National Security-State, Energy-Water Funding, Veterans Care, Privacy Purchases

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the rules committee is convening to consider four measures. hr nine zero two two hr eight five nine five hr one one eight one and hr ninety two thirty seven hr nine zero two two the energy and water development and related energy agencies appropriated appropriations act twenty twenty seven provides fifty eight point five billion in funding for the agencies and programs that safeguard U. S. national security, unleash American energy dominance, and advance economic prosperity. H. R. eighty-five ninety-five, the National Security Department of State and related programs Appropriations Act twenty twenty seven provides twenty seven point thirty-two billion in funding, six percent below the Fy twenty-six enacted level. This legislation reflects priorities of the America First agenda and supports the President's vision to refocus and realign foreign policy to make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous, while ensuring all funds are spent in a manner consistent with relevant executive orders. Both bills at their very core embody the American First agenda. They also harbor the identical commitment to place the safety, security and prosperity of the American people and the entire nation first. I'm quite certain our panel from the Appropriations Committee will give us a thorough and pointed run-through of these two bills and I'm looking forward to the testimony that will be shared from our colleagues. H. R. one one eight one, the Protecting Privacy and Purchases Act, would prohibit payment card networks from using merchant codes that distinguish firearm retailers from general merchandise retailers or sporting goods retailers. Americans who exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms should never find themselves corralled under the microscope of the federal government. But that's exactly what we saw under the Obama and Biden administrations. when the private firearm and ammunition transactions of these citizens were monitored by the federal government under the guise of preventing mass shootings. The decision to do so was intrusive and entirely unacceptable. We can and should pass this legislation so that law-abiding Americans are not subject to scrutiny and surveillance of their financial privacy when exercising their constitutional rights. Finally, we turn to H. R. ninety-two thirty-seven, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act that would improve the benefits and services provided to veterans and their families by amending existing laws and enhancing the efficiency of VA. This legislation is a compilation of over sixty separate bills, the majority of which are overwhelmingly bipartisan to support America's veteran community. and further enhance the health care and benefit services of the VA. As Secretary Collins has stated on numerous occasions, and has been reflected in his and the agency's actions, the veteran is once again the core of the VA's mission. This package reflects that commitment and those actions. Our panel from the Veterans Affairs Committee, I'm sure, will articulate in depth how this package of bills will help cut through government bureaucracy, and deliver the service and quality that our nation's veterans so deserve. With that, I now yield to the ranking member, Mister McGovern, for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and um, let me begin by being perfectly honest here. Every week, Republicans come here and pretend that they're doing serious work. In reality, they're bending over backwards for Donald Trump, for billionaires, big donors, and every awful priority under the sun. while regular people get ignored and squeezed by the high prices and inflation that Republicans are causing. Just look at this week's ag- agenda. The state uh and foreign operations bill guts diplomacy, it guts development, and it guts humanitarian aid at the exact same time that this administration is hollowing out USAID and pushing out some of our country's, very best experts. We've already seen what that means in the real world. Food assistance, food assistance is getting disrupted. Life-saving health programs are being thrown into chaos. Vulnerable people are getting left behind, not because it makes us safer, but because this administration would rather score political points than save lives. I also take issue with how this administration continues to undermine global human rights putting us on the side of human rights abusers that's why I've submitted an amendment to prohibit Trump from withdrawing from landmark international human rights treaties. I hope that my amendment will be made in order so that we can have a vote on it. Given the majority's track record of making amendments or not making amendments in order, I don't have much faith, but again I'm asking for it to be made in order so that we can at least have a debate and a vote on whether or not this administration or this Congress should be withdrawing the United States from Senate ratified treaties. The energy and water bill before us uh cuts clean energy, grid improvements, and energy research, while families are crushed by electric bills and gas prices. Republicans will call it fiscal responsibility, while families see even higher costs. And the so-called protecting privacy in purchase act makes it harder to flag suspicious gun and ammunition purpose per purchases. I mean, gun violence is out of control, and Republicans want to take tools away from law enforcement. And now Republicans are advancing a veterans package that gives support for one group of veterans paid for by slashing the benefits from another group of veterans. Instead of just doing the right thing and giving veterans the benefits that they've earned and and deserve, Republicans insist on paying for it by cutting other veterans' benefits, specifically veterans with service-connected tinnitus and, uh, you know, also known as ringing of the ears. and sleep apnea. You know, both of those things, uh, are the most common veterans' casework in my district. Uh, these are real conditions that affect veterans' health, their work, their families, and their daily lives. And Republicans are choosing to screw them over. But that's the story of this Republican-controlled government. Their priorities are all screwed up. Uh, they wanna help Trump and, um, and his friends, let them steal taxpayer money, to build the ballroom and ruin the reflecting pool i mean what a joke you know they they they sit back while this war and its tariffs cause inflation to skyrocket and everyday families to struggle and then they come here and they want a pat on the back for doing nothing to fix the mess that they've created i mean it is absurd look at the clock is ticking down for congress to pass all twelve spending bills and fund the government now we could be writing bipartisan bills They keep the government open and help people afford groceries, housing, energy, healthcare, and the basics. But instead, Republicans keep dragging us through these partisan exercises that make people's lives harder and then they wonder why their approval rating is in the toilet. This majority has made its priorities clear. And come November, the American people will have their say. Uh, you're back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. I now welcome our panel, Representative Cloud, Ranking Member Capter, from the House Committee on Appropriations, Energy and Water Development and related agencies subcommittee. That's a mouthful. And Chairman Diaz-Balart and Representative Torres from the House Committee on Appropriations, National Security, Department of State and related programs subcommittee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Cloud, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you, Chairwoman. Obviously, I'm not Chair Fleischman, so I'm his stunt double today, he's on a plane, so.

