Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Steven Adams and to commend him on the occasion of his retirement as City Manager of King City, California, following more than forty-three years of distinguished public service.

Mr. Adams has devoted his professional life to the service of others, exemplifying the highest traditions of public administration. Over the course of his career, he has served with distinction in leadership roles for the City of Glendale, the City of Westlake Village, and for more than fourteen years as City Manager of the City of Arroyo Grande, before bringing his considerable experience to King City upon his appointment as City Manager in 2015.

During his tenure in King City, Mr. Adams provided steadfast and principled leadership at a time of significant challenge and opportunity. Through his guidance, the City restored confidence in its public institutions, strengthened its police department, and achieved fiscal stability. His careful stewardship eliminated a five-million- dollar negative fund balance and established prudent financial reserves to ensure the City's long-term well-being.

Under his leadership, King City advanced important initiatives that have strengthened the fabric of the community. These efforts included implementation of the Comprehensive Plan to End Youth Violence, revitalization of the historic downtown, expansion of community programs and public spaces, and the completion of major infrastructure and transit improvements. In addition, through his diligent advocacy and collaboration, King City successfully secured in excess of one hundred million dollars in federal and state funding to support housing, public safety, and economic development.

Mr. Adams's service has extended beyond the responsibilities of his office. Through active participation in local service organizations and regional partnerships throughout the Salinas Valley, he fostered cooperation, strengthened civic engagement, and advanced opportunities for residents across the community.

Mr. Speaker, Steven Adams's record reflects a career marked by integrity, professionalism, and an abiding commitment to public service. His decade of service as City Manager of King City, together with more than four decades in public administration, has left a lasting and positive legacy. On behalf of the residents of California's 18th Congressional District, I extend sincere appreciation to Steven Adams for his dedicated service and convey best wishes to him and his family as he enters a well-earned retirement.

Mr. Chair, while I am supportive of provisions in the minibus that would fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, especially those pertaining to healthcare, I cannot in good conscience endorse a spending bill that continues to explode our Defense budget. President Trump has already shown that he is willing to use the military against American citizens. He is also pursuing foreign entanglements around the globe, and I will not write him a blank check to potentially invade other countries or pit America's military against our allies.

Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 7148, the FY2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Due to the perseverance of my Democratic colleagues, the legislation before us today protects funding for Democratic priorities, reasserts Congress's power of the purse, and rejects Republicans' poison pill riders.

In the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS-Ed) appropriations bill, Democrats secured big wins for our public health, our workforce, and our communities. This bill provides a $400 million increase to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a $1.7 billion increase to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and a $364 million increase to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), rebuking the deep cuts made to these agencies in the Republican House bill. These dollars mean that the United States will continue to provide the world with cutting edge medical research, accurate data for health guidance and disease prevention, and support services for those who are struggling with their mental health or substance use. It restores funding to several programs that were eliminated by President Trump and House Republicans, including: Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Research, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau, and valuable Title X Family Planning funding. This bill increases funding for Special Education, protects the Pell Grant, and saves the Institute of Museum and Library Science from closing. It increases funding to Head Start, LIHEAP, and the Social Security Administration, ensuring that from beginning to end, Americans have the best chance at success from preschool to post-retirement.

The fiscal year 2026 Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development bill, which provides necessary funding to house our neighbors and build more affordable housing. The agreement safeguards the Continuum of Care program--a federal program that fosters a community-wide commitment to ending homelessness--from Trump administration attacks ensuring that members of our community are not evicted by President Trump. The agreement also rejects the President's proposal to end the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. This is the sole federal program that helps communities build more affordable housing for rent and ownership. Further, Division C of this package funds the Department of Transportation. The bill would ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration can hire 2,500 new air traffic controller trainees to keep our skies safe.

While I have already spoken on the House floor in support of this package, I would like to highlight a few provisions of the fiscal year 2026 Defense Appropriations agreement that I helped negotiate. The bill includes several important provisions that support military personnel and their families, including a well-deserved 3.8 percent pay increase for our troops. Medical research programs received an increase in funding that will help support lifesaving treatments for cancer, disease, and service-related injuries to benefit our service members and civilians alike. I am pleased that the bill does not include additional funding to cover the President's illegal strikes in the Caribbean and Venezuela. More needs to be

done to reign in President Trump's military interventions. Finally, the bill reaffirms the ironclad support in Congress for the NATO alliance and all of its 32 member states, including Denmark. I am disappointed that we were unable to include stronger language making it clear that President Trump needs to keep his hands off Greenland. The future of Greenland is up to its people, and the Kingdom of Denmark, not the President of the United States.

