▶ 0:21:33That's right. Yeah. I'm ready. >> to call this meeting of the appropriations committee to order. I want to welcome everybody to today's markup, which will cover our final bill, defense appropriations measure for fiscal year 2027. Uh, tomorrow, the full house will consider the energy and water development and national security.
▶ 0:22:02Department of state and related programs will be on the floor in the next couple of days. That measure means that we need to complete our committee's work on the defense bill today. So we do not have a markup going on and and be on the floor at the same time. I know something the ranking member and I worked really hard to avoid if we possibly can. So having said that just mean we will be here until we're done. So we don't conflict with what we're doing tomorrow.
▶ 0:22:31I have the good fortune of telling you that what you have capital grill for lunch. Uh, and what chairman calvert assures me is really good chinese food for dinner. So you won't starve, but you will be here for a while. Uh, with that, uh, we've got a lot to get through. So we will begin, and I will recognize chairman calvert to present the bill.
▶ 0:23:04>> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I would like to thank you, chairman cole, for your leadership and guidance throughout the fiscal year 27 process. It's quite remarkable feat to have all 12 full committee markups completed before the july 4th break. So thank you, chairman cole, and congratulations on a job well done. Uh, to get to this point, I would also like to thank the distinguished ranking member, miss mccollum, along with the full committee ranking member, miss delauro, for their efforts in partnership for many years.
▶ 0:23:34I greatly value their input to ensure we produce a bill that will support our men and women serving in harm's way. The fiscal year 27 department of defense appropriations act provides for a total discretionary allocation of $1,072,000,000,000. It provides funding for a host of programs and platforms that are vital to our national security.
▶ 0:23:55This bill enhances america's strategic military advantage, strengthens support for service members and military families, optimizes the department of defense, and disrupts transnational drug trafficking. The bill before us represents a historic and overdue investment in national security at a critical inflection point, given the current threat environment, as the united states faces enormous and complex technological, industrial, economic, diplomatic challenges, the nation must navigate an
▶ 0:24:26Increasingly contested security environment with persistent threats across every domain. It's imperative that the us armed forces and our entire national security apparatus are sufficiently equipped to dominate any battle space, deter conflict when possible, and adapt to rapidly evolving threats. This bill reflects a thoughtful commitment to meet the challenge and pace of progress presented by our adversaries and competitors to the nation.
▶ 0:24:54To this end, the bill supports the president's budget request to appropriately prioritize critical modernization efforts. Numerous next generation weapon systems are advancing through various stages of development, including six generation air dominance platforms, hypersonic weapons, and unmanned systems.
▶ 0:25:15Priority investments also include aggressive shipbuilding, aircraft procurement, integrated command and control systems, long range fires, air and missile defense, advanced autonomous systems, and enhanced counter-drone systems. Among the most critical are the components of the nuclear triad, all undergoing concurrent upgrade and replacement. The land, sea and air strategic forces have not been modernized in decades, with critical systems nearing the end of their reliable service lives.
▶ 0:25:44This bill includes resources to drive the sentinel program, the columbia class program, and the b-21 raider toward timely success. This recommendation also prioritizes the high ground in space, the race for presence, situational awareness, influence, and ultimately dominance in the space domain has not only arrived, but is continually anticipated.
▶ 0:26:07Intensifying the space force has made remarkable progress, maturing into a true war fighting capability and service, accelerating the the delivery of critical capabilities and prioritizing resilience across its architecture. The bill makes critical investments in space ground architecture consistent with the president's budget request. With robust funding in the space launch, missile warning, satellite communications and global positioning.
▶ 0:26:36Similarly, the extraordinary advancement of artificial intelligence has become a critical new arena of competition essential to both the national and economic security. This technology presents unprecedented new opportunities and efficiencies that are already being realized. Additionally, the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence poses significant national security threats, and we must remain actively engaged in all of these areas.
▶ 0:27:02This bill continues recent prioritization of innovation. The recommendation equips the department of the funding and authority to support new entrants into the national security industrial base. In conjunction with the administration's effort, it creates expedited processes to support and reward innovation and risk taking incentives to to private investment in the expansion of production capability and capacity, amplifies research and development capability.
▶ 0:27:32The unprecedented resources recommended in this bill will ensure the department and its industry partners can continue to accelerate innovation, to create new economies of scale and increase output to help meet the challenges and threats that have already arrived, along with those emerging in the coming years. Accelerated development and production of munitions, for example, has been a shared priority by both the department and the committee.
▶ 0:27:58The bill recommends more than 30 billion in discretionary funding for munitions procurement. Last year, we provided multiyear procurement authority for eight munitions in order to incentivize private investment in production capability, drive down unit costs and signal to the department industrial base. Greater stability and predictability.
▶ 0:28:18Unfortunately, the funding that is required to execute the multiyear procurement authority that was provided in fiscal year 26 was requested largely as mandatory funding in the president's budget request for fiscal year 27.
▶ 0:28:33We all know, as proud members of the appropriations committee, that mandatory funding is provided through a separate reconciliation process that is uncertain and unaligned with the annual appropriations cycle outside the jurisdiction of this committee, rather than using the reconciliation process as a tool to scale up and accelerate investments beyond the base budget, the mandatory request includes funding for several critical efforts, such as munitions, which should have been built
▶ 0:29:04Into the base discretionary request. The two legislative vehicles are on entirely separate tracks with different timelines, committees of jurisdiction and approval processes. This approach is risky and uncoordinated. This bill also fully funds military personnel requirements, including the proposed service members pay raise and over 43 billion for military health program.
▶ 0:29:27In addition, it provides over 25 billion investments supported by the president's golden dome for american initiative, over 30 billion for depot maintenance efforts, 20 billion for facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization, over 4 billion for defense security cooperation efforts, and 1.2 billion for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities.
▶ 0:29:48Finally, I'd like to in my remarks on a note of sincere thanks to the staff, I would like to thank ben walters and mary o'brien with the government publishing office, along with the entire team, which epo, who's helped edit and format throughout the process and assisted in producing the searchable report for the first time. I would also like to thank andrea conine and the team from the congressional budget office.
▶ 0:30:12I'd also like to thank brendan gallagher and the team with the house office of legislative counsel, and also like to thank eric jackson for his support throughout. Also especially thank the subcommittee majority staff, starting with our clerk, adam sullivan, along with colleen, dan, adam, kyle, carolyn, max, gina, keaton, jackie, ariana and taylor and my personal office team of rebecca, danny, will, and jeremy.
▶ 0:30:38And lastly, my thanks once again to my partner on this bill, ranking member miss mccollum and her staff, jennifer, editor and jason. Their hard work has provided a bill that I think we should all be proud of. To support this bill, invest wisely to meet the obligations to the warfighter. Keep this nation safe from ever growing threats and all.
▶ 0:30:56This bill meets the nation's most pressing national security imperatives, reflects dedicated stewardship of taxpayer funds, and will help ensure that the united states is prepared to meet the challenges of the next 250 years with strength and security. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. I would now like to recognize the ranking member, miss mccollum of minnesota, for remarks on the bill. >> thank you very much.
▶ 0:31:22Um, chairman cole, I want to start again. Just echoing what the chair just said. I want to thank the majority and minority staff. I want to thank jennifer, jason and editor on the minority side, taylor, carrie, lynn, gina, colleen, max, ariana, jack, daniel adams. We have two adam's adam squared. And I'd also like to thank my personal staff, ben peterson, and my military fellow from the united states army, robby, for his work on this.
▶ 0:31:52Each year they are given a tremendous task, our staff to put forward a challenging bill, and this year was no different. Fiscal year 2027. The defense appropriation act totals $1.072 trillion. It's an unprecedented top line, equal to the president's request. Now, I'll address some of the concerns I have with the bill shortly. But first, I'd like to say, chairman calvert, I thank you.
▶ 0:32:22I thank you for writing this bill that that as of now only includes one partizan writer that the minority objects to. And I object to that basically on germaneness reasons. It doesn't belong in the bill.
▶ 0:32:34And we on the democratic side, but I think every single one of us in the committee should applaud the chairman's decision and the staff's decision to do this, because at the end of this day, at the end of every day, we want to build that takes care of our warfighters to do their missions, to do them, you know, swiftly, successfully, and come home to their families. And we want to also support the civilian employees who serve alongside of them.
▶ 0:33:01I want to also applaud the chairman's decision to reduce the department's general transfer authority from $6 billion to three. If the department and omb have less leeway to move money around, they will be more inclined to provide us with the information that we need to conduct our oversight. That's our responsibility. Under the constitution, the majority has also worked to include a broad range of priorities that are important for many members in their constituents.
▶ 0:33:29I thank the chairman for working with us in such a bipartisan fashion, but that's why I also have to say that I'm disappointed that I'm unable to support this bill. As it's written today. The bill provides the department of defense over $1 trillion, an unprecedented top line, and that comes at the cost of deep cuts to other appropriations bills, for example, labor, health and human services and education bill was cut by $19 billion, a 9% reduction.
▶ 0:33:59The education and workforce programs were deeply impacted with these cuts, and that includes an $8 billion cut to the department of education and a $2 billion cut to teacher training opportunities. I've said this before cuts to education will have a negative downstream impact on our national security, engineering, math, science, cyber computing programs. They will all be impacted by these cuts.
▶ 0:34:29These cuts undermine our future national security workforce, and the programs that we fund in the defense bill will suffer because of that. The majority also cut the state department funding bill, a shocking 22% from last year's level. That would diminish diplomatic and development efforts around the world. At the same time, threats to america are growing. Over $1 trillion in the defense bill is not going to keep americans safer.
▶ 0:34:58If we mortgaged our children's future and our strategic diplomacy efforts to pay for it. Regarding the funding in this bill, there are several areas where I believe funding could be reduced or redirected. First, $705 million for the national guard mobilization unit in washington, D.C. the operations has not reduced violent crime in washington, as the president claims. The only thing it has reduced is the readiness of these soldiers.
▶ 0:35:27They've lost valuable training and exercise time that's necessary for them to be ready for the conflict with a peer adversary. Second, the bill includes $216 million for the national guard reduction force. The national guard does not need new funding to develop law enforcement capabilities that are outside the scope of its jurisdiction. That's simply not the military's job. Congress has rejected similar ideas during the previous administration.
▶ 0:35:56After the january 6th insurrection, the us government has plenty of first responders federal, state and local, trained to handle criminal activity. Third, $1 billion in advanced advanced procurement for a so-called battleship that has not even been designed yet. Reportedly, one ship could cost upwards towards $717 billion. I wanted to make sure I got that right. One ship, $17 billion.
▶ 0:36:28The subcommittee has spent years working to get shipbuilding back on track. The industrial base still has challenges, such as the backlog of 17 virginia class submarines or the recent cancellation of the constellation class frigate. We should not spend money on ships and boats that have not been designed, in this case, ships that have not even been designed yet is simply financially irresponsible.
▶ 0:36:54Fourth, I'm disappointed that the funding for ukraine was not included in this bill, particularly because the house just took a bipartisan vote in favor of continued assistance for ukraine last month. Failing to include ukraine sends the wrong signal to both ukraine and to our european allies, especially as the president continues to reduce the military presence in europe. I'm also concerned about these troop reductions.
▶ 0:37:18President trump is giving putin the impression that the us will not stand with our nato allies in the event of future russian aggression in europe. America's national security has always been tied to europe, and nato has been the cornerstone of peace for almost 80 years. We need only to look to the arctic to see the threats on our own borders and to secure them. We will need to work with our nato allies. So, Mr. chairman, I hope we can restore this funding.
▶ 0:37:45And finally, I am concerned that the bill includes a new provision which indiscriminately cuts $1 billion with no congressional direction. We have seen this administration use a full c full year cr and mandatory money in the reconciliation bill for the department of defense to circumvent congressional direction. So why would we want to give permission for the department to take more discriminatory cuts?
▶ 0:38:11If we provide them with this authority, we simply have no idea how they will use it. And separate from the base bill. I have real concerns about the administration's request for defense funding outside the annual appropriations process. First, we've been hearing rumors for months of a supplemental to cover the costs of the large scale military operations around the world. Southcom operations, uh, operation southern spear cost $600 million in centcom.
▶ 0:38:40President trump's disastrous war on iran has cost taxpayers over $31 billion. Neither of these operations have concluded or have been authorized by congress. We don't know when they will end, and nor do we know what the full cost will be. If the administration will request a supplemental, we need to see it as soon as possible and not in the press. We must have full and detailed accounting of these operational costs. Only then will we be informed enough to determine what additional funds the department requires.
▶ 0:39:09Second, the reconciliation process is a chair pointed out, and I agree with them. Totally is a wrong way to fund the department of defense. And we all know that here in this room. I'm deeply concerned that the president's proposal for a $350 billion mandatory funding for defense will have no appropriations input on the enactment.
▶ 0:39:30That's not the right way to fund the department of defense, because it took the department ten months to explain to congress how they were going to spend the $150 billion in mandatory funding they received last year. It's unacceptable, and I have no confidence in the department will do a better job responding to us in the future. There's also no guarantee that a reconciliation bill will pass. If it does not pass, it will be nearly impossible to fix what's called the broken glass that could occur.
▶ 0:40:00By forcing these priorities into the base budget. When the department makes mandatory funding requests and the authorizers fail to include it, the dod looks to the appropriations process to solve their problems, and that means we must reopen the bill in conference and then, yes, make cuts that will put this committee in a very difficult situation. But, Mr.
▶ 0:40:22Chairman, I am confident I am more than hopeful that we will have an opportunity to resolve these issues as the process moves forward. And I want you to know, Mr. chairman, you personally have my commitment to do that in a bipartisan way for the defense of our nation. As I said, I could not support the bill as written, but I look forward to working with you to improve the bill, and I yield back. Mr. chair. >> thank you, gentlelady, for her remarks. I now recognize myself for remarks on the bill.
▶ 0:40:53I want to start by thanking chairman calvert for his leadership on this legislation and for his unwavering commitment to america's national defense. I also thank ranking member mccollum for her partnership throughout this process, as well as ranking member delauro for her continued engagement and leadership on the full committee. Before I focus on defense bill before us, I want to take a moment to recognize what today's markup represents.
▶ 0:41:19This is our 12th and final fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill before the full committee. Reaching this point required long hours, thoughtful deliberation, and a tremendous amount of work from committee members and staff. It is an accomplishment we should all be proud of, and it's fitting that our final markup focuses on national defense. There's no higher responsibility, the federal government, than safeguarding our nation and the american people.
▶ 0:41:45There's no denying that our defense defenders are the greatest force for good and freedom the world has ever seen. History has shown that time and time again. It's also revealed that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Yet I would argue that vigilance without preparedness is merely observation. True deterrence requires strength, readiness, and a military capable of meeting any challenge. And deterrence, of course, is not self-sustaining.
▶ 0:42:15It must be renewed, strengthened and funded. The threat environment before us reiterates that point. The warning signs are visible in every region of the world. Iran remains reminds us that threats must be met with strength and china, russia and other bad actors are not standing idle. They're building armies, expanding arsenals, strengthening industrial capacity, and pursuing strategic advantages at a relentless pace.
▶ 0:42:43Their aim is not merely to compete with the united states, is to eclipse us with where they can challenge us where they must, and constrain our ability to lead. This bill reflects the strategic crossroads at which we find ourselves today. It prioritizes the historic and necessary resources to rebuild readiness, modernize aging capabilities, and strengthen the deterrent power that has preserved american security for generations.
▶ 0:43:11The choice before us is not between spending and saving, it's between preparing for the threats of tomorrow or paying a far greater price later. This legislation chooses preparedness. It chooses strength, and it chooses to ensure that the united states remains the world's preeminent military power. The need for these investments is not theoretical.
▶ 0:43:36Much of the equipment that underpins our defense today was designed decades ago for a different era and a different threat environment. The average air force aircraft is now more than 30 years old. Some of our b-52 bombers are projected to remain in service a century.
▶ 0:43:53A large portion of the navy's fleet is approaching or has surpassed two decades of service, even as demands on our maritime forces continue to grow, our service members should not be asked to deter and defend 21st century threats with 20th century capabilities. President trump recognizes this point, and so do house republicans. The truth is that in some areas, we are no longer preserving an unquestioned advantage.
▶ 0:44:22We are working to regain one. This bill helps close those gaps. The bill modernizes our air force through investments in next generation aircraft, hypersonic weapons, autonomous systems, missile defense, cyber capabilities, and the technologies that will define the future battlefield.
▶ 0:44:41It also strengthens our shipbuilding and submarine industrial base, accelerates innovation, expands munitions production, and reinforces the supply chains necessary to sustain military readiness during a prolonged conflict. I am particularly pleased with investments in the e-7 airborne early warning and control aircraft, which will help replace the aging e-3 awacs fleet at tinker air force base in my district in oklahoma.
▶ 0:45:12Just as importantly, this bill invests in the men and women who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform. It provides a pay raise for our troops, strengthens support for military health, and ensures our warfighters remain the best trained, best equipped and best supported fighting force on earth. The world is becoming more dangerous, not less. The answer cannot be to hope that our adversaries slow down. Uh.
▶ 0:45:39The answer is to ensure america remains unquestionably capable of outmatching them. This legislation ensures sustained, stable funding that advances that critical objective. I thank chairman calvert for crafting a bill that will help ensure america never finishes second in a fight, and that our adversaries continue to understand the cost of challenging us before a conflict ever begins.
▶ 0:46:04I also thank ranking member mccollum for her work throughout the process, as well as the staff on both sides of the aisle for their diligence and commitment to getting this bill across the finish line. I urge support of this legislation, and with that, I yield back. I now recognize my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. law of connecticut, for her opening remarks. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman and chairman calvert and ranking member mccollum.
▶ 0:46:34Thank you. Thank you for your work together. And and, and, uh, bringing forward this bill today. I want to say a thank you at the outset to the subcommittee staff for their work on this bill. Jennifer chartrand, jason gray at etscorn on the minority side, and adam sullivan and his talented team on the majority side. Thank you for your hard work on this bill, as is. This is our last full committee markup, our 12th and final bill.
▶ 0:47:04I want to reiterate my gratitude for the entire committee staff on both sides of the aisle for all of your work throughout this process, your dedication, and your commitment. With special thanks to susan ross and matt dehler, who have assisted chairman cole to smoothly run the markups. Thank you one and all for your exceptional work.
▶ 0:47:22Now on to the measure before us today, I rise in opposition to the bill under consideration at a time when american families are begging for relief from high prices, the trump administration is deaf to their pleas. Instead of providing relief, they are cutting domestic programs that support families who are struggling with the cost of living.
▶ 0:47:45Across the board, republicans are cutting nearly $13 billion from non-defense programs that support the working class, middle class and vulnerable americans. They are cutting investments in education, job training, housing assistance, energy development, transportation, rural aid and more. At the same time, they are cutting these programs. They are proposing the most expensive military budget in american history, more than $1 trillion for the pentagon.
▶ 0:48:15It's a $234 billion increase, and that does not even account for president trump's so-called golden fleet replenishing munitions or any other any of the other additional costs associated with president trump's war of choice in iran, a war that has taken 13 american service members lives, left the iranian regime in place and emboldened cause it leaves tens of billions of dollars, and for which we still have no detailed
▶ 0:48:47Accounting. It is the most expensive military budget in history, and the administration still may come back to the congress for even more funding through a supplemental request or through reconciliation. It is a $1.1 trillion floor, but who knows how high the ceiling will be? Despite the astronomical increase in funding proposed in this bill, it does not include funding for the ukraine security assistance initiative.
▶ 0:49:13How can it be that even with the largest military budget in the world, that we do not have enough resources to support a key ally as they defend their country against russian aggression? Our partners and our allies deserve better than broken promises. This bill also continues the deployment of national guard troops to the district of columbia for the so-called, quote, beautification of D.C.
▶ 0:49:44This week. They are guarding the reflecting pool. They have been asked to protect it against algae growth. This is a gross misuse of military resources, a disservice to guard soldiers whose time and energy should be spent training, supporting legitimate operations or responding to emergencies where their skills are sorely needed. They are committed and dedicated men and women, and we are putting them and having them to defend here.
▶ 0:50:16The reflecting pool. Think about how we are using our resources, deploying guard soldiers for this purpose is not only unfair and quite frankly, disrespectful to them, but reduces our readiness, putting all of us at greater risk. President trump says we do not have money for child care, medicare, medicaid because we are, quote, fighting wars. That was not a slip of the tongue. It was a statement of policy.
▶ 0:50:43The trump administration is prioritizing foreign entanglements at the expense of domestic investments, regardless of the consequences or the costs. That is exactly what the house republicans have done. Our committee has not bothered to follow regular order and formally adopt a full slate of subcommittee allocations. We have only actually voted on six of the 12 allocations for our bills, and only now that all 12 bills have been released, we can see the full picture.
▶ 0:51:10House republicans are following the president's blueprint to defense spending goes up by $234 billion, while domestic investments that support working families struggling with the affordability crisis are cut by nearly $13 billion, the president's war of choice are pushing higher prices, but he said that he does not think about american's financial situation at all. Recently he said, and I quote, he loves inflation.
▶ 0:51:38Even as costs rise faster than wages. Last week, the president signed a 60 day cease fire extension in iran, which iran agrees to reopen the strait of hormuz, which of course was open before the war began. It opens the door to iran, potentially extracting extraordinary sums of money through various fees in the future.
▶ 0:51:59They have already gotten immediate sanctions relief with regard to their oil exports, and we have committed to providing $300 billion for them in the form of reconstruction fund. It's really reparations. We spent tens of billions of dollars dropping bombs on iran, and now we are promising to find them, $300 billion to rebuild what? We just blew up. The hard line repressive iranian regime is still in power. The iranian people are not free.
▶ 0:52:25Their ballistic missile program is intact. Their nuclear ambitions are unchanged. Their proxies are emboldened, their sanctions are being lifted, their oil revenues are increasing. Their leverage is greater than it has ever been before, and we have nothing to show for it. Why did we go to war further? While all eyes and attention are on the conflict with iran and the strait of hormuz, very little attention is being given to gaza.
▶ 0:52:54It's only two points of the 20 point plan that was fashioned between the united states and israel and gaza. Only two points have been implemented. Settler violence in the west bank is increasing as more territory is annexed by israel. The israeli military continues to push further into lebanon as airstrikes batter beirut, and the humanitarian conditions in gaza worsen by the day. It is unconscionable.
▶ 0:53:24Centcom forces are currently working with their counterparts in the counterparts in the civil military coordination coordination center, which I was able to visit during a recent trip to the region. It is my hope that they continue their activities toward a real peace. It was an impressive operation, which, I'm sorry, that has been curtailed at the moment. To be clear, I support a strong national defense.
▶ 0:53:50I support the courageous men and women who serve our country in uniform, and I understand the need to make investments accordingly. But we need not cut non-defense programs that lower costs and help families afford basic necessities like groceries, housing, child care and health care. We ought to work together to provide relief for american families.
▶ 0:54:14That is what I intend to do as we continue our work on this committee. In the meantime, I oppose the bill under consideration as it abandons a key us ally in their fight for independence from russian aggression and emboldens this reckless administration as they continue to pursue wars of choice around the world. And it continues the misuse of military resources for president trump's vanity projects, and does nothing to bring down the cost of living.
▶ 0:54:45Thank you. And I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady for remarks. Gentlelady from ohio, miss kaptur's recognized for remarks on. >> the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member delauro, I rise today to thank you for your hard work. Chairman calvert, ranking member mccollum and the regular order proceedings that we are abiding by.
▶ 0:55:08But unfortunately, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I fully recognize important, very important areas of bipartisan cooperation throughout this process, particularly communicating to the administration that the department of defense should be primarily funded through constitutionally mandated regular appropriations. Congress must exercise its power.
▶ 0:55:37Omb must be held in check, not rampaging across federal accounts with no oversight. Unfortunately, I do not believe this bill to date is the most responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Significant levels of defense spending, uh, is not a new reality. But we must not surrender to permanent U.S. debt increases of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars more year after year that ratchet up the us debt.
▶ 0:56:07We have to pay our bills. In particular, the pentagon has yet to pass an audit further, especially now when this administration is not clearly communicating to congress, it has serious plans to implement desired projects such as the trump class battleship.
▶ 0:56:25Please recall the quote the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and such is this moment in the history of nato and europe, our closest allies and intergenerational partners in liberty's quest and defense. Let me express deep concern that this bill does not contain assistance to ukraine, the latest victim of russian brutal, unprovoked aggression.
▶ 0:56:52Russia is a vast nation with 11 time zones. Ukraine has but one time zone. Russia has more than four times the population of ukraine. Yet ukraine has held the line. As leader of the free world, we should support ways to allow liberty to triumph there. Could it be that some members of congress have forgotten the history of what our nation sacrificed for?
▶ 0:57:20Liberty is hundreds of thousands of our beloved countrymen died across europe during world wars one and two, and then the nearly half century of the bitter cold war that followed. Perhaps you're too young, or maybe absent minded. The most unselfish generation, the most unselfish, bequeathed liberty to us. We didn't earn it.
▶ 0:57:44Could we now be so ungrateful and indeed unconscious of what eternal vigilance to liberty requires? None of us did anything to achieve freedom from fascism or communism subsequent to world war two.
▶ 0:58:02It took our forebears another half century to defeat the predatory soviet union across the newly freed, formerly subjugated nations of europe. I remain in awe of what they accomplished. Their advance of liberty was profound and utterly sacrificial.
▶ 0:58:25American cemeteries across europe testify to the sheer valor and sacrifice by hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. Have too many here forgotten? Are we spoiled?
▶ 0:58:38In 1991, the entire soviet union collapsed of its own dead weight trip, wired by the solidarity movement that had started in poland through the 1980s with its victory over soviet domination in 1989, liberty advanced. President trump and his team thus far have had many opportunities to negotiate to end russia's unprovoked invasion of ukraine.
▶ 0:59:07The scrimmage line for liberty in europe today is ukraine and central europe, but his administration seems to have historical amnesia. They've not even tried. Public opinion is also seriously in favor of sending reasonable military assistance to ukraine. This bill is written, doesn't stand with our proven allies. We must force vladimir putin to accept that his dream to restore the russian empire is a fantasy.
▶ 0:59:37Further, this administration's efforts to withdraw U.S. forces from europe are dangerous. Our nation must stand with our nato allies and deploy the necessary assets to defend every inch of nato soil and airwaves from kremlin aggression. Vladimir putin knows well the structures of europe. A former intelligence agent in the soviet union, he's coveted every square inch as far west as germany and beyond.
▶ 1:00:03But in memory of every single american soldier, sailor, airman who rendered their lives and fought in the 20th century so our generation would be free. I refuse to abandon the free peoples of europe to. But the latest vicious dictator perched inside the kremlin. I know many on this committee disagree with efforts to withdraw forces from europe, and I hope we use every measure possible to strengthen our force posture on the eastern flank.
▶ 1:00:30Please let me extend my thanks to committee leadership and staff for their hard work to put this bill together. This includes key expansion of our hypersonic testing and production, while investing in the critical assets, forges and factories which form the backbone of america's defense industry. We know american shipbuilding is in crisis. The chairman of this subcommittee fully understands that and is well aware of the challenges. Indeed, this bill makes a good faith effort toward progress there, but we must be bolder with american industrial innovation.
▶ 1:01:00And in closing, I want to say it just can't be. Industrial innovation just can't be about multi-million dollar tech systems and artificial intelligence. We must revive the deep and talented workforce in defense and manufacturing at scale. That built the arsenal of democracy. And the great lakes region did its job before, and we're ready to do it again. We must make not just import the essentials of life in america. Thank you to my colleagues for your hard work to craft this bill.
▶ 1:01:28We must not accept an administration that is asking for a blank check and an omb that is rampaging through the federal government and wants blank checks. I look forward to continuing efforts to improve this bill as it moves forward and to support our allies. I do oppose it in its current form. Thank you, and I yield back. >> thank. Gentlelady. The gentleman from florida, Mr. rutherford's recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, and I'll be brief.
▶ 1:01:57I, um I rise today in support of the fy 27 defense bill. Uh, this bill provides the resources necessary for the department of war to maintain its readiness and to protect our nation. It invests in our critical munitions, our military and industrial base, our counter-drug operations, and most importantly, our war fighters.
▶ 1:02:26Specifically, I'd like to thank chairman calvert for his leadership and support. This bill brings home important wins for northeast florida, including funding for the procurement of the e-2d hawkeyes, which are built in saint augustine, florida, and they provide vital protection for our carrier strike groups worldwide. It also supports critical infrastructure at naval air station jacksonville, the fleet readiness center. And I really appreciate that.
▶ 1:02:55Uh, and finally, it has language supporting continued investment in utilization of the littoral combat ships, which is, I think, critical to our mixed fleet strategy, uh, by the navy. And so this is a strong bill that is worthy of the sacrifices that are being made by our servicemen and women in warfighters every day. So I just want to thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:03:25Chairman. I think we have a great bill. I yield back strategic. >> thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from georgia, Mr. bishop, is recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member delauro, chairman calvert and ranking member mccollum. And thank you to both the majority and the minority staffs.
▶ 1:03:49I appreciate the work that has gone into bringing this fy 27 defense appropriations bill before the committee or providing for the common defense is one of congress's most solemn constitutional responsibilities, and it is a responsibility that we must approach with seriousness, discipline and respect for the men and women who wear the uniform. I want to begin by recognizing the parts of the bill that I support.
▶ 1:04:15The bill makes major investments in our service members, military families, readiness, military, health care, depot maintenance, installation, sustainment, shipbuilding, aviation munitions, and the defense industrial base. Those are not abstract priorities.
▶ 1:04:34They directly affect our ability to deter our adversaries, to respond to crises, and to take care of the people who carry the burden of defending our nation. For georgia, and particularly georgia's second congressional district, these investments matter. Fort benning, marine corps logistics base, albany robins air force base and the supporting civilian workforce all play a direct role in maintaining military readiness and sustaining the force.
▶ 1:05:03When we invest in training, logistics, maintenance, health care, family support, and installation readiness, we're investing in the people and the communities that keep our national defense strong. I'm also pleased to see continued attention to military pay, tricare and private sector care impact aid counseling support the fisher houses, red cross and the uso and the other programs that support service members and their families.
▶ 1:05:31No defense bill should be measured only by the weapons systems it buys. It must also be measured by whether it supports the families who support our. Who serve alongside our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians and civilians. At the same time, I have serious concerns about the bill as it is written, a defense bill of this size requires strong oversight, clear priorities, and transparency.
▶ 1:06:00Congress should not write a blank check without ensuring the taxpayer dollars are tied to real military requirements, executable plans, and measurable outcomes. This defense bill is lopsided. $1 trillion plus. Uh.
▶ 1:06:18But the committee has really done this by . Enabling, uh, it has enabled this lopsided to supporting our national security.
▶ 1:06:44I'm particularly concerned by the omission of the ukraine security assistance initiative, uh, at a time when the also concerned about the broad $1 billion reduction tied to business process modernization and artificial intelligence without sufficient clarity about which programs or accounts may be affected.
▶ 1:07:11Innovation is important, but savings must be real, transparent and not come at the expense of readiness of service member support. I'm also. I also remain concerned about provisions related to domestic national guard deployments. The guard is an essential component of our national defense and emergency response capability. We must ensure that god. Resources are used in ways that strengthen readiness, not in ways that politicize off the force or distract from core missions.
▶ 1:07:41So today, my approach is straightforward. I will support efforts to strengthen this bill, protect service members and their families, preserve readiness, support georgia's defense communities, and improve oversight. But I cannot ignore the serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and strategic judgment that the current version of the bill ignores.
▶ 1:08:02We can and must have a strong national defense, but strength is not measured by top line numbers alone. It's measured by whether we make responsible choices, support our people, uphold our alliances, and ensure every dollar advances security of the american people.
▶ 1:08:22Although I cannot support the bill in its current form, I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this extremely consequential legislation and rightsize it to create a responsible, effective and balanced effort to fund our national defense so as to always keep america strong and safe. I yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Gentleman from alabama. Mr. strong is recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:08:50I rise in strong support of this defense appropriation bill, and I commend chairman calvert, chairman cole, for putting america first and our warfighters first. Uh, this bill delivers the resources our troops need a real pay raise for our service members and their families, and additional investment into counseling services, ensuring that our men and women in uniform receive the very best resources and training.
▶ 1:09:16This bill strengthens america's military superiority by investing in counter uas missile defense space programs, including the golden dome for america, 12.5 billion for missile defense agency, and 13 billion for missile warning and tracking programs. We're also reloading america's clip of our. By providing nearly $3 billion, rebuilding our industrial base and over 10.6 billion in munition procurement.
▶ 1:09:42We're committed to ensuring our troops have the ammunition and technology and weapons needed to execute their mission, defend our nation, and to tour our enemies. Let this bill, let this bill be a clear message to every adversary who doubts america's resolve. The U.S. military remains the world's strongest, most lethal fighting force, and we will always ensure our warfighters are ready to meet the challenge. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. And, Mr. chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:10:12>> thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentlelady from florida, miss wasserman schultz, is recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. How about we spend $1 trillion helping people lower their bills? How about we spend $1 trillion making life more affordable for the people that we represent that sent us here to be their voice?
▶ 1:10:37Because no one's talking to me at home about spending $1 trillion more on our military industrial complex. We certainly have to make sure we protect our national security. But right now, americans are more worried than ever about how they'll pay for their electric bill, their health insurance, or their rent, or even how they're going to afford to fill up their gas tank.
▶ 1:11:05They face the ugly choice of buying milk and lunch meat or medicine, or the agonizing alternatives of renewing an insurance plan, or just going without health coverage. Yet all that seems to be lost on the majority of this committee and the trump administration, as they ask us to approve a $1 trillion defense bill.
▶ 1:11:24And it's a bill that's full of trump vanity projects and gives pete hegseth unchecked power, all while america's long term security readiness and our allies get short changed. This bill does not deliver solutions for today's challenges, which is why republicans are already talking about a defense supplemental for trump's war with iran, which remains so unpopular and reckless that they want to ram the package through a partizan reconciliation process.
▶ 1:11:52But this is now par for the course. We thought that we would have an energy and water bill on the floor this week. Um, that doesn't appear to be in our near future anymore. But that bill does far more to help secretary rice dc office staff than it will to lower the cost of electricity in my home state of florida. Mr. chairman, what frustrates me most is that this is not how it has to be.