You're on live, oh.

Yes. Hello, hello, hello. Can you hear me? Alright. Uh, I want to thank you, Chairman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today. I'm pleased to present to the rules committee the fiscal year twenty twenty-seven energy and water development and related agencies' appropriation bill. The fy twenty-seven energy and water bill provides fifty-eight point five billion to uphold our commitment to safeguarding the U S national security unleashing American energy dominance and advancing our economic prosperity in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill delivers a historic investment in our national defense by providing twenty seven point one billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, prioritizing the modernization of nuclear weapons stockpile and the US Navy nuclear fleet. The bill strengthens our nation's energy security by focusing research and development efforts on base load energy sources, and maintaining funding for programs that deliver affordable energy prices, a secure grid, and long-term energy stability for all americans we continue our support for the trump administration's efforts to expand domestic nuclear power capacity and advance american leadership in civil nuclear energy around the world just this month two advanced reactors reached uh reached criticality under the department of energy's reactor pilot program marking an important step toward ushering in an american nuclear renaissance This bill also makes investments to secure our domestic supply chain of critical memor minerals and reduces reliance on China and other foreign adversaries. To ensure America remains at the forefront of scientific discovery and innovation, the bill includes eight point five billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. This includes support for the Trump administration's Genesis mission, which will harness our high-performing computing capabilities and leverage AI to help address our greatest scientific challenges. america's network of coastal and inland waterways facilitates commerce transportation and recreation across all states and territories connecting us with the wider world this bill advances our economic prosperity and promotes public safety providing nine point eight billion for the army corps of engineers including full funding of harbor maintenance trust fund activities and funding for the highest priority construction projects on the inland waterways system funding for the bureau of reclamation is directed towards projects that increase water supply assist in drought resilience and support rural america this is a strong bill and i ask that the committee provide an appropriate rule for its consideration today thank you again for the opportunity to appear today and i look forward to your questions

