▶ 0:06:2495 h.r. 1181 and h.r. 92. 37 h.r. 9022. The energy and water development and related energy agencies appropriated appropriations act 2027 provides 58.5 billion in funding for the agencies and programs that safeguard U.S. national security, unleash american energy dominance, and advance economic prosperity.
▶ 0:06:54H.r. 8595. The national security department of state and related programs appropriations act, 2027 provides 27.32 billion in funding, 6% below the fy 26 enacted level.
▶ 0:07:11This legislation reflects priorities of the america first agenda and supports the president's vision to refocus and realign foreign policy to make america safer, stronger, and more prosperous, while ensuring all funds are spent in a manner consistent with relevant executive orders. Both bills, at their very core, embody the america first agenda.
▶ 0:07:42They also harbor the identical commitment to place the safety, security, and prosperity of the american people and the entire nation first. I'm quite certain our panel from the appropriations committee will give us a thorough and pointed run through of these two bills, and I'm looking forward to the testimony that will be shared from our colleagues. H.r.
▶ 0:08:041181 the protecting privacy and purchases act, would prohibit payment card networks from using merchant codes that distinguish firearm retailers from general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers.
▶ 0:08:23Americans who exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms should never find themselves corralled under the microscope of the federal government. But that's exactly what we saw under the obama and biden administrations. When the private firearm and ammunition transactions of these citizens were monitored by the federal government under the guise of preventing mass shootings.
▶ 0:08:48The decision to do so was intrusive and entirely unacceptable. We can and should pass this legislation so that law abiding americans are not subject to scrutiny and surveillance of their financial privacy when exercising their constitutional rights. Finally, we turn to hr 9237, the take care of america's veterans act.
▶ 0:09:13That would improve the benefits and services provided to veterans and their families by amending existing laws and enhancing the efficiency of va. This legislation is a compilation of over 60 separate bills, the majority of which are overwhelmingly bipartisan, to support america's veteran community and further enhance the health care and benefit services of the va.
▶ 0:09:40As secretary collins has stated on numerous occasions and has been reflected in his and the agency's actions, the veteran is once again the core of the va's mission. This package reflects that commitment and those actions.
▶ 0:09:56Our panel from the veterans affairs committee, I'm sure, will articulate in depth how this package of bills will help cut through government bureaucracy and deliver the service and quality that our nation's veterans so deserve. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mr. mcgovern, for any comments he wishes to make. >> well, thank you, madam chair, and let me begin by being perfectly honest here.
▶ 0:10:23Every week, republicans come here and pretend that they're doing serious work. In reality, they're bending over backwards for donald trump, for billionaires, big donors, and every awful priority under the sun, while regular people get ignored and squeezed by the high prices and inflation that republicans are causing. Just look at this week's agenda.
▶ 0:10:43The state and foreign operations bill guts diplomacy, a guts development, and a guts humanitarian aid at the exact same time that this administration is hollowing out usaid and pushing out some of our country's very best experts. We've already seen what that means in the real world. Food assistance. Food assistance is getting disrupted. Life saving health programs are being thrown into chaos.
▶ 0:11:10Vulnerable people are getting left behind, not because it makes us safer, but because this administration would rather score political points than save lives. I also take issue with how this administration continues to undermine global human rights, putting us on the side of human rights abusers. That's why I've submitted an amendment to prohibit trump from withdrawing from landmark international human rights treaties.
▶ 0:11:35I hope that my amendment will be made in order so that we can have a vote on it. Given the majority's track record of making amendments or not making amendments in order, I don't have much faith, but again, I'm asking for it to be made in order so that we can at least have a debate and a vote on whether or not this administration or this congress should be withdrawing the united states from senate ratified treaties.
▶ 0:11:59The energy and water bill before us cuts, clean energy grid improvements and energy research, while families are crushed by electric bills and gas prices. Republicans will call it fiscal responsibility while families see even higher costs and the so-called protecting privacy and purchase act makes it harder to flag suspicious gun and ammunition purchases.
▶ 0:12:22I mean, gun violence is out of control, and republicans want to take tools away from law enforcement. And now republicans are advancing a veterans package that gives support for one group of veterans, paid for by slashing the benefits from another group of veterans. Instead of just doing the right thing and giving veterans the benefits that they've earned and deserve, republicans insist on paying for it by cutting other veterans benefits.
▶ 0:12:51Specifically, veterans with service connected tinnitus and also known as ringing of the ears and sleep apnea. You know, both of those things, uh, are the most common veterans casework in my district. Uh, these are real conditions that affect veterans health, their work, their families, and their daily lives. And republicans are choosing to screw them over. But that's the story of this republican controlled government.
▶ 0:13:20Their priorities are all screwed up. Uh, they want to help trump and his friends, let him steal taxpayer money to build the ballroom and ruin the reflecting pool. I mean, what a joke. You know, they they they sit back while this war and his tariffs cause inflation to skyrocket and everyday families to struggle. And then they come here and they want a pat on the back for doing nothing to fix the mess that they've created. I mean, it is absurd.
▶ 0:13:47Look at the clock is ticking down for congress to pass all 12 spending bills and fund the government. Now, we could be writing bipartisan bills that keep the government open and help people afford groceries, housing, energy, health care, and the basics. But instead, republicans keep dragging us through these partizan exercises that make people's lives harder. And then they wonder why their approval rating is in the toilet. This majority has made its priorities clear.
▶ 0:14:17And come november, the american people will have their say. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. I now welcome our panel. Representative cloud ranking member kaptur from the house committee on appropriations, energy and water development and related agencies subcommittee. That's a mouthful.
▶ 0:14:42And chairman diaz-balart and representative torres from the house committee on appropriations, national security. Department of state and related programs subcommittee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative cloud, I welcome your testimony. >> thank you. Chairwoman.
▶ 0:15:09Obviously, I'm not charles fleischmann, so I'm a stunt double today. He's on a plane, so. Yes. Hello? Hello, hello, can you hear me? Alright. Uh, I want to thank you, chairman fox, ranking member mcgovern, members of the committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm pleased to present to the rules committee the fiscal year 2027 energy and water development and related agencies appropriations bill, the fy 27 energy and water bill provides 58.5 billion.
▶ 0:15:37To uphold our commitment to safeguarding the us national security, unleashing american energy dominance and advancing our economic prosperity in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill delivers a historic investment in our national defense by providing 27.1 billion for the national nuclear security administration, prioritizing the modernization of nuclear weapons stockpile and the us navy nuclear fleet.
▶ 0:16:05The bill strengthens our nation's energy security by focusing research and development efforts on baseload energy sources and maintaining funding for programs that deliver affordable energy prices, a secure grid and long term energy stability for all americans. We continue our support for the trump administration's efforts to expand domestic nuclear power capacity and advance american leadership in civil nuclear energy around the world.
▶ 0:16:30Just this month, two advanced reactors reached critical reached criticality under the department of energy's reactor pilot program, marking an important step toward ushering in an american nuclear renaissance. This bill also makes investments to secure our domestic supply chain of critical minerals, and reduces reliance on china and other foreign adversaries to ensure america remains at the forefront of scientific discovery and innovation.
▶ 0:16:57The bill includes 8.5 billion for the department of energy's office of science. This includes support for the trump administration's genesis mission, which will harness our high performing computing capabilities and leverage ai to help address our greatest scientific challenges. America's network of coastal and inland waterways facilitates commerce, transportation, and recreation across all states and territories, connecting us with the wider world.
▶ 0:17:24This bill advances our economic prosperity and promotes public safety, providing 9.8 billion for the army corps of engineers, including full funding of harbor maintenance trust fund activities and funding for the highest priority construction projects on the inland waterways system. Funding for the bureau of reclamation is directed towards projects that increase water supply, assist in drought resilience and support rural america.
▶ 0:17:50This is a strong bill, and I ask that the committee provide an appropriate rule for its consideration today. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and I look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your succinctness. Ranking member kaptur, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair and ranking member mcgovern and members of the rules committee.
▶ 0:18:18Rising energy and water costs weigh heavily on american households and businesses, and I am pleased to appear with our colleague, congressman cloud of texas. Our nation must build an usher in a new affordable energy age and ensure mother earth is a livable planet. I'm deeply disappointed that the bill before us today tilts toward a partizan framing and hope we can course correct. Uh. As the days ensue, U.S.
▶ 0:18:47Energy independence in perpetuity is a strategic imperative. Respect for mother earth must be our north star. We are. Today at an historical moment where again, energy, water, and war are hyperlinked due to the current administration's war of choice on iran, gas prices rose above $4.50 per gallon. Diesel in my region topped $6 a gallon.
▶ 0:19:15A shrill siren song for farmers, truckers, manufacturers and businesses. History instructs us that when gas exceeds $4 per gallon, deep recession follows. We all working citizens and retirees face crushing sticker shock for transportation, heating, electricity and food.
▶ 0:19:40The american people want and rightly deserve a fair energy cost structure of our nation's $40 trillion debt, at least 20% of it, $8 trillion. It's 20% has been added by wars related to crude oil. America cannot remain energy vulnerable. Our nation needs broad domestic energy innovation, real competition and investment, not fealty to any one energy source.
▶ 0:20:12Competition and investment in modernization will drive better pricing to reach a bipartisan agreement, which our subcommittee often does. The bill's funding levels require adjustment. The bill increases defense programs by $774 million, or 2%, while cutting nondefense innovation programs by $1.8 billion, or 6%.
▶ 0:20:37Let us address the most harmful cuts in this bill, which drive our nation's energy backward. Let me run through the major cuts. These are cuts a $1.3 billion cut, or 40% 40% to critical minerals and energy innovation. This devastating reduction completely cedes promising energy breakthroughs to our commercial adversaries like china.
▶ 0:21:07This massive reduction in critical minerals undermines our ability to meet fierce global competition. Our nation must lead in all clean energy technologies, not cede the field in critical minerals, and not ignore the irresponsible accumulation of atmospheric pollutants. Also, a $50 million cut is proposed, or 14%. Uh, to arpa.
▶ 0:21:36E, our most advanced research in energy. With global population surging toward 10 billion, abandoning transformative clean energy threatens our livable future. The warning signs are all around us. Whether it's coastal battering, vast forest fires, prolonged droughts that destroy crops, or atmospheric rivers and gale force winds.
▶ 0:21:58Also, a $25 million cut occurs to electricity and grid deployment programs. With energy prices rising, cutting funds to modernize our aging grid is a nonstarter for ratepayers needing relief. Also, a $282 million cut, or 12% to nuclear nonproliferation activities. That's quite a reduction.
▶ 0:22:23And this retreat is incredibly unwise in an increasingly dangerous world made far more risky by the on again, off again war of choice in the middle east and strait of hormuz. Cutting nuclear nonproliferation leaves our world highly vulnerable, as reckless nuclear threats increase. The bill totally eliminates the army corps of engineers fuzed rap program that cleans up former nuclear waste sites.
▶ 0:22:52That makes no sense to me. Walking away from cleaning up toxic nuclear industry waste is completely unacceptable, and it directly threatens the health of our citizenry today and tomorrow. Let's not saddle the next generation with the legacy of the 20th century. Critically, this bill should only repurpose infrastructure investment and jobs fund acts through the bipartisan agreement, embracing all of the above energy strategy to assure competition and innovation going forward.
▶ 0:23:22And furthermore, the bill must be free of policy riders, including provisions to allow firearms on core public lands and prohibit clean energy solutions for federal buildings. In closing, glaringly, the bill fails to protect congress's power of the purse. Any bipartisan bill must prevent and reverse the administration's project terminations of over $9 billion nationwide. Funding for these projects was passed by congress.
▶ 0:23:49Both chambers duly signed into law and vetted by the administration. Finally, this bill should require transparency and accountability for federal spending to avoid and prevent government corruption. Until these changes are made, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Working together can yield a better deal for americans today, and open new energy and water frontiers for the tomorrows to come. And I yield back. Thank you. >> thank you, miss captain. Chairman diaz-balart.
▶ 0:24:22>> madam chairwoman, uh, what a privilege to be in front of your committee ranking member and all the members. What a privilege to be testifying in front of your committee. Um, on the fiscal year 2027, national security department of state and related programs, appropriation bills. Uh, I know the ranking member had a flight issue, but I am joined by a brilliant member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from california, Mr. privileged to be with her as well.
▶ 0:24:48The bill, uh, presented today is another step in our historic historic efforts to strengthen national security while reducing spending under chairman cole's leadership. Uh, we have delivered nearly 12 billion in responsible, responsible cuts to spending under the purview of the subcommittee since 2023.
▶ 0:25:10This bill continues that effort, uh, with an additional $2.7 billion in reductions from the enacted level. So it's helping to address, frankly, one of the greatest long term threats, uh, to our country's stability and security and prosperity. And that is our national debt. Now, there are some who will say that these reductions, uh, the magnitude of these reductions, jeopardize the united states leadership in the world and make us less, less safe.
▶ 0:25:37I completely disagree. In fact, it's just the opposite. It's just the opposite. With this bill. The bill provides the funds necessary for the president and the secretary of state to address our national security priorities and continue to transform the world in a in a way that that, frankly, is bold and, and durable, uh, and, and, and supports freedom and security.
▶ 0:26:07Let me very, I've said this before, if you're a friend or an ally of the united states, this bill supports you. But if you're an adversary or you're in cahoots with the adversaries of the united states, well, frankly, you're not going to like this bill. The bill maintains 1.8 billion, uh, for partners in the in the pacific, including 500 million in military assistance for taiwan and robust, robust funding for the philippines, for the philippines and our partners in the pacific island countries.
▶ 0:26:40And it demonstrates unwavering support for israel by providing $3.3 billion in security assistance and maintaining support for other key partners in the middle east as well. It recognizes the valuable partnerships in the western hemisphere, which continue to expand, frankly, and re-align under the leadership of president trump and secretary rubio.
▶ 0:27:04It does so by increasing support for our friends and allies such as paraguay, argentina, costa rica. Nephew, uh, expanding funding for counter-narcotics and related law enforcement efforts in our hemisphere, including investments to combat fentanyl trafficking and providing funds to support democratic transitions for the people of cuba, venezuela and nicaragua.
▶ 0:27:33Last year, the members of the nzpe subcommittee, we focused on how to responsibly transition pepfar, uh, a program that has been successful, uh, back to its partner countries, to our partner countries, I should say. Look, it's been a great success, as I mentioned, but I think most of us would agree that the program should not and cannot just be there forever.
▶ 0:27:56And ideally, we should again partner with our with other countries to have them step, step up. That's happening. That's actually happening right now. So working along side the administration countries are now really committing for the first time, in many cases, significant sums of their own resources as part of the america first global health strategy, enabling our commitments, our committee to reduce funding while still
▶ 0:28:29Achieving the same outcomes. Isn't that what we actually want to happen? Just as critical as what what's in the bill and what this bill funds is what the bill does not fund and how it strengthens conditions. It prioritizes oversight and demands accountability for every single tax dollar spent on this bill.
▶ 0:28:54The bill prohibits funds to the prc and the communist chinese party and prohibits funds to other countries from being used to repay debt owed that they may owe to communist china. It continues a key provision that blocks assistance to anyone that supports finance, finances or facilitates, uh, the operations of the cuban military, including the cuban ministry of the revolutionary armed forces and the ministry
▶ 0:29:24Of the interior. It maintains the prohibition on all all assistance to the taliban. It puts america first by withholding funds from withholding funds, funds from mexico, until that neighbor of ours delivers the water that is owed to the united states and supports full implementation of key executive orders that reflect a clear commitment to
▶ 0:29:55National sovereignty, a secure border, limited government and american values, including including those, uh, related to restoring free speech, supporting religious freedom and ending censorship, assess funding for the un is cut by $1.8 billion. No funds are included for the un. Regular budget and funds are prohibited to the world health organization.
▶ 0:30:25The united nations commission of inquiry against israel, the united nations relief and works agency commonly known as unrra, the united nations human rights council, the office of high commissioner for human rights, the international criminal court, and the international court of justice.
▶ 0:30:43The bill includes a provision to ensure that that we finally have justice for the victims of october 7th, 2023, of those heinous terrorist attack, by the way, that included 5050 murdered americans by requiring full accountability for unwra staff who participated in those heinous acts of terrorism, the bill maintains all long standing pro pro-life
▶ 0:31:15Provisions, bars funding for the unfpa and prohibits, uh, uh, prohibits spending that violates the president's protecting life and foreign assistance policy. These measures, as you know, along with strong oversight, ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions. So again, good bill spends less money, does more with less money, something that we proved was possible last year. Uh, so this continues in that same vein.
▶ 0:31:41And with that, madam chair, I thank you all for allowing us to be this hearing, and I look forward to your questions. I yield back. >> thank you, miss torres. You're recognized your former member of the committee, and we welcome you back. >> thank you, chairwoman fox. And also, um, our ranking member, mcgovern and members of the committee ranking member frankel ran into travel delays.
▶ 0:32:09So as a member of the subcommittee, I am appearing on her behalf. I want to thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle who understand how central this funding is to our national security. Regretfully, I oppose the republican fiscal year 2027 national security and state department appropriations bill as drafted. This bill should be our moment to lead. Done right.
▶ 0:32:38This bill would make america safer. However, this bill falls short. Real security is not achieved with bombs, bullying and tariffs. The apparent policies of choice for the trump administration. Real security includes strong diplomacy, development and humanitarian leadership. That's how we build alliances. That is how we grow trading partners.
▶ 0:33:06And that is how we stop disease and extremism at the source. That is how we prevent costly wars before they begin. Yet this bill hollows out our ability to pursue these critical efforts. And let's be clear about the backdrop. Us aid, dismantled programs, canceled expertise pushed to the door.
▶ 0:33:32Now a weakened state department is expected to carry the full load, despite the fact that it was never built to do so. Alarmingly, this bill caters to the worst instincts of the trump administration and pulls back american leadership at exactly the wrong moment.
▶ 0:33:55With another 2.7 billion cut proposed from the international affairs budget this year, we are investing 14 billion less through this bill than we were just four years ago. These reductions will weaken our diplomats, dismantle development programs, slash humanitarian aid, the lifeline that keeps millions alive and undermine global health and security efforts that stop threats before they reach our
▶ 0:34:25Shores. And at the very same time, in another appropriations bill scheduled to be marked up tomorrow, my republican colleagues are seeking hundreds of billions more for war, more than $1 trillion. For the first time in our history. Let me be clear. I support a strong military. And like most americans, I would rather prevent war than have our loved ones fighting in it.
▶ 0:34:53That's why the soft power in this bill before you is so essential. Diplomacy stops costly wars before they start global health programs, stop disease outbreaks before they spread. Development reduces the desperation that fuels extremism, and alliances ensure that we do not face threats alone. Those are essential ways that we keep america safe.
▶ 0:35:24Instead, this bill abandons that proven strategy. It. It eliminates funding for the united nations and u.n. Peacekeeping at a time when global cooperation has never been more important. As ambassador waltz told the subcommittee when we visited the un in march, U.S. leadership at the un is not optional. It is essential. This bill rescinds 1 billion in humanitarian aid.
