Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2347) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income any damages, other than punitive damages, received on account of any sexual acts or sexual contact, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on this bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2347, the Survivor Justice Tax Prevention Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Lloyd Smucker and Gwen Moore.

Survivors of sexual assault face a long road to recovery without having to battle with the IRS over keeping the compensatory damages or settlements that they receive.

Unfortunately, right now, the burden of proof that a sexual assault survivor would have to provide to the IRS, including medical records to prove that they deserve to have their settlement funds excluded from gross income for tax purposes, ignores the fact that such victims often do not have the same observable physical injuries that other victims of assault might have.

Mr. Speaker, this clarification in law is desperately needed. I thank Representatives Smucker and Moore for the true compassion they have shown in fighting to right this wrong for victims of sexual assault.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), who is the sponsor of this legislation and who has done great bipartisan work in advancing a much-needed solution to support survivors of sexual assault.

Mr. Speaker, it is disturbing to think that the IRS is allowed to tax survivors of sexual assault on the compensatory damages or the settlements that they have received. Such victims should not have to relitigate their case before the agency, adding insult to the injuries that they have already suffered.

I encourage my colleagues to support this great piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5334) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5334, the Supporting Early- childhood Educators' Deductions, or the SEED, Act, which is bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick and Jimmy Panetta.

Early-childhood educators are the foundation of a lifetime of education for the next generation of leaders in this country. They put in the long hours and often dip into their own wallets to provide educational materials for their classrooms. Unfortunately, unlike their K-12 colleagues, they are not afforded the same tax deduction to help cover those expenses. This is a longstanding oversight that needs correcting.

This legislation provides early-childhood educators with the same deduction so they are on equal footing with their school colleagues. I commend Representatives Fitzpatrick and Panetta, who are standing up for America's teachers and have been championing the cause for years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), the co- lead of this legislation, who recognizes and is championing the needs of all of our teachers with this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supporting teachers who go the extra mile to provide for their students, including paying out of pocket for supplies and other educational materials, we need to ensure we are acknowledging and rewarding the contributions of all of our educators.

That includes the early-childhood teachers, who are charged with instilling in our youth a love of learning and curiosity from the youngest age.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6903) to require the Secretary of State to revoke any United States passport issued to an individual, on receipt of a certification by the Secretary of Health and Human Services that the individual has a child support arrearage exceeding $2,500, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6903, the Ensuring Children Receive Support Act, bipartisan legislation introduced by Representatives Beth Van Duyne and Jimmy Panetta.

This legislation has a simple premise: Parents must meet their obligations to care for their kids, period. It is pretty simple.

To ensure that is happening, State-level child support agencies rely in part on the Passport Denial Program, which is run out of the State Department and, as its name suggests, is used to deny the ability of delinquent parents to obtain a passport to leave the country when they owe back child support.

The State Department has authority under current law to deny, limit, or revoke a passport of an individual, but as we have discovered, quite often the bureaucracy does not act with the level of urgency that is needed. This bill makes it clear that the State Department must revoke an individual's passport, both at the time of initial application for a passport and at the time of renewal.

Research indicates that child support is a significant portion of income for low-income families, making up 41 percent of total income when received and can help reduce poverty and reliance on welfare. Among all families served, 24 percent have income below the Federal poverty level.

Representatives Van Duyne and Panetta are doing tremendous work here to ensure that States have the enforcement tools that they need and children receive the support that they need and are owed without delay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne), the sponsor of this legislation and someone who is standing up for children across this country to ensure that they get the support that they need.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation strengthens the federal child support enforcement program, which is meant to ensure parents pay the support that they owe to their children.

This program is one of the most effective Federal programs we have. In 2024, States reported nearly $30 million in collections through the passport denial program, and over 5,000 payments were made to custodial families.

The bill closes a loophole in current law that can let parents with large unpaid child support debts receive a passport renewal without consequence. This bill makes sure that the State Department uses its authority to revoke passports, both at the time of the application and renewal. We should use every opportunity to make sure children get the support that they need to thrive.

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

Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 1147, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1156) expressing support for tax policies that support working families, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 1156 and the working families tax cuts, which have led to this year's historic tax refund season.

Today, April 15, is tax day. The IRS typically receives around 24 percent of tax returns in April. What millions of Americans are finding out today is that their tax refund is significantly larger than it has been in the past, thanks to the working families tax cuts.

Refunds this tax season have increased by 11 percent, with the average refund over $3,400. Much of that relief is thanks to the policies championed by President Trump. Over 6 million Americans have claimed no tax on tips, 25 million Americans have claimed no tax on overtime, and 30 million taxpayers claimed the Social Security deduction. Over 1 million Americans claimed the no tax on auto loan interest.

