“I want the House to vote against this amendment. Military chaplains must care for all service members, no matter their religion. This amendment lets chaplains turn some service members away, which hurts our troops and weakens the military.”

“Mr. Chair, military readiness is not just physical. It is, indeed, mental. It is emotional. It is financial, and it is spiritual. That is why every branch of our Armed Forces maintains a Chaplain Corps. Our chaplains are indispensable. They are counselors, advisers, and trusted members of the units and the families they serve. They strengthen the resilience of our force every single day, but chaplains are also servicemembers themselves. They have assigned duties and responsibilities. Among those responsibilities are two sacred obligations. One is to faithfully practice their own religion and to faithfully protect every servicemembers’ right to practice theirs. A chaplain’s faith belongs to their religion, but their duty belongs to every servicemember. That is how the Chaplain Corps serves the entire force without ever asking a chaplain to violate the tenets of their own faith. A Catholic priest, a Presbyterian minister, or a Jewish rabbi is not expected to lead a Muslim prayer, but they are expected to ensure their Muslim servicemembers have a place to worship and help them identify a lay leader if one is, in fact, needed. That principle has guided our military for generations because it protects every servicemember and because it respects every faith and even those who have none. This amendment abandons that principle. It doesn’t strengthen the religious liberty. It, indeed, narrows it. It transforms a chaplain’s duty to care for every single servicemember into permission to turn some of them away. Under this amendment, a commanding officer who expects a chaplain to carry out that longstanding responsibility could face punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That is, in fact, a profound departure from how our military has always understood religious liberty. The military asks Americans of every faith and those of no faith to serve shoulder to shoulder with one another. Our Chaplain Corps exists to ensure that every one of those servicemembers can freely exercise their beliefs. This amendment weakens that mission. It weakens the trust that holds military units together and ultimately it, therefore, weakens the force itself. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. It lets the Secretary of Defense give top-secret clearances to investors without a clear reason or contract. I believe people in the Trump administration will use these secrets to help their friends and family make money in the stock market.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would give the Secretary of Defense sweeping discretion to grant the highest level of security clearances to an unlimited number of investment professionals without any contract, mission, or defined purpose. Now, the theory, as we just heard, is that these investors would then conduct due diligence and steer Federal resources toward companies that can support our national defense. In practice, this would turn our national secrets into another way for the Trump White House to monetize their jobs, putting their friends’ wealth over the national interest. Now, lest anybody accuse me of making a partisan point, let’s review some recent history, tying specifically to the individuals in the Trump administration who would be making decisions about how to share our national secrets. In the weeks leading up to President Trump’s military strikes on Iran, reports found that Secretary Hegseth’s broker inquired about a multimillion dollar investment in major defense companies. Earlier this year, President Trump’s own leadership PAC sent fundraising emails that offered his donors access to national security debriefings on threats, border security, and foreign adversaries. Don Trump, Jr.’s venture capital firm has invested in more than a dozen defense tech companies. Subsequent to his investment, those companies secured $3.2 billion in direct government business and $3.1 billion in additional future contract options. In one case, the White House directly pressured the Department of Defense to provide $620 million in financing to one of young Donald’s portfolio companies. Speaking of the children, the Trump administration recently approved $1.6 billion in Federal financing for a small U.S. company to lead a major mining project in Kazakhstan. That company is not only partially owned by Donald Trump’s children, but the deal was negotiated by Secretary of Commerce Lutnick’s children. Hell, even Donald Trump’s teleprompter operator is in on the action, having just made $100,000 by betting on Trump’s speeches that only he had seen on prediction markets. Of course, just this past week, Trump Media announced plans to sell early access to the President’s market-moving Truth Social posts so that Trump can make money while you front-run the stock market. To be sure, Mr. Issa’s amendment does specifically say that no investor may use classified information for personal financial gain. But I would ask you: Who in the Trump White House is going to enforce that provision? Trump? Lutnick? His personal lawyer, Todd Blanche? I think we know better. What we have here is an amendment to provide investment professionals with both the means and the motive to engage in insider trading, to help the rich get richer, and to compromise the integrity of U.S. financial markets. The question that we have right now in this amendment is a really simple one: What do you stand for? If you stand for corruption, vote ``yes’’. But if you stand for national security, for integrity, and for capitalism, vote ``no’’. That may be a character test for some in this Chamber, but it is not a remotely close call. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“Vote against this amendment. It bans scientists from countries like China and Russia from working at our national labs. We already check these scientists carefully before they work here. Working with them helps our own research and gives us useful contacts in those countries. Even the Trump administration opposed this ban because it hurts American science.”

