Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Likewise, the gentleman from Alabama is an amazing chairman. We appreciate everything he has done for the National Defense Authorization Act but also for our warfighters.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of my amendment in the National Defense Authorization Act.

Right now, our Nation's Defense Industrial Base is facing a massive supply chain crisis. We need to innovate, be agile and resilient, and we need to win.

The answer is right here in our small businesses, especially our employee-owned small businesses, also known as ESOPs.

In 2021, the Department of Defense created a pilot program to incentivize contracting with high-performing, worker-owned companies. It was a great idea, but under the current rules, a business must be 100 percent employee-owned to qualify.

Mr. Chairman, that rigid rule locks out nearly 6,500 ESOPs nationwide, covering 14 million to 15 million American workers. It makes the program completely unusable for the vast majority of ESOPs in place in every district represented in this Chamber.

My amendment fixes this by aligning the ESOP threshold with the Small Business Administration rules and giving the Department of War the discretion to rate these companies on merit and not formula.

Data shows that employee-owned companies consistently perform better, stay resilient, and deliver higher value. By lowering this arbitrary barrier, we support these businesses while we boost competition in the DOW procurement, support American workers, and drive Federal dollars back to the Main Street.

Let's empower our small businesses, strengthen our national security, and pass this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, 47 years--I am going to say it again: 47 years. That is how long this evil regime has waged war not only against the West and our allies but Americans.

Whether it be the Beirut bombing, whether it be the hostages, or whether it be the violation of our own sovereign territory of our embassies, make no mistake about it: It was Iran and their regime that actually waged war against America--far longer than the strategic strikes to eliminate the imminent threat that this regime posed.

My colleague from Florida has pointed out all the different occasions in which this regime has targeted Americans. Let me point out the fact that not only are they engaged in the illicit trade and drug trafficking of Captagon, not only are they going ahead and leveraging sanctioned oil to countries like China and others to fund these proxy militias--we are talking about the worst of the worst, including the Houthis over in Yemen and Hamas, which indiscriminately murdered, raped, and showed barbarism on October 7 in Israel.

Look at Hezbollah under Hassan Nasrallah, who was responsible not only for the slaughtering of Christians in Lebanon but also for the targeting of Americans with the expansion of their militias in Iraq.

Hashd al-Shaabi and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq in Iraq are responsible for more attacks against American troops and contractors, as well as for rocket attacks on our embassies, than any other.

The list goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. We can talk about the fact that we want to go back to Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 responsibilities of declarations of war, but I would argue that my colleague on the left has also voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force as an abdication of those responsibilities.

I would also argue the fact, as the chairman had talked about, while you are right that a piece of paper isn't going to change things, it sends a clear message that this body stands unified in acknowledging that this state sponsor of terror will not have a reign any longer, thanks to President Donald J. Trump and the decisive action to guarantee that their nuclear enrichment program will not continue to thrive. Their mid-range ballistic missiles, their long-range ballistic missiles, and their ICBMs will not threaten American lives any longer.

Our servicemembers who are deployed in the region can sleep peacefully at night knowing that they are not going to have Shahed-136s or other attack drones killing them in their sleep.

I would also go ahead and iterate the fact that I can guarantee the six new Gold Star families and those six new heroes will be proud to know that we haven't forgotten and that we are going to continue to acknowledge that this evil regime is the greatest state sponsor of terror.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this resolution, and I thank the chairman for giving me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman is right. We just pointed to the three key things that you need in order to have lethal force against the United States. One is intent.

I think that Iran and the regime have made it very clear when they are chanting ``death to America,'' the thousands of lives they have changed with either maiming or killing American troops or civilians abroad, but also likelihood.

We know that they are able to build 100-plus missiles a day. We know they had ICBMs. We have now found out they had the hypersonic ballistic capabilities as they targeted over six different countries.

The thing we talk about, the JCPOA, as was just mentioned, Resolution 2231 where the administration tried to come up with an idea of a negotiation that led to diplomatic and peaceful solutions, was continually violated by this regime as even Secretary-Generals Ban Ki- moon and Guterres had pointed out multiple times as the Iranian regime sent mid-range ballistic missiles to the Houthis and to other areas to continue attacking Americans and the West.

The hypocrisy is what I really want to point out here, not the fact that we already understand the Article II authorities that the President has, which is well within the bounds constitutionally, not to mention the fact that this body, before I came into Congress, was already abdicating the roles and responsibilities under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 when they started doing things like AUMFs.

Let us point to things like what we saw in Libya. It was very clear in 2011, as we see here in military intervention, that it was without prior congressional authorization, relying instead on a U.N. Security Council resolution and legal justification from the Department of Justice that argued that the administration had limited nonground troop missions and doesn't constitute hostilities. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we have here: no ground troops.

