Bill Foster

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6644, the Housing for the 21st Century Act, which makes improvements to Federal programs that will support housing development and affordability. This bipartisan bill will broaden access to homeownership, expedite new construction, and lay the foundation for more cost-effective housing developments across the Nation. This legislation includes 25 housing provisions that were introduced by Democrats and 12 banking provisions that passed our committee with broad bipartisan support. To support local lenders and access to financing, this bill includes bipartisan reforms to strengthen our community banks, credit unions, CDFIs, and MDIs. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions, I support the inclusion of these reforms, including the SMART Act and the Least Cost Exception Act, which I am proud to co-lead. The banking provisions are narrowly tailored to help our small community financial institutions, to provide regulatory relief for well-managed institutions, to increase access to insured deposits, and to establish safeguards to prevent the largest too-big-to-fail banks from growing even larger during times of economic stress. This legislation is a strong bipartisan effort to spur new housing development, improve affordability, and increase access to financing. Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I have to say Ms. Titus is absolutely right about the fact that there is no necessity to resume nuclear testing. We have a very extensive program. It is called the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Every year or so, the heads of the weapons labs and the head of NSA have to sign a document to the President that says: If you push the button, these weapons will detonate at their designed yields. The reason they are confident to do that is we have a lot of test data from the nearly 1,000 tests--many of them took place in Nevada-- and the extensive data we have and the fact that we can then put that data back into simulation programs to get the right answer. Mr. Speaker, that tells us that these will work and they will work with design margin. Even if small things go wrong, the device will work. That is what our opponents have to know. We don't need to test. If we decide to use them, they will work. It is an important thing to bear in mind, because our adversaries, many of them, have weapons that they have not tested, and they don't really know how well they will work. We do because we have some of the most, I have to say, beautifully designed weapons that I could ever imagine that could have existed. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this Special Order hour, it is important to restate a fundamental reality that nuclear weapons remain one of the greatest existential threats facing humanity. For more than a half of a century, the United States has worked across administrations and across party lines to reduce the risk that those weapons will ever be used. Arms control agreements like New START have been central to that effort, providing real, enforceable, and verifiable limits on the world's most destructive arsenals. The extension of New START is set to expire, and with it goes the last remaining treaty that limits and monitors the world's two largest nuclear arsenals. As New START expires without a successor, we would lose onsite inspections, data exchanges, and mutual visibility into the Russian nuclear forces. That loss does not make the United States safer or stronger. It increases uncertainty. It fuels worst-case assumptions and raises the risk of a dangerous miscalculation. That is why I am proud to be leading H. Res. 100, which calls on both Russia and the United States to continue abiding by the numerical limits set under New START, even in the absence of a successor treaty. I thank the 24 Members of the House, several of whom spoke here tonight, who have cosponsored that resolution. Maintaining those limits are an essential step to preserve strategic stability while we work on future arms control. I thank the many organizations and nonprofits who helped drive interest in this Special Order hour and who work every day to reduce nuclear risk. Those organizations play a vital role in public education, policy development, and maintaining dialogue during times when official channels are strained or closed. Finally, I thank all of my colleagues who joined me tonight in this Special Order hour. Preventing nuclear war has never been a partisan goal, and history shows that bipartisan cooperation is not just possible, but it is necessary. The choices that we make in the coming months will shape global security for decades to come, so I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recommit to arms control, to verification, and to the hard work of reducing nuclear risk. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous material to the Record.

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to open the Special Order hour to discuss the expiration of the New START treaty, the importance of arms control, and the urgent need to strengthen global nuclear security. I thank the Members who will be joining me this evening for their leadership and their willingness to engage on issues that carry existential consequences for our country and for the world. As many of my colleagues know, I am the only Ph.D. physicist currently serving in the United States Congress. Before coming to Congress, I spent more than two decades as a high-energy particle physicist and particle accelerator designer at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, where we were smashing together protons and antiprotons to make particles that have not been around since the big bang, designing and building the big particle accelerators and detectors, and analyzing the data. I was on the team that discovered the top quark, the heaviest known form of matter. Because of that background, I feel a special responsibility to engage deeply on issues of nuclear weapons, arms control, and strategic stability, not as abstract policy debates but as matters grounded in technical reality. Arms control is not about unilateral disarmament, wishful thinking, fantasies of dominance, or trusting adversaries. Arms control is about verifiable limits, predictability, and reducing the risk of miscalculation between nuclear-armed states. For decades, arms control agreements have helped prevent a catastrophic nuclear exchange, not by eliminating deterrence but by