Who are the folks claiming these deductions? It is working-class Americans. It is not millionaires. It is not billionaires. Overall, nearly half of all tax filers this season claimed at least one of those key provisions.

Under this tax relief, tipped workers get, on average, a $1,300 tax cut. Hourly workers get, on average, a $1,400 tax cut from no tax on overtime. A $12,000 deduction for a married couple on Social Security means a more secure retirement.

When Republicans enacted the working families tax cuts, we made America's workers, families, farmers, and small businesses our top priority.

An inconvenient fact that the Democrats don't talk about is that the share of income taxes paid by the top 1 percent actually went up from 37 percent to 40 percent. The very rich are paying a higher share of taxes today than they were before passage of this bill. Why? It is because the other 99 percent of Americans saw the share of their taxes go down, from 63 percent to 60 percent.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to the stories of everyday Americans, like Raymond Huff from Colorado, who testified before the Ways and Means Committee that the working families tax cuts will help him grow his small business and hire more workers; Nancy Overman from Nevada, who testified that she will be able to afford basic necessities without draining her retirement savings, thanks to the no tax on Social Security; Sharon Simmons, a DoorDash driver--who showed up at the White House yesterday, in fact--originally from my home State of Missouri, who testified to how no tax on tips will help her better afford her husband's medical treatments and travel to Missouri to see her family more often; or the waitress in my district who told me that she got a $10,000 tax refund, thanks to the no tax on tips, the expanded child tax credit, and other provisions. She told me, Mr. Speaker, that because of that provision, she will be able to pay for her rent for an entire year and a lot of food for her family.

That makes a huge impact on everyday Americans. Families have more

money in their pockets today, thanks to a boosted and permanent child tax credit of $2,200. When you add in the permanent increase and the standard deduction, up to $31,500, a family of four earning $73,000 had zero Federal tax liability this year.

When they controlled Washington, Democrats spent $10 trillion, and they created a cost-of-living crisis where inflation went up almost 21 percent.

Under Republican tax relief, we expanded 529 accounts to cover K-12 education expenses and trade schools. We expanded health savings accounts so that another 10 million Americans can better manage healthcare costs. For those who are looking to adopt, they have more access to the adoption tax credit, with $5,000 of that cost being refundable.

Under Trump Accounts, newborn U.S. citizens in America get a $1,000 investment to start building a more secure financial future. It does not matter if they live on a city block or on a county road. They qualify.

Due to the working families tax cuts, Americans have more money to buy school supplies and put food on their tables. Family farmers and small businesses have more certainty and resources to invest, to grow, and to hire. These are the results of Republican tax relief that puts America's working families first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that for years, Members in this body have tried to implement no tax on tips. Never before did it ever become law until we passed it within the Big Beautiful Bill Act. It delivered for a lot of tipped employees. In fact, 6 million tipped employees used it this tax filing season.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Mr. Speaker, because of the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, also known as the working families tax cuts, the folks in Brooklyn, New York, will actually face an average tax cut of $3,341. That is the area that the minority leader represents. I am happy that Republicans could deliver tax relief for the folks in Brooklyn, even though their Representative could not do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out that 86,800 individuals in the district of the ranking member of the Tax Subcommittee, who was speaking before me, because of passage of this bill, those 86,800 families in California will not have $1,000 child tax credit, they will have a $2,200 tax credit. Those are the people that are benefiting in this bill that he voted against.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Mr. Speaker, I think the most important point about

the child tax credit in the working families tax bill is that it is, in fact, permanent. It will not be reduced. It will not expire. That is something that didn't happen when the Democrats were in charge a few years ago on the child tax credit. They made it temporary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong).

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

Mr. Speaker, the working families tax cuts were written for the working families of this country by the working families of this country.

After I became chairman, the first hearing that the Ways and Means Committee held was not here in Washington. It was at a lumberyard in Petersburg, West Virginia, ``The State of the American Economy: Appalachia.''

We then traveled across the country, listening to workers and job creators and families in Yukon, Oklahoma; in Peachtree City, Georgia; and in Erie, Pennsylvania. We heard directly from waiters and waitresses, factory workers, retirees, welders, and small business owners about how tax relief would benefit them.

Under this bill, a family of four who makes less than $73,000 a year will have zero in Federal tax liability. This is tax relief for Americans who need it the most.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 4 o'clock and 57 minutes

p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 16, 2026, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Dr. William David Myers of Rolla, who passed away on January 26, 2026, at the age of 74, after nearly five decades of devoted service providing quality healthcare to the people of central Missouri.

Dr. Myers was inspired to pursue a career in medicine by his family's example. For generations, his father and uncles practiced medicine in the very region he would one day serve. He graduated from Northeast Missouri State University on a pre-medical track and earned his Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine from the Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine. In 1976, he began what would become a remarkable career dedicated to caring for tens of thousands of patients.

Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Myers was especially proud of delivering nearly 3,000 babies throughout his career, in a testament to the relationships and trust he built with his patients, some of those children later returned to him as adults to deliver their own children. He built lasting relationships grounded in compassion, humility, and an easygoing sense of humor. Patients and colleagues alike remember his warm manner and steadfast dedication to their well-being.

Beyond his medical practice, Dr. Myers was deeply committed to his community. A former high school athlete, he maintained a lifelong passion for youth sports and generously provided free athletic physicals for local students year after year. He believed in investing not only in the health of his patients, but also in the future of his community.

Dr. Myers was known for placing the needs of others above his own, seeking neither recognition nor accolades. He was generous with both his time and resources, often accepting no more than a dollar--or even a simple drink--from patients who could not afford care. He quietly organized friends and family to anonymously assist patients struggling to pay for treatment or even provide Christmas gifts for their families. As his nephew beautifully said, ``He was not materially a rich man, but in spirit, my uncle died the richest man in town.''

It is my great privilege to recognize Dr. Myers' extraordinary career and his unwavering service to the people of Missouri before the United States House of Representatives. His life stands as a powerful example of compassion, humility, and selfless dedication to others.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2189, which includes the Innovate Less Lethal to De-Escalate Tax Modernization Act, led by Congressman David Schweikert.

This legislation shines a bright light on how our laws actually work in the real world, where outdated policy can get in the way of safer outcomes. At the end of the day, this is about encouraging tools that help de-escalate conflict and reduce the chances of serious injury or loss of life.

Across the country, law enforcement officers are asked to resolve dangerous situations every day with the least amount of harm as possible. Less-than-lethal devices, like tasers and similar technologies, exist for that exact purpose.

Right now, some of these tools are treated in the tax code like traditional firearms. That means that they can face extra taxes and regulatory burdens that were never designed with such tools in mind. The result is higher costs, more red tape, and slower adoption of technology that can actually make encounters safer for both officers and civilians.

This bill fixes that mismatch. It makes clear that less-than-lethal weapons, such as tasers, should not be taxed like firearms. It gives clarity to manufacturers; certainty to regulators; and, ultimately, better access to lifesaving tools for law enforcement and the communities that they serve.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Schweikert for his incredible leadership on this bill that keeps our laws on pace with real-world solutions that reduce harm and protect our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Ms. Tenney. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is about time that we support the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De- Escalate Act. This crucial legislation ensures that law enforcement officers have access to the best, less-than-lethal technologies for de- escalation.

Under current law, certain new less-than-lethal technologies are included under the National Firearms Act, NFA, a law designed to regulate firearms. However, due to the definition of firearms under the NFA, this includes less-than-lethal devices such as the new TASER 10. This bill will modernize the NFA to include the less-than-lethal category to ensure that devices like the TASER 10, that are not designated to be lethal, are not included under the NFA's taxes and regulations design for firearms for use by municipalities, not individuals.

I am honored to be a cosponsor of this bill along with, I think, at least 22 commonsense Democrats, and I strongly supported its passage through the House Ways and Means committee.

However, I am disappointed that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to support this commonsense bill. Instead, they want to politicize and talk about completely unrelated matters.

While some on the other side resort to fear-mongering, House Republicans and, as I said 22, I believe, commonsense Democrats, are committed to ensuring law enforcement has the tools and resources they need to keep our communities safe.

Every major police organization is supporting the passage of this legislation, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Major County Sheriffs Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. This is a pro-police, pro-community, and lifesaving piece of legislation.

I urge the Senate to vote on this bill expediently. I thank Representative Fitzgerald, Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, and, of course, Chairman Smith for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, you absolutely cannot make this stuff up that you are hearing from the other side of the aisle. When they talk about the affordability crisis, let's talk about the affordability crisis.

Gas prices are the lowest they have been in 5 years. Inflation is the lowest it has been in 4 years. Just in the first year of President Trump, wages grew more than all 4 years under Joe Biden. We are in an inflation crisis that President Trump inherited because of the spending spree, the $10 trillion spending spree, that the Democrats did when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, based on the comments that we have been hearing from the other side, it is proof that they didn't take the time to read the seven-page bill that we are debating on the floor. That is because the accusations and the comments you have heard, Mr. Speaker, are clearly not identifiable of the legislation that is being debated.

This bill comes down to basic common sense. Our tax code should not put unnecessary barriers in front of technologies designed to reduce harm.

Representative Schweikert's legislation helps align our tax policy with our public safety goals. It supports innovation, it encourages less lethal means of law enforcement, and removes an outdated burden that never made much sense to begin with.

When Congress has the chance to make a straightforward fix that can contribute to safer communities and smarter policy, we should take it.