“Mr. Chair, this amendment is unnecessary, and I urge everyone to oppose it. The Department of Energy Laboratories are on to this problem, and they have been on to it for decades. Prior to serving in Congress, I spent over 20 years at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, where we had Russian collaborators during the heart of the Cold War. Some of the very first experiments that were done at Fermi National Lab had Russian participants, and we had incredibly competent scientists coming and visiting. It was actually kind of amusing. When you had a group of Russian collaborators, there would be five brilliant scientists and then one guy who was not a very good physicist. He was the KGB guy, and everyone laughed about it. We had this under control. It was also a huge benefit to the United States not only because of the brilliant assistance we had to grow our science program, but also, frankly, as a source of intelligence assets because these brilliant scientists would go back to Russia, and we would maintain interesting communications with them. That is especially important today because China has basically installed the surveillance state. It is very difficult for us to maintain human assets in China, but this is one of the only opportunities that we have to actually develop high-level scientific assets. From that point of view alone, this is a wrong amendment. It is not just me who feels this way. Donald Trump’s Department of Energy opposes this, and I will just read verbatim their comment on it: ``This amendment effectively imposes an outright prohibition on access to DOE national laboratories for all foreign nationals from countries of concern, regardless of their mode of access. While intended to address security concerns, this sweeping restriction will severely disrupt the national laboratory research and development ecosystem and key administration research priorities,’’ from the Trump administration. ``The Office of Science and other DOE lab-stewarded programs have a significant number of international scientists and engineers who serve as employees, users of SC scientific user facilities, or collaborative visitors. These individuals already undergo indices checks and extensive, multi-layered risk mitigation measures prior to receiving Laboratory access. By bypassing these tailored, risk-based protocols in favor of a blanket ban, this amendment will disrupt essential scientific human resources who greatly contribute to domestic scientific competitiveness.’’ Mr. Chair, it is not often that I agree with the Trump administration, but they pretty much nailed that one. This amendment is unnecessary and counterproductive. Mrs. Hinson’s amendment has identified a concern about the impact of foreign nationals from countries like Russia, China, and Iran, but principally China. However, this amendment is just unnecessarily restrictive on our national laboratories. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. It stops the military from using automated speed cameras on bases. These cameras prevent traffic accidents and protect the families and troops who live and walk there.”

“Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chair, I am going to say, I am pretty baffled by this amendment from my friend and colleague, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. It moves base safety in the wrong direction. Even the Department of Defense opposes this amendment. This amendment would prohibit automated speed enforcement cameras on military installations. To be clear, these cameras aren’t about punishing our troops or their families. They exist to keep bases and military families safe. These cameras keep reckless drivers accountable and have a proven and effective record for reducing traffic accidents and maintaining safe and orderly driving. According to the Federal Highway Administration, speed enforcement cameras have been found to reduce roadway fatalities and injuries by up to 37 percent. I want to remind my colleagues that our military bases aren’t just for troops to work and train. They are home to schools, youth centers, child development centers, playgrounds, and family housing. Junior personnel can’t usually afford vehicles and are usually having to walk around bases. It is imperative that we maintain traffic safety. The servicemembers and families who live and work on these bases deserve every protection we can give them, and that must be part of this conversation. I have not heard one shred of data and not one credible argument that this amendment makes our installations safer. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“Vote no on this amendment. It bans speed cameras on military bases, but car crashes are a top killer of service members. Base leaders need these cameras to keep people safe on the road.”

“Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague’s argument there, but if the Department of Defense can’t maintain the cybersecurity cameras on our own installations, then we have a lot bigger problems. The truth is that vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of death for our servicemembers. Why are we even debating this? We should be debating amendments that rein in this administration’s reckless conduct on this Iran war or its reckless spending in the Middle East. Instead, my colleagues would rather discuss speed cameras. The fact is, this amendment restrains the Secretary’s ability to allocate security and law enforcement resources to address traffic safety. Prohibiting the use of speed cameras also undermines an installation commander’s ability to deploy the appropriate resources to effectively meet the traffic and public safety needs of the installation. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. Right now, companies must pass two separate security reviews to sell cloud tools to both civilian agencies and the military. My amendment sets up a test program to let the military quickly accept tools that civilian agencies have already approved. This will save money and get new cybersecurity tools to the military faster.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Amendment No. 309 to the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act. My amendment would establish a pilot program to enable the Department of Defense (DoD) to more efficiently deploy modern cybersecurity solutions by accelerating the security verification of solutions that have already received FedRAMP High certification. FedRAMP is a standardized approach to certifying and assessing the security of cloud computing technologies used across federal agencies, and a FedRAMP High certification is the strictest cloud security authorization level within FedRAMP. This level of certification ensures compliance with the standards needed to securely handle and process the federal government’s most sensitive unclassified information and data. FedRAMP seeks to create a ``certify once, reuse many times’’ model for cloud products and services that provides a secure and cost- effective approach to federal cloud service adoption. The idea behind this concept of ``certify once, reuse many times’’ or ``reciprocity’’ as I like to refer to it, is that if a cloud service’s security controls have already been certified at a basic level, multiple federal agencies should be comfortable with adopting the service for their own purposes. For years, DoD has relied on its own assessment and verification process for cloud-based services, separate and distinct from FedRAMP-- however, both DoD’s and FedRAMP’s assessment and verification processes rely on the same NIST standards and have the same goal, which is to certify that a cloud-based product meets security standards for federal use. What this means in practice is that both the government and our private sector partners must invest significant time and resources to verify security controls for cloud service deployment not just once, but twice if they hope to make that service available to both Federal Civilian and DoD customers. Additionally, maintaining two parallel certification pathways has created bottlenecks in deploying modern commercial cloud capabilities, including critical cybersecurity tools, within the DoD--even when those solutions have already been certified for civilian agency use under the same NIST standards through the FedRAMP program. This amendment would save the federal government time and resources by encouraging reciprocity between the parallel FedRAMP and DoD cloud security assessment processes. It establishes a pilot program to accelerate the DoD’s assessment of cloud-based cybersecurity solutions that have already been authorized under the same underlying NIST standards that the Department’s existing assessment process relies on. In doing so, this pilot will help deliver innovative commercial cybersecurity capabilities to the warfighter more quickly, at a time when cyber threats from our adversaries are growing more sophisticated. I urge my collegues to support this amendment. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers). The en bloc amendments were agreed to.”

“I oppose this amendment. It tells the military to make a plan to cut 200,000 civilian jobs. Our troops rely on civilian workers to fix equipment, run childcare, and provide healthcare. Past cuts have already hurt living conditions on military bases.”

“Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment, which would require the Department of Defense to develop plans to eliminate 200,000 civilian employees. I have news for you: This administration already did that, and I saw the consequences with my own eyes. I had lunch with junior enlisted marines in Hawaii. They told me it took months to fix their broken washing machines, a full year to fix a sink in a barracks room. I saw windows duct taped and mold painted over. Childcare rooms were empty because they had no staff to care for servicemembers’ children. When I asked the base commander why it took a year to fix a sink, he said it is because almost all of the maintenance staff took the deferred resignation program, and with the hiring freeze, they couldn’t find replacements. There are 20,000 DoD civilian employees in Hawaii and about 800,000 worldwide. They are essential to readiness. At a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet, they are good jobs. They have been and should remain stable jobs, too, allowing people to serve their country and care for their families. Bottom line, our war fighters rely on civilian employees for everything, from maintenance to acquisition, to healthcare, to childcare. They keep our subs and jets battle-ready and our servicemembers healthy. Mr. Chair, it is time we stop treating them as disposable. Instead, we should be investing in the civilian workforce, not continuing to threaten to cut their jobs. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I oppose this amendment. It asks for a plan to fire 200,000 civilian defense workers. The military has already cut tens of thousands of workers, and we have not even studied how those cuts hurt our defense.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment requires a report to outline the option for reducing the Department of Defense civilian workforce by 200,000 workers, a very arbitrary number. It is truly stunning, a continuation of unprecedented attacks on our Federal civilian workforce that we have seen under this administration led by the very top, by President Trump and his Cabinet. I will remind my colleagues that President Trump established DOGE last year, which resulted in cuts across the entire Federal workforce of over 280,000 employees. Since then, the Federal Government, and particularly the Department of Defense, has absolutely hemorrhaged critical talent, institutional knowledge, and subject-matter experts across our workforce, the men and women that we cannot afford to lose. Over the last year, we have already seen reductions across the Department of Defense workforce by about 10 percent, over 78,000 workers. In fact, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, already did a study on the Department of Defense’s implementation of the 2025 reductions. They put out their findings in a report on May 29 of this year. This is what they found: The Department of Defense did not consistently analyze the impacts on the civilian workforce reduction either in `25 or in prior years. A study has been done, and they did absolutely nothing with it. Instead, we are taking up this amendment, which arbitrarily seeks recommendations to reach a target of 200,000 people in reduction before we even understand the impacts of the last set of cuts that have taken place. Unfortunately, in our country and our national security, we already are paying the price for these reckless attacks on our hardworking men and women who keep our workforce and our Defense Department running. What we absolutely already know is these firings--”

