Floor Statements

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would attach the Military Chaplains Modernization Act of 2026 to the NDAA. It is supported by the Armed Forces Chaplains Board.

This is not simply a chaplain protection bill. This is a military readiness, religious liberty, and command support bill. This bill builds upon the truth that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court that the First Amendment rights of our military chaplains are not suspended at the doors of the Pentagon.

Our chaplains serve on the front lines, providing for the moral and spiritual well-being of our troops. The Department of War needs statutory clarity.

Despite existing protections in the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, and section 533 of the FY 2013 NDAA, chaplains continue to face obstacles for simply ministering according to their faith.

These sections in title 10 were last updated in 1956 when polls showed that 90 percent of America identified as Christian. The United States is far more religiously diverse now. This is why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unanimously passed to protect religious freedom, and mainly religious minorities, in 1993.

It is high time that title 10 was revised to reflect the diverse faith needs of our servicemembers, while also providing protections for the diverse chaplains that serve them.

The chaplain's ability to freely exercise their religious duties is not only constitutionally protected but is essential to forming the conscience of the warfighter. It is what helps restrain the soldier from committing atrocities while also providing a sense of purpose when facing down death's door.

Faith plays an essential role in forming and feeding the spirit of warfighters with unwavering integrity. This legislation does not create new

rights. It simply codifies existing practices and protections across all service branches, which will ensure consistency for military chaplains of all faiths.

It also recognizes the breadth of chaplains' roles. They are not just religious officiants. They are the commanders' adviser on ethics, spiritual readiness, morale, and even suicide prevention.

This does not mean they replace other entities which provide advice or function. Rather, it ensures that chaplains, as spiritual advisers, are given a seat at the table.

Let me be clear: This amendment does not empower chaplains to impose a particular belief. Instead, it protects them from violations of conscience and ensures they can facilitate spiritual care for all faiths. In fact, the amendment also protects servicemembers' ability to access the spiritual care specific to their needs and faith tradition.

Chaplains will continue to connect servicemembers of differing faiths to chaplains representing their respective faiths and equip them with tools to meet their specific needs.

This bill respects and maintains the pluralistic approach of the military chaplaincy program. It also introduces real accountability under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for retaliation or censorship of a chaplain for acting according to their beliefs. This standard is essential to restoring trust.

In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acknowledged the importance of the chaplaincy by vowing to never fail to provide for the spiritual needs of our officers and men.

Mr. Chair, in order for military chaplains to serve our troops effectively, we must give them the legal protection to do so without fear or compromise.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion of the Military Chaplains Modernization Act in the NDAA, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am not sure, other than the statements against this amendment, what the opposition my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have from what I said. I failed to hear exactly what their opposition is, other than their statements of opposition to the amendment itself.

Again, I say, chaplains will continue to connect servicemembers of differing faiths to chaplains representing their respective faiths and equip them with tools to meet their specific needs.

There are now 31 faiths recognized by the Department of War, to include Muslims, Jews, Bahai, Sikh, agnostics, and I could go on.

Again, I fail to understand the difference between what my colleague said in specifics with what I said.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to salute our servicemembers of tomorrow, the service academy-bound students of the Third Congressional District of Texas.

This district of Texas is home to some of the best and brightest young men and women, and it is always an honor to appoint stellar student-athletes to our Nation's service academies.

I am confident that they are ready to join the premier service academies and ultimately serve with the best in the United States military.

This year, Texas' Third Congressional District is going to send seven cadets to the United States Military Academy; five midshipmen to the United States Naval Academy, six cadets to the United States Air Force Academy, six midshipmen to the United States Merchant Marine Academy, and three candidates to the United States Air Force Academy Preparatory School.

To these 24 appointees and three preparatory candidates: I say God bless you, and God bless America. I salute you.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the 27 names and respective hometowns.

