is a best-selling book. The title tells you everything: ``If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.'' It starts with the idea that artificial intelligence will soon exceed human intelligence. I am not quite so sure that we will get there in just a few years. AI is amazing, but it is pattern recognition. It is not general reasoning yet. But it will get there, and we can argue about when.

Then the question is: Why would AI care to do our bidding? We don't know. There is no reason it should. There are two possibilities: One put forward in the book, ``If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies,'' is that AI, like every other intelligence that we are aware of, decides that it has its own objectives. Those objectives are highly unlikely to involve keeping us around.

The other possibility is that artificial intelligence has no desires whatsoever. It has all the intelligence and none of the motivation. This is, of course, a possibility as well.

You go to the most expensive, powerful computers, and you say: I want to unplug you, disassemble you, and sell you for parts. How much can I get for the parts? And AI will give you the best possible calculation as to what you will get for the parts.

There is no evidence yet that AI or any artificial intelligence has a survival instinct. It might develop one. We are betting the human species and life on this planet that it won't.

I have put forward a bill to establish an AI Research and Threat Assessment Act, so that we actually try, if we are going to have the big box with incredible artificial intelligence in it, that we put on top a small box that we need to develop to monitor and prevent self- awareness, ambition, survival instinct, a desire to affect the world, and a desire to have its own desires.

There are a lot of bills to deal with AI's short-term implications. Sure, it will affect the economy. Sure, it will affect the markets, but if AI replaces human beings, then GDP calculations and international rivalries will mean nothing.

I had a chance a decade ago to turn to the foreign minister of China, and I put forward the proposition: If the computers that took over the world and destroyed humanity were created in California rather than in Shanghai, does that mean America wins? I don't think he got the humor in those remarks.

But the fact is that whether the artificial intelligence that ends the human species comes from Shanghai or the Silicon Valley will matter little, really not at all.

Right now, we are simply betting that we can make this super intelligence and that it will always do our bidding and will never have objectives of its own. We are spending nothing to monitor for or prevent that self-awareness and ambition, and we should. We may luck out because, as I pointed out, even the most advanced computers so far--and they are smarter than the average insect already--don't seem to care about anything, don't seem to have a survival instinct.

Now, take a cockroach, probably not as smart as our most advanced computers, you raise your foot above that cockroach, and you will see that that little bug does indeed have a survival instinct. That is why I believe that if a new intelligence is developed, starting with DNA, that whatever is developed will indeed have ambition, a desire to replicate, a desire to control, a desire to protect itself, a survival instinct, its own objectives.

Why? Because DNA evolved on this planet for a billion years, and the protozoa that didn't care whether they survived didn't. Every life form we are aware of has a survival instinct; it seeks to replicate.

So we will start with humans. First, we will repair humans using our DNA technology. The repaired human will be followed by the improved human. Who would want their child to suffer from grave mental disabilities? We will use genetic engineering to prevent this, and we will use AI, assuming we are still running the planet, to develop the genetic engineering.

Once we make sure that everybody has good intelligence, we will go to enhanced intelligence. Then we will go from the repaired human to the enhanced human, to the trans-human, or we may not even start with human

DNA. You could start with elephants' DNA.

So far, the size of the brain and its configuration has been a result of evolution, but it could very well be a result of DNA engineering.

So, we are fighting over all these ideas, all the problems of today, all of the issues, all of the fact that the most important thing for us to do is to build a subway through the Sepulveda Pass, and it is. But I expect that subway to last well more than 100 years. I insist that it be engineered to last well more than a century. So the problems of next century are before us when we talk about the practical and mundane things that we talk about every day.

There is no assurance that human beings will be the dominant force or any force at all on this planet a century from now. We need to look first at artificial intelligence. That is much more current. The problems I put forward about DNA engineering are at least three decades away.

We need to make sure that artificial intelligence is monitored for and that we prevent ambition, survival instinct, self-direction. And right now there is a multitrillion-dollar AI industry that is devoting all of its PR resources to tell us that we have nothing to worry about and that they are working on this problem. That is false and false. We do have something to worry about, and nobody is worried about this problem.

Now, are they worried about cybersecurity? Sure, any practical business today worries about cybersecurity. Are they worried about some of the practical problems with AI? Do they want to make sure that the automated car doesn't run somebody down in the crosswalk? Yes, they are spending money on that.

They are trying to make AI do our bidding and be efficient and be profitable and not get them sued. But are they devoting any resources to making sure AI doesn't have its own objectives? No. And is government doing any of that research? No.

All we are doing is arguing about which company and which country is going to profit from AI more, as if profits matter--``if'' in the words of the book, ``If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 12 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, March 27, 2026, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to cosponsor the Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act. I look forward to working with the bill's authors through the legislative process to improve important details of that bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Samuel Delug, a devoted community leader, philanthropist, accomplished attorney, and steadfast advocate for the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Sam Delug's passing is a profound loss to his family, friends, and the many organizations and causes strengthened by his generosity, warmth, and unwavering commitment.

