[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 94 (Wednesday, June 3, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3783-H3793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1220
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8646, AGRICULTURE, RURAL 
     DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCY 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2027; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7726, NO 
   FUNDS FOR REPEAT CHILD CARE VIOLATIONS ACT OF 2026; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7892, NO AID FOR GHOST STUDENTS ACT OF 2026; AND 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8872, PREVENTING WASTE, FRAUD, AND 
                           ABUSE IN TANF ACT

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1333 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1333

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 8646) making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2027, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. Points of order against provisions in the 
     bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of 
     rule XXI are waived.
       Sec. 2.  (a) No amendment to H.R. 8646 shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc described in 
     section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments 
     described in section 4 of this resolution.
       (b) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of this 
     resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole.
       (c) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en 
     bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be 
     subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of this 
     resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole.
       Sec. 4.  During consideration of H.R. 8646 for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 8646 
     for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to 
     the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7726) to amend 
     the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 to 
     withhold funds from noncompliant States under such Act. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Workforce now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     119-32 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Workforce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7892) to amend 
     the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require to the Secretary 
     of Education to use an identity fraud detection system to 
     review each FAFSA to determine whether the FAFSA presents a 
     reasonable suspicion of identity fraud. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Education and Workforce now printed in the bill, 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 119-31 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 8.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8872) to amend 
     part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to target funds 
     to low-income families, strengthen program integrity 
     guardrails for State expenditure of

[[Page H3784]]

     funds, require measurement of improper payments, and 
     establish goals for eliminating fraud and improper payments 
     under the program of block grants to States for temporary 
     assistance for needy families, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported out a 
rule, House Resolution 1333, providing for the House's consideration of 
four bills.
  First, the rule provides for H.R. 8646, the Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, to be considered under a structured rule, with 26 
amendments made in order. It provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, and provides 
for one motion to recommit.
  Second, the rule provides for H.R. 7892, the No Aid for Ghost 
Students Act, to be considered under a closed rule. It also provides 1 
hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their 
respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Third, the rule provides for H.R. 7726, the No Funds for Repeat Child 
Care Violations Act of 2026, to be considered under a closed rule. It 
also provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
Workforce or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to 
recommit.
  Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8872, the 
Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF Act, under a closed rule. It 
provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their 
respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying legislation. The legislation before us this week reflects a 
straightforward principle: Federal programs should serve the people 
they were intended to serve. Taxpayer dollars should be spent 
responsibly, transparently, and accountably.
  It should be easy for this simple but important effort to be pursued 
in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, yet my Democratic counterparts 
will undoubtedly oppose these bills. In doing so, they will be voting 
to perpetuate rampant fraud, but that is no surprise since the States 
flagged for massive amounts of fraud are led by Democratic Governors 
and State legislatures. Why would they want to clamp down on the fraud 
Democrats helped perpetuate?
  Every week, during debate on the rule, Democrats will use a technique 
we refer to as gaslighting to accuse and blame Republicans for their 
own egregious behavior. Let's remember that it was President Biden who 
eased the rules around Federal childcare billing, which resulted in 
spending double in some facilities in Minnesota while enrollment stayed 
flat.
  Here we are, doing much more than combating fraud in our legislative 
package this week. Together, these measures strengthen oversight, close 
loopholes that have enabled fraud and abuse, support rural America, and 
ensure Federal resources are reaching the families, students, workers, 
and communities they were designed to help.
  Let me begin with the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug 
Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The bill makes 
targeted investments in the programs that matter most to producers, 
consumers, and rural communities. It continues to support agricultural 
research, rural development initiatives, and the critical food safety 
infrastructure that Americans rely on every day.
  For States like Indiana, where agriculture remains one of the largest 
economic drivers, these investments will yield tangible results. 
Whether it is supporting corn and soybean producers, livestock 
operations, food processors, or rural small businesses, this 
legislation strengthens the industries that sustain local economies and 
help feed the world.
  This bill recognizes a simple reality: Food security is national 
security. Foreign adversaries are increasingly looking to buy up 
American farmland, influence our food supply, and gain access to 
critical agricultural resources. This legislation takes important steps 
to increase oversight on foreign ownership of U.S. farmland, 
safeguarding against foreign influence and protecting American 
agriculture from emerging threats.
  In addition to these wins, I am proud we secured over $3 million in 
community project funding in this bill for Indiana's Ninth 
Congressional District. This funding will support projects, including 
critical upgrades to wastewater systems in Borden and Moorefield, 
expanded sewer service in Greenville, and replacing aging stormwater 
pipe in Austin.
  These projects reflect priorities identified by local leaders and 
will deliver much-needed updates to aging infrastructure, which will 
expand economic development opportunities and improve quality of life 
across the district.
  I thank Chairmen Cole and Harris for their work on this legislation 
and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Also included in the rule is the No Aid for Ghost Students Act. 
Federal student aid was created to help Americans earn a degree, learn 
a trade, and build a better future. It was never intended to become a 
slush fund for fraudsters or identity thefts, and that is exactly what 
is happening.

  Bad actors are exploiting the system by using stolen or fake 
identities to submit FAFSA applications, enroll in classes, collect 
taxpayer-funded financial aid, and disappear once the money has been 
issued. The result is millions of taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. Every 
dollar stolen by a fraudster is a dollar taken away from a student 
trying to improve their future.
  Under the leadership of Secretary Linda McMahon, the Department of 
Education has already prevented more than $1 billion in attempted 
student aid fraud through stronger identity verification and fraud 
detection measures.
  This bill builds on that success by making sure taxpayer dollars go 
to students, not scammers. It strengthens identity verification 
requirements, requiring schools to verify suspicious applicants before 
aid is distributed, and it holds institutions accountable when basic 
safeguards are ignored. We need to restore the integrity of the Federal 
student aid system and ensure taxpayer dollars reach the students they 
were intended to help.
  Next, Madam Speaker, I will turn to the Stop Child Care Scams Act. 
Childcare assistance programs are designed to help working parents 
afford quality childcare so they can provide for their families and 
pursue economic opportunity. These programs are a lifeline for millions 
of Americans, but when taxpayer dollars are lost to fraud, it is not 
just taxpayers who suffer. The families who depend on these services 
suffer, too.

[[Page H3785]]

  


