Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amended bill. I was a proud cosponsor of the bill, as introduced. Yet, instead of moving the bipartisan text, Republicans have hijacked this bill to give President Trump complete and total authority over the Smithsonian American Women's History Museum's location. Contrary to what Congresswoman Malliotakis has asserted, he does have loyalists who have power over the museum's design. He does have loyalists on the commission, which will determine the museum's design.

The museum was supposed to be a celebration of every American woman's contribution, but, of course, Republicans couldn't help themselves from adding text that would prohibit trans women from being included in the museum. This is really a harmful provision that will undoubtedly lead many conservatives to challenge the inclusion of any woman they deem not feminine enough.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and pass the original bipartisan bill with the National Museum of the American Latino.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a very heavy heart and in opposition to this bill.

Representative Barrett and House Republicans have engineered here an impossible choice. What they have said to the American people is that only by raising costs on one set of veterans can we afford to help another.

At a time when we are spending trillions on defense, trillions on tax cuts for the wealthy, and countless other frivolities, like ballrooms and a slush fund for the President's friends, to suggest that we can only help veterans by hurting them is patently ridiculous. That is why I oppose this bill.

I want to clearly state that we owe our servicemembers, veterans, their families, and their survivors a debt of gratitude, as they have given everything to this Nation. The promise we made to them is something we strive to live up to every day. However, I believe this bill misses that mark.

We know that these groups desperately need more resources as our veteran population ages and requires more acute care. As I have mentioned before and as I am sure the majority will repeat, the catastrophically injured and survivor community has not seen an appreciable increase in their monthly rate since 2009.

I agree it is well past due that we correct that wrong. I certainly believe they are worth it. In fact, I wish we were increasing these benefits even more.

Unfortunately, this majority seeks to correct that wrong by inflicting harm on another community of veterans who are deserving of support and who are struggling veteran homeowners.

Just in case anyone needs a reminder, let's look at the last year and a half. Last spring, Secretary Doug Collins canceled the VA Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP, which assists veterans facing mortgage challenges prior to setting up their backstop program.

Chairman Bost and Representative Van Orden cheered on this development as thousands of veterans suddenly faced tenuous financial circumstances and no resources to turn to as they faced foreclosure.

Let me say, in the past 12 months since the closure of the VASP program, 10,000 veterans have lost their homes due to foreclosure. We could call this the Secretary Collins, Representative Van Orden, and Chairman Bost foreclosure program.

All the while, during this time of the past year, President Trump's affordability crisis has sent prices through the roof, making the dream of buying a house entirely out of reach for many Americans.

To recap, at a time when it is already hard to buy a home, Republicans want to make it even harder. They have made it easier for veterans to lose their homes when funds are tight. Now, they want to make it harder for veterans to even buy a home in the first place.

Not only do they want to make it unaffordable to buy a home, but they want to squeeze our veterans when they attempt to refinance. For many, it is a last-ditch effort to save their home. Remember, they already came after VASP. They canceled the program. They cheerleaded for the Secretary to cancel the program.

What we are seeing today is an attempt to take away affordable housing for veterans. These veterans I am talking about have used a home loan while in service to live with their families at a duty station and used it again when they moved on to the next tour.

Understand, the VA home loan is not just about veterans. It is also about

Active-Duty servicemembers. They are also eligible to use a veteran home loan to buy a home and, also, refinance a home.

I am talking about the transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a place back home, folks who have done their part in this country and want to transition to civilian life, Active-Duty servicemembers moving to a duty station, transitioning servicemembers who want to buy a home back where they want to settle. Even more critical, these are veterans attempting to keep their homes amidst rapidly rising foreclosures.

Now, we are asking veterans to shoulder the cost of survivors and catastrophically injured veterans--again, taking from one set of veterans in order to help another group of very deserving veterans.

Again, I will emphasize the impossible position we are putting our veteran community in. We are pitting one set of veterans against another, instituting a civil war in which we rack and stack which community is more deserving than the other. Frankly, it is shameful.

Before my Republican colleagues who have served stand up here and tell me that they would be happy to pay that benefit for their fellow veterans, I would ask them one thing: Why are we asking them to? Why are we asking our veterans to shoulder this cost? Why must we put the onus on veterans and servicemembers? Haven't they paid enough?

Yes, I agree that we need to be responsible with how we spend tax dollars, but I am curious: Why is it only when we are looking at benefits for the veteran and survivor community that we take this mindset?