“Vote no on this amendment. We need enough people in the Department of Defense to keep our military ready and defend the country.”

“Mr. Chair, let’s get to the bottom line here. Our responsibility as Members of Congress is to make sure that we have a Department of Defense that is ready. We can’t do it with less people. We are losing this institutional knowledge that is so critical for defending our Nation. Mr. Chair, I am against this. Please reject this amendment.”

“I want the House to vote against this amendment. It could cut 200,000 civilian military jobs, including workers at the Rock Island Arsenal in my district, and put our troops at risk.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to the Grothman amendment. I am proud to live in an Army town and represent the historic Rock Island Arsenal in the House of Representatives. Every single one of my neighbors works to support our troops and make sure that our readiness and logistics keep our country safe. I find it outrageous that this Commander in Chief and his loyalists think it is okay to possibly kick these true Americans out of the civilian workforce, 200,000 patriots. These are combat veterans. These are experts. Back home, the Rock Island Arsenal cannot deal with this. Mr. Chair, I will not remain silent when this amendment is dropped at the eleventh hour to decimate our institution. Mr. Chair, I also can’t understand how anyone can call themselves America First when they offer plans to possibly throw men and women in uniform out just as casually as taking out the trash. These are patriots. Mr. Chair, allowing this to move forward wouldn’t just eliminate the jobs of 200,000 Americans, it would put our troops at risk, as well. I urge Republicans and Democrats to please honor them with a ``no’’ vote on amendment No. 316.”

“Both parties worked together to write this defense bill. It helps military families and improves our defense technology. But I do not support the anti-trans rules added to it. I also cannot support spending 1.6 trillion dollars on defense while we cut taxes, cut food aid, and run huge budget deficits. The administration is being too partisan, and it is hurting our ability to pass this bill.”