▶ 1:12:19We all can and we should, and we have worked together to protect our nation and invest in a strong department of defense. Just as we started this appropriations season with the bipartisan military construction veterans affairs bill. We've shown it's possible. And yet I'm never going to start. Stop bragging about it, Mr. simpson, because we've shown it's possible when we work together. There are certainly positive provisions in this bill, but we are far away from a good bill.
▶ 1:12:49I've been able to vote for the defense bill coming out of the appropriations committee, no matter who's been in the majority. I wish that I was in that position today, especially when you take a step back and look at this bill as a whole. The $234, the $234 billion increase to this bill is greater than the entire labor, health and human services appropriations bill. That's enough money to fund the affordable care act premium assistance for eight years.
▶ 1:13:20Eight years of peace of mind that when you're sick, you can afford to go to the doctor as opposed to $1 trillion to fund the military industrial complex. And all this new money is in addition to the slush fund that the department of defense of defense got in the first republican reconciliation bill that we still know very little about. This bill also provides $5 billion for the f 47 program. That's a program that's part trump trump vanity project and part fiscal disaster.
▶ 1:13:49I absolutely agree that we need to invest in our next generation fighter, but we're talking about a program that was paused because it's going to cost three times more per plane than the f-35 lightning two, which was already a program plagued with cost overruns and one of the most expensive fighter jet programs in the world.
▶ 1:14:09As the ranking member of the subcommittee, I can tell you that we have very real needs for military construction to support our service members, their families, and improve readiness. Judge carter, when we stand up and present our bill, talk about that need all the time. But our our bill received an inadequate top line to meet those needs, to meet the quality of life needs and the readiness needs of our service members.
▶ 1:14:33Under this grand plan, we will have billion dollar war planes that will sit in hangars, hangars that are about to collapse in on themselves. I've gone overseas and seen them. I know many of you have as well. Our troops will continue to live and work in buildings that are borderline unsafe and not fit very often for their for their intended purpose.
▶ 1:14:55Military families will continue to do it rough with inadequate housing, child care centers and support facilities and all of this sacrifice for what, a new $500 million air force one that trump will donate to himself at the end of his term. We all know that's coming. Some ships and fighter jets named after your dear leader. This isn't just putting the cart before the horse.
▶ 1:15:19We're throwing the cart and the horse along with our security, right over a cliff and hoping for the best just so we don't risk upsetting donald trump. As a member of congress who proudly represents south florida with its rich diversity as the gateway to the americas, my constituents and I know the value of a strong defense, and we do not shrink from it. But this bill doesn't deliver a strong national defense.
▶ 1:15:42It throws too much money around to stroke egos, and it hopes to hide the clear lack of planning and vision from this department of defense and this administration. Our service members and their families need us to deliver for them, not help boost the vanity of the man sitting in the white house. This bill does not reflect our values. It does not reflect the needs of our troops or our allies. And I would bet if we had some private conversations, many of you would acknowledge that. And it does not meet the moment that president trump himself has put us in.
▶ 1:16:09I urge my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back the balance of my time. >> thank gentlelady for remarks. The gentleman from texas, Mr. cuellar, is recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to thank the chairman, calvert, and the ranking member, miss mccollum, and all the staff on both sides for all the long hours and days that they put in putting this bill together.
▶ 1:16:33As we all know, this is a process that is just the beginning of the process, and we all hope to get there together. Uh, at the end of this process. Uh, in the meanwhile, I do want to say there's several good things, a lot of good things in this bill. And one of them that I want to talk about is one of the requests that I've added for the last couple of years. And that has to do with human performance optimization. That is to make sure that our military folks are ready to go.
▶ 1:17:01And this is something that we've added funding. I certainly want to thank you all for doing this. We started this some time ago at the university of texas, san antonio, where they've been doing, uh, conducting groundbreaking research and performance. Uh, it's not only the exercise, but it's what they eat and how they sleep and how they think. And this human performance, uh, has been, uh, this research has been groundbreaking. So I want to thank the committee for adding that language.
▶ 1:17:28The other thing is I want to thank the, the committee for, uh, adding funding and language on what we call the air force talent pipeline modernization initiative that will improve the recruiting, reduce the hiring timelines, and create a stronger pipeline in aviation that includes training high school students to fly. I've seen this, uh, in one of my part of the my district and atascosa in pleasanton.
▶ 1:17:57And I think we all should have this in our district, uh, to make sure that we start, uh, training our young kids, the ones that are interested in aviation. It's not only the military, but in homeland, also the air marine and other folks that are short on pilots. And I think if we start them off early, uh, this will allow us to get ahead.
▶ 1:18:18If you look at our competitors, for example, china, as an example, has invested heavily in exposing young people to aviation and technical careers long before they start the workforce.
▶ 1:18:31Uh, and we, um, we got to make sure that we start this early and it's amazing, uh, the programs that we have right now also want to thank, uh, the, the committee, uh, for the 7% increase to our junior enlisted service members, the 6% to our senior noncommissioned officers and company grade officers, and the 5% to our senior officers.
▶ 1:18:59This is important, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for adding this increase. Finally, I want to add one thing that I think we're all very familiar, and that is the united service organizations known as uso. Uh, and that again, has bipartisan support. And as you know, it's important to our deployed service members and to the families. And I want to thank the committee for adding this, uh, language and monies. So, uh, Mr.
▶ 1:19:28Chairman, as you know, this is a starting, uh, part of the process and we look forward to being like, we've always been there at the end when we get the input from everybody. So with that, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. >> thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentlelady from maine, miss pingree, recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:19:49Uh, and thank you to the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for all the work they're putting into this bill and all the work I know they'll continue to do, uh, to make the bill better. Uh, I'm going to trust my colleagues because I know there have been a lot of opening remarks, and they'll continue to be to make sure that everybody understands the problems and challenges of this bill. But I do want to emphasize that it is $1 trillion. That's $1 trillion for the pentagon.
▶ 1:20:14At the same time, we're cutting and we've all been through a lot of subcommittee hearings here, or markups. We're cutting over $13 billion for domestic programs that would actually support working families while we're spending this much on defense. And we all know what we've been cutting childhood cancer research farmers through the usda, education, housing, child care, it's all on the chopping block. And every time we fight back, someone says, but there isn't enough money.
▶ 1:20:41But there's always enough money for this bill. This bill also abandons our allies in ukraine, continues the unchecked spending, unauthorized operations in the middle east. It's got a lot of big challenges in it, but I want to use my time just to focus on the impact on our navy and on shipbuilding in that industry. You know, maritime competition is intensifying, especially in the indo-pacific. But this bill provides funding for only one ddg, 51 destroyer.
▶ 1:21:07These ships are the backbone of our navy, and they are essential to preserving our military superiority. That's only one of those ships is provided for in this bill. I often hear bipartisan agreement about how we need a larger, more capable free fleet. And last year, the president himself said he wanted to resurrect the american shipbuilding industry. But without investment or a strategy, that is just talk.
▶ 1:21:35And it's especially just talk in a bill that gets over $1 trillion. If we're serious about naval readiness, we cannot continue under investing in our ships and in our shipyards and the workforce that is needed to sustain that fleet. I'm sure many of you remember, because I love to talk about it, that bath iron works, one of our important defense shipyards, is located in my district. We're very proud of the shipbuilders and the work that gets done there.
▶ 1:22:02And we love to say that bath built is the best built because they do an amazing job building ships. And for all of you, when you take your vacation in maine this summer to get a lobster roll and ride on a ferry, I hope you'll come by and get a tour of this shipyard because it's an amazing thing. It's a miracle to watch these ships come together. They're complex. They require incredible skill and incredibly skilled workers.
▶ 1:22:27Stability in the prediction of how many ships are going to be built and having sufficient orders is what helps to recruit and retain a workforce. These workers can't just be reassigned if there's no ships to build until there's more money, or until there is sufficient procurement planning done. Many of them are machine operators, highly skilled, highly specialized. They've been there for years, and not having ships impacts the production line. Multiyear contracts lower the cost, ultimately saving money.
▶ 1:22:54I know the chair, in his opening remarks, talked about advanced procurement and how critically important that is in these complex industries that happen in our country. It's especially difficult to hear about the lack of sufficient shipbuilding in this contract when you put it in a broader context. And that is russ vought and omb now signaling that they're thinking about buying ships from foreign shipyards, I'm going to say that again.
▶ 1:23:18They're thinking about using their waiver authority to actually buy ships offshore. And we know how important our six shipyards here are here in this country. And it's antithetical to think that they would ever suggest that. But a senior omb official has said if you look at the average cost of a destroyer construction in japan, japan or korea, $1 billion of fairly nominal cost associated with destroyer construction.
▶ 1:23:44Just yesterday, I was driving in for votes, and I turned on c-span radio in my car, and I heard president trump talking to a big pennsylvania gathering. I think he was at a mack truck facility, saying how important american workers and american manufacturing was and how he's on top of that. And that's what we're going to do in this country. And in fact, when we got out of votes and I drove away, you'll not be surprised that the president was still talking to the pennsylvania gathering, and he was still talking about american workers and american manufacturing.
▶ 1:24:11And yet his official at omb is now saying, we're thinking about building ships offshore in other countries, really our defense industry. We're thinking of moving that manufacturing offshore. This bill's increase over fy 26 is more than the entire funding of labor, age and education. And we're talking about buying destroyers from foreign nations rather than investing in our own shipyards.
▶ 1:24:38I appreciate that this committee has put language in to curb the president's authority to do so. But the fact that it's even being considered is shameful. Adding this language while still selling our shipyards short doesn't make sense. We need to use this bill to make strategic investments in american readiness, which includes a skilled workforce, a skilled union workforce.
▶ 1:25:01And we cannot stand by while the administration drives decline of our investment of our industrial base. I yield back, and I thank the chair. >> thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from texas, Mr. ellsworth, recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you all for being here today. I'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for working so well together.
▶ 1:25:27It's it's truly a joy to watch ken and betty work on these bills and work together to, uh, to make sure the defense of our nation is never in doubt. Woodrow wilson got reelected based on the premise that he kept us out of war until he didn't. Fdr got reelected based on the premise that he kept us out of war until he didn't. And in both of those cases, our nation was woefully unprepared and underfunded. In order to prevent war.
▶ 1:25:57We have a generational opportunity here today in this committee to do what's most important for the defense appropriations subcommittee, and that's prevent war first, because war is a catastrophic waste of irreplaceable souls.
▶ 1:26:16And as someone who retired 14 years ago, but for whom the sounds of combat still ring in my ears, and as the father of a 14 year old son who I want to be a pro baseball player, it seems bound and determined to be a marine someday, just like lois's son. The only thing I think about every day is how do we prevent war in this country? Through the funding of an appropriations process?
▶ 1:26:45The defense department has been underfunded for many, many years. The request that are in this bill are those that come from the experts that we, or at least in the senate, have deemed the experts in their field that say, this is what we need to prevent war.
▶ 1:27:03But if we are required to go to war in a way that the winds of war haven't blown since 1938, like they are today, with genocidal dictators in charge of nations who are determined to wrest control of the free world from the west. In ways that truly are frightening.
▶ 1:27:23The unrestricted warfare use by the chinese right now already seems to indicate that they are actively moving forward in the philosophy of sun tzu to never have to fight your enemy to win the war. This bill that we're talking about today and the way we vote today sends a message and a signal to those adversaries that we're talking about that will determine whether or not they choose to push forward.
▶ 1:27:50Do they recognize that the united states, for all of our differences, understand that we are united in one concept, that the primary job of any government is to protect her people. And I, like you, would much rather prefer to decide if there are enough jobs in the country, enough health care in the country.
▶ 1:28:08But with this bill, I'm voting to make sure that we worry about those things, but we don't worry about whether or not they're going to be more gold star families in this country, because we go to a world war.
▶ 1:28:23So this bill provides us the start and just the start of getting us ramped up to where we should be on federal funding to provide for a defense that the chinese, the russians, the north koreans will choose not to challenge in this bill are dollars for a number of companies and new technologies that four years ago, we would not have imagined. Indeed, a year ago, we wouldn't have imagined having to spend money on. But now it's not an either or. Negotiation. It's an.
▶ 1:28:52All of the above. With the invasion of ukraine by putin and his and his army to kill thousands of ukrainians just like they did starting in 1931 when they killed 8 million ukrainians with their holodomor. They've had aims on this forever. We understand that, and we need to be prepared for it and respond to it.
▶ 1:29:20And with this bill, the ability to build new munitions much, much cheaper than we ever thought possible to reestablish our magazine depth, which is lower than we'd like right now, is an absolute must.
▶ 1:29:32A number of patriotic companies, manned and owned by young men and women, patriotic americans, all who want to establish a nation second to none that will never be challenged again, are waiting for the go signal from this committee and from this congress, that we are ready to make sure that nobody ever challenges us again. But if they do, we win, and we win quickly with the least loss of life.
▶ 1:30:00I think we're all singing from the same music. I'm not sure we're all singing in the same key, but I'm asking you on the other side of the aisle today to send a signal to our adversaries and to the american people that we are ready to unite again. And I'd urge you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. >> thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentlelady from florida, miss frankel, recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:30:28Um, let me just thank everybody here and those who have served and who are serving. Uh, I'm I am the proud mother of a united states marine corps veteran. More importantly, or as importantly, I am the grandmother to two young boys who, uh, like all the children I hope will grow up secure and with, with opportunity, I, I joined those who believe in a strong america, who believe in
▶ 1:31:00Protecting our service members, who believe in standing with our allies and believe in defending this nation against any threat that comes our way. But let's remember this a nation's strength is not measured only by the weapons it builds, not only by the battleships that sail or by the size of its fighting force. A nation's strength is measured by the people.
▶ 1:31:30It lifts up the families. It supports the children, that it educates, the community that strengthens and the opportunities that it creates. Because a country is not truly secure when its people are struggling. And today many americans are struggling. Families are working harder than ever, but they can't afford the basics. Groceries cost too much, gas costs too much grant cost too much, health care costs too much.
▶ 1:31:58And this bill provides more than $1 trillion in defense funding more than ever before in our history. While donald trump is cutting and scrimping on the very investments that protect and strengthen families here at home, and while pushing tax breaks for the super wealthy, pursuing pet projects like a golden ballroom and allowing special interests and political allies to benefit while working
▶ 1:32:29Families are asked to sacrifice. So I ask my colleagues, how can we call that security? How can we say america is stronger when families are weaker? A mother who is sick, who cannot afford to see a doctor is not secure. A parent who cannot afford find a a afford child care and has to leave the workforce is not secure.
▶ 1:32:56A senior choosing between a medicine or paying their for their groceries is not secure. A hungry child sitting in an overcrowded classroom without two tools to succeed is not secure and a family working harder every day but still unable to pay the rent is not secure. Yes, america needs a strong military. But I'll say it again america's greatest strength has not come only from the battleships.
▶ 1:33:26It's not only come from the fighter planes, it's not only come from our weapons. America's greatest strength has always come from our people. And when people when families are healthy, america is stronger. When our children learn. America is stronger. When workers succeed, america is stronger. When communities thrive, america is stronger. That's the real strength. That's the real security. And that's how we build america. That is truly safe, safe.
▶ 1:33:55And this bill before us shows that donald trump has forgotten a simple truth. Real security means investment not only in weapons and defend our nation, but the people who make it worth defending. Taxpayer dollars should be used to make lives more affordable, not to reward powerful and privileged, or rigged the system against working families. And not just for war. And for that reason, I cannot support this bill.
▶ 1:34:25I urge my colleagues to reject it. I believe we can do much better. And with that, I yield back. >> thank the gentle lady, the gentleman from hawaii, Mr. case, is recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you. Thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 1:34:42Um, as I was listening to the opening comments of chair ken calvert and ranking member mccollum, uh, I was reflecting, um, that we in this area of national defense agree on far more than we disagree on. And I was also reflecting, as I listened to Mr. ellzey, that those of us that are privileged to serve on the defense appropriations subcommittee know that if you all would just leave this to us, we would get the job done.
▶ 1:35:10Except that I will never sing in key key with Mr. ellzey at all. So, uh, that's pretty clear. And so, um, it's with a great deal of regret that I rise in opposition to this particular bill, not because I disagree with the critical importance of investing in our military and national security, but because on several points to many points, this particular measure in its form fails in context, in substance, and especially
▶ 1:35:41Primarily in the oversight and assertion of congress's constitutional powers and responsibilities to supervise an incredible part of our budget. Let's just go back to the critical importance and drive that point home. I agree that the threats that we face are real. The threats from the prc, the threats from russia, the threats from the middle east. I agree with Mr. ellzey that deterrence, um, through strength is the best way to avoid war.
▶ 1:36:08I agree with my chair of the subcommittee that we need to move with rapidity at speed and fluidity to develop the next generation of kit that we need. Uh, in mass, I agree that we need to reform a still broken procurement system. I agree that we need to invest in our service members, and all of that is in this bill, and all is acknowledged and agreed to. I also agree with what my chair says many, many times.
▶ 1:36:36And that is, um, that our consistency and credibility with our partners and allies in terms of our own investment in national defense is on the line right now. We ask our partners and allies to invest 5% of their gdp. And yet today we spend 2.8% of our gdp, which is well below our 50 year average of 4.1% of gdp. That is the cost of defense, the cost of freedom. We're not burying it. I agree with all of that.
▶ 1:37:03So I'm not at all reluctant to consider responsible, um, responsive, uh, reasonable national defense in the big picture in including a huge increase in national defense as warranted. But, um, in this particular bill, there are critical and fatal deficiencies that have to be addressed before we go to their number one, of course, is the mixed use of reconciliation.
▶ 1:37:31This bill is confusing, uh, concealing in many cases and not transparent in terms of what it's actually going to take. Um, last year or more accurately, the current fiscal year. Of course, we are spending well over $1 trillion in the combination of discretionary and reconciliation. Uh, we haven't supervised the reconciliation at all.
▶ 1:37:52And now let's not forget that we still have outstanding a request for $350 billion of reconciliation and a supplemental budget that we haven't even seen yet. And that is a disjointed, uncoordinated, and not a transparent approach. And until we are able to put this together in the whole context, understand it in the big picture and decide it in one particular bill, I don't think we should go down any one part of that road.
▶ 1:38:17Number two, we have not demonstrated that the department of defense has any capacity to execute on a huge 50% increase in one fiscal year budget, and much more than that. If you look at two fiscal years. Um, let's focus on the general accountability accountability office report just recently that showed a 10.7% reduction in department of defense personnel in just 11 months. I'm sorry, more accurately, 13 months.
▶ 1:38:45That is not sustainable when you increase the budget at that level. And we should settle that before we throw more money at defense. Number three, we have not demonstrated the capacity of our defense industrial base to absorb this. We all know our defense industrial base has to step up to the plate here. And yet, uh, we have not solved that problem. And this bill does not solve that problem.
▶ 1:39:07And all we are doing is, is, is inviting, uh, massive, uh, build up in, in the production backlog, as well as extortionate costs, uh, from, uh, in, in balance between supply and demand. Number four, I have substantive disagreements with the bill. Ukraine. We're going to talk more about the absolute destruction of the merit system. Number five, a complete imbalance that my colleague, miss frankel, has always already talked about.
▶ 1:39:32We cannot maintain public support for a total budget that skews to 6040 defense non-defense. And finally, we just have not acknowledged the consequences to our national debt. We're pretending as if we can increase our defense budget by this amount without having to do anything else, and that is unsustainable as a matter of national debt.
▶ 1:39:55These are all flaws that can and should be addressed in this bill, and I certainly hope they are and can be, because if and as they are, I'm certainly willing to go down this road, I yield back. >> thank the gentleman, the gentleman from new york, Mr. morales, recognized for comments on the bill. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:40:21Uh, and I do want to thank chairman calvert and the staff once again. Um, they work incredibly hard. And I know, uh, both in our public and in our classified briefings, uh, how much he cares about the work we do and make sure that everyone is heard from and everyone has an opportunity to express themselves.
▶ 1:40:42Uh, I also want to thank the ranking member, miss mccollum for her great work, her great leadership and her friendship, and certainly to the full committee chair and ranking member, how much we appreciate them and the entire staff. You know, the committee has a solemn responsibility to invest taxpayer dollars wisely and in a manner that reflects our nation's priorities, including, importantly, our national security.
▶ 1:41:04Our service members deserve training, equipment and support necessary to carry out their mission, and I will always support investments that strengthen our military and protect our nation. National security, however, is about more than defense spending. It relies on strong communities, good schools, affordable health care, reliable infrastructure and economic opportunity.
▶ 1:41:26It's why I'm troubled by the bill before us, which provides more than $1.07 trillion for the department of defense, 234 billion above current funding levels. That increase alone exceeds the entire labor, health and human services and education bill, and now house republicans are slashing those programs that help our families afford groceries, housing, health care, and other basic necessities.
▶ 1:41:52President trump captured that approach earlier this year when he said, we're fighting wars. We can't take care of daycare. I disagree, and the president's eagerness for reckless, endless wars no justification for increased spending. The scale of this bill is particularly difficult to justify when the department of defense still cannot fully account for the resources congress has already provided.
▶ 1:42:15Taxpayers deserve no to know that their funds are being spent effectively and in accordance with the appropriation law set by this congress. The bill grants secretary hegseth broad discretion over spending, discussions and decisions, while providing no assurance that taxpayer dollars will be managed responsibly.
▶ 1:42:31And lastly, as I serve as the ranking member on the committee on house administration, which has jurisdiction over federal elections, I was gravely concerned when president trump said he regretted not deploying the national guard following the 2020 election. What a incredibly difficult, uh, thing it is to conceive of such a thing happening.
▶ 1:42:54And comments like those raise alarming questions about whether the american people could have confidence in an administration that understands the legal and constitutional limits on the use of military personnel in connection with our elections. At a subcommittee hearing earlier this year, I asked the national guard bureau chief to provide assurances to the american people about the deployment of troops around polling places. In november.
▶ 1:43:21General nordhaus, to his credit, clearly stated that the national guard will follow the constitution and will follow the law. And I intend that. I'm sure many members here intend to guarantee that that's the case. We will continue to hold this administration to that promise. So, Mr. chairman, while non-defense spending is being slashed, oversight remains inadequate and defense spending is reaching unthinkable levels. This bill sadly moves us in the wrong direction. So for these reasons, I cannot support this legislation. With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:43:52>> thank the gentleman. The gentleman from california, Mr. levin's recognized for remarks on the bill. >> Mr. chairman, um, our service members are the finest in the world. And, uh, what my friend from texas, Mr. ellzey said certainly resonated with me. I also have a 14 year old son. He also wants to be a pro baseball player. He may wind up a united states marine. You never know. I'd be honored and grateful if that's the direction he took.
▶ 1:44:20Uh, and, uh, my commitment to our military and our service members will always be rock solid. And there's a great deal in this bill that I do support. It has a lot of important investments to support our service members, critical support for the marines and sailors that I represent, uh, and, uh, continued investments and impact aid, security cooperation programs, innovation, all those are great things.
▶ 1:44:48And I really do want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work and their collaboration. There are a few areas where I hope we can improve the bill, and there's significant enough that, unfortunately, I cannot vote for the bill in its current form. The first is something that's so critically important to the region that I represent, which is the congressionally directed medical research program, or cdmrp. It's one of the most effective dollar for dollar investments we make.
▶ 1:45:15It's delivered breakthroughs in cancer, traumatic brain injury, and other conditions that hit our military families and veterans the hardest. And it's long enjoyed bipartisan support on this committee. Unfortunately, this bill cuts cdmrp by $353.5 million below fiscal year 26 levels, and those cuts fall hardest on specific lines. Funding for autism, melanoma and vision research is reduced.
▶ 1:45:42Epilepsy, hearing restoration and military burn research is eliminated entirely. It's a tough outcome coming off a fiscal 25 continuing resolution that had already reduced cdmrp funding significantly. Even with the substantial increases elsewhere in this bill, cdmrp would not reach the level we funded back in fiscal 24 under a republican majority. I would ask that as we move forward, we look for a way to restore these accounts.
▶ 1:46:10I believe there is common ground here, and I'd welcome working with colleagues on both sides to find it. The second concern is a challenge that has been recognized across administrations of both parties for decades. As far back as 2003, under president george w bush, the department warned that a destabilized climate could destabilize the geopolitical environment and create new security risks abroad. That assessment has been echoed by military leaders ever since. At the same time, energy demand is surging.
▶ 1:46:40Prices are climbing for families across the country. The sources we can build fastest, and that can keep our constituents energy bills in check include clean energy. Getting more of it onto the grid is squarely in our national and economic security interests. It's why I'm concerned that the review process for wind energy projects have effect has effectively stalled at every stage, from initial determinations of presumed risk mitigation agreements to the signatures and transmittals to the federal aviation administration that allows projects to proceed.
▶ 1:47:09Developers tell us that the pipeline is ground to a halt, and this puts at risk at least 30gw of planned generation capacity that could be powering american homes and roughly 150,000 jobs. It's 150,000 jobs in the red states and blue states alike. And that helps sustain communities in many of our districts. And delaying these projects works against both american energy independence and our national security. Two goals that I know every member of this committee shares.
▶ 1:47:39So these are the reasons I cannot support the bill as written. And I say that with tremendous respect, again, for the effort behind it and a genuine willingness to keep working toward a bill that I hope we all can support. So I hope we get that process moving and that we'll have a better outcome in the weeks and the months ahead. Thank you, Mr. chairman, and I yield back. >> thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentlelady from pennsylvania. Miss dean's recognized for remarks on the bill.
▶ 1:48:11>> thank you, chairman. >> thank you, chairman, and thank you to the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee on defense and the ranking member as well. I rise in support of our men and women, of the military and of their families. And yet I rise in opposition to this bill, which provides more than $1 trillion. Yes, 1 trillion for the department of defense. This is a more than $200 billion increase compared to last year.
▶ 1:48:39While republicans continue to slash domestic programs that help everyday americans afford sky high cost of living. Annual inflation has hit 4.2% in may, the highest level in three years. One of the largest drivers of that number. Skyrocketing energy costs a direct result of this administration's illegal, reckless, dangerous war with iran.
▶ 1:49:02We've all paid the price at the pump and at the grocery store and elsewhere, all while this administration spends billions on a war that has undeniably left us in a worse position than where we started. Moody's analytics estimates that the cost of the war so far is $132 billion. I wonder if that number is a low estimate.
▶ 1:49:27From what we know of the president's mou with iran, which is on again, off again chaos, it is a far worse position for the united states and for the world than president obama's nuclear deal, a deal we all know the president maligned as disastrous. So I guess where we are now is worse than a disaster. And the president's estimation, one might call it a catastrophe.
▶ 1:49:51And this comes after the deaths of 13 service members, hundreds of civilians, thousands of civilian casualties, hundreds of schoolgirls, extensive damage to the united states military bases in the middle east, damage to dozens of U.S. aircraft, and a depletion of our stockpiles. And for what? Here we are.
▶ 1:50:13And now the majority party abdicates our constitutional authority, responsibility to declare war or to stop the president from declaring war, and puts us in this chaotic, dangerous space, all while we turn our back on the allies, including ukraine. This bill provides nothing for ukraine, nothing to prevent this administration from withdrawing U.S. troops from europe.
▶ 1:50:38Investing in ukraine not only makes us safer, but it will also save us money and resources in the long run. Who knows what the cost will be if we continue to allow russia to continue unchecked? Further, we are continuing to abdicate our power of the purse to this administration, including by going along with secretary haig's arbitrary cuts under the assumption that ai will save the day.
▶ 1:51:03We all know that these types of unthoughtful, chaotic, arbitrary cuts end up costing us more in the long run. We know that as members of this committee, we are also doing nothing to rein in this administration's wasteful deployment of the national guard drive around this city. The national guard is everywhere. Ironic for a president who couldn't call upon the national guard when this very capital was being attacked. But here we are in D.C. performing.
▶ 1:51:31They are in D.C. performing activities like trash cleanup or policing. The failed reflecting pool project, all at a cost of more than $1 million per day. They. And we deserve better. This is all from the party that claims to carry the mantle of fiscal responsibility. The hypocrisy is staggering. But maybe it's not hypocrisy. Maybe it's just a straight old showing of our values. Because, as we always say, values are revealed through our budgets.
▶ 1:52:01A $1 trillion cut from medicaid in the big, beautiful bill, a trillion cut today, we're considering a trillion to be added here to defense. And let's not forget the more than 2 trillion in tax cuts for the very, very wealthiest that reveals values of this president and of this majority party. I'll end with what the president said himself. He said, quote, we're fighting wars. We can't take care of day care.
▶ 1:52:29It's not possible to take care of day care, medicaid and medicare. Such a statement of values. I urge my colleagues to say to the president, these do not reflect our values. They do not reflect who we are as americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill. Bill and I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to make general comments about the bill? Gentleman from maryland is recognized. >> thank you very much, Mr.
▶ 1:53:00Chairman. I rise in concern about this bill. And yes, I will oppose the bill as it's currently written. I listened to my dear friend, Mr. Mr. ellzey and I have become dear friends.
▶ 1:53:24I have extraordinary respect for him, and I agree with what he had to say up to a point. Uh, first of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of our ranking member about process. There is no 302 b. This bill could be any figure I could offer $1 trillion, uh, addition to this bill, and nobody could respond. The chairman couldn't respond.
▶ 1:53:55Oh, this is beyond the 302 b, there is no 302 b, there is no budget. There is no concept of what the trade offs are in this bill. That is it's, uh, procedural weakness. There is no pay for for this bill because there is no 302 b, so we don't know how much we'll need to be paid for so that we are all speaking about $1 trillion bill.
▶ 1:54:24And who's going to pay for it? My children, your children, our grandchildren. But we say this is critically important to put on the table to make our country secure. I think there's nobody, probably other than hal rogers in this committee who served longer and supported more defense bills than I have.
▶ 1:54:49I was a very strong supporter of the reagan buildup, uh, the mx missile approval and the deployment of the pershing missiles, uh, that the russians thought we couldn't get done politically in europe. That accomplishment, in my opinion, led to gorbachev being able to, to convince his military industrial complex. Uh, you need to go glasnost and perestroika, because we cannot compete with the americans.
▶ 1:55:16So I believe that investing in our defense is important. But I think even more important than that is our performance with respect to defense.
▶ 1:55:29It is my belief, and I will discuss this further when the amendment on ukraine is offered, that our failure of the west in 2014 to respond to the russian stealing of crimea is the mother of this war that we now have in ukraine, because it said to putin, we're not going to respond to your criminal act.
▶ 1:55:57Now, a president that I supported was president of the united states at that point in time, the congress nor the president responded in a vigorous way that would say, no, sir, you cannot do that. Today. We have a bill that has $1 trillion plus in it.
▶ 1:56:23We have spent, apparently, somewhere in the neighborhood of $79 billion over the last four months for an effort in iran.
▶ 1:56:35The failure to respond effectively, uh, to crimea theft and the extraordinary chaos and ineffective action that we've taken, which I call the art of the sell out. There's no deal.
▶ 1:57:03A deal implies both sides are going to do something. But very frankly, I would call your attention to a article in the washington post by max boot. Uh, three days ago on the extraordinary failure of this administration and of the secretary of defense and the dni, and, frankly, the secretary of state, who seems to be like pontius pilate, washing his hands of this
▶ 1:57:34Effort in iran because he thinks it is so abysmally a failure. Uh, we remove a naval blockade. Uh, we waive export iran crude oil sanctions. We released $24 billion in frozen funds. Uh, we facilitate $300 billion for reconstruction economic development in the islamic republic of iran.
▶ 1:58:03We terminate all types of sanctions, and we allow after 60 days for iran to charge fees in international waters for passage. What kind of message does that send to russia? What kind of message does it send to china? What kind of message does it send to iran? Iran thinks properly at this point in time. They've won.
▶ 1:58:32And yet we are about to invest in that leadership. $1 trillion plus a failed leadership. This secretary of defense calls 800 of the top ranking officers, flag officers in the world to come to the pentagon for a meeting.
▶ 1:59:02Does he have anything to substantive to say? He did not. Mr. chairman, I'm going to vote against this bill, but I'm going to argue that we certainly need to spend money. We need to spend the money on industrialization. We need to spend money on acquisition, and we need to spend money on personnel. But I would add and thank you for your time.
▶ 1:59:26I would add that underfunding the civilians who are so critically important to our defense effort in the pentagon and in other agencies and government is a very bad mistake, which we have avoided in the past by having some degree of equality between the civilians and the military, both critically important to our national security.
▶ 1:59:54I yield back the balance of my time. I'll have more to say later. >> well, can we deduct the the two minutes from the next one? Uh, no, I I, I. >> uh, you're very kind. >> I try to be generous with the clock. I, I would ask, we are going to have a long day so we can stay kind of within the time limits. I think that would be helpful to everybody.
▶ 2:00:18But again, I, I appreciate what my friend always has to add to any debate, um, with that gentlelady from texas, miss escobar is recognized for remarks on the bill. >> thank you so much, Mr. chairman. I want to begin by thanking chairman calvert and ranking member mccollum for their leadership on this subcommittee. And, of course, also the chairman and the ranking member of the committee of the whole.
▶ 2:00:45But I also want to recognize, as many of my colleagues have, the incredible staff, I know, that this appropriations season can be really challenging on the teams that support us. And and I want to publicly recognize and acknowledge their incredible devotion to the work that we do. We are only able to do this work because of their talent and their brilliance. And I'm really grateful.
▶ 2:01:10As the representative for fort bliss, home to the historic first armored division and the ever important 32nd army air and missile defense command, I know how crucial it is to maintain a strong national defense and ensure that our service members and their families have the resources they need and the support from congress that they have earned. There is much in this bill that I do support.
▶ 2:01:38The bill makes important investments in munitions production. Patriot and thad interceptors, army modernization and defense innovation, which I find particularly exciting in this bill. Those investments matter to my district, but they also matter to our national security, and they prepare us for our future fights.
▶ 2:01:58Fort bliss is home to the army's premier army and defense missile enterprise, and the soldiers of the 32nd army air and missile defense command continue to face extraordinary operational demands across the globe, ensuring that they have the equipment, inventory and sustainment necessary to accomplish their missions is a national security imperative, and it is a top priority for my team and for me.