stabilizing it. The New START treaty, which stands for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, was signed in 2010 and extended in 2021. It is the last remaining bilateral nuclear arms control agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation. New START places verifiable limits on deployed strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems and provides for data exchanges, notifications, and onsite inspections that give us direct insight into Russia's nuclear forces. New START followed a long line of arms control agreements, from SALT to START I to SORT, that helped reduce the global nuclear arsenal from the Cold War highs of more than 70,000 weapons to fewer than 13,000 today. These agreements were supported by Democratic and Republican administrations alike because they made the United States safer. Under New START, the United States does not rely on guesswork, on satellite imagery alone, or on worst-case assumptions. We rely on legally binding limits and on verification measures backed by some of the most sophisticated scientific and intelligence capabilities of the world. Today, that system is fraying. Russia has suspended its participation in New START. Onsite inspections remain paused. The treaty itself is set to expire in less than 1 month. Anyone who remembers past arms control negotiations understands the gravity of this moment. Negotiating a successor agreement will take years, not months, and we are already past the danger zone. If New START expires without a replacement, there will be no legally binding limits on the world's two largest nuclear arsenals for the first time in more than half a century. The consequences of that outcome would be serious and immediate. The United States would lose treaty-mandated insight into Russia's deployed nuclear forces. Both countries would be free to increase the number of deployed warheads on existing missiles. Strategic planning would increasingly be driven by worst-case assumptions rather than verified facts. At the same time, we would face a far more complex nuclear environment than during the Cold War. China is rapidly expanding its nuclear forces. Russia continues to engage in irresponsible nuclear saber-rattling during its illegal war in Ukraine, and Iran and North Korea continue to change the global nonproliferation regime. In this environment, allowing arms control to collapse is not a show of strength. It is an abdication of leadership that increases the risk of miscalculation of arms races and, ultimately, nuclear use by design or by accident. Verification will be at the heart of any future arms control effort, and this is where America's scientific enterprise plays a critical role. Our national laboratories provide the technical backbone for verification, monitoring, and treaty compliance, and they are essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in this area. As co-chair of the Bipartisan National Labs Caucus, I have seen firsthand how investments in science and scientific talent directly translate into national security. If you are a Member of Congress, you have the opportunity, if you ask, to go into the room where you see our nuclear weapons taken apart. You talk to the experts about why the design choices were made, what the design margins are, and why they have to be built the way they are. If you walk into that room and see those weapons and think about what they are capable of, if that doesn't make you take your job seriously, you are not thinking clearly. Verification is not a diplomatic afterthought. It is a scientific challenge that demands sustained investment and expertise. The choice before us is not between arms control and national security because arms control is national security. It remains one of the most effective tools we have to reduce nuclear risk while maintaining a credible deterrent. The expiration of New START without a successor would mark a dangerous turning point, signaling that restraint and verification no longer matter. This Special Order hour is about sounding the alarm, but it is also about reaffirming that Congress has a responsibility to engage. Congress has a role in oversight, a role in funding verification and nonproliferation, and a role in insisting that arms control remains a core pillar of the U.S. national security policy. The next few years will be decisive, and decisions that we make or fail to make will shape whether the world moves toward stability or toward, once again, unconstrained nuclear arms races. I look forward to the discussion this evening. I am now proud to introduce my colleague, John Garamendi of California, a longtime advocate for arms control, with whom I have had the honor of spending a weekend underneath the north polar ice cap in a nuclear submarine. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Mr. Speaker, I have to say the gentleman is absolutely right about the messaging that is surrounding the Golden Dome effort. This is a system that has never been tested against countermeasures that we know our adversaries have. For 40 years physicists have been patiently explaining to Members of Congress and members of the administrations that systems like this will never work at the reliability level that they need. For 40 years we have been howling at the wind, I guess, because we don't have hundreds of billions of dollars to waste on a system that you can calculate from elementary principles that doesn't have a chance of working and has failed the majority of times it has been tried. For those who have not, please take the time to see a recently produced movie called ``A House of Dynamite.'' It is a recent one that actually talks about what a modern nuclear war would look like from the point of view of the participants who have to make those decisions and the equipment and provisions they have to aid those decisions. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the many excellent points he made, one of which was how foolish it would be for the United States to resume testing of nuclear weapons. The fact is, the United States has the best database of nuclear test results of any country on Earth by far. If we resume nuclear testing, we will, as will all the other nuclear-capable countries on Earth, they will rub their hands with glee, and soon they will have a dataset of performance of their weapons that is as good as ours. We have a tremendous advantage, and this would be a foolish way to give it away. I now yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle).