It also goes on further to justify under the United Nations mandates, international mandates, and the legal justification to say that because they were focused on protecting civilians, not sustained fighting and didn't involve ground troops. I don't know about you, but I think 40- plus Iranian civilians, peacefully protesting for a change, being brutally murdered, being raped, being tortured, being slaughtered, being hung from cranes, being persecuted and imprisoned--I think President Trump stopping this after 47 years was protecting civilian lives.

I think it is established that we had no boots on the ground. I think that we have demonstrated the imminence, the likelihood, and intent of an evil regime to try and go ahead and attack Americans and threaten our way of life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of an incredible American, a devoted patriot, and a pillar of the DeBary community in Florida's Seventh District, Mr. Gerald Zeek, who peacefully passed away on January 5, 2026, at the remarkable age of 96.

Gerald's life was defined by the quintessential American values of hard work, service, and family. Born on Halloween in 1929, he learned the value of a dollar early, taking his first job baling hay for just 25 cents an hour. That work ethic stayed with him throughout his entire life.

Following the Second World War, Gerald answered the call of duty and joined the United States Navy, completing an honorable tour of service, but his commitment to our Nation's defense didn't end there. He went on to dedicate 34 years of his life to Picatinny Arsenal, ensuring that freedom and servicemembers had the tools that they needed to defend this Nation.

In the 1980s, Gerald and his beloved wife, June, moved to DeBary, Florida. He was a man who appreciated the simple and the classic, often found working on his 1929 Ford Model A, a car as enduring and reliable as the man himself.

Above all, Gerald was a man of profound devotion. He was a husband to June for over 75 years, a testament to a love and loyalty that is rare to find in this world today. He was a father to his sons, Dave and Dan; and a grandfather to Christopher, Jeffrey, Deanna, Dave; and great- grandfather to eight grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I have a personal connection to this family's legacy of service. Gerald's own grandson Dave, who is with me today, is currently serving as my U.S. Army War Fellow, carrying forward the torch of excellence and patriotism that his grandfather lit nearly a century ago as a command sergeant major who has proudly served in our Joint Special Operations Command, 75th Ranger Regiment, and other units.

Gerald Zeek was an honorable, compassionate, and hardworking man. He was a great father, a great husband, and a great American. From one soldier to another, I want to take a moment to salute him and his lifetime of service.

May his memory be a blessing to his family and an inspiration to our district.

Airborne.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very clear that the actual committee of jurisdiction is, in fact, the Ethics Committee, and cooperating with them is my top priority.

I believe that all the accusations and false things that are being said will be proven to be absolutely false in many ways. I have the evidence and receipts, and I look forward to working with them.

I rise in support of my motion to refer this resolution to the Committee on Ethics and encourage a ``yea'' vote on this motion.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment, which passed in the House NDAA last year, would ensure that base commanders follow Federal law by ensuring that only approved flags are flown on military installations.

Patriotic Americans understand that the American flag is to be revered.

Anybody who has served understands the sacrifice that has been made to keep Old Glory flying.

On military bases, it is truly sacred. It is the symbolic altar of the Nation.

During morning and evening colors, all work ceases as troops salute her raising and lowering. In battle, our forces carry her, wearing them proudly on their sleeves. She serves as the final blanket for soldiers who come home, having given and paid the last full measure.

The 2024 NDAA rightly addressed this issue by codifying an appropriate list of approved flags that uphold the honor and dignity that our military is built on.

However, there is a glaring error. A caveat built into the list gives commanders the ability to fly any flag they deem appropriate. Since President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have taken office, the woke infiltration of our military, even its highest leaders, continues to be exposed.

The embarrassment of these flags is hard to grasp: drag shows on ships and military installations; base security training teaching guards that pro-life bumper stickers were indicators of possible terrorism; and taxpayer-funded gender transition and hormone treatments that kept soldiers nondeployable or nontrainable for years. The list goes on, but the point remains.

Even still, there are senior officials and officers that refuse to mount the portraits of President Trump and Secretary Hegseth on their chain of command due to insubordination. Believe me, these individuals will not last long in our Armed Forces.

I ask you: Do you think that commanders who approved and even encouraged all of this to happen would exist or hesitate before deeming a Pride or trans flag appropriate for the month of June? Of course not, and it would likely be their idea in the first place.

Finally, I want to emphasize the power of symbolism. Symbols serve as a representation of our values, priorities, and our identity.

When a company completes a grueling training hike and sees that flag flying over their garrison, it symbolizes home, and I promise you that last mile may feel like a sprint to get to that cloth.

When a platoon returns from a patrol and reenters the wire, she symbolizes safety.

Imagine what our enemies would think of our strength and resiliency if we ever allow flags flown contrary to the principles of America.

I promise you that as much as this stands as the military standard, it also serves as deterrence to our adversaries.