▶ 2:02:28Likewise, investments in armored vehicles, army aviation and long range fires directly support the first armored division and fort bliss role as one of the army's premier power projection platforms. I'm also encouraged by the bill's emphasis on innovation, autonomous systems, drone and counter drone technologies, especially defense manufacturing and strengthening the industrial base.
▶ 2:02:56Congress is appropriately recognizing that future conflicts will be won by our ability to adapt, innovate and produce faster than our adversaries. I've worked hard long before I was in congress. I've been working to ensure that el paso is positioned as a growing center for defense, innovation, aerospace, and advanced manufacturing. And I'm so proud that this bill reflects an important reality.
▶ 2:03:27The future of american national security will not be built in just a traditional. In just a handful of traditional defense hubs. It will be built in communities like el paso as well. With the talent that we have been so proud to support and grow locally. Unfortunately, despite those strengths, I am not able to support the bill. As currently written, this bill provides more than $1 trillion for the department of defense.
▶ 2:03:59While significant reductions are proposed elsewhere in the federal budget, national security is not achieved solely through military strength. A secure nation also needs a strong workforce. Good schools, affordable housing, accessible health care, and effective and strong diplomacy. Second, I remain concerned that this bill does nothing to stop the continued use of the military for nonmilitary issues.
▶ 2:04:27We still have national guard personnel engaged in domestic activities that have little connection to military readiness, as well as immigration facilities. At my installation of fort bliss that have hurt military readiness and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars.
▶ 2:04:49At a time when our military faces growing demands, we need our military to be focused on training and preparedness, rather than missions better suited for civilian agencies. But the most important issue is the broader strategic backdrop against which we are being asked to fund this budget.
▶ 2:05:09The administration's answer to nearly every international challenge has been escalation more threats, more military pressure, more unilateral action, and in turn, more demands for increased defense spending. I eagerly work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I always look for bipartisan solutions. This is one of the most important bills that we pass.
▶ 2:05:38I hope we can get to a place where bipartisan support gets this bill across the finish line. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to make remarks about the bill? Seeing none, uh, I would like to recognize chairman calvert to offer a manager's amendment. Uh, thank you. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Asked for dispensing of the reading.
▶ 2:06:07>> without objection, the reading is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> this amendment is agreed to by both sides, makes technical and conforming changes to. The bill includes non-controversial bill and report changes and have been cleared by both majority and minority. I urge the members to support it. Thank you. >> thank you. Gentlemen. Gentlelady from minnesota. Miss mccullum's recognized to address the manager's amendment. >> chairman cole, chairman calvert.
▶ 2:06:36In addition to several non conforming technical changes, the manager's amendment makes changes to the bill and the report that address a number of topics important to members of this committee. I urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady. Uh, gentleman from texas, Mr. cuellar, is recognized to address the manager's amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:06:56Just briefly, I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for adding one of my provisions that we've added to every appropriation bill, and that is the language that calls for outcome based reviews, performance management oversight. Uh, and I want to say thank you. And again, if we're going to find efficiencies effectiveness, we need to start looking for this type of work. With that, I want to say thank you, Mr. chairman and ranking member, I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlemen. Do any other members seek recognition to address the amendment? Gentlelady from washington.
▶ 2:07:27>> thank you, Mr. chair. >> I rise in support of the amendment and a provision within it related to gold star advisory council. Um. On march 5th, petty officer second class tyler jagger succumbed to critical injuries sustained on february 27th during a maritime medical evacuation mission offshore cape flattery, washington. His death is absolutely heartbreaking for his family and the entire coast guard community, and it was also historically significant.
▶ 2:07:54It was the first fatality in the line of duty in more than a generation of coast guard and the aftermath of petty officer jagger's death. I've sought answers. We need to understand the circumstances of his tragic death and take steps to make sure it never happens again. But I've also had the privilege of speaking with his family and loved ones about how I can support their efforts to honor his memory. Through those conversations, I've been reminded that the sacrifice of military service extends beyond an individual in uniform and to the entire family.
▶ 2:08:24It's like walking around with your heart outside your body. Um, and their lives are forever changed by a loss of a loved one. The secretary and defense knight might have disagreements, but I was encouraged to learn that the secretary's work to establish a council to give surviving families of fallen service members a direct channel to share their experiences, elevate their families concerns, and honor the memory of fallen service members.
▶ 2:08:49Um, it's my understanding that the council currently does not have representation from families of fallen coast guard members. And given the coast guard's unique role as both an armed service and a component of the department of homeland security, it's important that these families aren't overlooked and that their perspectives are represented alongside those of families from the other military services.
▶ 2:09:09That's why I appreciate the support of my provision that would direct the secretary of defense to work with the secretary of homeland security to include representation for the family of fallen coast guard service members on the council, the families of coast guard service members have made an ultimate sacrifice, and they deserve a seat at the table for the family of petty officer jaggers and for every family of coast guardsman. I urge adoption of the provision and I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady.
▶ 2:09:38Are there other members wishing to address the manager's amendment? Gentlelady from florida. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I. I rise in support of the manager's amendment, and I want to thank the chair for including a provision I submitted to strengthen holocaust education within the department of defense.
▶ 2:09:58And what this provision requires is the department to report to congress on >> the steps it's taking and the opportunities it can expand to ensure that our service members understand the history and the lessons of the holocaust.
▶ 2:10:15Importantly, it focuses on opportunities for our troops serving in the united states european command at the very region where the holocaust unfolded, including the possibility of visits to historic sites and museums, and engagement with holocaust survivors, descendants, and academic experts. Because remembering history is not just about remembering the past, it is about protecting the future.
▶ 2:10:43Our service members wear the uniform of the united states. They stand for freedom. They stand for tyranny, against tyranny, and they represent our values around the world. And as part of this mission is understanding what can happen when hatred, anti-semitism and extremism is allowed to grow unchecked. And today we are seeing a dangerous rise in that same hatred around the world.
▶ 2:11:13Jewish schools and synagogues have been targeted. Holocaust memorials have been vandalized. Jewish families have faced threats and violence simply because of who they are. We saw a horrific attack, of course, in israel on october 7th, the deadliest day for the jewish people since the holocaust, and we have seen anti-semitic violence in europe, including the firebombing of synagogues, attacks on jewish communities and mobs hunting jewish soccer, soccer fans through the streets
▶ 2:11:46Of amsterdam. These anti-semitism acts are fueled by the same poison and hate that led to one of humanity's darkest chapters. And yet, knowledge of that history. Of course, I'm talking about the holocaust. The knowledge of that history is fading. A recent survey found that only 53% of american adults knew that 66 million jews were murdered in the holocaust. 1 in 5 americans are unsure how many jews were killed.
▶ 2:12:15Less than half could name a concentration camp. Those numbers are not just disappointing. They are warning. Because when we forget history, we risk repeating the most darkest days. And at a time when antisemitism and hate are rising across the globe, we have a responsibility to make sure the next generation understands the consequences of hate.
▶ 2:12:40And that includes more than the 80,000 american servicemen stationed in europe, many serving just miles from places where the atrocities of the holocaust occurred. The holocaust was not inevitable. It was a result of hate left unchallenged. Education is how we remember. Education is how we honor the victims. Education is how we make never again.
▶ 2:13:08More than a phrase, we make it a promise. Thank you. Chair ranking member for including this important provision, I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman from california. Mr. calvert's recognized for one minute to close. >> I urge the passage of the amendment. I yield back. >> that was wonderfully eloquent. Thank you. Uh, questions now on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye.
▶ 2:13:39Aye. All those opposed say no. The chair the ayes have it. The gentlelady from minnesota, Mr. mcconnell, is recognized for purpose of an amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that the reading be dispensed with. >> the men will be read. Oh, do you say dispense with. >> dispense with? >> yeah. I thank you without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is now recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:14:07My amendment would strike section uh, 8144. The bill is found on page 5154. If you want to follow along. Uh, this is what gives the secretary of defense the authority to cut $1 billion from the bill in a proposed and possible savings of of things with, uh, all ai. Now, this section does not dictate that the funds cannot come from. It does not dictate.
▶ 2:14:35I want to be clear that the funds cannot come from salaries for military or civilian personnel. And that means, uh, so only there's programmatic cuts that are going to happen. So it dictates that funds cannot come from salaries. But that leaves the programs wide open, seating our authority to the secretary of defense or any secretary, no matter what that administration, um, is, is of great concern to me.
▶ 2:15:03It's our job to craft legislation that provides the executive branch with appropriations in such a way that we know how exactly programs are to be executed. Who here would be willing to give the administration the ability to cut $1 billion without knowing what program will be cut ahead of time? Again, congress would have no ability to deny that cut, no ability to stop that cut from happening. And that's a precedent we should not set.
▶ 2:15:33If programs need to be cut, we have the constitutional responsibility to make that cut and to understand what the impacts will be. But that's not what's in this bill. The underlying rationale for this cut is based on a premise, uh, in a study that was published in 2015 by the defense, uh, defense group board.
▶ 2:15:57Uh, anyway, it's this study indicated that savings could, could, would be enacted from usually using ai. That's an 11 year old study. And, uh, it still might have some use. However, I think until we have an updated assessment of how it's done based on the current understanding of how ai usage and impacts would be. I oppose this provision.
▶ 2:16:23Now, if the majority would seek to first understand the present scope of possibly saving through the report from the department and give us assurances that they will be targeted cuts, then I might be able to support such language in the future. But we have a ways to go. Before I get to that point. My amendment would offset the $1 billion by cutting the same amount from the advanced procurement guided missile battleship.
▶ 2:16:52Now, the administration has requested this funding, even though the navy has not completed the ship's concept design. I ask every member in this room, if you were going to build a house yourself, would you pay for it before it had even been designed? And I think the answer would be a resounding no. So why should we do that with a ship that reportedly could cost $17 billion apiece?
▶ 2:17:18It's no secret that the navy shipbuilding has been plagued by many problems. There have been many instances where we have appropriated funds for ships that have not been built. One recent example is for the constellation class frigate. We invested at least $7 billion into a frigate for only a program to be canceled this year by the navy.
▶ 2:17:42From the start, the navy sent multiple change orders to the contractor, and that means that there were several changes to cost assessments and delays to the construction of the ship. The navy couldn't get the frigate straight from the start, and now we can be sure that they know that the cost of this ship is estimated without a design to possibly be $17 billion per ship.
▶ 2:18:08So it's design is critical to controlling costs, and we just don't have that. So we need the navy to tell us what type of ship they want to build with specific details included before we provide them with any funding, including advanced funding. Because of what I just mentioned, what happened with the frigate? So I believe that's a responsible thing to do. And I like members to take this common sense approach. Mr. chair, we can work about refining this language into the future.
▶ 2:18:37But the way it stands right now, uh, that is why I'm offering my amendment. And chairman cole, that's why I'm yielding back. >> thank you, gentlelady, for an amendment. The gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, recognized to address the amendment. >> I thank the gentleman. This amendment strikes a provision that asks dod to find cost savings from modern business practices and ai technology. Uh, the bill includes $1 billion savings for reductions.
▶ 2:19:05I think the flexibility to cut 1 billion and $1 trillion budget is not to extravagance of those reasons. I oppose this amendment and yield back. >> thank you. Gentlemen, the gentlelady from connecticut, Mr. lawrence, recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. First, let me say that ceding any authority for cutting defense funds to the secretary of defense is a big mistake. We are appropriators. That is what our job is.
▶ 2:19:35This amendment, which strikes this language to ensure that funds in the bill remain balanced. We are cutting the advanced procurement request for the guided missile battleship. The concern with these large vessels is not that the navy does not need more ships. They do. The concern is that that's me. This may be the wrong kind of ship to spend billions of dollars on. Modern naval warfare is moving toward smaller, more spread out networked and unmanned systems.
▶ 2:20:08We have seen how ukraine, a nation that started with a war with a much smaller navy than russia, has been able to effectively contest control of the black sea and even sink much larger advanced russian vessels. Vessels such as the moskva, primarily using small naval drones and shore based missiles, long range missiles, drones, submarines and other modern threats. Make very large surface ships harder to defend.
▶ 2:20:40This proposed battleship would be a ship of the past, not a ship of the future. Meanwhile, a giant battleship puts a lot of money, weapons, and people into one very expensive target. And these ships will be incredibly expensive. Estimated at nearly $17 billion per unit, nearly seven times more expensive than a modern flight. Three arleigh burke destroyer.
▶ 2:21:06Representative joe courtney from connecticut, the top democrat on the house armed services committee committee there. Seapower subcommittee called the trump battleship, and I quote the exact opposite of every lesson, uh, from the recent shipbuilding failures. The navy already has serious needs, including submarines, destroyers, unmanned systems, munitions, shipyard capacity, and maintenance backlogs.
▶ 2:21:32Every dollar spent on this unproven, untested design is a dollar not spent on missiles, submarines, destroyers, or autonomous systems. Those trade offs mattered before. Congress spends billions of dollars on a new battleship class, the navy should explain why this ship is needed. What will it cost and what other priorities may be delayed or cut to pay for it? Thank you, and I yield back.
▶ 2:22:05>> thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for one minute to close. >> well, thank you, Mr. chair. I just want to reiterate again. Uh, $1 billion is a lot of money to be cut from this bill. And, um, you know, when you look through the bill and you look at the president's request and you look at the president's priorities, sometimes they don't allow with align with the priorities of this committee. So will they cut health research?
▶ 2:22:34Will they cut the research that goes into our universities to tackle the problems with, um, hypersonics, uh, you know, more, more understanding of what's going on with ai. Could they cut quality of life? We would hope that they wouldn't. And just as I said earlier, we would not any of us hand a check over to a builder without seeing the design for the home. And so that's why I oppose in this current form the way this is written. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 2:23:06>> thank gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from minnesota. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. No. Any the chair the nos have it. And the motion is not adopted. Gentlelady from minnesota. Miss mccollum is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and that I ask that it be considered.
▶ 2:23:36>> read without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I rise to strike the funding and the bill that would support the national guard's deployment to the district of columbia for the safe and beautiful task force for the national guard. Quick and for the national guard quick reaction force. I want to start by thanking the members of the D.C. national guard and the other states national guards, who have been deployed to washington, D.C. they have done their duties honorably.
▶ 2:24:05We were all horrified when two members of west virginia national guard were shot in washington last november, and one of those soldiers lost their life. But the department has spent over $600 million in the last fiscal year on D.C. beautification programs, and the administration is requesting another $605 million for fiscal year 2027 for these activities. Now, the president says he wants the guard to remain in D.C.
▶ 2:24:34Until the end of his term, when he leaves office in 2029. Our soldiers do not need to be patrolling monuments or picking up garbage as they're currently doing, and now they're standing guard over a reflecting pool, guarding algae, watching paint peel. Well, their job is more important than that. Their job is to train, to fight peer adversaries and respond to emergency situations.
▶ 2:25:00The idea that any of the guard's activities in washington has improved readiness for conflict is not based in reality. A recent study by a nonpartisan think tank stated that the deployment of these troops had no effect on the number of violent crimes in the district. Again, no effect on the number of violent crimes being reduced. The researchers also called the deployment a blunt and expensive instrument.
▶ 2:25:28Cbo reported that the costs were about $1.5 million a day for current troop levels. Nine oh several other domestic programs or even programs in the department of defense for training and equipping our national guard could be used more effectively. In total, the cost of this deployment has been $1.2 billion over the past year alone. I believe that this is a misuse of taxpayers funds.
▶ 2:25:57As I also mentioned in my opening statement, the bill includes $2.6 million for the national guard reaction force. Now, the national guard does not need new funding to develop law enforcement capabilities that are outside of the scope of its jurisdiction. The us government right here in washington, D.C. has plenty of first responders federal, state, local, that are trained to handle criminal activity.
▶ 2:26:22It's not the military's job, and we should not be funding this request for these reasons. Mr. chair, I hope you and my colleagues will support my amendment, and I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady. The gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, recognized the respond to the amendment. >> I thank the gentleman. This amendment strikes funding for the national guard mission to keep D.C. safe and beautiful.
▶ 2:26:46It's one thing to disagree with the policy, but we should all agree that the national guard cannot be left without the resources to pay them and what they need. So I for those reasons, I oppose this amendment. >> yield back. Thank you. Gentlemen, the gentlelady from pennsylvania, Mr. dean's recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 2:27:10I rise in strong support of ranking member mccollum's amendment, which cuts funding for president trump's wasteful deployment of the national guard for the dc safe and beautiful mission. Let me start by saying my tremendous respect for our national guardsmen and women. They do extraordinary work responding to national disasters and other domestic emergencies. In addition to supporting combat missions abroad.
▶ 2:27:34I am so grateful to the men and women in this country who choose to serve our country through the national guard, as my late father in law did, I've had the opportunity to interact with so many of these patriots recently, which is both a blessing and a curse, a blessing because they are truly extraordinary, hardworking, service minded citizens dedicated to this country. But a curse because the reasons for many of my interactions in the national guard's is their unjustifiable presence here in dc.
▶ 2:28:03For those watching remotely who haven't been to dc recently, you might not realize the extent of the national guard's presence here and just how dystopian it feels. If you go for a walk along the national mall, if you go to any metro station, you will encounter multiple patrols of national guardsmen. The administration claims they are necessary and they are presence to deter violent crime.
▶ 2:28:27In reality, studies have found that while the deployment has perhaps led to a small reduction in opportunistic crimes, it has no meaningful impact on violent crimes. All of this at a cost of $1.5 million a day, according to cbo. And that's before the so-called summer surge. Do my republican colleagues truly think this is taxpayer money well spent?
▶ 2:28:50How could you $1.5 million a day to deter criminal activities like touching the reflecting pool or touching a piece of peeled paint to assist in picking up trash and putting down mulch? This deployment is a waste of resources and talent. It is disrespectful to the mission and reputation of our national guard.
▶ 2:29:15I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our national guard and their proper training and employ and deployment, and I ask you to please support this amendment. I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing. Oh, where? Oh, the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of ranking member mccollum's amendment preventing funding for this.
▶ 2:29:43In this bill for the deployment of the national guard reserves for the beautification task force, not only is it an egregious misuse of funds to spend a half $1 billion so the national guard can continue to pick up trash in D.C. it also. More importantly for this subcommittee's work, it impedes our readiness and deprives our soldiers of valuable training opportunities. The brave men and women of the guard deployed in D.C.
▶ 2:30:13Could have spent the last ten months preparing for a fight against our adversaries, supporting legitimate military operations or responding to emergencies instead of militarizing local neighborhoods in D.C. but instead, they've been robbed of these opportunities because the president's insistence that the nation's capital needs to be cleaned up.
▶ 2:30:33In reality, this operation has done little to reduce violent crime in washington, which was already trending downward before trump took office, providing more funding for this unnecessary and expensive deployment is a disservice to our national security and to the national guard troops who serve our country. That's why I urge an. I vote on the amendment, and I yield back, Mr. chairman. Thank you. >> thank the gentleman. The gentleman from maryland, Mr. ivey, is recognized to address the amendment.
▶ 2:31:04>> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. You know, this is one that's been of significant concern to me since it was first instituted, for a couple of reasons. One is, as you've heard, the amount of money, the expenditure on this, um, is frankly outrageous, um, and totally misdirected. If you really wanted to spend the money to try and help make the streets of washington, D.C.
▶ 2:31:31Safer, hiring police officers would be much better than assigning national guards folks, uh, for a variety of reasons. One is the national guard is a band aid approach. These guys are going to leave eventually and go back to doing the things that they ought to be doing, and I hope that comes sooner rather than later. Hiring police officers though, uh, would be much more beneficial to the community because they're trained to actually police the streets of washington, D.C.
▶ 2:31:59Or whatever community they're in, as opposed to the national guard, which is not, uh, and their training should remain on other things unrelated to policing. But, but the policing piece is of particular concern to me because part of the training is making sure you know how to use force on the street.
▶ 2:32:15And so if you're on the street and you have a situation where you need to use some sort of force to resolve a criminal activity, regular police have a whole range of options and tools that are available to them. It's called the force continuum. And it can be, you know, lethal force at the the far end weapon or, but it can also be a nightstick or a taser or something in between. National guard is not equipped with those tools, by and large.
▶ 2:32:43In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any of them with those. And so the problem that creates is that a relatively minor situation puts them in the position of having to make a decision about whether, uh, instead of having a taser or some sort of intermediate tool that you could use, it's nothing. Or it's the m4. And we don't really need that. That's not what we need to be.
▶ 2:33:03And we've seen that from years and years of, of excessive force issues on the street where police officers have made decisions that, in my view, have been bad and dangerous and have led to criminal prosecution. So let's not put these national guard personnel in the situation that they haven't been trained to deal with and don't have the tools to deal with.
▶ 2:33:26And then finally, I'll say this, um, with respect to actually trying to make the streets safer, it's not just enforcement that's been effective in communities across the country. And as my colleague from california noted a minute ago, it's violent crime trends have been going down for years already anyway, including in the district of columbia. And they continue to go down in cities where there's no national guard presence that's been made. That's in part because they don't use just any enforcement as a tool.
▶ 2:33:58They also use intervention prevention mechanisms to try and bring criminal activity down. And it's been effective. Why don't we actually try and use the tools that are effective to reduce crime in our streets? Uh, my colleague from illinois has just shown me an article a few minutes ago about research that's been done in chicago, just along these lines. And it's something that we really ought to continue to try and expand. Sadly, when the trump administration came into office, they slashed the funding for many of these programs.
▶ 2:34:27Um, which is really distressing in a number of ways because violent crime on our streets, especially gun violence on our streets, has, you know, will continue to move in the wrong direction if we don't use solutions that we've developed and tested and realize that they work. So let's get the national guard back to doing what they're supposed to do. And if you really want to bring down crime on the streets of washington, D.C.
▶ 2:34:52Use the funding instead of $1.5 million a day for these national guard folks that aren't trained to be out there. Let's put it towards people, whether it's enforcement tools, more police, whether it's violence interrupters, whatever you want to use. Let's use people out there on the street who are actually trained to handle these situations and can truly make a difference. So I urge you to support the amendment. And with that, I yield back. >> thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment?
▶ 2:35:20Seeing none, the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I think the people who volunteer for our national guard are very special to each and every one of us on our state, and then they're special to us, as they are often called on to deploy nationally in the total service of this country.
▶ 2:35:43Many of us have been with them at their posts out in theaters, and they put their lives on the line for us every single day. They need to be used effectively. They need to be used with dignity and honor. And so I ask the committee to support this amendment. >> question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from minnesota. All those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the chair the nos have it.
▶ 2:36:13Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. I will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt, Mr. aguilar, Mr. aguilar. Aye. Mr. alford, Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei, Mr. amodei. No. Mrs. bice. Mrs. bice. No. Mr. bishop. Mr. calvert, Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter, Mr. carter. No. Mr. case. Mr. case. Mr. cisco. Mr.
▶ 2:36:45Cisco. No. Mr. klein, Mr. klein. No. Mr. cloud. Mr. cloud. No. Mr. clyburn. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, miss. Dean, miss. Dean. I. Mr. laura, Mr. laura. I, Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards. No. Mr. ellzey. Miss. Escobar, miss.
▶ 2:37:18Escobar. I. Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleishman, Mr. fleishman. No. Miss. Frankel. Miss. Frankel. Yes. Miss. Frankel, I. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. I. Doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. No. Mrs. henson. Mr.
▶ 2:37:49Hoyer, Mr. hoyer, I. Mr. iv, Mr. iv, I Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce. No. Miss. Kaptur. Mr. lalota. Miss lee, miss lee. I miss. Letlow, Mr. levin, Mr. levin, I miss. Molloy, miss. Mccollum, miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming I, Mr. molinari, Mr.
▶ 2:38:22Molenaar. No. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli I. Mr. van. Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse. No. Miss. Perez. Miss. Pingree, miss. Pingree, I. Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I. Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley I. Mr. guy reschenthaler. Mr. reschenthaler. No. Mr. rogers. Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford. Mr. rutherford. No. Mr.
▶ 2:38:51Shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson, Mr. simpson. No. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres, I miss underwood, Mr. underwood, I. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson. Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink, no. >> other members wishing to vote or change their vote.
▶ 2:39:22Gentleman from south carolina. >> Mr. clyburn I. >> gentleman from georgia. >> Mr. bishop I. >> gentlelady from florida. Already. The gentleman from florida, Mr. >> diaz-balart. No. >> gentlelady from ohio. >> miss kaptur, a. >> gentleman from new york. >> Mr. lalota no. >> gentleman from texas. >> Mr. ellzey. No.
▶ 2:39:52>> gentlelady from utah. >> miss malloy? No. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> Mr. mervyn I. >> gentleman from alabama. >> Mr. aderholt. No. >> are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, we'll tally. The senate candidates.
▶ 2:40:45On this road. The eyes are 25, the nose are 33. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from connecticut. Mr. lawrence, recognized for the purposes of amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> thank you so much, Mr. chair.
▶ 2:41:17Uh, my amendment would apply the same responsible guardrails that we have agreed to in this committee on a bipartisan basis to the funding of, uh, the pentagon receives through reconciliation. These are not unreasonable constraints. They are not needlessly burdensome regulations. They are fundamental protections against waste, abuse and corruption that both sides have agreed should apply to the funding that we approve.
▶ 2:41:45For example, we prohibit funds from being used to award government contracts efficient in their taxes, or that have been found guilty of a felony within the past two years. To my republican colleagues really believe the same standard ought not to apply to reconciliation funding.
▶ 2:42:07Should tax cheats and corporate criminals be eligible for lucrative government contracts simply because the money was passed through a different process? We include language in this defense bill to prohibit the use of funding for torture. Is torture somehow more acceptable because it is funding through funded through reconciliation rather than appropriations? Is it any less a crime against humanity because of a legislative technicality?
▶ 2:42:37We include a prohibition on the use of funds to contravene a war powers resolution, rightly asserting congress's constitutional prerogative not only the power of the purse, but the power to declare war. There are dozens of these guardrails that we routinely include in the bills that we passed through the appropriations process.
▶ 2:43:01But the trump administration has argued that these do not apply to the money they have received through the reconciliation process, that those funds come with no strings attached.
▶ 2:43:16That is a direct affront to the institution of the congress, allowing these funds to flow without the guardrails that we consistently, we consistently see fit to include on our bills is an abdication of our authority not only on this committee, but in the congress as a whole. Our constitutional responsibility is to allocate funding on behalf of the american people whom we serve.
▶ 2:43:43Refusing to apply these guardrails to reconciliation funds, refusing to remove any doubt as to where the power of the purse lies. We'll come back to haunt us in the future. These are reasonable provisions that we have already agreed to on a consistent and on a bipartisan basis. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and assert our power of the purse. I yield back.
▶ 2:44:14>> thank you. Gentlelady. Uh, the gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, to recognize to address the amendment. >> I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. Um, we, uh, already, uh, the one big, beautiful bill or the first reconciliation bill, whatever we want to call it, uh, passed. And we shouldn't reopen the debate during this markup. We should focus on the bill that's before us and work together on how we can improve it, move forward, providing for the common defense of those reasons. I oppose this amendment.
▶ 2:44:41Yield back. >> thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from minnesota, miss mccollum, is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you again, Mr. chairman. I rise in full support of this amendment. Everyone in this room is an appropriator. We pay the bills, we manage the funds. With that in mind, it's my hope that we can have a unanimous approach to this amendment. This amendment would bring the defense funds that were appropriated last year into public law.
▶ 2:45:08100 and 19-21, under the purview of this committee, is necessary for proper congressional oversight. As I said in my opening statements, the department of defense took ten months to get us an adequate spend plan on the $150 billion from the reconciliation bill. We should never accept that kind of a spend plan timeline with an annual appropriation funds.
▶ 2:45:36These funds should be subject to the same terms and conditions as every other dollar we allocate to the department of defense. It's just not responsible for the departments of dod's programs to fully utilize funds that are subject to one's offset rules versus another. We all agree reconciliation is not the right way to do business.
▶ 2:46:00This amendment would correct those concerns and abuses, and I support its adoption, and I yield back. >> gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I just this is really not reopening a debate.
▶ 2:46:22This is about applying um, the same as I say, rules that we, uh, engage in, in this committee with appropriations bills to what is a, in essence, an appropriations bill, but it has gone through a different process. But it's still the advocates, it is still appropriation of funds. And this is the power of the purse, which belongs constitutionally to the congress.
▶ 2:46:51The amendment doesn't add any condition to any funding that we have not already agreed upon in this committee. It simply applies the standards that we have set for ourselves. On how the money congress approves ought to be spent to the money that is provided outside of this committee. If we do not believe these provisions should apply to the funding that congress provides, then why are they included in this bill we consider today?
▶ 2:47:19Why have my colleagues not stripped them out entirely? The answer is because they are eminently reasonable provisions that we have found common ground on. We've agreed to this. We cannot forfeit our power of the purse. We cannot abdicate our responsibility on this committee. We cannot continue to write blank checks for the executive branch. That is not how the constitution envisions our role in this institution.
▶ 2:47:43I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, apply these basic guardrails to the vast sums of money that are being funneled to the government outside of this committee, and to a person in this committee. We really do not believe that reconciliation is a laudable process for appropriating dollars.
▶ 2:48:05Why not apply these guardrails as to funds that are being appropriated, if you will, outside of the appropriations committee? Thank you, and I yield back. I ask your support for the amendment. >> thank you. Gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut. All those in favor say aye. I all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the chair the nos have it roll call has been requested.
▶ 2:48:36Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. No. Mr. aguilar, Mr. aguilar. Aye. Mr. alford. Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei. Mrs. bice. Mrs. bice. No. Mr. bishop. Mr. bishop, I. Mr. calvert, Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. No. Mr. case. Mr. case I, Mr. eskamani. Mr. kline, Mr.
▶ 2:49:08Kline. No. Mr. cloud. Mr. cloud. No. Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn I. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, miss. Dean, miss dean, I miss. Delauro, miss. Delauro, I. Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart. No. Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards. No. Mr. ellzey. Mr. ellzey. No. Miss. Escobar, Mr. espaillat, Mr.
▶ 2:49:38Fleishman, miss. Frankel, miss. Frankel, I. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr. harter, doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. No. Mrs. henson. Mr. hoyer. Mr. iv, Mr. iv, I. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce. No. Miss.
▶ 2:50:08Kaptur. Mr. nick lalota. Mr. nick lalota. No. Miss lee, miss lee, I miss. Letlow, Mr. levin, Mr. levin, I miss molloy, miss molloy. No. Miss mccollum, I miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming, I, Mr. molenaar. No. Mr. molenaar, no. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli I. Mr. van. Mr.
▶ 2:50:36Mervyn I, Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse no. Miss perez, I miss perez, I miss pingree, miss pingree, I Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley I. Mr. guy reschenthaler. Mr. guy reschenthaler. No. Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford. Mr. rutherford. No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson. Mr. simpson. No. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres.
▶ 2:51:08Mrs. torres, I miss. Underwood, miss underwood, I. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson. Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink. No. >> are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from ohio. >> miss kaptur, a. >> gentleman from texas. Chairman voting. >> Mr. cuellar, a. >> gentleman from california.
▶ 2:51:40>> Mr. harter, a. >> gentleman from tennessee. >> Mr. fleischmann, no. >> gentleman from arizona? >> Mr. cisco? No. >> are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from maryland. >> Mr. hoyer, I. >> gentlelady from texas. >> miss escobar, I. >> again, there are others wishing to vote or change their vote.
▶ 2:52:08Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 2:52:54On this vote. The eyes are 27. The nos are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Excuse me. Gentleman from michigan. Mr. molinari is recognized. The purpose of amendment. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and request unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. >> the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment. >> Mr. chairman, my amendment would fully fund exercise.
▶ 2:53:24Northern strike that is held at camp grayling in northern michigan. Northern strike provides realistic and robust training experiences for units and leaders to strengthen joint all domain warfighting capabilities. It is at the forefront of uas and counter uas training that provides service members critical exposure to current real world threats. Additionally, our partners and allies travel from around the world to participate.
▶ 2:53:53It was publicly reported that hundreds of troops from taiwan were included in the specialized training last year. I greatly appreciate chairman calvert's and the subcommittee staff's work on this bill. It's a great bill that I will not hesitate to vote for today. Yet there are always difficult choices when crafting these bills, and northern strike was a casualty this year.
▶ 2:54:15While I'm going to withdraw this amendment, I look forward to working with chairman calvert on securing this funding through the conference process. Thank you, Mr. chairman, and I yield back. >> thank the gentleman. The amendment is withdrawn, but the gentleman from california is recognized to address remarks. >> I just wanted to let the gentleman know. I'm looking forward to working with you as we move this process forward.
▶ 2:54:40I know it's an important training exercise and supported by many members, and we'll continue to work with you on this program. Thank you. Yield back. >> thank gentleman. The gentlelady from minnesota is also. She's declined. Okay. Uh, there's no further debate. The gentleman is recognized for one minute to close. >> well, thank you, Mr. chairman, for your leadership and willingness to work together, and I withdraw the amendment and yield back. >> thank the gentleman.
▶ 2:55:06The gentlelady from connecticut, miss dolores, recognized for the purpose of amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> thank you.
▶ 2:55:26Um, my amendment would block a proposed regulation put out by the office of management and budget that would overhaul how federal grants are dispersed across the government, including congressionally directed medical research programs.
▶ 2:55:43The change would require all federal grants to be approved by president trump's political appointees. I repeat, all federal grants to be approved by president trump's political appointees.
▶ 2:56:05It is just the latest attempt by omb director russ vought to exert unmitigated control over federal spending. The proposed rule is more than 400 pages long. It is not written to be read, but buried in this obscure document is an extraordinary and unprecedented political power grab.
▶ 2:56:30The rule proposes to give president trump's political appointees complete control over grant making. It no longer requires that peer review be binding. It allows active grants to be terminated at any time for any reason. It severely limits foreign research partnerships.
▶ 2:56:59In practice, this gives political appointees a veto over any science that conflicts with the current administration's ideology. It. In fact.
▶ 2:57:15Dismantles the post-world war two system used for the national institutes of health, the national science foundation, the department of energy, nasa, and nearly every science agency.
▶ 2:57:32Under this rule, a political appointee can simply override the scientific community's judgment with no finding of cause. I find that pretty extraordinary. My colleagues, um, the political allies, it's a veto over any science that conflicts, again, with the current administration's ideology.
▶ 2:57:58No longer will grants be dispersed in the manner congress envisioned. No more will the recipient be evaluated on their merit or their qualifications, or according to science. The test is a simple one. Are you conforming to the president's political ideology?