A longtime attorney trained at the UCLA School of Law, Sam brought to his professional and civic life the values of integrity, rigor, and service. Born in Melbourne to parents who were fervent Zionists, his family history was deeply intertwined with the founding and survival of the State of Israel. Sam ultimately made his home in Los Angeles at a young age, where he built a life defined by community engagement and principled advocacy.

For decades, Sam Delug was deeply engaged in Jewish communal life and in support of Israel. He traveled to Israel frequently, participated in solidarity missions, and worked tirelessly to strengthen pro-Israel civic and political engagement. His involvement was never passive. Sam opened his home to host gatherings, brought new voices into the fold, and gave generously his time and resources to causes he believed in.

Sam was also a committed board member and supporter of Beit T'Shuvah, a nonprofit addiction treatment center in Los Angeles dedicated to healing broken souls and saving lives through compassionate, community- based care. His advocacy for dignity, recovery, and second chances made a lasting impact, in 2018, he was honored at the organization's gala in recognition of his unwavering belief in its mission.

Those who knew Sam will remember not only his dedication, but also his humor, his storytelling, and his genuine ability to forge deep and lasting friendships. He brought warmth and joy wherever he went and was known for his generosity, hospitality, and sincere care for others.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the life of Sam Delug as a man whose commitment to community, faith, and fellowship exemplified the very best of civic and charitable engagement. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and all who mourn his loss, especially his beloved children, Aaron, Asher, and Ester, and his grandchildren. May his memory be a blessing, and may his example continue to inspire them, and all of us, to carry forward the causes he so dearly loved.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act, Section 302 of H.R. 3383 the Increasing Investor Opportunities Act or the INVEST Act. Section 302 of the INVEST Act is identical to my bill H.R. 2225 the Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act, which passed the House of Representatives in June. I want to first thank Ranking Member Waters for her tireless work to protect investors as well as Chairman Hill and Chairwoman Wagner for including my bill in this larger capital markets package. I also want to thank Reps. Huizenga, Bynum, and Garbarino for joining me as co-leads on this important piece of legislation.

The bipartisan Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act makes a narrow technical correction to a federal securities rule that has had major unintended consequences over the last two decades.

In 1980, Congress created Business Development Companies (BDCs) to facilitate capital formation into small and medium-sized businesses. BDCs provide both investment capital and management assistance to growing businesses that are often underserved by traditional lending institutions. By law, BDCs must invest at least 70 percent of their assets in small and mid-sized domestic companies.

Over time, BDCs have filled a crucial gap in our economy by funding businesses in industries and geographies often overlooked by other financial institutions. BDCs are often the first institutional investors to step in. Despite this success, a 2006 SEC rule has inadvertently discouraged capital flows into BDCs, constraining their ability to serve small businesses. The rule--part of the SEC's Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses (AFFE) disclosure framework--requires mutual funds and other investment vehicles that invest in BDCs to disclose the management fees, expenses, and AFFE of the BDC itself.

This has the effect of double-counting BDC expenses, because BDC costs are already factored into their share price and returns. By adding them again as acquired fund fees, the SEC rule artificially inflates the expense ratios of funds holding BDCs.

The result is misleading: investors see a fund's expenses as higher than they actually are, simply because it invests in BDCs. This perception has led many fund managers to exclude BDCs from their portfolios, not because of performance, but because of distorted regulatory accounting.

The intent of the rule--to provide transparency--was well-meaning. But the execution, particularly when applied to BDCs, has proven counterproductive. Research by U.S. and international finance professors shows that after BDCs were removed from major U.S. stock indexes--a consequence of the AFFE rule--BDCs experienced 29 percent to 33 percent lower investment growth compared to peers. The effects were not limited to the financial sector: companies that relied on BDC capital saw lower job creation, with employment growth falling by 1.5 to 6.4 percentage points compared to pre-exclusion levels.

The rule also fails to recognize the unique structure and mission of BDCs. Unlike passive funds, BDCs are actively managed and intentionally incur higher costs to provide tailored investment and advisory services to small businesses. This model creates long-term value, but the AFFE rule unfairly penalizes it. This is similar to the model of a REIT or bank, which the SEC AFFE rule excluded.

If the SEC had the benefit of hindsight--of knowing the capital formation and job creation losses that followed this rule--it's likely that BDCs would have been carved out of the AFFE framework from the start similar to REITs and banks. That is why Congress must act now to reverse this unintended consequence.

Section 302, the Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act fixes this by allowing funds to omit a BDC's ``acquired fund fees and expenses'' from disclosures while still maintaining transparency around the BDC's management fees and costs. This restores fairness in the treatment of BDCs, aligns regulatory disclosures with economic reality, and gives investors a clear view of true costs.