▶ 0:35:53While crisis intensified across africa, eastern europe and the middle east, it undermines the health and futures of women and girls worldwide by cutting family planning. Funding for unfpa and reinstating an un expanded global gag rule, undermining the health and futures of vulnerable people worldwide.
▶ 0:36:17It zeroes out critical institutions like the us institute of peace, the inter-american foundation and the us african development foundation. This is not strength, it is retreat. And when america retreats, other like china, step in. Nowhere is that clearer than in africa, a continent with the fastest growing population and enormous economic potential. If we lead.
▶ 0:36:47Africa can be one of our strongest partners in growth and stability. If we walk away, others will shape that future without us. This is not about choosing between hard power and soft power. It is about being smart enough to use both. This bill fails that test.
▶ 0:37:06I urge this committee to reject this bill and reject floor amendments that would further weaken our alliances and partnerships, retreat from our commitments and turn our backs on people at risk and in need. Thank you, chairwoman, and I yield back. >> thank you, miss torres. Miss fischbach, I recognize you. >> thank you, madam chair. And thank you all for being here.
▶ 0:37:36And I appreciate you bringing the bill forward, because I. I support the priorities and the the direction you're taking these. And I'll just start with mister cloud. You know, I, you know, I represent a rural district and I was very happy to see in the bill that, um, it does invest significant funding in many of the rural priorities that many of us share, including construction products, projects, flood infrastructure and electric grid improvements.
▶ 0:38:05And so I'm just kind of wondering if maybe you could talk a little bit more about that. And how does this bill help build a foundation for the future success in critical areas like energy, critical minerals, water, and more? >> right. I too, am from a rural district, uh, town of 60,000 people. Uh, I, I most my district is one of those where there's more cows than people in it. Right.
▶ 0:38:28And, uh, this bill does a lot to get us back to base load energy, which was so important. Uh, the, the biden administration put a lot of dollars into chasing intermittent energy into supply chains that went through adversarial nations. Uh, I know, for example, in my community, there's a, in our district, there's a small community where they were looking to close down a coal fired plant.
▶ 0:38:57It was the only source of energy for this small town. Uh, and, and we worked with the, we were able to get that converted to a natural gas. But under the biden administration, they had said no investment literally in the budget, no investment for oil and gas, anything related to it. When we realize how important it is to have base load, and that's the quickest and easiest way to get to affordable energy, uh, continues the investment on water technology. Uh, there's a new center of excellence that's been developed.
▶ 0:39:27This puts research dollars into providing smart water, uh, research and technologies and building out the infrastructure that's needed. Uh, that along with what, uh, the administration is working on recently. It was just about two weeks ago, three weeks ago, omb announced that they're lifting, uh, what had been a $30 million cap on water infrastructure projects.
▶ 0:39:49Uh, and so with the funds provided in this bill, along with the removing that cap that, that opens up the door to infrastructure, water, serious water infrastructure projects going forward that can really help rural communities. Uh, and really just continues to, to provide a future that we can economically sustainable path, uh, to affordable energy for, specifically for our rural communities.
▶ 0:40:14And thank you for serving in an area like that as certainly unique, uh, unique demands, uh, that we don't find in metroplexes. >> but that's right. Well, and thank you very much, and I appreciate you being here today. And thank you for the response, because I do think it is that, you know, that direction that we are moving and trying to, um, you know, make sure that we support those areas and that we are doing what we need to do for sustainability to continue in economic growth and all of the, all of the things that we want in our rural areas.
▶ 0:40:43So, and, and across the country. So, but thank you very much. Um, Mr. chairman, turning to um h.r. 8595. Um, I think, uh, you know, national security obviously is of the utmost importance. And it's incredibly, incredibly important right now. And so I do appreciate, you know, the, the way that you've pushed, moved, um, moved the direction and, and you also recognize that we are facing incredible amounts of debt.
▶ 0:41:12And so, um, I think one of the things that really struck me was the provision in the bill, although there's many great ones that it's the $1.66 billion for the international narcotics control and law enforcement. Um, and that's an increase. Um, because I think it's so critical and maybe you can expand on how this will really help combat the ongoing fentanyl crisis that's killing americans every day. >> well, thank you for the question and thank you for, for the interest in that issue.
▶ 0:41:42Look, that's an issue that I think has strong support in congress, in the house. Um, in our committee, we're we're fortunate to have one of the leaders fighting fentanyl, for example, and other type, uh, drugs that are killing americans in droves. And that's the dean of the house, hal rogers. Uh, he keeps us focused on that issue time and time again. And you're right, we put additional money, uh, to do that in this bill. So while we are reducing funding, we are funding, we're putting more money into things that are really that have an impact and that are hugely important.
▶ 0:42:10This is one of those, um, so we're putting more money. And I will tell you, I, I just recently got back from a, a leading a code to south america. And, um, this is one of those areas that our ambassadors will always talk to us about and specifically where we've put the additional money are areas that actually have an impact save american lives. Um, and we're very proud of doing that. As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation.
▶ 0:42:37Well, while we are spending less overall, we're doing more critical spending on issues that are highly important. We did those. We did this in fy 26. A lot of folks thought it was impossible. I remember coming here and we had some, some interesting debates. Uh, we were able to pass that off the floor and negotiate with the senate. And again, a reduction overall, but doing more important things.
▶ 0:42:59If there's one area that we can that we have been making can make an impact and we can do so, um, by putting some more resources is in this area that you're talking about fighting narcotics, fighting, fentanyl, fighting, uh, transnational criminal organizations that, by the way, not only traffic and fentanyl and in drugs, but they also traffic in humans and they traffic in weapons. You know, we, these are dangerous organizations. So we've put more resources, more funding.
▶ 0:43:28Uh, it's something that I think has, I hope, strong bipartisan support. Um, and that I hope that we'll be able to, like, we were able to do in 26 keep, uh, after the negotiations with the senate. >> well, and thank you very much, because I recognize this is a huge issue with the fentanyl issue. And, and you mentioned the other, um, the other kind of crimes that you're combating by just doing this. Um, and so I appreciate that.
▶ 0:43:56And I, I appreciate that you are redirecting your, you recognize the debt, you recognize the need to reduce spending, but you also prioritize those things that will really, truly make a difference. So thank you very much. And thank you both for being here. And I yield back. >> thank you, miss fischbach. Um. I understand we're going to have a little switch in witnesses here, so we'll give them a chance to do that. And I'll recognize Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 0:44:27>> I love I love what my republican friends talk about. They need to cut humanitarian aid programs, food aid programs, uh, because they're worried about the debt. But nobody on the other side said a word when he, uh, passed a tax cut bill that benefited multi-millionaires and billionaires that added trillions to the debt. Yes. And last week, um, the week before last, we added another $70 billion to the $100 billion that ice and cbp already have. None of it is offset.
▶ 0:44:56All of it goes to no one says a word about that. But when it comes to programs to feed hungry people, all of a sudden, you know, oh, we gotta, we gotta tighten our belts. Um, let me, let me, let me, I want to begin with. I have a few questions. I'll try to be quick here. Um, let me since you're all appropriators, this is a question that I get asked a lot during the break by my constituents. In fact, a gentleman on the airplane down here, uh, today asked me about this, and that's the president's ballroom.
▶ 0:45:24Uh, you know, his lavish ballroom, which he said on multiple occasions would be 100% privately funded. I mean, he said that a million times, 100% privately funded. Uh, so let me just ask you. Yes. No. Or maybe, uh, do you support, um, using taxpayer dollars to fund president trump's ballroom marcy kaptur? Do you support using taxpayer funding to fund the ballroom?
▶ 0:45:57>> well, uh, Mr. ranking member, I do not. Thank you. >> miss frankel. >> no. >> Mr. diaz-balart. >> uh, there's no funding for any ballroom in my in my appropriation bill, just so you know, because it deals with foreign policy. >> uh, I'll note there's no funding in the energy and water. >> so, so so let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let me, let, let both of you, Mr. diaz-balart, and cloud in on something your appropriators.
▶ 0:46:22And I'm, and I'm surprised you don't know this, but are you aware that president trump and his team have transferred roughly $400 million in taxpayer dollars that congress appropriated to the secret service and put into the white house repair and restoration account in order to make, quote, security upgrades as part of the ballroom construction project. So when you say there's no taxpayer funds going to this, are you aware that. Well, I mean, but your appropriators and you, you, I mean, you, you, you're on the full committee as well.
▶ 0:46:49Are you aware that taxpayer dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars are going to this ballroom? Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Well, I'm I'm questioning you. Do you don't have to get permission from the chair. Yeah. >> so I, I am aware that we have a pretty high risk security situation. We have a president who's now suffering. >> and so you support that. >> I support making sure that the president of the united states is safe, is safe. But you have not seen any details of. >> I will provide you the details, look forward to it.
▶ 0:47:19And b has provided us all the monies that where there were transfers, I mean, um, in fact, I could, I can tell you right now that a transfer of $340.8 million in taxpayer dollars to the ballroom construction on june 12th, 2026, a second transfer of $10.75 million in taxpayer dollars to the ballroom construction. Also on june 12th, a third transfer on june 15th of $45 million and taxpayer dollars, again to the ballroom construction.
▶ 0:47:49I mean, I have the documents from the office of management and budget right here. So I, I it's it's stunning to me that as appropriators that you're unaware of the transfers. But here's my question. If I were on the appropriations committee, you know, I mean, and I work to get money appropriated for x or for y, I would want to make sure that the executive branch, whether it's a republican administration or a democratic administration, respected the will of congress that actually did what we what appropriators said they would do.
▶ 0:48:17So I mean, I mean, this is an end run. This is a this is like an end run around congress. Is that is that something you support? And if not, what can the appropriations committee do to stop it? >> um, I don't know. I, I took a tour of the white house defense apparatus with the secret service recently. I would wonder if you've taken that same tour. >> I don't think they'll let me on the white house grounds. Um, so I mean, uh, you know, I mean, I with this president, I, I don't think, but I mean, but, but the point is if you support.
▶ 0:48:48>> but have you ever taken, have. >> you ever taken. Have you ever taken it before? If you support. >> have you ever taken that tour. >> yeah, I have taken the tour. Yeah. >> not, not the white house tour of the security defense apparatus. Yeah. I had the chance to talk to the secret service. And, you know, when we visit the white house right now, the the visitors to the white house go through tents. Basically, they stand out in the open when we hold state dinners. It's basically a lawn that could be have just been rained under. Uh, and yeah, and the ballroom portion. >> but this, I think.
▶ 0:49:20>> there, there's. >> a no, he isn't. >> there's a security component to the ballroom that you should probably look into. And certain things that we can't talk about in. >> this committee is why don't you appropriate the funding? Why do you allow the administration to do an end run around this? I mean, you you have appropriation bills coming up right now. You can fund hundreds of millions of dollars as you see fit. Why not just do it? >> can I may I address that? My address. Thank you sir. Look, um, valid question.
▶ 0:49:46Uh, but it is a little rich because I do remember when the previous administration, there were hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent by then president biden's administration that were neither appropriated nor authorized. And then it went to the supreme court of the united states. When the supreme court, united states, said it was unconstitutional. By the way, uh, I don't remember, uh, the outrage by some of our democratic colleagues about that taking place. Now, having said that. >> it's unconstitutional.
▶ 0:50:14>> having no, no, no, what was unconstitutional was a time when the democrats did not speak out, when president biden did. Now. >> let me recall my time. >> if you don't want me to answer it, then I get that because you don't like the answer. But that is. >> my my question is, are you saying that this money that the president is spending, which was not authorized or appropriated for this use is unconstitutional. If not, then. Do you approve of this money being spent on the ballroom? It's a simple question, not a trick question. >> no. If I may. What I'm saying is that we are here.
▶ 0:50:43We have appropriation bills in front of you. We have two appropriation bills. By the way, none of these two bills deal with that specific issue. Um, but again, it's it's a little rich when I hear all of a sudden, all of a sudden a wake up that, uh, that, that, you know, money that was not appropriated should or should not be appropriated when the previous administration did so.
▶ 0:51:04And the supreme court of the united states said that it was wrong, and I do not remember, I may be wrong because maybe I can get you can get me some of your quotes, uh, demanding accountability to the president. >> you support taxpayer funding for this, for this ballroom. I support it because it was they tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, but it became so unpopular that they removed it. >> I support two appropriation bills that are in front of you right now, again, neither of which have that issue. >> so then I, I will put you both down as saying that, you. >> know, I'm saying what I'm saying. Mr. Mr.
▶ 0:51:35>> I don't support that money. >> no, what I'm saying is I support these appropriation bills in front of you. None of these. >> maybe I don't know. I mean, I mean, anyway. >> no, look, you don't like the answer and you're sure and you're sure we're not complaining? When the previous administration did a lot more egregious than what you're claiming is happening. >> today, defending this president's, uh, unauthorized transfer of funds, uh, to to do this. But let me ask Mr.
▶ 0:51:59Cloud, you have submitted your amendment to permanently block the federal government from issuing a central bank digital currency. 38 times in this congress. >> you're welcome. >> and each and every one of those times, the rules committee controlled by your party, has blocked your amendment from being made in order. So I see that you have filed your amendment for 39th time today. Uh, before our committee. My question. >> is holding out hope. >> republicans block your amendment for the 39th time. Will you vote against the rule?
▶ 0:52:35>> I'll think. >> about it. >> okay. The question why would you continue to overrule that, block your own amendments from from getting votes? Um, your party's in the majority. Let me just one final question for Mr. diaz-balart. Um, uh, yeah, I, you know, I'm looking over the, you know, the, your, your, the national security department of state and related programs appropriations bill. And I'll be honest with you, I that does not reflect my values and I think it weakens the united states.
▶ 0:53:03I think gutting programs that actually help, uh, deal with humanitarian crises, um, is a bad thing for the united states, undercuts our national security. And I think national security needs to be thought of in terms that is not just about our military might, but about the good stuff that we do. Um, and, and, and I also am deeply troubled by the de-emphasis of human rights by this administration. Um, and by, quite frankly, congress.
▶ 0:53:30I mean, the president went to china recently, um, and met with president xi. I was stunned that human rights was not a priority on their agenda. Um, and not part of the readout of, of his statement. I think president xi is a horrific dictator that is abusing the chinese people, that anybody who disagrees with him is put in jail. We have tons of political prisoners. And I would like to think that if any country in the world was out there fighting for these people, it would be the united states.
▶ 0:53:59But my question to you is, the trump administration is relying on the un over and over for their priorities as the main channel for humanitarian aid to legitimize the gaza ceasefire, for new security arrangements in haiti, and now to get nuclear weapons inspectors back into iran. That's what the trump administration is relying on the un. Yet this committee isn't funding the un. That just seems illogical. It's counterproductive, and it makes us look like a cowardly cheapskate in the eyes of the world. The us should lead. Um.
▶ 0:54:31And it is beneath us to be a free loader. So my question is, why isn't this committee funding the un to meet both the president's priorities? But the president has said he wants the un to do and congresses on human rights, on disease prevention, on conflict prevention and other matters. >> thank you. Um, yeah, you're right that we do, um, we do cut a lot of funding for the, for the, for the un general fund. We do, however, fund some key issues that the un does.
▶ 0:54:59Now, we don't fund some things that frankly are just a waste of money. Um, you mentioned human rights. Yeah. I think you and I would probably agree on one thing, which is that the human rights council, the un, un human rights council is made up of among the worst human rights violators in the planet, and to continue to fund entities like that, which all they do is they take our money and then use that money to frankly, uh, you know, just go after the united states and our allies while being made up of the worst
▶ 0:55:31Human rights violators in the world is just not serious. Uh, so while we're funding again, I go back to what I said at the beginning. We're funding key issues, but we're not just spending money and throwing money away on wasteful. >> but the money doesn't go to those countries. It goes to the body, right? I mean, it doesn't go to those countries. Yes, it goes I and I and I, and I'm just going to say this because I'm going to be gaveled down here. Um, you know, as the co-chair of the human rights, tom lantos human rights commission, named after tom lantos, the only holocaust survivor to serve in congress.
▶ 0:56:01It is stunning to me how our country has withdrawn from being a leader on human rights. It is an afterthought, and some of the president's closest allies are the worst human rights abusers in the world. And I, I again, it's really troubling. And I think it it's it's one of those things that undercuts our overall national security. And I'm being cut off. So I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. griffin, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. Um, anything additional, Mr. claude, that you would like to add?
▶ 0:56:34>> about the bill? >> uh, about the bill? Always good to talk about the bill. I mean, I'd. >> love an energy and water question. I kind of thought that's what we were going to be talking about today. >> so yeah, welcome to rules. >> oh thank you. >> we don't always talk about what we're supposed to. I understand it drives me crazy too. >> yeah. I will say the central bank digital currency would present, uh, a the ultimate surveillance tool and tool of control.
▶ 0:56:57Uh, and it is so vitally important that we do everything we can to, to make sure that our kids and our grandkids never have to deal with that. >> and, and I agree with you. Uh, I am told, however, it's not germane to this bill. >> I, I understand that, but I will keep trying. >> uh, and I, and I appreciate your efforts and when we can get your main. I will vote with you. Uh, chairman diaz-balart, uh, did you have anything additional you'd like to add? >> no. Thank you. Look, I think this is a very good bill.
▶ 0:57:26Um, you'll recall that when we were here for fiscal year 26, we heard the same naysayers say that, uh, we couldn't cut spending, that it was in the world's going to fall apart. And what we found is that, uh, if you're an ally, we're supporting you, we're helping you, but we're just not wasting money on things that don't work or that are actually not only not helping our national security, but they're hurting our national security. Uh, this goes, this bill goes a little bit further in that same direction. We proved that we were right in fiscal year 26.
▶ 0:57:56And, uh, if, if assuming this bill goes to the floor, uh, we hope to continue in that same trajectory of spending less money while doing more to strengthen our national security. So thank you, sir. >> I appreciate it. With that, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. griffith. Um, miss scanlon? >> yeah. I just want to say, for the record, uh, this committee, while it may not they may not make specific amendments in order that are non-germane routinely, you know, self execute, uh, matters that are non-germane into bills.
▶ 0:58:25Um, and so, uh, the reality is that that's just not a good excuse, but I want to clarify that for the record, I yield back. >> thank you. So we've got two appropriations bills here today, and I don't think by any stretch of the imagination, you can credibly say that they put americans first. Instead, they cut programs.
▶ 0:58:47They cut programs that would increase our national security, and they cut programs that would decrease energy costs. I mean, for months, the president has been waging a war against iran that has cost american taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Every american is feeling the impact of this illegal war as it's disrupted global energy markets.
▶ 0:59:12It's driven up fuel and fertilizer costs, and it's worsened the cost of living crisis that is facing families and businesses across the country. My constituents feel it every time they fill up their gas tanks, pay their electric bills or try to make ends meet. But instead of addressing these challenges, these two appropriations bills are going to make those problems worse.