While these bills were not in the shape that I would have preferred, I am thankful that we were able to come together in a bipartisan manner to protect the American people from President Trump's most divisive cuts. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, there is mourning across the aisle and across the State of California. I chair the California Democratic delegation, and we are deeply saddened by the loss of Doug LaMalfa. It was a pleasure to serve with Doug since his election in 2013.

He was a man who cared so deeply for the communities that he represented in California's First District. As has been said, he is a fourth-generation rice farmer. He was one of the strongest voices in this body for rural America because he knew firsthand the struggles that our agricultural sectors were facing.

He and I worked very closely together on the bipartisan Farm Workforce Modernization Act which would provide stabilization for farmworkers, farmers, and the ag sector, and he added so much because he really knew how farming worked and what would work and what wouldn't work, and he was a collaborator.

We also introduced together the bipartisan Utility Resilience and Reliability Act that really was commonsense safety standards to minimize power outages.

Now, Doug and I didn't agree on everything. I am a proud Democrat. He was a proud Republican, but he was always approachable, and he was a colleague with whom you could disagree without being disagreeable. It is a quality that Members should strive to emulate here.

He was a good man, friendly, with a sense of humor, a gentle giant. Our deepest condolences are with his wife, Jill; their children; and his staff. It always hurts to lose a friend and a colleague, but I know that Doug's legacy will be remembered by all of us and the Californians he so proudly served and served with.

Mr. Speaker, we are heartbroken at the news that we have lost Doug LaMalfa. We served with him so proudly and got to know him as a friend, someone who you could disagree with without being disagreeable. We loved him dearly, and I value personally the chance I had to work with Doug and many others on the Farm Workforce Modernization Act. The insight that he had on that as a long-term rice farmer was just incalculable.

I value the moment that he came and brought me a little bag of rice that he had grown himself. We are in shock, and I would just like to add that our condolences go to the family as has been expressed so well. All of us are heartbroken at this terrible news.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the public service of Rinban Gerald Sakamoto of San Jose, California, who has served the Buddhist church and community in San Jose for four decades.

Mr. Sakamoto began his ministry journey in Hawaii, where he received his degree with an emphasis on Buddhism while working alongside ministers at the Honpa Hongwanji Hawaii Betsuin. Mr. Sakamoto then later moved to Kyoto where he completed his Tokudo ordination and training to become a minister for the Buddhist church.

Since Mr. Sakamoto's appointment to the San Jose Buddhist Church, he has been an active member of his community through youth outreach, Scouting programs, and community involvement. For many years, Mr. Sakamoto has led the opening and closing prayer at the Bon Odori dances that happen annually at the San Jose Odori Festival.

His teachings have emphasized compassion, interdependence, and the relevance of Buddhist values in daily life, using accessible metaphors such as the difference between square and round tables to illustrate spiritual concepts. Sakamoto's Dharma messages explore themes like birth and death, and the importance of relationships with others, with our ancestors, and with the world around us. His inclusive and thoughtful style bridges tradition and modern life, making Buddhist teachings approachable for people of all ages.

Rinban Gerald Sakamoto has helped bridge generations and make Buddhist teachings accessible to all. His thoughtful messages and inclusive leadership continue to leave a lasting impact on his temple and his community. As he approaches retirement, his legacy of service, compassion, and connection will be remembered with deep gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5100, a bill that I cosponsored along with the Chair of the Science Committee, Representative Babin, and the Chair and Ranking Member of the Small Business Committee, Representatives Williams and Velazquez. Like my colleagues, I am a strong supporter of the SBIR and STTR programs and it is my priority to see these programs continue without disruption.

For more than 40 years, and Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIFR), and later its companion program the Small Business Technology Transfer Program (STTR), have been contributing to U.S. leadership in technological innovation through support for small business research and development.

My home state of California has long been one of the Nation's leading states for science and technology. Because of our rich and diverse culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, our small companies--across sectors--have successfully competed for SBIR/STTR funds since the programs' inception. In 2022, California companies won a total of $887 million in SBIR/STTR awards. I celebrate the success of California's small businesses. But more importantly, I celebrate the return on investment (ROI) that benefits the entire Nation. While estimates vary depending on the scope and methodology of each study, the studies I have seen report a ROI of at least 10:1. That is a remarkable win for the taxpayer for a relatively small investment.