I commend Congressman Schweikert for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I congratulate the 22 brave Democrats who believe in less lethal force by sponsoring this legislation. I just wish there was more of that party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 142, legislation to reverse a District of Columbia law that bars the citizens of our Nation's Capital from seeing the benefits of the working families tax cuts enacted by Republicans and signed into law by President Trump on July 4.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to provide relief to the working families and small businesses in their communities, the elected leaders in D.C. are going out of their way to deny their own citizens tax relief. That includes policies like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and an increased standard deduction which 91 percent of Americans use to file their taxes.

They say that they are the party of the working class. They are the party of the taxing class because they do not want the people who are waiting tables in Washington, D.C., to have no tax on tips because they believe that they can spend their hard-earned dollars better than they can. That is the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.

We are the party of the working class: no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and tax relief for seniors. Under the working families tax cut, a family of four who makes less than $73,000 will pay zero dollars in Federal taxes, and every single Democrat in the House and the Senate voted against that provision.

We also increased the child tax credit to $2,200 and made it permanent, and every single Democrat voted against it.

We created Trump investment accounts for every new child born in America, $1,000 in seed money to transform their lives, and every single Democrat voted against it.

They are the taxing party. They are not the party about affordability. They are not the party about working families.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore) for yielding and for being an incredible member of the best committee in Congress, the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my staff director, Mark Roman, who is leaving Federal service at the end of this week.

For more than one decade, Mark has been one of the most capable and loyal public servants I have ever worked alongside. My team is stronger today because of his judgment and the example his work ethic sets for the rest of my team. He has not only been my most trusted adviser, but I am proud to also call him a true friend.

Mark began working in the House of Representatives just over 20 years ago for his hometown Congresswoman, Ms. Nancy Johnson, from Connecticut. Mark went on to work for two congressional Members from Illinois before he joined my team in 2015 as my deputy chief of staff to serve the great people of Missouri's Eighth Congressional District.

Mark's keen eye for tax policy in particular and, in fact, his keen eye for all policies within the Ways and Means jurisdiction made him so important to me when my colleagues selected me to serve as a member of the Ways and Means Committee. He went on to become my chief of staff and my staff director when I was the Republican leader of the Budget Committee, and my staff director for the Ways and Means Committee for the last 3 years.

Mark's deep understanding of and relationships within the conservative and the populist movements have been invaluable as we worked to build the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

I am told that most Ways and Means Committee staff directors often have their legacies defined by their one signature accomplishment, and I think it says so much about Mark that his signature accomplishment will be the largest tax cut in our Nation's history and a bill remembered for rejecting special interest tax policy in favor of relief for the tens of millions of working American families, farmers, and many small businesses that are the heartbeat of this Nation.

I know that Mark's wife, Tate, and his two wonderful children, Johnny and Ann Tate, have made a lot of sacrifices along the way to allow him to serve for so long, and I will say I am blessed to call them family as well.

Mark is not going far, and even though he won't be here in the Capitol with us, I have no doubt he will continue to leave a lasting impact on all of us after he leaves. His incredible tenure of service has strengthened my team and this institution for the better.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking Mr. Mark Roman for his dedication and years of public service to this institution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and service of Oscar Leroy Wade of Farmington, Missouri. He died January 2, 2026, at the age of 97, and was among the last of the veterans from Farmington who served in World War II.

Mr. Wade's military service in the U.S. Navy became a cornerstone of his life. He enlisted at the age of 17 on August 6, 1946, and received an honorable discharge on April 29, 1948. He served in the South Pacific on the USS Whiteside. He earned the China Service Medal, the World War II Victory Medal and the Navy Occupation Service Medal. Leroy served in the South Pacific on the USS Whiteside. He took great pride in collecting Navy memorabilia and telling stories of his time at sea.

Leroy was a member of Farmington VFW Post 5896 and when he was able, frequently attended veterans' events. In his later years, he would rise from his seat, hold onto his walker to stand at attention and salute when the colors were presented or when Taps was played. In 2015, he joined a group of local veterans on an Honor Flight to Washington, D.C. to visit veterans' memorials. His room at Maplebrook Assisted Living was decorated in tribute to his naval service.

Leroy was born August 2, 1928, in Farmington and is survived by his sister, Barbara Cornellson, and his children, Cathy Mana, Mary LeTourneau, Nancy Rariden, Greg Wade, Diane Byrd and stepdaughter Kellie Grief. He is also survived by 12 grandchildren and 20 great- grandchildren.

It is my great privilege to acknowledge Mr. Wade's patriotic pride and celebrate his military service today before the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the bill (H.R. 6945) to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to clarify the authority of States to use funds for pregnancy centers, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act led by Representative Fischbach.