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is absolutely right about the real costs of restarting the arms race. As a physicist, I have some guilt, frankly, collective guilt for physicists about some of the irresponsible things that were done during the arms race when we said the only thing that was important was to have better weapons and more weapons than our adversaries, and forget about the damage that it can inflict on our American soldiers, our American workers, and the populations downwind. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts is absolutely right. Diplomacy is not a lost cause. There have been some big wins from diplomacy. Back when I was younger, the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons was higher and then decreased. We convinced, through diplomacy, South Africa to give up their nuclear weapons. At the time of the end of the Soviet empire, Ukraine possessed the world's third-largest nuclear weapon inventory, which they voluntarily gave up in return for a guarantee of territorial integrity--one, unfortunately, which we are not abiding by. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Takano for reminding us of Hiroshima. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity for the first time in my life to visit, and the things that stick in your mind are hard to describe. One of them is they have the steps of--I think it was a bank. Someone was sitting on the steps, having a meal, when the nuclear weapon went off overhead. All that remained of that person after his or her entire body was vaporized was a shadow of where they were sitting on those steps. The power of these weapons is not easy to describe. I can calculate it. The descriptions of the survivors are worth spending a day just listening to and trying to understand what is at risk here. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Aurora Actionaires, a remarkable milestone for an organization that has stood as a beacon of service, leadership, and community empowerment in Aurora, Illinois, for half a century. Since its founding in 1975, when three friends, Donna Williams, Martha Hickling, and Caroline Johnson, met at Hoi Peng Restaurant in Aurora on New Year's Eve, 1974, and decided to form a social club, the Aurora Actionaires has consistently demonstrated what committed civic engagement can achieve. What began with a group of eighteen enthusiastic friends wanting a better community quickly evolved into a force for service and empowerment under their guiding motto: We Care . . . We Act . . . We Serve. Over these five decades, the Aurora Actionaires have lived that motto through their tireless dedication to education, community development, youth mentorship, and numerous charitable endeavors across the region. They have awarded more than $200,000 in scholarships to high school seniors and provided assistance to college students in need. They have hosted workshops for parents and students on completing scholarship and financial aid applications and supported eighth-grade graduates attending the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy's SEAMS Summer Enrichment Program, helping young people pursue academic excellence and opportunity. On their golden anniversary, we reflect on the many lives touched, the students who would not have pursued higher education without their support, families whose neighborhoods have been strengthened through their volunteerism, and civic institutions that have benefited from their leadership and investment. The Aurora Actionaires have built bridges across generations, across neighborhoods, and across divides and have always modeled the belief that progress is shared when we lift others. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the Aurora Actionaires as part of Illinois' 11th Congressional District. They have demonstrated what it means to transform compassion into action and service into lasting impact, and I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them on their golden anniversary and thank them for their unwavering dedication to building a stronger, more vibrant community for all.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Oswald's Pharmacy as they celebrate their remarkable 150th anniversary. Since its founding in 1875, Oswald's Pharmacy has been one of Naperville's oldest continually family-run businesses and the longest running family pharmacy in business. Oswald's is a beloved establishment in Naperville and beyond due to its commitment to personalized care and reinvesting in the local community. To address the evolving needs of the community it serves, Oswald's Pharmacy has expanded its services beyond just filling prescriptions to include vaccinations and health consultations. During times of crisis, including the COVID-19 pandemic, Oswald's remained a vital resource for Naperville residents, providing critical care and information when it was needed most. As we mark this incredible milestone, it is important to honor the Oswald family for their unwavering commitment to excellence and community service. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Oswald's Pharmacy as they celebrate their 150th anniversary. Their longstanding history in Naperville is a testament to their commitment to service, community, and resilience. I wish Oswald's Pharmacy continued success for generations to come.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Kaptur and Congresswoman Budzinski for giving us a chance to set the record straight on President Trump's abject failure to restore the strength of U.S. manufacturing, perhaps his number one campaign promise. I am best known around here as being the Ph.D. physicist in Congress. Before that, I was a manufacturer. When I was 19 years old, my little brother and I started a company in our basement with $500 from my parents. That company now manufactures more than half of the theater lighting equipment in the United States. Our company does hardware, software, sheet metal, wiring harnesses, and customer support. We have kept all of those manufacturing jobs in the United States, and it is something I am very proud of. I think it is significant also that now, 50 years after we started that company, due to an employee stock ownership plan, it is 100 percent owned by the employees who built the company. I know how to create jobs, and I know that with what President Trump and his administration are doing, they are not going to deliver. I am, unfortunately, not surprised. Why is this? I think it is best summarized, actually, by paraphrasing the pithy tweet of Elon Musk when he said, You guys, meaning you guys on Trump's tariff team, haven't built squat, though he was a little more rude in his choice of words. The point I want to make is that this is not new. The ignorant tariffs that he is applying come from the fact that they simply don't get it with manufacturing because none of them--think about it. There is no one on the Trump tariff team who has ever built anything in their career. They are a bunch of finance people. They are a bunch of real estate dealers. If you are a real estate dealer, it is a very different kind of job than a manufacturer. If you are a real estate wheeler-dealer, what you want to do is rook your counterparty. You succeed as a real estate wheeler-dealer if your counterparty goes away angry. I tell you what, if you are a manufacturer, the last thing you want is an unhappy customer. Democrats understand that the real job creators in this economy are customers, and we