Mr. Chair, therefore, I invite my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important measure.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the only thing that was just said by our colleague across the road that I can actually agree with is inclusivity. What is more inclusive than the American flag, the flag we all honor as American patriots? The one thing that we know about the Pride flag is that it represents only one portion of those who serve. That is not called inclusivity, sir. That is called division. That is why for the first time since the previous administration took over, we have actually hit our recruitment numbers in every single branch. That is something you can't say when it comes to the last administration's efforts.

So what I look at is this: the 1777 Flag Act. The fact that we actually stand for something that unifies us, not divides us. The fact is that we need to get back to meritocracy, not division through diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Mr. Chair, this is very simple. It is a patriotic stance. The very flag which stands behind you, that stands proud in this Capitol, is the same one that sits over Presidents, over our fallen soldiers, and over our military installations. That is not division. That is not recognition of others' sexual preferences. That is the actual acknowledgment of what we fight for day in and day out as Americans.

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

Mr. Chair, I would say in response to the gentleman that the Pride flag does not replace the American flag. It is flown at certain times of the year. It affirms a huge portion, a significant portion of our military.

Yes, I agree the American flag is inclusive. We can also show that we can include a minority that is often disparaged.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Mr. Chair, to identify the fact that that flag violates our House rules by flying any other flag but the American flag.

Mr. Chair, simply not waving the flag represents--

Mr. Chair, I want to be very clear in this. They on the other side may think we can out-pronoun our enemies, and that will keep our adversaries at bay. We can ``he,'' ``him,'' ``they,'' ``them,'' ``she,'' ``her'' all day long. That is not what makes us strong as America.

It is the flag we wear, the training we have, and the meritocracy which should always exist. I will continue to fight for every member of our Armed Services and every single person to know that it is the American flag which will fly high and proud. We will defend her against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

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

Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues have pointed out, it is very simple. Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 through 13, are the war powers of Congress, granted to us and given to us. It states very clearly: ``Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.''

Yet, the key thing is that Congress shall have power, not abdicating our roles and responsibilities and not continuing endless wars that spend trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. We need to bring the power back to Congress to ensure that it is not being abused by anyone within the executive authority, regardless of who is in the actual seat.

This is very simple, Mr. Chairman. We have abdicated and abdicated to where the Article I section of the Constitution no longer has its intended powers and purposes that it initially had. We must get that back, and I support this.

Mr. Speaker, I don't need a written speech or a prepared document to say how common sense this is.

For far too long, people have basically turned politics into a career which was never its intent. It was meant to serve we the people. There is something that is mutually exclusive: You cannot serve yourself and personal enrichment and serve the public at the same time.

We know for a fact that even within the National Defense Authorization Act that you can get language put in, provided to you by companies that allow for certain amounts of money to be sole sourced or in some ways appropriated to defense companies that they can then turn around and invest in.

How is that not insider trading when it is public knowledge on what is out there, but not public knowledge on what is being put into the NDAA during the markups?

Insider trading must stop. I can tell you that banning stock trading for Members of Congress and their spouses should not be something that is in question.

We must rebuild the actual image of Congress. We must rebuild the image of the Federal Government, where we are actually here to truly serve the people. I think this is a paramount step in us making sure, with friends and colleagues like Representative Magaziner, we are able to move forward and rebuild the trust, the hope, and rebuild this institution to be what it once was.

Our Founding Fathers, many of them in the private sector, were very successful businessmen. They served in an effort to try and get back to their businesses because they actually made more money there, but it has changed where people are making more money while in Congress while stock trading than they can in the private sector.

The same way that a plan B for failed male athletes shouldn't be women's sports, a plan B for failed entrepreneurs shouldn't be Congress and stock trading.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, and I ask everyone to move forward in guaranteeing that we rebuild the confidence in government and we restore what it means to serve we the people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a bill that honors the legacy of Colonel Joseph Kittinger, a former command pilot in the U.S. Air Force who lived in Altamonte Springs,

Florida, in Florida's Seventh Congressional District.

From a young age, Colonel Kittinger was fascinated by planes. He ended up dedicating his life to pushing the boundaries of aviation and advancing the understandings of high altitude and space exploration, inspiring many generations to come.

He joined the Air Force in 1949, where he flew experimental jets and participated in aerospace medical research. He was part of Project Excelsior, which researched high-altitude pilot bailouts to learn if humans could sustain the extended travel at space-like altitudes.

On August 16, 1960, he set the record for the highest parachute jump, jumping out of a gondola at 102,800 feet, completing the longest free fall at 4 minutes and 36 second airborne.

During the free fall, he also reached a maximum speed of 614 miles per hour, the fastest speed reached by a human at that time before deploying his parachute.

He was called to further service during the Vietnam war and flew 483 fighter plane missions. On his third tour in 1972, his plane was shot down, and he spent close to a year as a prisoner of war in the famed Hanoi Hilton, enduring torture.