What this bill does is really pretty simple. It ensures States will be able to continue to use TANF funds for pregnancy resource centers and the maternal care they provide to pregnant women and moms. That is it, Mr. Speaker.

Pregnancy resource centers offered material support and care to over 2 million women at more than 2,700 locations in 2024 alone, including diapers, prenatal vitamins, parenting classes, and transportation, just to name a few of the many services provided to these mothers.

These services meet the core purposes of TANF. Yet, the Biden administration proposed a regulation to discriminate against the pro- life mission of pregnancy resource centers by forbidding States from using TANF funds for these centers. It was a deliberate attempt to sidestep the law to achieve a partisan political agenda. Nothing, Mr. Speaker, in the TANF statute gave the Biden administration or any other future administration the ability to target pregnancy resource centers.

Following pressure from the Committee on Ways and Means and this Chamber, the Biden administration withdrew the rule in its final days. Think of what would have happened to maternal care in this country. One of the few places women can get care and support would have been closed.

In my home State of Missouri, $3 out of every $4 the State gives to pregnancy resource centers comes from TANF, and it is not just Missouri. Women in other States would have had fewer choices for their own care.

That is why we are passing this bill, to give pregnant women and moms a choice about where they receive maternal care and to stop any future administration from taking the same action as the Biden White House.

Democrats will talk until they are blue in the face, Mr. Speaker, about a woman's right to choose, but they oppose this bill, which is all about empowering women to make their own choices.

Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Simply because it doesn't align with their political agenda. The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning, Mr. Speaker. Democrats only believe in choice when it is the choice that their party would make.

Republicans are on the side of pregnant women, moms, and children who choose to get the help they need at one of these centers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), an incredible advocate for the unborn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fong).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Mrs. Biggs).

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are fear-mongering today. The majority of pregnancy resource centers have voluntarily signed on to industry standards, a call to commitment of care and competence created by Heartbeat International. These standards set an ethical code where they agree to adopt a transparent and honest service model.

According to a recent report that surveyed 2,750 different pregnancy centers in 2025, there were 4,779 licensed medical professionals on staff, and 5,396 licensed medical professional volunteers.

I include in the Record a copy of Heartbeat International's ``Our Commitment of Care and Competence.''

Our Commitment of Care & Competence

Clients are served without regard to age, race, income,

nationality, religious affiliation, disability or other

arbitrary circumstances.

Clients are treated with kindness and compassion, in a

caring manner.

Clients always receive honest and open answers.

Client information is kept securely and confidentially and

only released with the client's signed authorization or as

required by law.

Clients receive accurate information about pregnancy, fetal

development, lifestyle issues, and related concerns.

We do not offer, recommend, or refer for abortions or

abortifacients, or contraceptives. We are committed to

offering accurate information about related risks and

procedures.

All of our advertising and communications are truthful and

honest, and accurately describe the services we offer.

We provide a safe environment by screening and equipping

all staff and volunteers interacting with clients.

We are governed by a Board of Directors and operate in

accordance with our articles of incorporation, bylaws, and

stated purpose and mission.

We comply with applicable legal and regulatory requirements

regarding employment, fundraising, financial management,

taxation, and public disclosure including the filing of all

applicable government reports in a timely manner.

All services are provided in accordance with pertinent and

applicable laws. Medical services are provided in accordance

with medical standards, under the supervision and direction

of a licensed physician (or advanced clinical provider as

permitted by law).

All of our staff and volunteers receive appropriate

training to uphold these standards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).

Mr. Speaker, holy cow. The things that you hear from the other side in this body could not be so--not truthful-- false.

They paint with a broad brush and say the most ridiculous items, saying that pregnancy resource centers do not help anyone. Give me a break. Where I come from, whenever someone says something useless, we call it hogwash. They are swimming in hogwash on that side of the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Democrats will make all kinds of wild and ridiculous claims about pregnancy resource centers. They have tried to twist giving diapers and ultrasounds to moms into some sort of nefarious activity, giving diapers to moms.

The millions of women who have sought and received care at a pregnancy resource center know the truth. I hope every American is watching this debate today on this floor.

Democrats distract and fearmonger because they can't admit that pregnancy resource centers fulfill the purposes of TANF. These centers provide material support and assistance to women in need and reduce dependence on government assistance. They are eligible for State TANF funds, period.

I thank Representative Fischbach for her very hard work on this bill. She has been a champion--a champion for women, mothers, and children her entire career. I am glad she once again led the effort this Congress to preserve funding for pregnancy resource centers.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 269) to improve

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Ending Improper Payments to Deceased People Act.

This bipartisan bill continues a bipartisan policy that has already enabled the Federal Government to identify, prevent, and recover hundreds of millions of dollars of improper payments made to dead people.