understand that customers come from the middle class. For time immemorial, the Republican Party has been about sucking money out of the middle class to provide giant tax cuts for the very wealthy. We can see how that has ended time and again for manufacturing employment in the United States. Here is the history: Here we have, since before I was born, the history of U.S. manufacturing employment, depending on which party held the Presidency. You can see the huge job increase when FDR--that was when we were coming out of the Depression, which is understandable. It continued through President Truman. Then, it went down when the Republican Dwight Eisenhower took over. Then, it went up strongly under President Kennedy, down under President Nixon, up in Carter's administration, down in Reagan's administration, and down again in Bush the elder's administration. It went up during the Clinton administration and down strongly during George Bush's administration. That was, frankly, because of the historic mistake that was made by both parties to let China into the World Trade Organization without having an understanding that they should obey the requirements of good membership in the WTO and not manipulate their currencies. That is not what President Bush was about. Then, it went up, of course, during President Obama, down during the first Trump Presidency, and up during the Biden Presidency. Now, of course, it is trending downward again in the Trump Presidency, so this is not a surprise. This is something that is really, I think, easy to understand because of the basic philosophy of the Republican Party. This is just the data in a bar graph, just the same thing. In Presidency after Presidency, when the middle class is strong, demand is strong, and manufacturing is strong. Manufacturing employment follows. This is not rocket science. This is simple, basic economics. A strong middle class yields strong manufacturing growth and strong manufacturing employment. It is a lesson that we have had to learn again and again in the history of our country, and I hope we remember that history and don't forget it in the future.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, on September 15, 2025, I missed a recorded vote. Had I been present, on Roll Call No. 266, H.R. 3400, the TRAVEL Act, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chair, I rise first with an acknowledgement that, due to the efforts of the ranking member and chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Energy Development and Related Agencies, this bill could have been far worse. That is not the bar that we should set for ourselves. I am particularly concerned about the 17 percent cut in the funding for the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation within NNSA. This cut comes on top of last year's continuing resolution, where this office was cut by 7 percent and was only one of a few accounts to see its budget reduced by that bill. The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is involved in critical nuclear security work, which is actively keeping us safe, from securing nuclear material worldwide to verifying that other countries and various rogue actors are not developing nuclear weapons. It would be nice if we lived in a world where a miraculous Golden Dome could keep us safe from nuclear weapons, but we do not. We depend on being able to detect and enforce violations of nonproliferation agreements. This bill leaves wide open opportunities for countries like Iran and other nefarious actors to more easily get their hands on the materials needed to build nuclear weapons. With tensions mounting in the Middle East and the internet containing significant bomb-making instructions which are much more accessible to terrorist groups, this is not the time when America can afford to step back. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Castro and Representative Kim for their leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4490, the PARTNER Act. This legislation represents an important step forward in our country's ability to collaborate with our international partners. In particular, this legislation contains the text of our Strengthening Science Through Diplomacy Act which simplifies our scientific collaboration with CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research. As a physicist, I spent more than two decades working with colleagues from around the globe at Fermilab in Illinois where international scientific collaboration allowed us to better understand each other and the universe that we are embedded in. CERN already partners with several of our national laboratories, including Argonne National Lab and Fermi National Lab in the 11th District of Illinois that I represent. In particular, this bill will allow for closer collaboration with CERN on the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, also known as DUNE, an international flagship experiment. DUNE will help us to discover more about the nature of subatomic particles known as neutrinos, which could help us understand fundamental questions about the origins of matter and the beginnings of the universe. It will also search for previously undetected modes of proton decay, the subject for which I received my Ph.D. thesis many moons ago. This legislation will allow CERN to send its scientists who have been working on the DUNE project to assist in person as these experiments come online. One of the most exciting things about the DUNE project is we don't know what it will discover. When we built our proton decay detector many moons ago, we did not know that 160,000 years ago a star blew up, one supernova, in the greater Magellanic cloud, and for 160,000 years the flash of light from that stellar explosion and the burst of neutrinos traveled toward the Earth. It arrived in 1987 when the astronomers saw the flash of light and we saw the burst of neutrinos in our underground detector, so we learned an incredible thing about these stellar explosions. It is this sort of thing that brings you, me, and other young people into science. I thank Ranking Member Castro, as well as Representative Dusty Johnson of the great State of South Dakota, who worked with me over the last few years to ensure the success of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan effort is an important step in solidifying our partnership with CERN and maintaining our Nation's role as a leader in scientific research.