thank you for your succinctness ranking member captor you're recognized

Thank you, Madam Chair, uh, and Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the rules committee, rising energy and water costs way heavily on American households and businesses. And I'm pleased to appear with our colleague, Congressman Cloud of Texas. Our nation must build and usher in a new affordable energy age, and ensure Mother Earth is a livable planet. I'm deeply disappointed that the bill before us today tilts toward a partisan framing, and hope we can course correct uh as the days ensue. US energy independence in perpetuity is a strategic imperative. Respect for Mother Earth must be our North Star. We meet today at an historical moment where again energy, water, and war are hyperlinked. Due to the current administration's war of choice, on Iran, gas prices rose above four dollars and fifty cents per gallon. Diesel, in my region, topped six dollars a gallon, a shrill siren song for farmers, truckers, manufacturers, and businesses. History instructs us that when gas exceeds four dollars per gallon, deep recession follows. We know working citizens and retirees face crushing sticker shock for transportation, heating, electricity, and food. The American people want and rightly deserve a fair energy cost structure. Of our nation's forty trillion dollar debt, at least twenty percent of it, eight trillion dollars, that's twenty percent, has been added by wars related to crude oil. America cannot remain energy vulnerable. Our nation needs broad domestic energy innovation, Real competition and investment, not fealty to any one energy source. Competition and investment in modernization will drive better pricing. To reach a bipartisan agreement, which our subcommittee often does, the bill's funding levels require adjustment. The bill increases defense programs by seven hundred and seventy-four million dollars uh or two percent while cutting non-defense innovation programs by one point eight billion dollars, or six percent. Let us address the most harmful cuts in this bill which drive our nation's energy backward. Let me run through the major cuts. These are cuts, a one point three billion dollar cut, or forty percent, forty percent, to critical minerals and energy innovation. This devastating reduction completely seeds promising energy breakthroughs, to our commercial adversaries like China. This massive reduction in critical minerals undermines our ability to meet fierce global competition. Our nation must lead in all clean energy technologies, not cede the field in critical minerals, and not ignore the irresponsible accumulation of atmospheric pollutants. Also, a fifty million dollar cut is proposed, or fourteen percent Uh, to ARPA-E, our most advanced research in energy. With global population surging toward ten billion, abandoning transformative clean energy threatens our livable future. The warning signs are all around us, whether it's coastal battering, vast forest fires, prolonged droughts that destroy crops, or atmospheric rivers and gale force winds. Also, a twenty-five million dollar cut occurs to electricity and grid deployment programs. With energy prices rising, cutting funds to modernize our aging grid is a non-starter for rate payers needing relief. Also, a two hundred and eighty-two million dollar cut, or twelve percent, to nuclear non-proliferation activities. That's quite a reduction. And this retreat is incredibly unwise in an increasingly dangerous world, made far more risky. by the on-again off-again war of choice in the Middle East and Strait of Hormuz. Cutting nuclear non-proliferation leaves our world highly vulnerable as reckless nuclear threats increase. The bill totally eliminates uh the Army Corps of Engineers' FUSERAP program that cleans up former nuclear waste sites. That makes no sense to me. Walking away from cleaning up toxic nuclear industry waste is completely unacceptable, and it threatens the health of our citizenry today and tomorrow. Let's not saddle the next generation with the legacy of the twentieth century. Critically, this bill should only repurpose infrastructure investment in jobs fund acts through the bipartisan agreement embracing an all of the above energy strategy to assure competition and innovation going forward. And furthermore, the bill must be free of policy riders, including provisions to allow firearms on core public lands and prohibit clean energy solutions for federal buildings. In closing, glaringly the bill fails to protect Congress's power of the purse. Any bipartisan bill must prevent and reverse the administration's project terminations of over nine billion dollars nationwide. Funding for these projects was passed by Congress, both chambers duly signed into law and vetted by the uh administration. Finally, this bill should require transparency and accountability for federal spending to avoid and prevent government corruption. Until these changes are made, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Working together can yield a better deal for Americans today and open new energy and water frontiers for the tomorrows to come. And I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Capter. Chairman Diaz-Belort.