Currently, the Social Security Administration has temporary authority to share its death data with the Treasury Department's Do Not Pay Portal to identify, prevent, and recover improper payments. In its first year alone, Treasury reported this data exchange saved American taxpayers over $108 million.

Unfortunately, Social Security's authority to share its data with Treasury is temporary and lapses at the end of this year if Congress doesn't pass this bill. That would only increase the likelihood that more taxpayer money is erroneously sent to dead people. In 2023 alone, before this policy was implemented, the Office of Management and Budget found the Federal Government sent $1.3 billion to dead people. That is unacceptable. The American people expect Congress to safeguard their hard-earned tax money from waste, fraud, and abuse.

I thank Representative Higgins for his leadership on this issue as well as

Senator Kennedy. As a former law enforcement officer, Clay Higgins has worked to protect Americans from criminals, and now he is translating that commitment into finding ways that we can protect taxpayer dollars as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

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

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

Madam Speaker, this bill is another piece of the puzzle in the fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. Before the Social Security Administration began sharing its complete death records with the Treasury Department, the Federal Government paid $1.3 billion to the dead in just a single year.

Congress authorized the Treasury to access Social Security's death data for 3 years ending in 2026. In the first year alone, Treasury reported that it helped the Federal Government identify, prevent, or recover $108 million in improper payments, with another $200 million expected by the end of this year. It is only common sense to make this fraud prevention measure permanent.

This policy has already passed both the Senate and the Ways and Means Committee with broad, bipartisan support. I hope the House does the same and sends this to President Trump's desk as soon as possible.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6500) to extend duty-free treatment provided with respect to imports from certain countries in Africa under the African Growth and Opportunity Act, to extend customs user fees, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this bill under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6500, the AGOA Extension Act, legislation to reauthorize the African Growth and Opportunity Act trade preference program.

Our Nation's economic, strategic, and national security interests are front and center in AGOA. Think about it: This program strengthens our critical supply chains and helps us counter the harmful global influence of nations like China and Russia.

Don't just take my word for it. A witness testifying before the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee put it bluntly when discussing the potential for a lapse in AGOA when he said: ``There will be a party in Moscow. There will be a party in Beijing if we don't reauthorize it.''

To achieve this, however, we aren't going to lower our standards. This extension maintains the most stringent eligibility criteria of any trade preference program, with annual reviews to defend IP rights, human rights, market access, and the rule of law against corruption. To be eligible, countries must also ensure they are not undermining America's national security or foreign policy interests.

While we still need a longer-term AGOA extension, this reauthorization provides a much-needed level of certainty and stability in the near term so that Congress can continue its work on future reforms to address and strengthen U.S. priorities. After all, U.S. businesses have invested $8 billion annually under AGOA while our African trading partners have begun to open their markets for U.S. agriculture.

Protecting market access for America's farmers and ranchers is incredibly important to the rural communities I represent in Missouri, a point I have made in my travels to the regions going back to 2015 when I attended the AGOA forum in Gabon.

After we take this step, we can build further. Americans would benefit if African nations graduated into formal bilateral trade agreements with the U.S.

Right now, the nation of Mauritius is on track to graduate from AGOA within the next 5 years. When African nations take steps to expand their markets to American products, graduating from AGOA should have clear benefits, not negative consequences.

Africa is home to 30 percent of the world's critical mineral reserves, and China is quickly moving to corner the market on critical minerals and exploit Africa's vast resources. Stronger partnerships with African nations mean we will limit China's ability to make further gains in the region and protect our national security interests.

Madam Speaker, for example, last year the Trump administration announced a strategic partnership agreement with the Democratic Republic of the Congo to develop critical minerals.

I thank the chairman of our Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, Congressman Adrian Smith, for his tremendous work and leadership in proactively building support for this renewal effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this extension of AGOA, which received strong bipartisan approval in the Ways and Means Committee. I look forward to continuing to work across the aisle to further strengthen this critical program.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers and are prepared to close.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I say thank you to Ms. Sewell, and Mr. Neal for their help in order to get this across the finish line. This is an important piece of legislation that I know my staff, Josh Snead and Hilary Pinegar, have worked tirelessly on for a long time to make sure that this program does not die. I thank both the Democrat and Republican staff. I thank Jorge Rueda and Alexandra Whittaker, as well. I appreciate the hard work. This is super important.

Reauthorization of the African Growth and Opportunity Act will advance the economic, strategic, and national security interests of the United States today and pave the way for future reforms to strengthen this critical program.

AGOA has a proven track record of holding our trading partners accountable to the strictest standards, while opening markets to American producers, particularly our farming community.

It is a vital tool to combat the harmful influence of nations like China and protect America's supply chains, including access to critical minerals.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article discussing the strategic importance of critical minerals.

[Sept. 3, 2025]

Why Is Renewing AGOA Strategic for U.S.-Africa Minerals Diplomacy?