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for holding this Special Hour to discuss the dangers of nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, when I first entered Congress, I was the third Ph.D. physicist elected to this body. We had at the time Vern Ehlers, a nuclear physicist and a conservative, religious Republican representing western Michigan. We had Rush Holt, a plasma fusion physicist, a progressive Democrat representing Princeton. We had me, a sort of garden-variety Democrat who spent the last 25 years smashing protons and antiprotons together to make particles that have not been around since the big bang. Although our politics were quite different, we were united by a special responsibility to join the discussion about nuclear weapons and ask what we could do to strengthen global nuclear security and maintain U.S. leadership in trying to prevent nuclear war. One area where we were always in violent agreement was to stop wasting money on Star Wars, which was then rebranded as the SDI, the Strategic Defense Initiative, and has now been rebranded Golden Dome. For more than 45 years, scientists have been patiently explaining to policymakers that this is never going to work. It is easy to overwhelm with a trivial response to it. We have spent over $200 billion on it. We have never tested it once against the kind of countermeasures that we know any competent opponent would deploy. Even if we succeed at stopping ballistic missiles, there are, unfortunately, many other ways to deliver nuclear weapons that we can never stop. This thing is deeply--I guess ``stupid'' is not too strong a word. We explain something to someone in a variety of terms again and again, and they don't want to hear it because they think it messages so well. Wouldn't it be great if we had this magic Golden Dome, or whatever we want to call it, to stop nuclear weapons? Yeah, it would be great. If it is an impossibility to do the fundamental physics of it, then we should stop talking about it, and we should certainly stop wasting money on it. Another place where we were always in strong agreement was how we should be strengthening the nonproliferation efforts at our national laboratories. Our national labs create an underlying foundation for all of our nuclear security efforts including the nonproliferation and national security priorities that we are talking about here today. In order to ensure that current and future arms control efforts are properly fulfilling their mission, we have to invest in our scientific workforce to maintain our leadership and verification efforts. It is certainly not well-known among Members of Congress, but when the IAEA sends inspectors into Iran and into countries of concern, those have been largely trained by the national labs in the United States. When we gut the nonproliferation capacities of our national labs or simply allow them to retire, as has been happening, we risk putting aside one of the most powerful tools we have to actually enforce any deal that we may get. The President is very fond of talking about this deal he is going to get on Iran nuclear. We listened to him talk about how he was going to get North Korea. I support efforts to try to do that. If we ever succeed in getting one of these deals, for sure we are going to need to have experts we trust that can go in there and make sure nobody is cheating. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is the gutting of those budgets in that capacity. I guess it doesn't satisfy the MAGA worldview. Over the years, I have focused my attention on a few specific areas to strengthen our nuclear security architecture. One of them is what is called nuclear--well, it has a number of names. If for some reason a nuclear weapon is detonated somewhere in the United States or anywhere around the world, the President will come under huge pressure to say: Who did that? Whose weapon was it? There is a lot of very detailed knowledge that we have had in the past in our national labs to be able to go in there and do what is called nuclear forensics and find out whether that was a bomb from X, Y, or Z. That capacity has been under duress for a long time. It seems like it is every single time the appropriations budgets come up, we end up having to try to defend that. That is something that is completely irrelevant until it is the most important question in the world. Who did that? Who let off this nuclear weapon? How do we make sure we don't retaliate against the wrong person or entity that did that? There are a number of other things I have been working on. First and foremost is H. Res. 100. It is a resolution I introduced in the House with 19 other Members. It supports arms control and condemns Russia's purported suspension of its participation in the New START Treaty. The current extension of the New START Treaty is set to expire in under a year, and anyone who remembers previous arms control negotiations will know that there is almost no time left to negotiate a subsequent treaty. Additionally, any negotiations, whether with Russia, China, or any other country, will require partners who are willing to have discussions on arms control, which is something that is far easier said than done. This is not something where the two great men leading great nations can come together and strike a deal. The details matter. We have to have technical experts that we trust to go deep down into the weeds to have an agreement so they can come back and say this is a solid agreement we can trust. It is a time when traditional channels of dialogue on arms control and strategic stability have been closed or quiet, and we are going to rely more than ever on keeping alternative channels open and keeping the expertise in place. Then when the time comes for these agreements, we have people we trust who can carry them out. Mr. Speaker, nongovernmental organizations, scientists, and research institutions have kept this dialogue open even during the worst parts of the Cold War, and we are going to need to rely on them to fulfill these roles again. Another crucial institution that we must continue to support in these times is the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency. We have already seen the incredibly hard work that Director General Grossi and his staff are putting in to responding to the Russian invasion of Ukraine with its many nuclear reactors and the myriad of other crises on their doorstep. Mr. Speaker, that brings us to Iran. One of the proudest moments in my career was standing alongside Dr. Richard Garwin, who, as Representative McGovern mentioned, was often pointed to as the father of the hydrogen bomb and a strong advocate for nuclear nonproliferation. He stood by my side, along with Energy Secretary Dr. Ernest Moniz, as I announced my support for the Iran nuclear deal. One of the tragedies of the recent past has been this President's abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal, which has gotten us into a heck of a pickle, as predicted by the people who actually understood what our true options were in that negotiation. After the U.S. bombing of Iran, there has been an immense amount of debate about whether or not Iran's nuclear program was set back by a certain amount of time, whether it is years or whatever. The level of technical ignorance that has been displayed by this administration is, frankly, frightening. They have access to the best weapons designers in the world, and they are either not listening to them or not asking questions. When you hear Secretary Rubio, for example, saying not to worry about their 60 percent enriched uranium inventory because they are going to have to convert it to metal and that will take years, anyone with knowledge of the history of the Manhattan Project knows that is not a major activity. Iran has done it for a long time. They know how to do it. If you are only interested in converting from uranium hexafluoride to metal, a few tens of kilograms, which is what you need for your first set of weapons, this happens in a laboratory. It can happen in a congressional office. You don't need a big space for this. The conversion of the uranium hexafluoride to what is called green salt, and the green salt to metal, is something that happens in a small industrial building. It can happen anywhere in any city in Iran, and it will be really hard to tell. We have not prevented them from doing what they have to do. The enrichment level is another thing where we are seeing, frankly, technically ignorant statements made. We have three levels of uranium. Less than 20 percent