                              {time}  1230

  For years, the Child Care and Development Block Grant program has 
been vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse, yet despite repeated 
warnings, hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars remain at risk.
  Recent reports have uncovered troubling instances where providers 
received Federal childcare assistance funds without actually serving 
eligible children and families. Shockingly, during a congressional 
Oversight Committee hearing, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz recently 
admitted his State had known about the fraud in its childcare 
assistance program since 2012 yet took no action. That is unacceptable.
  When that happens, families who rely on these services are the ones 
who ultimately suffer, particularly the hundreds of thousands of 
families in need of childcare assistance vouchers currently sitting on 
a waiting list.
  The Stop Child Care Scams Act takes commonsense steps to protect both 
taxpayers and families. It cracks down on providers who attempt to game 
the system by increasing transparency, strengthening oversight, and 
adding additional auditing requirements.
  Just as importantly, it helps ensure providers caught committing 
fraud in one program cannot simply move to another State or locality 
and continue their theft of taxpayer dollars.
  My Democrat colleagues are going to say this bill is going to make 
childcare assistance less available. In fact, it does the opposite. It 
helps ensure these resources reach the children, parents, and providers 
they were intended to serve, protecting them from being siphoned off by 
fraudsters.
  Lastly, let's turn to the Preventing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in TANF 
Act. For nearly three decades, the Temporary Assistance for Needy 
Families program has helped low-income families meet basic needs while 
promoting the values of work, personal responsibility, and self-
sufficiency.
  A key strength of TANF has always been the flexibility it provides to 
States to decide how these funds will best be used.
  Congress intentionally designed the program to allow States to tailor 
services and benefits to the unique needs of their communities, rather 
than relying on a one-size-fits-all, top-down Federal approach. But as 
we have already discussed, flexibility must be accompanied by 
accountability.
  Today, TANF is one of the few major Federal assistance programs that 
is not required to measure and report improper payments under Federal 
program integrity laws. Let me repeat that. Under TANF, States are not 
required to report improper payments.
  As a result, taxpayers and policymakers often lack basic information 
about how these funds are being spent and whether these resources are 
actually reaching the families they are intended to serve.
  Recent Government Accountability Office reports have uncovered a 
major oversight failure within the TANF program that should concern 
every taxpayer. This bill requires accountability while still 
preserving State flexibility. It requires States to track and report 
improper payments, helps identify and reduce waste and fraud, and 
ensures Federal funds are directed toward the low-income families that 
they were designed to serve.
  A common thread, Mr. Speaker, among each of these bills before us 
today is that taxpayer dollars should be used responsibly, and 
taxpayers should have confidence that their hard-earned dollars are 
being spent for the purposes intended, safeguarding limited resources 
and directing them to where they are needed most.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Indiana for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans with a straight face come to this floor and 
pretend that these bills are about fraud, waste, and abuse.
  What a crock that is.
  I mean, you want to talk about fraud, Mr. Speaker? Let's talk about 
fraud. Let's talk about a President who had to pay $25 million after 
students got defrauded by Trump University.
  Let's talk about how Trump and his family have made more than $4 
billion since he became President through crypto schemes, corrupt 
foreign deals, self-dealing government contracts, shady real estate 
transactions, and pump-and-dump stock schemes.
  Let's talk about the sweetheart deals, the pardons, the loopholes, 
the contracts, the favors, the corrupt giveaways that seem to follow 
this administration everywhere it goes.
  If my Republican friends want to come down here and lecture America 
about waste, fraud, and abuse, then they should answer a very simple 
question: Do they support the deal that gives Donald Trump and his 
family blanket immunity from Federal investigation or prosecution?
  Do they support what amounts to be an unlimited stack of get-out-of-
jail-free cards for tax crimes, insider trading, bribes, kickbacks, 
sweetheart contracts, or any other crimes that could be investigated by 
the Federal Government?
  Is their answer yes or no?
  I mean, I am outraged by this, and I think it is corrupt as hell. I 
think the American people deserve to know why Republicans are so 
obsessed with attacking poor people but suddenly lose their voice when 
Donald Trump uses the Federal Government like his own personal 
protection racket.
  That is not what Republicans want to talk about. Their idea of 
cracking down on fraud is simple: Go after people with the least so 
they can give more to those at the top. Go after poor families. Go 
after hungry kids. Go after students trying to get an education. Go 
after parents trying to afford childcare. Go after pregnant women who 
need help buying food.
  That is what these bills do. That is what these bills do. So let's go 
through them one by one.
  Their TANF bill does not help one struggling family. It gives the 
Trump administration more power to make the safety net harder to use 
and easier to weaponize.
  Their childcare bill does not bring down the cost of childcare by one 
penny, not one. It just adds more red tape and more paperwork.
  Their student aid bill does not help students. It gives more power to 
a Department of Education Secretary who has shown zero interest in 
helping students. It lets them freeze aid based on a barely tested 
system. And by the way, CBO says it saves taxpayers nothing, zero.
  Then we have the agriculture funding bill, and this one is especially 
rotten. I serve on the Agriculture Committee. I represent farmers. I 
represent rural communities. I have spent my career fighting hunger, so 
I know what this bill does.
  It hurts farmers. It hurts rural America, and it is a disaster for 
hungry families.
  At the exact moment when families are getting crushed at the grocery 
store because Trump's economy sucks, Republicans are making it harder 
for them to buy food.
  At the exact moment when farmers are getting squeezed by Trump's 
tariffs and Trump's war, Republicans are gutting the programs that 
support them.
  At the exact moment when inflation is up and we should be talking 
about bringing prices down, Republicans are screwing over middle 
America.
  Republicans promised prices would come down on day one. Do you 
remember that? Well, here we are a year and a half in, and everything 
is up. Groceries are up. Energy costs are up. Inflation is up.
  Their answer to pregnant women paying higher grocery costs is to cut 
WIC by $200 million, to take nutrition help away from pregnant women 
and little kids. Who asked for that? Who asked for you to cut one of 
the most basic, effective, profamily programs that we have? WIC helps 
pregnant women stay healthy. It helps babies grow. It helps new moms. 
It helps them buy milk and eggs and vegetables and formula and healthy 
food, and Republicans want to gut it.
  By the way, they want to totally decimate the fruit and veggie 
voucher, which since 2007 has helped make sure moms of newborns can 
afford to eat healthy food.
  Mr. Speaker, why would you eliminate that? At a time when fruits and 
veggies are getting more expensive,

[[Page H3786]]

why would you slash a benefit to help prevent postpartum moms from 
being malnourished because they can't afford healthy food?
  I mean, Republicans can always find money for another illegal war. 
They can always find money for billionaire tax breaks. They can always 
find money for corporate giveaways. But fruits and veggies for a 
pregnant or postpartum mom, formula for a baby, food for toddlers, then 
they have a problem?

                              {time}  1240

  What the hell is wrong with these people, Mr. Speaker?
  I thought they wanted to Make America Healthy Again. I do, too, but 
here is the problem, Mr. Speaker: You can't say that you care about 
children's health while cutting the program that makes sure kids can 
eat healthy. You can't say that you care about wellness while voting 
for a bill that will malnourish our communities.
  This bill does not stop there. It weakens support for Food for Peace, 
a program that feeds people facing famine around the world. It is a 
program that buys from American farmers. It is a program that shows the 
world that America can still do something decent and humane.
  Why cut that? Whom does that help?
  What kind of people look at hungry kids here at home, struggling 
farmers, and rural towns begging for investment and say: Sorry, we need 
the money for billionaires, for slush funds, for White House 
renovations, and for an illegal war?
  I will ask again: What the hell is wrong with them?
  Mr. Speaker, their entire agenda is about supporting those at the 
very top, the Mar-a-Lago class, and the hell with everyone else.
  This rule deserves a ``no'' vote, and this cruel, upside-down agenda 
deserves to be rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers of Alabama). Members are reminded 
to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. This bill provides $8 billion for WIC 
which is the level needed to serve expected participation.
  As the Appropriations Committee crafted this bill, they worked with 
USDA and OMB to get the most recent program data. This funding level 
reflects that participation, participation that has been declining, and 
it is not projected to be as high as originally estimated for fiscal 
year 2027. USDA also expects to have sufficient carryover funds.
  Remember, Mr. Speaker, WIC is 2-year funding, and they expect to 
recover more unspent funds from the States. With the lowered 
participation estimates and increased carryover funds, $8 billion will 
fully fund the program full stop. It is completely false to believe 
that there will be people kicked off of the program. Funding this at 
the level necessary to meet the need is exactly what we are doing in 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Haridopolos).
  Mr. HARIDOPOLOS. Mr. Speaker, what I did notice across the aisle here 
is that they didn't defend what happened.
  What happened? The people stole money.
  This isn't a theory. It is a reality. In Minnesota, a person was 
recently convicted and will serve now 41 years in prison because they 
committed fraud.
  These bills are simply designed to show the reality that people are 
stealing money from people who make America work every single day.
  There was no defense here. It was just the usual hyperbole, the same 
hyperbole that brought us 9 percent inflation, the same hyperbole that 
doubled interest rates, and the same hyperbole that raised food prices.
  It is the reason why we are now in the majority.
  Voters simply want accountability, and they want action. That is 
exactly what we provide.
  We help people who are truly in need and don't turn a blind eye to 
fraud.
  Now we all know why they hated DOGE. It is because it exposed fraud. 
That is why they didn't like it. We finally put the lights on and said: 
Hey, enough is enough.
  That is why we are here today to talk about fraud. It is because a 
society that tolerates fraud weakens the bonds of trust that hold this 
Nation together.
  It is not just in healthcare. It is now even in education. For those 
who don't know, I used to be a teacher, and I know the ultimate civil 
right is a fantastic education. Now, because of identity theft, people 
are taking money from those people who want to improve their lives for 
the better by getting a first-class education.
  This is the most commonsense bill that we have had in the 2 years 
that I have been here. I am proud to support this so the folks who 
truly need the resources will finally get the resources.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlewoman's comments about 
WIC. It is really hard for me to believe that I am hearing Republicans 
speak in the way they are.
  Let me begin with a basic lesson in economics. First of all, Mr. 
Speaker, USDA's April 2026 Food Price Outlook makes it clear that 
prices are not down, they are up. They are skyrocketing. Food prices 
are up 2.7 percent from last year. Restaurant prices are up 3.8 
percent. Beef and veal prices are up over 12 percent. Fresh vegetables 
are up 7.5 percent. Nonalcoholic beverages are up 4.7 percent, and 
grocery prices, overall, have gone way up.
  These are not my talking points. These are not Democratic talking 
points. These are the Trump administration's own numbers. After 16 
months of total Republican control of Washington, of everything, you 
control the House, you control the Senate, and you control the White 
House, these guys passed tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. 
They imposed the tariffs which are one of the reasons why food prices 
are going up. They started a war that is driving up food and gas 
prices.
  While they tried to put a good face on all of this, the bottom line 
is they are at fault here.
  Pregnant moms' groceries are going up. The food that they need for 
themselves and for their babies are not going down. They are going up.
  By the way, hunger, I should point out to the gentlewoman, is getting 
worse in this country. It is getting worse. Mr. Speaker, 48 million 
Americans are food insecure, including 14 million kids. That is what 
Republican economic policies have done. It is a national catastrophe, 
and this Republican Congress is doing everything it can to make hunger 
even worse.