(Critical Questions by Gracelin Baskaran)

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), first signed

into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000, is a unilateral

U.S. trade preference program set to expire in September

2025. Its pending reauthorization has sparked debate over

whether--and how--it should be extended and reformed. A

failure to extend AGOA could have larger ramifications at a

time when the United States is doubling down on its

commercial diplomacy--and more specifically, its mineral

diplomacy efforts--with Africa.

Q1: What is the strategic role of AGOA nations in reshaping

critical mineral supply chains?

A1: There are 33 African countries eligible to participate

in AGOA. Many of these countries--such as the Democratic

Republic of the Congo (DRC), Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania,

Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Tanzania, and Zambia--are

among the world's most well endowed with critical minerals.

In fact, five of the world's top fifteen destinations for

rare earths exploration in the past year were AGOA

beneficiaries: South Africa, Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania, and

Angola. Together, they have roughly 50 high-grade rare earths

deposits. Moreover, Madagascar, Mozambique, and Tanzania

cumulatively hold graphite reserves on par with China's, even

though China accounted for 77 percent of global graphite

output in 2023. According to internal calculations, AGOA

beneficiary countries also hold 70 percent of the

world's manganese, 89 percent of the world's platinum group

metals, 54 percent of cobalt, 23 percent of graphite, and 10

percent of copper. Much of this resource wealth remains

untapped, underscoring the vast potential for deepening U.S.-

Africa supply chain partnerships in critical minerals. The

U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) has

financed--or is preparing to finance--mineral projects in a

number of AGOA countries, including Angola, Mozambique,

Tanzania, and Zambia.

Q2: What is AGOA's impact on critical minerals supply

chains?

A2: AGOA offers limited tariff advantages to the mining

sector, since most minerals already face relatively low

tariffs. Its real value lies in the realm of soft power. In

June 2025, China announced that it would expand market access

by removing tariffs on all imports from 53 African nations.

If the United States were to let AGOA expire and reimpose

tariffs on African exports, it would send a damaging signal

about the future of U.S. commercial diplomacy on the

continent. When African governments see comparable

opportunities from both the United States and China in the

mining sector, they will be more likely to lean toward

Beijing.

Q3: Why is renewing AGOA crucial for building long-term

minerals diplomacy?

A3: AGOA is important for building commercial diplomacy.

While mining generates significant revenue, it is not a major

source of employment. Compared to sectors like manufacturing,

agriculture, or services, mining has a much lower labor

multiplier. Modern operations are highly mechanized, relying

more on advanced technology and machinery than on large

workforces. The jobs that are created are typically

specialized--geologists, engineers, and metallurgists--

limiting wider employment opportunities. Yet Africa urgently

needs large-scale job creation, as its population of 1.4

billion is expected to grow to 2.5 billion by 2050. Mining

alone is not positioned to meet this demand.

By contrast, AGOA has supported the expansion of more

labor-intensive industries, such as textile manufacturing and

agriculture. Namibia illustrates this potential. With more

than 7.7 million cattle, sheep, and goats, its livestock

sector is substantial. After spending 15 years working to

meet stringent safety and logistical standards, Namibia

became the first African nation to export beef to the United

States in 2019. Exports reached 860 tons in 2020 and are

projected to grow to 5,000 tons by 2025. Namibia's Meatco has

significantly benefIted from duty-free access to the U.S.

market through AGOA. Given the infancy of the beef export

relationship with the United States, a disruption to AGOA

could risk its sustainability and undermine capital

investments within the sector.

Sustaining a positive economic relationship with Namibia is

key to advancing minerals diplomacy, particularly given its

significant mineral wealth. The country is home to the

world's fourth-largest uranium reserves--resources that could

support the U.S. nuclear renaissance. Today, Namibia hosts

three active uranium mines--Rossing, Husab, and Langer

Heinrich--all of which have significant Chinese ownership

through entities such as the China National Uranium

Corporation, China General Nuclear Power Group, and the China

Africa Development Fund. The Lofdal heavy rare earths

project, partly owned by Japanese investors, produces around

2,000 tons of rare earth oxides annually and contains some of

the world's most valuable heavy rare earth metals. In

addition, Namibia is on track to become Africa's third-

largest lithium producer by 2026.

Namibia's vast resource base, combined with its reputation

as one of Africa's most politically stable and well-governed

nations, positions it well to develop a growing industrial

processing ecosystem. But allowing AGOA to lapse would deal a

serious blow to Namibia's labor-intensive beef industry and

could undermine future U.S. minerals diplomacy in this

resource-rich nation, further ceding ground to China.