is generally regarded as relatively safe and can be used in reactors without a lot of safeguards. When you get about 90 percent enriched uranium, that is the good stuff for really high- performance weapons. What about in between? They have 60 percent uranium. Guess what? That is not weapons-grade, but it is weapons-usable. For example, the Hiroshima bomb was made with a mixture of 50 percent enriched uranium and higher enriched uranium. The 60 percent enriched uranium that Iran has a significant inventory of is perfectly usable even for a simple Hiroshima-style gun-type device. Our leadership speaks in apparent ignorance of that fact, beating their chest and saying we set them back by decades, when that is not the case. Just to give a sense of the scale, the 400 kilograms of uranium hexafluoride that the IAEA watched them enrich to 60 percent is stored conventionally in the United States in about 25 scuba tank-sized pressurized containers. Any five of those containers have enough uranium to make a Hiroshima-style nuclear weapon. These things are not hard to smuggle. We will have a hard time convincing ourselves, in fact, that the Iranians haven't already done it. Pretending like Iran does not have a credible threat and has no leverage is a dangerous and ignorant position for our government to be taking and one of the scariest things about the many threats that we face right now. Those who don't know should go look at the Wikipedia article on the Hiroshima Little Boy bomb and the references in it. It is, unfortunately, very well-documented over the years because it is not the best weapon you can make, by far. You can make much more complex and efficient weapons, but the Iranians don't have to do that. If they simply want to replicate what was done, they would get an old 155-millimeter howitzer, replace the explosive shell with some enriched--60 percent enriched will work just fine--uranium, shoot it into the right-shaped target, and they have something that is as effective as the Hiroshima weapon. This is not a trivial risk. The only answer to this is negotiations, and we have to get very serious about that. It is not something that the Iranians even have to test. We did not test the Hiroshima weapon. It was obviously going to work. The physics hasn't changed in the 80 years since then, so we are at a very uncertain position on that, and we shouldn't pretend otherwise. We have also recently been hearing a lot of calls about the resumption of nuclear testing. This is particularly worrying because the move away from nuclear testing has been really one of the cornerstone successes of nonproliferation and nuclear security. Just think of all the attention Donald Trump could get by giving the order that he wants to blow up a nuclear weapon just to make sure it works, or whatever it is. Yes, he would get a lot of attention that way. Our country has a tremendous amount to lose if everyone begins nuclear testing again. The U.S., during the Cold War, conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests, far more than any other country, and we had much better instrumentation, knowing exactly what happened in those explosions. The knowledge that we gained has allowed our Nation to maintain the safety, security, and effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile without any further testing. If we were to resume testing, the rest of the world would resume testing. I am sure they all have bomb designers that are just champing at the bit to get more data on exactly what happens if they explode one of their untested weapons. If we do this, we would be giving away the most significant strategic advantage that our country has, which is this huge database of exactly what works and what does not work in detailed and very technologically aggressive designs for our nuclear weapons. If we open that Pandora's box, every country that is nuclear-capable will say this is their opportunity to become coequal with the United States in knowledge of nuclear weapons. That will be yet another disaster for the proliferation regime. The next few years are going to be crucial to making sure that the world we live in remains safe from the threat of nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative McGovern for bringing us together to discuss this.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the CLARITY Act, which claims to bring digital assets under a regulatory umbrella but fails in two major areas. First, it fails because it has no KYC--know your customer-- requirements for self-hosted wallets. It allows anonymous trading on DeFi exchanges and the dark web, which means there is no way to prevent wash trading, front running, corruption, ransomware, extortion and kidnapping payoffs, and all the parade of horribles that unregulated crypto has unleashed upon the world. This legislation simply applies a patina of regulation while codifying loopholes that leave large parts of the industry, including the President's own meme coin schemes, completely unregulated. Secondly, the CLARITY Act also lacks the basic investor protections present in the securities laws. For example, firms are not required to serve the best interests of their investors or to separate critical market functions and many other basic protections. Now, I am not ideologically opposed to crypto, and both of these flaws are fixable, but in CLARITY they have not been fixed. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fox Metro Water Reclamation District as they celebrate their 100th anniversary, marking a century of wastewater management and environmental stewardship. Founded in 1925 in Aurora, Illinois as the Aurora Sanitary District, this institution was established to protect public health and preserve the natural beauty of the Fox River from disease and pollution. By 1929, this vision became a reality with the construction of a wastewater treatment plant and supporting infrastructure. Over the past century, Fox Metro WRD has been a model of sustainability, fiscal responsibility, and environmental stewardship. The Fox Metro WRD has continually invested in innovation from solar power and nutrient reduction to recycling biosolids, restoring native landscapes, reusing treated effluent, and recovering methane gas for campus and public use. Fox Metro WRD now serves over 304,000 people across 90 square miles, operating twelve pump stations and more than 100 miles of intersecting sanitary sewers, They manage an 150-acre treatment facility where an average of 36 million gallons of wastewater is treated daily, ensuring the health and environmental protection of the Fox Valley region. For 100 years, the dedicated public servants of Fox Metro WRD have safeguarded public health, supported local economies, and helped eradicate deadly diseases. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor the Fox Metro Water Reclamation District's century of service, and I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating their remarkable contributions and continued commitment to protecting public health and our environment. I commend their vital contributions and congratulate them on a century of service to our communities.