His fighting spirit never wavered, Mr. Speaker. In fact, he titled his autobiography ``Come Up and Get Me.'' Back home, he dreamed of returning to the air, but this time via long-distance balloon travel.

Upon retiring from the Air Force in 1978, that dream later became a reality when he completed the first solo balloon flight across the Atlantic Ocean.

About his travel, he would state: Life is an adventure, and I am an adventurer.

Seventy-five years ago, he answered the call to service. May Colonel Kittinger's courage, resilience, and service inspire aviators, servicemembers, veterans, and all Americans.

It is a great privilege to sponsor this legislation to rename the main post office at 109 Live Oaks Boulevard in Casselberry, Florida, in honor of Colonel Joseph Kittinger.

I thank my colleagues in the Florida delegation for supporting this bill and request that all Members join us in passing it in honor of an American hero.

From one combat soldier to another, I want to take a moment to salute him and his service. Life is an adventure, Mr. Speaker. May we all be adventurers like Colonel Kittinger.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden) for crafting this legislation that protects America's innovation and economic security from CCP activity.

I rise today in support of this bill, as well as to offer an amendment on behalf of Congressman Byron Donalds, my fellow Florida man.

This amendment would modify the underlying bill to include an analysis of the national security risks of the CCP's unmanned aircraft and associated elements in the national airspace system.

Chinese drones are accounting for about 70 percent of the global drone market and 90 percent of the U.S. drone market. Additionally, Chinese drones have actively been undercutting U.S. Government contracts and U.S. companies by at least 50 percent.

Federal, State, and local governments use these Chinese drones for activities that include highly sensitive information for evaluating critical infrastructure and military operations.

Data stored from Chinese drones are subject to Chinese cybersecurity law, which requires New York operators to store select data within China and allows Chinese authorities to receive critical data notification.

China also dominates in critical manufacturing parts, including the semiconductors and communications equipment that are found in almost every drone today.

China has been known to have the capabilities to track and affect flights of the CCP drones, which could become problematic even to American aircraft.

If you haven't picked it up yet, the Chinese drones are a major national and economic security risk to the United States. This amendment will provide a crucial analysis of CCP unmanned aircraft and associated elements in the national airspace system, which will enable the United States to craft solutions to defend ourselves from these national and economic risks.

Congressman Donalds is right to be concerned with the proliferation of Chinese drone technology and the security threats which they pose. I am proud to offer this amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), and I urge all Members who want to protect America's innovation and economic security to join me in supporting it and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his support, endorsement, and also understanding that I hear what the gentleman is saying, but I say one thing: We must be reminded of the China Initiative established in 2018, which was eliminated by the Biden-Harris administration in February of 2022, where over $500 billion prior to that had been stolen by the Chinese CCP and the PRC.

I want to caution the fact that support for H.R. 1398 does, in fact, help us and is not considered to be an anti-Asian bill, as Members on the other side of the aisle tried to establish.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank, once again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gooden), for yielding me the time and putting together this important bill, the Protect America's Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this legislation as well as to offer an amendment to it.

As has been noted, the annual cost of intellectual property theft is estimated to be around $500 billion annually. What are we doing about it?

The Trump administration created a program to counteract this espionage and prosecute individuals that were taking advantage of American ingenuity and innovation. However, the Biden-Harris administration canceled yet another program that was working.

It is ironic how this has happened so many times, Mr. Chairman. Trump policies at the border are keeping Americans safe; we better cancel them.

Trump policies are working to grow the economy and people's paychecks; we better cancel them.

Trump policies are promoting peace around the world. We can't have that.

Following the Biden-Harris shutdown of the Chinese Initiative, there were zero, I repeat, zero, new economic espionage cases that were opened in 2022. It reminds me of the progressive DAs in Democrat-run cities that have stopped prosecuting crimes and that are saying: Look, crime is down. You are safe with me now.

Well, we are not safe in this country, Mr. Chairman, nor are we safe from the threats abroad with the Biden-Harris administration.

My amendment is very straightforward. When the DOJ prosecutes bad actors linked to the Chinese Communist Party, and they certainly will, they are directed to share that information with the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce so they can update their blacklist and further protect American companies.

This includes down to the subsidiary level where CCP entities get caught trying to evade detection through corporate proxies. For example, we have seen, when the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, also called AVIC, and the China Airborne Missile Academy was placed on the DOD's Chinese military companies list. While the DOD and defense contractors are prohibited from acquiring materials from AVIC, equipment made by the sanctioned company continues to find its way into our defense supply chains through a subsidiary company and part of

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) sharing his concerns. I argue that whatever the 2018 China Initiative had actually rendered with regards to the amount of investigations or findings is still far better than what the Biden- Harris administration has done, where they have had zero, Mr. Chairman, since 2022, when they canceled this.

I also remind everyone that this is a simple thing for us. What are we asking for here? We are asking for the DOJ to do their job, to prosecute bad actors of the Chinese Communist Party, not something that seems unreasonable, and to direct the shared information to the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce.