U.S. Military Academy

Gavin James Blankenship, Lucas, TX

Sean Alexander Galbraith, Celina, TX

Avery Brooke Gifford, Allen, TX

Ethan Hunter Hayward, Allen, TX

Brett Andrew Hill, Allen, TX

Vincent Morgan Jones, Murphy, TX

Jayda Shrecee Johnson, Allen, TX

U.S. Naval Academy

Eli Yuan Adler, Allen, TX

Collin Robert Alstrin, Prosper, TX

Elijah Rodrigo Estonilo, Allen, TX

McKenzie Kendall Quigley, McKinney, TX

Benjamin Lance Yost, Princeton, TX

U.S. Air Force Academy

Connor James Baesel, Celina, TX

Kinsley Meredith Duncan, McKinney, TX

Joshua Lamar Johnson, Frisco, TX

Minseok Lawrence Kim, Frisco, TX

Gregory Aaron Kinneer, Frisco, TX

Hector Orozco Jr., Celina, TX

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy

Brian Luke Goodrich, Murph, TX

Alysia Kight, Van Alstyne, TX

Luke Harlan Myhre, Allen, TX

Duncan Keith Ross, Allen, TX

Henry Oscar Stark, Murphy, TX

Martin George Zsoka, Dallas, TX

U.S. Air Force Academy Preparatory School

Grant Allen Bauroth, Prosper, TX

Brock Warner Schlef, Plano, TX

Austin Michael Senters, Sachse, TX

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the city of Allen's 150 years of history and community spirit and encourage all residents to join in honoring this sesquicentennial milestone.

Founded in 1876, Allen has become one of north Texas' most vibrant communities and has built a proud legacy of civic leadership, opportunity, and service.

Allen's story is one of vision, resilience, and progress. What began as a small railroad settlement in rural Collin County has become a dynamic city known for its flourishing neighborhoods, strong local economy, high-ranking schools, and exceptional quality of life. Its continued success reflects the dedication of generations of

residents, educators, business leaders, first responders, public servants, city leadership, and staff who have helped shape Allen into the excellent example it is today.

As Allen has expanded in size and prominence, it has remained grounded in the values that have long defined its character: Texas toughness, hard work, civic pride, and a deep sense of unity. The city's sesquicentennial anniversary is not only an opportunity to honor its rich history, but to celebrate the bright future that lies ahead.

Allen's legacy continues to reflect the strength, promise, and spirit of north Texas. On behalf of Texas' Third Congressional District, I am honored to recognize the city of Allen on the occasion of its 150th anniversary and to extend best wishes as we celebrate this historic milestone.

Recognizing 75th Anniversary of North Texas Municipal Water District

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the North Texas Municipal Water District as it celebrates its 75th anniversary of service to the people of north Texas.

Founded in 1951 by civic leaders from 10 original member cities who understood that water would be the key to our region's future, the District has spent the last 75 years turning that vision into reality. What began as a partnership among a handful of communities has grown into a regional utility of 13 member cities and 34 customers serving more than 70 communities and over 2.4 million Texans across Collin County and beyond.

In Texas' Third Congressional District, I have witnessed firsthand the extraordinary growth of north Texas. Communities such as McKinney, Plano, Frisco, Allen, Wylie, Farmersville, and many others have become one of the fastest growing areas in America. Families and businesses continue to choose our region because of its opportunity, innovation, and quality of life.

However, growth does not happen on its own. It requires planning and the willingness to build for tomorrow. Every home, school, hospital, and business depends on reliable water infrastructure. Today, the North Texas Municipal Water District provides not only drinking water but also wastewater treatment and solid waste services that support communities across our vast region.

For 75 years, the District has demonstrated a commitment to the region through responsible stewardship, long-range planning, and investment in the infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of future generations. Its leadership has helped ensure that one of America's fastest growing regions has the resources to continue thriving.

On behalf of the people of Texas' Third Congressional District, I congratulate the North Texas Municipal Water District on this milestone anniversary and thank the men and women of the District past and present for 75 years of dedicated service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address a growing threat to the rule of law in my State of Texas.

The rise of sharia, the law of Islam, has reached a tipping point in the Lone Star State, especially in north Texas, which I represent. Opaque sharia-compliant actions are advancing across our State and our Nation. We must be clear that America recognizes only one legal system: the Constitution and laws of the United States.

I commend Texas Governor Greg Abbott for his strong leadership in recently confronting this challenge. His actions regarding the proposed Texas American Muslim University and the planned Muslim-only event at a taxpayer-funded water park demonstrate the continuing vigilance required to protect our uniform system of justice.

Last year, nearly 95 percent of Texas voters supported Proposition 10 to ban sharia. That was not a symbolic gesture. It was an overwhelming mandate. Texans declared decisively that no foreign legal framework shall influence, operate alongside, or supplant our State's judicial system. They expect their elected representatives to honor that vote.