▶ 0:59:33In the energy and water bill, republicans cut billions from non-defense programs so they can increase defense spending by nearly $800 million. It slashes funding for programs that help develop clean, affordable and secure energy by 40%, investments that would strengthen american energy independence and promote the all of the above strategy. Rather than increasing reliance on fossil fuels. The alternative would help lower costs.
▶ 1:00:03This bill will raise them. It also cuts funding for the army corps of engineers by $660 million. In my district. That agency has been an essential partner in developing long overdue flood mitigation solutions for eastwick, a community that has experienced repeated and devastating flooding because of unchecked development and aging infrastructure. But just recently, the corps said, oh, we can't afford to continue helping you. So the misplaced priorities don't stop with the energy and water bill.
▶ 1:00:32While republicans spend billions on foreign wars and power grabs, their national security and state department bill continues to gut global health programs and humanitarian assistance, which objectively have made us more secure. We're already seeing the consequences of hollowing out usaid, withdrawing from the world health organization, and canceling programs to identify and contain dangerous disease outbreaks.
▶ 1:01:00Research indicates that already 750 000 people, including half a million children, have died as a direct result of the cuts that have already been made to usaid and the cancellation of programs which have allowed malaria, hiv, aids and tuberculosis to spread without being checked, that have interrupted nutrition, vaccines and treatment for new mothers and infants, and the abrupt end of humanitarian aid
▶ 1:01:32Has led to the collapse of food distribution and sanitation services in several countries. It is projected that the cuts to usaid will cause more than 14 million deaths by 2030. I mean, we've just seen in recent days that health officials are struggling to contain the ebola outbreak in central africa.
▶ 1:01:52The us is once again confronting the spread of the new world screwworm, a pest that was eradicated in this country in the 1960s but is now on the move again in several states threatening our beef industry. So we know that an outbreak miles away, countries away, can become local in a matter of days, and investments in global health are investments in american national security.
▶ 1:02:19And because no republican appropriations bill would be complete without partizan culture war writers, uh, this bill also includes provisions to ban pride flags at U.S. embassies and to dramatically expand the global gag rule, which prohibits even foreign nonprofits from providing reproductive health counseling or services if they receive us dollars. Um, and if those services include abortion care, even if no U.S.
▶ 1:02:47Funds are being used to provide those services, we know where that leads clinics, close health care providers withdraw services, and patients lose access to maternal health care, hiv treatment, and other basic health services. So as one of our witnesses said earlier, national security is about more than military force.
▶ 1:03:07We have to prioritize energy security, resilient infrastructure and our ability to respond to global crises before they reach our shores. These bills don't meet that test, and they fail to address the real challenges facing americans. Um, ranking member kaptur, um, americans are paying higher prices for gas, electricity, and other necessities.
▶ 1:03:32Um, does this energy and water bill do anything meaningful to lower energy costs? And does it help us reach energy independence? >> no, actually, the bill takes a backward step. Uh, and so many of the areas that we summarized in our formal testimony to, uh, provide more modern grid to provide greater competition, which is really the answer to lowering costs, to invest in innovation in the
▶ 1:04:03Energy sector. All of those accounts have been, uh, reduced, uh, and in the critical minerals area, which is so important to new forms of power, the cut is 40%. I mean, it's, it's massive. It yields, unfortunately, extra advantage, especially to china, but not only china. Uh, as we look at the ways in which we source critical minerals around the world, so it doesn't reduce energy prices to anyone.
▶ 1:04:31And it cuts many of the behind the grid, uh, inventions that have made, um, more affordable power possible. So, for example, in the foster in the arena of, uh, solar power, for example, um, and I could give you many examples. Um, Mrs.
▶ 1:04:52Uh, fischbach was talking about rural america where even in ohio, what innovative mayors have been doing in towns of under five, 000 people actually providing back of the grid power to their people? Uh, it's, it's revolutionary and it's important to them. Uh, and it reduces costs. So, um, you know, this bill is not admirable, uh, in, in that regard.
▶ 1:05:17And I wanted to just, if I could just say a word of ranking member mcgovern talked about the role of the appropriations committee. I'm a senior member on the appropriations committee. I've never served, and I've served in congress a long time, uh, through many presidencies. I have never seen an administration abuse the appropriations power as this administration is doing unconstitutionally. Certainly in the examples you pointed out with the ballroom. But now we're at war. And when we attempt to find out.
▶ 1:05:47And that is not the purpose of this hearing today, I understand that where the money is being taken from billions of dollars a week to conduct this war, there are no appropriated accounts that have been submitted to us for approval on an emergency basis, and that money is being taken from somewhere. And this is what secretary hicks said to me when I asked him, from which accounts are you taking dollars in order to conduct this war? He said, from the general accounts, I replied to him, there are no such accounts.
▶ 1:06:16I want to know exactly from where you are taking the funds away. And his answer was, call my office, I said. With whom? In your office should I speak? And he said, anyone. Now, uh, the law will eventually lock down and we will follow the constitutional mandates for the movement of dollars. That is our responsibility under article one of the constitution as appropriators, and we intend to pursue it.
▶ 1:06:44Uh, but it won't happen tomorrow. It will. It will require litigation. >> thank you for that. Um, I share your concern. I mean, with respect to the energy and water bill with respect to solar energy, we've seen the impact of federal investment in being able to move communities, churches, temples, mosques, schools to adopt solar energy, which then lowers their costs and enables them to accomplish their mission.
▶ 1:07:13And it just doesn't happen without assistance from the government to help people make that transition. So it is very concerning to see, um, those cuts coming in and undermining the progress that that our country has been making in that way. >> very good point. >> very good.
▶ 1:07:30Representative frankel um, you know, we're seeing a lot of this sort of penny wise pound foolish, um, approach to the appropriations bills, you know, talking about, oh, we're saving x amount of money by cutting all these efforts to control diseases overseas or to relieve hunger overseas. Um, what is the impact when we cut this kind of humanitarian aid and crisis worsen, instability grows?
▶ 1:07:58How does this create greater costs and security challenges for our country? >> thank you for your question. Thank you to the members of rules for your work. And, uh, just to say that, uh, regretfully, I I'm not as you know, I'm not supporting this bill. I'm hoping we can do a better job together. We do work well together, but, uh, this is bill falls very short. I don't know if you know this, but my, my my son ben, he's alive and. Well, let's start with that.
▶ 1:08:29But he's. Oh, is he? He's a us marine veteran. He went to two wars and I came to congress with the mission to keep any other people's children from going to war. And that's really what, uh, drove me to get on this particular committee. We call it the committee of soft power. Um, as my colleague, uh, miss torres said, that you you can't just have the trump administration with the bombs and the tariffs and the bullying.
▶ 1:08:58That's not going to be the way to keep us secure and prosperous. And it is through diplomacy, development and humanitarian assistance is the way to we create trading partners. We keep, uh, people from, from being disenchanted and maybe joining terrorist terrorist groups. And we keep diseases from coming here. So, uh, this bill falls far short. I think we can do better.
▶ 1:09:27I know we're going to strive to do better. And I thank you for your attention. >> I appreciate that I was really struck a few years back. I had the opportunity to visit the northern triangle countries in central america and meet with folks there.
▶ 1:09:41And they talked about how the very small investment, $600 a year, I think, was the figure we were given, could provide enough support to fight corruption, fight hunger, fight disease, and help people stay in their home countries as opposed to migrating. And that's much of what can be done with this bill. Um, as opposed to this migration from this administration to renaming. You know, we're no longer trying to defend the country. They're trying to commit wars.
▶ 1:10:11So it's no. >> well, you could see tomorrow will be marking up a defense bill over $1 trillion for the first time in our history. That's where the money's going. It's not going to lift us up domestically or even where I think we should be going in the soft power.
▶ 1:10:27And I want to just add this, uh, we had marco rubio, uh, in front of our committee committee, and we asked him why, uh, contraceptives were just basically rotting away in warehouses overseas, millions of dollars worth. And he said to us, well, we're not in the family planning business. And, uh, that was evident when we this bill came across to us. We're family planning for women under resourced women around the world was completely cut.
▶ 1:10:59Right. Uh, we need to do much more to uplift the mothers and the grandmothers and the sisters. >> absolutely. I mean, we've seen time and again, food left to rot, medicines left to spoil or become out of date. It is the worst form of fraud, waste and abuse, I think, although of course the rotting reflecting pool is is way up there. Um, I yield back. Thank you. >> thank you very much, Mr. jack. You're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:11:27Uh, chairman diaz-balart, appreciate your testimony today. Could you walk us through compared to 2026, how much spending you were able to cut from this appropriations bill in line with what the american people wanted when they elected us? The majority, which is a more efficient government that spends money more wisely? >> yes, sir. Thank you. Thanks for the question. Uh, it's a bill has an additional $2.7 billion reduction from the enacted fiscal year 26.
▶ 1:11:56>> and just to frame this going forward, you know, I always like to try to bring voters back home into the mindset that we have here in congress. What is a vote against this bill? What are you when when we have this on the floor later this week, if the rule passes, which it will, what are voters or rather, what are members of congress voting against if they vote no?
▶ 1:12:17>> uh, confronting our adversaries, uh, helping our allies, making sure that the, that our country is stronger, more secure, more prosperous, safer, uh, but in a way that also spends less money. And so what we have proven in this congress, under the chairmanship of tom cole, chairman cole, is that in this particular subcommittee, we've proven it. This is no longer theory is that we can spend less and do better.
▶ 1:12:44Uh, that not only helps our taxpayer, our fiscal situation, which is obviously a grave concern, it should be a grave concern to everyone, everyone. But but we can also, while spending less overall do more to help our our allies do more to confront our adversaries, do more for the national security interests of the united states. We proved that in fiscal year. Uh, actually, we started that process in fiscal year 25 under president biden. But those are tough negotiations.
▶ 1:13:13But we reduced some spending even, uh, with president biden in the white house once. Uh, I got this chairmanship, uh, in fiscal year 26, we did it in a much more dramatic way, I think, in a much more effective fashion. This takes us to some in the same direction. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting, in essence, against confronting our adversaries in a stronger way, helping our allies in a more forthright way, and yet doing so with spending less taxpayer money. >> well put, madam chair. I yield back. >> madam chair.
▶ 1:13:43>> thank you very much, Mr. mcgovern. >> just just for the record, um, the size of the cut in your bill is about 4% of what you spent on ice and cbp with no offset, which is one of the reasons why the debt has gone up $3 trillion since trump took office. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Um, Mr. chairman, I was going to ask you a similar question to what Mr. jack asked you.
▶ 1:14:11Uh, I think he did a very good job of helping us. Helping you explain a little bit more when you were interrupted earlier. I think, in your comments. And let me step back a minute. I, I want to thank the veterans who are here and the rules committee today. Um, thank you for coming to the rules committee. But more importantly, thank you very much for your service. We're very grateful to have you here today.
▶ 1:14:39Um, is there anything else, chairman diaz-balart, that you want to add to what it seems to me that you've spelled out very clearly the choice that we will be making on whether we vote for or against this piece of legislation, as you said, helping our allies, denying money to our adversaries, those things that you spelled out. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
▶ 1:15:07>> I look, you all are extremely busy, and I want to thank you all for your service and your time. And I think I've explained it obviously always willing to answer any other any other questions. But madam chairwoman, I think I think we've, uh, I hope that I've explained this bill in a way that is understandable. Uh, it's a good bill. It's a common sense. Bill spends less money, does more for our national security. I think, uh, it's a darn good bill. >> thank you. And national security is our number one role at the federal government level, our number one role.
▶ 1:15:37It's why we are a united states of america. It's why we came together 250 years ago, and that was for national security. I thank our witnesses very much for being here. You are excused.
▶ 1:16:47>> oh. Thank you. Yes. And. >> I now welcome our panel chairman bost and ranking member takano from the house veterans affairs committee. Yeah, yeah, sure. >> okay.
▶ 1:17:24>> mark, mark, hand those to me if you want to. Just put them up here. That's okay. Just put them up here and we'll get them. We'll take care of them. We'll take care of them. Thank you. I didn't want you to have a chance of spilling them. So. So I'll spill them for you. >> no need to spill. >> thank you. Thank you, ryan. Thank you. Ryan.
▶ 1:17:49Again, I welcome our panel chairman, boston ranking member takano from the house veterans affairs committee. Your full statements will be submitted. For the record, we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman bost, I welcome your testimony. >> well, thank you, chairman, ranking member mcgovern and members of the rules committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today, and I am here to speak on support of h.r.
▶ 1:18:199237, the take care of americans veterans act. I respectfully ask that you issue an appropriate rule for its consideration. If you choose to make amendments in order, I ask that you do not include any amendments that would undermine the purpose of the bill or increase its cost. Madam chairwoman, the legislation is the most comprehensive veterans package to be considered in congress in decades. H.r.
▶ 1:18:449237 includes more than 60 bipartisan bills to improve va veterans benefits, veterans health care, and accountability across the entire department. But this bill is not important because of how many provisions are in it. It is important because of whom it helps. The bill begins with the major richard star act.
▶ 1:19:08For decades, combat injured veterans who were medically retired from the military have been forced to give up a portion of their earned retirement pay simply because they also received va disability compensation. This issue has persisted for years because we cannot and have not been able to find a way to pay for fixing it.
▶ 1:19:32These are men and women who were injured in service to their country, and the federal government turned around and told them they could not receive the full benefits they had earned. This bill would end that injustice and allow combat injured veterans to receive both benefit. By ensuring these veterans receive no more than 20 years, retirees with the same disability.
▶ 1:19:55This bill also includes the love lives on act, which would eliminate the choice surviving survivors have to face when choosing to remarry or keep their benefits. Under current law, those that choose to remarry before age 55 must give up those va benefits. But those who benefit. But those benefits were owned by a service members and veterans who sacrificed for this country. We want surviving spouses to rebuild their lives.
▶ 1:20:27This bill would make sure to help them make that a little easier. Hr 9237 also includes the sharon riley richard edmondson veterans benefit expansion act. This would increase benefits for catastrophic disabled veterans who require round the clock care and increased survivor's pensions. These are veterans whose injuries change the course of their lives and the lives of their families forever.
▶ 1:20:54Our nation's surviving spouses, spouses and several and severely disabled veterans have not seen an increase in benefits in decades. And I'm proud to announce that this bill would significantly boost and increase both of those h.r. 9237 also includes the veterans access act. For years, veterans have watched government bureaucracies read, restrict the community health care access. Congress promises them.
▶ 1:21:24That is not what congress intended under the choice act. That is not what congress intended under the mission act, and veterans deserve better. Veterans should be able to access care in their communities, period. This bill rightfully puts veterans back in the center of the va health care. It would also improve transitions, assistance and education benefits to better prepare veterans for for civilian life.
▶ 1:21:51Furthermore, it would modernize the disability claims appeals process so veterans are not treated like a number and lost in a huge system. This bill would also reform va construction, leasing, and it systems that are bogged down with red tape. Madam chairman, consideration of this legislation is long overdue. Many of these provisions are not new ideas.
▶ 1:22:18They are long standing priorities of veterans, military families, survivors, caregivers, veterans service organizations have been waiting for congress to fix for years. The major richard star act is the best example. A press release and a hand and a handshake alone will not end an unfair policy. All the passing paid for legislation does that. I want to take a moment to address the offset in this legislation.
▶ 1:22:45House democrats opposition to this offset is political. Is is politics at its worst? This offset can codifies a biden era proposed rule. Let me say it again. This proposal came from the biden administration. Originally, the rule would alter the way va evaluates service, connected sleep apnea and tendonitis. The offset is pointing forward.
▶ 1:23:15Let me say this very clearly no current recipient would see their benefits changed by this legislation. No. No current recipient would see their benefits change by this legislation. Va testified that va before the va subcommittee that they planned to finalize this rule by the end of the fiscal year. These changes are not new. They reflect a bipartisan scientific process.
▶ 1:23:47I want these changes to benefit the veterans. Democrats want to play politics. This bill would give the house a serious, responsible path to promote to promoting real change for our veterans. Madam chairman, this is basic, good government principle at stake here. When congress passes legislation, it has a responsibility to pay for it.
▶ 1:24:10Senate va committee chairman jerry moran and I have worked hard to put forward a paid for package that can become law. Unfortunately, my democrat colleagues have chosen a different path. They have pushed a discharge petition designed to message vote, message a vote on legislation that they know will die in the senate because it's not paid for. My colleagues know that, and my fellow veterans deserve more.
▶ 1:24:39That is what the take care of american veterans act will do. I, I respectfully ask the committee to report an appropriate rule and allow the house to consider the take care of american veterans act. Thank you for your consideration, I yield back. >> thank you. Chairman, ranking member. Takano. You're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. >> well, good afternoon, chairwoman and ranking member mcgovern.
▶ 1:25:06You know, I wish I were here under better circumstances. Yet here I am to warn you and members of this house about the dangerous and harmful bill before you today. What? My republican colleagues have concocted a bill they've completely, without irony, called the take care of america's veterans act, is the largest cut to veterans benefits in the history of this country. Now, I wish I were being hyperbolic here, but I'm sadly not.
▶ 1:25:35Republicans are prepared to rip away benefits from at least 1.5 million veterans, including currently serving members of the military. Members are willingly taking. Republicans are willingly taking tens of billions of dollars from veterans pockets because they are too timid to do the right thing for our nation's veterans. They have argued that this is inevitable.
▶ 1:26:01But my colleague, chairman basta said, referred to something inevitable, that it is necessary and that it is the only way. Emphatically it is not. And they know it and veterans know it, and even the trump va knows it and has said so publicly. When republicans tried to pin this cut on the va, veterans are telling us they don't want this cut.
▶ 1:26:22Veterans service organizations, including veterans of foreign wars and disabled american veterans, the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, and many others have publicly stated that they oppose this bill and reject the premise of its funding mechanism. We should reject it, too. We cannot accept that the only way to fulfill our sacred promise to veterans is by taking benefits away.
▶ 1:26:46What makes me most angry is how cynical this legislation is and how cruel it is. This bill represents republicans response to the fact that we are just five signatures away from getting the major richard star act to the house floor.
▶ 1:27:00Momentum is growing here and in the senate, and their plan to tamp down that enthusiasm and stop the train on the number one priority is to cram a watered down, concurrent receipt section into a monster bill, slap benefit cuts and home loan fees increases on it, and then have the gall to call it the take care of america's veterans act.
▶ 1:27:25No, this bill is the taking benefits from america's veterans act, and I want to emphasize the word taking. What is even more confounding is that this bill takes benefits from veterans to pay for what the department of defense owes. Military retirement is a dod obligation, and dod holds the balance of what is owed to veterans who were medically retired due to combat injuries.
▶ 1:27:54So why are republicans insisting on siphoning money away from veterans to pay for the major richard star act? This stands in direct contradiction to what chairman boss told this committee the last time we were here, and what he said on the floor numerous times. He loves to boast that as a veteran himself, he would never do anything to harm veterans. We know that isn't true because of the very bill we have before us today.