Mr. Chair, if CFIUS works so well, then I would have argued that they would have blocked the sale of U.S. Steel to Nippon Steel to allow us to have an actual advantage and control our resources and economic capabilities, but they don't.

That is why I offer this amendment in an area to ensure that those companies that have been blacklisted can no longer circumvent the system and that the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce are aware of the investigations that should be held by the Department of Justice.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to first start by thanking my colleague from Florida for allowing me this time.

I have heard the other side of the aisle talk about constitutionality and what our roles and responsibilities are here in Congress, but the one that they fail to understand the most is oversight and accountability. That is something that is afforded to us under Article I as the legislative body.

In doing so, we are requested to ensure that we have not just the written but the audio and other testimony that was actually provided, which, by the way, is paid for by the U.S. taxpayers and, therefore, has the right to be heard.

Special Counsel Robert Hur made it very clear when he was investigating the improper maintenance and keeping of classified documents that were not protected by executive privilege by President Joe Biden in his garage and University of Pennsylvania--that is what we are demanding, is to hear the further testimony to this and not just sit here and look at the written or the ``elderly man with a poor memory,'' a quote from Robert Hur.

Again, I ask the question, what is it that they are trying to hide? Is it either that he is not mentally and physically fit and capable to be the Commander in Chief, and, therefore, the 25th Amendment should be invoked, or is it the fact that he is mentally fit and therefore should be indicted and treated in the same manner that Special Counsel Jack Smith treated President Trump? It has to be one or the other.

The Trump audio was actually demanded by Congress during their continuation of the Russia, Russia, Russia, Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine witch hunts.

We will also note that the House has actually done this to hold people in contempt. We have right now Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon who have been in prison for this very same thing.

I urge all of my colleagues to support Mrs. Luna's resolution, ensuring that we, as Article I congressional bodies, uphold our constitutional oath and responsibility to guarantee that the rule of law is maintained and kept at all times.

Mr. Chair, I will start out by saying that I really admire and love my colleague from Hawaii. We have had many conversations together on the strengthening of our military, especially when it comes to Schofield Barracks and the rest, and the same is true with the ranking member, my colleague, Adam Smith.

I will say, however, for the record, I served in the United States military. As an Army combat veteran, I proudly served with people from Hawaii, people from Puerto Rico, and people from the Virgin Islands. I have seen the diversity which exists, and I think that the utilization of DEI and CRT is what has led to the creation of the recruitment deficit of 41,000 that we see today.

Our military is not supposed to be prioritizing the ideas of critical race theory or diversity, equity, inclusion. It should be about increased lethality, readiness, and being properly equipped. This is how we defeat our enemies. It is not through the ideas of trying to create division, and it is not through the ideas of pronoun training, where I can guarantee you that we cannot pronoun all of our enemies, but the he/him, they/them, and she/her is not going to make us a stronger military.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support Mrs. Anna Paulina Luna's amendment, and I ask that we understand that we are here to strengthen our military, not to divide it.

Mr. Chair, I just point out once again, as a United States Army combat veteran, I served with people from different races, creeds, and genders. None of that mattered; we all bled green. When we went to Iraq and Afghanistan, when we were sitting in Kosovo, not once did we talk about who did you vote for, what religion do you follow, what gender do you identify as. We were a cohesive unit that believed in service.

I think that the DEI, which was actually passed in last year's NDAA in the House, should actually show that we are ready to close this because it has caused division, not inclusion. When you talk about the 41,000 deficit that we are seeing today, I think that we were a much stronger military with greater recruitment efforts when we were prioritizing the ideas of coming together, fighting a common enemy, training as one.

This is what matters to our United States military when we strengthen ourselves; not the idea of trying to identify ourselves as being something different, but as being one. That is the military that I served in. That is the military I believe in. We need to stop allowing our military to only think about serving political agendas and get back to what they are supposed to do, which is serving our country.

I have seen nothing but division through DEI. One of those examples that we talk about is that we want to try to make sure everyone has a right to their own opinions. The reality is that Tyler Bowyer had a Turning Point event where military members were actually refused attendance because of being conservatives.

We need to be a stronger military. I support this amendment. I ask my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Chair, tomorrow is Flag Day. The Second Continental Congress of June 14, 1777, adopted the flag of the United States some 247 years ago. This was in the midst of our struggle to become a free and independent Nation and to become a constitutional Republic. Now, that flag changed over time as new States were added and the country expanded, but our dedication must be unyielding. They saw fit to honor the flag then, and we must honor the flag now and forever.

We start each legislative day here with the Pledge of Allegiance. That flag that sits behind you right now is a symbol of this great country. We don't make that pledge to a party. We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. It is a simple but solemn part of the day, and it is done to remind us that we are one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Those stars and those stripes mean a lot to me, Mr. Speaker. It is a flag that I saluted as a soldier and a combat veteran, and a flag that I have seen many times draped over the coffins of those I had served with. I hope we never lose sight of the importance of it.