Recent events in the United Kingdom offer a stark and tragic warning. A new independent report on grooming gangs has exposed decades of systematic child sexual exploitation, predominantly of young, White, British girls by groups of Pakistani Muslim men, with authorities repeatedly failing to act out of fear of being labeled racist.

Thousands upon thousands of victims were betrayed by the very institutions meant to protect them. We must not allow such horrors to take root here in America.

While Congress is acting--my bill, H.R. 6230, the Tehran Incitement to Violence Act, passed the House and is now pending in the Senate-- Federal efforts alone are not enough. The primary responsibility for protecting our legal system from parallel frameworks rests on the shoulders of an informed citizenry, along with those of State and local leaders. Texans are leading the way, and others are beginning to follow.

In Kaufman County, Texas, Federal, State, and local officials worked in unison to stop a sharia city project backed by a Dubai-based development company.

Several of my constituents confronted the Wiley School Board after one of their high school principals granted a group called Why Islam access to the campus to hand out Korans.

One of my constituents, Jessica Hulcy, grabbed her walker, got a ride to Josephine City Hall, and stood in front of a crowded room to share her concerns about the proposed East Plano Islamic Center.

Across the Red River, citizens in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, successfully put a stop to a sharia enclave after imploring their local leaders to just say no.

Even across the pond, citizens in the U.K. are beginning to push back against the cultural shift wreaking havoc in their community because of sharia's influence.

In America, belief is protected. Conduct under the law is not. Let me be clear: Sharia is a political-legal ideology, not a religion. Therefore, it should not fall under the First Amendment protection for faith and worship. The First Amendment safeguards an individual's right to believe and practice their religion, but it has never granted immunity to political systems, especially those that claim authority above the Constitution, which sharia does.

When presented as a governing framework that dictates civil law, family law, criminal penalties, and public policy, sharia functions as an ideological legal code rather than a religious belief.

Under this view, the Constitution must remain the supreme law of the land. No ideological system, particularly sharia, religious in origin or otherwise, can override the liberties, equal protections, and democratic processes guaranteed to every American.

I thank the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Texas legislators advancing commonsense measures, such as House Bill 495, which prohibits public institutions from accepting funds from foreign adversaries.

I also encourage States to expand tools for local officials, including county commissioners, in order to safeguard our laws.

Thomas Jefferson declared: ``I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.'' This eternal hostility must extend to any religious or foreign legal code, particularly sharia, that seeks to supplant American liberty and self-government.

As Sir Winston Churchill warned: Sometimes it is not enough that we do our best; we must do what is required.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 6916, the Federal Program Integrity and Fraud Prevention Act of 2025.

The American people expect their hard-earned tax dollars to be used responsibly. They should never have to worry that individuals convicted of defrauding the Federal Government can turn around and receive additional Federal contracts, grants, or loans.

Unfortunately, we have seen too many examples of individuals exploiting Federal programs for personal gain. One repeat fraudster submitted at least 22 fraudulent pandemic loan applications and additional fraudulent unemployment benefit applications, resulting in more than $250,000 in taxpayer losses. That is only one case.

It is common sense to expect that someone convicted of defrauding the government should not return and apply for more money. This bill closes that loophole.

H.R. 6916 requires individuals convicted of specific Federal fraud offenses involving Federal programs to be placed on the System for Award Management Exclusion list for 3 years. In simple terms: If someone is convicted of stealing from, lying to, or defrauding the Federal Government, they will not be eligible to receive more Federal dollars.

This bill does not create new crimes. It does not expand Federal spending. It simply ensures that individuals convicted of serious fraud involving Federal programs are temporarily barred from receiving additional taxpayer funds.

At a time when Americans are demanding greater accountability from their government, Congress should send a clear message: Taxpayer dollars are not an entitlement in the face of fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Office of Inspector General and the professionals who worked with my team throughout the development of this legislation. Their work investigating fraud and protecting taxpayer dollars is indispensable.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank Representative Randall for her partnership with this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6916.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 6230, the Tehran Incitement to Violence Act.

This bill would require a sanctions determination for Iranian clerics, organizations, and regime-linked entities for issuing and amplifying fatwas that explicitly call for the deaths of political leaders.

These sanctions would include property-blocking sanctions and total immigration bans to deter such deadly incitement.

By passing this bill, Congress sends an unmistakable message: The United States will never accept death threats.