“Mr. Chair, first of all, I thank everyone involved in the process. We do this every year, but I think it is really important that we recognize the people who did all of the work to make this bill possible--certainly, the HASC staff, my able team behind me and the team that serves Mr. Rogers and serves the full committee. We worked in a bipartisan way through well over a thousand amendments and two or three times that many ideas to craft together a very large piece of incredibly important legislation. That work should not go unrecognized. The members of the committee also go out of their way to work in an incredibly bipartisan way, and that is a credit to Chairman Rogers. He makes a real effort to make sure that Democrats are included, that we have a fair conversation, and that we try to get to the best result possible. I think that is incredibly important. Mr. Chair, I also thank the Rules Committee for their hard work. They have to sort through over a thousand amendments, as well. Of course, the floor staff that has to work through this entire process every year does an outstanding and amazing job. They are dedicated public servants who deserve our very high praise. In the bill itself, there are things I like and things I don’t like. I think it reflects the process overall. I think it does a very good job of doing oversight of getting to acquisition reform, of continuing along the path of how we innovate faster at scale. The chairman has done an excellent job of pointing out the need for that. We need innovative technologies. We need them in a more cost- effective way. This bill reflects those priorities. It also supports our troops and our families, including pay raises, general benefits across the board, and a real focus on making sure that our servicemembers are taken care of. I don’t like that the SAVE America Act is going to be attached to this. I don’t like the gratuitous anti-trans amendments that were added to the bill. There are other aspects of it that I am troubled by, but overall, I respect the process. The big point I will make today is, I really think we are at a crossroads in this Congress, in the appropriations process, as well, but in the NDAA. We are trying to work in a bipartisan way, and I will say that Mr. Rogers does it. I think Senator Wicker in the Senate does it, but we have to do that against the backdrop of an unbelievably partisan and, in many ways, out-of-control administration and Department of Defense. They are taking us down roads that I think are incredibly dangerous and make it very hard to maintain that bipartisan spirit. Mr. Chair, I want you to know that I am an incredibly reasonable person. I will work with absolutely anybody. Some people will say I am too willing to work with people, but that is the nature of the democratic process. I don’t identify the people I like and don’t like, and say if I don’t like you, I am not going to work with you. For representative democracy to work, we have to work with people that we disagree with--many times passionately, strongly--on incredibly important issues. We have done that throughout my entire time on this committee through a fair number of chairs and ranking members. For 65 years--I haven’t been on the committee for 65 years, but we have passed the National Defense Authorization Act. During President Trump’s first term, when I was chair of the committee, I worked with the Trump administration. We got a good bill done. The second time, the President threw a little wrench in at the end. In a bipartisan way, we actually overrode the President’s veto to make sure that the NDAA got done. This year, we have issues that have risen above the normal flow of partisan divide. First of all, we have the budget number. When we add it all up--and I know this bill only has $1.15 trillion in it, but baked into the defense budget is another $350 billion in reconciliation. I forget where the supplemental is at these days. I think it is around $90 billion, but you add it all up, and they are asking for $1.6 trillion in the defense budget. That is a 60 percent increase at a time when we are running a nearly $2 trillion deficit. People are talking openly about what is going to happen when the U.S. has to default in 5 years, 6 years. This is also at a time when, again, we insist on cutting taxes, cutting taxes. No, cutting taxes does not increase revenue. Just because revenue goes up from one year to the next when you have cut taxes--it was going to go up anyway. The budget office says that the tax cuts cost us $4 trillion over 10 years. When you look at the other priorities that are out there--cuts to Medicaid, cuts to SNAP, inability to invest in infrastructure and housing. The American people are struggling to pay their bills. Then, we are going to put $1.6 trillion into the defense budget. It is not a reasonable thing to ask. We can’t work in a bipartisan way on a number like that. Again, the White House and Department of Defense take an unbelievably partisan approach. They have no interest in talking to us. They are giving briefings just to Republicans on crucial issues. That has never happened before. Through Democrat or Republican, I have never seen anything like this. The unbelievable partisanship is undermining our ability to get to a bipartisan bill, and it starts with the budget. There are many other issues, like the war in Iran. We are in an incredibly dangerous situation. The costs continue to escalate. We have lost more servicemembers. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Goldman of Texas). The time of the gentleman has expired.”

“The President started an endless, foolish war with Iran and is misusing our military around the world. We must not give him a blank check or spend $1.6 trillion on defense until Republicans help us hold him accountable.”