What my amendment does is simple, Mr. Speaker. It honors our flag. We can do this again by asserting the legislative powers, as they did in 1777. Currently, no flag other than the approved flag should be displayed in any workplace, common area place, or public

area at the Department of Defense, which we decided in fiscal year 2024 in the NDAA. Approved flags include the American flag, the State flags, military service flags, and even our POW/MIA flag, as well as others, for 13 types in total.

There is, however, a provision that concerns me that allows ``a flag approved at the discretion of a military chain of command or civilian leadership, as appropriate,'' and this is what my amendment would strike. It would strike the ability from it being a legislative priority that we are abdicating over and bring it back as it was supposed to under Article I. This is about Congress determining the flags that can be displayed at military installations, and we have already agreed to 13 of them. If a Member of Congress or the Department of Defense wants to add to that list, then come and make the argument and the debate here on the floor and have a vote.

Don't just give our Article I powers away to the executive branch. It is our responsibility as a legislative body in this country to make these determinations in this Chamber. I also want to be clear that under current law, a building or an area that primarily serves as a place of residence is exempt, and servicemembers can do as they choose, not denying them their rights that they fight for. There are also exemptions for museum exhibits, license plates, gravesites, memorials, educational displays, and more that were decided here by Congress.

I am here today, Mr. Chair, to say: Honor our flag and protect our legislative powers. I hope all my colleagues will join me in doing so.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have great respect for my colleague, Mr. Smith, and I have served proudly with him on the Armed Services Committee. I remind him that it is our responsibility. As our Founding Fathers established in 1777, it is Congress under Article I that has the rights and authorities to be able to designate which flags are flown over military installations.

We are not talking about outside of their barracks. We are not talking about what they fly outside of their own rooms or even the buildings that they occupy. We are talking about the military installation as a whole.

The one thing that Congress has gotten very good at is abdicating our responsibilities the same way that we abdicate Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11 through 13 of our war powers authority within the actual AUMF, Authorization for Use of Military Force. I ask my colleagues to explain why.

In 1777, we deemed this as a congressional authority, but we now say that any command--and there are good commands; there are bad commands-- has the right to overrule what has actually been done here in the body.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues, once again, to explain why we continue to abdicate our roles and responsibilities within this Chamber only to complain about them further later.

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

Mr. Chair, I remind the gentlewoman that the purpose of Congress is not to try to pass as many bills as you can possibly pass. Actually, it was the opposite of that. It was actually trying to make it very difficult.

The reason that we are so big on wanting to try to gauge the metrics by how many bills we pass is because we don't even enforce the existing laws that we have on the books, and we think that is somehow a metric of success.

The reality is that we are not supposed to be involved in day-to-day lives, which is why, in 1777, they made it very clear: Here are the authorized flags we can fly.

I can tell you that if there were a tremendous amount of MAGA flags flying over military installations, you would hear an absolute outcry by the left that would come in and tell you that these are not authorized and approved flags, so how dare they do this, it is a complete atrocity, and J6 is a result of this.

The funny thing is that it is only a great argument when it is to their own benefit, but the reality is this: Why can't it be simple? The simplest thing is that our military installations and our military servicemembers, myself as an actual armed services member--not sure that my colleagues have actually served in the Army--we wore an American flag on our uniform. Why? Because that is what our American country represented, that flag.

Mr. Chair, I ask that my colleagues support this and that we get back to supporting and honoring our flag.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Embassy Construction Integrity Act is very simple: America's adversaries must not be involved in building our diplomatic and consular posts.

This, in my opinion, is a commonsense bill, or at least it should be. Last year, Congress was made aware that a Chinese state-owned enterprise was involved in the construction of a post in south Asia.

Despite all of the bureaucratic red tape the State Department goes through to establish these posts, somehow checking whether the Chinese Government controls the companies constructing the building didn't quite make the list.

The Chinese Government has established a pattern of leveraging its state-owned enterprise to serve dual functions during and after construction to spy on sensitive facilities.

Chinese-owned companies built the African Union headquarters. Like many things, they can't just build something, they have to build it with Chinese characteristics. In this case, those Chinese characteristics were spyware that was utilized to quietly siphon enormous amounts of data every night for the Chinese Government.

According to a study by Joshua Meservey, an expert in African geopolitics, Chinese companies have built nearly 200 government facilities in Africa, a number that is sure to have only increased since the study was published.

I am not telling other countries who they can or cannot employ to construct their buildings. My bill is simple, however, that when our adversaries show us how they operate, that we should believe them and take steps to mitigate those risks.

Specifically, this bill requires the State Department, before establishing a new diplomatic or consular post, to identify the beneficial owners of the companies involved in the construction and maintenance of those buildings.