Madam Chorwin, uh, would have privileged to be in front of your committee, a ranking member, and, uh, all the members would have would have privileged to be, uh, um on the fiscal year twenty twenty seven national security department of state and related programs appropriation bills uh i know the ranking member had a flight issue but i am joined by a brilliant member of the subcommittee a gentleman uh from california has taught us it's a privilege to be with her as well the bill uh presented today is another step in our historic efforts to strengthen national security while reducing under chairman kohl's leadership uh we have delivered nearly twelve billion in responsible responsible cuts uh to spending under the purview of this subcommittee since twenty twenty three this bill continues that effort uh with an additional two point seven billion dollars of reductions from the enacted level so it's helping to address frankly one of the greatest long-term threats uh to our country's stability and security and prosperity, and that is our national debt. Now there are some who will say that these reductions uh the magnitude of these reductions jeopardize United States leadership in the world and make us less less safe. I completely disagree. In fact, it's just the opposite. It's just the opposite with this bill. The bill for provides the funds necessary for the President and the Secretary of State to address our national security priorities and continue to transform the world in a in a way that that frankly is bold and and durable uh and and and supports freedom and security let me very i've said this before if uh you're a friend or an ally of the united states this bill supports you but if you're an adversary or you're in cohorts with the adversaries of the united states well frankly you're not gonna like this bill the bill maintains one point eight billion uh for partners in the in the pacific including five hundred million in military assistance for taiwan and robust robust funding for the philippe- for the philippines and our partners in the pacific island countries it it demonstrates unwavering support for israel by providing three point three billion dollars in security assistance and maintaining support for other key partners in the middle east as well it recognizes the valuable partnerships in the western hemisphere which continue to expand frankly and realign under the leadership of president trump and secretary rubio it does so by increasing support for our friends and allies such as paraguay argentina costa rica just to name a few uh expanding funding for counter-narcotics and uh related law enforcement efforts in our hemisphere, including investments to combat fentanyl trafficking and providing funds to support democratic transitions for the people of Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Last year, the members of the NSRP subcommittee, we focused on how to responsibly transition PEPFAR, um, a program that has been successful, uh, back to its partner countries. to our partner countries, I should say. Look, it's been a great success, as I mentioned. But I think most of us would agree that the program should not and cannot just be there forever and ideally we should, again, partner with our with other countries to have them step step up. That's happening. That's actually happening right now. So working along uh side the administration, countries are now really committing for the first time in many cases significant sums of their own resources as part of the America First global health strategy enabling our commitment our committee to reduce funding while still achieving the same outcomes. Isn't that what we actually want to happen? Just as critical as what what's in the bill and what this bill funds is what the bill does not fund. And how it strengthens conditions? It uh prioritizes oversight and demands accountability for every single tax dollar spent on this bill. The bill prohibits funds to the PRC and the Communist Chinese Party, and prohibits funds to other countries from being used to repay that ode that they may owe to Communist China. It continues a key provision that blocks assistance to anyone that supports finances finances or facilitates uh uh the operations of the cuban military including the cuban uh ministry of the revolutionary armed forces and the ministry of the interior it maintains the uh prohibition on all all assistance to the taliban it puts america first by withholding funds uh withholding funds from mexico until that neighbor of ours delivers the water that is owed to the united states and supports full implementation of key executive orders that reflect a clear commitment to national sovereignty a secure border limited government and american values including including those uh related to restoring free speech supporting religious freedom and ending censorship. Alsace's funding for the UN is cut by one point eight billion dollars. No funds are included for the UN regular budget, and funds are prohibited to the World Health Organization, the United Nations Commission of Inquiry against Israel, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency commonly known as UNRWA, the United Nations Human Rights Council, the office of high commissioner for human rights the international criminal court and the international court of justice the bill includes a provision to insure that that we finally have justice for the victims of october seventh twenty twenty three of those heinous terrorist attack by way that would included fifty fifty murdered americans by requiring full accountability for under a staff who participated in those heinous acts of terrorism. The bill maintains all long-standing pro- uh pro-life uh provisions, bars funding for the UNFPA, and prohibits uh uh prohibits spending that violates the President's protecting life and foreign assistance policy. These measures, as you know, along with stronger oversight, ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions. So again, good bill, spends less money, does more, with less money something that we proved was possible last year uh so this continues in that same vein and with that uh madam chair i i thank you all uh for allowing us to be at this hearing and i look forward to your questions i yield back

