W. Steube

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 9498, the Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act. At its core, this legislation is about a principle I have fought for throughout my time in Congress: Taxpayers deserve a fair shake from their Federal Government. Americans already face a tax code that is complicated enough. When the Federal Government is litigating a tax issue that could ultimately affect the rights of taxpayers across the country, the taxpayer should not be an afterthought. The National Taxpayer Advocate already serves as the voice of the taxpayer within our tax system. The advocate helps Americans resolve problems with the IRS, identifies systemic problems in tax administration, makes recommendations to Congress, and reports annually on the tax issues most frequently litigated in our courts. Yet under current law, when a Federal tax case raises an issue that could broadly affect taxpayer rights, the National Taxpayer Advocate is not authorized to appear as amicus curiae, or a friend of the court, to provide that taxpayer-focused perspective. That does not make any sense. If a court is considering an issue that could shape how the tax laws apply to Americans across the country, then taxpayers deserve to have their rights represented in that conversation. This bill closes that gap. This bill allows the National Taxpayer Advocate to participate as amicus curiae in Federal tax cases involving issues that may broadly affect taxpayer rights, particularly the rights contained in the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. This is a narrow, targeted reform. It does not authorize the National Taxpayer Advocate to represent individual taxpayers. It does not replace the Department of Justice or IRS chief counsel in litigation. It simply ensures that, in the cases with broader consequences for taxpayers, the courts can hear directly from the office Congress created to identify and protect those rights. Taxpayers fund this government. They should not have to fight an uphill battle just to make sure their rights are considered by it. That principle has guided my work to provide tax relief to Americans rebuilding after natural disasters, to protect taxpayers' privacy and due process rights when dealing with the IRS, and it guides this legislation as well. Earlier this year, the Ways and Means Committee advanced this bill with unanimous, bipartisan support. I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in bringing this legislation forward, and I thank the gentlewoman from Washington State, Congresswoman DelBene, for working with me on this bill. Congresswoman DelBene and I have worked together on a number of bipartisan tax bills, and I appreciate her willingness to find common ground and work across the aisle when we can deliver meaningful results for taxpayers. Today's vote is another example of what we can accomplish when we put taxpayers first. Protecting the basic rights of American taxpayers should never be a bipartisan issue. Mr. Speaker, when the Federal Government writes the tax laws, administers the tax laws, and litigates the tax laws, taxpayers deserve a voice standing up for their rights. The Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act gives them one. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Chair, the underlying bill contains several conditions for assistance to be made available to Nigeria, which includes taking effective steps to prevent and respond to violence and hold perpetrators accountable; prioritizing resources to support victims of such violence, including internally displaced persons; actively facilitating the safe return, resettlement, and reconstruction of communities impacted by the violence; and allocating sufficient resources to address the aforementioned conditions. This begs the question: If Nigeria isn't meeting these conditions fully, why should they receive any funding? If they truly want the support of the American taxpayer, then they should be meeting these goals. Furthermore, while the underlying bill directs prioritization to address the atrocities occurring in Nigeria, they should be showing willingness to utilize the funding provided to address the violence before receiving funds. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Chair, this amendment does not end all assistance. It only strengthens the conditions and encourages the Nigerian Government to meet them. Why should we give 50 percent of the money when the Nigerian Government has not met the criteria established in the underlying bill? We are approaching $40 trillion in debt. Why are we sending funds to corrupt countries overseas that are unwilling to fully address violence and persecution? The generosity of the American taxpayer should reflect American values. We can't be putting ourselves more into debt to countries that are unwilling to uphold our values. The U.S. should not borrow money to subsidize foreign governments that fail to protect innocent civilians. If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding until the underlying conditions are met. The Nigerian Government continues to fail to address violence in their country. Why should they still be eligible for funding given their lackluster response to the violence? Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support for my amendment to increase the withholding threshold for assistance to Nigeria from 50 percent to 100 percent, while keeping in place benchmarks that demand Nigeria take effective steps to address the violence and persecution that continue to devastate the country. Nigeria has faced a horrific wave of violence that its corrupt government has failed to address. For years, and especially in recent months, Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria have been subjected to violence and terrorism at the hands of extremists who are operating with impunity. Christian women and girls continue to be abducted, assaulted, tortured, and killed. Their churches are burned, and entire communities are erased. If the aid conditions included in the bill are important enough to withhold half of all the funding to the Nigerian Government, then they are important enough to withhold all of the funding. The generosity of our taxpayers is a reflection of the American values we hold so firmly. Never should we allow their hard-earned tax dollars to be funneled to corrupt regimes that fail to uphold religious freedom, fail to adequately confront terrorism, and fail to protect the innocent from persecution. So why are we rewarding a government that fails to meet such a basic obligation? This amendment is simple. It does not remove the aid conditions in the bill but only strengthens such conditions. Most importantly, it upholds a principle that all recipients of American taxpayer assistance should follow: that they must prove that they are willing and able to respond to violence before receiving any funding. Simply put, meet the standard before receiving support. That is the accountability that the American taxpayer deserves. Foreign aid should never be a reward for failure, so as our national debt is fast approaching $40 trillion, why on Earth are we still allowing our ourselves to go further into debt by rewarding corrupt foreign governments that tolerate terrorism within their borders? When churches are burned, women and girls are abducted, and terrorists operate with near impunity, that is not merely an internal disturbance. It is a direct assault on the freedoms our Nation claims to defend, which our foreign assistance must reflect and uphold. This is not about punishing the Nigerian people. It is about demanding accountability for their government's complacency and ensuring that our foreign aid is leveraged to defend, reflect, and uphold American values. Even the underlying bill recognizes the Nigerian Government's failure to meet the standard, yet it still allows for half of the funding to be released anyway. My amendment withholds all funds until they meet basic standards. Accountability can never be divided, nor should we allow anyone to exploit the generosity of the American taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to uphold accountability in our foreign aid spending and to vote for my amendment. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 139, the Sunshine Protection Act. For me, this vote has been nearly a decade in the making. In 2018, at the Braden River Barber Shop shortly after we turned back the clocks to standard time, everyone was complaining about the change. Kids are not waking up on time. Everyone is tired. There is a rise in health-related issues. Nobody is able to enjoy activities in the evening. The list went on and on. The question was: Why are we still changing the clocks? As a State senator in Florida at the time, everyone looked at me and asked if we could do something about it, so we did. That one conversation led to me introducing a bill in the Florida State Senate also called the Sunshine Protection Act. I didn't know that my friend Mr. Soto had filed it before then, so I was happy to carry on the tradition. The idea was pretty simple. Florida is the Sunshine State. We should not be forced to change our clocks twice a year and lose an hour of usable daylight in the evening simply because of outdated Federal law. That legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in Tallahassee. In 2018, the Florida Legislature passed the Sunshine Protection Act, and Governor Rick Scott signed it into law. There was a catch. Florida could not actually implement the law until Congress acted. The bill's success at the State level led to Congressman Vern Buchanan introducing the Federal version of the Sunshine Protection Act and introducing it year after year, never relenting in pushing for its passage. The Senate even passed the legislation unanimously in 2022, yet the House never gave it a vote. When I came to Congress in 2019, I continued to fight to make permanent daylight saving time a reality. Today, Mr. Speaker, after nearly a decade of many people working on this issue, we finally have this opportunity. Americans should never again have to participate in this outdated ritual of turning the clocks back and forth, as we can end the disruption that comes every spring and every fall when the Federal Government tells hundreds of millions of Americans to change their clocks. Mr. Speaker, 19 States have already acted to support year-round daylight saving time once Congress allows them to do so. Florida has been waiting since 2018. Why should we make the change? The consensus that day at the barbershop was clear for Americans. It is unhealthy and difficult on families with young children. Kids should have more daylight after school to play sports and be outside. Floridians should have more time to enjoy our beaches, our parks, and the outdoors. Small businesses, restaurants, and communities benefit when Americans have more usable daylight in the evening. Today, we have an opportunity to finally fix it. Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow Floridian, Congressman Vern Buchanan, for his leadership on H.R. 139 and for his years of work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, it is time to lock the clock. It is time to make daylight saving time permanent. It is time for Congress to finally pass the Sunshine Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, the President's comments on this issue have been clear. We are $39 trillion in debt, and we should be focused on America first, and we should be supporting our warfighters and our bases, not NATO in this budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, on U.S. membership in NATO, President Donald J. Trump in April of 2026 stated: ``Oh, yes, I would say [it is] beyond reconsideration. I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and President Putin knows that, too, by the way.'' ``They haven't been friends when we needed them. We have never asked them for much . . . it is a one-way street.'' On NATO assisting in the reopening of the Strait Hormuz, a