▶ 2:58:18Let us take the congressionally directed medical research program as an example, which is, uh, with within this bill, the program support crucial life saving breakthrough research into a wide array of afflictions duchenne muscular dystrophy, bone marrow failure, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, alzheimer's, parkinson's, traumatic brain injuries, psychological health,
▶ 2:58:49Military burns, tick borne diseases, spinal cord injuries, toxic exposure the list goes on. But this rule under omb puts the sustainability of this research at risk. Cdmrp is a grant program. It awards funding to institutions to conduct research on behalf of the federal government.
▶ 2:59:09If the proposed rule were to take effect, political appointees in the trump administration would make decisions on who received these awards, not based on any empirical or evidentiary standard, not based on whether the recipient is well equipped to conduct the research, but on whether they are politically aligned with the current administration. This is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that's being set.
▶ 2:59:38It reduces the likelihood that the research we fund will yield a breakthrough. And as awards granted according to politics and not merit, will undoubtedly yield research of a less quality. There is a recent article published in the new new england journal of medicine, and it notes the incredible harm this rule will inflict if it is allowed to take effect.
▶ 3:00:05I have I will be happy to provide, and I will provide you with copies of what the new england journal of medicine has said here. Um, they go on that given political appointees ultimate authority to determine to determine federal grant funding as proposed by the omb, would politicize and weaken biomedical research and, um.
▶ 3:00:35It's staggering. Um, what the effect of this rule would do. The article says, and let me quote it, a non scientific process for determining what is scientifically sound has not worked in the past. It will not work now. It continues and I quote erratic funding would fundamentally undermine innovation and dramatically impair america's ability to address today's health challenges, end quote.
▶ 3:01:05This rule undermines our authority as a co-equal branch of government. Our prerogative is to provide funding that will support the american people, not just the people who are politically aligned with the president. It is a circumvention of our constitutional authority. It is a spoil system applied to medical research. We will be worse off for it.
▶ 3:01:33I encourage my colleagues understand what's happening here, support this amendment, reassert our power of the purse, refute the administration's cynical attempt and the omb cynical attempt to exploit the power of his office for political gain. I yield back. I thank the chair for the time. >> I thank the gentlelady for amendment. The gentleman from california, Mr.
▶ 3:02:01Calvert, recognized to respond to the amendment. >> thank you. Chairman. Uh, thank the gentlelady for her amendment. This amendment would block the trump administration's proposal to reform the framework for federal agencies competitive grant making. The administration's proposal seeks to strengthen oversight, increase transparency into federal grants. It seeks to ensure federal grants align with the agency priorities under the best interests of the nation. For those reasons, I oppose this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 3:02:29>> gentleman gentlelady from minnesota is recognized to address the amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. During last year, dosage cuts, the entire federal government, including financial assistance, was in chaos. My constituents didn't know what to do if your offices were like mine. I suspect your casework also was a nightmare.
▶ 3:02:49Omb is proposed rule would codify that chaos by building politically charged uncertainty at the beginning and the middle and the end of every single grant process. This is not how the grant approval process is supposed to work. Our constituents, our states, our local governments, our counties, our cities they deserve predictability.
▶ 3:03:11And congress is charged by the constitution with the power to ensure that once a law is enacted, it is carried out in a fair way for the benefit of all our constituents, of all americans. And that includes the programs in this bill, like life saving congressionally directed medical research programs that the chair just that the ranking member just spoke to. These are research programs that depend upon science, and politics is no place in them. We cannot let omb needlessly.
▶ 3:03:39Political politicize research, and many of our military service members and their families and lives depend on. And on a side note, as a state that did not support president trump in the last election, the state that stood up and resisted the surge of 4000 people into minnesota. We've watched our grants be cut. We've watched the political actions take place.
▶ 3:04:05It has no business in doing that in those instances, but it certainly doesn't when it comes to medical research. With that, I yield back and approve the adoption of this amendment. >> thank you, gentle lady gentlelady from florida, miss wasserman schultz, recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of ranking member delauro's amendment, which strikes down yet another authoritarian maneuver by the trump administration.
▶ 3:04:32Omb proposed rule would bring unprecedented corruption and partizanship to our federal grant making process under the guise of increasing transparency. It would allow political appointees near total control of how and where federal dollars are spent.
▶ 3:04:50I it's incomprehensible to me how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want that in place of a merit based review process, it inserts president trump's culture war crusaders directly into the system that funds critical scientific research, community development, disaster recovery and countless other priorities.
▶ 3:05:12The rule gives the trump administration carte blanche to deny funding based on vague and subjective ideas like anti-americanism. Sounds mccarthy esque to me. Mr. chairman, the president has very different ideas of what is anti american than me and my constituents ripping families apart without due process, using taxpayer dollars to build a ballroom, a ballroom or pave over the everglades. Those are anti american.
▶ 3:05:42The federal grant making process is designed to be fair, rigorous and free from political influence. It has given us cancer therapies, semiconductors, the internet and the list goes on. When we insert political preferences into this process, we lose the scientific objectivity. What is good for the american people and for our future is not always necessarily politically convenient for republicans or democrats, for that matter, or for president trump.
▶ 3:06:08This rule would allow president trump to continue his scorched earth revenge tour, yanking funding at any time from whoever has most recently offended him with absolutely no accountability. Federal grant awardees need consistency, objectivity, and stability to carry out the public good and advance projects that they've been chosen for, whether it's building housing, researching disease, or cleaning up our environment.
▶ 3:06:34The looming threat that trump could pull their funding at any time would have a chilling effect on recipients stunting innovative research and scientific advancement. We all saw the chaos that unfolded when trump allowed dodge to illegally freeze all federal grants. This is pure insanity. We can't let that nightmare be repeated. There is too much on the line.
▶ 3:06:58Stop the run amok madness collision course out of control roller coaster ride this president has taken us on. We need to get off before it's too late. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady. The gentlelady from maine, miss pingree, is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. And thank you to Mr. laurel lee for submitting this amendment.
▶ 3:07:27And I speak in wholehearted support of it and echo the remarks of my colleagues have already made. I mean, this is so simple. It just says that no funds can be implemented, can be used to implement the omb's outrageous proposed rule to rewrite how we make grants and regulations related to this.
▶ 3:07:47With this rule vote the chief architect of project 2025 and one of the most nefarious and destructive forces in this administration, would give veto power over every single federal grant to administration loyalists like himself. Now, let's just be simple here.
▶ 3:08:07Federal grants you want to believe, and you want to be able to say to your constituents back at home that their tax dollars are invested in a process that is nonpartisan, driven by the actual needs of people and communities. There should be no ideological litmus test in any of these things. These should be based on the very factors that the ranking member mentioned.
▶ 3:08:33Merit, qualifications, science, things like peer review that give us a sense that this was actually looked at by a group of peers who know that this is necessary research or that it's appropriate science. But this administration has been doing just the opposite. Haven't we lived through enough of this in the past two years?
▶ 3:08:54This administration, and we've seen it countless times, has block grants, rescinded grants, taken back the money or blocked something because they just mentioned a few words climate, race, gender. How many times have you had to intervene for institutions and organizations in your districts and try to call someone at the administration and say, why in the world are you taking back this perfectly innocent money that goes to a good purpose? Do you recall last year?
▶ 3:09:20I recall it very well in april, where it was revealed that there were 110 words at the usda, and if your grant used any of those words, they could take the money back or stop your grants. Now, it seems like those must have been, oh my gosh, what kind of words were they? Must have been big. But here's a few. Now, I know you're not all farmers and you don't know all these things, but really, you couldn't use the word tile drain. You couldn't say safe drinking water or clean water.
▶ 3:09:48I mean, really, that could make your grant be rescinded. And that still goes on to this day. Remember that video of the young punk kid who worked for doge? And he said, yeah, we just used some ai. We look for those words and then we cancel your grant. He didn't know a thing about the subject matter area. He didn't know anything about what was going on. Remember doge, do we want to bring it back? And that insanity? I too come from a state where my governor got in a fight with the president at a governor's lunch last year.
▶ 3:10:17She got in a tiff with the president over something he didn't like going on in the state of maine. And she said, I'll see you in court. Oh, my god. That unleashed a firestorm of cutting school lunch programs, of cutting funding at the university for agricultural research projects. They even interfered with our, um, social security administration on enrolling babies in social security, saying people would have to bring the baby into the office.
▶ 3:10:44That was rarely even a person didn't always have someone there. Uh, instead of just doing it in the normal process. I mean, it's outrageous what this administration could possibly do has done. And this just goes against every kind of process and administration that we know we can't trust to believe in science. We know we can't trust them to be balanced and fair. And we cannot let partizan hacks decide how the money is spent that we appropriate in this committee.
▶ 3:11:11It needs to be fair, and we cannot let this process go forward. And I think the only way to stop it is to support this amendment and get it approved today. So I yield back, and I thank my colleague for this amendment. >> thank. Gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> okay.
▶ 3:11:38>> um, I thank my colleagues for speaking in support of the amendment. Um, I think we could all agree that federal funding should be awarded according to objective criteria and not political preference. When we're talking about applying a political filter to all of the federal grants, think about that.
▶ 3:12:01Grants is one word, but think about fema >> and disaster relief where some political person, some person who doesn't know jack about your district or what happened and so forth, will say yay or nay. Transportation, the safer grants, the cops grants. My colleague from maine talked about agricultural grants, rural grants in your.
▶ 3:12:22Any grant that we deal with and we provide the funding in this committee for these efforts, and they're going to say that our judgment is flawed, that we don't know what we are doing. But some political lackey is going to make that decision. On behalf of your constituents and my constituents. Why in god's name would we turn it over to these to these folks?
▶ 3:12:52It's not transparency. It's not waste, fraud and abuse. Boy, I tell you, when your grant gets challenged and you scream from the rooftops, or you call the administration and you say you have to reverse it, then you know what is being wrought here. We should not be conditioning access to critical resources that support medical breakthroughs. And that's the program we're talking about in this bill. Like I have introduced, I asked for funding for ovarian cancer.
▶ 3:13:20Others have asked for funding in this bill that they care about deeply. And I mentioned that that they could just say no to it because they don't like the program. The award should be granted on merit. Honest qualifications of the recipient, awarded to ensure the greatest likelihood of success. And we owe that to the american people. Reid, I'm going to get distributed. The omb and the politicization of science in the new england journal of medicine.
▶ 3:13:49My god, let's look at the trusted resources that we have over the years. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, oppose a dangerous precedent. This administration is attempting to set. I thank the chair for the time, and I yield back. >> you're welcome. Uh, again, chair would just remind everyone, please try to stay within the time limit. Chair will continue to be generous with the clock. It's going to be a long day. Uh, question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from connecticut.
▶ 3:14:21All those in favor, say aye. I all those opposed say no. >> no. >> the chair and nos. >> have it. >> roll call. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. No. Mr. aguilar, Mr. aguilar, I. Mr. alford, Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei. Mrs. bice. Mrs. bice. No. Mr. bishop. Mr. bishop, I. Mr. calvert, Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. Mr.
▶ 3:14:58Carter. No. Mr. case. Mr. case I, Mr. eskamani. Mr. kline, Mr. kline. No. Mr. cloud. Mr. cloud. No. Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn I. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, Mr. cuellar I miss dean, miss dean, I miss delauro. I miss delauro, I Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart.
▶ 3:15:28No. Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards. No. Mr. ellzey. Mr. ellzey. No. Miss. Escobar, miss. Escobar, I Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleishman, Mr. fleishman. No. Miss. Frankel, miss. Frankel, I. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr. harter, Mr. carter, I. Doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. No. Mrs. henson. Mr. hoyer. Mr.
▶ 3:15:55Iv, Mr. ivy. I. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce. No. Miss. Kaptur, miss. Kaptur, I. Mr. lalota. Mr. lalota. No. Miss. Lee. Miss. Letlow. Mr. levin. Mr. levin, I miss. Molloy, miss. Molloy. No. Miss. Mccollum. Miss mccollum.
▶ 3:16:28I miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming, I, Mr. mulliner, Mr. mulliner. No. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli. I Mr. morelli I Mr. van, Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse. No. Miss. Perez, miss perez, I miss. Pingree, miss pingree, I Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley, I. Mr. guy reschenthaler. Mr. guy reschenthaler. No. Mr. rogers. Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford.
▶ 3:17:00Mr. rutherford. No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson, Mr. simpson. No. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres, I miss underwood, Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz, I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson. Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink. No.
▶ 3:17:29>> are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from arizona. >> Mr. eskamani. No. >> gentleman from indiana. >> Mr. chairman, I. >> I was going to get to the gentleman, but thank you. That's all right, gentlemen from indiana. >> Mr. mervyn, I. Mr. hoyer, I. >> wishing to vote or change their vote. Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 3:17:59>> that's why I came in. >> a gentleman is a gentleman from nevada recorded. >> madam secretary.
▶ 3:18:32>> Mr. amodei, no. >> mark alford. >> on this vote. The yeas are 25. The nos are 33. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from ohio is recognized for an amendment.
▶ 3:19:04>> thank you, Mr. chairman. I ask to dispense with the reading of this very worthy amendment. >> thank the gentlelady. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her bill. Our amendment. >> I rise today in support of my amendment with the support of my colleagues, congressman mike quigley of illinois and congressman steny hoyer of maryland. Our amendment would appropriate $400 million to the ukraine security assistance initiative.
▶ 3:19:32This will allow funds to be available until 2029. This program has long had significant bipartisan support, including from members of this committee who have previously voted in support of it. It's unfortunate that this provision was not in the original bill, and I would like very much to see this amendment agreed to, but I recognize that the best way to ensure this program continues for.
▶ 3:19:59Is for necessary negotiations to occur in conference with our senate counterparts. This is a massive bill of which this amendment is but a mere part. Um, the senate is likely to pass $750 million for the ukraine security assistance initiative.
▶ 3:20:21This house just passed the ukraine support act, and I'm heartened to see congress is reassuring itself to fund strategic programs such as this security initiative that carry broad bipartisan support. I would encourage my colleagues to work in good faith with our senate colleagues to ensure this support continues as long as necessary. The flame of liberty is priceless, and it flickers with our every move.
▶ 3:20:50And thus I offer my amendment as a model for how this can be done without new costs on the american taxpayer. Secondly, our colleagues in the house armed services committee have included in the defense authorization bill that the bbg battleship program should not move forward until it is actually designed.
▶ 3:21:10I also think the chair and ranking member of our subcommittee for voicing that sentiment during our navy budget hearing, my amendment would retool some of the funds from that paused program supporting our ukrainian allies isn't charity. It is a strategic and rational move to support american interests, essentially freedom's interests.
▶ 3:21:35When our soldiers were under attack by iranian, uh, murder drones in the middle east, with russia helping and supplying iran, it was ukraine that sent hundreds of experts to help intercept and defend our soldiers, our people. Ukraine again came to our aid. It is time for us again to come to ukraine's aid and rightly stand on the side of liberty.
▶ 3:22:03This isn't really a very hard choice. I've been pleased to see positive steps from the administration in recent weeks, including agreement at the g7 to accelerate the provision of air defenses to ukraine and licensing, production of air defense and long range strike capabilities to that country. And I would encourage this committee to support these efforts. We and our european allies are stronger with ukraine than without it.
▶ 3:22:30The united states urgently needs to boost production of air defense, long range strikes, and to work with ukraine to learn from its pathbreaking experience in unmanned systems by extending and investing in the U.S. and ukraine's capability, we're investing in a powerful partner and future ally, as well as our own defense industry.
▶ 3:22:54And there's a reason that almost every member of this committee has voted in support of usaid in the past. I hope to see that support continue going forward. Thank you. And I would yield back for the moment. >> gentlelady. The gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, recognized to respond to the amendment. >> thank you, chairman. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The amendment adds $400 million in funding for ukraine.
▶ 3:23:24I've long supported and continue to support ukraine's efforts to defend itself from russian aggression. Our current approach is to maintain a high level of support, using the assistance of our european allies and partners. The administration asked our allies and partners to step up, and they have in a big way through the pearl initiative. Our preference is to stay on that path.
▶ 3:23:44Uh, with that, uh, I understand that, miss kaptur, after your remarks, you may, uh, offer to withdraw your amendment, but I'll leave that up to you. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. We do have two people that wish to speak. >> okay. >> certainly prior to my withdrawing the amendment. >> thank you. Thank you. >> chairman. >> uh, gentlelady from minnesota. Miss mike collins recognized to address the amendment. >> well, I. >> Mr. chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
▶ 3:24:13On june 11th, the war between russia and ukraine reached 1569 days, which means it's gone on longer than world war one. This war has also gone on longer than our own involvement in world war two, as we fought alongside many allies. Ukraine still fights this war alone, but ukraine continues to surprise russia with its innovative and inexpensive, inexpensive drone attacks.
▶ 3:24:40In the last few weeks, ukraine has been able to successfully attack both saint petersburg and moscow, hitting critical oil and infrastructure targets, targets that seemed unreachable. In the past, russia has taken over 1 million casualties during this war. Think about it. It's simply astounding. No major power has had that number of casualties since world war two.
▶ 3:25:06The loss of life is tremendous, and it's sad the ukrainians have had success, however, in defending their homeland, their democracy, because they have continued to provide. We have continued to provide material and intelligence support to them. We must continue our support to ukraine. We need to continue to provide assurances to our european allies that we do stand with them. Since the start of the war, I've continued to speak with our allies in europe.
▶ 3:25:33Our allies in the baltics are seriously concerned, very seriously concerned about how russia drone incursions over their own territory. They fear that if putin wins in ukraine, they are next in line for an invasion from russia. That cannot happen. Because if that does happen, article five of the nato charter will be triggered. And what does that mean? It means a war between russia and nato, nato that includes us.
▶ 3:25:59This is something we must avoid at all costs. Ukrainian defense contract group. A gathering of countries to support ukraine met just last week to continue to express their support for ukraine. The secretary of defense did not attend the meeting with the other european allies and ministers. Instead, the undersecretary for policy listened on the phone.
▶ 3:26:25That's how much weight the administration has given to this important meeting. Congress has continued to provide funding for ukraine assistance in every appropriations bill since 2015, and we shouldn't stop now. We need to publicly show our support for ukraine and show this administration that congress has a voice and a vote in this issue, too. I support the amendment, and I ask you all to do the same. >> thank you.
▶ 3:26:54>> thank the gentlelady gentlelady from connecticut, Mr. lawrence, recognized to address the amendment. >> there are, I think, other, other um. I'll wait. >> okay. >> I know we have Mr. hoyer and we have Mr. quigley. >> okay. >> and. >> Mr. roy, did you want to address him? Gentleman from illinois. Mr. quigley is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:27:18I think it's important, as I support this amendment, to recognize the difference between the ukrainian army in 2014 and 2022 and 2014, when the russians invaded, uh, crimea. Ukrainian army wasn't close to what it is, what it was in 2022. And that is in large part because of the ukraine security assistance initiative.
▶ 3:27:46Uh, the funding, the training, uh, made that army extraordinary, and it gave them the opportunity to defend themselves. But by excluding funding for ukraine, here we are signaling to putin and the world that america's commitment to defending democracy is somehow negotiable. That is not strength. That is failure. This investment of 300 million not only bolsters our own defenses, it also protects democracy in eastern europe, which is, again, in our direct interest.
▶ 3:28:15We have seen firsthand the results of failure to act. We had we should have taken the annexation of crimea more seriously, taken russia's actions as a grave warning, and invested more in ukraine's defenses. Then we must learn from these mistakes. And if we are to succeed in the future, general milley, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said himself that failing to aid ukraine could result in a dramatic increase in a budget defense budget.
▶ 3:28:44On our own, ukraine has been battling one of the world's largest armies for over three years. Time is running out. The usaid program helps fund critical capabilities, including air defense, artillery, long range fires, armored vehicles, maintenance and sustainment needs, and other priority requirements. More importantly, it is an authority that allows us to procure capabilities from U.S. industries or partners.
▶ 3:29:13It is funding for ukraine to purchase weapons and equipment directly from U.S. manufacturers, but simply is an investment in our own defense capabilities in return to our own economy funding. This program enables the U.S. to address the most pressing immediate needs in the longer term capability needs of ukraine. A lack of funding would severely undermined ukraine's security and our own national security.
▶ 3:29:39It would serve as a negative signal to ukraine, to allies and partners, to russia and other aggressors around the world. We would effectively demonstrate to authoritarian leaders that the U.S. will allow them to act with impunity. This cannot be the case, as U.S. has for the better part of a century. We will continue to stand up to tyrants and defend freedom. I've been to ukraine five times since this conflict started.
▶ 3:30:08Sometimes with many of you, we're left to wonder, and I know there are those amongst both sides that want to strongly defend ukraine, but this is the embodiment of the reagan doctrine that we will defend our allies against at the time, soviet aggression at all costs.
▶ 3:30:30When I see the votes on the full floor, when it comes to supplementals and other support measures, at the most it was about half of your caucus that supported those measures. Again, we're talking about the reagan doctrine, something so fundamental not just to ourselves, but our democracy and our allies.
▶ 3:30:53And reminder, as fdr said in his last inaugural, we have learned that what happens over there affects us over here. And he quoted emerson when he said, to have a friend, you need to be one. Just ask yourself today, let's put down a list of the united states friends. Who are they who trust us now? Who has faith that we will be there when we are needed?
▶ 3:31:21The reciprocal matters as well. And today would be an important part of that element. Thank you. And I yield back. >> thank the gentleman. Gentleman from new york, Mr. morelli, is recognized to address the amendment. >> uh, thank you so much, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of the amendment as well. Ukraine is at a turning point in its war against russia.
▶ 3:31:48For more than four years, ukrainian people have fought with extraordinary courage in defending their country and their democracy. Now is not the time away. Time for us to walk away and zeroing out. The ukraine security assistance initiative sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Russia remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and to the security of our nato allies. And vladimir putin has made it clear that his ambitions extend well beyond ukraine.
▶ 3:32:16If russia succeeds because we lose our resolve, it could embolden further aggression against nations along nato's eastern flank, including the baltic states. And the cost of this assistance is indeed small compared to the consequences. Ukraine is doing the fighting. Our funding through usaid helps them defend their country and helps prevent a wider conflict that would carry far greater costs for our allies, for our security, for the world.
▶ 3:32:42I think often about meeting with members of ramadan back home in rochester. For years, these people have organized fundraisers, collected supplies, assembled medical kits for people that they will never meet. They understand that this war is not an abstraction. They see the human consequences this war every day. This committee should stand with them. We should continue providing ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself and preserve the freedom that we all cherish.
▶ 3:33:10I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank the gentlelady for offering it. I yield back my time. >> thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from washington, miss perez, is recognized for remarks on the amendment. >> thank you. Mr. chair. >> I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank my colleague miss kaptur for offering it. Russia continues to ruthlessly attack ukrainian civilians and destroy ukrainian infrastructure.
▶ 3:33:38It is in our national interest to support our ally ukraine, in their long work of preserving democracy and working towards a durable peace. And we must ensure ukraine is in the best possible position to continue this vital work. The ukraine security assistance initiative is a prudent investment in ukraine security and our own national security through strengthening our domestic manufacturing supply chains. The. The.
▶ 3:34:03This long term success of ukraine's pursuit of democracy is a righteous fight. What we do is in our own. This is. This is in our national interest. Like, yes, we talk about values, but we also need to talk about the nuts and bolts of our national interest. And it lies in ensuring.
▶ 3:34:24Not that we're just talking about values, but that we have the domestic supply chains, we have the machinists, we have the equipment, we have the supply chains to preserve our values. It is the muscle of of how we stand behind our values and it reflects our values as well. Um, this is one of the best investments we can make.
▶ 3:34:45And again, it is our national interest to ensure that ukraine has the resources to first defend their homeland and then rebuild their country for long term peace. For these reasons, I strongly support the amendment and urge its adoption. >> the gentlelady from pennsylvania, miss dean's recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:35:09I rise in strong support of congresswoman kaptur's amendment, and I really honor and admire your extraordinary support. So many of our colleagues here. Extraordinary, undying support for ukraine. I wear this pin. It was given to be my from my ukrainian american coalition back home.
▶ 3:35:28Suburban philadelphia has tremendous numbers of terrific ukrainian american constituents with such a love of country, love of democracy, and a wish for justice and peace, uh, that they are inspiring. So thank you, congresswoman kaptur, for standing on ukraine's side. Uh, and with this amendment, I also associate myself with the remarks of, uh, Mr. kaptur. Mr. hoyer, I'm sure Mr.
▶ 3:35:54Quigley, miss delauro, and others who have been such stalwart voices for ukraine in its existential struggle to defend itself from russian aggression. I'm so lucky to have had the opportunity to visit ukraine. I'm a member of the foreign affairs committee. And four of us, two republicans, two democrats, uh, took the long train ride in from poland, the ten hour train ride in right after we passed the supplemental funding a couple of years ago.
▶ 3:36:20I cannot tell you the admiration, the appreciation, the thanks that we got both on the american side with the supply logistics, but also, of course, on the ukrainian side and directly from, uh, president volodymyr zelensky.
▶ 3:36:37If we we know that supporting ukraine is one of the most important and effective investments we can make in global stability if we allow russian aggression to continue unchecked, if we allow russia to win, god forbid, who knows what they or other like minded nations might attempt next? Ukrainians are paying an enormous price to defend their democracy, to defend their neighboring countries democracy. Frankly, it is a global fight.
▶ 3:37:07If this war is allowed to continue and expand, just imagine the cost to our allies, the cost to us here in the united states. God forbid the conflict expands to the point where we are compelled to put troops on the ground. We should be so grateful to the people of ukraine and doing everything in our power to ensure they are successful in defending their sovereignty. And of course, we must do everything in our power to hold russia accountable for their crimes. In particular, we must hold russia accountable.
▶ 3:37:37The world must hold russia accountable for their unlawful abduction of tens of thousands of ukrainian children. We know this is nothing short of a crime against humanity, and we must do everything to support their somehow safe return. I was heartened by the house passing the ukraine support act with bipartisan support earlier this month, sending a strong signal of congress's continued support.
▶ 3:38:04But there's more we can do right here in this bill, in appropriations. We should do it. We should not rest until we do. I hope this committee will show similar support. Think about it. I'll end with this. It's four years and four months since russia's, uh, illegal invasion and oppression, attempted oppression and murder in ukraine.
▶ 3:38:27And I think that we see in ukraine a young democracy, something we search for in ourselves, the world's oldest democracy, a belief in democracy, a belief in freedom and liberty, and the ability to chart one's own destiny without fear of oppression and murder. We must do everything in our power to support ukraine and to bring peace in that region of the world. I yield back.
▶ 3:38:58>> thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from georgia, Mr. bishop, is recognized to address the amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlelady's amendment to provide additional funding for the ukrainian security assistance initiative. At a time when ukraine continues to resist russian aggression, the united states must remain clear eyed about what's at stake.
▶ 3:39:23It's not only about ukraine's sovereignty, it's also about the credibility of american leadership, the strength of our alliances, and the message we send to our adversaries who are watching whether the united states will stand with democratic partners under attack. This amendment takes a responsible approach.
▶ 3:39:43It provides targeted funding through the defense security cooperation agency to support ukraine's military and national security forces, including training equipment, logistics support, sustainment, intelligence, support and replacement of united states stocks. Just as importantly, it includes congressional notification and quarterly reporting requirements so that congress can maintain oversight over how these funds are being used. That is the right balance.
▶ 3:40:15We can support ukraine while also insisting on transparency, accountability, and careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The underlying bill makes major investments in deterrence, readiness and the defense industrial base. But deterrence is not only measured by what we buy for ourselves, it's also measured by whether we help our partners resist aggression before it spreads and becomes more costly for the united states and our service members.
▶ 3:40:47This amendment, the gentlelady's amendment, strengthens this bill. It supports our allies. It reinforces america's commitment to standing against russian aggression. And so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It will enhance and strengthen this bill. With that, I yield back. >> thank the gentleman, the gentleman from maryland, Mr. hoyer, is recognized for remarks on the amendment. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:41:14I want to thank the gentlelady from ohio both for offering this amendment and for her extraordinary leadership and faithfulness in this cause, helping the people of ukraine defend their nation against putin's tyranny is a central battle in a global fight between democracy and despotism. That's the issue here. It is not simply $400 million.
▶ 3:41:38It is whether or not america is going to continue to stay strong in the fight against despotism. America has a critical role to play in that fight, and this is something the house recognized recently on a bipartisan basis with passage of the ukraine support act. This amendment does not add any funding to this bill.
▶ 3:42:00It simply carves out 400 million from funds already appropriated herein and sets it aside specifically for ukraine security assistance initiative. This is money well spent. This is money that will send a message. This is a money that will. This is money that will reaffirm america's continuing willingness to defend democracy.
▶ 3:42:31Ukrainian military is making steady progress because of its growing technological edge, particularly in drone warfare. You all read about that. Our military is watching and learning, so we can adopt those new technologies and tactics to strengthen our own capabilities. Spending 400 million to help ukraine defeat russia's invasion is a much better bargain than spending $80 billion on a war in iran.
▶ 3:42:59I hope the senate will move swiftly on the ukraine support act, and that we can come together to send the president's legislation that includes funding for this program as well. Ladies and gentlemen. Two thirds of this committee has voted 12 times to support ukrainian funding.
▶ 3:43:2316 of the the majority members have supported it 100% of the time. On those 12 votes, we only had one time when the majority of republicans did not vote to support ukraine, and that was three votes changed. On the republican side, it would have been a majority of the republicans. It was an extraordinary bipartisan statement. We were unanimous on our side.
▶ 3:43:53Extraordinary statement of support for democracy, for freedom against the breaking of international law. And because we are an exceptional nation, we are the symbolic nation. We are the nation who says, if we support you, you're going to do well.
▶ 3:44:17And that is why our silence, essentially for the last 24 months, actually april of 24, uh, is so deafening and so demoralizing for our ukrainian friends and sends such a bad message to putin of inaction.
▶ 3:44:43$400 million in a $1 trillion, $72 billion bill. But it will make a difference psychologically as well as militarily, because that $400 million will provide weapons that the ukrainians badly need to meet the russian threats of their bombing of kyiv on a regular basis.
▶ 3:45:08100% of the time, 16 of you have voted for ukraine. I hope you do so one more time, because as the gentleman from texas said, uh, what america says matters.
▶ 3:45:27What america votes for matters, what this house does matters. As a result, I would hope that we could get a bipartisan vote on this piece of legislation, $400 million during the course. I have 23 seconds.
▶ 3:45:52During the course of the amendment that we had on the floor, the ukraine support act, member after member rose and said, you only have 300 million. We authorize 400 million. You're cutting it 100 million.
▶ 3:46:10How ironic it would be for that debate to be that we cut 100 million when we can't add the 400 million, which your side spoke about as us cutting, and therefore a reason not to support the ukraine support act. This 400 million is exactly what has been authorized by the defense committee defense authorization committee.
▶ 3:46:36Uh, we should take their advice, move on this, send a message that america continues to be the defender of freedom and the opponent of despotism. >> great. >> thank you. Gentlemen, the gentlelady from connecticut is recognized for remarks on the amendment. >> Mr. chairman.
▶ 3:47:04>> I rise in support of this amendment, which provides ukraine with the funding they need to continue defending their freedom. This funding has been part of this bill for nearly ten years, included in the 2025 continuing resolution. These funds are used to build ukraine's capacity to defend itself from russia, and has been central to supporting ukraine in its fight against the russian invasion, and it has been extremely effective.
▶ 3:47:35Let us not forget that many people, including putin himself, and we all want to briefings at the outset of this war. And the view was that russian forces would march straight through kyiv and overwhelm the country in a matter of days, days. It has now been over four years, and russia still has not been able to achieve its initial goals.
▶ 3:48:01We continue to see how just how effectively ukraine's military and security service, uh, can use the resources that it has. Over the past few weeks, ukraine has carried out multiple strikes against russian oil refineries, munitions factories, and other infrastructure critical to the russian war effort within russian territory and in some cases, using domestically produced long range missiles.
▶ 3:48:27These attacks represent ukraine's capability not just to hold the front lines, but to make the war effort increasingly costly for russia to maintain ukraine's innovation. Their daring, their determination is degrading russia's war capabilities, changing the shape of warfare in real time. And through this all we have seen the courage, the courage of the ukrainian people.
▶ 3:48:54Every day we have seen russia kidnap their children. And yet they continue on fighting because they're fighting for their freedom and they're fighting for democracy. And yes, they're fighting because they want to tilt to the western world. They don't want to be under the thumb of russia.
▶ 3:49:19They have proven over and over and over again that the ukrainians deserve our support. You know, the trump administration talks about peace through strength. The ukrainian people have proven their strength. We should be supporting the strength of ukraine soldiers and citizens so that they can stand up to authoritarian, authoritarian aggressors like russia, who seek to undermine peace, security, democracy and freedom that serves U.S. interests.
▶ 3:49:50That is what this amendment is all about. Ukraine needs continued security assistance, funding for critical capabilities, air defense, artillery, long range fires, armored vehicles, maintenance sustainment needs, and more. Our national security requires this investment. So does ukraine. And keep in mind we were present. We replenish our own stocks with what happens here.
▶ 3:50:16So it pays for our military might and our military strength. So far, our investments have significantly degraded the capabilities of russia. A major peer adversary. You know, the ukrainian people are fighting for their lives. They're fighting for their identity, and they're fighting for their freedom every day. What is it about that that we don't understand?
▶ 3:50:43It would send a terrible message to the ukrainian people, to our allies around the world, and to supporters of democracy around the world. If this amendment would fail, if russia's invasion is truly such a threat to democracy around the world, and we believe that it is that threat, and this administration claims to defend western values, then why?
▶ 3:51:10Why are we not providing ukraine with what it needs to succeed? Are we still failing to meet the moment, as neville chamberlain did when he thought he could appease a dictator in 1938? If we fail to fund ukraine, if we pull our troops from europe, if we abandon our allies in nato, vladimir putin will run rampant through ukraine and the balkans will be next. He will not stop.
▶ 3:51:44We cannot capitulate to russia's aggression or we will be condemned by history. As neville chamberlain was in the face of our providing most recently and allowing iran to have ballistic missiles to threaten. We say, yes, we're going to give them some nuclear capability. We're going to provide them with $300 billion to repair their country.