thank you miss torres you're recognized you're a former member of the committee and we welcome you back

uh thank you uh chairwoman fox and also um our ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee Ranking member, Frankel, ran into travel delays, so as a member of the NSRP subcommittee, I am appearing on her behalf. I want to thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who understand how central this funding is to our national security. Regretfully, I oppose the Republican fiscal year twenty twenty seven, national security and state department appropriations bill as drafted. This bill should be our moment to lead. Done right, this bill would make America safer. However, this bill falls short. Real security is not achieved with bombs, bullying, and tariffs. The apparent policies of choice for the Trump administration. Real security includes strong diplomacy, development, and humanitarian leadership. That's how we build alliances. That is how we grow trading partners. And that is how we stop disease and extremism at the source. That is how we prevent costly wars before they begin. Yet, this bill hollows out our ability to pursue these critical efforts. And let's be clear about the backdrop. US aid, dismantled. Programs canceled. Expertise pushed to the door. Now a weekend, State Department is expected to carry the full load despite the fact that it was never built to do so. Alarmingly, this bill caters to the worst instincts of the Trump administration and pulls back American leadership at exactly the wrong moment. With another two point seven billion cut proposed from the international affairs budget this year, we are investing fourteen billion less through this bill than we were just four years ago. These reductions will weaken our diplomats' dismantled development programs slash humanitarian aid, the lifeline that keeps millions alive and undermine global health and security efforts that stop threats before they reach our shores. And at the very same time in another appropriations bill, scheduled to be marked up tomorrow, my Republican colleagues are seeking hundreds of billions more for war, more than one trillion dollars, for the first time in our history. Let me be clear, I support a strong military. And like most Americans, I would rather prevent war than have our loved ones fighting in it. That's why the soft power in this bill before you is so essential. Diplomacy stops costly wars before they start. Global health programs stop disease outbreaks before they spread. Development reduces the desperation that fuels ext- extremism. And alliances ensure that we do not face threats alone. Those are essential ways that we keep America safe. Instead, this bill abandons that proven strategy. It it eliminates funding for the United Nations and UN peacekeeping at a time when global cooperation has never been more important. As Ambassador Walz told the subcommittee when we visited the UN in March, US leadership at the UN is not optional, it is essential. This bill rescinds one billion in humanitarian aid while crisis intensified across africa eastern europe and the middle east it undermines the health and futures of women and girls worldwide by cutting family planning funding for un fpa and reinstating an a an expanded global gag rule undermining the health and futures of vulnerable people worldwide it zeros out critical institutions like the us institute the Inter-American Foundation, and the US African Development Foundation. This is not strength, it is retreat. And when America retreats, other like China step in. Nowhere is that clearer than in Africa, a continent with the fastest growing population and enormous economic potential. If we lead, Africa can be one of our strongest partners. in growth and stability. If we walk away, others will shape that future without us. This is not about choosing between hard power and soft power. It is about being smart enough to use both. This bill fails that task. I urge this committee to reject this bill and reject floor amendments that would further weaken our alliances and partnerships. Retreat from our commitments and turn our on people at risk and in need. Thank you, Chairwoman, and I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Torres. Miss Fischbach, I recognize you.

Thank you, Manager. And uh thank you all for being here and I appreciate uh your bringing the bills forward, because I I support the priorities and the and the direction you're taking these in. Uh I'll I'll just start with Mister Cloud, you know I you know i represent a rural district and i was very happy to see in the bill that um it does invest significant funding in many of the rural priorities that uh many of us share including construction products uh projects flood infrastructure and electric grid improvements and so i'm just kind of wondering maybe you could talk a little bit more about that and how does this bill help build a foundation for the future success in critical areas like energy critical minerals water and more

right i i too am from a rural district uh down of sixty thousand people uh i i most my district is one of those where there's more cows than people in it right and uh this bill does a lot to