While the Small Business Administration administers the overall program, it is the science agencies themselves that solicit and fund SBIR/STTR award proposals. As the Ranking Member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I am familiar with the diversity of our Federal scientific enterprise and the vast differences in missions and needs across our science agencies, including the Department of Defense (DOD). So, it is no surprise to me that over the lifetime of the SBIR/ STTR programs, each agency has evolved the particulars of their individual programs to align with their specific needs. That also applies to how they approach risk assessment in their due diligence programs. While clear, standard definitions are an important goal that I share, an agency like NSF is rightfully going to assess and mitigate risk differently than an agency like DOD.

It is with that context in mind that I have serious concerns about the INNOVATE Act as currently proposed by the Chairs of the House and Senate Small Business Committees. Even DOD itself has flagged significant concerns. I do support a long-term comprehensive reauthorization of the program, and I am committed to taking a serious look at where the program has challenges and needs good governance updates. I am also committed to discussing the opportunities to continue to strengthen the outcomes of the program, including by doing more to attract new entrants across the Nation. I have instructed my staff accordingly and they have been at the table for more than a month negotiating in good faith with staff from the other committees. However, we remain far apart on certain key issues and simply need more time to work through them. At the moment, we don't even have agreement on the fundamentals. What I do not accept is a repeat of the 2022 process, in which one corner out of six effectively dictated the process and rammed through a bill that narrowly reflected only their priorities and completely omitted Science Committee priorities, among others.

That is why I am encouraging all of my colleagues, in the House and the Senate, to support a clean one-year reauthorization of the SBIR/ STTR programs. We must be allowed time to engage in the kind of thoughtful deliberation and debate that the public and the stakeholders expect from us before we enact monumental changes to a program that has been an undisputed success for more than 40 years.

Mr. Chair, Representative Moolenaar's amendment No. 26, entitled the SAFE Research Act, would enact excessive prohibitions for research awards that would stymie American innovation. In particular, the amendment would introduce a government-wide prohibition to give awards to individuals if they, or a research collaborator, have been affiliated with a hostile foreign entity at any time within five years of applying for the award. The definitions of who is included a ``hostile foreign entity'' is very far reaching and includes twelve separate entity lists as well as any entity performing academic, scientific, or technical collaboration perceived to contribute to nefarious activity.

For an agency to implement this prohibition, they would have to analyze a personal history of every awardee, along with every research collaborator (defined by joint research, coauthored publications, collaboration on awards, and formal mentor relationships) that awardee has had in the past five years. Furthermore, the amendment restricts post-award activity, prohibiting covered individuals from sharing ``expertise'' with ``hostile foreign entities,'' or those affiliated with them, for five years. This is vague, onerous, and impracticable. Simply from an implementation standpoint, it is highly difficult for any research agency, nonetheless one that has had its staff gutted, to properly carry out these proposed policies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1766, The NTIA Policy and Cybersecurity Coordination Act.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, is a critical agency within the Department of Commerce that works across the Federal government to develop telecommunications and information policy. Congress should support this agency and give it the resources and authorities it needs to fulfill its current mission. However, this bill would waste taxpayer dollars by unnecessarily duplicating activities already authorized by Congress.

The NTIA was originally part of its sister agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Since Congress established NTIA as its own agency in 1978, the two agencies have carried out complementary but distinct areas of work. NIST serves as an independent, unbiased arbiter of trusted measurements and standards while NTIA has its regulatory responsibilities.

These two agencies often work together, unfortunately this bill would swell NTIA's mission into a cybersecurity role to which it does not possess the appropriate experience or expertise and blur the lines between the agencies, especially on issues related to cybersecurity. For example, Congress authorized NIST, in collaboration with CISA, to conduct a cybersecurity activity related to the internet and communications networks in the Cybersecurity Enhancements Act of 2014, the CHIPS and Science Act of 2020, the HACKED Act of 2021, and more. H.R. 1766 would directly duplicate, at NTIA, those ongoing efforts underway at NIST. There is also a provision in the bill that implicates agencies outside of the Department of Commerce by duplicating the Department of Homeland Security's information technology supply chain security programs.

This Act was included as part of a broader NTIA Reauthorization that was considered in

the 118th Congress. At the time, the Department of Commerce weighed in requesting significant changes to the provision that are unfortunately not included in the Act we will consider today. As such, this bill merits further vetting and input from the Department of Commerce.

This bill needs to be changed to address these concerns. Until that happens I must regretfully oppose this legislation in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken publicly against this bill and its serious health care cuts. You can't pull a trillion dollars out of the health care system and expect health care providers to survive. Clinics, hospitals and nursing homes won't survive the massive pull out of funds. That kind of blow doesn't just show up on a balance sheet, it shows up in real lives. It also means people kicked off their coverage, parents forced to choose between paying rent or filling a prescription for their child, seniors skipping doctor visits or going without medication. And it means hospitals and community clinics closing their doors, leaving patients without care. These aren't just numbers, these are people, and this bill turns its back on them.