▶ 1:28:19Now, how is it okay for dod to reach into veterans pockets past, present or future to pay for this bill? It makes no sense in any context. The house has reached new lows. This congress. But this is a new low for our committee, a totally partizan bill drafted in secret. No discussion, no negotiation, no collaboration with vsos and stakeholders, no legislative process or markup on a massive 600 page bill.
▶ 1:28:46This is a complete departure from how the veterans affairs committee has done business in the past. Maybe it was drafted in the dark, because republicans know that if this bill were exposed to the light of day for too long, it would be revealed to be for what it truly is. Unfortunately for my colleagues, their ploy didn't work. Veterans have taken notice and they overwhelmingly object. My republican colleague has also tried to argue that this benefits cut is inevitable because of the department of veterans affairs.
▶ 1:29:16Uh, was already it was already trying to do the same thing, and they needed to get ahead of it so republicans can control the money. And he's also referred to the false notion that this was an attempt by the biden administration to put through a similar rule. They did propose a rule overwhelmingly opposed by the veterans service organizations.
▶ 1:29:39Uh, public comments, uh, you know, thousands and thousands of public, public comments were were filed and the biden administration retreated from that proposed rule. So, no, uh, this was never a that was ever completed by the biden administration. And it is not a rule that the current administration is looking to put forward. Yet this has also been revealed. Uh, so it is a false promise, a false premise.
▶ 1:30:08Va, va itself stated last week that there are no plans to move forward on making changes to regulations that would lead to a benefits cut, saying, quote, no changes are planned or imminent. Va knows that doing so would be deeply unpopular, just as it was unpopular during the biden administration and vsos and veterans spoke loud and clear on that. And just as they did earlier this year when va issued an interim final rule that would have significantly changed how disability ratings are determined, and that would have negatively impacted thousands of veterans.
▶ 1:30:36Va rescinded that rule because veterans were again, vocal in opposition, just as they are now. Sadly, the problems with this bill don't end here. In addition to the poison pill funding mechanism, there are numerous provisions in this bill that are hugely problematic. This bill hastens the privatization of va, including for mental health services. It. It contains handouts to industry and allows them to double dip, diverting taxpayer dollars meant to serve veterans. It creates a slush fund for the tech industry.
▶ 1:31:04It harms student veterans by throwing more dollars at predatory for profit schools. It also strips away collective bargaining rights from certain va employees. This bill does not have enough redeeming value, and when you tie it to harmful funding provisions, it should be a nonstarter. The harms of this bill do not end with benefits cuts. It also includes significant home loan fee increases for veterans and service members who are in financial distress.
▶ 1:31:28Our country is in the middle of an affordability crisis brought on by the terrible trump administration policies, and yet my republican colleagues want to pile on with more fees in order to make it unaffordable for veterans to stay in their homes during a foreclosure crisis. Benefit cuts higher housing costs for veterans. That is what this bill is built on. I cannot support it. I reject the premise, and I urge all my colleagues to reject the premise as well. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. takano. Michelle fischbach you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:31:57Um, chairman, boss, I, I really appreciate that you brought this package forward and I and I want to thank you for your service. And I think it's incredibly important that a veteran brought this legislation, this package forward, to help your fellow veterans. And so I appreciate that. Um, and it contains more than 60 bipartisan bills.
▶ 1:32:18Um, and it really is aimed at improving veterans benefits, expanding access to care and enhancing, enhancing veterans quality of life. This administration, under this administration, the department of veterans affairs has reduced processing times for disability claims and pension and survivor benefits, and it's reduced the va benefits backlog to less than 100,000.
▶ 1:32:42So there have been great achievements and achievement that the biden administration failed to reach in four years. Trump's va has also decreased the time to complete veterans pension claims, burial, burial claims, dick claims, and more. And president trump and the republicans did make a commitment to fight for our veterans, as you are doing, as they fought for our country, and we continue to deliver on that promise.
▶ 1:33:07And your bill brings together dozens of measures focused on improving veterans care, even further strengthening benefits and enhancing the quality of life for veterans. And I thank the chairman for bringing it forward. Thank you. Um, and I actually I look forward to supporting it on the floor. Um, and I know this is a very comprehensive package with many significant reforms. So before I yield back, I just want to check with you to see if there's anything given. There's so much in this bill.
▶ 1:33:36Is there anything that you want to specifically highlight that you didn't in your opening statement? >> well. >> you you brought up the fact. First off, remember the, the, the four important as richard stark. Uh, it is the, the bradley, uh, edmondson act, which is our most vulnerable veterans that really do need the support the love lives on act for those widows, uh, that, that for years have had to try to make a choice whether they go ahead and have it alive and married or they wait till
▶ 1:34:06They're 55, uh, not to lose their benefits. Now, those are just three there. There are so many others in there. And what is vitally important is, is that there are 60 bills, um, of those about, you know, 48 of them were co-sponsored and or already been supported by democrats and bipartisan way. And it has been brought up that, that we are actually taking benefits away from veterans. And that is not true.
▶ 1:34:32No one who receives a benefit today will have that benefit reduced or changed in any way, shape or form. There are papers here that is vitally important and that will move forward. And let me say this, as veterans and the veterans that I know, let me tell you, those veterans of organizations also in support of this bill. Okay. There's a there's several organizations in support of the bill.
▶ 1:34:59Let me say that the the thing we need to realize is that pay for rule is a rule of this house and rule in the senate. And we can either go down the path of trying to put something over that has a pay for, or just tell our veterans, oh, we're going to do great and wonderful things for you, only to watch it to go to the senate and die. As a veteran, I want to see something passed. And there's a whole pile of things here that have been promised to be passed for a long time, and we're going to get it done.
▶ 1:35:31>> thank you very much, chairman. I just I do want to just recognize that there are veterans in the audience from, I believe, from the vfw. So thank you for being here with us. Um, always appreciate having, um, the public come in and hear what's going on here. So thank you for being here. And thank you all for your service. Really genuinely appreciate it. And I appreciate your response. Um, and thank you very much. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, miss fischbach. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. >> well, thank you very much, madam chair.
▶ 1:36:00And I, too, want to thank our veterans here. Um, and thank you for your service to our country. Um, and and we appreciate your presence here in this committee and, um, and chairman and ranking member takano, thank you for being here, Mr. chairman. Um, I think you said that you asked for an appropriate rule with no amendments, basically, that you don't like, uh, that you think will kind of that you believe will undermine the bill. I think basically that's how I interpreted it.
▶ 1:36:29But the whole point, but here's the problem. The whole point of having a vote is because you might think that an amendment makes the bill worse, but I might think it makes it better. Right. And and that's the whole point of why we have votes. And, uh, this isn't mock debate club. Uh, if you think an amendment undermines the bill, then you vote against it. Uh, but this majority kind of has one mode, which is block, block, block, uh, almost everything.
▶ 1:36:57And just for the record, I, uh, the republican majority so far, uh, has six has blocked 60% of all bipartisan amendments that have been offered, uh, to various bills. They've blocked 60% of republican amendments that have been offered to bills that we've considered, and they've blocked 90% of democratic amendments. Uh, so, I mean, I, um, you know, I find that pretty disturbing.
▶ 1:37:23I also want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement by veterans of foreign wars. Uh, that's entitled vfw strongly opposes disability benefit cuts included in proposed take care of america's veterans act. And let me just read a paragraph here.
▶ 1:37:42Says the vfw strongly opposes the take care of america's veterans act as currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the va rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea, which are common conditions associated with combat. Polytrauma. Uh. This is according to the vfw national commander carol whitmore.
▶ 1:38:05We have long maintained that veterans benefits are an earned obligation of the nation, a promise made through the military service contract, uh, and should not be financed through offsets, fee increases, or reductions that place additional burdens on veterans, military families, and survivors. Um, Mr.
▶ 1:38:23Chairman, um, you know, um, I assume you've seen the latest cost estimate by the congressional budget office was which says that your bill would be a net $1.3 billion cut to benefits for veterans. >> actually, what it says is, is 1.3 billion is in excess because of and let me also say again, no reduction in benefits for our veterans.
▶ 1:38:52It's very clear that it's not an abduction deduction, uh, reduction in any benefits. The proposal that we're using truly was and is a biden era, um, proposal that this administration actually set before us in committee and said they were going to implement it, at which time, if we should not use that as an offset in a sensible way, seems only proper to do that.
▶ 1:39:19We are not trying to reduce any benefits for our veterans. We are trying desperately to make sure all the positive things in this bill get done, which we have been doing that, as I said, in our journey of a bipartisan group of bills. >> I appreciate, but I'm reading. I don't know if you've seen the same cbo document that I have, but this documents cuts, uh, for a total of $1.3 billion in cuts.
▶ 1:39:47Um, and this bill would cost veterans, um, refinancing their homes an additional $3,780 in fees on average. Uh, it would cut benefits for tinnitus and sleep apnea. Um, which as I, as the vfw pointed out, are some of the most common medical conditions that qualify veterans for disability benefits. And kind of here's my problem.
▶ 1:40:12When you know, you keep on talking about paygo and you get everything requires pay for you guys pick and choose, you know, when you need to pay for. You need to pay for. When it comes to benefits for veterans. But when it comes to tax cuts for millionaires or billionaires, there's no there's no offset.
▶ 1:40:31And when you a couple of weeks ago, you all voted for an additional $70 billion billion with a b for, uh, cbp and and ice on top of the $100 billion that they already have. They haven't spent none. None of that was offset. Nobody none of you guys asked for a pay for for that. And let's not even get into the current war in iran. Um, Mr. takano, do you want to add anything? >> yeah. Mr.
▶ 1:40:58Ranking member, uh, you know, chairman, boss clearly doesn't understand the disability, how the disability rating system works, because while the bill while the bill's cuts to disability ratings may not directly be retroactive, they can and will lead to cuts for those who already have a service connected disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus.
▶ 1:41:20This is because any time a veteran applies for a rating increase or applies for a new rating for some other condition, va can and does review previous ratings, sometimes even lowering them. So when he says no veterans ratings are subject to any danger, he's not being he's not being actually accurate.
▶ 1:41:40It's foolish to think that va won't apply the new rules that statutorily, we're being asked to put into effect for sleep apnea and tinnitus when veterans have their ratings reviewed. But let's be clear the forward looking application of these changes, meaning to present and future veterans, is problematic as well. It means that veterans who aren't currently rated and active duty service members who are incurring these injuries right now will be treated worse than those that came before them.
▶ 1:42:12The contract will unilaterally be changed on them for the worse. How can we say with a straight face that two veterans with the same exact condition should be treated differently? This is beyond me. Now, ranking member mcgovern, let's be clear what the chairman wants to completely ignore. We've had veterans subjected on our military bases to blasts from iranian missiles. Uh, we've had we've had not veterans.
▶ 1:42:38We've had active duty service members, active duty service members on ships. He's what this legislation would do. What members of this committee are being asked to do is to move forward legislation which would make it impossible for those veterans to go in the future and get a diagnosis of tinnitus, which is a very common diagnosis with with with good reason. Uh, they're subjected to blasts all the time, subjected to loud noises.
▶ 1:43:03Uh, they will not be able to apply that diagnosis to a disability rating. >> and I suspect that that's why the vfw has concerns about this bill and why many veterans have concerns about this bill is because, um, you know, they interpret the cuts to actually mean cuts in the future. Let me just kind of end with one question, because this I've been asking this of various panels when we talk about offsets and, and, you know, and need for savings.
▶ 1:43:29I just want to why didn't why did you vote for a, a for $70 billion in additional money for cbp and ice without asking for an offset? I mean, I don't I just don't understand like why that's okay. But, you know, um, but this is this has to be thought of in a different way. I mean, what, what makes that different? I mean, and why didn't anybody offer.
▶ 1:43:58I mean, some of us tried to offer amendments on, you know, on making sure it was offset. But I that's the thing. You you guys vote for things all the time that have no offsets. That's why the the debt has gone up $3 trillion since, uh, since we have a total republican government here. Uh, but I'm just curious, I don't know whether there's an explanation for that. >> I was with my committee and I know the rules of my committee, and I have to have the offsets.
▶ 1:44:23I move forward so that actually the veterans are not lied to and said, oh, look, we're going to love this bill. No, it's going to die in the senate. The offsets that we're using do not reduce. No other any person's benefits. >> well, we we've heard that it would impact certainly. >> you've heard from his side. And now you're hearing from my. >> side, from veterans. >> and I hear from veterans that say they understand this offset. So but understand this. We can't say that all veterans.
▶ 1:44:54Because if you look at the groups, with all due respect, if you look at the groups that are in support. None of those those organizations are in support of the legislation. Yes, there are some that are opposed based on what the rules are and everything like that. >> but my question, though, is it's not about your committee. It's about your vote on the floor for a for a $70 billion with that have no offset. And I I'm just and that's I mean, I, I asked basically the same question of the previous panel.
▶ 1:45:25I mean, you, you have to cut the cutting programs to help hungry people here. We're negatively impacting veterans because we need to have offsets. But yet there there was no nobody wanted nobody cared about an offset. And you all voted for it. And so I just yeah, I'll yield to. Mr. >> Mr. uh, ranking member mcgovern, I agree with you. This inconsistency on the insistence on offsets.
▶ 1:45:50Uh, but you know what, uh, what I object to most is that the offset that the majority is attempting to use here is to take money from veterans to take money out of veterans pockets, disabled veterans pockets, and to give it to other disabled veterans. That to me, is abhorrent. Look, I agree with you that they've passed legislation without offsets. So here's what I would urge this committee to do to consider making my amendments in order to meet the chairman.
▶ 1:46:20The chairman's insistence on an offset. We have alternatives. Make dod pay for a dod program. This is a deal we're asking for, uh, you know, dod pensions to be paid for. >> and, chairman, just one quick question. If the if the major richard star bill were put on the floor, uh, today without an offset, would you vote for it or against it? Because that's what. >> well, you know what? A lot of people claim they'll vote for it. So if it comes in this this doesn't go. We'll see what happens.
▶ 1:46:49The problem is the problem is that's allowed for veterans because you just lied to your veterans because you think it's going to pass in the senate. And the senate has already been very, very clear. They will not support it. >> we're five signatures away from getting that to the floor. But, I mean, the idea that, you know, when it comes to other things, nobody wants it. No one cares about an offset. But when it comes to veterans, we're insisting on an offset. I just find that a little bit puzzling, but I thank you. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. griffith, you're recognized.
▶ 1:47:20>> chairman. Boss, you've, uh we've heard one of the vsos referenced by name, uh, as being opposed. And you said there are vsos that support. I'm just wondering if you could. >> just tell us as. And then if you. Then you have to look at. Is it the vsos or is it pax? Um, there is about 12 uh, in opposition and 14 to 15, uh, that are in support. And there are a couple that are waiting on, uh, what the administration's position.
▶ 1:47:51>> can you give us the names of a couple of them? I don't have to have all 14 in favor. There you go. >> the american, uh, the american legion is one of them that's in support. Um, there's a whole lot more. Hold on just a second. Uh, bba, legion, amvets taps, uh, elizabeth dole foundation, gold star spouses, gold star, uh, wings. Um, so the, there's.
▶ 1:48:21>> a fair number and, uh, I'm trying to get my arms around it, uh, on the sleep apnea. Mhm. My understanding is, and it could be mistaken is that currently, if you, if you are a veteran and you come in and you have a sleep apnea problem, you're automatically given a 50%. That is correct. >> 50%. Um. >> and this bill lower that to 10% automatically. >> no, no it doesn't.
▶ 1:48:45What it does is it says that your it is a revamping of it to say, okay, what's the scientific background of that is what caused it. And then you can still apply for it. However it under current rule, it just kind of granted out there. >> I guess what I'm saying is, is that you can show signs up to whatever level with the medical histories and so forth, but I thought it was 10% automatic if you had sleep apnea. Is that not accurate?
▶ 1:49:16>> it's 15. It is 50 automatic. 50 now 50 automatic. >> but I thought the bill said >> ten. Is that right? Am I right or wrong on that? >> it's on a sliding scale with the with the least being ten. Is that correct? >> with the least being ten. Okay. That and that, that was my understanding. I just want to make it clear. So if you come in and it's clear that it was caused by action in right in iran, then you get anywhere else.
▶ 1:49:42Then you you get you get the and you have sleep apnea, it's 10% minimum, but then it could go up as high as 100%. Theoretically. Theoretically, it's unlikely to go to 100%, but it could. Okay. I mean, that was kind of my understanding as well. Uh, is there anything else that you want to say in response to comments? No. >> I think I think, you know, it's wild around this place when we talk about offsets and everything like that. But the other thing we do is the people that argue that you want to follow science up until that science doesn't fit where you want it to be.
▶ 1:50:12And I think that we do not want to reduce, uh, but, and remember this, this is the most important thing. It doesn't reduce veterans benefits that are already receiving them. It does not. >> I appreciate that, and I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. griffith. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> thank you. I mean, this is a massive bill, right? >> yes. >> it is 500 pages of text and all.
▶ 1:50:37And and some really important provisions that have bipartisan support, um, from veterans, military families, etc. But despite all that, because of what a fair number of people say are the cuts to veterans benefits. So we seem to have a real, um, dispute here about that. The veterans of foreign wars, the disabled american veterans, iraq and afghanistan, veterans of america all oppose the bill.
▶ 1:51:01Um, not because of the provisions that are in it, but because of how republicans have chosen to pay for it. Um, with, um, what appears to be $64 billion in cuts from other benefits, um, not the same ones at issue in the bill. I mean, we absolutely should be strengthening benefits for veterans and their families, but not by taking benefits away from other veterans or increasing costs on military families.
▶ 1:51:30Now, we've mentioned the support or lack thereof from the vfw and other organizations, but, um, a fgea major union is also opposing this bill because it is going to remove um, psychologists who provide thousands of psychologists from their current, um, protected status under the va and remove labor protections from them.
▶ 1:51:58Um, we're already seeing at the va a real problem with being able to hold on to our medical personnel because of the cuts to the va, because of the overturning of labor provisions. Um, and here it looks like we're about to see more of that and that kind of disruption of care really impacts our veterans because our va folks are specialists. They are, you know, world experts on this.
▶ 1:52:27And if we are pushing them out, then it has a real impact. Can you comment on that? >> yeah. Well, I wanted to say the chairman was able to mention less than ten um, vso veteran service organizations that favor this bill. Um I have a list here of 20, at least 20 that are in opposition.
▶ 1:52:47And um, I, I doubt there's any, uh, vso in the room, uh, that's unprecedented that we have veteran service organizations represented in the rules committee hearing room. But I, I don't, I would defy the chairman to point to one vso present today. Um, look around. That is in favor of this bill. >> it's usually pretty quiet in the rules committee, but we do have a number of folks from the vfw here today.