▶ 3:52:13It's reparations. We're going to unfreeze $100 billion in assets for iran. When the hell is iran been our ally? When, my friends, ukraine is our ally. We need to stand with ukraine. We have a moment to do that. This committee can make a difference in that.
▶ 3:52:37Please, please, on behalf of who we are as americans, on behalf of our allies and on behalf of the ukrainian people who fight every single day for their hope, their freedom. And how do we turn our back? I yield back, and I thank you. >> thank you. Gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment?
▶ 3:53:02Seeing none, the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And let me just say a deep thank you of appreciation to our colleagues for their serious attention to this consequential amendment. Ukraine is the scrimmage line for liberty on the continent of europe today, with our closest time tested allies in nato.
▶ 3:53:26Adjoining countries like poland, hungary, moldova. Listen to the list. Serbia, romania, latvia, lithuania, estonia, finland, sweden all these hang in the balance. They are small countries. Russia is so large. 11 time zones, a full military. Russia has stolen over 20,000 ukrainian children and hidden them inside russia to reprogram these youngsters with brainwashing.
▶ 3:53:56These are war crimes. Historically, no place on earth has borne more cold blooded murder by russian dictators of innocent people. 14 million or more starved to death in the last century, forced famine as a form of warfare on civilians, annihilating them in forests, drowning them in rivers, bullets to the back of the head.
▶ 3:54:28No trial, no justice wiping out of religious believers until today, throwing them in the dneiper river, assassinating people by the thousands, in forests, in church basements, smothered and left to die. Russia's tyranny is infamous for annihilation. What we are doing here, by supporting this amendment, is drawing a line for justice in a very important location on this globe.
▶ 3:54:58I withdraw my amendment knowing that we will work forward in working with the senate to do something that is worthy of our time and generation. I thank my colleagues for their support and attention, and I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady. And the amendment is withdrawn. We will next move. The gentleman from illinois, Mr. quigley, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I have a minute at the desk.
▶ 3:55:25I ask the reading be dispensed with. >> without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I'm offering an amendment to preserve the us military presence in europe and reaffirm our commitment to our nato alliance. My amendment would ban funds from being used to significantly reduce U.S.
▶ 3:55:45Forces stationed in europe, close or return key military facilities, withdraw major military equipment from the european theater, or separate the position of commanders of united states european command from the position of supreme allied commander. Europe. The nato alliance has kept americans and the rest of the world safe since the second world war.
▶ 3:56:07Congress enacted this exact provision in last year's bipartisan national defense authorization act, and we did so because we all agreed that a strong us presence in europe is strategically important to americans at home. Without nato, we are alone. We do not have a guarantee that our allies will help us when we need it. Those concerns have not gone away.
▶ 3:56:36In fact, they've become even greater as secretary hagel has curbed troop deployments in europe for 75 years, nato has been the most successful military alliance in human history. It has prevented wars, strengthened american security, increased prosperity, and ensured that no hostile power could dominate the european continent. Nato helps the us project strength alongside dozens of capable allies and partners. Rather than confronting global threats alone.
▶ 3:57:06I agree that our allies should continue increasing their defense spending. Many of them have already done so, and we should continue encouraging every nato member to meet its commitments. But burden sharing and american leadership are not mutually exclusive. A stronger europe complements american leadership. It does not replace it. Secretary hagel has suggested the us should further reduce its military presence, because our allies are spending more on their own defense.
▶ 3:57:35This is simply illogical, giving a growing russian threat. Our military presence in europe is not a favor we provide to our allies. It's an investment in our own security. It is a guarantee for mutual safety. Our forces stationed in europe deter russian aggression.
▶ 3:57:53They provide forward positioning for crises in europe, the middle east and africa, and they ensure that the us can respond rapidly to emerging threats without having to surge forces from across the atlantic after a crisis has already begun. H. Griffith has recently dismissed nato as small flags on fancy tables. Well, those flags represent allies who came to our defense after the september 11th attacks.
▶ 3:58:20They invoked article five for the first and only time in history, and our allies answered the call. Thousands served alongside american troops in afghanistan. Many never came home. Those flags represent real soldiers, real sacrifice and real commitments. This is the foundation of the strongest military alliance in the world.
▶ 3:58:42It provides military bases, intel, logical logistical support, military capabilities, and diplomatic partnerships that multiply american power across the globe at a time when we face challenges not only from russia, but also china, iran and other authoritarian actors, weakening our alliances would make america less secure, not more. This amendment simply preserves the forces that congress deemed essential enough to protect.
▶ 3:59:08In last year's ndaa ensures that major changes to our military presence in europe cannot occur without congressional approval and careful consideration of its consequences. Mr. chairman, nato remains indispensable to american security. Our presence remains indispensable to nato's credibility, and maintaining both is firmly in the national security interest of us of the united states, our allies. Security is ours.
▶ 3:59:37I hope this commitment will continue to see that. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> thank the gentleman for his amendment. Gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. This amendment restricts the department's ability to make force posture changes in europe.
▶ 3:59:57I'd like to highlight that, uh, my bill continues to support our force posture in europe, fully funds the us portion of the common funding requirement for the nato international military headquarters, as requested by the administration. Recent events have shown how important it is that the department remain flexible, where it can quickly address requirements that emerge in any area of the world. And for those reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back to the gentleman. >> thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from minnesota, Mr.
▶ 4:00:28Collins, recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I rise in support of this amendment. Last week at the at the 2026 nato defense ministerial, uh, secretary hegseth announced the department of defense would be conducting a six month review of us force posture and basing in europe. And I want to acknowledge what the chair said that he has in this bill for for europe and for nato.
▶ 4:00:51But given the administration's recent actions, I'm very concerned that this decision, that the decisions that are being made by the department of defense may further damage our relationship with our nato allies. Putin must be thrilled at what he's seeing. Putin's greatest desire is for the united states to abandon europe slowly this year, the administration has been giving him what he wishes for. In may, the administration announced that we.
▶ 4:01:20That we would withdraw 5000 troops from germany and the pentagon then canceled a rotation of us soldiers to poland. Now, the president later reversed that decision on social media, but this created tremendous amount of confusion in europe and here in congress to. President trump then made a decision to take us to war in iran.
▶ 4:01:40When that turned into a complete debacle, the president responded by blaming our european allies for not supporting his disastrous war, and demanded that they use their naval forces to open up the straits of hormuz. Can't make this stuff up. And that's why I believe congress, even though there's language in this bill, needs to do more to be a steady voice to our allies as >> we provide funds for ukraine and the baltics and encourage exercises with our nato allies.
▶ 4:02:11We are the consistent partner. We have to be the consistent partner, and that leaves it up to us to do what we can here in this committee. So if we're going to defend democracy here at home, we also need to defend it. The world. I support the amendment, and I ask you to do the same. >> pretty good stuff. Yeah. >> thank you. Gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
▶ 4:02:41>> I ask for your support. >> thank you gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. >> no. >> can you opinion the chair? The nos have it. Roll call has been requested. I have a few more hands, please, if you're going to support that. Okay. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt, Mr.
▶ 4:03:11Aguilar, Mr. aguilar, I, Mr. alford, Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei. Mrs. bice. Mrs. bice. No. Mr. bishop. Mr. calvert. Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. No. Mr. case. Mr. case I, Mr. eskamani. Mr. eskamani. No. Mr. kline. Mr. cloud. Mr. cloud. No. Mr.
▶ 4:03:45Clyburn, Mr. clyburn I. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, miss. Dean. Mr. dean, I miss. Delauro. Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart. No. Mr. edwards. Mr. edwards. No. Mr. lee. Mr. lee. No. Miss. Escobar. Miss. Escobar, I. Mr. espaillat, Mr.
▶ 4:04:15Fleishman, Mr. fleishman. No. Miss. Frankel, miss frankel, I. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr. harter, Mr. harter, I. Doctor. Harris. Mrs. henson, Mr. hoyer. Mr. iv, Mr. iv, I Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce. No. Miss.
▶ 4:04:43Kaptur, miss kaptur, I. Mr. lalota. Mr. loloda. No. Miss lee. Miss lee, I miss. Letlow, Mr. levin, Mr. levin, I miss molloy, miss molloy. No, miss mccollum, I miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming, I, Mr. molinari, Mr. molenaar. No. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli I. Mr. van. Mr.
▶ 4:05:12Van I, Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse. No. Miss. Perez, miss. Perez, I miss. Pingree, miss pingree, I. Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley, I Mr. rosenthaler. Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford. Mr. rutherford. No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson. Mr. simpson. No. Mr.
▶ 4:05:42Strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres, I miss. Underwood, Mr. underwood, I. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink, no. >> members wishing to vote or change their vote. Gentleman from maryland.
▶ 4:06:13>> doctor harris. No. >> gentleman from virginia. >> Mr. klein, no. >> gentleman from texas. >> Mr. cuellar I. >> a gentleman from georgia. >> Mr. bishop, I. >> gentleman from maryland. >> Mr. hoyer, I. >> gentleman from pennsylvania. >> Mr. rosenthaler no. >> gentlelady from connecticut. >> miss delauro, I. >> are there others wishing to vote or change their votes?
▶ 4:06:45Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 4:07:24The eyes of 26 and those of 31. The amendment is not adopted. The gentleman from north carolina, Mr. edwards, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. >> I have an. >> amendment at the. >> desk, and. I ask that the reading be dispensed. >> without objection. The reading for the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment. >> thank you. >> chairman calvert.
▶ 4:07:53>> and thank you to the members of the defense subcommittee for your leadership and the tremendous work that went into producing this bill. Your commitment to strengthening our national defense and supporting the warfighter is quite evident throughout this bill, and I'm grateful for all of your thoughtful, disciplined approach. Mr.
▶ 4:08:13Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, providing additional funding for lightweight strike munitions, mobile live fire targeting systems, the joint biological detection system, hypersonic composite materials, and biomarker based human performance optimization for special operations forces. Our warfighters are confronting threats that evolve faster than our acquisition cycles.
▶ 4:08:39These investments, developed and manufactured in north carolina, directly strengthen our national defense and preserve the industrial base that we rely on in times of crisis. First, the amendment provides $18 million for lightweight strike munitions capable of operating in gps denied environments.
▶ 4:09:03Our adversaries already have similar technology, and failing to invest now risks ceding an asymmetric advantage on the battlefield. Second, it includes $6 million for a mobile live fire targeting system. Today, more than 90% of air force pilots enter combat, having never engaged a moving ground target with live munitions.
▶ 4:09:30That is unacceptable readiness. This investment gives aviators realistic maneuvering threats that reflect the fight that they will face. Third, the amendment urges inclusion of a $54 million to accelerate fielding of joint biological detection systems. Biological threats are advancing rapidly.
▶ 4:09:53We've seen evidence of that, and early detection is the difference between a contained incident and a crisis. Fourth, it provides $8 million to expand production of hypersonic composite materials that are essential to missile and rocket systems. These materials allow hypersonic weapons and advanced missiles to survive extreme thermal and mechanical loads.
▶ 4:10:23Finally, the amendment includes $6.2 million to advance biomarker based supplementation supporting human performance research at fort bragg. Aligning with the pentagon's holistic health and fitness framework, one north carolina manufacturing supporting these capabilities is currently capped for fiscal year 2027, operating without the sustained environment needed to scale production and to meet emerging demands.
▶ 4:10:52Without support, we risk losing a uniquely capable supplier at a very critical moment. These are not abstract technologies. They're jobs in advanced manufacturing and capacities in north carolina. When requests like these are not included, we weaken both our defense posture and the workers who form the backbone of our national security enterprise.
▶ 4:11:18I understand that not everyone's request could be included, but I am hopeful that we can work with the committee on these requests during the conference process. And for that reason, and because the only way I could get an offset would be to suggest that we take somebody else's priorities. I would draw this amendment. Thank you. And I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. >> well, I just want to.
▶ 4:11:49>> gentleman from california is recognized to address the amendment. >> certainly. And I'm looking forward to working with the gentleman as we move this process forward. I know these are important programs, and I look forward to trying to work this all out. Thank you. Thank you for moving the amendment. >> thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from florida, miss frankel is recognized for the purpose of amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair.
▶ 4:12:17I have an amendment at the desk. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> well, I know you will all be pleased to know that today marks the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of women entering the united states service academies. Uh, gerald.
▶ 4:12:42Gerald ford signed the law opening the academies to women in 1975. Uh, the first co-educational classes graduated in 1980. 50 years ago, america made a promise that talent matters. That courage matters. That service matters. That every qualified american willing to wear the uniform deserves the opportunity to rise. And my amendment is about protecting this promise. First, some recent history.
▶ 4:13:12This is really shocking. I know mark is listening. If no one else, because this is shocking. Secretary hesketh left fox news and came into office declaring war on what he calls wokeness. He attacked dei diversity, equity and inclusion and questioned whether women should serve in combat. And then what happened?
▶ 4:13:39And listens to this general charles q brown, jr, decorated fighter pilot, second black, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, removed admiral lisa franchetti, first woman to lead the united states navy and the first woman on the joint chiefs of staff, removed. Admiral linda fagan, first woman to lead a branch of america's armed forces, as the coast guard's highest ranking office removed.
▶ 4:14:07Vice admiral shoshana chatfield, senior navy officer, america's representative to nato, removed vice admiral nancy lacore, three star admiral, 35 year veteran chief of the navy reserve, removed vice admiral yvette davids, first woman selected to lead the united states naval academy pushed aside. These are patriots.
▶ 4:14:39We're in the uniform, answering the call, defending our flag, earning their stars. All removed or pushed aside and no explanation. And let's be clear. Women and service members of color have already answered with the call, with their actions. They've served, they've sacrificed, they've led, and their service has strengthened america.
▶ 4:15:01And the fact is, folks, america's military, america's military is strongest when we draw from the full strength of america itself the best minds, the best leaders, the best talent from every community in every corner of this country. Because diversity is a force multiplier. Which brings me to the subject at hand of this amendment. The recent promotion lists of the army and the navy.
▶ 4:15:26Now first, I'll talk about the army, the army's promotion selection board reviewed records. They reviewed service. They reviewed leadership. About three dozen officers selected from motion from a colonel to one star general. And then secretary h. Res. He stepped in. And even though army leaders supported their promotions, hegseth removed only four officers.
▶ 4:15:57Guess who? Two black men and two women. No explanation. And then came the navy. Another promotion board, another review, another group of qualified leaders. 31 officers selected for promotion to admiral. The navy looked at their records and said they earned it. But once again, hexter stepped in and he removed nine. He removed nine.
▶ 4:16:23Every woman on the list removed two black officers removed. Not one woman remained. And just like in the army list, no finding of misconduct, no finding of failure, no finding that they could not lead. Just removed. No answers. No explanation. No accountability. And that should trouble every one of us.
▶ 4:16:50Because in the united states military, the stars should be earned through service, not through assorted ideological politics. So I ask, would the women and the men of color removed from promotion list by hexose, despite recommendations of those in command who knew them best because they could not lead? Would they remove because they lacked courage?
▶ 4:17:17Would they remove because they lack competence? Were they removed because they failed the standards of the united states military? Or were qualified leaders, women and people of color who have already earned their place, denied the opportunity to rise because of a narrow political agenda rooted in discrimination. So I end where I begin. Why would qualified american patriots removed from promotion list after they earned their place?
▶ 4:17:48And until. Until secretary hegseth answers. Congress must demand accountability and we must hold back some of his travel money. Well, we should do more than that. I'm being gentle and kind today. Uh, please, everybody, join me in passing this amendment. >> thank the gentlelady for a minute. Amendment.
▶ 4:18:14The gentleman from california is recognized to respond to the amendment. >> uh, thank you, chairman. Thank the gentlelady for her amendment. This amendment unnecessarily limits the secretary of defense ability to travel, uh, until he provides information on general officer promotion boards. It's well within the jurisdiction of the secretary of defense to review promotions. We want to have a secretary to be able to understand, address and properly advise the president on all matters relating to national security. Travel is vital to that.
▶ 4:18:42For those reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back my time. >> thank the gentleman gentlelady from minnesota, miss collins, recognized to address the amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I rise in the strongest support possible from this podium to support the amendment. Secretary hagel has direct interference in military promotion. Boards should be a concern for each and every one of us. This is unprecedented, folks. This is not normal. This is not normal behavior at all.
▶ 4:19:12This year alone, secretary hagel set this block promotions for at least 40 senior officers. Miss frankel mentioned a few, but 40. These officers who have received initial approval from their peers for promotion to general officers. They have. Yet they have been struck off by a list by secretary hagel with no explanation given. And I've. I've seen him in committee when he's been asked, no explanation given.
▶ 4:19:40Approximately half of these officers were women or minorities. And this gives an alarming impression to these officers that they are being passed over because of their race or their sex, and that should concern each and every one of us. When the secretary does this, what is the impact on a junior officer of color? What is the impact on a junior officer who's a woman? Are they're seeing our military put up a. We don't want you shine. No help wanted from you. Will.
▶ 4:20:10They choose to leave the service prematurely? And I don't think any of us want that. When I hear secretary hagel has been asked, as I said earlier in public congressional hearings, why he took these actions, he has refused flat out, I don't have to give you an answer. I don't have to tell you why 40 people were taken off of list. I have to tell you anything. I made this decision.
▶ 4:20:40This is goes smack in the face of what the military stands up for when it promotes officers, and we can't sit idly by and watch our officer corps being depleted, being insulted and being attacked. These officers are all patriots. They volunteered. They put up their hand. They took an oath of office. They have been serving their nation. They deserve. We just don't deserve.
▶ 4:21:08They deserve to know what specific reason why their record did not conform for a promotion that the board had given them. And if the secretary is not going to support someone for promotion or maybe even fire them, he should provide a rationale to congress. When asked the gentlewoman's amendment would accomplish this. We have to get the secretary's attention somehow.
▶ 4:21:34So I support my colleague's amendment to restrict some travel funds, and I ask all of you to seriously think what this amendment sends a signal when we say the secretary has a green light not to explain his decisions for for not promoting men who are of color and women in general. They deserve an answer. They served our country. We deserve an answer when we ask a question for oversight. With that, I yield back.
▶ 4:22:04>> thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from georgia, Mr. bishop, is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman. I rise in full support of representative frankel's amendment. Um. The military promotion process is one of the most important systems that we have for maintaining professionalism, merit, continuity, and trust in our armed forces officers who are selected for promotion to the general officer ranks have
▶ 4:22:36Gone through a rigorous process. As a consequence, when an officer who has already been selected is removed from that process, congress has the legitimate oversight interest in understanding why this amendment does not prevent the secretary from making lawful personnel decisions. It doesn't dictate who must be promoted.
▶ 4:23:00It simply says that if an officer has been selected for promotion and is later removed, the secretary should provide a justification to the congressional defense committees before portion of the secretary's travel funds is made available. This is a modest and a reasonable oversight requirement. Our service members deserve to know that promotions are based on merit, on performance, on experience and the needs of the force.
▶ 4:23:30Not politics, not personal preference or unexplained decision making. Congress also has a responsibility to ensure that senior military leadership decisions are transparent enough to preserve confidence in the institution. A strong national defense depends not only on weapons systems and funding levels. It also depends on trust.
▶ 4:23:55Trust in the chain of command, trust in professional military judgment, and trust that decisions affecting the careers of our senior leaders are made for sound decision, sound reasons. This amendment strengthens transparency. It protects the integrity of the promotion process, and it strengthens this bill and our military forces.
▶ 4:24:22I urge my colleagues to support it. It's a good amendment. It is needed at this time, particularly, and I urge this adoption. I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlemen, the gentlelady from florida, miss wasserman schultz, is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I want to thank my friend from florida, congresswoman frankel, for offering this important amendment to stand up for our service members. Mr.
▶ 4:24:50Chairman, it is incredibly unfortunate that this amendment is even necessary. But the reality is, is that we've seen secretary hegseth repeatedly single out service members for punishment who are women or people of color under the trump administration. These officers are routinely dismissed from their roles, denied promotions, kept out of key jobs and sidelined for decades. Advancement to the rank of general or admiral was earned, not handed out as a political favor, and a promotion.
▶ 4:25:19Selection board reviews every candidate against written standards and certifies that each one is qualified. That merit based, nonpartisan process is precisely what rewards quality and competence, and keeps politics and bias from tarnishing our officer corps. So when officers who earned their place on that list are repeatedly stripped of it, congress deserves an explanation. And to date, we have not been given one. Why don't you care? This amendment is quite simple.
▶ 4:25:49Provide that justification for these highly questionable attacks on this merit based promotion system, or accept a limit on your travel budget until you do. We are the appropriations committee. That is the accountability measure that we are able to use. We exercise it, we withhold funds and have done so consistently. You know, we're not wiping out an entire budget. This is not the end of the world.
▶ 4:26:14This is a, you know, mild rebuke and accountability measure to ensure that we get the information and not that we need to make a determination about the appropriateness of the secretary of defense's decision making when it comes to interfering with promotions. That is not too much to ask.
▶ 4:26:39It's the basic accountability and transparency we owe the men and women who devote their lives and careers to defending this nation. And I'll be honest, the the pattern here is hard to ignore. Our senate colleagues have noted that around 60% of the senior officers this secretary has removed or sidelined are women or black, even though they make up fewer than 1 in 5 of our generals and admirals. This year's navy one star list came back without a single woman on it.
▶ 4:27:04When a merit based system suddenly produces a result like that, the american people are owed an explanation. Consider the four army colonels struck from the list of nominees for one star general earlier this year, it was two black women, two black men and two women. Trump's own army secretary said they had a long history of exemplary service and had done nothing wrong. Yet they were removed anyway, and to this day, no reason has been given.
▶ 4:27:31As a co-equal branch of government, with the power of the purse and the necessity to understand the decisions that are being made that affect our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment, and I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady, the gentlelady from connecticut, Mr. lawrence, recognized to address the amendment. >> I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr.
▶ 4:27:58Chairman, I just want to, uh, to read headlines. The last one is june 19th, 2026. June 1st, 2026. March of 2026. March. The headline reads hex head strikes two black and two female officers from a promotion list. The second one is hex strikes female and black navy officers from promotion lists. 3rd of june um, a 19th just last week.
▶ 4:28:28Secret vetting and block promotions inside hex says war on diversity. The navy's top leadership believed that rear admiral steven barnett was by far the best choice to lead the command that oversees the navy's bases at home and abroad, more experienced than other candidates successfully managed. Uh, the aftermath of one of the navy's biggest messes, a fuel spill that contaminated an aquifer on the base in hawaii. Sickening thousands. Final decision fell to defense secretary hegseth.
▶ 4:28:57To many in the navy, admiral barnett's promotion seemed like a foregone conclusion. However, he had one big strike against him. Like other black military leaders, he'd been encouraged by his superiors to help the navy recruit and retain minority officers who remain significantly underrepresented in the force. His years old remarks on the important diversity had been flagged in a secret vetting process designed to weed out senior leaders who Mr.
▶ 4:29:25Hex and his team pegged as a problem. He finds that as as a problem. This is a this is like a star chamber meeting and and making these. The decisions here, you've got, um his he he.
▶ 4:29:41And last year hex and his top aides order the army, navy, air force and the marine corps to do online searches of the officers selected by the boards to look for photos, videos, news articles that might draw hex ire, current and former defense officials said the officials. They undertook the reviews, uh, so that they could show what was going on. It wasn't, um, uh, an inside the pentagon.
▶ 4:30:08Such material was referred to as derog, short for derogatory material, looking for something to which would create the ire of secretary hegseth and not what, you know, a couple of amendments ago, I talked about a rule which the, uh, management and budget omb is looking at that says, no longer are we going to deal with merit. No longer are we going to do peer review efforts.
▶ 4:30:38We're just going to use a political process to deal with grants across the whole federal government, every single agency. This is no merit, no basis, just someone's political ideology that what they care for and they these are individuals who have dedicated their lives to the military and to their careers in the military, and how critically important it is for them.
▶ 4:31:06And it's not clear whether it had the authority to pull names off the list. Congress, congress, friends, by the way, we are the congress here. Congress had entrusted management of one star, two star promotion boards to the service secretaries, not the secretary of defense. A young woman.
▶ 4:31:26Among those targeted was vice admiral sarah joiner, a three star fighter pilot who military officials wanted to move to a higher profile job in the pentagon. Hegseth says no, and she worked for kaine, head of the joint chiefs. She ran a team that conducted classified war games and assessments of new weapons systems. Kaine urged hg-csf to nominate her for the position.
▶ 4:31:59The interventions failed. What is going on, my friends? And as I said, the ranking member mentioned this and it is the the crux of the amendment. My colleague from. Not only do we have to get his attention, we have to grab him by the scruff of the neck and say, what in the hell are you doing that making a determination that people who are qualified, probably more qualified than you are to take on these positions and you are saying no based on nothing but your own
▶ 4:32:29View? My god, what kind of a merit system is that? We pride the military on what they do in allowing people to move forward, uh, and to raise their career and to get those bars and those stripes on their uniform. That's what it's about.
▶ 4:32:45And now we just, we're so devoted to the military, so devoted, that we would just see them degraded, demeaned, and disrespected because one man doesn't like what their political beliefs are or he doesn't believe in diversity. What are we doing? Vote for the gentlelady's amendment. Tell this man that he has to come before the congress.
▶ 4:33:08He has a price to pay for this, for destroying, destroying the infrastructure and the strength of our military and the people who lead us. I yield back and please support the gentlelady's amendment. >> thank you. Gentlelady. The gentleman from wisconsin, Mr. pocan, is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you. >> Mr. chairman. Um, I have to admit, I'm disappointed this wasn't just put in the manager's amendment.
▶ 4:33:33Um, 25% of the travel budget of the secretary of defense, as the author of this amendment said, that's probably weak, but we were trying to make it just to get a reason. But bluntly, it is a sign of a weak character. If you're afraid of people who don't look exactly like yourself.
▶ 4:33:57And unfortunately, this just reeks of some of the worst parts of our history as a country. Coming back again, that based on racism, sexism, homophobia, other issues, uh, people want to be able to discriminate and we should all be repulsed by that.
▶ 4:34:17The pride, one of the prides of the american government is that we had a military that was representative of this country, and now we've got someone who bluntly was a fox news host. We're not checking his merit. He was a fox news host, a pretty boy who put on makeup and had his hair done and sprayed, making decisions.
▶ 4:34:41And now he's the secretary of defense or war. And somehow, uh, we're okay with him saying that based on merit, people who deserve to be in the places they are based on their work and their history and their commitment to this country. And yet that's not enough.
▶ 4:35:06This this guy, pete hegseth, he wrote a book. You know, he's talked about wokeness. Okay, sometimes you can say stuff and maybe you're a little loose, but you put something in your book and you pretty well damn mean it. Okay, this is what he put in his book in 2024. Uh, the war on warriors. It's black over white, female over male, gay over straight.
▶ 4:35:29This guy has an opinion, and we're letting this opinion that I thought we kind of put back in our history because it was such an awful, disgusting position, uh, back into play again. And we're not respecting a merit system in one of the most important institutions we have in this country.
▶ 4:35:54So this fox news host slash secretary of defense is making decisions based on his political beliefs. And all we're saying is give us a reason why these individuals aren't qualified based on their merit. And if you don't, you can't travel 25% as much. It's not like a big bar.
▶ 4:36:19It was worth more than 30s of a rebuttal. It should have been in the manager's amendment. And instead we have to debate this and honestly bring back all the ugliness that this country's gone through to get where we are today. So, you know, I wish it would have been the manager's amendment. It should have been. It wasn't. We have an opportunity to add it to the bill right now.
▶ 4:36:48But the gentlewoman from florida is exactly right. Um, we at least deserve to have the information. And when people don't want to give you the information, just like we don't get in so many other areas, we get upset and we stand up as congress because we should as a co-equal branch of government.
▶ 4:37:06But at least we deserve to know why individuals that have served this country well and through the merit system, we have been lined up to have promotions, didn't get those from a guy who spent most of his time in a chair getting hairspray, right. That's what he's done more in his life than being a secretary of defense. We deserve a better response.
▶ 4:37:31I hope we'll support this amendment. And if we don't, unfortunately, it says a whole lot about where we are and how we actually consider the events of this nation, and I hope that's not something that gets, um, embedded in how we operate. So, um, I urge a yes vote and I yield back. Mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman for his comments. Uh, gentleman from maryland is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you very much.
▶ 4:37:59Let's get pete hegseth history right. Before it was on fox news, he was in the military. I'll just read it. You all can google it. That's what I did to find out. Served as an infantry platoon leader in baghdad. Anybody in this room service a platoon infantry leader in baghdad?
▶ 4:38:24I don't know, I guess he kind of figured out what you close, right? Yeah. Ryan. You're close. You're right. Civil military operations officer in samarra, 101st airborne, served as senior counterinsurgency instructor in kabul. And he also was in guantanamo bay, earned two bronze star medals. You don't get those for showing up to work. I know I was in the military. You don't got a bronze star medal for showing up to work in the morning.
▶ 4:38:53You get it for knowing what war is really like and what it takes to conduct a war. Earned the combat infantryman badge. You're right. He wasn't a general. He wasn't a flag officer. He wasn't a senior officer. He was an enlisted guy who got the job done and who knows what war was like firsthand. And let me tell you something.
▶ 4:39:18Just like the pilot who flies your airplane, you want the most qualified person in the role of conducting war, period. Full stop. The last administration did not just promote on merit. Google, google, lloyd austin's quotes. He came in and said he's going to institute die in the military.
▶ 4:39:44Now we can have a debate about whether that improves or doesn't improve the military. He had a right to his opinion, and under his watch, people were promoted under dei, and I know everybody in the military knows it. They knew it. It was there when I was in the military. This administration has a different view.
▶ 4:40:07This administration thinks you should purely be promoted on merit and not just at the highest levels, but in reviewing the record of all promotions up to flag rank, you could perceive that someone else might be able to fulfill that role better. And I want a secretary of war who actually makes that decision, reviews the entire record of those individuals without regard.
▶ 4:40:35Because again, the last administration used it with regard to die. We should be making that decision without regard to die the most qualified, just like the person who flies your airplane, you want the person who conducts that war the most qualified person to make sure our men and women are protected in the military. And we can have a philosophical argument about whether I should enter into it. But this administration feels it shouldn't. It should be purely based on merit. That's what this secretary did. Please don't denigrate this.
▶ 4:41:04This secretary's military record. It's beneath anyone on this committee to do that. He is a hero to bronze. You don't get him for showing up to work, I yield back. >> thank the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman from south carolina is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman. Mr.
▶ 4:41:30Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and in strong opposition to the secretary hicks's myopic views and harmful actions. I often referred to the aspirations declared by the preamble to the constitution, and I quote, to form a more perfect union.
▶ 4:41:56And just a few words later provide for the common defense. I firmly believe that these aspirations, together with others laid out in the preamble, are mutually reinforcing. Our nation is more secure when everybody's talents are utilized and recognized.
▶ 4:42:24The current secretary of defense has a different view. He has made it clear that he believes that our nation's security and pursuit of a more perfect union require us to reject the skills and performances of those whose gender and ethnicity, god's
▶ 4:42:55Work do not meet with his approval, is reported that just this year, secretary hicks has denied the promotion of more than 40 officers. Recommended by. And I'm quoting the article promotion selection boards made up of senior military officers.
▶ 4:43:26The self-appointed secretary of war is at war with his own military, employing unfairness and demoralizing high achievers. Nothing is more important to our common defense than highly trained and armored hard.
▶ 4:44:03Morale in our military. In the case of one black admiral who the gentlelady referred to, let me just quote the three things the secretary held against him when he said to a group of black recruits, just one generation before me, it was
▶ 4:44:34Nearly unthinkable for a black person to become a naval aviator. Think tuskegee airmen. The second quote, what helped me was people who didn't look like me. That's what he said to young black recruits to encourage them to come into the military. And the secretary said that should be held against him.
▶ 4:45:01I want you to think about john glenn and this refusal to take off until those three black women. Passed on the math, the figures that were given him thanked him for. But he said, I want to see those three women in this body. Honored Mrs.
▶ 4:45:29Johnson a few years ago, uh, in the movie hidden figures. That was held against him. As a country becomes more diverse, it makes sense for our military to become more diverse. That's what it said. And this secretary held that against him and denied this. I don't think about colin powell. I want us to just think. Mr.
▶ 4:45:57Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments and will welcome hearing different perspectives. I just heard one that secretary hegseth or any of my colleagues may have on this subject. That's why he should be brought here to explain why he is doing this.
▶ 4:46:22My uncle, joseph henry washington, was on the uss arizona on that fateful day, december 7th, 1941. But he would never talk about his experiences. They were so bad. He would never talk about them all in defense of this country.
▶ 4:46:47And there were people with military records who denied him everything he deserved when he was on that ship in the navy. Let's not hide from what's going on here. We know exactly what is happening here. He has said it in his book. I read that book. Not all of it.
▶ 4:47:12If I had read all the garbage he had in that book, I'm not sure I could stand here today. And use polite language. That's garbage.
▶ 4:47:31And this man has brought that garbage into our military, and he is denying the future of people just because of their skin color and their gender. And we know that. And we ought to be congressional enough to have him to come up here and explain why he is doing this.
▶ 4:48:01The record is clear, and I think we all know it. And with that, I yield back. >> thank the gentleman, the gentleman from illinois, Mr. quigley, is recognized for remarks on the amendment. >> uh, white guy talking about racism. But let's give it a shot. Maybe I can at least speak from the voice of my friend, uh, brad lang.
▶ 4:48:21Uh, I went to school with, um, reason this matters is he just retired as a career pilot for delta airlines. He was also a champion pilot and come to acrobatics. Um, but the real story is his father was tuskegee. When he got out of the military, his father. Who should you know, who's the pilot issue was raised.
▶ 4:48:51The guy we honored a year or so ago said, when I see a black pilot, I wonder if he's qualified. My friend's dad was denied the ability to be a commercial pilot, even though he was tuskegee. So he worked in new jersey in the postal service, and every day he saw other people taking off in the jets, flying over his head.
▶ 4:49:20So his son, my friend, made it his life's goal. To do what he was not allowed to do. And on the anniversary of tuskegee ceremony right here, they allowed brad to fly the same kind of plane. Tuskegee flew over the nation's capital.
▶ 4:49:45I can only imagine what that meant to him. So let's not wash over that history there. And the sins of the past. And recognize this isn't just about equalizing numbers.
▶ 4:50:01It's giving extraordinary opportunities to extraordinary people and not forgetting the pain and loss that was there that were coming back to today.