  Let me just say this: WIC helps pregnant women. It helps postpartum 
moms and babies eat nutritious food. It used to be bipartisan. Even the 
MAHA report talked about the health benefits of the program, and WIC 
participation has been steadily increasing.
  Now, to the gentlewoman's point, there was a slight dip in 
participation thanks to the Republican government shutdown. If my 
friends did their homework and did their research and cared about 
facts, then they would know that. However, the National WIC 
Association, the voice of 12,000 service providers across the country, 
have scientific modeling that tells us that participation is expected 
to continue climbing.
  It makes sense. It makes sense given the fact that food prices are 
going through the roof. People can't afford their basic necessities. We 
have been in situations in the past where WIC almost ran out of money. 
Providers, States, and families were scrambling. New moms were worried 
that their toddlers wouldn't have access to food. I don't think it is a 
radical idea to want to make sure that the program is fully funded.
  This is also something the gentlewoman hasn't responded to, can 
somebody explain to me why Republicans are cutting the fruit and 
vegetable benefit that used to be in this bill? What sense does that 
make?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear my colleague 
acknowledge that pregnant women carry babies.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Houchin for yielding 
the time.

[[Page H3787]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, which includes H.R. 
8646, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027.
  Through this bill, Republicans are making critical investments in 
American agriculture, considering to fund broadband expansion programs 
in rural regions like mine in Appalachian Ohio, and providing funding 
for critical community projects. Counties like those in my district 
have been left behind for too long when it comes to internet 
connectivity and repairing water infrastructure that our communities 
rely on every day. This bill delivers long-overdue support for rural 
Ohio families so they can have the tools they need to thrive.
  Four of my community project funding requests are included in this 
bill, which would bring $2.5 million back to Ohio's Second 
Congressional District to fund vital projects, including freshwater 
infrastructure, outdated wastewater systems, and workforce training, 
leading to well-paying jobs for the poorest Ohioans. These funds are 
critical to improving the quality of life for Ohio families in my 
district, their access to education and employment opportunities, and 
will make our region a better place to live, work, and raise a family.
  In regard to broadband, this bill encourages USDA to coordinate 
closely with the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration to avoid duplication of benefits, protecting funds to 
ensure every family has access to the internet and, thereby, the modern 
economy. It additionally encourages USDA to work with all relevant 
stakeholders, including those with new technologies that may help 
expand service.
  This bill also cracks down on foreign ownership of American farmland 
by making the Secretary of Agriculture a member of the Committee on 
Foreign Investment in the United States and transferring responsibility 
of tracking foreign land ownership from the Farm Service Agency to the 
USDA Office of Homeland Security.

                              {time}  1250

  Republicans are actively tracking, monitoring, and taking action 
against adversaries buying farmland. This will better align national 
security efforts and ensure our Nation's critical food supply is 
protected for generations to come. After all, food security is national 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand with my Republican colleagues and 
urge passage of this bill to protect critical Federal resources for 
taxpayers who depend on them, ensure our food supply chain and farmland 
are able to keep food on our families' tables for generations to come, 
and make sure every rural family can connect to the modern economy.
  I thank Chairman   Tom Cole, Subcommittee Chairman Harris, and the 
entire Appropriations Committee for all the hard work they did getting 
this bill to the floor. I look forward to continuing to work alongside 
my Republican colleagues to deliver real results to the American 
people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the gentlewoman with regard to her 
last comment. Rather than respond substantively to a single thing that 
I said about Republicans cutting the WIC program, Women, Infants, and 
Children, that is in the name of the program, rather than responding to 
why Republicans are cutting the food and veggie program, she responds 
with a dig at trans people, and that is the Republican Conference in a 
nutshell. It really is.
  We want to fight hunger. They want to fight culture wars. That is the 
difference here. This bill is an attack on the most vulnerable people 
in this country. For the life of me, I just don't understand where they 
are coming from. Their arguments just take my breath away. They waste 
time on culture wars, but they don't give a damn about the fact that 
there are 48 million people in this country who are hungry, that there 
are millions and millions of children in this country who are hungry.
  I am telling you, by cutting these programs, you are not saving any 
money. You are creating more problems. If programs like WIC get cut and 
other nutrition programs get cut, then people can look forward to a 
life with a whole myriad of healthcare problems that are going to be 
very costly. You guys are something else.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I 
am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 8914, which 
prohibits the use of taxpayer money to create a slush fund to 
compensate January 6 rioters, MAGA sycophants, senior government 
officials, and members of the President or Vice President's family.
  Mr. Speaker, following President Trump's settlement of his bogus 
lawsuit against his own IRS, he tried to commandeer nearly $1.8 billion 
in taxpayer funds to bankroll a slush fund for the January 6 
insurrectionists and other aggrieved MAGA loyalists.
  After the obvious outcry at this ludicrous use of taxpayer dollars, 
Acting Attorney General Blanche said yesterday that they weren't moving 
forward with the fund.
  Mr. Speaker, that isn't good enough.
  Why? Because no one believes them. I wouldn't trust the Acting 
Attorney General to tell me the correct time. Even the people who stand 
to benefit from their roles on January 6 don't believe them.
  Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys who was convicted of 
seditious conspiracy for his role on January 6, told a reporter: ``This 
isn't an abandonment. . . . I believe even if this fund is killed in 
courts or at a congressional level, the President will find a way.''
  Senator Lindsey Graham, who earlier this year already tried to get 
millions of taxpayer dollars as payment for the government lawfully 
subpoenaing his cell phone data, said of Acting Attorney General 
Blanche's reversal on the fund: ``While I appreciate Acting Attorney 
General Todd Blanche's statement . . . I am still of the firm belief 
that there are many victims.'' He then went on to argue for the 
formation of a new taxpayer fund. Just replace the paused corrupt fund 
with a new corrupt fund. That is what the Republicans are arguing. You 
can't make this stuff up.
  Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this corrupt fund is not dead, no 
matter what the Acting Attorney General says. The only way to ensure 
that this self-dealing taxpayer funded payoff for cop beaters doesn't 
move forward is to do what the newly free-to-speak-his-mind Senate 
Republican Whip, Senator Cornyn, said: ``The way to ensure the Trump 
retribution fund is more than mostly dead would be for Congress to put 
a stake through it.''
  That is exactly what I am offering every Member of this House today: 
a chance to vote on if they want to kill this slush fund for good or 
not.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fong). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. Ansari).
  Ms. ANSARI. Mr. Speaker, the $1.8 billion slush fund for 
insurrectionist cop beaters is one of the most disgraceful, corrupt 
exercises of Donald Trump's entire Presidency, and that is saying 
something. Every single Member of Congress needs to go on record as to 
where they stand on this issue.
  The people who stormed the Capitol, attacked police officers, 
submitted fake electors, lied to election officials, and called to 
``hang Mike Pence'' deserve jail time, not my constituents' taxpayer 
dollars. Even Republicans are appalled and can't stomach this grotesque 
betrayal of our democracy.
  While Americans struggle to afford healthcare and housing and their 
gas prices keep climbing as a result of the President's reckless and 
illegal war, Donald Trump is fixated not on the American people but on 
his $400 million ballroom, renaming the Kennedy Center, covering up the 
Epstein files, and this outrageous slush fund for insurrectionists and 
his political allies.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in 
voting to permanently block this slush fund