White House official in April 2026 stated: ``As President Trump said yesterday, NATO was tested, and they failed.'' ``[President Trump] has zero expectations for NATO at this point and did not ask them for anything, even though it's a fact that they benefit from the Strait of Hormuz far more than the United States.'' President Trump posted on Truth Social on March 31, 2026: ``The country of France wouldn't let planes headed to Israel, loaded up with military supplies, fly over French territory. France has been VERY UNHELPFUL with respect to the ``Butcher of Iran,'' who has been successfully eliminated! The U.S.A. will REMEMBER!!! President DJT.'' President Trump on Truth Social on the United Kingdom on March 31, 2026, stated: ``All of those countries that can't get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refuse to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you: number one, buy from the U.S., we have plenty, number two, build up some delayed courage, go to the Strait and just TAKE IT. You'll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won't be there to help you anymore, just like you weren't there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is gone. Go get your own oil! President DJT.'' This just a couple of days ago from Secretary Rubio commenting on NATO basing rights: ``One of the reasons I supported NATO is because it gave us basing rights in Europe. So when NATO partners like Spain deny us use of these bases, the primary reason for why NATO is good for America, then what is the purpose of the alliance?'' Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that puts the defense of our own troops, bases, and national security above all else, not to subsidize the defenses of NATO countries that lecture us on peace, hesitate to stand with us, and in some cases undermine our efforts to confront the terrorist regime in Iran. My amendment redirects more than $480 million in funding from the NATO Security Investment Program. Essentially, it moves nearly half a billion dollars used for foreign military base infrastructure and redirects it towards improving the infrastructure needs of our own bases, for our own servicemembers, and for our own national security. This is the definition of America First. The United States cannot continue carrying the defense burden for allied nations that fail to carry their own weight in the collective defense of each NATO member. Most importantly, we cannot continue to treat the generosity of the American taxpayer as automatic, while our allies treat their obligations as optional. Operation Epic Fury has exposed why this amendment is necessary. When President Trump moved to confront the Iranian terror regime, some NATO countries chose to tarnish the meaning of alliance and tried to subvert our ability to target Iran. Namely, it is France and Spain that continue to deny our military from using their airspace and many key defense facilities, forcing American forces to work around the very allied infrastructure that American taxpayers have helped sustain through NATO funding. Many of these bases exist within the broader NATO architect supported by programs like the NATO Security Investment Program, which this bill gives nearly half a billion dollars to. Yet, when the United States called for support, our so-called allies chose silence over solidarity. Alliances are not entitlement programs, nor are they blank checks. They are solemn commitments built on mutual defense, sacrifice, and responsibility. If any foreign nation thinks they are deserving of the United States military and the backing of our taxpayers, best they not demand the comfort of our alliance and reject the courage it requires. The American people deserve the assurance that every single investment made actually serves our national interests. Every dollar in this bill should be measured against one standard: Does it support our national security, our readiness, and our warfighters and their families? If the answer is no, then we have the responsibility to redirect such funds and put America first. Mr. Chair, that is why this amendment matters. Our first and only obligation should be to support or warfighters. We owe it to the American people that their tax dollars are spent in a manner strengthening America readiness, improving our base infrastructure, supporting our servicemembers and their families, and advancing our national security. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stop subsidizing our part-time allies and vote for my amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. This amendment prohibits funds from being used to close the Port Charlotte VA Clinic. I have heard from a number of different constituents and veterans in Charlotte County that oppose this clinic being shut down. This amendment would prohibit funds being used to shut down the Port Charlotte VA Clinic. This amendment would not delay construction on a new clinic in North Port. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, Americans want to know that when they buy honey from the supermarket or from their local grocery store that it is authentic, genuine, not adulterated honey from another country. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, Americans have the right when they go to the grocery store to know that the honey that they are purchasing is not adulterated, fake honey from places like the Chinese Communist Party and Brazil. They should know what their honey is. They should know that it is actual honey that they are purchasing. This amendment gives Americans the ability to do that. I can't think of anybody that would be opposed to that. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment defending the integrity of honey and the livelihood of the Americans who produce it. My amendment establishes clear, direct, and enforceable testing standards for pure and authentic honey and ensures that claims regarding honey's purity, floral source, origin, grade, and authenticity are backed by rigorous and verifiable testing here in the United States, all under standards that we control, laboratories that we oversee, and methods that we recognize. It makes one thing unmistakably clear: Foreign certifications on their own cannot be used to prove the authenticity and purity of honey. Today, our markets are flooded with diluted, falsely labeled, adulterated, and fake honey. Far too often, such inauthentic honey is imported to our country and lands on the shelves of American grocery stores to the deceit of the American consumer and to the discredit of the thousands of American beekeepers and honey producers across our country. This is not just a technical oversight but confirmation of an exploited system that favors foreign producers over the Americans that keep our food supply stable and our economy flourishing. While this exploitation continues, American beekeepers and honey producers are being undercut in their own market, forced to compete against fraud dressed up as food. Most importantly, my amendment upholds the principle that consumers deserve to not be deceived in the foods that they consume. This amendment helps to restore trust for the American consumer, returns fairness for honey producers, and sends a message to the United States that we will not be a dumping ground for fake and fraudulent products that cheat producers and mislead consumers. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to stand with American producers and support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, this amendment doesn't have anything to do with E15. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, the heads of our different intelligence agencies have stated that the Chinese Communist Party is the number one threat to the national security of the United States. I had the opportunity to serve in Hawaii for 3 years. Hawaii has a number of different military installations that are surrounded by, for example, pineapple farms. To allow the Chinese Communist Party to purchase land around our military installations, some of the most sensitive military installations that we have, it is very surprising that you have Members from that very State with all of those military installations that wouldn't want to protect the national security of the United States. This is a very simple amendment. It doesn't matter who the President is. It matters that we are not going to allow our enemies to buy agricultural land by our military installations and put our country at risk. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, the agricultural land of the United States should be owned by Americans, not by foreign adversaries, hostile regimes, or those who actively seek to undermine the economic, food, and national security of the American people. Right now, Federal law does not have a forceful provision that strictly denies entities and persons affiliated with foreign adversaries and state sponsors of terrorism from buying up American farmland. The same governments that hack our critical infrastructure, poison our communities with fentanyl, and dare to surpass the United States on the world stage are slowly acquiring American farmland acre by acre, county by county, and State by State. My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the purchase of agricultural land by foreign adversaries and state sponsors of terrorism. The fact that our enemies and their accomplices are not already firmly restricted from purchasing agricultural land in our Nation should alarm every Member of this body. Enemy ownership of our agricultural land presents a clear, dire, and direct threat to our national security. Much of our farmland surrounds our Nation's most sensitive critical infrastructure assets and military installations, and such proximity can afford our enemies the ability to surveil our troops and disrupt critical supply chains that support military readiness and our energy grid and that keep our economy flourishing. We should never allow our enemies to gain a foothold in the shadows of the installations that protect and defend our economic and national security. Our agricultural land is perhaps one of our Nation's greatest strategic assets. It is the land that sustains American families, insulates our military installations, and serves as the backbone of the American economy. Why should we ever give our enemies a single inch of the very land that sustains our country? My amendment draws a hard line, which should have existed all along: Our enemies don't get to own America's agricultural land. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the American people's sovereign right to our farmland by voting for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5366, the Doug LaMalfa Federal Tax Relief Certainty Act. When hurricanes, wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and other disasters strike, American families are left to rebuild their homes, their businesses, their communities, and their lives. When these moments arise, the last thing they need is the Federal Government making their recovery harder by taxing relief payments or denying fair treatment for disaster losses, nor should the government be creating uncertainty in the tax code. This legislation provides certainty to disaster victims by extending and codifying commonsense tax relief for Americans impacted by federally declared disasters. It allows individuals to deduct qualified disaster-related casualty losses without having to itemize, removes burdensome limitations that can prevent families from receiving relief, and ensures certain wildfire relief payments are not treated as taxable income. For families in Florida, this issue is not theoretical. We know all too well what it means to rebuild after hurricanes, flooding, storm surge, and the aftermath of these disasters. Recovery does not happen overnight, and families should not be forced to navigate a confusing tax code, especially without certainty in what that code may be as they are still trying to repair their homes, replace their belongings, and get back on their feet. No one understood this better