▶ 4:50:16So I'd hate to think that we're creating situations and the pain that my friend brad and his father went through all over again, simply because it makes us feel better to be as that answer and that imagine that skill sets are spread out equally by the almighty. Thank you, and I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlemen, the gentleman from hawaii, Mr.
▶ 4:50:46Case, is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. >> I endorse so many of the comments of my colleagues. Um. >> of all of. >> the. Wrong directions that this secretary is taking our armed services in. And there are many.
▶ 4:51:06I think that I feel personally that the demoralization and the decimation of our officer corps and our enlisted ranks as a result of his actions are among the worst.
▶ 4:51:21And I don't only talk about today, I talk about the broad implications, the long term effects of what he is doing in this department, because this twisted inquisition and purge for any hint of the horror of thinking about diversity, equity and inclusion, and talking about your own personal experiences as you went through your career and giving inspiration to other
▶ 4:51:54Americans to join the military and to try to achieve their best, is exactly what Mr. clyburn just called it. That's exactly what it is. You know, to my colleague from maryland. Yes. I also reviewed Mr. hague says the record, and I read this quote from his book.
▶ 4:52:12When I think about my career in uniform, in almost every instance where there has been poor leadership or people in positions they're not qualified for, it was based on either the reality or the perception of a diversity hire. Think about that comment for a second. Just just consider that comment. What does that actually mean?
▶ 4:52:36Does that that must mean that every single time he encountered poor leadership, um, it was based on the reality or perception of a diversity hire. A diversity hire does not refer to the hire of a white male. Face it. Diversity hire refers to leaders in our armed services that are not white males. And the reality or the perception.
▶ 4:53:05Does that mean that he's making his judgment just at looking at somebody and perceiving that they are not white males, they're not qualified to lead in every instance? That's an unbelievable statement when you really dig down into it. I guess the next step here is to start distinguishing between white males based on their ethnic group, based on their height.
▶ 4:53:28I don't I don't know, I mean, there's lots of things I can see about people and that's just, um, indicates so much what is going through this person's mind. And let's, let's talk about merit because my colleague from maryland rightly pointed out that this should be about merit. That's what we're talking about here today. Merit promotion boards. These people have been through a process, a rigorous process.
▶ 4:53:58It is so rigorous that people can't say that they're on merit promotion board. They're being judged by their peers, by their superiors, presumably of all races and genders, by the way. And they were put on those promotion boards because they qualified. They passed the merit test. They're regarded by their peers in the military as having merit to advance, and yet they're yanked off.
▶ 4:54:26This is not something that is standard. This is new for a secretary to interfere with merit promotion board. This secretary went into a merit promotion board that was set up to avoid political influence to start with, and said, I'm going to make a different judgment based on merit, because somehow I had a bad experience with the perception of a diversity hire somewhere in my illustrious military career. And that doesn't pass any test.
▶ 4:54:55This is this is personal, by the way, two of the people on those lists, general c.q brown and admiral barnett, are people that I have personal experience with in hawaii. I served with c.q brown when he was pacaf, the head of our air forces. There was every bit of merit in that person. He didn't deserve that once, not once, not at all.
▶ 4:55:22And general, I mean, admiral barnett, same thing came in to a very difficult situation in hawaii and saved the navy's bacon. And it wasn't just about red hill. This was a person that deserved to advance on the basis of merit. And his peers said he should advance on the basis of merit. But he talked about his own experiences and talked about and tried to inspire the next generations into service. What's the consequence?
▶ 4:55:49Should I not even consider the military whatsoever anymore if I'm a white male? Hey, in hawaii, 75% of us are not white. Should I tell all of my people in hawaii? This is not a career for you anymore. I've just spent the last eight years trying to get people from hawaii into the military, consider it a career. But what message are we sending to those people by sanctioning what the secretary is doing here today?
▶ 4:56:16And yet the secretary, when we ask him these questions, he gives congress the middle finger. And that's what this is all about. This is the middle finger to congress. The chair here. I'm sorry, chair, I disagree with you. You say that this amendment would impede his discretion. And I think that that's our job, to get in his face when we have a problem and when we think that he's doing the wrong thing. I don't care whether it's travel or anything else. That's not the point here.
▶ 4:56:46We all know that. The point is he's doing the wrong thing. We know it. He's telling us, I don't care what you think, and we don't have the guts to call him on it. The consequences of this action and allowing this to happen are going to resonate far and wide, beyond the people that are unfairly targeted and affected by this, I yield back. >> chair would remind people, try to stay within the time limits.
▶ 4:57:14Please, gentlelady from pennsylvania is recognized. Oh, sorry. Gentlelady from new jersey is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 4:57:28Um and thank you to my colleague for sponsoring this particular amendment, which is mostly about showing that discrimination is alive and unfortunately, well, in this administration. I may this may be a bit redundant because I've not been here.
▶ 4:57:50My colleague from hawaii said that this was personal, and for him it was personal because he knew individuals who were negatively impacted. It's personal for me because as a woman and a black woman, I'm a double reason that this secretary has a problem with allowing someone like me to serve in a position I'm eminently qualified for, and the merit board has even said so.
▶ 4:58:19You know, that's disgusting coming from an individual who so woefully, um, inadequate in his position as secretary and for us as a congress, not to stand up and tell him we're not going to tolerate this anymore because we've got friends and we've got relatives and we have colleagues that we know are black and are women who are
▶ 4:58:50Eminently qualified to serve in the capacity that they have been elected to, or those who have been recommended for appointment. This is in violation of the law against discrimination. Under any other circumstances, there would be case upon case upon case that this administration would lose because it was violating the law against discrimination.
▶ 4:59:17It is disgusting that the most incompetent, corrupt, inept. And careless administration is allowed to get away with these things, and it is triply disgusting that the man who has to have a studio to make up his face in the in his department, a man who wishes to be known as
▶ 4:59:49The secretary of war, as opposed to the secretary of defense, and the man who has demonstrated day in and day out that he is incompetent and incapable of doing his job in a manner that is respectful of this country and who we are. I support this amendment. Congresswoman frankel, I thank you for raising it.
▶ 5:00:12I recognize you used his travel and his frivolity as a way to get our attention, and I appreciate that because every chance we get, we need to highlight the frivolity, the corruption, the incompetence, and the disgusting display of I hate america that they demonstrate I yield back.
▶ 5:00:42>> thank gentlelady, the gentlelady from pennsylvania, miss dean's recognized to address the amendment. >> I thank you, Mr. chairman, and I associate myself with the words from my colleagues on this side of the room. Uh, the extraordinary reminder of our past, of our history, of our present, of our excellence within our military that is being denied.
▶ 5:01:03I rise in support of congresswoman frankel's amendment, which calls attention to secretary haig's firing of highly regarded senior military leadership, often without any apparent reason or should I say, any apparent legitimate reason. As has been said the new york times from last week, and I quote, Mr. hegseth has blocked the promotions of at least 40 senior officers of general and admiral ranks.
▶ 5:01:30About half of these of those are women or people of color. Secretary hegseth must be held to account. He is the secretary of defense. If his decisions to fire or block promotions were based on merit, he should come right here and give us justification for them. His silence is appalling. Something might have gotten past you.
▶ 5:01:55And that's why I brought this image, uh, in the chaos of this administration, in the racism and bigotry of this administration, in the sexism of this administration. It might have gotten past you, uh, that we had to cancel something that has gone on a ceremony that has gone on for 27 years. This year's cancellation of the bipartisan women's caucus annual wreath laying ceremony at arlington national cemetery.
▶ 5:02:26We've done it for 27 years. This is a couple of years back when I had the pleasure, the honor, the awe of being in the presence of the living women, members of the military, all branches, and, of course, to lay a wreath in honor of those women who served and have passed. It's a solemn event. It's a time when republican women and democratic women come together to honor the immense service of women in the united states armed forces until this year.
▶ 5:02:56So what happened this year? Several military branches declined to participate in what should have been the 28th annual wreath laying ceremony that led to the event being canceled. And when asked why those branches of the military didn't want to be a part of it, they cited trump executive order and department of defense guidelines that banned celebration of identity months or diversity events.
▶ 5:03:23America is home to more than 2 million living women veterans. For 250 years, women have fought and sacrificed for our nation. Instead of honoring their service, the trump administration, secretary hegseth, they're trying to erase women's contribution to our nation and our history. They want to diminish and deny their sacrifice.
▶ 5:03:47They want to hold back high ranking, hard working, patriotic women and men, men on the basis of sex or color. We all know it this room. It's un-american. It's sexism. It's racism, it's bigoted. It's shameful. Because I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, because Mr.
▶ 5:04:11Hegseth cannot erase their dei, he cannot erase their dedication, their excellence, and their integrity. I yield back. >> I thank gentlelady, the gentleman from maryland, Mr. ivey, is recognized for. To address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of the amendment.
▶ 5:04:38Also, I think there's going to be a republican amendment down the road that's going to address dei issues, too. So I'm going to object to that amendment now as part of the en bloc, an en bloc amendment there. But, you know, what hegseth is doing is beyond disturbing, I think.
▶ 5:04:59And I just want to make one point with respect to what my colleague from maryland, doctor harris, was saying about these being dei appointments, I just wanted to talk about the actual chain of how some of this played out. So general cj brown was raised up, offered for a promotion, went up to hag, said he wanted to deny it and he did. He chose general kaine instead.
▶ 5:05:27And general kaine was number three on the promotions list, but he picked him instead of general brown. Now, later on, admiral barnett, who we just talked about a few minutes ago, was also on the promotion list. General kaine wanted him to be elevated, but hegseth denied him the promotion as well. So presumably the guy hegseth picked because he was anti d e.
▶ 5:05:55I wasn't recommending that barnett be promoted for dei purposes. Presumably he was doing it based on merit. So just based on the fact that people in the administration that trump and hegseth like offered him up seems to undermine the argument that barnett must have been a dei promotion as well. I think it's probably more like what my colleague from south carolina mentioned, and that's the the comments that he made at a speech encouraging actually minorities to join the military.
▶ 5:06:26I didn't hear anything particularly offensive or disturbing in what he said. But I guess anything that you say that if you were use anything related to race or any kind of comment along those lines, that's disqualifying in this administration.
▶ 5:06:41And I think that's kind of pathetic because it ignores the reality of what's going on, but it's also consistent with what they've tried to do with respect to the whitewash of military history, trying to remove jackie robinson's military service, for example, from the websites and the like, trying to remove information about the tuskegee airmen. Um, it's sad and ridiculous and pathetic. Uh, and really unamerican.
▶ 5:07:05We've got a, a history in this country of people who've made contributions across the board, uh, on the military front as well, dating all the way back to the american revolution all the way up to now, my father in law, uh, served in world war two and korea ground combat. Uh, my colleague from maryland suggested that all of those promotions that were received were dei related.
▶ 5:07:29He served before there was dei or affirmative action, or actually even integrated military service. And he came away with a silver star, two bronze stars. And yeah, he had two purple hearts too, although he always said, who wants a purple heart? I don't like how I had what I had to do to get that. But at the end of the day, I think it's important for us to understand that maybe h. Griffith had a good military career.
▶ 5:07:52I'm not criticizing it at all, but many of the people that he denied a promotion, to be really, really blunt, had far more distinguished combat careers than he did. And from the standpoint of elevating them to leadership positions in the pentagon, especially when he had no leadership experience of that magnitude of his own, elevating people who already had it only would have made sense.
▶ 5:08:17So I, I, I'm deeply disturbed by what I've heard so far today, and I gotta lead with leave with this, um, the whole dei debate with respect to the trump administration. It's kind of hard to square it with when you look at the people that the president has tried. Let's start with matt gaetz, who was supposed to be the attorney general of the united states.
▶ 5:08:43Then you got pam bondi, who became the united states attorney general, and all the destruction of the rule of law under her leadership. Last thing I remember her saying was that jamie raskin was a washed up lawyer, but I, I think she's the one heading the bar council right now. You got noam put in charge of homeland security with zero experience and having run it. And I think we saw how badly she did it.
▶ 5:09:08Palti now they're trying to put him in charge of the intelligence and national security. And that's replacing gabbard, who also had no experience on that front. Kennedy, the anti vaccine hhs secretary who brought back the measles outbreaks to the united states. Patel at the fbi. This is his cabinet, and he's going to stand up and lecture us about dei. Give me a break.
▶ 5:09:33We should at least be able to have the secretary of defense come to congress and explain to us why he's denying promotions to people who have distinguished military careers, who are recommended by the panels that congress set up. And he doesn't have any any objections he can voice in defense of his decision. Let's have him come up and explain why he's making these decisions.
▶ 5:10:00Maybe while he's here, we can also ask him about maybe one of the worst decisions the secretary of defense has ever made, to the extent he recommended that we go into this war, he's got to be on the short list for that. And with that, I yield back. >> gentleman, the gentleman from california, Mr. levin's recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 5:10:23I wasn't planning to speak, but I feel compelled to note that this amendment really isn't about pete hegseth or any one secretary. It's about two things I think everybody here has sworn to protect. The first is that we want a military led by our best officers, and the second is that we want a constitution that doesn't bend to whoever happens to hold power. So starting with merit, we don't hand out the rank of general by whim.
▶ 5:10:49I know many of us, you know, we we know our generals. They are the best of the best. We have a promotion selection board. You have career officers, men and women who have served for decades. They sit down, they judge each candidate on record, on service, whether they've proven they can lead. By the time an officer is selected as a general. The professionals have already said this is somebody we trust to lead american service members.
▶ 5:11:17That process exists to keep politics out of the chain of command, and the moment that it becomes a political prize to become a flag officer, I think we lose the very thing that makes our military the finest in the world. So ask this if you have an officer that the board chose on merit, and then they're suddenly removed and no reason is given, what took the place of merit, something else took the place of merit.
▶ 5:11:47And whatever that something is, it's not the judgment of those seasoned officers who are measuring against our military mission. This amendment, I think, just says that when merit gets overruled, somebody has to explain why and that somebody is the secretary. Now to the constitution. Article one, the power of the purse, the duty of oversight.
▶ 5:12:07We say it again and again, but it belongs to this body on purpose, by design, because the founders didn't trust any single official to act without answering to us and to the people we represent. So this amendment is that idea and its plainest form. The executive is making serious decisions. The people's representatives are asking why, and then the funding requires an answer. That's the separation of powers working exactly as it was intended to.
▶ 5:12:34And this new standard that hegseth is setting, it's about far more than him. It's about far more than who sits in the office today. If you would want a future secretary to justify firing the generals that our board selected, then you'd want that same standard today, wouldn't you? And all this amendment asks for is a justification. If headsets reasons are sound, his explanation should take the afternoon.
▶ 5:13:01The only official that has anything to fear from this amendment is one who can't defend a decision, and a choice about who leads our service members should never be one that they cannot defend. So I encourage us think about this protect, merit, protect the chain of command, and protect the constitutional order that will outlast outlast all of us. At least I hope it outlasts all of us. Thank you, Mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman.
▶ 5:13:29Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Gentlelady from texas is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I like my colleague, Mr. levin. I was not planning on speaking on this amendment. I was going to stay focused in this committee hearing today on my amendments.
▶ 5:13:52Um, but I'm so proud of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and all of the great amendments that they brought forward, amendments meant to strengthen our national security amendments in support of our national defense. Um, and I am very proud to support miss frankel's amendment as well. And, uh, here's in part what inspired me to stand up and speak on this issue and this amendment.
▶ 5:14:21Representative levin and representative aguilar, just as miss frankel was giving her opening remarks on this amendment, the three of us stepped out to talk to a group of high school students who are part of, chc, an organization that uplifts hispanic young people in our country. And it was a really lovely conversation.
▶ 5:14:47Um, when it was my opportunity to speak to these talented, brilliant, wonderful young latinos, what I said to them was, never forget your brilliance and your talent, how valued it is, how important it is to our country, how much your leadership matters.
▶ 5:15:11Don't ever let anyone make you doubt that brilliance, that talent, that leadership. And I say that to a lot of young people, the the young people who come and intern in my office, the young people I meet in this journey in congress, I've said it to my two children, um, over the years, over and over again, I represent a community that is
▶ 5:15:4385% latino. I'm right on the U.S. mexico border. A lot of latino veterans, a lot of latino active duty service members, a lot of incredible women that I've met along the way devoted to our national defense, eager to be a part of this great mission that our united states military pursues.
▶ 5:16:13And I know all of you on the other side of the aisle, you are good people, and I know you value these incredible service members and leaders in our military. I know you do. This is an important moment for us as members of congress, to hold accountable a cabinet member that is telling.
▶ 5:16:42Military leaders who do not look like him that they don't have value in the hierarchy of the united states military. I think every person in this room knows that that is wrong. That is wrong what he's doing.
▶ 5:17:04And we were elected to stand up for what is right, holding him accountable on this is the right thing to do. So I ask my colleagues to join us to send a message. We deserve an explanation. And those military leaders deserve our advocacy. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 5:17:35Chairman. I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, Mr. chair. Just to say it, it breaks my heart to have to bring this amendment. It breaks my heart because as a mother of a son who served in two wars, I.
▶ 5:18:00I know the sacrifice and the patriotism of the people who put on the uniform. And today we need to send a message to them. You will be judged by your ability. You're going to be judged by your service. You're going to be judged by your character, not by the color of your skin, not by your gender, not by politics. Yes, the secretary of defense has the authority to review promotion lists, but that authority comes with the responsibility.
▶ 5:18:27It's not a license to deny qualified service members the opportunity to rise, for reasons that can only be described as prejudice or bigotry. If a decorated service is removed because they cannot meet the standards, tell us if they cannot lead, tell us if they have failed in their duty. Tell us.
▶ 5:18:50But if qualified women and people of color who have earned their place are being denied opportunities because of who they are, that is wrong. That is not strength, that is not merit, and that is not the american way. And this amendment simply requires secretary hedges to explain his decisions, because america deserves a military where excellence, not ideology, determines who rises.
▶ 5:19:19I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this amendment. I yield back. >> thank. Gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from florida. All those in favor say aye. All opposed? Say no. No. The opinion of the chair. The nos have it roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. No. Mr. aguilar, Mr.
▶ 5:19:49Aguilar, I Mr. alford, Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei, Mr. amodei. No. Mrs. bice, Mr. bishop, Mr. bishop, I. Mr. calvert, Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. No. Mr. case. Mr. case I, Mr. eskamani. Mr. kline, Mr. cloud, Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn I. Mr.
▶ 5:20:19Clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, Mr. cuellar I miss. Dean, Mr. lauro, miss. Delauro, I. Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart. No. Mr. edwards. Mr. edwards. No. Mr. ellzey. Mr. ellzey. No. Miss. Escobar, Mr. escobar I. Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleishman, Mr. fleishman. No. Miss. Frankel, miss. Frankel, I Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr.
▶ 5:20:50Guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr. harter, I Mr. harter, I doctor. Harris, Mrs. henson, Mr. hoyer, Mr. hoyer, I Mr. iv, Mr. iv I Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce. No. Miss kaptur, miss kaptur, I. Mr. lalota. Mr. lalota. No. Miss lee. Miss lee, I miss. Letlow. Mr. levin, Mr. levin, Mr.
▶ 5:21:17Levin, I miss. Molloy, miss. Molloy. No. Miss. Mccollum. I miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming, I. Mr. molinari, Mr. molenaar. No. Mr. moore, Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli, I. Mr. van, Mr. mervyn I. Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse. No. Miss.
▶ 5:21:46Perez, miss. Perez, I miss. Pingry, miss pingry I Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. reschenthaler. Mr. guy reschenthaler. No. Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford. Mr. rutherford. No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson, Mr. simpson. No. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres. Mrs.
▶ 5:22:14Torres, I miss underwood, miss underwood, I. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson. Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink. No. >> are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from arizona. >> Mr. >> gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> miss dean I.
▶ 5:22:47>> gentleman from west virginia. >> Mr. moore, no. >> gentlelady from oklahoma. >> Mrs. bice? No. >> are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. Gentleman from virginia. >> Mr. kline. No.
▶ 5:23:28>> gentleman from maryland. Gentleman from texas. >> doctor harris. No. Mr. cloud. No. >> food must be good.
▶ 5:24:07This vote, the age of 26. And those are 33. The amendment is not adopted. I now recognize chairman calvert to offer a republican en bloc amendment. Mr. chairman, I have an amendment to desk asking unanimous consent that we waive the reading. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> the republican bloc amendment incorporates a number of republican priorities in.
▶ 5:24:37The bill, and report includes provisions that have been included in the republican bills in prior years. I urge the adoption of this amendment and yield back. >> the gentleman, the gentlelady from minnesota, miss mccollum, is recognized to address the amendment. >> Mr. chairman, as I said in my opening statement, I believe your decision to eliminate all but one of the partizan writers in this bill was the right decision.
▶ 5:25:01Your decision may be optimistic that when you reported the bill out of subcommittee, the road to enacting this bill would even be smoother than it has been in previous years. So let's be clear about what peterson writers do to appropriation bills. They bog the entire process down. They make deliberations more difficult as we move towards conference with the senate. And make no. Make no mistake, if the gentleman's amendment were to pass, that's exactly what this amendment would do to the bill. And I think he's pretty aware of that.
▶ 5:25:32But I understand the role that you play in leadership as the chair of this subcommittee. So, folks, I'm going to tell you a couple of reasons why I'm opposing this amendment. Part of this amendment would prohibit the department from conducting research using human fetal tissue if that tissue is obtained from an abortion. Well, here's a quick fact for you. The department of defense does not do that type of research.
▶ 5:26:01So I'm not sure why this needs to be in the bill or what's trying to be accomplished with this amendment, because it's going to come out because it doesn't happen in the department of defense. So, um, you know, we're prohibiting the department from doing things they already don't do. And especially under this administration, I think we all know it wouldn't happen. And then, Mr. chair, I also oppose the part of the amendment that would justify the use of funds for changing the department of defense's name back to the department of war.
▶ 5:26:29Now, when congress and the truman administration reorganized our national security agencies in 1947, they made a decision to create the department of defense and bring all the military services underneath it. The reason why they chose the department of defense instead of the department of war. They chose. They talked. This is right after world war two and korea conflict was raging then.
▶ 5:26:56It's because they did not want to be overly aggressive towards the soviet union during the cold war. Now, war is something we should all want to avoid, and that's why I believe in a strong defense. Defense through strength, through power. Right. But I think the americans who settled on the department of defense in 1947, they knew what they were talking about. They knew we should want to deter war, not advertise. We want war.
▶ 5:27:25So along with this comes with a name change. Well, there was never any outreach to the appropriations committee as to the funding for the cost of these changes. Cbo did a study of the cost of this name change in january, and it advised that the cost of changing the name across the department would range up to $125 million. Now, we could be asking ourselves, what programs or activities did the secretary short circuit in order to cover the cost of this.
▶ 5:27:53Now name change, which we know that the president, through executive order and what what secretary haig's death has done by wanting to be called the secretary of war in the department of war. They're doing it. They can do that. But to officially change it, it's going to cost a lot more money than what cbo has already been talking about.
▶ 5:28:14And the other thing that I object to this en bloc is we should be focusing on what brings us together to make our warfighter the most successful in the world, what brings them home safely after a conflict not dividing us?
▶ 5:28:31So here's some of the old list of division writers that have now been put into the bill, but they've never once been acted into law. Okay, there's language in the bill that attacks the lgbtrrq community that's always been in the bill. We've argued about that in committee. It always comes out that divides, that divides us.
▶ 5:29:03It hurts our military language that requires that marriage be defined as only for a man and a woman. Well, the supreme court legalized same sex marriage nationwide in 2015. That's in the bill. Do you think that's going to stay in the language that bans funding for d, e I and critical race theory programs that don't even exist in this bill? So we're taking up the committee's time working on this.
▶ 5:29:29But there is something I do want to discuss before I close. Today's the fourth anniversary of the dobbs decision, which took away the nationwide protection for women's reproductive health. Women used to, you know, as us citizens, we could live anywhere in this country, anywhere in the territory. And our reproductive rights were guaranteed.
▶ 5:29:52Now women are living with a patchwork of state laws, many which limits the health care that all women deserve access to. So I'm not surprised to see language that limits the service woman's ability to travel easily to a state for reproductive health procedures. Now, let's be clear. The government's not going to pay for that procedure if it includes abortion. The hyde amendment is alive and well.
▶ 5:30:17So if all all the things in this amendment are enacted, in my opinion, we would be wasting precious time with negotiating over positions that will not be acted into law. And I've watched the chairman do it, and he defends the house position. Mr. chair, you do defend the house position. This is one of the positions in the house that I don't defend when we're in congress and conference.
▶ 5:30:43So this amendment is more of the same thing we've been doing year after year in this bill. Some of the things the department doesn't even do, some of the things are legal. And I strongly urge this amendment to be rejected. >> thank. Gentlelady. The gentleman from missouri is recognized to address the amendment.
▶ 5:31:11>> well, thank you, chairman calvert, chairman cole, ranking member mccollum and ranking member delauro. I also want to thank the staff for the tremendous work that they went into crafting this bill and for your willingness, chairman and our clerk and the staff willingness to address issues that arise as this legislative process move forward.
▶ 5:31:35When I first was elected to this office, my predecessor, whom many of you know, vicky hartzler, had a great passion for missouri, a great passion for our dod basis. She said one thing to me, mark, take care of our district. And that's why I rise today to take care of our district and our great department of war facility in the southeastern part of my district, fort leonard wood.
▶ 5:32:04Just a few days ago, I was alerted by community leaders and stakeholders in missouri to reports from well sourced information at high levels that elements within the army were developing a proposal to relocate basic combat training missions currently conducted at fort leonard wood in my district, and fort sill in chairman cole's district.
▶ 5:32:29This proposal was reportedly structured around a series of troop movements of up to 750 soldiers at a time. The concern is not a single move, but rather the cumulative effect by breaking a major realignment into smaller pieces, the transformation and training command could effectively dismantle basic combat training missions at fort leonard wood and fort sill without ever
▶ 5:33:00Presenting congress with the full scope, the cost or readiness implications of the plan. Basically doing an end round around to us in this committee and congress as a whole. According to these reports, this effort could ultimately result in the consolidation of basic combat training missions away from installations that have trained generations of american soldiers and have received substantial taxpayer investments over many decades.
▶ 5:33:30I want to be clear congress has established a process for major installation realignments. We should not allow decisions of this magnitude to be made through a series of administrative actions that effectively bypassed congressional oversight and public transparency. Fort leonard wood and fort sill are not simply interchangeable locations on a map.
▶ 5:33:53They are the centers of excellence, the centers of excellence with specialized facilities, experienced personnel, and critical training missions that support army readiness every day. Moving these missions would come at enormous cost to taxpayers. It would require new infrastructure, personnel, relocations and significant military construction, all while existing taxpayer funded facilities remain available and operational.
▶ 5:34:23And it would also reduce training capacity at a time when we should be strengthening, not shrinking our ability to train the next generation of soldiers and respond to future natural national security challenges. And that's why I raised this issue with the committee and work with the chairman and committee staff to make sure that language preventing the relocation of basic combat training missions was included in this bill.
▶ 5:34:46I appreciate the committee's willingness to act quickly and send a clear message that congress expects any proposal of this magnitude to receive proper scrutiny, proper authorization, and a full accounting of the costs and impacts before moving forward. This provision protects taxpayer dollars, protects military readiness and protects the installations that have faithfully carried out these missions for decades.
▶ 5:35:09I thank the chairman for including this language in the en bloc amendment, which simply reads none of the funds made available by this act, or any other act, may be used to carry out the relocation, consolidation or realignment of any army basic combat training unit. It's simple.
▶ 5:35:33I encourage a yes vote on this en bloc amendment, and I yield back. >> I thank the gentleman. Uh, are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one. Oh. I'm sorry. Oh I'm sorry. Gentleman from maryland. Mr.
▶ 5:35:55Chairman, when I first heard the assertion that we were going to change the department of defense's name to department of war. I thought to my. I didn't think of the cost. Uh, but it has a substantial cost. I thought of something much deeper than that. It is the actions of a bully.
▶ 5:36:24It is the actions of a country that really doesn't have confidence. It's the action of a nation that says, we want to go to war. And that's what secretary hector's, of course, thinks of his department. It is a war department.
▶ 5:36:50After world war two, we changed the name. Because we didn't want to be a nation to go to war. We would go to war. We have gone to war. But that was not our intent. Our intent was to have an establishment that could prevent war.
▶ 5:37:16And prevent war by being strong, so that those would see us as not a target they ought to go after. And so we named it the department of defense. And it's been that for over 70 years.
▶ 5:37:46The other thought I had was this was akin to saying, well, we might use military force to take greenland. Or we might use it to have canada become the 51st state. Or we would rename the gulf of mexico. That's been the gulf of mexico forever. The gulf of america. Are we so small?
▶ 5:38:16That we need to make these silly assertions? Are we a bully nation who is not self-confident enough to say we are for defense? We are for protecting democracy? As we talked about with respect to ukraine?
▶ 5:38:42Or have we simply now decided we are big and strong and we're going to spend $1 trillion and we're going to go to war? We're in a war of choice, a disastrous war of choice that has gotten us absolutely nothing. Because I guess we're a nation for war.
▶ 5:39:09I grieve for my nation. That we would perceive ourselves so weak that we have to enunciate that we are a nation for war. And.
▶ 5:39:36Perhaps all of you want to be a nation for war. And perhaps you'll all vote that way.
▶ 5:39:49And I'm sorry for us as america, the strongest nation on earth that need not proclaim its strength every day by these small acts of bluster. Oh, no.
▶ 5:40:29>> thank you. Gentlemen, the gentleman from georgia, Mr. clyde, recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And I thank the chairman for including my amendment to codify the renaming of the department of defense as the department of war and the secretary of defense as the secretary of war, throughout applicable provisions of federal law.
▶ 5:40:49As a 28 year navy combat veteran, restoring the warrior ethos here in the united states and ensuring the world understands that is very important to me. For a little history.
▶ 5:41:01The war department was among the first executive departments established by the first congress in 1789, and signed into law by none other than the founding father of our country, president george washington, for more than half a century under that name, the department helped oversee the military forces that defended in advance the interests of the united states through conflicts ranging from the war of 1812 to both world wars.
▶ 5:41:25The title department of war reflected the founders understanding that preserving peace requires maintaining the capability, readiness and resolve to prevail in war when necessary. Last year, president trump issued an executive order to restore the U.S. department of war, which recognized that the former title department of defense may not fully convey the strength, deterrent capability, and warfighting mission entrusted to america's military.
▶ 5:41:53Therefore, the executive order authorized the use of the title department of war within the executive branch and directed recommendations for permanently restoring the department's historic name through legislation. This amendment advances that objective by making the statutory changes necessary to formally designate the department of defense as the department of war. Throughout titles ten, 32 and 37 of us code, along with numerous conforming amendments.
▶ 5:42:20It also designates the secretary of defense as the secretary of war and updates references to departmental offices and activities to reflect the new title. You know, the best defense is a good offense and names communicate priorities. For decades, america's military has remained the most lethal and capable fighting force in the world.
▶ 5:42:43But our principal national security institution bore a title that emphasizes only one aspect of its mission the historic title department of war more directly reflects the warrior ethos and the department's responsibility to prepare for, deter and, when required, successfully wage war in the defense of the united states and its interests. I urge my colleagues to support this end block, and I yield back. >> thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentleman from california. Mr.
▶ 5:43:13Levin is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you. Chairman, I want to expand for just a minute on the history that my colleague mentioned. I don't think the gentleman got anything wrong, necessarily, but I want to add some important context. It's completely corrected. For a century and a half, this nation had a department of war. That is true.
▶ 5:43:37George washington did, in fact, create it in 1789, and it ran the army through the civil war and into the 20th century, along a separate department of the navy. Then came world war two. My grandfather served in world war two. So I think he's that's that's great. I think my grandpa's looking over my shoulder now, and I think he wants me to express this to you because I know how he felt. He's passed away, but I know how he felt. Uh, we fought that war with the services divided. He was in the army air corps.
▶ 5:44:08We paid for it. And confusion and duplication. And at pearl harbor and blood. So the generation that won that war came home and fixed it. And then in 1947, we unified the army and the navy and the new air force. Then in 1949, we settled on the name that captured what we built, the department of defense, not a retreat from strength. The consolidation of strength.
▶ 5:44:35Now, a few more things worth mentioning. The men who chose defense and the women who chose defense at that time, they were not soft. This was the cold war. They were staring straight at stalin. They were staring straight at the soviet bomb. They had just defeated germany and japan. They picked the name on purpose because it described the whole force, land and sea and air under one roof, not just one branch fighting alone.
▶ 5:45:05Dwight eisenhower had every chance to change it back. He was a five star general. He was the man who commanded d-day. He saw more war than anybody in this room ever will. He reorganized the department from the ground up in 1958, but he kept the name defense because, as he said at the time, the future would be fought by all services as one single concentrated effort. That's what defense meant to him. Ronald reagan had every chance to.
▶ 5:45:35He signed the largest overhaul of the department since its founding, and he built on the department of defense, reaching back actually to eisenhower as his guide. And the price of undoing all of that, I think, is very real. Formally, renaming this department requires us requires congress. The estimates are that it's an expensive process.
▶ 5:45:58But beyond new signs and seals and letterheads and badges across hundreds of thousands of facilities across the world, think about what that could buy. It could buy the ships and the missiles and the housing for our service members. I think that's a better use of that money than stationery. So the choice is pretty simple. We can spend this time actually building force, or we can spend it relabeling things. I think eisenhower and reagan would be appalled, I yield back.
▶ 5:46:33>> I thank the gentleman, the gentleman from texas, Mr. cloud, is recognized to address the amendment. Okay. Very good. Are there any other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman, Mr. ken calvert, is recognized for one minute to close. >> I urge the adoption of the amendment and yield back. >> eloquent and to the point. Thank you. Questions now on the amendment.
▶ 5:47:02All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed say no. No opinion of the chair. The ayes have it. Roll call is requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. Aye. Mr. aguilar, Mr. alford, Mr. alford, I. Mr. amodei, Mr. amodei, I, Mrs. bice, Mrs. bice I. Mr. bishop, Mr. bishop. No. Mr. calvert, Mr. calvert, I.