[[Page H3788]]

for Oath Keepers and Proud Boys and stand up to Donald Trump. Reject 
the previous question motion so we can take a vote on the slush fund 
and assert the will of the American people. Find your backbone for once 
and let's get together to vote to rein in this out-of-control 
President.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to address the WIC cash value voucher funding 
for the fruit and vegetable benefits since my colleague has mentioned 
it.
  I am not sure if my colleague has noticed but the pandemic is over, 
thank goodness.
  Chicago-area union teachers are finally back to work. We can leave 
our homes, shop where we want to, and we can return to pre-COVID 
funding levels and re-center our spending to meet the need.
  Let's be clear, we are not eliminating the benefit for fruits and 
vegetables. We are not even taking it back to pre-COVID levels. We are 
simply restoring parity to meet the need.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hard to listen to all this. Food prices are going 
through the roof, and my Republican friends are arguing that we need to 
reduce a benefit or cut back on a fruit and veggie voucher. Really?
  Mr. Speaker, I will get to another matter. I had just talked about 
the corrupt January 6 payoff fund and taxpayer money going to people 
that beat cops. That is sick. It is disgusting.
  Now let me talk about the other half of the corrupt deal that I 
mentioned.
  Yesterday, the Acting Attorney General of the United States said that 
the fund was not going forward. I guess we are just supposed to take 
his word on that. But he also indicated that the other nefarious part 
of the deal is still going forward.
  Tucked into this agreement that Trump hopes you will not notice is a 
get-out-of-jail-free card for him and his entire family.

                              {time}  1300

  I mean, it is right here. Donald Trump, with the help of his personal 
criminal defense attorney turned Acting Attorney General Blanche, has 
drafted a separate agreement granting himself, his family, and his 
businesses full immunity from any violations of Federal law, criminal, 
civil, or administrative.
  Even if this corrupt settlement fund is killed--which I hope we will 
vote to kill it--the President, negotiating with his own 
administration, secured a settlement agreement that grants him, his 
family, and their businesses full immunity. It is unprecedented. It is 
stunning, and a brazen level of corruption in self-dealing.
  For my Republican colleagues who are upset about the fund, are you 
not equally upset by this attempt to put himself above the law? This 
amounts to granting himself a super pardon. It means he and his family 
are free to do any activity they please without the possibility of 
legal consequences.
  Now, let me just read a bit of what this agreement says. The entire 
Federal Government is: forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or 
pursuing any pending claims, whether presently known or unknown, 
against Trump, his family members, and businesses, or collecting any 
taxes, fines, or other payments due to the U.S. government.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, do you realize what this means? It means the Trumps 
and their businesses are not only shielded from enforcement of any 
taxes that they might have dodged, or enforcement of any fines or 
payments they may owe to the government, but from any and all 
consequences for violating any Federal crimes or civil law. That means 
that Trump and his family get an unlimited number of get-out-of-jail-
free cards for any civil or criminal violations that could be 
investigated and prosecuted by the Federal Government.
  Now, here are a couple of examples of what Trump could be shielding 
himself from: one, any liability for insider trading or prediction 
markets, like Kalshi or Polymarket, that Donald Trump Jr. or any other 
Trump may be involved with; any bribes or kickbacks paid by Jared 
Kushner, or any other Trump family member, to the Saudi royal family; 
any allegations of sexual assault by Donald Trump revealed in the 
Epstein files, he is protected on that; any secret, no-bid contracts 
Donald Trump Jr., or any other Trump, steered toward companies he has 
invested in, hundreds of individual stock trades by Trump or any of his 
family members or businesses that look like insider trading; and the 
$100 million comprehensive tax audit that Trump has been fighting since 
2010.
  If this settlement fund was bad, then this is even worse. Every 
American should know what the President is trying to do, which is 
trying to put himself above the law.
  I remind my Republican colleagues--and I will remind everybody who is 
paying attention to this--Donald Trump is the President. He is not a 
king. He is not above the law. Every Member of Congress has a duty to 
stand up and denounce this corrupt scheme.
  We are talking about fraud here today. What do you call this? What do 
you call this? The silence by my Republican colleagues, the going along 
to get along that my Republican colleagues demonstrate each and every 
day on this kind of garbage, that is complicity. That is complicity, 
and it is wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in response to the accusations that have been made in 
this Chamber today against the President of the United States, a 
government contractor criminally leaked the President's private tax 
returns. He was convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison.
  The President had every right to fight back. The President took no 
money from the settlement, not a single dollar. He received a formal 
apology. A man who has lost billions of dollars since entering politics 
to serve this country asked for an apology, and that is what he got.
  When concerns were raised about the fund, the administration listened 
and pulled back.
  The weaponization of government against political opponents must end. 
That is exactly what the President is fighting for and what the 
settlement represents. The people crying foul today are the same ones 
who cheered when the President's financial records were illegally 
leaked. The outrage is not credible. Democrats were silent as President 
Joe Biden pardoned, preemptively in some cases, his entire family.
  Democrats today insist on deflecting from the issues we are here to 
talk: fraud. Republicans have sounded the clarion call on waste, fraud, 
and abuse that exists within the Federal Government. Meanwhile, 
Democrats have been content to use hyperbole and vitriolic attacks to 
hide behind the fact that they have no desire to ferret out this 
systemic waste, fraud, and abuse that is plaguing our programs.
  There is fraud in our Government programs. We have known about it for 
decades. Democrats seem content to live with it. Republicans in 
Congress have been consistent in going after it, despite the head-in-
the-sand posture by our Democratic colleagues. We went after it in 
ObamaCare in H.R. 1, and, guess what, the CBO stated that premiums 
would go down as a result of our work. We went after Medicaid fraud, 
especially involving illegal immigrants. By the way, a Federal court 
recently ordered officials to turn over Medicaid information to ICE 
enforcement.
  We went after waste, fraud, and abuse through our rescissions 
package. Once again, Democrats refused that premise ever existed, even 
though it is right in front of their eyes. One just needs to look at 
the ever-revealing childcare center fraud in Minnesota. The universe of 
money that stands to be squandered by overbilling could reach in the 
hundreds of millions of dollars.
  Worse yet, it has been discovered before, as I mentioned, as has the 
glaring inability for Minnesota to properly create any enforcement 
checks. Just earlier this year, the inspector general of Minnesota 
released an audit that randomly sampled payments to childcare centers 
in 2023, finding an astonishing 11 percent of government outlays have 
problems related to attendance and proper payment, and that was simply 
based on a random sample.

[[Page H3789]]

  Here is a direct conclusion from the attorney general's report: A 
lack of oversight to ensure accurate and complete attendance 
documentation could increase the risk of fraud, waste, and abuse to the 
CCAP program.
  The scandal comes on the heels, also, of the worst COVID fraud 
scandal ever perpetrated: the $250 million Feeding Our Future criminal 
fraud enterprise in Minnesota that literally robbed taxpayers of funds 
intended to help hungry children. An early reporting is potentially 
discovering concentric circles around individuals and families involved 
in that criminal enterprise, including these childcare centers.
  Before that, in 2019, the State's legislative auditor revealed it 
could literally prove at least $6 million in fraud from previous years, 
believing the true number to be greater.
  It is not limited to food benefits either. ABC News reported that the 
student loan fraud that is targeted in this bill we are considering 
this week, known as ghost students, had thousands of colleges across 
the country with sophisticated thieves becoming a scourge. The 
scammers, using stolen or fake identities to enroll in classes online 
and sign up for Pell grants and loans, then disappear once they get the 
money, robbing the Federal Government of hundreds of millions of 
dollars and leaving an untold number of victims in their wake.
  There are really only three responses to fraud once it is exposed: 
You attack it, you cover it up, or you minimize it.
  The legislative auditor in Minnesota previously accused the Walz 
administration of minimizing or dismissing allegations of fraud, citing 
a shoot-the-messenger attitude. One media outlet characterized Governor 
Walz as a hands-off leader when it comes to seeking accountability for 
episodes of fraud and mismanagement on his watch.
  Which path will our Democrat colleagues take now that this fraud is 
being revealed? Will they root it out as we have, or will they turn a 
blind eye in the mode of Governor Tim Walz?
  Just a few months ago, the Massachusetts State Auditor released the 
Bureau of Special Investigations annual report for fiscal year 2025, 
which exposed nearly $12 million in public assistance fraud across 
thousands of cases in the State, including $4.1 million in food stamp 
fraud. Mass Health, the State Medicaid and CHIP program saw more than 
$1.3 million in fraud.
  Another report, published in April of 2026, found that more than a 
billion dollars was improperly spent on food stamps in Massachusetts 
between 2022 and 2024. The cases show just how deep and widespread the 
fraud is in Massachusetts.
  A transportation company allegedly billed Mass Health more than $3 
billion for rides that never happened. A tiny bodega, only 150 square 
feet, somehow pushed nearly $7 million in food stamp trafficking, 
ringing up a half a million dollars a month like it was a big box 
store.
  One man living illegally in the country stole a dead U.S. citizen's 
identity for decades, even serving prison time under the alias. After 
release, he used the same alias to apply for food stamps, stealing 
thousands in benefits. A State employee even flagged his food stamp 
application with a note: death match. Yet, it was still approved.
  In 2026, fraudsters used more than 100 stolen identities to funnel 
food stamps into a restaurant supply scheme, stocking up on hundreds of 
thousands of dollars worth of wholesale meat, all paid entirely on the 
taxpayers' dime.