We certainly didn't have this debate when we were offsetting a $30 billion war of choice in Iran, which will only make more veterans, Trump's $1 billion new ballroom, or a $75 billion slush fund for ICE, which now the Senate is having trouble getting over to the House.

If my counterparts in the Republican Party truly gave a damn about veterans, they would not pit them against one another just to give them a meager downpayment on veteran benefits. No. If they did, they would enact meaningful change.

We could be, instead, bringing to the floor the Love Lives On Act. We would pass the Caring for Survivors Act, and we would ask the American people to pay for them. I have no doubt the American people would say: Yes, we should pay for these things. We shouldn't put this on veterans.

I could go on and on all day. We could expand access to toxic-exposed veterans, provide fertility care for our women veterans, and address traumatic brain and blast injury. Getting things done on behalf of our veterans requires bold action.

That is why, today, I have filed a discharge petition on the Major Richard Star Act. It is live and ready for signature, and I invite my colleagues on the other side, as soon as we are done with this debate, to go down and sign that petition. I believe it will reach 218 very quickly.

Chairman Bost, Congressman Barrett, and Congressman Van Orden, I invite you right after this debate to go down and sign the discharge petition to bring the Major Richard Star Act to the floor.

I ask all of my colleagues to join me when they come to vote, in maybe 45 minutes or so, to sign the petition. We can get something meaningful done on behalf of veterans right now.

Let's end the wounded warrior tax. If we are not committed to caring for veterans and ensuring that they and their survivors get benefits that they were told they would be entitled to when they signed on the dotted line, then we need to stop making more veterans, full stop.

We can choose to do the right thing. We can choose to do the honorable thing. We can choose to do the moral thing and give survivors a meaningful benefit.

Right now, my colleagues across the aisle are choosing a Band-Aid for a wound that needs stitches. We cannot allow ourselves to accept veterans paying for their own benefits, and we should not tolerate forcing this community to fight each other in a pecking order of who matters most.

I hope to appeal to my colleagues' morality when I say that increasing compensation to survivors and catastrophically injured veterans is the right thing to do. We should do it, but we cannot do it at the expense of other veterans.

This legislation has pushed us to the point of having to make a hard decision out of what should have been an easy one. Waive paygo and pass meaningful legislation.

Today, we sit here debating a change on the margins that opens a Pandora's box to charge veterans for their own benefits. That is why I simply cannot support this legislation as written, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I will say that was a wonderful post of all the veterans service organizations that support this legislation. Yes, they support raising the compensation for the catastrophically disabled. If you read their letter very carefully, they are silent on the pay-for. They are silent on the subject of should you ask our servicemembers who are serving right now in the waters around Iran whether they should be charged $1,000 or more in fees to refinance their homes. There is not a single one of those veterans service organizations that says that they agree with that pay-for.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman has referred to moments when I was chair of the Veterans' Affairs Committee when we did look at pay-fors related to increasing the interest rate reduction refinance program.

We did pass a bill out of the House in 2020 that would have increased the interest rate reduction refinance loan fees by one-fourth of a percent, but it did not become law. When you strip away all of the context around that bill, you can try to set up a gotcha--you did what we are trying to do--but the reality is that we are in a much different situation now.

First, the proposed increase in 2020 returned to current levels just after a few years. Representative Barrett's and Chairman Bost's proposed increase replaces the current level with their new fee level. It is not a temporary change. It is a permanent increase.

Today's proposed increase is almost three times what was contemplated back in 2020. That translates into $2,500 to $3,000 more in fees that veterans would have to pay under Representative Barrett's plan. That cost doubles when the veteran has to pay interest on that fee increase.

Also back in 2020, home loan mortgage and refinance rates were at record lows. Fees had much less of an impact on veterans' abilities to lower their housing costs. Today, interest rates are so much higher. Many more veterans are facing foreclosure. As I said, 10,000 veterans in the past 12 months, and thousands and thousands of veterans are in jeopardy of losing their homes in the coming months.

The Trump administration has gotten rid of VASP, as I said, with the cheerleading done by the chairman and Representative Van Orden. VASP was the last-ditch program to keep veterans and their families in their homes. It has been a year, and the replacement, the partial claims program, which I supported in instituting, has still not been rolled out yet, and it won't be rolled out for several months. Meanwhile, we will see more veterans foreclosed upon.