▶ 1:53:15>> so let me also say, um the chairman says he doesn't want to lie to veterans about the passage in the senate of the richard star act. Um, I would argue that the richard star act, if we pass it in the house, would have so much momentum. It's that's what's irresistible. What's irresistible is the grassroots support across this country for the richard star, which is the number one priority of all the veterans service organizations, including the ones who the chairman cites as favoring this bill before us.
▶ 1:53:43Um, I would I say the senate has been clear that there's not a path forward for the taking care of veterans, america's veterans act, uh, that he's proposing. I have here a letter signed by 46 senators, uh, two doug collins, secretary collins stating that they would that they oppose the taking care of america's veterans act. And, uh, madam chair, I would ask that it be put into the record. >> without objection.
▶ 1:54:10>> uh, so, uh, you know, I also want to say one thing. Uh, congresswoman scanlon, um, you know that, uh, let's talk about some of the offices a little bit. You know, that ten days of war in iran, the ten days of war in iraq, it's about $1 billion a day, will pay for ten years of the major richard star act. There is right now $100 billion of unused money, uh, that was appropriated to the department of defense.
▶ 1:54:39Uh, we could just take one tenth of that and pay for this act. So there are other ways to pay for this. Uh, I have, I have amendments, uh, that I wish would be made that I hope would be made in order. Uh, let the house let our colleagues decide if the taking care of veterans act is the only way to move forward. What what the chairman proposes to do, proposes to do is to take money out of some disabled veterans pockets and to give it to others that are very, very deserving.
▶ 1:55:09But this is not a path we want to go down. I don't think I think we have alternatives to pay for this. We don't have to pay for it in this way. And as ranking member mcgovern says, there are other instances when when this body, the majority, the majority of this the majority that governs this house, has decided that we don't need offsets. Mhm. So anyway, I yield back.
▶ 1:55:29>> well, I, I'm really concerned about the impact on service because we've already seen a great deal of impact on the medical personnel who provide services to our veterans in our area between layoffs, cuts, and squeezing the folks who, who do provide those services. Um, I understand that there are also issues created by this bill concerning increasing home loan costs for service members and veterans.
▶ 1:55:56And that one really concerns me because, I mean, we're seeing this housing crisis across the country. And is this really a time when we should be putting more home loan costs on our veterans who've already served us so well? >> well, thank you for asking that question. You know, I'm disappointed that the majority canceled, uh, a economic opportunity subcommittee hearing on this very issue.
▶ 1:56:17Um, we had, uh, with us a plan to have witnesses, uh, testify about the eminent danger they are of losing their homes. Why? Uh, because the majority and the secretary ended the vast program. Uh, they have.
▶ 1:56:33So they have supposedly implemented a partial claims, uh, you know, substitute, which is not fully operational and which is leaving our veterans in danger of losing 10,000 veterans, um, have lost their homes unnecessarily to foreclosure. And what this, what this bill does before us today is increase the burden on our active duty. So our our active duty service members are eligible for the veteran home loan program right now.
▶ 1:57:01What this majority is proposing to do is ask congress to vote to increase the burden of the fees that our active duty service members have to pay for their gi bill loans. Um, you know, I think this is unconscionable. Um, at a time when housing costs are high, we expect the federal reserve probably to raise interest rates.
▶ 1:57:25Um, this is, this going the opposite direction to help our service members and. >> concern as we hear from too many service members who have trouble affording food and housing for their families. So to see this going in the wrong direction, as you suggest, is really, really concerning. So thank you for your work on this and you're welcome. Thank you. The bill. I yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, miss caitlin. Mr. jack, you're recognized.
▶ 1:57:56>> thank you, madam chair. Um, Mr. chairman, I want to ask you at the outset how many bills are tucked into this overarching legislation? >> well, there are 60 proposals. >> that have already many of them have already been moving through the process, either this year or years before, and 48 of them are bipartisan in nature. Matter of fact, if you add up the amount of sponsors on these bills, uh, there are over 500 democratic co-sponsors of those 48.
▶ 1:58:24So this is truly a bipartisan bill. >> and if you could help define for this committee, when members of congress are considering this legislation later this week, once we pass the rule, um, what are people voting against if a member of congress votes against this bill on the floor, what what are they doing? >> right. What you're voting against is one, uh, the correction that would need to be done as far as the richard starr act, which is one of the major issues that we're trying to deal with here. >> too, is you're voting.
▶ 1:58:55>> against the increase for the first time in decades. To those, uh, most disabled veterans, but the quadriplegic paraplegic that that have 24 hour care in their home, their families, whether it's a spouse or whether it's mothers and fathers, other family members have to take care of, you're voting against that. >> um, if you're.
▶ 1:59:15>> and you're voting against an increase in the benefit of the surviving spouses, you're also voting against the opportunity for the widows and widowers of the, uh, the person that gave all of us from getting remarried without losing their benefit until they're 55 years old. And when you start looking through all of those bills, those 60 bills, you put those those are huge things to our veterans.
▶ 1:59:43Now we are doing what's right. And what's really important is, is that you're not just telling the veterans in a political way. Oh, yeah, see, I voted for that. And then they're wondering next year, man, why didn't that happen? This went this time. It will happen if we get it through. >> madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you very much, miss leger. Fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, chairwoman. And thank you to the chair and ranking member. It's good to see you again.
▶ 2:00:12It's just a few weeks ago, we were having conversations. And those conversations are kind of similar. Um, because we were discussing legislation, uh, part of which we have strong bipartisan support for. But the question that democrats were posing is, how do you pay for it? Do you pay for it by making other veterans suffer consequences? Or should congress prioritize?
▶ 2:00:38And that's what we have here, uh, in terms of some of the inclusion of these bipartisan pieces of legislation, we are not against the bipartisan piece of legislation. The richard stark major, richard stark, I'm a sponsor. I signed the discharge petition. I would like to see that bill come to the floor. And we're really close to getting it to the floor. And I love looking out and looking out at at the veterans.
▶ 2:01:07Um, my father was a veteran. The only place I could ever get shirley temples was at the vfw. Loved it. Uh, we, my sister and I had to share one and we, they would give us two cherries though, so we were always really happy. Um, how many veterans are in the room? If I could have a raise of hands? Uh, I always say it's not enough. And and you made that real clear, chairman.
▶ 2:01:31Um, last time is that you bring to this job your role as veteran, but how many of you are in favor of the richard star act? I want I want to recognize that have the record show that I think every single veteran in the room is also in favor of the major richard star act chairman, are you also in favor of the. Oh, have you signed the.
▶ 2:02:00Have you signed the discharge petition? You have not signed the discharge. >> you have not signed the discharge position. >> madam chairman. Two is is that it is vitally important to make sure that whatever we do, that we pay for it. And the reason I say that is because if if we give up our pay for and continue down the path that we continue not paying for everything that these veterans fought for behind us is for not if china owns our debt. >> because I got a.
▶ 2:02:30>> feeling if china owns our debt, they won't take care of our veterans. >> ah, so I find that very interesting because, uh, yes, last, uh, it was last time we were in session, did you vote for a reconciliation 2.0, which was $72 billion? >> yes, I did. >> and how is that being paid for? >> through the same process. >> as, as you know, and and when those bills come before us, if you. >> want to vote. >> the same process as what? >> well, I want to tell you that as far.
▶ 2:03:00>> as our committee is concerned, we are required to have pay for us. >> okay. >> and so. >> as chairman. >> I have a responsibility. >> so the may the record reflects that the chairman voted for a bill that was $72 billion, that is not paid for $72 billion, that is not paid for. He voted in last, last. God, how long has it been?
▶ 2:03:23Almost a year ago for bill that was paid for, but it was paid for on the backs of veterans, uh, entitlement, um, to nutrition assistance. Uh, um, medic, you know, medicaid and so many other things. But last, just the last time we were in session, $72 billion that were not paid for, but you won't move to the floor.
▶ 2:03:46A bill that every veteran in this room supports, a bipartisan bill that every veteran in this room supports. Now, that is your bill, isn't it? Ranking member takano. >> uh, the, uh, the richard neal, um, it's a bill that I have. >> a discharge. >> petition I've discharged petition on. It's actually doctor ruiz and, uh, bilirakis bill. Uh, but let me say, look, uh.
▶ 2:04:14Yes, you make a good point about how the majority, um, has spent tens of billions of dollars without having it being paid for. And the chairman wanted to go off onto a tangent about, uh, about china. Uh, and, uh, you know, that they hold our, our, our bonds, our us bonds.
▶ 2:04:31Um, but the fact is he has voted for tens of billions of dollars for that to happen, but he's insisting on paying for this particular bill, uh, by reaching into the pockets of disabled veterans. That's what I find so galling. Um, I mean, he will rail about like, he doesn't want to see us go into more debt, uh, and have it be financed by china and other countries.
▶ 2:04:56But when it comes to taking care of veterans who are present day veterans that are fighting for us right now in the gulf, they're not going to be able to go and get their tinnitus, be recognized as a percentage of their disability rating. Uh, they're not going to get their sleep apnea, which can range. Now, it's not true that automatically it's 50%.
▶ 2:05:18But look, this is the first time in history that we are trying to put into statute that congress is trying to decide something which should be decided by professionals and medical professionals. We are we're now getting into the business of deciding what should be counted as a disability. That's kind of a ridiculous debate to be having. So I, I think I want to just make sure that the american people know how ridiculous this congress is being, how the majority is being.
▶ 2:05:46We should not be legislating into statute, uh, which is very difficult to remove how disability ratings are going to operate from now on, but especially when what's at stake is what our brave men and women right now, whose lives are in the balance in, uh, in the waters around iran, uh, that that's what we're talking about. We're saying that we're going to treat these veterans in the future differently than present day veterans.
▶ 2:06:16And that is what I think really riles our veterans service organizations. By the way, I just want to add, uh, to the record, this letter from seven vsos in opposition, including the disabled veterans who are also in the audience along with the vfw. So I just want to make sure. >> because I think that gets. >> to the point of where I think veterans want us to do the right thing in terms of.
▶ 2:06:38There are many aspects in this bill that are the right thing to do, but I would I would venture to ask again of the question of the veterans in the room. Does anybody want them to see benefits cut? No. Does anybody want to see congress making the decisions about disability benefits? I don't see anybody in the room. Chairman, boss, you I mean, you're you're it's it's not that you have your back to them.
▶ 2:07:08You have your face to us. But if you turned around, if you turned around, you would see. >> if you turn. >> if you turned around, you'd see the veterans shake shaking their head. They do not want to see their disability benefits. But that's what this does. >> and their benefits are being reduced. They are not. >> oh, uh, that, that, you know, I, I think that, uh, it's, I'm, I would like to enter into the record, madam chair.
▶ 2:07:34Um, a article dated june 16th, 2026 from the government executive titled gop's va overhaul bill narrows some employees rights first privatization union says, um. >> without objection. >> thank you.
▶ 2:07:49And a quote, the vfw strongly opposes the take care of america's veterans act as currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the va rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep disorder. And in.
▶ 2:08:08In regards to some of the questions and discussion earlier, um, with regards to how disability benefits are doing right now, no changes are planned or imminent, right? >> the va is is.
▶ 2:08:23Still the majority has, has said, has, uh, inaccurately stated in the previously that we should take advantage of the cost savings because of a projected, uh, va change in how disability ratings are going to change in the specifically tinnitus, uh, and the sleep apnea.
▶ 2:08:45But the va has stated flat out that they have no intention of changing, uh, those, the eligibility of those conditions precisely because they know that change would be hugely, hugely unpopular. Just as the biden administration discovered the same thing, the the chairman has tried to refer to all while biden tried to do the same thing. It is true that they did propose a rule, but they pulled back from it so they did not go forward.
▶ 2:09:14Just as this va is not going forward with it. Um, but what are they doing instead? The veterans refusing to, to move forward with a rules change. But this congress, under this bill, what's being proposed in this congress is that statutorily, we're going to change the rules of what is eligible for disability ratings. We're going to make sleep apnea.
▶ 2:09:36Uh, and, uh, tinnitus ineligible and understand that tinnitus is a very common common disability. While it deals with hearing loss. Uh, and, uh, of course, it's going to save us a lot of money by taking money from the pockets of very, very deserving disabled veterans who deserve that rating. >> so we should.
▶ 2:10:01>> not be saving money on the pain of our veterans who suffered, whether it's sleep apnea or tinnitus because of the sound. I just want to read, madam chair. Uh, uh, as at the va spokesman. I mean, I think I wanted to introduce this letter because it was the va itself who said we have no plans with. >> and without objection. >> right.
▶ 2:10:25And the an interesting continuation of the quote, which, uh, the ranking member accurately summarized that the va learned of the take care of americans veterans act last week. Uh, and it's sort of like this is being moved so quickly, I think precisely because veterans are really good at making their voices heard.
▶ 2:10:48Your veterans are really I was in rival attended events in our home district with veterans, uh, you know, several days ago. And they made their voices heard to me. They like what you're doing here with your discharge petition.
▶ 2:11:04They do not like, and they are opposed to having veterans lose benefits, whether it's housing or any other benefits in order to pay for other benefits. That is not how it works. You do not say thank you for your service and then take away some of the benefits that you've earned. These are not giveaways. These are not gifts.
▶ 2:11:32Veterans have earned this, and I think we should all be in opposition to this thrown together, uh, impact, which does have some bipartisan bills in it. But the way they are paying for it is outrageous and I think a disgrace. >> there are a number of poison pills in this bill because of the process. Uh, it's been inserted. Yes.
▶ 2:11:57There are some bipartisan elements of this bill, but there are a lot of poison pills in this bill that are that have not been duly considered. >> thank you very much. And with that, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, miss leger fernandez. Um, Mr. boss, I've. Thank you might want to say some things. Yes. Uh, in response. >> first off, one. >> comments that have been made by Mr. takano. Miss leisure. Thank you. Would you.
▶ 2:12:25>> like once again, that continued to say that there's going to be, um, reductions in benefits for veterans. There is not going to be reductions there. Science is applied on the one question as far as tendinitis. And and it was in both biden and this administration, the letter that quoted was by a group or by a person at the v.a.
▶ 2:12:48However, we also had the vice say specifically on the committee that they were going to implement this. That being said, also, as far as the welsh what these bills. A bill does not become part, um partizan just because it it it finally moving. If these policies were good enough to have all these co-sponsors on them, then it wasn't rushed. We're going to move spread these bills.
▶ 2:13:15All we did was come up with a sensible plan for for the future that reduces no veterans benefit. I think we should also say that in the last hearing, whenever we talked about paid for, and I talked about the home loans, the advantages is that it does not put a fee on any veterans. First off, at a veterans. Disability, they have to be under a certain disability rating.
▶ 2:13:42Two, it is not on the primary loan, it is on a referencing of the loan. And it's that I think per month. Let me tell you that another I thought that that don't mention those is that we also now make it easier for those who are veterans, about those who have served in the national guard and reserve, rather than having 90 days of article ten, uh, rating the only ten, which gives us a tremendous amount of
▶ 2:14:13People also participating in vietnam, that helps offset that. That's not reducing the benefit. That's actually a benefit. And so why am I doing was using those things that are available to offset this bill. But if you look, the most important thing is it covers so many things that are vitally important, including the richard neal act.
▶ 2:14:37No, the, the, uh, the, the, the spouses of veterans who could not receive or would lose their benefit. They were before 55. You've got also your, uh, bradley and edmondson act, which is our most vulnerable to provide for veterans sometimes disagree, as we can show you that the veterans organizations, certainly for certain ones, against.
▶ 2:15:03But the package itself is a long term benefit for our veterans and to be done. >> um, a lot is being said in the press these days about how few days we have available to us. You have the legislative days available to us and to the senate. We have you have 60 bills here, 48 of them that are bipartisan.
▶ 2:15:31You've already indicated that if this bill does not pass with this package does not pass, it is unlikely that any of the things that everybody agrees on will pass in this session. Is that correct? >> that is correct, yes. >> so.
▶ 2:15:53I I've yet to see a perfect bill here in the house of representatives. My first bill here was to benefit active duty military was called the hero act. It allowed members of the military to put combat pay, which is nontaxable, into an ira.
▶ 2:16:22I had a young soldier in my district who wanted that. We passed it out of the house with, I think, four people voting against it. I'm not I don't really I think it was for went to the senate. The senate wanted to make it retroactive. But even in those days, no, you couldn't do that because we had payfors. You can make things prospective without a pay for.
▶ 2:16:56And we finally got that bill passed after it sat in the senate for almost a year by getting the senate to not make it prospective, but just apply to people, uh, uh, current going forward. Uh, that sounds a lot like what you're doing to me, right.
▶ 2:17:19And I'm very concerned about the 48 bipartisan bills that you have that won't get passed in this session of congress at all if this bill isn't passed. >> right. >> so I just wanted to clarify that for you and also clarify Mr.
▶ 2:17:42Griffiths question, which was people who have service related tinnitus and service related sleep apnea will still be eligible for those benefits. >> that's correct. >> that's not true. >> okay. >> that's correct. That's incorrect going going forward. >> I didn't recognize you. >> that's fine. But I just wanted to say it's not correct. >> I believe what Mr.
▶ 2:18:11Boss told me. I've never had any reason to doubt him in what he has said. Thank you very much, Mr. boss. I see no other people eligible to ask questions. Therefore, the witnesses are excused. >> thank you very much, and thank you for being here too. We may disagree at times, but we're still working for him.
▶ 2:19:21>> chairwoman fox. >> you got a you got a full committee today. You have a full committee today. >> yes, sir. Thank you. >> you're recognized. >> I am it was a little hard, a little hard to hear. Thank you very much. Thank you, chairwoman fox, ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee. And thank you for the opportunity to testify today on h.r. 1181, the protecting privacy in purchases act.
▶ 2:19:49This legislation addresses a fundamental principle that should unite every american, regardless of party. Law abiding citizens should not be monitored, tracked, or profiled by the government simply for exercising their constitutional rights. However, under the obama and biden administrations, we saw that federal financial regulators and their agencies blurred the lines between legitimate law enforcement and surveillance of ordinary americans in dangerous ways.
▶ 2:20:21Take, for example, the house judiciary committee's 2024 report that detailed how federal law enforcement agencies engaged in broad financial surveillance of americans in pried into the private transactions of consumers. This was not based on specific evidence of criminal conduct, but instead relied on sweeping searches of financial data that touched on constitutionally protected political and religious activity.
▶ 2:20:46The report found that the federal officials encouraged financial institutions to use keyword filtering, transaction monitoring to identify americans based on search terms such as maga or trump. They also flagged book purchases, including religious texts and transactions involving firearm related products as indicators warranting scrutiny, including at places such as the bass pro shop or dick's sporting goods. Think about what that means.
▶ 2:21:17American who buys a bible or purchases hunting equipment and outdoor sporting goods store, has unique scrutiny by the federal government. None of these actions, of course, are crimes. None of these activities justify government suspicion. They're lawful expressions of rights guaranteed by the constitution. Yet this surveillance likely swept in millions of americans who simply held conservative political views or exercise their second amendment rights.