▶ 5:47:34Mr. carter, Mr. carter I. Mr. case. Mr. case. No. Mr. cisco. Mr. cisco I Mr. klein, Mr. klein I. Mr. cloud, Mr. cloud I. Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn. No. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. I. Mr. cole. Mr. cole I. Mr. cuellar, miss. Dean. Miss. Dean. No. Mr. Mr. laurel lee. No. Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart. I.
▶ 5:48:04Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards. I. Mr. ellzey. Miss. Escobar. Miss. Miss. Escobar. No. Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleischmann, Mr. fleischmann, I. Miss. Frankel. Miss. Frankel. No. Miss. Frankel. No. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin I. Mr. guest, Mr. guest, I Mr. harter, Mr. harter. No. Doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. I. Mrs. henson, Mr.
▶ 5:48:35Hoyer, Mr. hoyer. No. Mr. iv, Mr. iv. No. Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce, I miss. Kaptur, miss kaptur. No. Mr. lalota. Mr. lalota. I miss lee, miss lee. No. Miss letlow. Mr. levin, Mr. levin. No. Miss molloy, miss molloy, I miss mccollum, miss mccollum. No. Miss ming, miss ming. No. Mr. molinari, Mr. mulliner, I Mr. moore. Mr.
▶ 5:49:08Morelli, Mr. morelli. No. Mr. moran. Mr. mervyn. No. Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse, I miss. Perez, miss. Perez. No. Miss. Pingry, miss. Pingry. No. Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan. No. Mr. quigley. Mr. reschenthaler, Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers, I. Mr. rutherford, Mr. rutherford I Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve I. Mr. simpson, Mr. simpson, I. Mr.
▶ 5:49:39Strong, Mr. strong, I Mrs. torres, Mrs. torres. No. Miss. Underwood, miss. Underwood. No. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao, I. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. No. Mrs. watson. Coleman. Mrs. watson. Coleman. No. Mr. womack, Mr. womack, I. Mr. zink. Mr. zink. No. >> no. You're. Yes. >> Mr. zink I.
▶ 5:50:10>> all right. Um, are there any members wishing to cast their vote? A change of vote. Gentleman from california. >> Mr. zink. No. Mr. aguilar, no. >> gentleman from west virginia. >> Mr. moore, I. >> gentleman from texas. >> Mr. >> gentleman from california. >> Mr. >> okay. I'm sorry. When you're standing up, it's hard to tell. Gentleman from florida. Okay.
▶ 5:50:40Is the gentleman from nevada actually on there this time? He's kind of slipped in and out. Are there any other members wishing to vote or cast or change their votes? Seeing none, the clerk will tally while the clerks are tallying. Obviously, we have votes underway. We're not going to try and do anything more. We've been here a long time, obviously. So as soon as, uh and you know, we announced the tally, you can leave any time you want.
▶ 5:51:08We're going to recess immediately and then please come back immediately after the votes and we'll resume. I think we're not too far away from dinner. So chinese food will be available in the not too distant future. Okay. >> ironic chinese food. >> only from you. >> you're the one that picked the cuisine. >> and we got red meat for lunch. >> chips in, in there.
▶ 5:51:40>> yeah. This vote, the yeas are 32, the nose are 25, and the amendment is adopted. Votes have been called. The committee will now stand in recess. Please return promptly after vote so we can continue consideration of the bill.
▶ 6:37:55In. >> gentleman from missouri. Mr. alford is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I have an amendment at the desk and ask for dispensing of the reading of that amendment. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment. >> thank you, sir. Thank you, chairman calvert. Chairman cole, ranking member mccollum and ranking member delauro. This bill covers many very important aspects of bringing back our industrial base to america.
▶ 6:38:25However, I do want to bring one important shortfall which concerns me. Lake city army ammunition plant in independence, missouri, just outside of kansas city, is a key aspect of our defense industrial base and the fluctuation of funding to our army ammunition depot forces mass layoffs of highly specialized workforce that cannot be turned back simply overnight.
▶ 6:38:50As it stands now, the funding levels would likely cause loss of some 500 jobs between missouri and mississippi. This is the exact opposite result in which we are fixing across many different sectors in this very.
▶ 6:39:03Bill and I understand the army is the main requester for which caliber rounds are to be funded, but the the current request does not meet the high paced training and operation requirements of what the most lethal and most effective fighting force in the world requires. I do want to thank the committee again, and I know there were some very difficult decisions that had to be made. Uh, we simply did not have the money for some of these programs and projects.
▶ 6:39:31I am going to withdraw this amendment, and I would appreciate working with chairman calvert and others if we can continue this work, sir, on this very important issue to lessen the burden on our domestic workforce, and I yield back. >> thank the gentleman. The gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, recognized to address the amendment. Thank you. I'm happy to work with the gentleman from missouri to make sure that the men and women of the united states military have the ammunition they need, and look forward to working as we go through this process.
▶ 6:40:01Thank you, thank you. My friend from minnesota wish to address that or. Okay. Very good. Did not think so. Um, there's no further debate. The gentleman's actually recognized for one minute to close if you want the time. >> again. Thank you, chairman, for working with us on this.
▶ 6:40:29Lake city army ammunition plant is a very intricate part of our department of war and making sure that our munitions are restocked. Uh, they are making the new nato round out there. We have the building built. They're waiting on the equipment. Uh, wonderful people out there. I have close friends who work out there in constituents. It's not just about them. It is about the readiness for our military and restocking our munitions, which are so important, uh, to all of us here in this committee. Thank you. And I yield back.
▶ 6:41:01>> thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from new jersey, miss watson coleman, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk, and I seek unanimous consent to dispense with its reading. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 6:41:28My amendment would strike funding for the golden dome for america fund, for which this bill provides $398 million. As our adversaries grow stronger and threats to our allies proliferate. It's important to have a missile defense system that is truly effective. Unfortunately, this is the wrong way to implement one. The golden dome for america fund is physically, fiscally irresponsible and lacking in important details.
▶ 6:41:57To make matters worse, the president has a failed track record for planning and execution of national projects. Already, the cbo estimates that the entire project will cost at least $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. Who can trust this administration to be careful stewards of our public dollars? Donald trump started a war that we didn't ask for and did so many without any sound strategy.
▶ 6:42:30So far, it has cost us $29 billion, and that's not even accounting for the subsequent cost imposed on our economy. Now, this his administration is asking for a billion more. He has also blown an enormous amount of money on his vanity projects, like the lincoln memorial reflecting pool, which was supposed to cost $1.8 million, ballooned to $14 million, and now millions more will be needed to fix mistakes made under his incompetent
▶ 6:43:01Leadership. The or his car ride. The proposed white house ballroom started as $200 million project, but recently it was reported that his contract is. Estimate the total construction cost at $600 million, with half intended to come from taxpayers. Do you see the theme here?
▶ 6:43:22Trump is an incompetent leader who has a track record of poor planning and a reputation for being an untrustworthy and prolific spender of the public purse. The cbo said that the true cost of the so-called golden dome can't be calculated due to how expensive it would be to operate and maintain. How can we trust him with an important project that has an arbitrary cost like this? And why should we?
▶ 6:43:51And here's the kicker we have no assurance that the dome would even be fully effective against all missiles. The potential for our adversaries to overwhelm the system is too high, and its costs are too great. Without more information, with the strength of our military, why would we choose to sink so much money into a defense system that is incapable of fulfilling its promise?
▶ 6:44:17It's not unreasonable to wonder if this is just the largest of his growing collection of vanity projects, intended to stroke his insatiable ego. And for the president, who has rewarded his friends and donors while enriching himself, there are certainly opportunities for fraud and abuse here. We should not be giving a massive handout to defense contractors for a project that we know so little about.
▶ 6:44:46The american people want to be able to pay their bills. They want to be able to afford their groceries, housing, child care, and health care. They deserve better than this from their government. There must be accountability and careful oversight of any defense system. We have neither the details nor the true costs. I do not believe we should appropriate these funds under these conditions. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back.
▶ 6:45:17>> thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, is recognized to address the amendment. Thank you, chairman. Thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The amendment cuts the funding for the golden dome provided in this bill. The bill provides 398 million for the golden dome for america fund to support the development of a defense shield for our homeland. I oppose this amendment and yield, and I would hope the rest of the conference would agree with yield back. Thank you. Gentlemen. The gentlelady from minnesota, Mr.
▶ 6:45:46Combs, recognized. To address the amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment does highlight one huge problem with the president's budget request for 2027. The total department says it needs $17.5 billion for the golden dome this year. However, the president's budget only asked our committee for $398 million, or 2% of its need.
▶ 6:46:09The rest of the 17.1 billion for golden dome is requested through the reconciliation process, which. We've pointed out that the chair and I both agree is not an efficient or effective way to budget for the needs of the department of defense. Now, I want to be clear, I do support working towards a missile defense system. Um, we need it.
▶ 6:46:31Um, as we continue to see our adversaries become more and more engaged with hypersonics and some of the other weapons that they're coming up with. But you can still have serious questions about whether the department can prudently spend $398 million without the rest of the funding. How can they act? What can they actually buy for 2% of the budget if they don't receive the other 98%?
▶ 6:47:02And that, for me, is the underlying question of why I support this amendment at this time. We deserve to have those answers before supporting the funding in this bill. The overall cost for golden dome is estimated at, um, $185 billion. That's just for the research to deliver the architect. So we're still in the research and architect phase. It doesn't even include the cost to use or operate the system even in one place.
▶ 6:47:30We don't have that information. So when you add to the mix what the congressional budget office puts the estimate at $1.2 trillion for 20 years, the administration is far too, um, cavalier in how they're going about with reconciliation and combining the base bill and taxpayers funds for this. So I would like to see some more accountability on how this is moving forward, because we need to get it done.
▶ 6:47:58We need a missile defense for what we know is coming our way, what our adversaries are planning and what what we think they have in their arsenal right now. So we need a missile defense system, but we need more information on how golden dome is going to work, more accountability. And in a in a timeline that congress can see how it's being laid out. For that reason, I support the amendment, and I yield back. >> thank. Gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment?
▶ 6:48:27Um, gentleman from hawaii. Mr. case is recognized. Mr. chair, I rise in support. >> of this amendment, and I want to amplify what my ranking member has said, because I think it's a very important point that she is making, and it is fundamental to how this committee and this subcommittee goes about, uh, funding an incredible need in our defense department going forward.
▶ 6:48:57Um, we absolutely need a missile defense system. Any of us that study the advances of our adversaries or potential adversaries, any of us that study the rapidity of change with weapons systems today and extrapolating out into the future understands that we have to continue to develop a missile defense system that even if it doesn't deliver 100%
▶ 6:49:28Defense, which no missile system does. We've seen that even in israel with iron dome, that we still have to move in this direction. And to fail to move in this direction is irresponsible. And so this is very, very much an endorsement of continuing down this road. And I say that not just for our country, not just for our allies, but I say it for my state because I'm in the third island chain here. Um, missile defense is a very personal thing to me.
▶ 6:49:58Uh, in hawaii, being within range of all of the missiles. Um, but the problem that we're having here goes back to what I said at the very beginning. I outlined six reasons why I could not support this bill, uh, overall. And one of those six reasons had to do with how we are going about hodge podge budgeting without a big picture context, without a budget, without a cohesive approach.
▶ 6:50:25And we are doing this piecemeal through discretionary funding, through reconciliation, mandatory funding. And now, of course, we're being presented with a supplemental finally, uh, that we don't even know what is in it, uh, other than what somebody is reporting online for us as we're sitting here debating and over $1 trillion budget. And so the problem here is that we are taking a critical need that is going to cost a lot of money. Let's not be under any illusions.
▶ 6:50:54Missile defense system is going to be one of the most expensive and complicated. Uh, and yes, subject to fraud and abuse, um, efforts that we have ever undertaken in this federal government. And yet we have to do it all, but we should be doing it in an organized, orderly, coordinated way. Now, we started out with golden dome, and I'm sorry, this has become a political issue because it shouldn't be a political issue.
▶ 6:51:20This should this should be something that we can all sit down and work on and agree on without getting through the divisive politics. And whether we like the term golden dome or not. What a stupid debate that is. We need something, right? Let's, let's, let's call it, I don't know, let's call it something other than golden dome for a second, but let's we started out in fy 26. And what did we do in fy 26? We had zero for this project in discretionary funding. We stuck $21 billion into reconciliation to get this going.
▶ 6:51:50We waited, as already noted, nine months to get any detail on what that reconciliation was going to go to, and we did not get adequate answers on where they were going with this project. $21 billion already sunk or sinking into golden dome. Oh, I said it there. Um, now let's get to this year.
▶ 6:52:12This year, 17.5 billion in the president's budget, 17.5 billion more of which 400 million in discretionary funding, leaving 17.1 billion out there hanging for some reconciliation bill that we don't know where it's coming from or whether it's going to get here. Now, why would I want to spend $400 million today in discretionary funding without knowing what the big picture is?
▶ 6:52:42It may well be worth it, and it may well be necessary, and I'm sure it is necessary for us to spend at some point or another $400 million for this project. But why should we do this in this bill when we don't have the big picture, when we don't have the detail, when that detail has not been provided to us whatsoever? And so the bottom line here is in my mind, show me the big picture.
▶ 6:53:07Show me the cost, show me the allocation over time, and show me the details. And I will work with you to figure out when and how to fund it, but not on a piecemeal basis, not without the big picture. So I support this amendment for those reasons, and I yield back. >> thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um.
▶ 6:53:40It is obvious that we have an administration doesn't think things through. We're currently involved in a war. We can't figure out why we got there in the first place. Can't figure out what it means to end it, can't figure out when it's going to end or what that means. So last thing we need to do is to give them additional money to do anything for which we don't have information. As to the how, what, when, where and why.
▶ 6:54:06I am a strong proponent of advocate for a nuclear defense fund. I am a strong proponent of making sure that my country is safe and that we monitor ourselves accordingly. And so I just don't think that this bill provides what we need in order to move forward. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady.
▶ 6:54:35The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from new jersey. All those in favor say aye. All opposed? Say no. No opinion. The chair the nos have it. And the amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from california, miss torres is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> I rise to offer an amendment and ask that the reading be dispensed with.
▶ 6:55:04>> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> thank you. Chairman. My amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds from being spent for an illegal war with iran without congressional authorization. And let me be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not jeopardize troop pay. It does not slash health care.
▶ 6:55:30It does not compromise our defense or readiness, intelligence sharing or critical counterterrorism operations. What this amendment does is restore constitutional order under article one, section eight, the power to declare war belongs to congress, not the executive branch.
▶ 6:55:55No president, regardless of party, has the right to drag our nation into another costly, open ended conflict without the clear consent of the american people through their elected representatives. We have been down this road before.
▶ 6:56:14The american people are tired of watching trillions of dollars vanish into endless foreign wars, iraq and vietnam, just to name a few. Billions, billions spent while our communities suffer budget cuts to health care, child care, food and housing, to name a few. And right now, working families are bearing the brutal economic brunt of this conflict.
▶ 6:56:42This war has already cost american households over 100 billion. Inflation hit a three year high of 4.2% in may. Gas prices over $4 a gallon in every single state, a 50% spike since this war began. Airfares up 27%.
▶ 6:57:08Working families are being forced to choose between putting food on the table, going to the doctor, or driving to work, and what are we getting in return? A terrible temporary mou chairman.
▶ 6:57:20I would also like to include, as part of my statement, an article from cbs news dated june 24th that talks about the incompetence of the secretary of war and the number of injuries that we have had while this war. We have been at war with iran, with iran.
▶ 6:57:48>> for the record, without objection. >> thank you. Chairman. Um, chief warrant officer rodney berman, I'm reading from this report. His body was riddled with shrapnel in the early hours of the war on march 1st, when an iranian drone slammed into his workstation in kuwait.
▶ 6:58:11His wife, however, was told that his injuries were not serious and that they were classified. In addition to that, master sergeant nicole amour, one of the six soldiers killed, would have survived her wounds had there been a doctor, a fixation or more than one ambulance at the post.
▶ 6:58:39The soldiers, according to witnesses, instead triaged themselves with makeshift bandages, braces and tourniquets. They. They took vehicles, civilian vehicles to drive the wounded to two local kuwaiti hospitals. Imagine the incompetence that our military. Our service members, injured while the.
▶ 6:59:07We declared war and now no one there to help them. Since signing the mou, iran has seized control of the strait of hormuz, gained sanctions relief, pocketed unfrozen assets, and immediately turned around and banned international nuclear inspectors. Importantly, this amendment will prohibit U.S. tax dollars from going to the government of iran for reconstruction of their regime.
▶ 6:59:38Congress needs to reassert its authority and stop letting the president's failed foreign policies drive up costs for our constituents. Colleagues, if you want U.S. taxpayer dollars to go toward prolonging this war and reconstructing the iranian regime, vote against this amendment.
▶ 6:59:55But if you want to support our constitution, our service members protect the hard working, taxpaying constituents that we serve, then I urge you to join me and support my amendment, and I yield back. >> thank. Gentlelady for amendment. Gentleman from california. Mr. calvert is recognized to address the amendment. I thank the chairman. Thank the gentlelady for the amendment. Uh.
▶ 7:00:19This amendment prohibits funding for united states military forces and hostilities against iran unless congress passes a declaration of war. That and for other reasons, I oppose this amendment and urge that we not allow it to pass. With that, I yield back. Thank. Gentleman. Gentlelady from minnesota, Mr. combs recognized. To address the amendment.
▶ 7:00:42>> I rise in support of this amendment, but I want to be clear I support our servicemen and women who are serving in the middle east. I had the privilege and the honor of attending a very sad event, and that was nichole's funeral. We've lost too many souls over there and many have been injured. But we also need to be clear about the cause of this war. There was no immediate security threat to the united states from iran that have required military action. Iran was not attempting a nuclear breakout.
▶ 7:01:11This is a war of choice started by president trump. He did not make even the case to the american people before starting it. He launched this war without congressional authorization. And given the damage across the region, the economic havoc unleashed by the war, clearly, the president failed to understand all the risks that were going to be involved. The president's war has direct cost to the american people, to increasing prices for necessities like groceries.
▶ 7:01:43It's affected housing prices, health care, utilities, gasoline, and so much more. And that's because the strait of hormuz was effectively closed for the last four months. This is a key waterway. It's an international waterway. And it's critical to the global energy supply. And to be clear, it was completely open prior to the war and is still not completely open yet from reports.
▶ 7:02:07Um, as negotiations continue to hopefully get to a peace negotiated settlement despite this fragile peace agreement, which is only focused on a cease fire. The strait, as I said, is not reliably open. The president's new agreement with iran is just a tenuous 60 day extension of an extending cease fire.
▶ 7:02:30The framework announced by the president does nothing to resolve the most critical issues of this conflict, such as the status of the iranian nuclear program, ballistic missile programs, frozen iranian financial assets, or imposed us sanctions.
▶ 7:02:46Nor does it ensure that israel will honor its cease fire with lebanon, which is part of keeping the whole peace, peace, cease fire agreement moving forward without resolutions to these issues, long term peace and stability in the region will remain out of reach. This war is a disaster, full stop. And that's why a few weeks ago, the house adopted a war powers resolution directing the president to end the war in the senate did the same thing just yesterday.
▶ 7:03:14Congress has told the president in a bipartisan fashion enough is enough. We have no obligation to provide funding to cover operational costs of a war we never were consulted on. It would also send a signal to future military campaigns, require congressional authorization before they can proceed. So let's support this amendment.
▶ 7:03:34Let's get the a co-equal branch of government actually happening between us and the administration by reminding the administration that support for future military campaigns requires our consent, and the president needs to give us a full disclosure on the negotiations and the. And when he plans on being able to say, this is finally over and how much it's going to cost until then, I yield back. >> thank you, gentlelady, for comments.
▶ 7:04:02Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Uh, gentlelady from connecticut, miss laura is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, which would prohibit additional use of military force in iran. After reviewing the terms of president trump's memorandum of understanding, I have one question. Why did we go to war?
▶ 7:04:29The administration claimed to have effectively destroyed iran's military, its navy, air force and key infrastructure are obliterated, apparently just like the nuclear program was obliterated by operation midnight hammer last year. Um, um, but in spite of all this supposed tactical success, none of the president's aims have been been achieved.
▶ 7:04:52I might just very quickly, uh, take from a statement, uh, which is an unclassified document, uh, statement of the commander of U.S. central command, centcom, uh, before the, uh, defense appropriations committee.
▶ 7:05:08This is operation epic for 38 days, major combat operations, uh, delivered long term rollback of iran's ability to project power in the region beyond, uh, more than 10,200 sorties, over 35, 13,500 strikes. We targeted the full breadth of the regime's ability to project power.
▶ 7:05:26We damaged or destroyed over 85% of iran's ballistic missiles, drone and naval defense industrial base 1450 strikes on weapons manufacturing facilities set the regime's ability to build and stockpile ballistic missiles and long range drones. Backed by years. The factories and technical workforce have produced iran's ballistic missiles. Long range attack drones and naval platforms have been degraded to the point that iran cannot place its long lost capabilities.
▶ 7:05:53In the near term, we destroyed or buried much of iran's ballistic missiles to talk about air domain, iran's air and defense, um, air and air defense forces functionally and operationally irrelevant. Uh, at sea, we destroyed 161 vessels, total access across 16 classes of warships. Et cetera. Um, it goes on.
▶ 7:06:19So in short, in 38 days, we rolled back 40 years of iranian military investment. Um, uh, we seem to have, we're talking about everything that was accomplished, everything that was done that we, you know, it's, uh, we, we did it, we, we did it all. Uh, but in spite of the tactical success, none of the president's aims have been achieved.
▶ 7:06:48The authoritarian iranian regime is still in power. They retain their stores of enriched uranium and a significant arsenal of ballistic missiles, along with their regional proxy militias. The initial mou committed iran to nothing but reopening the strait of hormuz, which was open before the war began. Meanwhile, the iranian government receives the ability to resume selling its oil. Before the war, the strait was opened. Ships went through freely.
▶ 7:07:14Now there's a possibility that iran will be able to charge tolls for passage through the strait. Um, if the president is able to convince our gulf allies, iran could receive access to reconstruction fund worth nearly $300 billion, we will unfreeze a frozen assets to the tune of about $100 billion. Um, and finally, it will allow the lifting of nearly all us economic sanctions.
▶ 7:07:36And president trump even made said in an off hand remark that iran may be able to keep its ballistic missile program, which I just read from this report would seem to have been, um, pretty much demolished in may, may not be there. We're going to keep it. And that ensures that it's able to continue threatening our middle east allies.
▶ 7:07:57Let me emphasize that president trump said it would be okay if iran kept its missiles, the missiles that it used to attack american bases and to attack israel. So why did we go to war, a war that killed 13 americans and an untold amount of iranian civilians. And the cost the american people tens of billions of dollars in higher fuel grocery prices during a cost of living crisis.
▶ 7:08:25If we were simply going to walk away and let iran keep conducting business as usual, the american military has incredible power, and wielding that power is an awesome responsibility. President trump has failed to wield that power with any responsibility. All of the tactical success in the world cannot make up for his fundamental strategic errors.
▶ 7:08:53It is one part of a larger pattern. The president tore up the joint comprehensive plan of action. The jcpoa, which subjected iran to the strictest nuclear inspection regime in history and successfully kept it from enriching uranium for years because he thought he could do better. He failed. And the american people, our middle east allies and our nation's credibility will pay the price. The senate has now passed the same bipartisan war powers resolution that the house passed a few weeks ago.
▶ 7:09:23The president's strategic failure cannot be ignored, and even republicans are now agreeing this all must end. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. >> thank you, gentle lady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you. Chairman. The constitution is not optional. It is clear only congress has the authority to declare war.
▶ 7:09:56Yet here we are again watching the executive branch bypass the people's house at a time when families across america and in my home district are struggling to afford basic housing, health care and groceries. And with electricity bills projected to climb another 10% this summer, we cannot keep writing blank checks.
▶ 7:10:19This administration is pouring hard earned taxpayer dollars into an escalating conflict abroad, with no clear strategy, no plan for victory and zero accountability. Our troops deserve better. Working class americans deserve better.
▶ 7:10:39This war must end on terms that make americans safer, stabilize the middle east, and prevent iran from threatening our allies, our troops, and the global economy. When drafting this amendment, I look back at how congress finally brought the vietnam war to a close in the 1970s. It did not happen because a presidential decree.
▶ 7:11:04It happened because this very committee used its power of the purse to write a funding ban into a spending bill. Congress used its constitutional authority to end an endless war. Then we have the exact same opportunity and the exact same responsibility to do that. Today, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady.
▶ 7:11:32The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. No. The chair the nos have it. Roll call. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. No. Mr. aguilar, Mr. aguilar. Aye. Mr. alford. Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei. Mr. amodei. No. Mrs. bice. Mrs. bice. No. Mr.
▶ 7:12:03Bishop. Mr. bishop. Aye. Mr. calvert. No. Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. No. Mr. case. Mr. case I Mr. cisco. Mr. cisco. No. Mr. klein, Mr. klein. No. Mr. cloud, Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn I. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, miss. Dean, miss dean, I miss. Delauro, I Mr.
▶ 7:12:29I, Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart. No. Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards. No. Mr. ellzey. Mr. ellzey. No. Miss. Escobar, miss. Escobar, I. Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleishman, Mr. fleishman. No. Miss. Frankel. Miss. Frankel, miss. Frankel, I. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. I. Doctor.
▶ 7:13:01Harris. Doctor. Harris. No. Mrs. hinson. Mrs. henson. No. Mr. hoyer, Mr. hoyer I Mr. iv, Mr. iv, I Mr. joyce, miss kaptur, I miss kaptur, I Mr. lalota. Miss lee. Miss lee I miss. Letlow. Mr. levin. Mr. levin, I miss. Molloy, miss. Molloy. No. Miss mccollum.
▶ 7:13:29I miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming, I Mr. molinari, Mr. mulliner. No. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli, I. Mr. mervyn, Mr. mervyn I. Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse. No. Miss. Perez, miss. Perez, I miss. Pingree, miss pingree, I. Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley I. Mr.
▶ 7:13:57Guy reschenthaler. Mr. reschenthaler. No. Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford, Mr. rutherford. No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson, Mr. simpson. No. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres, Mrs. torres, I miss. Underwood, miss underwood, I. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson.
▶ 7:14:28Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink. No. >> are there any members wishing to vote or change their votes? Seeing none, clerk will tell. Gentleman from texas is not recorded. >> Mr. cuellar, I. >> seeing no other members. Clerk tally.
▶ 7:15:25On this vote. The eyes of 27. The nos are 31. The amendment is not adopted. The gentleman from california, Mr. levin, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> Mr. chairman. Amendment at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent that the reading of this amendment be dispensed with. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 7:15:50When the federal government commits hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money, the people have a right to know how that decision was made. That's the reason the government accountability office exists, and it's why this committee, under chairs of both parties, has asked gao countless times to review how dollars are spent. This amendment applies that principle to one transaction a single loan to a company named vulcan elements.
▶ 7:16:19And I want to explain why this particular loan, more than any other loan, the office of strategic capital or osc, has made, deserves a closer look. Let me start by saying I strongly support the mission of osc. Reducing our dependance on china for rare earth minerals is a genuine national security priority, and I expect there's no disagreement in this room about that. That's exactly why I want this program to be beyond reproach.
▶ 7:16:44If we believe in it, we should want its decisions to be clean, competitive and defensible, able to withstand scrutiny rather than avoid it. So let me walk through what makes this particular loan an outlier. First is the size. It's $620 million. It's one of the single largest loans in the history of osc, and a commitment of that scale warrants careful review. Then the speed, how it came about.
▶ 7:17:12Loans like this are normally the product of many months of diligence, but this one was finalized in a matter of weeks. And according to public reporting, career staff at osc were told this deal was a priority by peter navarro. You probably know who he is a senior white house adviser, and the deal did not go through osc's normal review process. I believe that alone is reason enough for gao to look into it and consider the company itself.
▶ 7:17:42Vulcan elements. It was founded in 2023, and at the time of this loan, it had only a small fraction of the production capacity the money was meant to build. This wasn't an established producer with a long track record, as is usually the case was a two year old startup receiving the largest loan or among the largest loans that this office had ever issued. Then look at the timing of the private investment.
▶ 7:18:09Just months before the pentagon announced this loan, a venture firm connected to the president's family took a stake in the company. The proximity of that investment to a huge federal loan pushed by a white house adviser, peter navarro, is precisely the kind of sequence oversight is meant to examine and consider the result.
▶ 7:18:33After the loan was announced, the company's reported valuation jumped roughly ten fold, from about $200 million to around $2 billion from a single federal lending decision. The public and all of our constituents have a clear and legitimate interest in knowing that decision was made on the merits. I want to be careful and fair here. Not one of these facts standing alone proves anything improper.
▶ 7:19:00It's entirely possible that vulcan was the strongest applicant and that every rule was followed. If that's the case, the review this amendment calls for will confirm it, and the program will be stronger for having been tested. But the only way to know is to look and taken together, one of the largest loans in the program's history, finalized in weeks rather than months. Pushed by a white house advisor to a two year old startup shortly after a politically connected investment, followed by a tenfold valuation increase.
▶ 7:19:32This is not an ordinary transaction by any measure, so let me be clear about what this amendment does and does not do. It is report language that directs gao to examine how this loan was pursued and finalized, and to assess whether the office's procedures for preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring open competitive access were followed. It doesn't accuse anybody of a crime. It doesn't cut a dollar, it doesn't block the loan. It doesn't slow the program.
▶ 7:19:59It simply asks a nonpartisan, independent agency to verify that this transaction was handled the way the program's own standards require. I believe this is the easiest vote in the world to explain to the people we serve, because every one of them already knows that the biggest and fastest deals are exactly the ones that deserve a second set of eyes.
▶ 7:20:19One last thing I would respectfully remind my colleagues if the names were reversed, if it was a biden or obama adviser instead connected to a biden or obama family investment, I'm confident that many of you would call for a gao review. In fact, that would be a modest request, I think, compared to what you might call for. So I encourage an I vote and I yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen, for the amendment. Gentleman from california, Mr.
▶ 7:20:47Galvin, is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank the chairman. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. This amendment directs an investigation to the office of strategic capital to assess whether conflicts of interest drive decisions on financing. The office of strategic capital is a transformative tool, and without them, we would not be able to strengthen our national industrial base.
▶ 7:21:07I believe that doing a good job and was happy to help create the national strategic capital account, and I oppose this amendment. Yield back. >> thank you. Gentlemen. The gentlelady from minnesota, Mr. combs, recognized to address the amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The ethical questions surrounding this administration are growing by the day. The president and his family have benefited from cryptocurrency deals.
▶ 7:21:37Reports of donations for pardons continue to swirl. The amount of outside influence from campaign donors is unparalleled. And with respect to the department, I'm concerned of their increasing reliance on sole source contracts. Other transactional authorities often referred to as otas, these are used to augment existing contracts outside of the competitive bidding process.
▶ 7:22:00At the end of may, the department had issued over $6 billion in contracts using other otas. No bids, no competition. Now we need sunlight on a whole lot of these issues going on with this administration that the dod and this loan from the office of strategic capital, which I support, and I want to make sure stays healthy and strong into the future, however, was processed with an extraordinary amount of speed and clear ties
▶ 7:22:31To the president's family. We need to conduct the proper oversight here, and this amendment does that. And as I said, I support the office of strategic capital, and I want to see it healthy and strong. So I think sunlight on this transaction would do exactly that. I urge urge its adoption, and I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady for comments. Gentlelady from nevada, miss lee is recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman, I.
▶ 7:23:03>> thank you to my good friend from nevada, my colleague the chairman just said what a transformative tool the office of strategic capital is, how we couldn't have strengthened our industrial base without it. How glad he was to help create it. And you know what? I agree with every word of that, Mr. chairman, I do. I'm not here to attack the tool at all. I'm here because I believe in it. I want it to be transparent. I wanted to succeed. I want everything to be on the level.
▶ 7:23:32And I note that the chairman defended the program and praised the mission and said how proud he is of the office. But what I did not hear is one single substantive reason to oppose the amendment. Uh, not anything, because I don't think there is one. The amendment doesn't touch this program at all. It doesn't cut it. It doesn't slow it. It doesn't block a single loan. It doesn't claw back a single dollar.
▶ 7:23:57It just directs gao, the nonpartisan watchdog, the auditors who work for all of us to look at one transaction, this one transaction, and to tell us whether the rules were followed. That's the whole amendment. If you love this program, you should be the first to want it protected from any cloud of doubt. The strongest protection of a program is ensuring that it operates cleanly.
▶ 7:24:23So again, I tried for this to be as narrow and as fact based as possible, asking only for information and giving the institution, giving our institution exactly what our institution should want, which is clarity on how the people's money is being spent.
▶ 7:24:47There's nothing to fear here unless you fear the facts of what gao might might find with an investigation. And I'll yield back to my good friend from nevada. >> thank you, and I yield. >> back. Gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentlelady from ohio is recognized. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise in strong support of the levin amendment on behalf of the taxpayers of the united states.
▶ 7:25:17Obviously, these monies come from, uh, tax payments to the government of the united states. And I've been reading several articles that referenced self-dealing by the trump family in many of these business relationships, where they kind of, uh, involve themselves in government, uh, funds and private interests. The american people deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
▶ 7:25:39So, um, the, when hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers are being directed through federal loan authorities, congress has a responsibility to ensure transparency, accountability and fairness. This amendment does not cancel the program.
▶ 7:25:57It simply directs the gao to review how conditional loans were pursued, finalized, and awarded through the office of strategic capital to ensure no waste, fraud or abuse. This is a big loan. I don't think in my whole career, any company in my district got this kind of loan other than when we bailed out the automotive industry. Uh, and that was done with total transparency.
▶ 7:26:23Um, the amendment asked gao to examine the $620 million loan for vulcan elements and assess whether proper safeguards were in place to identify potential conflicts of interest when there so clearly seem to be those associated with this, the trump family has seemingly found endless opportunities to enrich itself through access to power to a level never seen before in our country.
▶ 7:26:51We cannot turn a blind eye to such blatant nepotism and outright corruption. Strategic capital is an important tool for strengthening the defense industrial base, but it should be used responsibly. Um, I would say that the taxpayers from my region of the country and yours to trust the government to institute fair processes, sound oversight and protection against favoritism.
▶ 7:27:18I urge my colleagues to support the levin amendment and ensure that gao provides the oversight necessary to protect taxpayers and preserve confidence in this important defense financing program. Thank you, and I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady for comments. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close. >> Mr.