I grew up in a regular, hard-working household. Neither of my parents went to college. They worked hard, but they didn't have the money to send me to college. I was fortunate; fortunate to earn scholarships, to get student loans, to work while in school and to be able to chart a path toward. But the opportunities that helped me are stripped away for the next generation in this bill. With cuts to federal student aid and Pell Grant programs, the opportunity I had will be gone for those in the normal kind of family I grew up in if this bill becomes law.

The cuts to nutrition assistance in this bill are cruel. They will leave children hungry and seniors skipping meals because they can't afford food. And it doesn't end there, local farmers who sell agricultural products to those programs will lose an important market.

Here's the broader picture: this legislation borrows over $3 trillion to pay for tax breaks that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. It's fiscally reckless and morally indefensible.

But there's something else we haven't talked about enough, and it demands our attention. Donald Trump said he would deport violent criminals. People were okay with that. Now we see instead something far more disturbing: masked, heavily-armed agents, often refusing to identify themselves, aggressively, sometimes violently, targeting day laborers, busboys, farmworkers, and some of the hardest-working people in this country. Not dangerous criminals, but the people who pick the food we eat and clean the tables we sit at.

These raids are terrorizing communities and sowing fear in public spaces across America: in schools, at shopping centers, at grocery stores, at job sites. This bill would supercharge those operations, handing them more funding than most foreign militaries, with even fewer restraints. This is not the America I grew up in, and it's not the America I want to leave to my grandchildren.

We can and must do better. For our economy, for our communities, and for the values we claim to stand for.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Kim resolution.

Now, had it just condemned violence and thanked the National Guard and the Marines, who did not ask for this assignment, I think we would all be on board.

Instead, the resolution really is engaging in partisan games with misleading and inflammatory provisions.

Trump said he was going to go arrest and deport violent criminals. People are okay with that. Instead, armed, masked ICE agents, some refusing to identify themselves, aggressively, and

in some cases even violently, took down day workers at Home Depot, busboys, gardeners, and a union leader, and regular people in Los Angeles objected to that. Then, as the First Amendment provides, they peacefully protested against it.

Unfortunately, there were some hooligans and rowdies who infiltrated that group, and they committed violent acts and vandalism. For that, they should be prosecuted. They should be brought to justice and condemned, which we do.

However, the resolution really creates a misleading picture of what happened. On the first page, it says: ``Whereas these protests quickly escalated into violent riots across Los Angeles, where acts of arson, widespread looting, property destruction . . . lighting streets on fire. . . . '' The fact is that these demonstrations were largely confined to about a 10-block area in downtown Los Angeles.

The police, LAPD, had the situation under control. There is an elaborate system of mutual aid in California, and had they needed additional forces, it was readily available under mutual aid.

I will point out to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in case they need a reminder, L.A. County is 4,060 square miles, not the 10 blocks. When President Trump deployed the Marines and National Guard in L.A., it was not at the request of local officials, the chief of police, or the Governor. It was unprecedented, unnecessary, and a clear attempt to take over the State's law enforcement authority. In fact, I think it did aggravate tensions in the area.

Now, the National Guard remains in Los Angeles to this day. They have nothing to do. We heard a report from a former commander that less than 20 percent are doing anything and they have been taken away from jobs where they were needed; for example, helping in efforts of forest fire prevention and the like.

As the elected chair of the California Democrat delegation, I was proud to join my colleague (Ms. Barragan) in introducing a resolution that, unlike this one, is based in fact.

Our resolution condemns the President's authoritarian response to First Amendment expressions of dissent, unlike the Kim resolution. It expresses support for law enforcement and for the National Guard and for the Marines, and it condemns violence by those who committed it.

Now, why is this important? In the resolution, it is so partisan. It says: ``Whereas California's leadership has prioritized protecting illegal immigrants and violent individuals over United States citizens.''

That is absurd. That is insulting to our elected officials, but it is right in keeping with what the President has said. He has indicated publicly that he intends to target cities and States that are democratically elected, that have Democrats elected in government.

What a strange thing to say.

The executive order that nationalized the California National Guard applies to anywhere in the United States. It is not just L.A. It is not just California.

I think this resolution really, as false as it is, is serving as a predicate, as a foundation for the military to be used in places all over the United States on any pretext, so that the military can go in and assume civilian authority away from those who are democratically elected.