Zambia is another important jurisdiction for minerals

diplomacy. In the last few years, the U.S. government opened

its first-ever Commercial Service Office at the U.S. Embassy

in Lusaka and launched a Tripartite Alliance with Zambia and

the DRC to advance raw material extraction, processing, and

battery manufacturing. The DFC has also provided support to a

U.S. company developing one of Zambia's largest copper

projects.

Deepening minerals diplomacy will depend on strengthening

the bilateral economic relationship. Interviews with Zambian

stakeholders reveal mounting frustration among voters that

the mining sector is failing to deliver meaningful benefits

to the population. Zambia's heavy reliance on copper as its

dominant export, coupled with limited economic

diversification, has left the country highly exposed to

commodity price swings. Expanding U.S. investment into other

industries, such as agriculture, textiles, and manufacturing,

could ease pressure on the mining industry while

simultaneously strengthening Zambia's broader economy and

employment generation efforts. Such diversification would

generate shared benefits, improve public perceptions of

mining, and lessen the risk of abrupt policy shifts that

complicate operations for U.S. firms. The tax benefIts

derived from AGOA are an important investment incentive. In

2022, 55.3 percent of Zambia's exports to the United States

went through AGOA, making its renewal vital to sustaining

U.S.-Zambia commercial diplomacy.

More broadly, the expiration of AGOA would likely prompt

many African countries to reassess their economic diplomacy

strategies. Without preferential access to the U.S. market,

governments may find it more attractive--or even necessary--

to expand commercial and strategic partnerships with China,

which has already established itself as the dominant player

in Africa's trade, infrastructure, and minerals sectors. In

the critical minerals space in particular, Beijing's

willingness to provide financing, infrastructure, and

guaranteed offtake agreements could accelerate African

alignment with Chinese interests, potentially sidelining U.S.

efforts to build resilient, diversified supply chains.

Q4: Is AGOA congruent with the Trump administration's

Africa approach?

A4: It is. Since 2016, U.S. policy toward Africa under the

Trump administration has placed a strong emphasis on

commercial diplomacy, with critical minerals at the

forefront. A major step came in 2018 with the creation of the

DFC, which made its first equity investment in the critical

minerals sector the following year. In 2023, a review was

undertaken of the effectiveness of the President's Advisory

Council on Doing Business in Africa (PAC-DBIA), an initiative

launched during the Obama administration with the mandate to

advise the U.S. president, through the commerce secretary, on

strategies to expand the United States' commercial engagement

across Africa. The review found that the Trump administration

convened more PAC-DBIA meetings than either Obama or Biden.

Since returning to office, Trump's Africa policy has been

characterized by senior officials emphasizing business and

trade over aid. U.S.-Africa engagement has increasingly

focused on critical minerals. One major initiative has been a

``minerals-for-security'' proposal in which President Felix

Tshisekedi offered the United States access to the Democratic

Republic of the Congo's resources in exchange for security

support. Following negotiations in Washington and Doha, the

DRC and Rwanda signed a peace agreement in Washington, D.C.,

on June 27, 2025. Attention is now turning to advancing

mineral cooperation and broader regional economic

integration. In July 2025, the DFC approved financing for two

critical minerals projects in sub-Saharan Africa. According

to its announcement, these investments are intended both to

spur regional development and to strengthen U.S. critical

mineral supply chains vital for energy, defense, and advanced

technologies.

The challenge for the Trump administration is balancing

AGOA, which is a unilateral trade preference program, with

its strong preference for more bilaterally beneficial

economic statecraft instruments.

Q5: What could AGOA 2.O look like?

A5: AGOA can become more bilaterally beneficial. Linking a

unilateral trade preference program with a mining investment

incentive could significantly boost capital flows into

Africa's mining sector. Such a framework could unlock greater

capital flows into Africa's mining sector, while ensuring

that off-take agreements from new projects are secured with

the United States and its allies.

A useful precedent for an investment incentive came from

the Inflation Reduction Act's Section 30D tax credit, which

offered up to $7,500 for the purchase of a new electric

vehicle if its batteries met specific sourcing requirements

for critical minerals and manufacturing. To qualify for the

minerals portion of the credit, a portion of the battery's

mineral content had to be extracted or processed in the

United States or a country with a U.S. free trade agreement

(FTA). This enabled graphite mined in Mozambique to qualify,

since it was processed in Louisiana--yielding benefits to

Mozambique's economy while strengthening graphite security

for the United States.

Although the 30D provision was recently eliminated, future

tax incentives of this kind could be powerful tools to

attract mineral investment in AGOA-eligible countries, with

the extracted resources routed to the United States or allied

partners for processing. The incentive should be industry

agnostic, so minerals sourced for defense, semiconductors,

and energy would be eligible for the incentive. However, in

the meantime, ensuring AGOA's renewal without interruption is

essential to signal the strength and continuity of the U.S.-

Africa economic relationship.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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