▶ 2:21:45That should concern you, whether you're a democrat or republican, because you can easily imagine how the shoe would fit on the other foot. The question that each member of this committee should ask themselves is whether the payment systems should be surveilled to monitor lawful purchases. The obvious answer is no.
▶ 2:22:02Unfortunately, this is part of a broader pattern that many of americans have watched develop over the years, from operation choke point to the debunking of the digital asset sector, we have seen repeated attempts to use the financial sector as a political tool for monitoring and discouraging lawful behavior that some in government may disfavor. That's why h.r. 1181 is so important.
▶ 2:22:27The bill establishes clear guardrails to prevent payment card networks from requiring retailers to use a separate merchant category code solely because they sell firearms or ammunition. It protects americans from the creation of financial tracking systems that could be used to identify, monitor and profile citizens based on lawful purchases. Importantly, h.r. 1181 does not prevent law enforcement from investigating crimes. It does not shield illegal conduct.
▶ 2:22:55It simply ensures that americans are not treated as suspects because they engage in legal commerce, exercise their constitutional rights, or hold views that some in washington may not agree with. Americans shouldn't have to worry that legally purchasing a firearm will place them in a government database or trigger enhanced scrutiny. The constitution does not condition our rights on government approval.
▶ 2:23:20Americans do not surrender their privacy when they make a lawful purchase. H.r. 1181 is a common sense measure that protects privacy, safeguards civil liberties and reinforces the constitutional principles that define our nation. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back, chairman. >> yields back. Now recognize Mr. green for his five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I thank the ranking member.
▶ 2:23:47Thank all the members of the committee as well. And I rise today as a long of the mothers and fathers who have led their children to rest as a result of senseless gun violence.
▶ 2:24:13As are all of the children who had to walk over into the casket and say their parents. Who had been killed by gun violence. I was in the land of liberty and justice for all, and is extolled in the jeffersonian independence declaration.
▶ 2:24:42And I believe and urge this committee to oppose this bill, which now its efforts to combat gun violence. And let's start with a few statistics. Americans are 26 times more likely to be shot and killed than if you lived in any other high income country.
▶ 2:25:12On average, 327 people are shot in the united states daily. This includes 23 children who are shot daily. On average, 117 people die every day in the united states because of senseless gun violence.
▶ 2:25:34Now, a few states, including california, new york and colorado, have taken action to require payment card networks to use a merchant category code, or mcx, to distinguish firearm retailers from other types of retailers.
▶ 2:25:59Many different types of retailers require this unique mcx code, including flowers, barber shops, art dealers, automotive tire shops and even candy stores.
▶ 2:26:14While those that reveal the individual goods are purchased, they can't indicate an unusual large purchase at a type of business that might reveal a risk. This information could be used to help law enforcement track suspicious purchases to prevent even more gun violence.
▶ 2:26:43We really are at a point where continuing to do nothing is not a very good option. In fact, it's not a good option at all. Debbie dingell safety groups, including brady community justice, everytown for gun safety, giffords, guns down america and yorktown action alliance have sent a letter to urge members to vote no on this
▶ 2:27:14Harmful legislation. And I might add, in some cases it will be deadly harmful. Madam chair. Excuse me, mister chair. Now, my my pardon, pardon my my commentary, please. I ask unanimous consent to enter the letter from these various groups in the record. >> without objection. >> also. Thank you, mister chair.
▶ 2:27:43I also ask unanimous consent to enter records in the record letters that I have sent to the equivalent of our chamber of commerce in houston, texas. It's called a partnership. These letters that I've sent over the years, since 2022, these letters are indicative of something that I believe to be very important.
▶ 2:28:10I request to meet with the partnership to discuss gun violence, hundreds, if not thousands of people are addressed in these letters. I actually list violent activities that have occurred, mass shootings, and I have not been accorded an opportunity to speak to the houston partnership about the gun violence. I ask that these letters be submitted and received into the record. Mr. chair.
▶ 2:28:41>> without objection. So ordered. >> thank you. Ambassador. And I'm talking about the letter from the many organizations that I referenced. They quote my right in strong opposition to hr 1181, the protecting privacy and purchases act.
▶ 2:29:01This bill would make it easier for mass shooters, gun traffickers, and even terrorists to abuse our financial systems, to stockpile firearms and ammunitions undetected. They go on to note that between 2007 and 2018, credit cards were used to finance at least eight major mass shootings.
▶ 2:29:29One of those include the shooting at the pulse nightclub in orlando, florida. Stepping aside from the letter for just a moment, I went to orlando, florida, after the pulse shooting, one standing in the area where the shootings took place would have tears dwell in your eyes, understanding what took place.
▶ 2:30:01A dastardly deed that took lives. 49 people were killed, 50 more were injured. Just days before the shooter opened fire. His internet search history included the terms credit card, unusual spending fbi in quotes and why banks stop your purchases.
▶ 2:30:27He had opened six new credit card accounts in the eight months prior, and 12 days before the shooting spent more than $26,000 on things like a rifle, a semi-automatic pistol, several large magazines and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Before this, his average monthly spending on his single card was about $1,500.
▶ 2:31:01One of those credit card operators, payment processors, or banks were alerted to the types of transactions being undertaken, and they did not modify law enforcement officials about these purchases. Americans are tired of the senseless gun violence and want congress to act and enact stricter gun control measures.
▶ 2:31:28Unfortunately, this bill goes in the opposite direction and would implement a ban on such merchant reporting on the federal level and would preempt existing state laws like those in california, new york and colorado. If I may just in this with my closing then, Mr. chairman, this is about sa's suspicious activity for anomalous behavior.
▶ 2:31:58When anomalous behavior, unusual behavior is detected even in the banking system, we reported. I think that when we can save lives, we should do a similar thing. And I thank you for allowing me the time. >> gentleman yields back now recognize miss fischbach for her five minutes or for her time. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And Mr. steel. >> I just want to just. >> yes or no.
▶ 2:32:25But the purpose, really, of this bill is to prevent a firearm specific merchant category code mcx. Um, and that's the four digit code that identifies a retailer type. So is that correct. Because we strayed a little bit. And so I wanted to make sure that we were focused on what was actually in the bill. >> yeah. No that's exactly right. >> representative fischbach. Okay, okay.
▶ 2:32:46Because, uh, you know, more and more recently, gun control advocates have called for a firearm specific mcx that would allow financial institutions and credit card companies to track firearm and firearm related purchases.
▶ 2:32:59Um, and they argue, as we've heard that it is to prevent mass shootings, but really their intention is really to create a backdoor gun registry by private institutions and establish a tool that can be used to block an american from exercising their constitutional second amendment rights. Uh, so, Mr. steele, isn't it also true that financial institutions can block purchases based on specific mcrs?
▶ 2:33:28>> well, this is the whole challenge is to if we look back to operation choke .1.0, in particular, under the biden administration, they're putting significant pressure on financial institutions in the united states to take action, uh, or to not engage or provide them the capital such that they could operate.
▶ 2:33:44Uh, and so this is a backdoor attempt, uh, by the federal government then under choke .1.0 under the obama administration, uh, to accomplish through the financial regulatory framework what they couldn't accomplish politically or constitutionally, uh, in my opinion. And so this code is a mechanism that we need to prevent from being labeled on lawful, uh, the sale of firearms or ammunition.
▶ 2:34:11Uh, so individuals aren't tracked in a suspicious manner simply for making what is otherwise a legal purchase. >> so just a firearm specific mcx could act as a tool for the financial institution to block an everyday citizen from exercising their second amendment right. Is that. >> yeah, it gets a little technical as to what the exactly. The financial institutions can use the mcx code for.
▶ 2:34:34Uh, but unquestionably the driving concern of this is the tracking mechanism that that metadata, uh, would exist, uh, and be susceptible to government review. >> okay. Well, thank you very much. And I just just to sum it up, a firearm specific mcx would not prevent mass shootings, but it would create, in essence, a national gun registry and allow financial institutions to to block americans second amendment rights. Is that.
▶ 2:35:05>> the it's pretty clear there are those in the federal government, in particular previous administrations, uh, that don't share our belief in the importance of the second amendment, are looking for backdoor avenues to stifle the ability of the private sector to actually produce and sell these types of firearms legally. Uh, and this is the mechanism that they have tried to utilize. It's the reason why this legislation is so important. >> and Mr.
▶ 2:35:32Steele, I think to, to kind of reiterate what you said is they couldn't do it one way. So they're trying it this way. So I thank you. And I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the ranking member Mr. mcgovern for his time. >> yeah. No, I, I, um I'm just trying to understand some of the facts here. I, I just looked online and for mastercard and visa, I mean, there are hundreds, literally hundreds of different quote, merchant category codes.
▶ 2:35:58Are you aware that there's a code for florists there? >> I don't know florist, but there's a very significant large number of codes. >> and there's a there's a code for cigar stores. Uh, there's a, there's a code for massage parlors. Uh, did you know that there's even a code for dating and escort services?
▶ 2:36:19Um, and, um, and, and, you know, and, you know, and if I understand correctly, what we're talking about here is that this code doesn't tell you whether somebody bought a gun or ammunition. It basically just focuses on the place where you, you know, where you made the purchase. You could buy, you know, $1,000 worth of potato chips at a, at a gun store. Um, and so it doesn't tell you, it doesn't tell you what you buy.
▶ 2:36:48But I guess my, my question to you is when it comes to gun and ammo dealers, suddenly they need republicans in congress to step in to make a special exemption just for them. And I guess if you have concern about these codes, then the policy solution should apply to everyone. Uh, not, not, not make a special carve out for your friends in the gun industry who, quite frankly, support, uh, the republicans generously financially.
▶ 2:37:15I mean, I just, it just, it reeks of like a, a payoff to a special interest, payback to a special interest. Why, why why just why just, um, gun and ammo dealers. Why not? Why not everything. >> that I actually think the answer to that, uh, ranking member mcgovern is, is rather straightforward. These codes have been abused by democratic administrations.
▶ 2:37:39So this is this is not about telling the free market exactly how they should or should not utilize the mcc codes, which you noted has a there's a large number of them. The concern is the abuse we have seen through previous democratic administrations to utilize these codes to drive forward a political agenda against second amendment rights. >> I don't want to be lectured on political agendas and political vengeance from anybody who supports the current administration, um, because what they're doing. But I would just simply say, going to Mr.
▶ 2:38:08Greene's point, I mean, if somebody walked into a gun ammo store, you know, and bought, you know, this exorbitant amount, I mean, we don't know what they're buying, but an unusual a high tens of thousands of dollars in purchases. I, you know, um, you know, I don't know. I mean, that might be somebody going, uh, going in there to, to do something terribly bad.
▶ 2:38:34I mean, we, you talked about the pulse nightclub, you talked about the, you know, other instances where, where, where this has happened. I mean, I guess I'm just so sick and tired of every time there's a mass shooting and a massacre that we come to the floor and you guys have a moment of silence, and then we move on to the next thing. Uh, and don't do a damn thing about preventing mass shootings, which unfortunately are a regular occurrence in this country.
▶ 2:39:00You know, I mean, we're, we're unique, uh, in that regard, where mass shootings happen on a regular basis, they're no longer kind of a, you know, a, a, a, an isolated instance. Um, Mr.
▶ 2:39:14Green, um, I mean, I mean, the whole point of this, you know, is not to track people, you know, it's, you know, every purchase they make, it's, it's the to detect whether something unusual and whether it's something highly suspicious is happening that might in fact, be somebody planning a mass shooting. Am I, am I correct on that?
▶ 2:39:36>> at least some of anomalous activity, unusual activity, something that would cause one to pause and question why is this occurring? Uh, I think that we ought to note also, if I may say so, Mr. ranking member, this notion that codes have been abused. We have a president that abuses the constitution.
▶ 2:40:04I mean, we're not going to eliminate the constitution because he abuses the constitution. Because this is no back door to anything. It's a front door to saving lives. At some point, we have to do more than have moments of silence. >> yeah, I agree, I mean, we have a president right now who's trying to prosecute people for hanging out around the reflecting pool, for god's sakes. I mean, I mean, talk about, you know, nuts. That's kind of where we are.
▶ 2:40:33But I mean, I, I just like, I mean, I, I, I'll be honest with you, with all this going on, um, in this country, people can't afford their groceries, people can't afford their rents, you know, I mean, gas prices are still too high. Um, inflation is still too high.
▶ 2:40:49I mean, all the stuff that's going on and, and we had the chairwoman, uh, basically say before she left that we, we only have a few days, uh, that we can legislate because we're going to be in recess and people aren't going to be here. So, you know, we got to get stuff done right away that this is the priority. Uh, I don't know. I mean, I, I, I don't know, we just don't, we don't share the same values.
▶ 2:41:16And I, um, again, I, I just think it's ridiculous that we're wasting time on this, but in any event, you guys are in charge of all of government, so you can do whatever the hell you want. I yield back. >> gentleman. Yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from georgia, Mr. scott, for his time. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I think that, uh, it's pretty clear if you watch the testimony that, uh, they from the democratic standpoint, they do want these codes so that they can track the purchases of firearms. That that's what Mr.
▶ 2:41:49Mcgovern pretty much just said. Uh, it, you know, Mr. style, I got a couple of other things to say, but before I go any further, I want to give you an opportunity to speak for just a few minutes. I don't I don't have any other questions, but the debunking of the firearms industry was real. And it's bigger than just this. It's the debunking of the whole industry. I know manufacturers who, uh, banks were pressed to cancel their loans.
▶ 2:42:18>> this this is a really important point. I appreciate flagging it is the bill doesn't stop regular. Illegal activity. So we're trying to prevent is regulation going after illegal activity. That's constitutionally protected. And the evidence is incredibly thin.
▶ 2:42:36The biden administration, joe courtney 2.0 demonstrated, uh, labor compelled financial institutions to try to cut off services to lawful industries like firearms. So we. >> thank you very much. Is, is we see this you see the biden administration drive forward their agenda choke .2.0. You see the obama administration choke .1.0.
▶ 2:43:02We know that these codes are a mechanism that can be utilized by administrations that don't believe in the the role of the second amendment, like you and I do, Mr. scott, and that we hear time and again about what this is. This is again, it's not about, uh, preventing people from combating illegal behavior. We should be encouraging combating illegal behavior and enforcing our laws on the books.
▶ 2:43:29This is about really preventing your federal government from targeting legal activity that an administration simply disagrees with. >> well, I >> put in quotation marks. A couple of the words that were used from my democratic colleagues who I respect and just have a different opinion on this. But the the words they used literally were law enforcement to track. And we have a constitution in the united states of america.
▶ 2:43:57And unless unless law enforcement has probable cause, they do not have the right to track your purchases. >> and this is why the back door aspect of this is so important for people to understand what is actually taking place.
▶ 2:44:15We saw the obama administration and then the biden administration try to utilize the financial services industry in the united states to obtain the political goals, stifle the second amendment, and go after firearms dealers that they can't accomplish through the regular legislative channels.
▶ 2:44:35It was why, when the ranking member pointed out that there are a large number of mcc codes, we're specifically interested in the mcc code that relates to firearms and ammunition dealers. The reason for that is because they have been targeted by the previous two democratic administrations. There's there's a lot of work we could do to clean up the reason there's a lot of work we could do to clean up in the previous two administrations. This is focused in on making sure that we're protecting americans second amendment rights, which is constitutionally protected.
▶ 2:45:06>> well, there's a lot of discrimination against firearms owners. I mean, you can go on amazon right now and you can literally buy a bong to smoke dope. But they prohibit, uh, those of us who actually own firearms from being able to list. And I'm not talking about a gun, I'm just talking about accessories to firearms. Uh, a lot of, a lot of accessories, uh, are not available, but you can buy stuff to smoke dope if you want to.
▶ 2:45:29I mean, it's a, it's just a sad day that america has gotten to the point that people think that dope is good and guns are bad. And, um, you know, I look forward to the day when, uh, when we get back to some sense of normalcy in this country. And with that, Mr. chair, I yield the remainder of my time. >> gentleman yields back. I recognize gentlelady of pennsylvania, miss scanlon for her time. >> thank you. Um, our republican colleagues are claiming that this bill is about protecting privacy.
▶ 2:45:58But in reality, it's going to make it harder for law enforcement to do its job. And for communities across the country who want to prevent crime and gun violence to do their jobs. It's one more roadblock that is thrown up by folks, uh, for whom the second amendment might as well be a death packed.
▶ 2:46:18Um, one more roadblock to throw in the way of actually, um, being able to combat gun violence, whether it's outlawing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, whether it's underfunding the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms, whether it's preventing the digitalization of records.
▶ 2:46:39Um, regarding gun shops, all of these things are roadblocks to actually being able to get a handle on gun violence in this country, and particularly gun trafficking. Um, you know, merchant category codes are used throughout our financial system. There is nothing in the law or nothing that's been proposed that says that the merchant category codes will be turned over to the federal government.
▶ 2:47:06You have a law on the books saying there's no federal registry of gun owners or guns. Um, this the merchant category codes don't change that at all. Um, now it's true that the government could get warrants if they go to a judge and they're able to prove that there's some reason to believe, um, that crimes might be committed. We're big believers in warrants around here, except apparently when it comes to the fisa bill.
▶ 2:47:35Um, but this just takes a tool away from federal law enforcement or from local law enforcement as well. And what we've seen in recent years is that when there's seriousness about addressing gun violence, our communities can make progress.
▶ 2:47:51In philadelphia and chester, two cities in in my district, which had historically high rates of gun violence, when there was the ability of law enforcement to work with community groups, um, with our merchants, with, um, faith groups and with folks on the ground, we've seen over 60% reduction in gun violence in communities that took it seriously.
▶ 2:48:16So we need to encourage this kind of strategic collaboration, um, representative greene, um, what we're hearing here is that this is yet another area where firearms dealers should be given special treatment. Um, do you have any response to that? >> and I do, I should not be given special treatment. And you are again eminently correct.
▶ 2:48:47Um this is about really saving lives. Um it's about providing law enforcement with the tools that they can utilize to save lives at some point, doing nothing becomes more than an option. It becomes a methodology by which we allow things to occur.
▶ 2:49:13I've been to the funerals. I've seen the bodies over in the caskets. I've seen the parents who have seen the natural order circumvented by having to lay their children to rest. At some point, thoughts and prayers are not enough. I'm not praying for god.
▶ 2:49:42I am, I reply that says god is good all the time. I believe this, but I also believe that here on earth, as john kennedy put it, god's work must truly be our own. This is our time. This is our moment. We can do something to circumvent some of the gun violence that takes lives. Mass killings. Uh, I would have this also.
▶ 2:50:09There's been quite a bit said about the biden administration. I sit on the financial services committee, and I'm familiar with what is being said. But let's just for a moment put it aside and say this. We have law enforcement officers who commit crimes, but we don't know how to end the police departments. We don't want to prevent law enforcement officers from doing their jobs.