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Batavia Depot Museum, a prominent landmark and vibrant cultural institution that celebrates the town's history and community. Since its opening, the Batavia Depot Museum has served as a repository of local history, preserving and sharing the stories that have shaped the community for over a century. Founded in 1975 by the Batavia Historical Society, the museum occupies the former Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Depot, a building that itself is a testament to the city's rich history as a transportation hub. Over the past five decades, the museum has grown into a focal point for residents and visitors alike. With over 4,000 visitors annually, the museum offers exhibits that showcase the rich heritage of Batavia, many of which were donated by the residents themselves. These artifacts help tell the story of Batavia's development, its railroad history, and the contributions of those who shaped the city into what it is today. In addition to its historical exhibits, the Batavia Depot Museum has become an educational center, providing programs that engage young minds in the exploration of history, science, and culture. Whether hosting school field trips, community events, or seasonal celebrations, the museum plays an important role in fostering a deep sense of pride and connection to the past for Batavia's residents. As we commemorate this incredible milestone, it is important to recognize the dedicated staff, volunteers, historians, and local leaders who have worked tirelessly to ensure the museum's success and its continued relevance in the community. Their stewardship of Batavia's legacy--through exhibits like the Gunzenhauser Gazebo, the Coffin Bank, and the Gustafson Research Center--ensures that future generations will continue to learn from and appreciate the city's rich history. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the Batavia Depot Museum in my district, and I invite my colleagues to join me in recognizing them on their 50th anniversary and expressing gratitude to Kate Garrett, the current museum director, along with the many families, businesses, and organizations that have contributed to its growth and development. May it continue to be a beacon of history and collective community pride for many years to come.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Dr. Richard Garwin, known to all as Dick Garwin, a physicist whose intellect shaped the modern world and whose conscience helped protect it. Dick was the principal designer of the first hydrogen bomb, a pioneer in national security and arms control, and a trusted adviser to Presidents spanning from Eisenhower to Obama. He authored over 500 scientific papers, held dozens of patents, and was a relentless advocate for using science in service of humanity. When I announced my support for the Iran nuclear deal, I was deeply honored to have Dick Garwin standing by my side. His presence carried immense weight, not just because of his expertise in nuclear weapons, but because of his lifelong commitment to reducing their threat. Dick's genius was matched only by his humility. He never sought fame, only progress. Mr. Speaker, may we carry forward his legacy with the same courage and moral clarity that defined his life. The Neighbor Project

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize The Neighbor Project, an exceptional partner in expanding access to homeownership in Aurora, Illinois, and in surrounding communities led by my friend, Rick Guzman. Since 2018, The Neighbor Project has empowered Aurora families to lower debt, build credit, and achieve homeownership. Through down- payment assistance and financial education, they have helped generate millions in savings for Illinoisans. Their work is more critical than ever as Trump's on-again, off-again tariff policies threaten to drive up construction costs and exacerbate the housing affordability crisis. To make matters worse, Trump and Republicans' big, ugly bill would strip away healthcare and food assistance during a time when families are already struggling to afford housing costs. While Republicans continue to push policies that drive up the cost- of-living and deepen inequality, organizations like The Neighbor Project are fighting to close the gap. I am proud to recognize their work and will continue fighting alongside them to make the dream of homeownership accessible for Illinois families. National Science Foundation's Graduate Research Fellowship Program

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call out the Trump administration for yet another reckless assault on science and education. Recently, the Trump administration slashed over 1,000 fellowships from the National Science Foundation's graduate research fellowship program, cutting financial support from graduate student researchers in STEM fields. This competitive program has long been a pillar of American innovation. Nobel Prize winners, tech entrepreneurs, and national security experts have all gotten their start through this program. These cuts are only part of the administration's broader antiscience agenda. Trump is pushing a 55 percent budget reduction for the National Science Foundation at a time when the agency is already issuing new grants at the slowest rate in more than three decades. This isn't just about education for graduate students or line items on a spreadsheet. It is about our future competitiveness, our economy, and our national security. At a time when countries like China are doubling down on scientific investment, the Trump administration chose to pull the plug on our pipeline of talent, undermining their future in science. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for science, for students, and for America's future.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand up for the community of Crystal Lake, Illinois, which, along with over 100 communities nationwide, just had a $5.6 million student mental health program abruptly canceled by the Trump administration. This funding, which passed with support of both Republicans and Democrats under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, was created in response to the Uvalde school shooting to address the growing youth mental health crisis. I think we all remember the Republican talking point at the time that we don't have a gun problem. We have a mental health problem. Well, fine. With this grant, the Crystal Lake District 47 was able to hire trained mental health professionals and give 7,100 students access to mental health care. Canceling this grant will disrupt critical mental health care for students who are already receiving support, weaken the district's ability to identify and intervene in early warning signs of distress, trauma, or potential violence. It undermines years of progress made in breaking the stigma around mental health. With suicide being the second leading cause of death for children aged 10-14, gutting this funding will be life-threatening. Our kids' safety and well-being should not be a partisan issue. I urge the administration to reverse these harmful cuts.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the free people of South Korea for their commitment to democracy following today's election of Lee Jae-myung. Like us, the people of South Korea have witnessed the mortal danger to democracy posed by lies, by corruption, and by illegal actions directed by those at the very top. The Korean people responded with courage and defended their democracy through peaceful civil disobedience, through lawful impeachment, and, now, through a free and fair election. They have shown strength, unity, and a dedication to the rule of law in a way that the rest of the world could do well to emulate. Mr. Speaker, I say to the citizens of South Korea, the people of the free world salute you.