Further, this bill prohibits the State Department from entering into contracts or agreements if the beneficial owners of the companies are affiliated with the Chinese Government.

Finally, if inconsistent actions are discovered, the Secretary of State would be required to report it to Congress within 7 days.

Briefly, it is important to address the fact that it would be impossible for the State Department to operate in China if they weren't allowed to contract with some of these companies. The bill is carefully crafted to avoid stifling the important work of the State Department in China or the limited other locations where inconsistent measures may be the only option. However, even in these cases, Congress should be notified so that we do our job and have proper oversight for all of these activities.

Aside from those extraordinarily limited circumstances, the State Department must conduct greater due diligence to secure the integrity of our embassies and other consular posts around the world.

I express my sincere gratitude to Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, my bipartisan colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee who unanimously voted in favor of this bill during its markup, and each of their staffs who worked with me to secure it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 6306.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits schools from participating in the school lunch program under the act from purchasing or offering milk produced by Chinese state-owned enterprises that may be operating here within the United States or elsewhere.

As many of us know, in 2008, the melamine scandal exposed systemic corruption and disregard for the safety standards within China's own dairy industry. This scandal resulted in the death of six infants and sickened thousands more, highlighting the devastating consequences of lax regulations and unethical practices.

The evidence is clear: These enterprises pose a serious threat to our consumers' health, our economic security, and our national interests. We can't allow CCP enterprises to export their dangerous practices to our school lunches.

This is an issue of maintaining American control of critical supply chains. Chinese state-owned enterprises have no business being in our schools.

Florida is one of the largest cattle producers in America, and there is no way I will allow producers in my State to be compromised by the CCP or the PRC. If we fail to act, we risk losing our family farms and jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of Americans.

This is not about trade isolationism; it is about protecting our children in schools from unsafe products, ensuring fair competition for American producers, and safeguarding our national security.

The potential consequences of inaction are simply too great for me to ignore. The quality and safety of food that we provide to our children is paramount, and we cannot compromise on these standards. We must be vigilant about our source and production practices of the products that are present in our educational institutions and safeguard them from adversaries that do not share our same interests.

By prohibiting schools from purchasing or offering milk produced by China's state-owned enterprises operating in the United States and elsewhere, we aim to send a clear message about our commitment to health and the safety of our children.

Last year, over 30 million schoolchildren relied on school lunches for their nutrition. We have seen how the CCP has approached other industries, and we cannot allow such an important sector to become vulnerable in a time of crisis.

Therefore, I urge you to join me in preventing the CCP-supported entities from infiltrating school lunches and a key American supply chain. This is a necessary step to protect the health and well-being of our citizens, safeguard our economy, and defend our national interests. Let us send a clear message that we will prioritize the safety and security of our Nation's schoolchildren above all else.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, and I understand that facts, for whatever reason, seem to sink in a lot slower on the left than they do in America's party, so I will say this once more.

In 2008, the melamine scandal exposed systemic corruption and disregard for our complete safety in milk and other dairy products produced by China, so it is interesting that the gentleman says they are not actually weakening anything when they had infants and children by the thousands who died or were sickened by their actual production capacity capabilities or incapabilities.

Again, facts are a very finicky thing. They oftentimes slowly leak in on the left, but you can't dispute that China's production of dairy has been less safe and less put under the regulations of rigorous streams than they do in American production with the FDA.

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

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

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

This amendment cuts back spending for the Office of Public Health Scientific Services by more than $158 million to return us back to our FY19 funding levels. This reins back the irresponsible, ballooned spending that we have seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The House of Representatives has to hold itself accountable to fiscal responsibility. We cannot continue to spend money that we do not have, entrenching our country into more debt that future generations will be unable to pay back.

Our public health offices, particularly during COVID-19, have proven they do not effectively follow scientific method. In fact, I would argue that this body only follows political science, not medical science. While some of these offices certainly played roles in helping to research the effects of COVID, others like the Office of Public Health Scientific Services, were ineffective and do not serve their purpose.

We do not need another redundant public health office to advance the politicized work of the Federal Government's public health operations. Furthermore, as a businessowner, I know the value of industry driving policy and not policy driving industry. These cuts encourage increased collaboration with the private sector to leverage external resources and expertise to support the public health initiatives.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman actually stepping up. She asked two key questions that I really liked. First off, what would it eliminate was one of the questions. Well, what it would eliminate is the wasteful and fraudulent spending that has gone to the NIH, as well as to those who have actually continued to pursue things like gain of function under Fauci, and we saw how that worked out.

The other thing she also questioned, what should we have learned. Well, what we have learned is that we are actually spinning ourselves into an economic abyss; the fact that we are actually leading the Nation when it comes to continually frivolous spending. I love how only in Washington can we call something emergency spending levels but then maintain it throughout the period in which we are going to move forward.