▶ 2:50:39There are judges that have taken bribes, but we don't conclude that the judiciary is no longer fit to serve the purpose that we intended to serve. Uh, I don't want to see anybody abused, ever. But in the process of doing things occasionally that may happen. I won't say that it happened in the biden administration, but what I'm saying is this if we do nothing, you will see more deaths.
▶ 2:51:07And when you see these deaths, I trust that you'll hearken back to this moment and realize that we could have done something, possibly to prevent it. When we have an anomalous activity, not just the usual course of business, but in a normal anomalous activity where someone goes in and buys this unusual number of guns and ammunition, uh, without tracking people, we're trying to prevent crime and save lives. >> well, I.
▶ 2:51:36>> I would disagree with you in that this isn't about doing nothing. This is about actively impeding a tool that could be used to prevent mass shootings. And we've seen that, um, there have been credit card purchases used in a number of mass shootings. And you mentioned the pulse shooting, which was so devastating. Uh, so we're not talking about not doing anything.
▶ 2:52:01We're talking about actively impeding the ability of law enforcement to find a pattern to track down a killer, um, and prevent shootings in the future. So, um, I think it's actually enabling, um, gun violence or the use of guns for violence and, um. It just, just obviously you support the bill. >> um, I concur with you in every way.
▶ 2:52:27Uh, when I use the terminology doing nothing, I mean that, that my dear colleagues on the other side, whom I have great respect for, would have us do nothing in the area of utilizing the codes. They would have us do nothing that just let this just go away. And if this just goes away, you're right. That is in a sense enabling. But they would have us do nothing and take law enforcement out of the game. Mhm.
▶ 2:52:55>> well, certainly law enforcement is not in the game when we're talking about merchant codes. Yes. Um, it's it's simply one more piece and it's just not giving preferential treatment to something, which actually is a proven danger to the public. Um, I yield back. Thank you. >> thank you. >> gentlelady. Yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from georgia, Mr. jack? >> uh, no questions other than to say, Mr. style, you always testify.
▶ 2:53:17Well, and I also want to applaud my colleague riley moore, who authored this legislation, a freshman member of the house of representatives who's done a tremendous job on second amendment rights and very much appreciate your testimony. So with that, I yield back, please. >> if I can, I should have opened my remarks with the work of riley moore, uh, in this regard and the importance of protecting second amendment rights. He's been a great leader in this, and I'm proud to be here, uh, on his behalf for his legislation. >> thank you. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 2:53:45>> now recognize miss leger fernandez for her time. >> uh, thank. >> you, chairman, and thank you, chairman and representative. Um, actually, the two representatives, I find it fascinating. You know, I come from a family. My kids all went shooting, uh, yesterday. We had a box of ammo delivered to my house. Um, we had lots of other things delivered to my house over the last week.
▶ 2:54:11Uh, and all of that other stuff had a code, didn't it? Uh, representative green. Did everything else had a code. >> it did. >> and so what, what the republicans are doing is saying we are going to have a carve out. We're going to have a carve out for the gun industry and things you buy from their.
▶ 2:54:35When I went and bought anything at the grocery store, when I went and bought anything, uh, when I filled the prescription, there was a code on that wasn't there when, uh, representative green. >> yes. Uh, card is utilized, as has been indicated at the florist shop.
▶ 2:54:52If you're going to buy automotive parts and this would be a carve out and it would be a carve out that would allow someone to buy an automatic collision of cough, perhaps many of them to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition.
▶ 2:55:16And they do so, uh, and go out and do something desperately when there is a possibility that there could be a means by which this could be circumvented. >> so for every other purchase, none of them would have had the consequences. Where there have been over 200 mass shootings. You've already pointed that out. Uh, and we also pointed out that you submitted this letter.
▶ 2:55:47Um, uh, the june 22nd, 2026 letter opposing this legislation. And some of these numbers are staggering. Right? We bought a box of ammunition, right? My kids are getting ready to go hunting this fall. And so they need to go do some target practice.
▶ 2:56:04I don't, you know, everything else we purchased this last week had a code, $95,000 were spent by the shooter and las vegas, nevada in just a few weeks, which could have provided or would provide after the fact important information. Right.
▶ 2:56:31And I think that what's interesting is what republicans are proposing is not supported by the american people. The american people actually want us to do gun safety legislation. We recognize the constitutional right, but we also recognize that these are deadly weapons.
▶ 2:56:52And I'm looking at some polls here that actually show that, uh, strengthening background checks, 20, 2024 voters were 79%. You know what? Trump voters, 73%, gun owners, 75% holding the gun industry to similar regulatory standards as the tobacco, audible, automobile and opioid industries, 69%. Gun owners 64% 2024. Trump voters 58%.
▶ 2:57:20The kind of stuff that they are trying to impose, not undo. As representative scanlan pointed out, it's not publicly supported. People want us to take action, not to eliminate our ability to safely own and utilize guns, but to take action to protect those children that you described.
▶ 2:57:48Representative greene, the idea that children are not just mourning their parents, they are looking they are looking at other children who have been killed and bloodied in their schoolroom. And we had shootings in my district, and everybody in this congress was going to eventually go down and have a moment of silence. And the idea that we can't do a basic thing like track the purchase.
▶ 2:58:17I'm the last democrat to speak. Representative greene, is there anything else you would like to clarify about why this law is deadly for children and deadly for our communities? >> well, some things just bear repeating that, uh, this is not about gun control. You are correct. It's about gun safety.
▶ 2:58:43Uh, it is about wanting people to live their lives and do safe things and enjoy the benefits of owning firearms. Uh, this is not about eliminating firearms or preventing persons from purchasing firearms. It does not stop one single purchase.
▶ 2:59:03So at some point, I just believe that we ought to honor the notion that all persons are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with the emphasis on life. Thank you. >> I have no further questions. Uh, I yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, Mr. norton? Mr.
▶ 2:59:35Thank you for your putting this bill up and appreciate your work on it. Uh, does this take an attorney general if there's a if a violation occurs, does the attorney general have the only say so to prosecute this. >> is to go to the united states attorney general, uh, for any violation would be submitted to, uh, to the united states attorney general's office. They would do a review, uh, and then decide if enforcement action is warranted. >> if. Attorney general. Okay.
▶ 3:00:05So once you follow that, if nothing is still done, there's no private action that you can. >> there's not a private right of action. >> okay. Um, you know, I keep hearing things like no action taken and things like that was the action taken by the biden administration, stop the mass immigration of 20 million people? No.
▶ 3:00:26Was the biden administration any democrat, uh, offering prayers up and sympathy for the children who were trafficked as a result of illegal immigration? >> that's my recollection. >> was there any, um, was there any, uh, uh, thought given to those who are killed by illegal aliens that are direct result of this, of the biden administration letting any and everyone in this country? >> that's my recollection.
▶ 3:00:52>> so it's kind of a interesting that now when you're trying to protect legal gun owners from buying things from being exploited and being tracked by the administration, we may have one in the future. Thank god this administration values the second amendment and values the right to carry a gun and not be tracked down by the federal government. So thank you for putting it up. And, um, it's a good bill. We'll be supporting it. I yield back.
▶ 3:01:24Gentleman yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from new york, Mr. langworthy? >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Um, coming from a state like new york, I've seen firsthand with our state capitals obsession with constantly finding ways to target law abiding gun owners, no matter how many laws we have on the books, regulations, mandates, it seems that there's always another proposal designed to make it harder for lawful firearm owners to exercise their second amendment rights.
▶ 3:01:53Now we're seeing that same debate play out across the country through firearm specific merchant category codes in states like texas and florida, indiana and utah. They've prohibited these codes because they believe lawful firearm purchases should be treated the same as any other legal transaction. Now, meanwhile, states like new york have moved in the opposite direction and chosen to require them.
▶ 3:02:17The result is a state by state tug of war that leaves americans facing different rules depending on where they happen to live. Uh. I represent thousands and thousands of hunters and sportsmen and law abiding gun owners across western new york and the southern tier, and many of them are frustrated by efforts to single out lawful firearm purchases. And they're concerned about the direction that our home state of new york has continued to take, uh, to strip away their second amendment rights, chairman style.
▶ 3:02:46Can you talk about why a consistent national standard is needed and why many americans believe lawful firearm purchases should not be treated differently, simply because they involve the exercise of a constitutional right? Dave taylor thank. >> you very much. >> Mr. langworthy. Uh, if I can, when I open this, I just want to address a comment that was made earlier because I think it's a point of clarification that's pretty worthy. Everything you buy, utilizing a credit card functionally as an mcc code.
▶ 3:03:14And I think that there was, uh, an assumption possibly made that this legislation would remove all mcc codes from firearm purchases that would not be accurate. It simply says you're not going to have a firearm specific mcc code. So just to step back, if you went into, uh, you go to your super targeted home, you got some groceries on one side, you got some sports equipment on the other side of the store. That store may or may not have one code.
▶ 3:03:44It may have two. So if you go to a florist, you may have one code. You might buy, uh, a card to write your mom a note. Um, and you might buy some flowers. It might just show up as a florist shop, even though you bought a card on one and you bought flowers on other places. Some stores have multiple mcc codes inside the store. And so you go into some big box store and you buy, uh, $100 of groceries and you buy $100 of sporting equipment. It may show up actually as two separate mcc codes, which is the issue.
▶ 3:04:13When we were talking about bass pro shop or other, uh, sporting goods stores, uh, that an individual may go into, it doesn't just always show up as sporting goods. Bass pro shop a single code. It may show up as sporting goods for this, but firearms under the firearm code. So when we remove that mcc code from being utilized specifically for firearms and ammunition, there will be a code. It will just be a a a non ammunition or non firearm specific code.
▶ 3:04:42It may go back into sporting goods. We don't dictate what code they use. We just simply say you can't have a specific firearm or ammunition code. And then of course the question was well why why single out those um businesses engaged in providing goods based on the second amendment? Well, the answer is pretty obvious.
▶ 3:05:03The past two democratic administrations went after ammunition and firearm dealers and tried to stifle them out, using the regulatory framework of the financial services space. And so if the previous democratic administration was going after an attacking flores, I bet our friend riley moore would have a bill up to say, no, you're not going to have mcc codes going after flores. But uniquely, in the second amendment space, we have a constitutional right to bear arms.
▶ 3:05:32And what we have seen is the past two democratic administrations, one after the other choke choke point one point choke, .2.0. Trying to utilize the financial services space to specifically target lawful transactions protected by your second amendment. And it would also be misleading to allow a comment that was made stand without without point of clarification. Nothing in this legislation stops regulators from combating illegal activity.
▶ 3:06:04So if an individual goes and engages in illegal activity, they should rightfully be prosecuted, held accountable. Lawful gun owners want individuals that engage in illegal behavior to be held accountable. I'm a I'm a gun owner. I want people who utilize a weapon or a gun who illegally to be held accountable. This legislation is about preventing the abuses that we saw under the two previous democratic administrations from continuing.
▶ 3:06:36In the event that a future administration does not share the second amendment view that you and I do, Mr. langworthy. And so I think it's just so important to clarify that that this is a this is a bill directly coming out of the fact that the previous two democratic administrations, in particular the biden administration, were abusive of the fact that they could track these mcc codes.
▶ 3:06:58And I think a lot of americans would actually be really surprised to realize that there is an mcc code specifically tied to ammunition and firearms, and that the previous biden administration, uh, has a history of abuse of, of trying to stifle, uh, constitutionally protected, uh, transactions for individuals to buy, uh, both, both guns as well as ammunition.
▶ 3:07:27>> well, I think you're exactly right, Mr. chairman. Um, and law abiding americans shouldn't have one set of rules in new york, another set of rules in texas or florida. Congress has the opportunity to provide consistency in ensure that lawful purchases are treated the same way across this country. I appreciate the work that has gone into this legislation, and I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. I now recognize myself for my time. Uh, could ask some interesting questions. Uh, but I thought your answers to Mr.
▶ 3:07:56Langworthy were outstanding and made a good summation. Is there anything you wish to add to that? >> uh, I'll just close out by saying I think this is a really important piece of legislation for those of us that believe in protecting the second amendment and the abuses that we've seen in the previous administrations. And I'd like to just to close by thanking, uh, riley moore congressman from west virginia for his hard work on this. >> and, uh, I concur with your comments, and I yield back. And that concludes this panel's testimony. You all are excused.
▶ 3:08:52Alright. We will now recognize, uh, miss stansbury and miss ramirez for amendment testimony. Members. Alright, that's our first panel. Is anybody else in the room that I failed to recognize that wishes to add to the amendment testimony, no other members being seen. Let's get let's get going. Miss stansbury, if you would like to start with your five minutes.
▶ 3:09:24>> yes. Thank you so much, Mr. chairman. Ranking member, members of the committee, I want to say thank you to the rules committee for giving us the opportunity to testify today on the set of bills that are included in this rule, and I'm going to focus my attention today on the energy and water appropriations bill.
▶ 3:09:40I've also offered amendments for the state and foreign affairs budget as well, but we'll discuss those elsewhere, because I really want to focus on the importance of water to the west, and especially states like new mexico, where water is life and water is essential to everything that we do in our state. And I've offered three amendments to help our communities across the west who are facing unprecedented water challenges, especially due to low snowpack and drought conditions.
▶ 3:10:09This year, in particular, I have filed an amendment to restore funding in the budget for the water smart program. This program is essential to communities across the west for modernizing infrastructure, preparing for drought, and also to help our communities get through difficult times and has been cut in this budget, and we would propose to restore that funding.
▶ 3:10:33I've also offered an amendment to provide additional funding to our tribes, in particular our new mexico pueblos, to address the water challenges and infrastructure needs they have around water. And finally, I filed an amendment to include my water data act, which is a bipartisan bill that would transform the way that we manage water, not just in the west, but all across the united states. Now, I want to zoom out and talk about why these amendments are so critical.
▶ 3:11:01As a water resources professional, I've worked on water and drought management most of my career, and in new mexico and across the west, we are experiencing some of the most challenging water years in recent memory. Across our state, drought conditions are continuing to intensify with rising temperatures, reduced precipitation, and particularly because we have seen the lowest snowpack in recorded history year after year over the last several years.
▶ 3:11:27But this is not simply a temporary drought condition. I want to make clear that what we are witnessing is a long term shift in the baseline of conditions in the west water systems snowpack, which is our natural reservoir, has becoming increasingly variable. It's reduced the reliability of runoff, and it has changed the entire way in which we are going to have to manage water going forward.
▶ 3:11:53This means our farmers, our tribes, our acequias, our local governments, our states are being forced to make difficult decisions about how to stretch increasingly limited water supplies. And as we sit here today, the rio grande, which is the major river of our state, is dry now, as a child, it was very unusual for the river to go dry.
▶ 3:12:18But what we have seen is that this river has been dry now for weeks because of the low snowpack here, and that is why I cannot sit silently as we watch as the budget for one of the most essential water infrastructure programs in the west is being cut in this budget, and these challenges are not unique to new mexico. They are not unique to the rio grande.
▶ 3:12:41We know that communities from the southwest to the great plains and beyond are facing these challenges, and now is the time for congress to step up and answer the call to invest in water conservation, to modernize our aging infrastructure, to address drought preparedness, and to invest in the fundamental long term changes in how we manage water so that our communities are able to be resilient in the face of drought and climate change.
▶ 3:13:12That is our responsibility as congress. So I urge the adoption of these amendments. I ask for your support for these vital programs and ask for your support for our communities who are facing severe water challenges and the farmers, tribal communities and local governments who are currently trying to figure out how they're going to get through this difficult year. And I thank you and yield back. >> I thank the gentlelady. And now, miss ramirez. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you.
▶ 3:13:42>> ranking member mcgovern, for the opportunity to testify today. I often say that budgets are moral documents. They reflect our values, and they certainly reflect our priorities. For far too long, our appropriations have failed to demonstrate that, in fact, our priority, our working people what h.r.
▶ 3:13:578595, the national security department of state and related programs appropriation act is telling us is that we live in a country that's addicted to war, competition, death, and destruction with leaders who wage war because they believe in this whole strongman idea and peace through strength. And we've seen the effects of appropriations like h.r. Eight, five, nine, five, because across the globe, our communities are confronting interconnected acts of violence. You're seeing cuts of services that americans rely on.
▶ 3:14:27We're seeing mass detention and deportations. We're seeing attacks on human rights defenders. We're seeing a displacement of puerto ricans, the violent extraction of resources in congo, the genocide of palestinian people, and unlawful wars waged against iran, against cuba, venezuela and lebanon, just to name a few. When our nation funds wars, when it funds diplomacy and erodes our commitment to the international community, we fail to confront global crisis.
▶ 3:14:56And frankly, we all become complicit to those crises. And our colleagues on the right are doubling down, rolling back commitments around reproductive health care, lgbtq rights and climate change, cutting over $1 billion to the united nations international bodies that hold war criminals accountable, decimating life saving humanitarian aid and gutting migration, refugee assistance, and undermining domestic and international laws. What does that do to us? It makes us all less safe in the process.
▶ 3:15:25You see, true safety cannot be brought into our lives at the end of the barrel of a gun, by a bomb, or via the chokehold of suppression or oppression through safety results. When we build a world that's rooted in peace that strengthen true democracy and justice, and that's built on diplomacy and undeniable understanding of universal human rights, and that is the security. Our resources must advance.
▶ 3:15:47My amendments today, I have six of them recognize our interconnectedness and strengthen the partnership needed to confront the complex challenges of the 21st century. They direct resources from death and destruction and reaffirm our commitment to advance our collective interests and build stronger relationships across the americas and across the world.
▶ 3:16:10My amendment number 56 directly strikes the $3.3 billion of foreign military funding earmarked for israel, putting an end to the money that is being used to commit genocide against palestinians with absolutely no accountability, especially when israeli ministers are explicit about their intention of expanding their genocidal campaign to lebanon.
▶ 3:16:30My amendment number 162, explicitly prohibits funds to trump's board of peace, a money laundering scam meant to displace palestinians and ensure a new riviera for trump and his billionaire friends. My amendment number 163, strikes a section of the bill that limits funds to the palestinian authority. If palestinians initiate or support an international criminal court investigation into israel's crimes against palestinians.
▶ 3:16:58Because, let's be frank, impunity can't be and should not be an option. Amendment number 164 strikes the language of the bill that allows trump and the gop to continue their harmful interference in colombian affairs. Amendment number 60 strikes the section of the bill limiting funds to countries that facilitate irresponsible migration, which has really devastated the local organizations, supporting vulnerable communities and, frankly, the organizations that actually help us limit migration by providing stability in the region.
▶ 3:17:28My amendment number 62 increases the available assistance to the inter-american foundation to $29 million, which in fact just restores the funding to what we had in 2026 so that we can continue to strengthen civil society and economic stability through the americas.
▶ 3:17:44You see, these amendments ask us what type of member, what type of country, and what type of world do we want to be one that is obsessed with war, or one that is committed to peace, one that's perpetrating domination and cruelty, or one that is committed to dignity and compassion, one steeped in selfishness or one committed to community.