                              {time}  1310

  It is not surprising, given the lack of oversight, that TANF fraud is 
so pervasive. Just take a look at Colorado where 135 cases of theft 
were reported by Pueblo County. Benefit recipients, in one week alone, 
totaled $73,991 in losses, including 40 TANF Colorado Works customers 
totaling $19,344.
  This is just a short sample, Mr. Speaker, of the fraud committed in 
primarily Democrat States that we know about.
  It is Republicans, once again, that are heeding the call, the request 
of American families, to root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and protect 
our tax dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Oh my God, Mr. Speaker, I don't even know how to respond to all of 
that.
  First of all, let me just set the record straight. The gentlewoman 
said neither myself or anybody on the Democratic side was critical when 
Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter. That is just not true. I have an 
article here that says: ``Rep. Jim McGovern Criticizes Hunter Biden 
Pardon, Disappointed President Didn't Honor Pledge.''
  So what she just said is just factually incorrect.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the gentlewoman defend the 
corruption in the White House, and it is stunning to me. I feel like 
maybe Todd Blanche wrote those talking points, because that is what I 
would expect to hear from the Acting Attorney General.
  For the record, let's just set the record straight. Remember, Donald 
Trump sued a government that he runs for $10 billion for leaking 
information when he was in charge of the same government, with the 
leaked documents being tax returns, by the way, that every single 
modern President has released on their own. He promised he would 
release them. He didn't release them. He won't release them. Why? That 
is a good question. But every other President not only released them, 
but we expected them to. Again, what he is complaining about happened 
under his watch.
  The gentlewoman also said that Trump lost a lot of money.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
excerpt from an article in The New Yorker titled: ``Trump's 
Profiteering Hits $4 Billion.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                  [From The New Yorker, Jan. 31, 2026]

                  Trump's Profiteering Hits $4 Billion

                       (By David D. Kirkpatrick)

       In August, I reported that the President and his family had 
     made $3.4 billion by leveraging his position. After his first 
     year back in office, the number has ballooned.
       At the start of Donald Trump's first term, he promised that 
     he and his family would never do anything that might even be 
     ``perceived to be exploitive of office of the Presidency.'' 
     By contrast, his second term looks rapacious. He and members 
     of his family have signed a blitz of foreign mega-deals 
     shadowed by conflicts of interest, and they've launched at 
     least five different cryptocurrency enterprises, all of which 
     leverage Trump's status as President to lure buyers or 
     investors. Ethics watchdogs say that no other President has 
     ever so nakedly exploited his position, or on such a scale. 
     Trump recently explained to the Times why he cast aside his 
     former restraint: ``I found out that nobody cared.''
       Is Trump right about the public's nonchalance? Last summer, 
     I tallied how much money he and his immediate family had made 
     off his high office. My method was conservative. It seemed 
     unfair to begrudge Trump the profits from the many businesses 
     he owned before entering the White House. So I excluded from 
     my calculation preexisting hotels, condos, and golf courses, 
     along with plausible extensions of those long-standing 
     businesses. Likewise, Trump is hardly the first President to 
     trade access or potential influence for political fund-
     raising, and he generally cannot spend such money on personal 
     expenses, so I set that aside, too. Lastly, I left out funny-
     money assets he couldn't readily cash out without setting off 
     a fire sale that would eviscerate their value, such as his 
     shares in the company behind Truth Social, his social-media 
     platform.
       Even excluding all that, by August, the Presidential 
     profiteering reached $3.4 billion. (You can review my 
     judgments in the article, ``The Number.'') And since then the 
     First Family has kept busy. The end of Trump's first year in 
     office seemed an opportune time for an update. Did the family 
     business slow down or speed up for the Trumps?


                         american bitcoin redux

       Many investors and consumers understandably distrust 
     cryptocurrency and digital finance. Crypto heists are 
     alarmingly common, and the best-known uses of digital 
     currency are money laundering and casino-like financial 
     speculation. President Trump himself, before his most recent 
     campaign, maintained that Bitcoin ``seems like a scam'' and 
     that crypto ``can facilitate unlawful behavior.'' But an 
     association with a sitting President can furnish a valuable 
     credibility boost. Think of the premium that investors will 
     pay for U.S. Treasury bonds compared to notes from some 
     little-known bank. That appears, in a nutshell, to be the 
     Trump family's strategy with crypto.
       The Trumps' first windfall since my August tally occured 
     through American Bitcoin, a company that mines new bitcoin 
     with the intent to hoard it. (Under the algorithm that 
     created bitcoin, miners get paid in new tokens for the 
     computer work of tracking digital transactions.) Last spring, 
     Eric and Donald Trump, Jr., contributed their family name--
     and nothing else of obvious value--to a complicated series of 
     transactions that yielded them approximately a

[[Page H3790]]

     thirteen-per-cent stake in American Bitcoin. Eric, who is now 
     listed as its co-founder and chief strategy officer, has 
     become the company's public face. If Eric and Donald, Jr.,'s 
     father had lost the 2024 election, surely no one would have 
     handed them such a large stake in a business that they had 
     virtually no experience in and to which they had contributed 
     so little--so their stake should be categorized as 
     Presidential profit. In August, I calculated that the 
     brothers' thirteen-percent stake in the company's computer 
     hardware alone added at least thirteen million dollars to the 
     family's profiteering tally.
       In September, the company floated shares on the stock 
     market, capitalizing in another way on the cachet of the 
     Trump name. American Bitcoin merged with a penny-stock 
     bitcoin miner as a way of going public without the cost--or 
     scrutiny--of an initial public offering. And the stock 
     market, as expected, has put a far higher price on the 
     company, in part because it owns a stockpile of bitcoin. The 
     brothers' stake now appears to be worth around two hundred 
     million dollars. A caveat: Eric Trump, as a large and active 
     investor in American Bitcoin, must report any sale of shares, 
     and that might trigger a selloff. So it seems excessive to 
     add it all to the Presidential-profit ledger. I will add only 
     the approximate value of Donald Trump, Jr.,'s stake: about a 
     hundred million dollars.
       The number in August: $3.4 billion.
       Additional profit: $100 million.
       New total: $3.5 billion.