than our former colleague Doug LaMalfa of California. For 13 years, Doug served in Congress as a tireless advocate for disaster victims and spent years fighting to ensure families impacted by wildfires specifically receive fair treatment under the tax code. Last Congress, I was honored to fight along with Doug as I led a bipartisan coalition alongside our colleagues on the floor with us right now, Jimmy Panetta, Mike Thompson, and Jill Tokuda, as well as former Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio. Our historic efforts culminated with the Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2023 being signed into law on December 12, 2024, delivering billions in disaster tax relief to millions of Americans across 48 States. The bill we are voting on today builds upon that legislation. Today is an opportunity to secure disaster relief certainty for the wildfire victims that Doug LaMalfa spent years fighting for. It is also an opportunity to secure relief for disaster survivors who have experienced a tragic event since July 4, 2025, and who may experience one in 2026. With hurricane season on the horizon, it is critical that Floridians have certainty in the tax code. I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in advancing this legislation through the Ways and Means Committee with unanimous bipartisan support. I also thank Senator Rick Scott for leading this bill in the Senate and being a tireless leader on this issue. I also thank my aforementioned colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Jimmy Panetta, Mike Thompson, and Jill Tokuda, for their commitment to securing disaster relief for their constituents and Americans regardless of political affiliation or geography. Finally, I thank Doug LaMalfa for being an ally, a friend, and a fighter. Doug is deeply missed in this institution, and naming this bill in his honor is a simple but meaningful tribute. Mr. Speaker, when Americans are recovering from disaster, they deserve clarity, certainty, and relief, not more red tape from Washington. I urge my colleagues to support the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6495, the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act. At its core, this commonsense legislation is a simple due process idea: Before the IRS goes to your bank, your employer, your vendor, or another third party for information about you, when you can reasonably provide that information yourself, you should be told what they are looking for and given a fair chance to respond. Under current law, taxpayers can receive a general third-party contact notice, but too often those notices aren't specific enough to let a person meaningfully respond. When the IRS reaches out to third parties, it can create real-world consequences: reputational harm, confusion, or stress for families and small businesses, especially when the taxpayer could have simply produced the records directly. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is about building a healthier relationship between taxpayers and their government. Our citizens deserve a Federal Government that respects privacy and due process while still ensuring the IRS can do its job. This bill does not stop the IRS from obtaining information it truly needs. It simply ensures taxpayers receive meaningful notice and a fair opportunity to provide the information themselves when appropriate. For law-abiding Americans, compliance is already complicated enough. The least we can do is ensure that when the IRS intends to go outside the taxpayer to gather information the taxpayer can provide, the taxpayer gets clarity--what exactly is being sought--and a fair chance to respond. This is a bipartisan effort, and I am honored to work with Congressman Panetta on this legislation because protecting taxpayers and improving procedural fairness should not be partisan. I also thank Senator Barrasso of Wyoming for being the leader on this issue in the Senate, and I hope this bill can receive quick consideration in the Senate and sent to the President's desk. I thank Chairman Smith for his leadership in creating a more efficient, more transparent tax administration that works better for all taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Taxpayer Notification and Privacy Act.

Mr. STEUBE

Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution because it is nothing more than a weak and pointless attempt to attack our President and undermine our national security. We conducted a 40-minute operation to remove a drug-trafficking narcoterrorist, and Democrats are acting like we started world war III. For that brief, targeted action, they now insist Congress must step in and tie the President's hands. Let's be clear about how ridiculous this resolution truly is. It orders the United States to withdraw forces from Venezuela, yet there are no U.S. forces in Venezuela to withdraw. You cannot remove troops that don't even exist. That alone shows how unserious Democrats are in this effort. They also claim the act to remove Maduro was unconstitutional, which ignores Article II and decades of bipartisan precedent where Presidents have undertaken limited military action without a declaration of war. Clinton acted in Kosovo. Obama acted in Libya. Most similarly, George H.W. Bush captured drug-trafficker Manuel Noriega back in 1990. No one screamed constitutional crisis then. In fact, those acts were celebrated by both sides, and they were upheld by Federal courts. The bottom line is that Nicolas Maduro is a criminal defendant charged by the United States Department of Justice for narcoterrorism and drug-trafficking offenses, including conspiring to import cocaine into the United States and related weapon charges. He has run his regime like a cartel: flooding our country with poison and destroying American lives. This was not an act of war. It was an act of law enforcement. This resolution does nothing to protect the Constitution, nothing to make America safer, and nothing to stop the drugs killing our communities. It should be rejected.