▶ 3:18:07Look, my constituents have made it very clear our tax dollars must not be used to terrorize our communities at home or abroad. So my message today is very simple. There is another way we can reimagine security. We can build another world, a world where our children, regardless of their race or origin or geography, can in fact thrive. And we can redirect our resources to do just that.
▶ 3:18:33With that, chairman, I yield back in hopes that you will support my amendments. Thank you. >> thank you very much. We appreciate your coming forward and testifying before us today. And, uh, this panel is now excused. Thank you. Oh, question. Sorry about that. To get rid of all the questions. Uh. Any questions? No questions for Mr. jack. Mr. language. Mr.
▶ 3:19:03We don't have any questions. >> sorry, I just well, let me let me just say I want to thank both of you for being here. I think you're two of the most thoughtful members, um, in, in the house and, um, and I, I support them, uh, and I just want to say, you know, um, the humanitarian crisis in the middle east continues to worsen. Um, and I worry that we're not paying enough attention to it because there's so many other crises that are happening, uh, thanks to the guy in the white house right now, but I appreciate you bringing those to our attention.
▶ 3:19:32And I hope all your amendments are made in order and I yield back. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. brett guthrie. >> oh, and just and I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from representative doggett and supportive amendments 46 and 47 to h.r. 9022, which would transfer 103 million to the national nuclear security administration's defense nuclear nonproliferation account. >> without objection, miss scanlon. >> thank you.
▶ 3:19:58And I would just adopt the ranking members remarks and also wanted to thank miss stansbury for her long standing expertise on water issues, because, uh, they really are important. So thank you. >> uh, I just also like to express gratitude. I mean, it was disappointing to see that unlike last year, uh, last fiscal year where we had the appropriations really come together in a very bipartisan way and very much agree on many of the bills.
▶ 3:20:28We had so much more tension, and we had the kind of cuts that we're seeing, right? We have the kind of cuts that, uh, for a place like new mexico and the entire southwest, the entire southwest, uh, that we're having a 6% cut of the non-defense budget is really worrisome.
▶ 3:20:48And then that in terms of what we're doing, uh, on the other side, representative ramirez, you highlight how important it is to actually have the budget reflect these values that need to be applied at home and everywhere else. And so I really thank both of you for raising these issues, uh, not just in the amendments you spoke to, but in all of the amendments you submitted.
▶ 3:21:14And so no questions, but a lot of gratitude for your very thoughtful work. >> thank you. >> thank you both very much. Oh, uh.
▶ 3:21:34I, um, I don't have it in my hand, but I would like to introduce into the record representative fines statement relative to his amendment. Without objection.
▶ 3:21:58>> madam chair, I would just like to say that earlier you referred to the $72 billion reconciliation bill, and it was 70 billion. It was originally 72. But in the in the senate, they took out the 2 billion that was going to go to the slush fund. And so I misspoke because there was. So I just want to make sure that I correct the record there. Thank you. >> always good to correct the record. Thank you, miss leger.
▶ 3:22:27Fernandez, is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none. This closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from georgia. Mr. jack. >> madam chair, I move the committee. Grant h.r. 1181. The protecting privacy and purchases act, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
▶ 3:22:53Recommended by the committee on financial services, now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 9022, the energy and water development and related agencies appropriations act, 2027.
▶ 3:23:22Under a structured rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two of rule 21.
▶ 3:23:42The rule makes an order only those amendments, printed in part a of the rules committee report amendments en bloc described in section four and pro forma amendments described in section five. Each amendment 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.
▶ 3:24:03Equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section five of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part a of the rules committee report or amendments en bloc described in section four of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee may offer amendments en bloc, consisting of amendments printed in part a of the rules committee report not earlier disposed of.
▶ 3:24:32Amendments en bloc 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 five of the rule, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees, may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 3:25:01The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 8595. The national security department of state and related programs appropriations act, 2027. Under a structured rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read.
▶ 3:25:25The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two or clause five of rule 21. The rule makes an order only those amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report amendments en bloc described in section nine and pro forma amendments described in section ten. Each amendment 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.
▶ 3:25:50Equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to an amendment except as provided by section ten of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report or amendments en bloc described in section nine of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee may offer amendments en bloc, consisting of amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report not earlier disposed of.
▶ 3:26:16Amendments en bloc 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 the amendment, except as provided by section ten of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees, may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit rule further provides for consideration of h.r.
▶ 3:26:449237 the take care of america's veterans act. Under a closed rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment printed in part c, the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted in the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on veterans affairs or their respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
▶ 3:27:15>> thank you, Mr. jack. Um, you've now heard the motion from the gentleman from georgia. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule, Mr. mcgovern? >> yeah.
▶ 3:27:27Well, first of all, I want to note for the record, there were two additional closed rules contained in this rule, which brings the total your, my, my, the majority's total up to 154 closed rules this session, which is, uh, again breaks every record in the book and of the amendments that are being made in order today. I just want the record to reflect that you're blocking the majority of bipartisan amendments.
▶ 3:27:54You're blocking over 90% of democratic amendments, and you're blocking 44% of republican amendments. Uh, and having said that, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, make an order, amendment number two to h.r. 1181, authored by representative pedersen, which would strike the language that would preempt state and local laws governing the assignment, use or disclosure of merchant category codes associated with firearms related retailers.
▶ 3:28:21And republicans love to talk about states rights when it's convenient for them. But you all have repeatedly tried to pass laws this congress to preempt existing state laws. You all tried to pass a nationwide preemption so that states would not be allowed to regulate ai. You tried to pass a nationwide preemption to block states from having laws to protect college athletes.
▶ 3:28:44And now you're trying to preempt states like colorado that want to be able to use credit card codes to crack down on illegal gun rings and possibly stop mass shooters. So I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back. >> anyone else any further discussion on Mr. mcgovern's amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? No. No.
▶ 3:29:12In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed. >> for roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton. No. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. joe neguse. Mr. joe neguse. I miss leger fernandez, miss leger. Fernandez I madam chair. No, madam chair, no.
▶ 3:29:44>> clerk will report the total. >> 48 nays. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to any other amendment or discussion. >> madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number four to hr 9237, authored by ranking member takano, which would strike the entire text and replace it with the text of the major richard star act using department of defense funds from the republicans. One big, beautiful act as the offset.
▶ 3:30:11Madam chair, last july, republicans voted to give the military more than $150 billion without any offsets. The dod still has over $100 billion unspent. And instead of cutting benefits for veterans within the tinnitus or sleep apnea, um, or raising fees on va home loans, which your proposal would do, this amendment would cut the bloated dod budget by $13 billion in order to fully pay for the major richard star act.
▶ 3:30:41Um, republicans seem obsessed with making sure there's an offset in this bill. Uh, as I pointed out earlier, you didn't insist on an offset for the $70 billion, additional $70 billion for ice and cbp. You didn't insist on an offset for the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. You've added $3 trillion to the debt since you all took over. So, um, you know, I think we're trying to find an offset. Uh, and that's what we've done here. I think it's reasonable.
▶ 3:31:09And I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back. >> thank you. Mr. mcgovern. Any further discussion. >> madam chair? >> miss leger fernandez. >> madam chair, I think that this is exactly the kind of thing that can be done in the rules committee where we, uh, uh, acknowledge that chairman bos did not, uh, uh, sign the discharge petition.
▶ 3:31:30He felt he could not move forward without bringing a bill to the committee and to the floor that, uh, didn't, like, cut from other, uh, from other programs, from the veterans. And this is the way to do it. So there is an offset. There's lots of money, uh, available. As the ranking member has pointed out. And I sure, I think we should support the veterans by not cutting veterans benefits. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 3:32:01>> thank you. Further discussion? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. The opinion chair, the nos have it. >> for roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach no. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. houchin, Mrs. hawkins, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 3:32:31I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. negus, I miss ledger fernandez. Miss ledger fernandez, I madam chair. No, madam chair, no. >> clerk will report the total. >> four yeas, eight nays, nos. >> have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion. >> so. Yeah, madam chair, so I this may this may be an oversight, but I'm looking at the m's for mcgovern amendment and I. I can't find it. Um, so. >> it must be an oversight.
▶ 3:32:59>> it has to be an oversight because the amendment that I offered is totally rule compliant. Um, so it violates no rules. It's perfectly within making it in order. So I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, make an order amendment number 40 to hr 8595 offered by myself, which prohibits funds from being used to withdraw the united states from three duly ratified international human rights treaties.
▶ 3:33:27Madam chair, in may 1998, president ronald reagan put the united states signature on the un convention against torture. In his statement, he said, I quote, ratification of the convention by the united states will clearly express united states opposition to torture and abhorrent practice, unfortunately still prevalent in the world today, end quote. Thanks to the implementing legislation of this convention, torture is illegal in the united states.
▶ 3:33:55The convention helps our foreign policy. In february last year, secretary rubio condemned the government of thailand for sending uighurs back to china where they could be tortured. This convention is what gave legal force to secretary rubio's statement. International human rights treaties help americans safeguard their own basic rights.
▶ 3:34:18The international covenant on civil and political rights enhances our first amendment rights on free speech, religious freedom, and freedom of the press. It protects americans when they travel and live in other countries. International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination helps americans defend their civil rights. It gives international sanction to the core idea in our declaration of independence that all men are created equal and.
▶ 3:34:47Under executive order 14199. The state department is reviewing whether to recommend to the president that the united states withdraw from any conventions or treaties. It would be disastrous to withdraw from the international human rights treaties. It is party to. It would send a signal to the world that we are on the side of the dictators and the thugs who repress human rights, rather than those who seek to defend them.
▶ 3:35:14It would deny a tool for americans to assert their own rights. Most of us, both parties, have co-sponsored legislation or signed letters about human rights cases or conditions. In other countries. Withdrawal would cut the legs out from under those efforts. So I believe unilateral withdrawal would be illegal. The senate would need to vote to give its approval.
▶ 3:35:40My amendment simply says that no funds under the bill can be used to withdraw from any of these treaties. I ask that it be made in order, I the only reason why I think it's not being made in order is because the chairman probably thinks it's going to pass. Um, but the idea that this is even controversial, um, you know, is, is not only stunning but chilling.
▶ 3:36:06And I would urge us to correct the omission and make this amendment in order. And I yield back my time. >> thank you. Mr. mcgovern. I recognize myself, Mr. mcgovern. Um, there are a lot of people who are opposed to your amendment. It that amendment does not advance civil rights or anti-torture protections. It locks the us into treaty regimes that are vehicles for overreach and ideological abuse.
▶ 3:36:37Let's start with the facts. Torture is already a federal crime in the united states. Racial discrimination is already prohibited by core us law. Title six already prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance, and title seven already prohibits employment discrimination.
▶ 3:37:01You said that we need these treaties to have legal force for Mr. rubio's statement. No, Mr. rubio's statement is a moral statement ought to be able to stand by itself. Concerns with your amendment are not opposition to civil rights or anti-torture protection. It's opposition to locking the united states into treaty regimes that are vehicles for overreach and ideological abuse.
▶ 3:37:31Frankly, there are many of us who would get the united states out of the un altogether, let alone not being signed on to most of these treaties. Congress should not lock the united states into those dynamics through an appropriations rider. This is not the appropriate place to do that. So, um, the the un is basically a feckless organization.
▶ 3:38:01And again, in my, my opinion, and I think the opinion of many, many people in this body and in the united states would get us out of the united nations. We, we the interpretation by the un human rights committee that treaties can't be withdrawn from it all is is an overreach which should give us every right not to be supporting these. Mr. scanlon.
▶ 3:38:33>> yes. Thank you. I, I would have to vehemently disagree. And I think it's one of the reasons why the the amendment deserves a vote. But I think the main point here is that it's not just about our domestic law. It's about whether we participate in the rule of law of nations. And that's why it is important to engage in treaties, important to engage in the un. And while some, including this administration, think we should go it alone, I think many of us disagree. And I would yield time to Mr. mcgovern if he wishes it.
▶ 3:39:04>> yeah. I mean, I mean, the idea that the administration can unilaterally withdraw from treaties that were voted for by the united states senate. Um, again, I question the legality of all of that. But the idea that somehow we think that the, uh, the un convention against torture, that president reagan signed us onto is somehow signs us on to some sort of ideological, you know, um, you know, of course that goes against our values. I mean, I don't know, torture is torture. Torture is wrong, right?
▶ 3:39:35>> and it's a federal crime in the united. >> the idea is that when if we withdraw from that treaty, you know, our standing, um, in the world in terms of condemning torture, um, becomes less effective and, and basically non-existent, I'm going to be, I said this earlier, I'm going to say it again because I want everyone to hear this. When donald trump went to china, I expected him to raise the issue of human rights front and center.
▶ 3:40:03I expected him to call for the release of all the political prisoners to talk about jimmy lai, to talk about the genocide against the uyghurs, and to talk about the persecution of tibetans. We got none of that. We got none of that and none of that. Um, and and too many in too many instances, we are looking the other way when countries are torturing and abusing their own people.
▶ 3:40:26So the idea that somehow joining together with the world community and condemning human rights atrocities, that somehow that's, that's a bad thing, you know, or that we should be able to unilaterally withdraw without even, you know, vote by congress or the or the senate. I mean, I just I just find this stunning. You know, I will tell you this and I, I, I, I say this sincerely, I, our standing in the world is being diminished because we are walking away from a commitment to human rights.
▶ 3:40:55Everything is transactional. It's about money. It's about oil. It's about a deal. It's about that. And we are we are losing our credibility on this issue. I think that jeopardizes our national security. If we stand for anything, we need to stand out loud and foursquare for human rights in this country.
▶ 3:41:14Um, and, you know, the idea that we are walking away from this and not walking away, in some cases deliberately turning a blind eye to the mistreatment of innocent civilians, we we are no longer being regarded as a defender of human rights, but as an abuser of human rights. And so I, I think maybe one of the reasons, as I said, that this is being blocked is because you're afraid it may pass on the floor. I think we ought to have a debate on this.
▶ 3:41:40And if a majority of people, madam chair, agree with >> you that we should just tear all this up and walk away from it. So be it. Go on record. But the idea that a totally rule compliant amendment, um, you know, on a subject that is germane to what we're talking about here today, um, is being blocked because for because I, you know what, I don't know who, I don't know who made the decision, but the deal is, is that, uh, I'm urging my colleagues to reverse that decision.
▶ 3:42:08This is not the way we should be running this committee. And certainly on these issues, they ought to be front and center on the house floor for debate. I thank the gentlelady, and I yield back to her. >> I would agree with that. And not only should they be front and center in this committee, they should be front and center in this congress and for this country. I think it goes beyond what you said, that this administration is turning a blind eye to torture.
▶ 3:42:30In some cases, this administration has purchased it from other countries, such as when we send innocent people to el salvador to be in a gulag down there where there is known torture occurring. So I think it is time that we reclaim the moral high ground and actually live up to it. So I wholeheartedly support this amendment, and I yield back. >> further discussion.
▶ 3:42:52Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> I would ask for a recorded vote. Call the roll. Yeah. >> call the roll. >> Mrs. Mrs. fishback. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mrs. hutchinson. Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy.
▶ 3:43:23No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. goose. Mr. I miss ledger fernandez. Mr. ledger fernandez, I. Madam chair. Oh. >> no. >> madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> for yays eight nays. >> the amendments not agreed to. Are there other amendments or discussion? Yes, miss scanlon.
▶ 3:43:53>> madam chair and I. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment 87 to h.r. 8595, offered by representative jayapal, which repeals the anti equality provisions in that bill. Once again, our colleagues are using an appropriations bill to score political points by targeting some of the most vulnerable people in the world. These riders include petty performative provisions like banning pride flags at U.S.
▶ 3:44:21Embassies and dangerous clauses restricting programs that assist lgbtq individuals who face violence, discrimination and persecution in dozens of countries that criminalize same sex relationships people face can face life imprisonment or even the death penalty because of who they are or who they love.
▶ 3:44:41For decades, bipartisan american foreign assistance has helped provide health care, legal services, and basic protections for people living under those conditions. These programs save lives, but my republican colleagues want to eliminate them because they serve people. That this administration has decided to target and discriminate against in order to score political points.
▶ 3:45:06This amendment would strip the anti-equality provisions from this bill, because american foreign assistance should promote dignity and opportunity, not discrimination. I urge a yes vote on the amendment, and I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. scanlon. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of chair of the eyes, the nose. Have it.
▶ 3:45:36>> I would request a recorded vote. Please. >> miss catlin, request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. houchin. Mrs. houchin. Mr. Mr. langworthy. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, I miss. Scanlon, I miss. Scanlon, I Mr. joe neguse. Mr. I miss leger fernandez. Mr. fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> 48 nays.
▶ 3:46:06>> the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion? >> yes, madam chair. >> Mr. gamble, you recognized. >> madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment 97 to hr 8595, offered by representative wasserman schultz, which strikes new global gag rule riders. For decades, the global gag rule has prohibited certain organizations that receive U.S.
▶ 3:46:30Global health funding from using their own resources to provide, refer for, or even discuss abortion care or abortion related care. Republicans are now trying to take that policy even further by expanding those restrictions across virtually all nonmilitary foreign assistance, organizations will be forced to choose between accepting U.S.
▶ 3:46:53Assistance or complying with sweeping restrictions on the services they provide, what populations they serve, and even what they're allowed to say. We know where that leads clinics close health care providers withdraw services, and patients lose access to maternal health care, hiv treatment and other basic health services. People's health women's health shouldn't be held hostage to political ideology.
▶ 3:47:20This amendment strikes the harmful codification of the expanded global gag rule to help ensure U.S. foreign assistance is driven by public health and national security interests, not partizan politics. I urge a yes vote on this amendment, and I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment from miss scanlon? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the ayes have it.
▶ 3:47:50Miss scanlon requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman. Mr. norman. Mr. roy. Mrs. Mrs. and Mr. langworthy. Mr. langworthy. Now. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. Miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon, I. Mr. joe neguse, Mr. negus. I miss. Leger. Fernandez, miss leger. Fernandez. I. Madam chair. No, madam chair, no. >> clerk will report the total. >> 40 days. Eight days. >> the nos have it.
▶ 3:48:20The amendment is not agreed to. So further discussion or amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from georgia. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. >> no. >> in the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Yes. Mrs. fischbach. Aye. Mr. norman. Yes. Mr. norman. Aye. Mr. roy, Mrs.
▶ 3:48:51Horton. Mrs. houchin. Hi. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy, I. Mr. scott, Mr. scott, I Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin I Mr. jack. Aye. Mr. jack I Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. neguse. Mr. neguse. Num. Fernandez. Fernandez. No. Madam chair, I madam chair, I. >> report the total. >> aye. Ayes. Four days. >> um, the ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to.
▶ 3:49:20Representative jack be managing the rule for the majority and Mr. Mr. mcgovern for the democrats. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.