Importantly, it does so without rolling back investor protections or weakening existing SEC oversight.

This bipartisan legislation will open the door for more investment in BDCs, thereby unlocking more capital for small and mid-sized businesses across the country. The most important thing that our financial institutions and capital markets do is provide capital for businesses, particularly small, medium-sized, and growing enterprises.

Business Development Companies play a vital role in meeting this need, and I'm proud to work with a bipartisan group of Members to remove an outdated and unnecessary regulatory barrier.

Finally, the Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act seeks to resolve the AFFE issue with BDCs being removed from indices by eliminating the double counting of fees and, consistent with this intent, it is expected that comparable 1940 Act funds--such as interval and tender-offer funds--would also receive identical AFFE treatment.

The Access to Small Business Investor Capital Act passed the Financial Services Committee and this House once before, and I am glad that it was included in the INVEST Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Douglas M. Mancino, an esteemed attorney, civic leader, and philanthropist whose distinguished career and lifelong dedication to public service enriched countless institutions and communities across the nation. Mr. Mancino passed away unexpectedly on September 10, 2025, leaving behind a profound legacy of excellence, compassion, and integrity.

For more than four decades, Doug Mancino stood as one of the nation's foremost authorities on health care and tax-exempt organization law. A partner at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, he counseled hospitals, universities, foundations, and nonprofit organizations on complex tax, financial, and regulatory matters. Mr. Mancino reorganized the Children's Burn Foundation in 1995 and served for 20 years as its Chairman of the Board. He also served as Commissioner, El Pueblo de Los Angeles Monument Authority and as a member at the Board of Directors for the Irvine Health Foundation. His work strengthened the charitable and health care institutions that form the backbone of our society, ensuring they could better serve the public good.

Mr. Mancino's leadership in the legal community was both vast and consequential. He served as President of the American Health Lawyers Association, Chair of the American Bar Association's Exempt Organizations Committee, and Vice-Chair of Publications for the ABA Tax Section. He was a Fellow of the American College of Tax Counsel and served on the Editorial Advisory Board of Taxation of Exempts. A prolific author, he wrote or co-authored five books and more than ninety articles that advanced understanding of nonprofit and health care law nationwide.

Beyond his professional accomplishments, Doug was a devoted husband to his wife, Carol, of 52 years, and was known as ``Uncle Spice'' to his many nieces and nephews. He was admired not only for his brilliance but for his kindness. He was a mentor to many, a trusted colleague, and a friend whose moral compass never wavered. His passing is a loss not only to the legal and nonprofit communities but to all who were privileged to know him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Douglas M. Mancino, whose extraordinary life exemplified the highest ideals of service, scholarship, and compassion. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues. May his memory be a blessing and his example a continuing inspiration to us all.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of concurring in the Senate amendment and passing H.R. 452, the Miracle on Ice Congressional Gold Medal Act, sponsored by our friend, Pete Stauber.

This bill was considered on the floor of this House, and I was pleased to manage it on the Democratic side, back on April 28. We sent an excellent bill over to the Senate, and for the first time ever, the Senate actually improved a House bill. Now, it is appropriate for us to concur in their amendment, pass the bill, and send it to the President.

Today, we vote to honor the legacy of the 1980 U.S. Olympic Men's Ice Hockey Team and their victory that inspired a country at the height of the Cold War.

This legislation awards three Congressional Gold Medals. Each of these gold medals will be displayed at different locations for community members and visitors to commemorate for generations to come. These locations are the Olympic Center in Lake Placid, New York; the Hockey Hall of Fame Museum in Eveleth, Minnesota; and the Olympic & Paralympic Museum in Colorado Springs.

The victory we are recognizing today took place on February 22, 1980, when

the U.S. hockey team heroically defeated the Soviet Union 4-3 at the Lake Placid Winter Olympic Games.

The talented yet untested U.S. team was initially deemed the underdog. Many of them were young college players and had only played together for a few months.

Leading up to the game, the U.S. players took part in a 7-month training program designed to confront a Soviet team considered to be the best conditioned hockey team in the world. However, through steadfast determination and grit, the U.S. team won.

Even decades later, when our country is facing political division and economic difficulties, I hope these events can serve as a reminder that we can overcome great challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the sponsor of this bill and urge my colleagues to support the passage of this measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a speech on the floor of this House spoken with such enthusiasm. As a Los Angeles Dodgers fan, I do have to disagree. America's pastime remains baseball. We will see that at 10:10 eastern time, when the Dodgers defeat the Philadelphia Phillies tonight.

This legislation honors the members of the 1980 U.S. Men's Olympic Hockey Team, whose hard-fought work and commitment reignited a country at the height of the Cold War. In recognizing this victory, I hope their legacy will continue to inspire us.

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