Refinancing, therefore, is currently the last line of defense in keeping veterans with distressed loans in their homes. Representative Barrett is proposing that we raise costs at this very moment, in this financial environment and when this Congress has passed a reconciliation bill costing billions and billions of dollars that were not offset. Mind you, the $70 billion that the Senate was hoping to send over here, the Republican Senate, that this House presumably would have also approved of, the Republican majority, that $70 billion will not offset.

We are also looking at potentially a $1.5 trillion defense budget increase, and there is talk about $1 billion on the President's ballroom.

How do we justify taxing veterans to access their own benefits? How do you justify that?

Let me just say that I offered an amendment. I offered an amendment to pay for this bill not with the money that would have gone to other veterans. I had an amendment that would have delayed for 3 years the implementation of a big, bad, ugly bill tax break we were giving to very wealthy people--people with $15 million to pass on to their heirs. We wanted to delay the tax break that rich people get when they want to pass on their wealth to their heirs. We would delay that for 3 years. That would pay for the cost of this bill.

That amendment was rejected. I think that very wealthy people benefit from the bravery and the courage of our military servicemembers. It is not too much to ask the wealthiest people of our country to bear the cost of paying for the catastrophically disabled veterans.

I think the American people would countenance that much better than: Let's take away the ability for our servicemembers who are currently serving in the waters surrounding Iran, or our veterans--we shouldn't be asking them to have to pay more in home loan fees for benefits that they thought they were getting when they signed up.

It is the choices that we are making that bother me here. I don't think we should be doing something that is very, very worthy by charging one set of veterans to pay for another set.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

I do think the gentleman doth protest too much. The gentleman cheerleaded and encouraged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program over a year ago, forthwith. He is now on the floor arguing to take away the last remaining tool that veterans who have distressed properties have to hang on to those properties, which is the ability to refinance their homes under the VA home loan program. He is advocating for the passage of a bill which will admirably address the catastrophically disabled, but cause veterans who are in distressed homes higher costs in refinancing.

Let me explain further. Veterans are experiencing record foreclosures. Unfortunately, it is not hard to explain

exactly why. It is because of the Trump administration's assault on the VA loan assistance options.

Just months into the Trump administration's second term, President Trump and Secretary Collins, at the urging of Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden, ended the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP.

The VASP program was a lifeline offered to veterans by President Biden that served as a last resort option for veterans before foreclosure. The program worked. For inane, extreme ideological reasons, Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden urged Secretary Collins to end the VASP program.

It is no surprise that foreclosures for veterans have doubled since that action. Ten thousand veterans have lost their homes in the last year, and tens of thousands more are set to be foreclosed upon in this Trump economy.

The majority might claim that their partial claims law, which was finally enacted last fall, is the answer. The gentleman from Wisconsin says that it is going to be implemented next month. We will see. I hope he is right, but I believe that the law is still months away from being implemented. Based on the rollout, it is unlikely to save many of the veterans at risk due to limitations in the program and the delays in rollout.

At the very least, they could have urged Secretary Collins to continue the VASP program until the partial claims program was ready. But no, oops, it is unfortunate, says my colleague from the State of Wisconsin, that 10,000 veterans had to lose their homes.

Now, what brings us to this moment? With VASP gone and partial claims not ready for prime time, the only last true option for veterans is to refinance their loans so they can get current on their outstanding payments.

This very legislation we are considering right now puts that relief further away. Refinancing will become more expensive, which makes it no longer a viable option for many veterans. Veterans have less options than they did a year ago, and this bill will reduce those options even more.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been searching my memory to recall such righteous indignation about costs when we prosecute wars.

The rhetoric about the true cost of war is very different. In fact, it is nonexistent. No one is prepared to handcuff our military at a time when they need equipment. Yet, the individual consequences of war can last a lifetime, and we must take them into account.

After 250 years, we have more than enough historical data to understand that the cost of these wars does not end at the last appropriation marked for battle.

We already promised to care for veterans. In this case, that means their families, as well. Congress should not turn away or hide from that fact. If we are to support the cost of starting and sustaining war, we must acknowledge the financial cost of supporting those veterans it creates when they come home.

We need to stop treating our work in Congress as something out of the ``Hunger Games,'' that someone must suffer so that someone else can get what they need, that we need to force schoolchildren, small business owners, and veterans to compete for help from their government. We on our side of the aisle are not going to play that game with the benefits our veterans have earned.