That is why it is important that we do not approve this resolution with its false whereases, and that we do not participate in a scheme to replace the democratically elected officials in cities and counties and States across the United States.

I will just end with this: Who should we be more concerned about? What should we be more afraid of: the gardeners that are being arrested by ICE, the busboys, the farmworkers, or the concept that the administration may be taking the steps to replace, with the military, civil authority that has been duly elected around the United States?

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Liccardo for yielding.

I first met Al and Carmen in the late 1970s. When I was elected to the community college board, Carmen was the secretary for the president of City College, and Al was a hardworking guy. What really stood out was the two of them constantly volunteering their time for the community through the GI Forum and the scholarship programs.

I am not a fan of the California Lottery, but it was great to see them win because what they did with their newfound wealth was in keeping with their

commitment to the community. They made sure that their windfall was distributed to nonprofits and to the community. They lifted everyone up.

Al and Carmen won the lottery in many ways. They created a wonderful family. Their children, now adults, have the same commitment to public service that they had.

We will miss Al, just as we miss Carmen. I am so grateful to my colleague, Mr. Liccardo, for organizing this tribute here on the floor today.

Al and Carmen left a tremendous mark for good in our community. I will miss Al tremendously.

Mr. Speaker, I rise as chair of the California Democratic congressional delegation in opposition to this rule. It makes in order three resolutions that claim to be pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, but are completely illegitimate.

That is not just my opinion, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has not once but twice found that waivers California receives under the Clean Air Act are not rules under the

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1326, the ``DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act'' which I was proud to introduce alongside my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas.

H.R. 1326 is a bipartisan bill that would authorize cross-cutting and collaborative research and development between the Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Together these agencies can leverage their incredible capabilities to address some of our multi- disciplinary research challenges in crop science, biofuels, carbon storage, and precision agriculture technologies.

Codifying the partnership between these agencies would be a testament to our commitment to these communities, particularly rural America, and our climate.

The Science, Space, and Technology Committee generated substantial momentum through the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, which included research support towards agriculture productivity improvement goals. The DOE and USDA Interagency Research Act would sustain and strengthen this momentum in its entirety, by empowering deeper collaboration between these two agencies, enabling our research and agriculture communities to fully utilize the opportunities presented by a broad range of new emerging technologies.

With this, I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1325, the ``Commercial Remote Sensing Amendment Act of 2025.''

I would like to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, Congressman Frank Lucas, who was former Chair of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology where I serve as Ranking Member, for reintroducing this legislation. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this bill and continue working with Congressman Lucas with whom I collaborated on our Committee's bipartisan work.

H.R. 1325 is a no-nonsense, good government bill that amends existing statute to conform with updated regulatory guidelines. This legislation also directs reporting to Congress on commercial remote sensing licensing, which is carried out under statutory authority granted to the Department of Commerce. H.R. 1325 provides Congress with the necessary transparency to carry out ongoing oversight of the Department's implementation of its authority and regulatory responsibilities.

Ensuring that our U.S. commercial space-based remote sensing industry leads the world is not only important for our economy, it is essential for securing the power that space-based information has for our Nation--from natural disaster assessments and responses to precision agriculture and applied uses for national security. For example, commercial remote sensing images provide an important means of shining a light on the world's actions in a way that satellites designated for national security, or the intelligence community cannot. Commercial imagery of the advancement of Russia into Ukraine is but one example.

It is not surprising that several commercial remote sensing companies are in the Bay area of Northern California where my District is located. California is an incubator of space technology, and the Bay area and Silicon Valley are drivers of information technology innovation. Coupling commercial space-based remote sensing data with analytical tools and information technology is a force multiplier that augments and enables essential decision-support products.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote ``YEA'' on H.R. 1325, the ``Commercial Remote Sensing Amendment Act of 2025.''

Mr. Speaker, there are concerns with the IRS Final Rule, in that it may exceed the scope provided for in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The rule also raises important issues that warrant further scrutiny, including its potential impact on innovation and privacy.

However, as the Congressional Review Act (CRA) would not only repeal the current rule but also prohibits the agency from issuing any similar regulation in the future without explicit congressional authorization, I think a ``Yes'' vote goes too far. While I acknowledge flaws in the current rule, I believe that additional study could be useful. It is impossible that a more tailored rule aimed at appropriate tax compliance in the digital assets space could be appropriate. At a minimum, we should not completely forgo that possibility, without further study.

For these reasons, I will be voting ``Present'' on H.J. Res 25.