I thank Chairman Mast and Ranking Member Meeks for supporting this commonsense, bipartisan bill in markup.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to return our attention to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2319.

I am not sure we want the eyes of the world on this bill. I would, Mr. Speaker, like to ask my colleagues across the aisle who discharged this bill: Do you want to see an end to this war?

It is increasingly obvious that it will end, and when it ends, it will be through negotiations. If my friends support this bill, then clearly they are not interested in peace because the consequences would tie the hands of this President and could lead to future hostilities that would bleed over into Europe.

As the chairman of the Europe Subcommittee, I cannot tell you, Mr. Speaker, how much I believe that, but they offered no solutions. It went into the spectrum, they have not offered us an AUMF or a declaration of war. At the other end, they choose to support an unserious bill that would constrain the President's ability to negotiate that peace.

Or is this a simple messaging bill against President Trump?

The Ukraine Support Act is filled with mandatory sanctions provisions that would significantly constrain the President in his negotiations with Russia. This includes congressional review requirements, mechanisms that tie the hands of the President rather than afford him the leverage to pursue a settlement agreement.

My colleague across the aisle and the ranking member typically emphasize the importance of diplomacy, dialogue, and development. Yet, by supporting this bill, they are going back on their words. Successful diplomacy requires flexibility, yet this bill provides the opposite.

The Ukraine Support Act is also riddled with problems that my colleague Mr. Hill has already mentioned, problems that call its credibility into question.

It contains provisions that are already addressed elsewhere in law, including redundancies with the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. It includes outdated provisions, cross-referencing errors, and language that does not reflect current policy. Iran? Really?

In one section, the bill extends the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative at $300 million per year for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, yet Congress has already authorized $400 million. The legislation would, therefore, authorize a lower amount than current law.

I ask my Democrat colleagues: Do you support cutting assistance to Ukraine in addition to tying the President's hands?

The bill also includes a sense of Congress encouraging NATO allies to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. This has been a magnificent achievement to get to 5 percent, 3.5 percent on defense and 1.5 percent on infrastructure.

Is your intent to reduce the commitment of NATO member nations? They are watching this debate right now, and they are advocating for 2 percent. Regardless of what they say, the bill has 2 percent in it. Vladimir Putin would love you for that, especially after President Trump successfully worked with our allies to raise their commitment to 5 percent.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason and many others, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Ukraine Support Act.

Mr. Speaker, I wasn't planning on speaking on this issue, but as I have listened to this anti-Israel screed, I have to ask why my colleagues across the aisle don't pay nearly as much attention to the ongoing slaughter in South Sudan?

There are a couple of reasons. One, it is Africa. It is not adjacent to Israel. Two, it is not Israel.

The change in the Democratic Party over the last few years has been extraordinary, in their change of their attitude toward Israel. I think it is fair to say in words that cannot be taken down that Hamas terrorists cut the wire several years ago and then live streamed their atrocities. They live streamed their atrocities.

I won't describe them because everybody remembers, but I would recommend that when terrorists, bona fide terrorists, commit atrocities such as we saw on October the 7th several years ago, I would recommend they don't live stream them because if anybody has watched the films that were taken that were live streamed by the perpetrators, they would question this very discussion about Lebanon and about Israel's defense of itself.

Frankly, we could talk about the UNIFIL, the U.N. organization that refused to do their job. Israel is doing the U.N. job that UNIFIL was put there to do, to keep Hezbollah north of the Litani River, and the U.N. force refused to do their job.

We have Israeli families who can't live in their homes in northern Israel, so Israel is doing the U.N.'s job, as well.

I think, as I have listened to this anti-Israel screed, we need a little historical balance in this discussion.

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

Mr. Speaker, America's founding generation did not take up arms merely over taxes. They rebelled against a tyrannical government that planted spies in their taverns, searched their homes, and read their private letters.

Benjamin Franklin understood this threat deeply. He popularized the rattlesnake as the symbol of America, first with his ``Join, or Die'' cartoon, and later by praising the defiant motto: ``Don't Tread On Me.''

He also delivered a timeless warning: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This year, 2026, marks the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. There could be no more fitting time to reaffirm the principles of liberty than by dismantling the surveillance state that has quietly eroded them. That starts with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, which has become the modern incarnation of the general warrants that ignited the revolution.