We should provide funding to give veterans who have gone to war for this country healthcare and benefits. In fact, if you want to continue to increase funding for defense spending and military aid, I would say that you should be required to consider the long-term cost of taking care of the servicemembers whom we are sending into harm's way.

I personally would never ask for offsets for funding for the equipment our troops need because it is the right thing to do, just like taking care of veterans is also the right thing to do. I hope that our country and this Congress will not perpetuate a double

standard when we discuss funding and support for our servicemembers and for our veterans and their families. America deserves better.

Again, I will conclude by saying we should be taking care of the catastrophically disabled veterans of our country. It has been too long. They have gone without for too long, but we should not be asking other veterans to do that work. We, the American people, should be the ones who foot that bill, not our veterans.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today during AANHPI Heritage Month to honor the contributions of Dr. Tai-Heng Cheng, specifically regarding his work with the National Museum of Asian Art. In 2022, a gift from Dr. Cheng and his husband, Cole Harrell, established the museum's first paid graduate internship program.

Since its inception, twenty-two energetic students have been named Cheng-Harrell Graduate Interns and have worked on museum exhibitions, research, and public programs. These young people come from diverse backgrounds, each bringing a unique perspective

not only to the National Museum of Asian Art, but also to other cultural institutions throughout their future careers.

This pipeline of diverse, intelligent, and passionate talent in the museum and curatorial space is essential and will assuredly lead to collections that present a more complete history for all to enjoy and learn from.

Dr. Cheng's contributions have helped ensure that AANHPI history is preserved, curated, and presented with humanity and dignity. During this AANHPI Heritage Month, I congratulate him, the National Museum of Asian Art, and all of the students who have benefited from this program.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that if we move forward with this bill without my amendment, 100 percent of the very much-needed money, the $1 billion to help our catastrophically disabled veterans who deserve our help--it is long overdue, but we are paying for it 100 percent with other veterans' money. Let me say it again: 100 percent of this bill is being paid for off of the backs of other veterans.

Let me explain.

Veterans are experiencing record foreclosures. Unfortunately, it is not hard to explain why: the Trump administration's assault on VA loan assistance options. Just months into the Trump administration's second term,

President Trump and Secretary Collins, at the urging from Chairman Bost and Chairman Van Orden, ended the Veterans Affairs Servicing Purchase program, otherwise known as VASP.

The VASP program was a lifeline offered to veterans by President Biden that served as the last-resort option for veterans before foreclosure. It is no surprise that foreclosures for veterans have doubled since that action.

Mr. Speaker, 10,000 veterans have lost their homes in the last year, and tens of thousands more are set to be foreclosed on in this Trump economy. The last option for these veterans is to refinance their loans.

This legislation puts that relief further away. Refinances will be more expensive, which makes them no longer a viable option for some veterans and servicemembers.

Veterans have fewer options than they did a year ago, and this bill will reduce those options even more. Therefore, we must find a better way to pay for this bill that doesn't raise costs on struggling veteran and Active-Duty homeowners.

As I have said before, and I will say it again, spending by Congress is a statement of our collective priorities. However, in a majority rule system like ours, the reality is that the work of Congress isn't a true reflection of shared goals, as the Founders intended. Rather, it is often simply a reflection of what the majority chooses to force on everybody else.

Case in point: I very much disagree with the majority's choice to include billions of dollars' worth of tax cuts for millionaires in the big, ugly bill. I especially disagree with the majority's decision to triple the exemption from paying estate tax from $5 million to $15 million. That is not my priority nor is it the priority of most Americans who are struggling to get by.

I, and Americans in my estimation, would much rather see that money spent on those who are in more dire need than millionaires and billionaires. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we may consider my amendment, which would direct just a fraction of that wealth to pay for benefits for the catastrophically injured veterans, their caregivers, and the survivors we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, no one in this Congress can say with a straight face that there is a material difference in someone inheriting $14.5 million in property tax-free and $15 million tax-free. The change contemplated in this amendment would not appreciably affect the quality of life of a single individual and is only a temporary change, but using that money instead to achieve the benefits increases in H.R. 6047 most definitely will, in a very positive way.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I spent 24 years as an educator, as a classroom teacher, and as an adviser to my school's Gay-Straight Alliance.

During that time, I knew children who suffered physical violence at the hands of family members who found out that they were gay. I knew kids who were withdrawn from school because staff had informed their parents of their perceived sexual identity.