We have to acknowledge the fact that in 2019, pre-COVID spending levels, if you did a 3\1/2\ percent adjusted rate, that would get us to an actual spending cap of $1.477 trillion today, not the $1.586 trillion, not the $1.786 trillion, and certainly not the $2 trillion that the Democrats want to continue to spend.

The bottom line, Mr. Chair, is this: We are not saying that we will not have the necessary spending for our public health sectors and others to continue to do their job. What we are saying is that we should return our spending levels to pre-COVID, pre-emergency levels that would be in sync with what we have always done, at a 3\1/2\ percent adjusted rate.

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

Mr. Chair, in closing, it is very clear that the only thing that D.C. continues to do successfully is spend American taxpayer funding. We did not do what was necessary to mitigate these risks. There was always this 2 weeks to slow the curve. I wish there were 2 weeks to slow our spending. We need to get back to where we were before so that we can get control, start looking at economic growth, start looking at what is best and having industry drive the actual policy, not policy drive the industry. We need to reduce and limit the government's reach into the public sector to ensure that they have what they need driven by them, for them.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment is pretty simple. This would cut back on the spending for the office of the NIH Director by more than $160 million to return us back to the fiscal year 2019 funding level. This amendment ensures appropriate accountability for the NIH's recent failures while also advancing the urgent need for better fiscal responsibility of the House.

When the Republicans took over the majority, we promised to rein in inflation and government spending. We must do more than talk. We must start to act.

The NIH resoundingly failed to do its due diligence to prevent gain- of-function research at Chinese labs, and this failure was fundamental to the existence of the virus that caused the pandemic.

To date, there has been absolutely no accountability for these failures and others, and Congress would be failing its duty to ensure accountability by doing nothing and continuing this irresponsible funding to the NIH.

We must stop Fauci's experimental process, start holding accountability, get research into finding out exactly what the leading cause was, and make sure we have the necessary prevention.

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman for her acknowledgment that we have increased spending by $8.4 billion, of which some of that funding led to additional trillions of dollars in spending and thousands of lives lost, as we funded things like the gain of function under Fauci, which led to the spread of COVID.

Now, when you talk about the cut of $160 million, the only response that I can think of is you are welcome. You are welcome to the American people for us saving money and for us actually doing our job to be fiscally responsible once again.

You are welcome that we won't allow continuation of funding for gain of function that would lead to another pandemic, as we saw across the world. You are welcome that we are actually, in the Republican Party as the majority, taking a stand to stop the out-of-control and runaway spending that has been irresponsible and driving generations and generations into future debt.

Mr. Chairman, this is pretty simple. Without that funding there probably would have been no pandemic. Unless we are going to get accountability and do the necessary research, I cannot continue to sponsor Fauci and NIH and their efforts to go ahead and spread and lead to another COVID.

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

Mr. Chairman, I love how our colleagues on the left refer to every conspiracy as a conspiracy until it is found to be factual, which is 99 percent of the time.

I am also aware that Mr. Fauci is no longer there and we are very thankful for that. His accountability on what he had done with helping to fund gain of function, which was actually something that led to spreading the Wuhan virus, which was also in partnership with China-- this is something that still needs accountability research and the necessary review within Congress.

I am aware that we are continuing to spend at emergency COVID levels and we need to get back to where we were before. This is simple mathematics. If emergency-level spending is meant to be only during a time of emergency, then why do we continue to make that the new benchmark of spending moving forward.

The whole point is, is that we would bring it back to the pre-COVID spending levels, which is what the American people are looking at. They are looking for us to stop the irresponsible spending and actually get to what the root cause is, which is the U.S. Congress.

I hate to say it in this way, but the bottom line is that I will not continue to fund these types of things.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support me in this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today to support Representative Boebert's request for this to be referred to the Committee on Homeland Security with regard to the dereliction of duty under this administration and this President's policies.

As a United States Army combat veteran, I have fought abroad for the majority of my adult life. I have spent over 7 years of my life in Iraq, over 3 years of my life in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Pakistan, and northern Somalia. I have been blown up twice, and I am a Bronze Star recipient.

I went overseas for the purpose of protecting this Nation and ensuring that terrorists do not have the ability to come to threaten our lives and threaten our children, but under the failed policies of this President just this last year, in the last 7 months, we have had over 96 people who are on the known terrorist watch list who have crossed our borders.

I would love to know from this President and from everyone else here: Why did my brothers go and die in the thousands? Why did we waste 20- plus years of our lives fighting terrorism? Why did we go ahead and botch the Afghan withdrawal and leave our allies behind if we were just going to open our borders anyway to them?

Tell me why it was that we were going to vote to fight in these wars to protect this Nation when this President and his failed policies were going to do nothing but open up our borders to the terrorists who are coming across daily.

We will see another 9/11-type attack if we continue this type of unsafe policy and do not get ahold of this right now.