             world liberty financial, binance, and pakistan

       The Trumps have made even more money since August through 
     World Liberty Financial, a digital-finance startup heavily 
     linked to the family. Its website lists the President as a 
     ``co-founder emeritus'' and displays his photograph 
     prominently; Eric, Donald, Jr., and Barron Trump are all 
     listed as co-founders. Steven Witkoff, the President's old 
     friend and diplomatic envoy, is also listed as a co-founder 
     emeritus, and his son Zach is C.E.O.
       In May, World Liberty began selling a form of crypto known 
     as a stablecoin. Unlike digital currencies such as bitcoin, 
     which rise and fall in price, a stablecoin is supposed to 
     hold a fixed value in dollars. Before July, when President 
     Trump signed the first legislation regulating stablecoin, 
     some of the best-known examples, such as TerraUSD, had turned 
     out to be Ponzi schemes. (In December, a New York court 
     sentenced TerraUSD's co-founder to fifteen years in prison.) 
     But World Liberty promised that its stablecoin, USD1, will 
     always be worth exactly one dollar. Buyers can transfer USD1 
     to move money or make payments, and any holder can redeem 
     USD1 for dollars. In between, while USD1s are circulating, 
     World Liberty invests the cash that it is holding in U.S. 
     Treasury bonds, in much the same way a savings bank might 
     invest deposits. At current interest rates, World Liberty can 
     expect to earn more than four percent annually on the volume 
     of USD1 in circulation.
       Last spring, a company owned by the rulers of the United 
     Arab Emirates bought two billion dollars' worth of USD1. The 
     transaction raised alarms about the appearance of a payoff--
     because the U.A.E. was simultaneously seeking approval from 
     the Trump Administration to acquire sensitive American 
     artificial-intelligence technology. (President Trump soon 
     granted that approval.) The Emiratis immediately used the 
     stablecoin to invest in Binance, the largest crypto exchange, 
     which has its own interest in influencing Trump. In 2023, 
     Binance's founder, Changpeng Zhao, known as C.Z., pleaded 
     guilty to violating anti-money-laundering laws, served a 
     brief prison sentence, and agreed to stop running the 
     company. At the time of the two-billion-dollar stablecoin 
     payment from the U.A.E., he was petitioning Trump for a 
     pardon. Binance, as the holder of the stablecoin, can 
     determine how long World Liberty continues earning four 
     percent a year on that two billion dollars. In other words, 
     Binance controls how much profit the Trumps will make from 
     the two-billion-dollar stablecoin sale. In October, Trump 
     granted C.Z.'s request for a pardon. (David Wachsman, a 
     spokesman for World Liberty, told me that Binance cannot 
     ``exert control or influence over World Liberty Financial.'')
       Binance is currently seeking to end federal monitoring that 
     had been imposed when he was convicted for violating anti-
     money-laundering laws. Now the company is goosing the Trumps' 
     stablecoin profits in another way. On December 11th, Binance 
     dropped its fees for certain crypto trades if they were 
     conducted in USD1. Then, on December 23rd, Binance began 
     paying users of its platform to hold USD1: Binance announced 
     that, for the next month, it would give users a bonus equal 
     to about 1.7 percent on up to fifty thousand dollars' worth 
     of USD1 holdings. If this return rate were annualized, it 
     would yield an eye-popping twenty percent. And, on January 
     23rd, Binance announced a combination of new giveaways to 
     USD1 holders which roughly extended that offer. Many users 
     leapt at these opportunities. In the months preceding 
     Binance's maneuvers, the total volume of USD1 in circulation 
     had held steady at about two billion dollars. On December 
     25th, shortly after Binance announced its first giveaway, 
     World Liberty announced that USD1's volume had crossed three 
     billion dollars. It has now climbed to roughly five billion, 
     and most of that expansion appears to have taken place on the 
     Binance platform.
       Representatives of Binance and World Liberty both denied 
     any wrongdoing. They told me that Binance and its competitors 
     have often paid holders of other stablecoins in order to 
     attract traders, and that several smaller exchanges also 
     provide benefits to holders of USD1. A Binance spokeswoman 
     said in a statement that the services it provided to World 
     Liberty ``are available to other projects on equal terms.'' A 
     spokesman for World Liberty said that USD1's growth 
     ``reflects genuine market adoption.'' But Molly White, a 
     computer programmer who is a prominent critic of the crypto 
     industry and tracks such offers, told me that crypto 
     exchanges have seldom, if ever, paid stablecoin holders as 
     high a return rate as Binance is providing for USD1, or 
     offered bonus returns on such large quantities. She said that 
     Binance ``seems like they are just giving away free money,'' 
     and that the company's enrichment of the Trumps, through 
     World Liberty, looked like ``a very blatant quid pro quo'' 
     for the President's pardoning of C.Z. (in response to 
     detailed questions about my reporting for this article, 
     Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, told me, in an e-
     mail, that ``the failing liberal media is only pushing the 
     same old garbage narratives'' and that ``President Trump has 
     always put--and will always put--the best interests of the 
     American people first.'')
       Last spring, the government of Pakistan reportedly enlisted 
     C.Z. as an advisor of the use of crypto. And, on January 
     14th, Pakistan--which has its own interests in influencing 
     the Trump Administration--signed an agreement to incorporate 
     USD1 into an officially regulated digital-payment system. A 
     spokesman for World Liberty told me that, at the moment, 
     Pakistan is only exploring the potential use of USD1 in 
     handling ``international remittances,'' and that the 
     country's interest in USD1 ``has nothing to do'' with its 
     relations with the Trump Administration. Still, it is hard to 
     imagine that, without the imprimatur of the U.S. President, 
     such a novel stablecoin would be embraced so quickly at the 
     highest levels of the Pakistani government. So this deal, 
     too, depends on Trump's Presidency.
       Now that World Liberty has seen an increase of three 
     billion dollars in the value of its stablecoin in 
     circulation, it can reasonably expect to earn four percent a 
     year on that extra sum--three hundred and sixty million 
     dollars, if that circulation holds up in the three years 
     Trump has left in office. According to the fine print on 
     World Liberty's website, a company affiliated with the Trumps 
     is entitled to about thirty-eight percent of that interest, 
     which would come out to about a hundred and thirty-six 
     million dollars in additional Presidential profit.
       Running total: $3.5 billion.
       Additional profit: $136 million.
       New total: $3.64 billion.


                from appliance repair to cryptocurrency

       The Trumps have also received a windfall from World Liberty 
     through a different form of crypto that it has sold: digital 
     ``governance'' tokens, which provide buyers a loosely defined 
     right to vote on the company's future. Unlike stablecoin, 
     these tokens carry no promise of redemption for any fixed 
     amount of dollars; you can sell one for a price that rises or 
     falls like a stock. Yet, unlike a stock, these digital tokens 
     do not entitle a buyer to any equity in World Liberty; nor to 
     any share of its profits, raising many questions about why an 
     investor might want to own them--other than for World 
     Liberty's connection to the Trumps. Some purchasers may hope 
     that, if the Trump Administration further loosens security 
     rules, the tokens will eventually become a form of ownership. 
     Others may be seeking to buy influence.
       After my August tally, World Liberty found an improbable 
     new taker for its tokens: a company that had gone public, in 
     1991, as Appliance Recycling Centers of America. In 2019, it 
     made a radical transition into biotechnology, declaring that 
     it would attempt to develop a nonaddictive alternative to 
     opioids. In 2024, it transformed again, adopting the name 
     Alt5 Sigma Corporation and shifting its focus to processing 
     digital payments.
       In August, Alt5 Sigma refocussed yet again--to buying World 
     Liberty's digital tokens. It agreed to trade the leadership 
     of its board (and a substantial minority of its stock) to 
     World Liberty in exchange for a pile of digital tokens, then 
     said to be worth about seven hundred and fifty million 
     dollars. Zach Witkoff became Alt5 Sigma's chairman, and the 
     company announced that it would appoint Eric Trump as a 
     director.
       As part of the same convoluted transaction, the new Alt5 
     Sigma--cashing in on the Trump name and the broader crypto 
     boom--also sold about seven hundred and fifty million 
     dollars' worth of new shares to outside investors expressly 
     for the purpose of buying even more World Liberty tokens. 
     Alt5 Sigma didn't name the buyers; a securities filing said 
     only that the investors included ``a select number of the 
     world's largest institutional investors and prominent crypto 
     venture-capital firms.'' After this transaction, Alt5 Sigma's 
     stockpile of World Liberty tokens rose to about 7.5 percent 
     of all the tokens in circulation, and its share had a nominal 
     value of about $1.5 billion. Alt5 Sigma is pitching its stock 
     as an easy way for ordinary investors to indirectly own World 
     Liberty tokens--essentially turning its common stock into a 
     bet on the Trump family's future endeavors in crypto. White, 
     the crypto critic, noted that top executives

[[Page H3791]]

     of World Liberty were now running a second company whose 
     mission appeared to be buying World Liberty's own governance 
     token. These sales enrich the Trump and Witkoff families. She 
     called the arrangement ``a mind-boggling conflict of 
     interest.'' (Wachsman, the World Liberty spokesman, told me 
     that Alt5 Sigma's original board had independently decided to 
     stockpile the governance token before Witkoff became 
     chairman; Wachsman added that World Liberty's USD1 business 
     ``aligns with'' Alt5 Sigma's payment processing ``roadmap.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. He has made billions since he has been in the White 
House. I don't know what the hell she is talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from Forbes titled: ``Here Are Donald Trump's 10 Best Stock 
Trades of 2026.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                      [From Forbes, May 28, 2026]

          Here Are Donald Trump's 10 Best Stock Trades Of 2026

                         (By Kyle Khan-Mullins)