The story of those students is exactly what is at stake in this bill. Those of us who have taught LGBTQI+ children or who have been LGBTQI+ children ourselves know the sad reality that not all children come from homes that accept their differences.

This bill puts educators in an impossible position. Teachers would be legally required to out transgender children even if they knew that doing so would put the child at risk of physical harm or even being kicked out of their home.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Federation of Teachers and a letter from the National Education Association opposing this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that 40 percent of homeless youth are LGBTQI+ largely because they have been rejected by their families. Of course teachers should involve parents in their child's education, but a teacher also has a professional duty to ensure a child's safety.

This bill also forbids the teaching of any subject related to the existence of transgender people. That includes banning books, supportive student groups, or even textbooks that reference gender dysphoria.

Transgender kids do exist. They aren't products of a conspiracy or indoctrination. They are just kids, made who they are by God and by nature. They deserve our care and they deserve our respect just as any child does.

The majority is intent on making sure that transgender kids don't have anywhere where they might feel included, recognized, or safe.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3482, the Veterans Community Care Scheduling Improvement Act, as amended.

One of the biggest concerns I hear from veterans is that it takes too long to get an appointment, whether at VA or through community care. As is the case with many things at VA, outdated and cumbersome technology makes it very difficult to schedule appointments. In addition, there are not enough requirements for community providers to make their schedules available in an electronic format to make it easier for VA schedulers to check availability.

The Veterans Community Care Scheduling Improvement Act, as amended, is a solid step forward toward fixing issues that have plagued the Veterans Health Administration since before the Phoenix wait-time scandal in 2014. Veterans deserve timely access to care whether that is at VA or in the community, and it is our responsibility to ensure that they get it.

The system authorized by H.R. 3482 would leverage technology to allow VA schedulers to see community care providers' schedules and book appointments directly into them, streamlining the process and allowing them to get booked days or weeks faster.

The bill also requires that VA use this technology to view VA's direct care appointments as well as the community care, giving veterans an apples-to-apples comparison of first available appointments. This crucial new ability will allow veterans to make an informed choice about where they wish to receive their care.

While I believe that the system authorized by this act could have a substantial impact on veterans' access to timely care, I am concerned that it will only be as good as VA's ability to recruit community care providers to participate. I think there should be more requirements in the VA's community care network contracts to mandate community provider participation.

The ongoing procurement of the next-generation contract will be an opportunity to do just that. The VA must also ensure that there is buy- in from all levels of the organization because technology is only as good as its implementation and adoption. However, I will say that this is a good first step in that direction.

I thank Representative Barrett and Representative Budzinski for their work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3482, the Veterans Community Care Scheduling Improvement Act, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 2393, the Fiscal Year 2025 Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Authorization Act. Although the title says fiscal year 2025, this legislation will actually authorize funding for a major medical facility project in St. Louis, Missouri, for fiscal year 2026.

I thank our Senate counterparts for taking the lead on this annual bipartisan, bicameral exercise this year. I

understand this project is critical for the veterans of St. Louis and will expand capacity through the addition of a new bed tower, a clinical building expansion, and the construction of several administrative and infrastructure updates.

I will continue to strongly support investments in VA's infrastructure. While this project represents only a small fraction of the VA's overall infrastructure investment needs, this is an important project, and I am glad to support it today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to authorize a critical project for veterans, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in passing S. 2393, the Fiscal Year 2025 Veterans Affairs Major Medical Facility Authorization Act, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2954, the Veterans' Transition to Trucking Act.

The first year of a servicemember's transition to civilian life is often one of the most stressful. This period is marked by huge shifts in responsibilities, new family duties and new costs, like housing, food, and childcare. Veterans also must navigate finding employment which may involve translating military experience into something civilian employers will understand.

The Veterans' Transition to Trucking Act proposes to improve hiring through expediting training programs. By coordinating approvals for training institutions, more veterans can find employment faster.

Representative Pappas, a longtime member of our committee, authored this legislation. Trucking is the primary means for moving goods through his State. In New Hampshire, it is not uncommon to see a load of timber or even heating oil moving on the road. His constituents depend on this industry, and veterans seek employment in trucking.

While trucking isn't the fit for all veterans, I recognize that veterans who seek a role in the industry shouldn't have to fight to find a training institution.

With the price of goods and now fuel skyrocketing in the Trump economy, the last thing we should be doing is making it harder for veterans to find employment in logistics and shipping.