▶ 7:27:49>> this should not be controversial at all. We are simply asking gao to look to send the nonpartisan auditors who work for all of us, to examine one transaction and to report back. That's the whole of it. And if it's too much to ask, then I think we have to ask ourselves what oversight in this committee means anymore. So I'll ask it plainly when will enough be enough?
▶ 7:28:12One of the largest loans in this office's history, finalized in weeks instead of months, to a company less than two years old, pushed by a white house advisor tied to a firm the president's own family had just bought into, followed by a valuation that jumped ten fold overnight. If that's not enough to merit a simple, nonpartisan look at the facts, then I have to ask my colleagues, when will you admit what is so patently obvious to the rest of us? This amendment accuses no one. It cuts nothing.
▶ 7:28:43It blocks nothing. We're asking one question of gao if and if the deal was clean. We all win. This program comes out stronger. The only thing a no vote protects is silence. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. All those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all opposed? Say no. No opinion. The chair the nos have it.
▶ 7:29:13Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support is demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. No. Mr. aguilar, Mr. aguilar, I Mr. alford, Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei, Mr. amodei. No. Mrs. bice. Mrs. bice. No. Mr. bishop. Mr. bishop, I. Mr. calvert. No. Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. No. Mr. case. Mr. case I Mr. cisco. Mr. cisco. No.
▶ 7:29:44Mr. klein, Mr. klein. No. Mr. cloud. Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn, I. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, miss. Dean. Mr. laura. Mr. laura I. Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. edwards, Mr. lee, Mr. lee. No. Miss. Escobar, miss. Escobar, I. Mr. espaillat, Mr.
▶ 7:30:15Fleischmann, Mr. fleischmann. No. Miss. Frankel, miss. Frankel, I. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest. Mr. guest. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter. I. Doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. No. Mrs. henson. Mr. hoyer. Mr. hoyer, I Mr. iv, Mr. iv. I Mr. joyce. Mr. joyce. No.
▶ 7:30:43Miss kaptur, I miss kaptur, I Mr. nick lalota. Mr. nick lalota. No. Miss lee, miss lee, I miss. Letlow. Mr. levin, Mr. levin, I miss molloy, miss molloy no, miss mccollum, I miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming, I Mr. molinari, Mr. molenaar. No. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli I. Mr. van. Mr. van I, Mr. newhouse, Mr.
▶ 7:31:12Newhouse, I miss perez, miss perez, I miss. Pingree, miss pingree, I Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley I. Mr. guy reschenthaler. Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford. Mr. rutherford. No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres. Mrs.
▶ 7:31:41Torres, I miss. Underwood, miss underwood, I. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson. Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink. No. >> are there any members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from pennsylvania. >> miss dean, a. >> gentleman from florida. >> Mr. diaz-balart. >> no.
▶ 7:32:11Gentleman from north carolina. >> Mr. edwards? No. >> gentleman from pennsylvania. >> Mr. taylor? >> no gentleman from texas. >> Mr. cloud, no. >> gentleman from idaho. >> Mr. simpson? No. >> are there others wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
▶ 7:33:09On this vote. The yeas are 27. The nos are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Our gentlelady from texas, miss escobar, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her >> amendment. Thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 7:33:35I rise to offer an amendment that directs the department of defense to assess the readiness impacts associated with the use of military installations to support immigration, detention or processing.
▶ 7:33:48When we were here two weeks ago debating the dhs appropriations bill, I shared with all of you the incredible deficiencies and serious concerns that exist at camp east montana, which is the world's largest detention facility for immigrants. It's in my district.
▶ 7:34:16It's at the fort bliss military installation. And I shared with you all the g report that had been released. Uh, really the day before our committee markup that explicitly outlined many of those deficiencies. And I asked that we prohibit the use of military installations for immigration detention. I shared with you all that.
▶ 7:34:46I expressed those same concerns and objections under the prior administration. In fact, I had many press conferences in front of fort bliss during the biden administration, calling on the biden administration to stop using fort bliss for hhs facilities for unaccompanied minors.
▶ 7:35:09I worked with the administration to, um, seek to expand shelter space for unaccompanied minors so that we could get those kids off of the installation and allow the installation to focus on its mission. And I'm not asking in this amendment that we prohibit the use of military installations for immigration detention. I made that pitch.
▶ 7:35:37I made my arguments, and I lost in this committee. But here's what I am asking for instead. And I, I do hope we can get this amendment passed, and I hope you will support it.
▶ 7:35:51This amendment essentially is asking the department to provide congress with a comprehensive assessment of the costs, resource requirements and readiness implications associated with having facilities like this on the installation. I think we have a right to know.
▶ 7:36:12I think we have an obligation to know as members of congress, and then together, we can chart a path forward with potentially some guardrails around this. I want you to know this amendment. I hope you've all heard the the pride that is in my voice and in my actions when I speak about fort bliss and our military installation.
▶ 7:36:37I'm proud of the way my community has supported and uplifted our military installation. We've we've taxed ourselves as a community to build roads and schools to support our military installation. We offer specific workforce programs for spouses of our military personnel. We pride ourselves on welcoming and creating a community where veterans can retire.
▶ 7:37:07So my motivation comes from a place of wanting to ensure our military installations focus on their mission, and that we hold administrations accountable. Democratic administrations and republican administrations on the use of our military installations. So this this report will give us some, I think, very useful information.
▶ 7:37:36And when we get the report, if if I have your support, then let's talk about next steps. What could or should it look like when our installations are utilized by an administration for purposes other than the national defense? With that, Mr. chairman, I yield back. I ask for everyone's support. >> thank the gentlelady for amendment. The gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, is recognized to address the amendment. >> I thank the chairman.
▶ 7:38:04Uh, and understand, uh, understand this amendment and its impact. Uh, this amendment is to include report language that raises concerns about military installations being used for ice detention facilities. I understand the gentlelady's concerns on using a military facility. However, current policy already permits other federal agencies to use vacant facilities on military bases.
▶ 7:38:29Current policy already looks at readiness parameters addressed in this report language, and it's in my opinion, it's redundant. So for those reasons and others, I oppose this amendment. >> thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from minnesota. Mr. collins recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chair. I rise in support of this amendment. I realize that several administrations have utilized military installations in areas to detain individuals.
▶ 7:38:54However, when this is done, it should be done in a standard to ensure that any person on the base feels safe. Both military and detained personnel. Ice officials should provide the proper equipment to ensure that there's a delineation between where ice will operate and where it's separated from the well, where the military personnel are going to be operating. For example, they should install perimeter cameras to ensure that there aren't any blind spots. I should also have control of all the firearms.
▶ 7:39:23And in one instance, security guards lost a loaded firearm on camp east montana facilities. That's not how a federal facility should be maintained. Military personnel cannot perform their duties or train effectively if they're concerned about just anyone walking around with a loaded firearm. Our military personnel need to be focused on preparing for near-peer conflicts and not worrying about whether ice counterparts are doing their job effectively.
▶ 7:39:54I hear what the chairman saying. And yes, bases are sometimes used as other for for other, um, for other purposes and other uses. But I think it's time to refresh. And we look at how it's being used in the way that these detention facilities are housing at times. Uh, you know, hundreds of people, uh, they're being run by private contractors that, uh, we need to be doing audits and oversight on to make sure that they're following all the rules.
▶ 7:40:22So for that, for this instance alone, I think it's a good idea for us to do report language, maybe even more expansive than what miss escobar is asking for, and just review the whole situation on how they're being used. For that reason, I support this amendment, and I would hope that we could do the same into the future. Thank you. >> thank you. Gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, Mr.
▶ 7:40:51Chairman, and I appreciate the ranking member bringing up a very alarming example of what has happened on our military installation. While ice, uh, essentially has a private contractor operating a 5000 bed facility on the military installation camp, east montana has seen all sorts
▶ 7:41:22Of security breaches, one of them being a lost, loaded gun that has never been recovered, another being three detainees who have escaped. This is on our military installation. There are other issues around tb outbreaks, measles outbreaks.
▶ 7:41:44That is a dhs function, and we should allow dhs to do its job, and we should preserve our military's ability to do their job and to be ready. This is just a report. I think we should know whether all of these activities have impacted military readiness. I know, I want to know. I'd appreciate your support. Thank you. I yield back, gentlelady.
▶ 7:42:12>> the question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. All those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. Oh, in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it roll call is requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. No. Mr. aguilar, Mr. aguilar. Aye. Mr. alford. Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei. Mr. amodei. No. Mrs. bice. Mrs. bice. No. Mr.
▶ 7:42:42Bishop. Mr. bishop, I. Mr. calvert, Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. >> judge. >> Mr. case. Mr. cisco. Mr. cisco. No. Mr. klein. Mr. klein. No. Mr. cloud. Mr. cloud. No. Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn. Aye. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, miss.
▶ 7:43:09Dean, miss dean, I miss delauro, I Mr. I, Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards. No. Mr. lee. Mr. lee. No. Miss. Escobar, miss. Escobar, I. Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleishman, Mr. fleishman. No. Miss. Frankel, miss. Frankel, I. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr.
▶ 7:43:41Harter, Mr. harter. I. Doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. No. Mrs. henson, Mrs. henson. No. Mr. >> hoyer. I Mr. >> hoyer I Mr. iv, Mr. iv, I Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce. No. Miss kaptur marcy kaptur I Mr. nick lalota. Miss lee, miss lee I miss. Letlow. Mr. levin, Mr. levin, I miss. Molloy, miss molloy. No. Miss. Mccollum.
▶ 7:44:13>> yes. >> I like it. >> miss mccollum. I miss ming, miss ming, I Mr. molinari, Mr. mulliner. No. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli, I. Mr. van, Mr. mervyn I, Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse. No. Miss. Perez, miss perez, I miss. Pingree, miss pingree, I. Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley I. Mr. guy reschenthaler. Mr. guy reschenthaler. No. Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford.
▶ 7:44:45No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson, Mr. simpson. No. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres, I miss. Underwood, miss underwood, I. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson. Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr. womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink. No. >> are there any members wishing to vote or change or vote? Gentleman from texas.
▶ 7:45:17>> Mr. carter? No. >> gentleman from new york. >> Mr. lalota, no. >> gentleman from florida. >> Mr. diaz-balart? No. >> are there others wishing to change their vote or. Gentleman? Okay. Thank you. Mr. gentlelady from florida. >> miss wasserman schultz, I. >> are there any others wishing to vote or change their vote? Without. The clerk will tally.
▶ 7:46:01Bastard! Only you have done it. You shut everybody. John joyce somebody involved. >> hey. >> I did, I actually worked out something. On this vote. The ayes are 25. The nos are 34. The amendment is not adopted, right? >> oh my god. >> every gentlelady from texas, miss escobar, is recognized for an amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 7:46:28I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed. >> without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I rise to offer an amendment to ensure that the department of defense's worldwide expeditionary expeditionary multiple award contract, or mac, is reserved for military missions for which it was created last week.
▶ 7:46:58Or I'm sorry, not last week. Two weeks ago, uh, going back to the dhs markup that we had two weeks ago, when I again talked about this gao report about camp east montana, the largest immigration detention facility in the world, which is in my district, $1.3 billion of american taxpayer dollars.
▶ 7:47:23The gao report exposed a number of deficiencies. Uh, the failure for the of the private contractor to meet federal standards.
▶ 7:47:35And one of my amendments, which I'm very grateful, was adopted by this committee and made it into the bill, was about pursuing instructing ice to pursue the tens of millions of dollars that were wasted by the private contractor, just to refresh everyone's memory, the private contractor was charging the american government for three meals a day, every single day,
▶ 7:48:07At a 5000 bed facility when there wasn't a single detainee held inside the facility, tens of millions of dollars of waste. Well, part of the problem identified in the gao report was the use of wex mac.
▶ 7:48:24This military procurement tool is intended for rapid deployment, uh, for really essentially, it's a it's an important tool for the united states military. Dhs has their own procurement tool.
▶ 7:48:45Dhs should be using their procurement tool, that procurement tool that dhs normally uses, analyzes experience, analyzes cost, takes a whole host of things into consideration before awarding something like a $1.3 billion bid.
▶ 7:49:09But because wex mac was used, it, it defers to a low bid, the lowest bidder, and in this case, the lowest bidder, which was $1.3 billion, the lowest bidder had zero experience in immigration detention.
▶ 7:49:31Can you imagine that the federal government used a dod contracting tool to award a low bid, which 1.3 billion isn't really a low bid, if you ask me, but we used a dod procurement tool that should be reserved for for the military.
▶ 7:49:58So I'm asking that we prohibit the use of this tool for purposes, purposes that are outside of military purposes. Dhs has purchased warehouses in my district three warehouses, and I recently asked ice will, will these warehouses that are going to be used for immigration detention, how are you going to contract that?
▶ 7:50:27I'm assuming you're going to use a private contractor. The answer was yes. How are you going to find the contractor for this for these warehouses? We keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. These are costly mistakes. And we're using a tool that wasn't intended for this purpose. Let's use wet smack.
▶ 7:50:56But let's allow this tool to be retained by the dod for dod purposes. I ask for your support. I yield back. >> thank you, lady for amendment. The gentleman from california, Mr. calvert, recognized to address the amendment. >> thank you. Chairman.
▶ 7:51:15Uh, as been explained, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for the worldwide expeditionary multiple, uh, award contract or otherwise known as west mac for civil immigration purposes. The department continues to support various federal agencies with contracting vehicles, such as this one prohibition of this contracting vehicle is premature in my mind, and could limit the department's ability to manage these activities effectively.
▶ 7:51:44For that reason and others, I oppose this amendment. >> I thank the gentleman gentlelady from minnesota. Miss mccollum is recognized to address the amendment. >> Mr. chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The department of defense should not be providing any funds to cover the department of homeland security costs for the um, internment of immigrants. Excuse me. Migrants.
▶ 7:52:08Even when prior administrations have utilized the military installations for housing migrants, um, the department of defense did not pay for any portion of these activities.
▶ 7:52:20So in recent gao studies, they found several mistakes at both the department of the army and ice officials made in using and executing these activities on fort bliss, for example, the army did not incorporate enough flexibility into the contract to account for the occupancy level below the maximum. And that's the result. Millions of dollars of waste. Now, is the army at fault? Then?
▶ 7:52:47Does the department of defense then pay for the mistake? Was the department of homeland security, were they there when the inputs were going on? Seeing how this usually works, I have a lot of questions. Uh, in 2025, the army paid the full cost for meals and services for two weeks when there were no detainees. Noncitizens in the facility. Now, was that the department of defense's fault?
▶ 7:53:11They shouldn't be in charge of doing, um, these kinds of inputs for these kinds of contracts when that's not their role. It should have been the department of homeland security doing that. Uh, even if they're using a defense system, they should be using it themselves. The department of homeland security, with the approval of the department of defense, not, not the other way around. Ice has provided funding for these activities in the last year.
▶ 7:53:39Um, when the department of defense mission is not to do law enforcement. Um, so in the reconciliation bill, there was so much funding, uh, in there for ice that they should, they had plenty of money to cover these costs themselves. The department of defense shouldn't have been picking it up. So the gao did report that the army is no longer funding any of these activities.
▶ 7:54:03But I believe that we need to be a little more aggressive on our oversight functions to ensure that this issue doesn't happen again. And one of the reasons why, Mr. chairman, I know you want you want to see audits happening as much as I do. But in the department of defense, it's only the marine corps that's doing an audit. So without audits, we don't see these things when they come up.
▶ 7:54:24And so by having this report, gao might give us some guides to use not only for this system that was used by homeland security, but some guidelines and protocols to be used for other systems that the department of defense rightly uses for other agencies. But to make sure the department of defense isn't being overcharged or that, um, we overcharge another agency that's using these systems.
▶ 7:54:50And for those reasons alone, I support this amendment, and I would ask the members to think about doing the same thing, but let's get some audits. Go marines, but we need them for the other branches as well. With that, before I yield back to the chairman of the committee and to the ranking member having this, my this is the last bill. I'm up on the dais. I just want to thank you both for being as ken and I'd like to say, just disagree without being disagreeable.
▶ 7:55:18You have made these markups remarkably, um, functional, and for that, I think I expressed for a lot of people here our gratitude and our great thanks. And ken, we'll see you on the floor, I yield back. >> thank you. Gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close. >> thank you, Mr. chairman.
▶ 7:55:45I want to reiterate military contracting authorities and vehicles are developed to meet unique national defense requirements. And as we see conflicts across the globe, we should want our military to be focused on those conflicts. We should want the tools we provide to our military to be used for those conflicts.
▶ 7:56:10When we use those tools for missions outside their intended purposes, we risk creating acquisition failures, wasting taxpayer dollars, degrading congressional oversight, and diverting attention away from the military missions that those tools were designed to support.
▶ 7:56:31Having a gao report lay out very plainly major problems that congress should fix is an opportunity. Choosing not to fix those problems is a mistake. Let's not make that mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. chairman. I yield back. >> thank you, gentle lady.
▶ 7:57:00The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from texas. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. No opinion. The chair the nos have it roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. No. Mr. aguilar, Mr. alford, Mr. alford. No. Mr. amodei, Mrs. bice. >> yes.
▶ 7:57:31>> Mr. bishop, Mr. bishop, I, Mr. calvert, Mr. calvert. No. Mr. carter. Mr. case. Mr. cisco. Mr. cisco. No. Mr. klein, Mr. klein. No. Mr. cloud. Mr. cloud. No. Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn. I. Mr. clyde. Mr. clyde. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cole. No. Mr. cuellar, miss.
▶ 7:57:57Dean, miss dean, I miss. Delauro, I Mr. I, Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart. No. Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards. No. Mr. ellzey. Mr. ellzey. No. Miss. Escobar, miss. Escobar I Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleishman, Mr. fleishman. No. Miss. Frankel, Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin. No. Mr. guest, Mr. guest. No. Mr. carter. Mr. carter, I. Doctor. Harris.
▶ 7:58:29Doctor. Harris. No. Mrs. henson. Mrs. henson. No. Mr. hoyer, Mr. hoyer I Mr. iv, Mr. iv, I Mr. >> joyce I don't disagree, Mr. >> joyce no. Miss kaptur, miss kaptur I Mr. lalota. Mr. lalota. No. Miss lee, miss lee, I miss. Letlow. Mr. levin, Mr. levin, I miss molloy, miss molloy. No.
▶ 7:58:57Miss mccollum, I miss mccollum, I miss ming, miss ming, I Mr. molinari, Mr. molenaar. No. Mr. moore, Mr. moore. No. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli I. Mr. van. Mr. newhouse, Mr. newhouse. No. Miss. Perez, miss perez, I miss. Pingree, miss pingree, I. Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan, I Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley I. Mr. guy reschenthaler. Mr. guy reschenthaler. No. Mr. rogers.
▶ 7:59:28Mr. rogers. No. Mr. rutherford. Mr. rutherford. No. Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve. No. Mr. simpson. Mr. simpson. No. Mr. strong, Mr. strong. No. Mrs. torres. Mrs. torres, I miss underwood, Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao. No. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz, I. Mrs. watson. Coleman, Mrs. watson. Coleman. I. Mr. womack, Mr.
▶ 7:59:59Womack. No. Mr. zink, Mr. zink. No. >> are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from florida. >> miss frankel, a. >> gentleman from indiana. >> Mr. murvin, a. >> gentleman from california. >> Mr. aguilar, a. >> gentlelady from illinois. >> miss underwood, a. >> gentleman from nevada. >> Mr. amodei, no. >> gentlelady from oklahoma. >> Mrs. bice? No.
▶ 8:00:28>> are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. O gentleman from texas. >> Mr. carter. No. >> I'm sure.
▶ 8:01:16>> on this vote the yeas are 25. The nos are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Before the chair turns to Mr. rogers for the final motion, my good friend the ranking member asked for to be recognized to address the conference. Gentlelady is recognized. Thank you. The committee. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman.
▶ 8:01:37And as this is the last full committee session at 12 for 12, it's a damn good outcome here. So I offer my congratulations. And first, let me just say a thank you to all the members of the of the committee.
▶ 8:01:55Thank you for your, um, your tenacity and, uh, but your, you know, your commitment to what we do in this committee and, uh, uh, it's not just the long hours, but it's the thoughtfulness that goes into the issues that we are discussing and, uh, trying to come to grips on. These are all the very, very serious issues that face this nation.
▶ 8:02:17And, uh, because again, you've heard me say it before, I believe what happens when this committee, this is the heart and soul of the federal government. Um, without the agreement of the, of the appropriations committee, uh, house and senate, uh, democrats and republicans that the government shuts down and it collapses. And we've seen that before. And what we don't want to do that.
▶ 8:02:45And that's why the commitment to get bills passed and then try to get them over the finish line. And what I'd like to do is to, you know, say a big thank you to you, all of you. Uh, it's an honor to work with you again because I, you know, I, we share so much about what the role of this institution is and our part in the role of the institution. So, uh, thank you all.
▶ 8:03:11Highest regard for the, uh, people who serve here and the motivation that you have, uh, to, to serve and to serve your constituents, uh, to the staff. Uh, it goes without saying, none of this works unless you have, um, uh, people who have the granular knowledge of every single subcommittee and, uh, not only know the policy, but they understand the politics and they understand, uh,
▶ 8:03:42Operationally how we get from a to b, and we are blessed to have your, uh, knowledge, your commitment. You share the same commitment that all of us do to making the process work. And that is, um, uh, really, I've often said that we come, all of us come here who serve are elected with a set of principles, values of where we want to go and what we want to do.
▶ 8:04:08Um, but I believe equally, uh, the staff shares those same values, which is the reason why they work so damn hard. Uh, and the long hours that they put in and, uh, certainly not. Uh, I don't, this is not last on the list. I probably should have started here, but I wanted to say some things to the committee and to the staff, but I want to just say a, um, uh, we're almost done to share some thoughts and words about, uh, someone who is my dear friend in this process.
▶ 8:04:37And that is chairman tom cole. Um, uh, all of us here in the room know that, uh, the chairman and I don't agree on everything, and we can have some heated discussions. Um, uh, but that doesn't that doesn't get in the way of a friendship or the, the goal, our understanding of what the goal is. And, um, that's very, very reassuring.
▶ 8:05:02Um, I've only sat on the appropriations committee since I arrived all those years ago. No, it's not true. I was on t and I, and I was on oversight with henry waxman and so forth. And then when my, when my seniority, uh, when we lost the majority didn't carry me here. I served for a while on the armed services committee, but as soon as I could got back here. So it's, you know, certainly, um, almost, you know, probably almost 30 years.
▶ 8:05:31And so, uh, and I just wanted to, um, never quite thought that, you know, given the way the process works, that I would, um, wind up either as chair or ranking member because of, you know, the, there's a, there's also a, a way that this, this, this committee works and the way that events unfold that provides opportunities for all of us to be able to serve. So I feel blessed that I am in this position.
▶ 8:05:59And whether as chair, as ranking member, um, I will just say that the, uh, the, the relationship, the strength of the relationship of myself and tom cole, um, uh, is, uh, is a security about it so that you can disagree without feeling that you have to go back to square one to start to build a relationship over again. Uh, we each know, um, who was it?
▶ 8:06:26Tom, who said it's like an old married couple. We know where the lines are, we know where it is drawn. And you know that. You know where, how far you can go. That was so quickly determined over the last couple of years where, uh, I understood that the restrictions and the parameters that, that tom had in trying to get some things done. And, uh, he clearly understood what I needed to do because that's, that's the way the process works here.
▶ 8:06:56Uh, when you have to come to a conclusion, we function because of votes here. We know that, uh, we have to get enough votes to do what you need to do. Uh, it's, it's, it's mathematics in the, in the long run to get to get the number of votes and what the market could bear on either side. And understanding that quite honestly, honestly gives you such a perspective on what you can accomplish.
▶ 8:07:20You can't enter this, um, the negotiation without understanding where the boundaries are. Otherwise you're all over the lot. You don't know where you want to go and you figure you, you, you know it because the process is ever, it just spreads out.
▶ 8:07:41So if you know where you want to try to wind up, that gives you the, the purpose, the core value. Um, and that's, uh, we've had, I tell this, tell the story about when we had our breakfast, it was, um, trio and gear up and title one and nih about mutual concerns and burn bacon.
▶ 8:08:09Uh, so those are the, that was, you know, solidified a very strong relationship. But I think that there is a fundamental core value, which we share. Um, and it is foundational, uh, and the belief of the work of this committee of its importance of its role in the congress and of the congress. Uh, role.
▶ 8:08:31Um, uh, in, in government because there are three branches of government, but our role in the government, but our, our role, um, in, um, providing the opportunities that this great institution has, um, uh, for people, which is for me, um, the greatest strength of this institution.
▶ 8:08:58And I think, I think tom and I share this is the potential that it has for helping to make a difference in people's lives. Um, it doesn't always do what you want it to do. We all know that some days it's quite the opposite of where you want to try to go, but you always work. And I know that tom does, and I try to push the edge of that envelope so that you try to make it work for the people that, uh, really put their faith in trust in what you do. They give you this honor.
▶ 8:09:27Only 11,000 of us have served in this position, and it comes with great, um, comes. With a great mission. Um, that, that, that we all have and we have a shared faith. Tom and I, in the wisdom of article one, so stated on the plaque, uh, it makes the work of the committee possible.
▶ 8:09:50Um, and so in so many ways, um, we, we passed 11 of the 12 the last time. Uh, we'll see what happens on, on the floor. Uh, but I always, when the press says you're going to shut the government down, my response to that is, no, we're going to do what we need to do to get it done.
▶ 8:10:12And I know that tom cole, uh, not only shares that value in that view, but, uh, helps to make it a reality. Uh, so that, um, uh, in many respects, while we have the other parts of the government to try to deal with the other branches, we need to be very concerned and vigilant about how, uh, we may be preserve. Uh, what is the constitutional authority that we have?
▶ 8:10:42So I particularly want to just say, I said thank you to all of you and thank the staff, but particularly say a thank you to my colleague to, uh, to tom cole. And it's, um, it's a professional relationship. It's a personal relationship and it's friendship. So thank you very, very much. Um, and, uh, the diligence and the commitment of everyone here makes this process work. We've done our job.
▶ 8:11:08Um, and we'll see what happens with when, when we get to the floor on a number of these issues. But we, uh, we executed, uh, I think with, with great, um, success where we need to go for the future. So thank you very much, nicole, and thank all of you and thank the staff. >> as well. Such a fulsome set of remarks demand a little response.
▶ 8:11:37And, but, um, as I hope everybody on this committee knows, number one, uh, rosa is my friend. Uh, we are very close friends. And, uh, as she said, we don't always agree, but we usually find a way to get to a deal. Uh, and this is not the end of this process. Quite. This is an important inflection point in the process. But we're going to be negotiating and things are going to change. There's nothing on any of these bills that are written in stone.
▶ 8:12:06They didn't come down from mount sinai. They're going to change when we engage with the senate and they're going to engage. Uh, when we come to what I hope was genuinely a bipartisan deal across the board. So, uh, I agree very much with my friend and my counterpart. Uh, that, uh, last thing I want is a government shutdown. I think that's the last thing any of us should want.
▶ 8:12:28Uh, and the thing I want the most is a bipartisan deal that all of us can be proud of and feel like we all achieved some of the things we think are important, uh, in the country. I think right now the senate, for a variety of reasons, is having a more difficult time than us. You know, we can't get too far without our friends, uh, on the other side of the rotunda. So we're going to have to wait and see how that all shakes out. Uh, I don't know what will happen in the elections.
▶ 8:12:55I will tell you, I'm chairing republicans for rosa, whether she's running for chairman or ranking member. Uh, that's probably the way I could hurt you the most. But, uh, uh, I just, I genuinely appreciate the friendship and the relationship, the manner in which you lead and, uh, the way in which you work across the aisle. And I've never, ever seen rosa delauro break her word or do something that you would think was unfair or untoward. She's tough.
▶ 8:13:23As I said in an article once, she knows how to throw a punch, but she never punches below the belt. Uh, and, uh, she is a very tough competitor, but again, wants to get to the right places within the parameters of the possible. Uh, so that's what we're going to try and do. I will tell you briefly, we started some discussions with my, uh, cardinals and members, uh, mostly cardinals at this point, but we're going to talk next week.
▶ 8:13:52We're not going to be like idle between now and september 30th. I think we're probably going to have some subcommittee meetings where we look, particularly at some of the problems that we don't normally get to, uh, that, you know, you would like to get to, but the pace of events keeps it. We've got the luxury of a little bit of time here. We may and I, we haven't made a decision.
▶ 8:14:12I wouldn't make this decision without talking, uh, to my friend, the ranking member, but we may even do 2 or 3 full committee meetings if we can find something we you know, it's not contentious, but we're working in common on something we think might make some sense. I've got some ideas I want to run by, uh, rosa. She may have some ideas. She wants to run by me, but I don't want us just being fallow for this amount of time.
▶ 8:14:38I think there's some things that we can do here, and hopefully, some things we can find that we can do together, and topics that members on both sides want to explore, that we can explore together and sort of educate ourselves. Uh, frankly, even looking ahead to some of the things that in 28, whoever's running this place might want to do, I think those things would be worth talking. But again, we would have that conversation with the ranking member and her team before we did anything.
▶ 8:15:06So I want to join rosa in thanking all of you. Uh, these are very long days. These are sometimes very contentious issues. I'm very proud of the committee on both sides of the aisle for the manner in which it's operated and the civility which you've treated one another. And, uh, you know, it's an interesting, uh, process to watch.
▶ 8:15:29And there's certainly a certain amount of tension and a certain amount of, of, uh, you know, throwing punches back and forth, but nothing's gotten out of hand here. Uh, and everything I think has been fair and appropriate. And I don't have any problems at all with my friends have raised, uh, you know, on the other side of the aisle or what my colleagues have, uh, thought was important on this side. This is an important place to hash this stuff out while we can, uh, and, uh, there'll be some discussions. You know, that was a really good point.
▶ 8:15:59Maybe we should do that sometime in the weeks and months ahead. Without a doubt. But again, I want to thank you. I wish you well. And I have to say, I've been around this committee a long time. Probably the best set of food members there day to day we've ever had. I mean, you guys have really upped your game. It's no more cold sandwiches. It's you know, we got food from laredo flying in here. It's, uh, it's a pretty spectacular thing. It makes it a lot more pleasant to get through.
▶ 8:16:28And I thought today was particularly good. So, uh, you know, chinese is always, I don't know, but, boy, anytime you want to go to capitol hill, just go right ahead. That was it was all spectacular. You bet. And thank you on both sides of the aisle. With that seeing no further amendments, I now would recognize chairman rogers for a motion. >> Mr. chair, I move to favorably report to the house the fiscal year 2027 department of defense appropriations bill.
▶ 8:17:00>> the questions now on the motion to favorably report fiscal year 2027 department of defense appropriations bill to the house. All those in favor, say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed, say no. The opinion of the chair the ayes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mr. aderholt. Mr. aderholt. Aye, Mr. aguilar, Mr. aguilar. No. Mr. alford, Mr. alford I. Mr. Mr. amodei I Mrs.
▶ 8:17:29Bice, Mrs. bice I. Mr. bishop, Mr. bishop. No. Mr. calvert. Mr. calvert. >> oh, hi. >> Mr. calvert, I Mr. carter, Mr. carter I Mr. case. Mr. case. No. Mr. sigamani. Mr. sigamani I Mr. klein, Mr. klein I Mr. cloud Mr. cloud I Mr. clyburn, Mr. clyburn. No. Mr. clyde. Mr.
▶ 8:18:02Clyde. I. Mr. cole. Mr. cole I. Mr. cuellar, Mr. cuellar. No. Miss. Dean. Miss. Dean. No. Miss. Delauro, miss. Delauro. No. Mr. diaz-balart, Mr. diaz-balart. I. Mr. edwards, Mr. edwards, I. Mr. lee, Mr. lee. I miss. Escobar, miss. Escobar. No. Mr. espaillat, Mr. fleischmann, Mr. fleischmann, I miss. Frankel, miss. Frankel. No. Mr. franklin, Mr. franklin, I. Mr. guest, Mr. guest, I Mr.
▶ 8:18:34Carter. Mr. carter. No. Doctor. Harris. Doctor. Harris. I. Mrs. henson, Mrs. henson, I. Mr. hoyer, Mr. hoyer. No. Mr. iv, Mr. iv. No. Mr. joyce, Mr. joyce, I miss. Kaptur, miss. Kaptur. No. Mr. lalota. Mr. loloda. I miss lee. Miss lee no. Miss. Letlow. Mr. levin. Mr. levin. No.
▶ 8:19:00Miss molloy, miss molloy, I miss mccollum, miss mccollum. No. Miss ming, miss ming. No. Mr. molinari, Mr. mulliner, I Mr. moore. Mr. moore, Mr. >> moore. >> Mr. moore, I. Mr. morelli, Mr. morelli. No. Mr. mervyn. Mr. mervyn. No. Mr. newhouse. Mr. newhouse, I miss.
▶ 8:19:29Perez, miss. Perez. No. Miss. Pingree, miss. Pingree. No. Mr. pocan, Mr. pocan. No. Mr. quigley. Mr. quigley. No. Mr. reschenthaler, Mr. rosenthaler I Mr. rogers, Mr. rogers, I Mr. rutherford, Mr. rutherford I Mr. shreeve, Mr. shreeve I Mr. simpson, Mr. simpson, I. Mr. strong. Mr. strong, Mr. strong, I Mrs.
▶ 8:20:01Torres. Mrs. torres. No. Miss. Underwood, miss. Underwood. No. Mr. valadao, Mr. valadao, I. Miss. Wasserman. Schultz, miss. Wasserman. Schultz. No. Mrs. watson. Coleman. Mrs. watson. Coleman. No. Mr. womack, Mr. womack, I. Mr. zink, Mr. zink, I. >> are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote?
▶ 8:20:29Seeing none, the clerk will tally. The chair will add one thing of note. I think this is the only bill where only one person got an amendment, and that was calvert. He didn't he didn't. Nobody else got one. He got two. Brutal. >> 27. >> what is it? >> there you go.
▶ 8:21:00>> yeah. >> say hi to betty. >> okay. On this vote, the eyes are 34. The nose is 27. The motion is agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill, and report just approved three days. Other than that, seeing no objection. So ordered. >> okay.
▶ 8:21:30>> there being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.