mmm mmm

get us back to base load energy which was so important uh the the biden administration put a lot of dollars into chasing intermittent energy into supply chains that went through adversarial nations uh i i know for example in my community there's a in our district there's a a small community where they were looking to close down a coal fire plant it was the only source of energy for this small town uh and and we worked uh with the we were able to get that converted to a natural gas but under the biden administration they had said no invest literally in the budget no investment for oil and gas anything related to it when we realized how important it is to have a base load

mmm

and that's the quickest and easiest way to get to uh affordable energy uh continues the investment on water technology uh there's a new center of excellence that's been developed this puts research dollars into providing smart water uh research and technologies and building out the infrastructure uh that's needed uh that along with what uh the administration is working on recent it was just about two weeks ago three weeks ago omb announced that they're lifting uh what had been a thirty million dollar cap on water infrastructure projects uh and so with the funds provided in this bill along with the removing of that cap that that opens up the door to infrastructure water serious water infrastructure projects going forward that can really help rural communities uh and and really just continues to to provide a future that we can a economically sustainable path uh to to affordable energy for specifically for our rural communities and thank you for serving in an area like that it has certainly unique uh unique demands uh that we don't find in metroplexes but

that's right well and thank you very much and i appreciate you being here today and thank you for the response because i do think it is that uh you know that direction that we are moving in trying to um you know make sure that we support those areas and that we are doing what we need to do for sustainability to continue in economic growth and all of the all of the things that we want in our rural areas so and and across the country so but thank you very much and um uh

yeah

mister chairman turning to um hr n eighty five ninety five um i i think uh international security obviously is uh of the utmost importance and it's incredibly important right now and so i do appreciate you know the the way that you've pushed the moved um moved the direction and and you also recognize that we are facing incredible amounts of debt. And so, um, I think one of the things that really, um, struck me was the provision in the bill, although there's many great ones, the it's the one point six, uh six billion dollars for the International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement. Um, and it, that's an increase, um, because I think it's so critical. And maybe you can expand on how this will really help combat the ongoing fentanyl crisis that's killing Americans every day.

well thank you for the question and thank you for for the interest in that issue look that that's an issue that i think has strong support in congress and the house uh in our committee we're we're fortunate to have one of the leaders fighting fentanyl for example and other type uh drugs that are killing americans in droves and that's uh the dean of the house hal rogers uh he keeps us focused on that issue time and time again and you're right we put additional money uh to do that in this bill so while we are reducing funding we are funding

mmm

we're putting more money onto things that are really that have an impact and that are hugely important this is one of those um so we're putting more money and i will tell you i i just recently got back from a uh leading a code l to south america and um this is one of those areas that our ambassadors will always talk to us about and specifically where we've put the additional money are areas that actually have an impact save american lives uh and we're very proud of doing that as i mentioned at the beginning of my presentation while while we are spending less overall we're doing more critical spending on issues that are highly important we did those uh we did this on fy twenty six lot of folks thought it was impossible i remember coming here and we had some some interesting debates uh we were able to pass that off the floor and negotiate with the senate and again a reduction overall but doing more important things if there's one area that we can that we have been making can make an impact and we can do so um by putting some more resources is in this area that you're talking about fighting narcotics fighting fentanyl fighting uh transnational criminal organizations that by the way not only traffic in fentanyl and in drugs but they also traffic in humans and they traffic in weapons you know we uh these are dangerous organizations so we've put more resources more funding uh it's something that i think has i hope strong bipartisan support um and that i hope that we'll be able to like we were able to do in twenty six keep uh after the negotiations with the senate

well and and thank you very much cause i recognize this is a huge issue uh with the fentanyl issue and and you mentioned the other um the other kind of crimes that you're combating by just doing this um and so i appreciate that and i i appreciate that you are

yes

redirecting your you recognize the debt you recognize the need to reduce spending but you also prioritize those things that will really truly make a difference so thank you very much and thank you both for being here and uh i yield back

thank you miss fischbach i understand we're gonna have a little switch of witnesses here