I thank Representative Pappas for serving as the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity where he is a strong voice for veteran employment opportunities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Pappas), my good friend and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity and the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't resist saying it, but this legislation will help our veterans keep on trucking. I know the chairman gets the gist of that.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2954, the Veterans' Transition to Trucking Act, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3726, the Fisher House Availability Act of 2026, as amended.

Created in 1990, Fisher Houses have provided veteran and military families a cost-free, home-away-from-home environment while their loved ones receive medical care at nearby VA, DOD, and community hospitals.

Grounded in the understanding that social support is instrumental to the healing process, families of veterans and Active-Duty servicemembers can access these comfortable and welcoming houses without worry about cost and geographical distance from their loved ones who are receiving care.

Regrettably, since the fall of 2024, VA Fisher Houses have been restricted in their ability to serve the entire veteran and military community.

VA made guidance changes at that time that altered eligibility and only permitted families of veterans receiving care at a VA facility to stay at Fisher Houses.

Military families falling outside of this criteria, specifically, Active-Duty families receiving care at facilities near VA medical centers, have been turned away, even when rooms at Fisher Houses have been available.

The bipartisan Fisher House Availability Act of 2026 would restore the flexibility of VA Fisher Houses to not only accommodate veteran families but Active-Duty families on a space-available basis. As veteran families would still receive prioritization, veteran access to VA Fisher Houses will not change.

This bill will increase VA Fisher House usage by simply allowing for eligible DOD beneficiaries to be considered for a room when one is available, while also strengthening the partnership between the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense.

Mr. Speaker, veteran and military caregivers deserve access to VA Fisher Houses. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3726, the Fisher House Availability Act. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), cosponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the wonderful history of the Fisher Houses and all of the support that my colleague from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) has given over the years. What a wonderful story about Alma Powell.

Mr. Speaker, with all of that, I ask my colleagues to join me in passing

H.R. 3726, the Fisher House Availability Act, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this past week, my Republican colleagues voted to give Donald Trump a blank check to continue his military operation in Iran, and it is regular Americans who are paying the price.

Thirteen U.S. servicemembers have been killed. Nearly 400 troops have been wounded, and this war could end up costing taxpayers $1 trillion in the long term.

Here at home, Americans are being crushed by higher gas prices, rising healthcare costs, and bigger electric bills. Republicans had the chance to rein in a Commander in Chief who threatens war crimes, attacks our allies, and is wrecking our economy. They chose to let him run rampant instead.

Americans cannot afford this insane and crazy agenda any longer. Pass a War Powers Resolution. Rein in Donald Trump, and start investing in the American people at home, not bombs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate Darren Cronkite on an extraordinary milestone of 30 years of dedicated business leadership in Riverside, California.

In 1996, Darren opened Back to the Grind, which quickly became more than a coffeehouse. Through open mikes, art showcases, and community events, it has become a cornerstone of downtown Riverside's cultural life.

Darren's commitment to inclusion and community building has made a lasting impact across the Inland Empire. By ensuring that all people, including members of the LGBTQ+ community, have a place to feel seen and connected, he has strengthened the social fabric of Riverside.

I congratulate Darren on 30 years of service, leadership, and community impact. His work will continue to make a meaningful mark, and I look forward to celebrating this milestone with him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia) for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, a budget for our country is a moral document. It shows our

priorities. It shows what kind of future we are laying the groundwork for.

A budget should reflect investments in Americans by funding education and housing while also lowering costs. But Donald Trump's budget request sends a clear message about the kind of country Republicans want; one that invests in war, not Americans.

What happened to the so-called America First project by this President? What happened to the so-called America First project?

The President's budget slashes $8.5 billion from K-12 programs, cuts 52 percent of the budget for the agency charged with protecting our air and water, and reduces housing programs by $11 billion--all of that to pay for the largest percentage increase to the Department of Defense since World War II. Let me say that again. All of that is to pay for the largest percentage increase to the Department of Defense since World War II.

The American people are tired of seeing their tax dollars fund more endless wars in the Middle East. They are tired of seeing a President who sends our sons and daughters to war while apparently being increasingly unstable both mentally and emotionally. They are tired of seeing his top aide say nothing, nothing, and do nothing to intervene when the President clearly needs help.

How much longer does this have to go on before this Republican majority steps in? How many more AI-generated Jesus images does the President have to post before you, my Republican colleagues, are alarmed like the majority of Americans?