       Early on in his second term in office, Donald Trump eased 
     his way into a Tesla and delivered a delighted review to the 
     car's manufacturer, his biggest billionaire benefactor, Elon 
     Musk.
       ``Everything is computer!'' Trump exclaimed.
       This year, the president has brought that philosophy to his 
     investment portfolio. Trump revealed in a series of filings 
     this month that he made nearly 4,000 trades between January 
     and March. That's 44 per day on average and almost three 
     times more than all of 2025 combined. Total trading volume 
     was between $200 million and $700 million.
       Unlike his recent Oval Office predecessors--including 
     himself--Trump isn't just buying and selling bonds, broad-
     based index funds and money markets. Scores of individual 
     publicly traded companies are getting the presidential seal 
     of approval or disapproval, making the commander-in-chief 
     something like a one-man market signal.
       Every time one of those companies is added to or subtracted 
     from his portfolio, the questions multiply. Does it do 
     business with the government? Does it need regulatory 
     consideration? Does it want export approvals, tax favors, 
     federal contracts, antitrust restraint, White House praise or 
     a seat at the table?
       Forbes analyzed the president's largest stock trades, 
     roughly 240 that were larger than $250,000. The pattern that 
     emerged is clear: All of his 10 best buys were tech company 
     stocks, boosted by the unregulated AI boom Trump has made a 
     centerpiece of his economic policy.
       Everything is, indeed, computer.
       Trump's best apparent bet was Dell. The President bought 
     between $1 million and $5 million of Dell shares on February 
     10; the company's stock, buoyed by AI data center deals, is 
     up 142 percent since then. That means that if he bought $3 
     million of shares, the middle of his declared range, they'd 
     be worth about $7.3 million today.
       And Trump did not stop there. He bought the company's 
     shares three more times, all smaller amounts, in March, then 
     gave the company an unusually convenient bit of presidential 
     pumping on May 8. ``Go out and buy a Dell,'' he declared from 
     the White House after an event with CEO Michael Dell. The 
     stock closed 11.5 percent higher that day and is up 31 
     percent since.
       That's not the only plumbing-of-the-AI-economy company 
     Trump has made a killing on. Semiconductor manufacturer AMD 
     is up 136 percent since the president--who last year allowed 
     the company to export advanced chips to China in exchange for 
     a 15 percent cut for the U.S. government--bought between 
     $500,000 and $1 million of its shares in February. He 
     invested nine more times after that, but also sold between 
     $15,000 and $50,000 in late March, which may have blunted 
     some of his gains.
       On January 12, he bought between $1 million and $5 million 
     of Texas Instruments, which sells components for Al chips and 
     promised more $60 billion in investments last year in a press 
     release that included a statement from commerce secretary 
     Howard Lutnick. TI's stock is up more than 60 percent since 
     the president bought in.
       Then there's Jabil, which makes AI server hardware and 
     earned plaudits from an official White House account last 
     June for its announcement of its own manufacturing 
     investments in the U.S. It's up 40 percent since the 
     president invested in February.
       Democrats have called the trading what it looks like to 
     them: greed and self-dealing. ``The President's corruption is 
     a national security disaster,'' Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth 
     Warren posted after Trump bought Nvidia stock, then brought 
     Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang along with him to China.
       Trump's allies deny that, of course. ``All of our assets 
     are invested in a blind trust by the largest financial 
     institutions in broad market indexes,'' Eric Trump replied to 
     Warren on X.
       That clearly isn't true. The president owns shares in 
     companies, not just index funds. And the trust that contains 
     his assets is not blind.
       Pushback continued nonetheless: ``The President doesn't sit 
     at the Oval Office on his computer on a Robinhood account 
     buying and selling stocks,'' vice president J.D. Vance more 
     plausibly told reporters on May 19. That same day, Eric 
     posted a lawyerly passage claiming that his dad's portfolio 
     was contained in ``fully discretionary accounts managed by 
     independent third-party financial institutions'' and that 
     ``neither President Trump, his family, nor The Trump 
     Organization has any role in selecting, directing, approving, 
     influencing or soliciting specific investments.''
       In response to a request for comment, White House 
     spokesperson Anna Kelly said ``there are no conflicts of 
     interest'' and called such questions a ``tired narrative.'' 
     The Trump Organization sent Forbes a statement identical to 
     Eric's post, attributable to a spokesperson.
       Federal rules only require the president to declare a range 
     of values on each trade--say, $500,000 to $1 million--so it's 
     unclear exactly how much the president made off each 
     transaction. But assuming the median for each trade's range, 
     here are his 10 best stock purchases so far this year, which 
     collectively made the president an estimated $12.7 million 
     richer.


            Donald Trump's Ten Best Stock Purchases Of 2026

       Values are as of the close of markets on Tuesday, May 26. 
     Figures are rounded.
     1. Dell (ticker: DELL)
       Purchase: $l million to $5 million on February 10
       Stock change since main purchase: +142 percent
       Medican value gain: $4.3 million
       Trump bought at least $31,000 in additional shares in 
     March. Michael Dell and his wife Susan donated $6.25 billion 
     to the U.S. Treasury in December 2025 to fund the creation of 
     ``Trump accounts,'' a new savings vehicle created by 
     Republicans in their tax cuts package, for additional kids 
     under 10 who missed the cutoff for a government contribution.
     2. Texas Instruments (TXN)
       Purchase: $1 million to $5 million on Jan. 12
       Stock change since main purchase: +72 percent
       Median value gain: $2.2 million
       The president bought smaller amounts of TI shares 12 
     additional times across three months, totaling at least an 
     additional $220,000.
     3. Jabil (JBL)
       Purchase: $1 million to $5 million on Feb. 10
       Stock change since purchase: +47 percent
       Median value gain: $1.4 million
       Based in the president's adopted home state, Jabil earned 
     three additional purchases from the president in March 
     totaling at least $115,000.
     4. Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)
       Purchase: $500,000 to $1 million on Feb. 10
       Stock change since purchase: +136 percent
       Median value gain: $1 million
       Trump already owned a small stake in this chipmaker when he 
     took office. He reports selling some of it in January, then 
     buying it all back and then some over the subsequent three 
     months. AMD CEO Lisa Su visited the White House in September 
     to take part in an AI in Education Task Force event, an 
     initiative led by Melania Trump, and was appointed to an AI 
     advisory panel in March.
     5. Cadence (CDNS)
       Purchase: $1 million to $5 million on Mar. 17
       Stock change since purchase: 30 percent
       Median value gain: $900,000
       In July 2025, this chip software company pleaded guilty to 
     selling software to a Chinese military university in 
     violation of U.S. export controls, paying a fine of $140 
     million. Trump owned a small stake when he took office, sold 
     it in January, then rapidly bought it back.
     6. Oracle (ORCL)
       Purchase: $1 million to $5 million on Mar. 17
       Stock change since purchase: 25 percent
       Median value gain: $750,000
       Trump traded Oracle at least 17 times between January and 
     March, buying and selling tranches ranging from $1,000 to at 
     least $1 million in size. His big purchase came roughly a 
     week before he appointed chairman Larry Ellison, one of the 
     world's richest men and a Trump benefactor, to an AI advisory 
     panel on March 25.
     7. Synopsys (SNPS)
       Purchase: $1 million to $5 million on Feb. 10
       Stock change since purchase: 22 percent
       Median value gain: $650,000
       The president made additional smaller purchases of its 
     stock in January and March. Synopsys has also been caught up 
     in U.S.-China trade tensions--the company's merger with a 
     Chinese engineering firm was reportedly only approved by 
     Chinese regulators last year after the U.S. loosened 
     restrictions on chip sales.
     8. Datadog (DDOG)
       Purchase: $500,000 to $1 million on Mar. 17
       Stock change since purchase: 74 percent
       Median value gain: $550,000
       This cloud computing company saw nine additional 
     transactions from the president between January and March.
     9. Apple (AAPL)
       Purchase: $1 million to $5 million on Mar. 2

[[Page H3792]]