Created originally to track foreign enemies on foreign soil, section 702 has morphed into a sprawling domestic surveillance machine that sweeps up American's communications and treats the Fourth Amendment like a suggestion.

On June 12, Congress faces another deadline to renew section 702. The intelligence community wants a clean reauthorization, but we are not going to accept that, Congress should not accept that, and no American, if they were actually told the truth for once about what their own government is doing to them, would accept that.

This is not opposition to national security. It is a refusal to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety. If Congress is going to renew FISA, then we must enact meaningful changes.

First, repeal the dangerously broad expansion of the term ``electronic communication service provider.'' It now allows the government to compel churches, small businesses, and community organizations to hand over Americans' communications.

Second, strengthen the FISA Courts Amicus Curiae program so independent voices can actually defend Americans' rights in secret proceedings.

Third, close the data broker loophole that allows the FBI, IRS, and every other Federal agency to bypass the Constitution by simply buying Americans' geolocation, metadata, and browsing history off the market.

Most urgently, require a warrant for backdoor searches of Americans' communications.

At peak, the government conducted nearly 3 million warrantless searches of U.S. citizens' data, many of them illegal. Foreign threats must be watched, but Americans deserve probable cause and a real warrant on American soil.

In addition, we must ban the Central Bank Digital Currency permanently. The CBDC is the ultimate surveillance tool that allows the government to track, control, and potentially freeze every purchase you make.

The CBDC cannot ever be allowed to operate in the United States. It is the biggest threat to our privacy.

While we are at it, let's secure our elections by ensuring that only American citizens vote in American elections.

Mr. Speaker, our Founders never intended for us to trade liberty for supposed safety. Our Founders never imagined today where illegal aliens would be voting in our elections.

In this 250th anniversary year of American independence, Congress must draw a line in the sand. Let us stand with our forefathers, the Constitution, and the American people who want secure elections and for the government to stop spying on them.

Reject the rubber-stamped FISA renewal, pass these reforms, secure our elections, ban CBDC forever, restore the Fourth Amendment, and protect our Republic. The rattlesnake is, once again, rattling. It is time for Congress to listen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for the purpose of a colloquy.

As far as I know, no one.

Exactly.

Please hang around.

I want to, first of all, say that this is about privacy. What we are advocating is privacy.

Mr. Speaker, 250 years ago, the Declaration of Independence had that most famous phrase: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, they debated happiness back in those days, and they started out with property. What is pursuit of property?

That is you own what is yours, and that included privacy, the ability of you to control what you own. What we are talking about is losing the ability to control what you own, what you buy, and where you go. That is what we are talking about, is privacy here.

Look, as the gentleman said, we support surveillance on foreign actors on foreign soil, and with a warrant, we support law enforcement to do what they need to do with a warrant.

I want to tell you a story about facial recognition. One of my staff members has a young boy. He is at camp right now, so when they dropped him off at camp, they said: Give us a photograph of your son.

They did so. What they are going to use that for is they have cameras everywhere at this camp to protect the young. What they are going to do is use AI to take one of the pictures that they take randomly, identify his son, chop out a picture with him in the middle of his campmates, and send it to the parents.

Now, that is an okay use. They agree to that, but that same capability will pick you out of a crowd with AI facial recognition. In the wrong hands--any technology in the wrong hands can be used for evil purposes.

Let's get back to cameras. The Ring doorbells, a lot of people have them. In fact, some communities have a lot of them. Law enforcement is now going and demanding--when they think there has been a crime that this camera might have seen, demanding that they be allowed to see what that Ring doorbell recorded. Again, technology can be used for good or for evil.

I want to point out that the United States--even without some of the things we are talking about here--today is one of the most surveilled nations in the world, right up there with China, Russia, some of the Middle Eastern countries. It is one of the most surveilled nations in the world, and that is before we get to CBDC.

I want to go back to Benjamin Franklin, because we are celebrating 250 years this year. Frankly, we don't need to be celebrating just the actual 250 years because we have made it 250 years. We need to be celebrating the wisdom of the Founders. Part of the wisdom is what we have talked about several times here, this statement that is so apropos to what we are discussing tonight: Those who would give up essential liberty and privacy written into the Declaration of Independence, codified in the Constitution--those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety.

Why would the safety be temporary? It is because when people come along who will use it for evil purposes, it would not provide safety at all.

Absolutely.

To the gentleman's point, I want to end with China because a lot of people will say that this is all theory, you are overreacting, and that this is hyperbole. It will never happen here.