“Mr. Chair, we stumbled into a conflict in the dumbest way imaginable. In the history of the United States of America, we have made some mistakes in wars. This was about as idiotic a thing as I have ever seen, and the cost is to the global economy, our reputation, instability in the Middle East, the loss of service members, and thousands of people wounded. I know a lot of people say, well, it is terrible because Trump never had a plan. It is actually a hell of a lot worse than that. He had a plan. His plan was that he was going to bomb Iran for 4 weeks, and they were going to give up. That was literally his plan. People told him in his own administration that was idiotic. It wasn’t going to happen, but he did it anyway. Then, when it didn’t work, he just thinks if we drop a few more bombs--here we are. We keep hearing about how the Iranian military is completely obliterated. It is gone. They are defeated, yet the missiles and the drones keep coming. People in the region keep dying, and our service members keep dying. That is not just a mistake. That is living in an alternative universe. That is not living in the world that we are actually in, and the war continues. As we support anything in the defense area, we are de facto supporting this war with no end in sight. The way the President talks about it: Oh, we are going to take Kharg Island. We can take Kharg Island. It won’t be a problem. That is insane if you actually follow the military plans. Maybe you can take it, but you have to hold it. They are going to be lobbing missiles at you. We are in an incredibly serious business, and the President is talking about this like it is some sort of bad fiction novel. We have to hold them accountable for that, and it is not just the war in Iran. We are engaged in a major conflict in Latin America right now, which people don’t know about. We are fighting narcoterrorists. We are still blowing up boats. We are partnering with various different countries and killing people down there, all with no transparency. Then, we have what is going on in Europe. We periodically threaten to pull troops out of Europe. The President and the Vice President and others talk about Europe facing civilizational erasure and really focused on that issue of pulling back from supporting them in any way because--what?--we are not allies and partners. The strongest alliance, NATO, in the history of this country is regularly denigrated by our President. Now, I know that people want to kid themselves and say, ``Look, he is just doing it so that our NATO partners step up. That is all we want to do,’’ but that is not why he is just doing it. I will give you a great example: Hungary. I was talking with a Department of Defense official the other day. He said our plan in Europe is actually working because NATO is stepping up, and, crucial to that, was that Orban lost so that Hungary supported the support for Ukraine, but our President and Vice President were supporting keeping the dictator in charge of Hungary so that never would have happened. We are in incredibly dangerous times, and then, we have the President’s use of our military domestically, which he has done. He gives a speech talking about election interference, leaving us all to wonder is he going to honor the outcome of this election. What is our obligation to make sure that he does? We are not in normal times. I am also deeply concerned about Secretary Hegseth and the way he is running the Department of Defense. He, too, has no idea what is happening in Iran, or how we are ever going to get out of that war, but he has also talked about giving no quarter to our enemies. We accidentally bombed a girl’s school and killed 145 civilians. I don’t know how long ago now, 3 or 4 months ago. It is obvious we did it. We won’t take responsibility for it. Then, the Secretary of Defense comes out and says publicly: No quarter for our enemy. He has served in the military. He knows what that means--no survivors. The President talks about erasing the Iranian civilization. He talks about bombing civilian targets. Never would the United States of America have done any of those things. We are in an incredibly, incredibly dangerous time. I wish to maintain the bipartisan nature of this bill--I do, and I know that the chairman does. But if we are going to do this, we are going to need some Republicans to stand up to the President of the United States and say, no. No, we are not going to get you $1.6 trillion. No, we are not just going to give you a blank check for a war that is totally out of control, not going anywhere, and with no end in sight. I keep hearing people say: Well, we just have to finish the job, like we are cleaning out the garage, and if we just stick at it long enough--”

“I do not support this defense bill. The president is pushing harmful policies, like tariffs on our allies and strikes on Iran without a plan. Congress needs to stop this and write a sensible budget together.”

“Mr. Chair, if we just stick at it long enough, we will be done. There is no plan. There is no plan to bomb a target that is going to make Iran change their mind. We have to stand up and say, no, we can’t do those things, and I say all of that again. I want to get us back to a reasonable place where we can have a bipartisan agreement, and I hope in the next couple of months we will get there. I really want people to understand how unprecedented this moment is that we are in. The President is taking us down a bitterly partisan and divisive road and pushing policies--I didn’t even talk about the tariffs that he slaps on our allies at a whim. Look at Canada. Apparently, there are fires up in Canada, and the wind is blowing south, so it is Canada’s fault, and we have to slap a 50 percent tariff on them. This is the way we govern? It is insane, and we need to rein it in. We in Congress need to stand up and say: No, we are going to begin to get some of this under control. At a minimum, let’s have a sensible budget. Let’s stop the war in Iran. I can’t support this bill. It profoundly hurts me because I believe in this process. It is the last thing I will say. I will continue to want to work with any reasonable person who shows up in the Trump administration. I don’t want to shun them because this body has to work. If we don’t pass legislation, then the President has even more power. If the legislative branch shuts down, that simply consolidates more power in the executive branch. We have to find a way through this, but it is not going to be easy. I want to make sure people understand the unprecedented nature of where we are at, and we all begin to work together to get ourselves to a better place. Mr. Chair, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 4 of 100

  Only 4% of this speech directly addressed the bill under debate.

  See full analysis →