       Stock change since purchase: 16 percent
       Median value gain: $500,000
       Apple CEO Tim Cook has pursued a close relationship with 
     the Trump administration, gifting the famously gold-loving 
     president a gilded plaque before securing a tariff exemption 
     for his company. He accompanied Trump to China in May after 
     the president bought and sold millions in Apple stock over 
     the course of three months.
     10. Fortinet (FTNT)
       Purchase: $500,000 to $1 million on Mar. 17
       Stock change since purchase: 61 percent
       Median value gain: $450,000
       The president kicked off the year by selling a big tranche 
     of shares in Fortinet, a cybersecurity company, but by March 
     had bought his stake back and then some. Good move--the stock 
     has soared.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Boy, I wonder what that is all about.
  Mr. Speaker, when we talk about fraud and corruption, Donald Trump 
has pardoned or issued commutations for 21 people convicted of 
healthcare fraud at the same time that my Republican friends voted for 
giving tax breaks to billionaires.
  Philip Esformes, convicted of a $1.3 billion Medicare fraud scheme, 
one of the largest healthcare fraud schemes charged by the Department 
of Justice, Donald Trump pardoned him.
  Judith Negron, convicted of orchestrating $205 million in terms of a 
Medicare fraud scheme involving assisted living facilities, she has 
been pardoned.
  Jon Michael Harder, convicted of defrauding people of $120 million in 
investments through his senior housing and assisted living facilities, 
he has been pardoned.
  I can go right down the list of all of these people that have been 
pardoned.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record all of 
the rich and connected fraudsters that have been pardoned by this 
President.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

    Donald Trump Has Issued at least 21 Pardons and Commutations to 
                    Convicted Health Care Fraudsters

       Donald Trump has pardoned or issued commutations for 21 
     convicted of health care fraud. At the same time, Republicans 
     have kicked millions of hardworking families off health 
     coverage under the guise of preventing fraud and abuse.
       Phillip Esformes: convicted of a $1.3 billion Medicare 
     fraud scheme, one of the largest health care fraud schemes 
     charged by the DOJ.
       Judith Negron: convicted of orchestrating a $205 million 
     Medicare fraud scheme involving assisted living facilities.
       Jon Michael Harder: convicted of defrauding people of $120 
     million in investments through his senior housing and 
     assisted living facilities.
       Lawrence S. Duran: pleaded guilty to multiple felonies, 
     including $87 million in Medicare fraud.
       Daniela Gozes-Wagner: conspired to commit $50 million 
     health care fraud and money laundering.
       Paul Behrens, Thaddeus Bereday, Todd Farha, William Kale--
     former executives of WellCare Health Plans: convicted of 
     defrauding the Florida Medicaid Program.
       Salomon Melgen: convicted of 67 counts of health care fraud 
     and related charges relating to Medicare and other health 
     care programs.
       John Estin Davis: convicted for his role in filing over 
     $4.6 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare.
       Joseph Schwartz: failed to pay $38 million in employee 
     withholding taxes for over 100 nursing homes across 11 
     states.
       Paul Walczak: convicted of stealing nursing home employees' 
     tax withholdings and using them for luxury purchases. His 
     pardon application focused on his mother's Trump campaign 
     donations.
       Ricky Ivan Kanter: convicted of Medicare fraud for false 
     claims related to diabetic shoe inserts.
       Glen Moss: convicted of paying kickbacks in order to obtain 
     referrals for his diagnostic laboratory.
       Alfonso Antonio Costa: convicted of health care fraud 
     related to false dental billings.
       Duncan Fordham: convicted of one count of health care 
     fraud. Fordham was charged with kicking money back to a 
     former state representative in exchange for a lucrative 
     contract with a mental health center.
       Frederick Nahas: plead guilty to obstruction of justice in 
     a health care investigation.
       Wesley Scott Harkonen, Jr.: convicted of overstating the 
     benefits of his treatment for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis 
     (IPF).
       Theodore E. Suhl: convicted of bribing state officials to 
     direct Medicaid payments to his ``Lord's Ranch'' faith-based 
     juvenile behavioral health treatment centers.
       Robert Henry Harshbarger Jr.: convicted of buying 
     unapproved kidney drugs from China and selling through his 
     pharmacy as FDA-approve products. Husband of Representative 
     Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-01).

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is the most absurdly corrupt and 
morally bankrupt administration in our history. To hear my Republican 
friends defend what is happening, to defend the fraud and the 
corruption that is right out in the open, is pathetic.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time and 
inquire if the gentleman is ready to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the gentlewoman would respond 
to some of my concerns, or maybe engage in debate, or give me some hope 
that Republicans actually are upset about what is happening right now 
with all the corruption and the fraud.
  I yield myself the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/2\ 
minutes left.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated. People are 
hurting. They are hurting because of Trump's inflation. They are 
hurting because of Trump's tariffs. They are hurting because of Trump's 
illegal war. They are hurting because of Trump's failed economic 
policies that are driving costs up and up and up.
  Instead of doing something--anything--to help bring down costs, they 
are doubling down on the cruelty. They are literally going after 
pregnant moms and newborns. Literally, they are taking food out of the 
mouths of hungry kids.
  What kind of mean, rotten, awful people do things like that? I can't 
believe it. It takes my breath away, Mr. Speaker.
  They talk about fraud. They talk about waste. They talk about abuse. 
What a bunch of baloney.
  Why don't they start with the billionaires writing their own tax 
breaks into the tax code.
  Why don't they start with giant corporations ripping people off.
  Why don't they start with the sweetheart deals, the no-bid contracts, 
the tax loopholes, or the people cashing in on the chaos.
  Why don't they start with the blanket immunity for Donald Trump and 
his family with the possibility of tax crimes, insider trading, bribes, 
kickbacks, contracts for companies that Trump's family maybe invested 
in or anything else that Federal law enforcement might have a reason to 
investigate.
  No, no. Republicans here in Washington, they go after hungry kids. 
They demonize poor people. They go after pregnant moms. They go after 
the families struggling to survive.
  Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. It is morally bankrupt, and people see 
it.
  They see Republicans talk about health while cutting nutrition.
  They see Republicans talk about the deficit while handing out favors 
to the rich.
  They see the grift, and they are sick of it. They are sick and tired 
of it.
  They see that Democrats actually believe in something different. 
Maybe my Republican friends think we are radical. I don't think it is 
radical to believe people should be able to afford a decent life. I 
don't think it is radical to believe parents should be able to afford 
formula. I don't think it is radical to believe that no child in 
America, the richest country in the history of the world, should go 
hungry.
  What I think is radical is that the far right, radical MAGA 
extremists who run this place can find endless money for wars, for 
billionaires, and for corporate tax giveaways while they steal from new 
moms and kids who are struggling to eat.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know what is going on in this Chamber, but where 
is our humanity? Where is our commitment to helping uplift people who 
are struggling? I say to my Republican colleagues: Where is your heart?
  People are looking to us for help during these very difficult 
economic times, and what they are getting is all the garbage that my 
friends are bringing to the floor, stuff that does nothing to improve 
anybody's life.
  You want to talk about fraud and you want to talk about corruption? I 
just gave you a boatload of facts and figures for you to go after.
  Instead, when it comes to the Trump White House: Oh, hands off. We 
are

[[Page H3793]]

going to give him immunity, not only for past activity but for anything 
he does in the future.
  Again, nobody, no citizen gets that kind of treatment. Again, he is 
the President, not the king, and people in this Chamber have to start 
recognizing that fact. Nobody in this country, even the President of 
the United States, is above the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule, a ``no'' vote on the 
rotten underlying legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really happy that there is at least some agreement 
in this debate today from my Democrat colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. We agree, as it was mentioned today, that pregnant women 
carry babies. What a momentous day in this Chamber.
  Democrats insist on deflecting from these issues, though, the ones we 
are talking about today, because it is their leadership in Democrat-run 
States and their lax policies that have led to rampant fraud. It is no 
wonder that they are trying to deflect from that conversation about the 
fraud that their policies have allowed to perpetuate.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. Speaker, the measures discussed here today reflect a clear and 
consistent commitment by House Republicans to restore accountability, 
improve program integrity, and ensure that taxpayer dollars are used as 
intended. From agricultural investments that support rural communities 
to safeguards against fraud in student aid, childcare, and TANF, this 
package represents practical solutions to ensure that every Federal 
dollar is accounted for and, again, targeted to meet the need.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House 
this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the 
previous question, and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 An Amendment to H. Res. 1333 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 8914) to amend section 1304 of title 31, United 
     States Code to restrict payments for compromise settlements 
     or awards. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX 
     shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 8914.
       Sec. 11. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message 
     that the House has passed H.R. 8914 no later than three 
     calendar days after passage

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________