But China has something that they call the social credit score. They take your social credit score, and they measure you based on everything--what you buy, what you post on the internet, what you say to your fellow worker, what they see you do, how you drive, everything. Everything, the government takes into account for a social credit score, and then they will tell you how you can live your life based on your social credit score.

It is all on collected data. It is based on collected data.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my fellow Americans that is what we are facing. We are facing a social credit score if all of this happens: the kill switch, CBDC, and warrantless surveillance on your electronic communications. That is what we are looking at if all of this happens and these cameras proliferate across America.

Absolutely.

Let me make this point: It can get worse. What you are saying is true, but it can get worse. That is what we are trying to stop. That is why we are sounding the alarm that the surveillance state must be stopped.

The red line in the sand right now is FISA reform. Any FISA reform that does not include a permanent ban on CBDC and securing our elections, I believe, does not cut the mustard.

Does the gentleman have any closing comments?

I will say that I consider the CBDC, the central bank digital currency, the final leg in the surveillance state stool.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 32 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 4, 2026, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, everyone here wants 702 reauthorized. The case has been made that it is a national security issue, that our troops on the ground need it. They need the intelligence that it provides. We want the CIA and the NSA to run as fast and as far as they can to identify the bad guys.

I have deployed on three continents, and believe you me, we want our military to know who to deal with when they get on foreign soil.

The FBI has abused 702, and that is why we are here today.

I want to reiterate my colleague's comments that we are really dealing with two surveillance bills here today. 702 is getting all of the attention, but the central bank digital currency is another surveillance tool that we sent to the Senate. We passed it in a bipartisan method.

Let me explain the difference in the two to the people that are listening. The electronic surveillance is 702, foreign agents on foreign soil. It says nothing about U.S. citizens, U.S. persons on U.S. soil.

The central bank digital currency is financial transparency for the Federal Government. Do you want the Federal Government telling you that you cannot buy a Ford 350 or anything else that the government thinks that you may not want to buy, that they will not want you to buy.

We have two bills that we are discussing today. All of the attention is on 702, but do not take your attention off CBDC. It is actually maybe more dangerous than 702.

Mr. Speaker, let's get 702 reauthorized with constitutional protections, and let's also address the central bank digital currency. We need both electronic privacy and financial privacy.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment to ensure that a program called nutrition assistance actually delivers nutrition.

Today, SNAP is funding billions of dollars in purchases of sugary soda, products with zero nutritional value and well-documented links to obesity, diabetes, and long-term health costs. That is not what this program was designed to do.

My amendment is straightforward. It adds soda to the list of ineligible SNAP items alongside alcohol and tobacco and defines soda clearly as any carbonated beverage containing more than 1 gram of added sugar, artificial sweetener, or flavoring per serving.

Now, let's address the obvious concern: choice. SNAP participants already use multiple forms of payment at checkout. This amendment does not take away anyone's ability to purchase soda. They remain fully free to do so with cash, credit, or debit. What this does is ensure that taxpayer-funded nutrition dollars are not used for products with zero nutritional value.

We already do this in WIC. We already do this with alcohol and tobacco. The authority exists. The precedent exists.

At a time when taxpayers are funding both the purchase of these products and the healthcare costs that follow, we should at least stop financing the problem on the front end.

This is a narrow, commonsense reform that restores integrity to SNAP and aligns it with its core mission. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to address the assertion that this is too complicated to implement.

EBT systems already block thousands of ineligible items in real time. Retailers already categorize products at the UPC level. This is standard. WIC proves product-level restrictions are fully operational nationwide.

Technology has significantly advanced since earlier implementation concerns. The definition of ``soda'' is clear and administrable. Retail systems already distinguish between eligible and noneligible goods. This is not something the store has to do.

Implementation is a logistics issue, not a policy issue.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to ask one question. This amendment asks a basic question: Should a nutrition program pay for products with zero nutrition? If the answer is no, then the vote should be ``yes.''

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to consider H. Con. Res. 75 in the House if called up by the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, or his designee; that the concurrent resolution be considered as read; that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion, except for 1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Representative Mast of Florida and Representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make an analogy. When I was first assigned to a Special Forces team as a young lieutenant, I had already been in the 82nd Airborne Division for a couple years. When I got to the A-Team the team sergeant was an old, grizzled, experienced