Mr. FOSTER

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Stevens and Congressman Subramanyam for organizing this on such an important topic. As Congress' sole Ph.D. physicist, I spent 25 years of my life, before coming to Congress, working at the Department of Energy Office of Science supported laboratory. We were smashing protons and antiprotons together to make particles that have not been around since the big bang. I am proud to have been on the team that discovered the top quark, the heaviest known form of matter. We worked with scientists from all over the world who came to America because we had the best equipment, the best experiments, and the best scientists, and they wanted to collaborate. All of this is at risk. Amidst the Republican assault on science, I am going to focus my remarks tonight mainly on the NSF. On May 10, we celebrated the 75th anniversary of the National Science Foundation. Today, together with my fellow Representatives Don Beyer, Dr. Scott Franklin, and Haley Stevens, we introduced a House resolution to celebrate that anniversary. The resolution highlights the importance of the NSF for our Nation's research enterprise and the workforce it supports, totaling roughly 350,000 students, teachers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and researchers, including 268 Nobel Prize winners to date. The NSF is a cornerstone of American innovation and is foundational for continuing basic research discoveries. We hope this work continues for many decades to come. Support for Federal science agencies like the NSF have led to new and unexpected research directions that would not have been possible without Federal funding. That is why it is important that we recognize the role that NSF- funded basic research plays in the discoveries driving the next generation of science. This includes funding for AI, for cybersecurity, for supercomputers, fusion energy, space, ocean exploration, black holes, semiconductors, and, last but not least, the internet. In addition to basic research, the NSF also funds many educational programs supporting the next generation of scientists. Perhaps in the fullness of time that is its most crucial mission because it enables the careers to move forward in science of these young people who have shared my fascination with science. Over the past 75 years, the NSF has stayed true to its mission to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense. Underpinning this has been its commitment to a merit-based and peer- reviewed grant process that has ensured that good science is consistently prioritized and free from political interference. The NSF has had an exemplary 75 years, and I look forward to its progress in the next 75. So, how are Republicans celebrating this anniversary? By slashing the budget by a factor of two and muzzling the science. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has failed to see the importance of this Federal investment in science for our country's future. The President's fiscal year 2026 budget proposes cutting the NSF budget by 55 percent, including fundamental research, education, and broadening participation efforts. Other agencies have been impacted by the funding cuts, including NIH by 37 percent, NOAA by 24 percent, the EPA by 54 percent, NASA's science arm by 46 percent, and the Department of Energy Office of Science by 14 percent, among many others. Long term, these cuts will have detrimental impacts on scientific and technological innovation and cause irreparable damage to our global competitiveness. So this discussion could not come at a more important time. As a result of Trump's directives, all grant funding at the NSF is now halted, and the existing grants are under review for termination. I led over 100 of my fellow Members in a letter to the administration opposing this unconstitutional grant freeze, which is in direct opposition to Congress' appropriations. This measure comes after canceling over 1,000 NSF active research grants last month, with another 344 more grants canceled recently in the third consecutive round of Friday terminations. Why Friday? It is because Friday traditionally is the time that they reveal actions that they are ashamed of. I wonder why they put it on Friday. In addition to freezing all grants at the NSF, the agency instituted a 15 percent cap on indirect cost rates for colleges and universities where many of our future scientists receive training and participate in research experiences early in life that spark their curiosity. Many of these grants across many agencies are impacting STEM education across the career pipeline. In addition to stopping research discoveries, these cuts will lead to the loss of STEM talent, which places the United States at a permanent competitive disadvantage. President Trump's budget also proposes eliminating NASA's Office of STEM Engagement, which will significantly deter young talent from participating in STEM programming and impair our Nation's ability to lead in scientific fields. In another Republican assault on STEM education, which seems to be a theme of their cuts, at the U.S. Geological Survey, the Federal hiring freeze led to the termination of a summer internship program for undergraduate students. The National Association of Geoscience Teachers-USGS Cooperative Summer Fellowship program had been running since 1965, matching undergraduate students with mentors and projects at the agency. Through this program, talented student interns benefit from working with well-established scientists and gain valuable research experience at a well-known science agency. This experience can spark their curiosity in science and may set them up for long-term research careers, assuming, of course, the budget is not slashed there as well. Altogether, since 1965, around 3,000 interns have contributed to scientific projects in research areas of importance to USGS and NAGT to promote high-quality Earth education. Programs like this allow students to contribute to our country's scientific achievements, energy resource development, and economic prosperity. However, this year, 39 promising young geoscientists will not have this opportunity. So what does this mean for the scientific workforce? The recent departure of the NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, known to all of us as ``Dr. Panch,'' from the NSF was a really notable negative milestone for this administration's actions. It is a significant loss when we lose such dedicated and talented public servants. They are leaving the Federal Government workforce not as happy campers, and everybody knows it. This follows workers like Dr. Peter Marks, who is one of the heroes of Operation Warp Speed and one of the lead scientists at the FDA. There are hundreds of others, unfortunately, following in their footsteps. To shed light on this issue, for example, this last March, together with my colleague, Don Beyer, I led 37 House Members in a letter to the Trump administration expressing our strong support for the agency and grave concerns with the firing of 168 workers at the NSF. Unfortunately, the DOGEs in the Trump administration have ignored this sort of appeal completely. This letter highlighted the importance of NSF funding to our country's leadership in cancer research, energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. None of this work would be possible without program managers and experts who play central roles in grant funding decisions at the agency. A negative consequence of these actions for our country is that we will not only miss out on scientific breakthroughs that drive our country forward, but lose an entire generation of scientists who cannot complete their NSF-supported training and will abandon research careers altogether, or perhaps, as was mentioned, simply depart for countries abroad. So I want to assure NSF-funded researchers and staff that we are on their side, and we are supporting them. They should keep coming to Congress to tell us about the direct impacts, and that goes for scientists in all fields throughout this country. It is our duty to ensure that, regardless of the political climate, science remains at the forefront of our Nation's progress and innovation. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my sensible colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support efforts that increase the resiliency of our Federal science agencies in the face of these growing threats from the administration, and to continue supporting the U.S. research workforce. Congratulations, again, to the NSF on celebrating 75 years. We will continue to fight for the agency's viability and for our Nation's competitiveness by supporting all of our Federal science agencies.