History will remember this Republican-controlled Congress as complicit in this President's behavior and his ill-informed proposals.

Mr. Speaker, it is not too late for Republicans to join Democrats in fighting for a budget that actually puts Americans first, one that seeks to fund and build schools at home and not fund bombs abroad, a budget that reflects the values of a government and its President, and that fact rings true here.

The President is asking Congress to steal from our children's future to prop up a war that no one wants. I urge my Republican colleagues to stand opposed to this cruel budget.

Mr. Speaker, Alberto Gutierrez Reyes died at ICE's Adelanto holding facility recently, allegedly because of a lack of access to medical care for chronic conditions.

I visited this facility just weeks ago and was prevented from speaking with

the detainees to verify the claims made by ICE staff that they were adequately taking care of the detainees' medical issues. This is despite the law and courts clearly giving Members of Congress explicit oversight authorities.

I will be returning to Adelanto and demanding answers from the agency that has billions of dollars to protect the homeland but could not provide basic medical care for someone who was in their custody.

Until there's justice for Alberto's family and the other families impacted by ICE's brutality and recklessness, I will be voting ``no'' on any new funding for ICE or CBP.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an individual whose steady leadership, unwavering integrity, and unmatched expertise have strengthened the fiscal health of California's public education system. For more than four decades, Michael Fine has served as a guardian of public trust, ensuring that schools, county offices of education, and community colleges are positioned to make sound, transparent, and equitable financial decisions for the benefit of every student.

Mr. Fine's career spans a broad and distinguished range of roles, beginning in private-sector finance before moving into public education, where he served as a chief business official, deputy superintendent, and interim superintendent in districts of varying size and complexity, including the Riverside Unified

School District. These roles shaped his understanding of how governance, community expectations, and financial stewardship intersect, and they helped build the pragmatic, student-centered approach that has defined his leadership.

In 2015, Mr. Fine joined the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team as its chief administrative officer. Two years later, he became FCMAT's chief executive officer, leading the organization through a period of extraordinary growth, innovation, and modernization. Under his direction, FCMAT strengthened its statewide role as California's foremost fiscal oversight and assistance agency, supporting TK-14 institutions with tools, training, and expert guidance that have become indispensable across the state.

During his tenure, Mr. Fine oversaw the expansion and refinement of FCMAT's fiscal tools, including updates to the multiyear financial projection software, enhancements to the fiscal health risk analyses, and improvements to charter school oversight guidance. He championed increased clarity, accessibility, and transparency in all FCMAT products, ensuring that leaders--from superintendents to school board members to chief business officials--could rely on timely, accurate information to guide their decisions.

Mr. Fine also strengthened FCMAT's essential role in California's system of fiscal oversight under Assembly Bill 1200. His clear, data- driven communication with state agencies, county offices, and local educational leaders has been crucial in responding to structural deficits, declining enrollment, and rising pension, benefit, and operating costs. He is widely recognized for his candor, clarity, and willingness to address complex issues head-on, always with the goal of supporting stability and avoiding harm to students.

A defining aspect of Mr. Fine's legacy is his deep commitment to developing the next generation of fiscal and operational leaders. Under his leadership, the CBO Mentor Program expanded, diversified, and strengthened pathways for emerging leaders in both K-12 and community college systems. His belief that strong fiscal systems depend on strong people has shaped FCMAT's culture and helped elevate the value of professional learning statewide.

Within FCMAT, Mr. Fine fostered a culture rooted in collaboration, excellence, and public service. He cultivated a team of analysts, data specialists, and operational experts whose work is respected across the state. Colleagues consistently describe him as principled, steady, and deeply dedicated to the mission of supporting sound governance and fiscal solvency throughout California's education system.

Beyond his professional accomplishments, Mr. Fine is a devoted husband, father, and community member. His service on local boards, commissions, and philanthropic organizations reflects the same commitment to public well-being that has guided his professional life. His belief in the power of strong, well-managed public institutions has been a constant throughout his career.

As Mr. Fine prepares to retire in 2026, his impact on California's schools and colleges will endure far beyond his tenure. The systems he strengthened, the leaders he mentored, and the culture of integrity he championed at FCMAT will continue to support stable, transparent, student-centered decision-making across the state for years to come.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Michael Fine for his extraordinary service, his steady leadership, and his enduring contributions to California's students, families, and communities. His work has safeguarded the fiscal health of our education system and strengthened the foundation upon which our public schools depend.