good text

so we'll give them a chance to do that and i'll recognize mister mcgovern

oh who is this oh hi

i i love i love what my republican friends talk about that the they need to cut humanitarian aid programs food aid programs cut the tax cut thank you uh because they're worried about the debt but nobody on the other side said a word that we uh passed a tax cut bill that benefited multi millionaires and billionaires and added trillions to the debt we did we did a lot of it i i i agree with that

yeah it's good

and last week um the way the week before last we added another seventy billion dollars to the hundred billion dollars that ice and cbp already have none of it is offset all of it goes up to no one says a word about that but when it comes to programs to feed oh hungry people all of a sudden you know oh we we gotta we gotta tighten our belts we're all against that we we we're all against that

ok please sit down

um let me let me let me i wanna begin with uh uh i just have a few questions i'll try to be quick here um uh um let me since you're all appropriators uh this is a question that should be the issue that i get asked a lot during the break by my constituents in fact a gentleman on the airplane down here uh today asked me about this and that's the president's ballroom uh, you know, his lavish ballroom which he said on multiple occasions would be a hundred percent point away privately funded I mean he said that a million times a hundred percent privately funded uh, so let me just ask you yes, no or maybe to marry him uh, do you support

yes

um using taxpayer dollars to fund president trump's ballroom miss captor no do you support using taxpayer funding to fund the ballroom

no uh mister ranking member i do not

thank you thank you miss rankle

no

mister d. espalier

uh there is no funding for any ballroom in my in my appropriation bill just so i know because it deals with the phone policy

cloud

uh i'll note there's no funding in the energy and water bill as well

ok so so let me let me let me let me do let me let me let me let both of you mister uh d. espalier and cloudin on something your appropriators and i'm and i'm surprised you don't know this But are you aware that President Trump and his team have transferred roughly four hundred million dollars in taxpayer dollars that Congress appropriated um to the Secret Service and put into the White House Repair and Restoration account in order to make quote " security upgrades" as part of the ballroom construction project? So when you say there's no taxpayer funds going to this, are you aware that uh well,

Right.

well, I mean, but you're appropriators and you're I mean you you you're on the full committee as well. Are you aware that taxpayer dollars hundreds of millions of dollars are going to this ballroom yeah yeah absolutely yeah yeah well i'm i'm questioning you so you don't have to get permission from the chair yeah

so i i am aware that we have a pretty high risk security situation we have a president who has now suffered

and you and so you support that

uh i support making sure that the president of the united states is safe is safe but i have not seen any details of

are you support that so you you support that well i i i will provide you the details because o o o o m b has provided us

look forward to it

all the monies that uh where there where there were transfers i mean um in fact i could i can tell you right now that um a transfer of three hundred and forty point eight million dollars and and taxpayer uh dollars to the ballroom uh construction on june twelfth twenty twenty six a second transfer of ten point seven five million dollars in taxpayer dollars to the ballroom construction also on june twelfth a third transfer on june fifteenth of forty five million dollars in taxpayer dollars again to the ballroom construction I mean, I have the documents from the Office of Management and Budget right here, so I I it's stunning to me that as appropriate it is that you're unaware of the transfers. But here's my question. If I were on the Appropriations Committee, you know, I mean, and I worked to get money appropriated for X or for Y, I would wanna make sure that the executive branch, whether it's a Republican administration or a Democratic administration respected the will of Congress. That actually did what we what appropriators said they would do. so i mean i mean this is an end run uh this is like this is like a an end run around congress

yes

is that is that something you support and if not what can the appropriations committee do to stop it

um i will note i i took a a tour of the white house defense apparatus with the secret service recently i would wonder if you've taken that same tour

i i i don't think they'll let me on the white house grounds um so i mean um you know i mean i with this president i i don't think but i mean but but the point of matter is if you support if you if you if you

but have you ever taken have you ever i have been to white house many times but if if you if you support i have taken that tour have you ever taken that tour have you ever taken that tour yeah i have taken a tour yeah uh not not the white house tour of the security defense apparatus yeah i've i've i've had the chance to talk to the secret service and you know when we visit the white house right now the the visitors to the white house go through yeah uh tents basically they stand out in the open what they've stopped the visitation uh when we hold state dinners it's basically a law that could be have just been reigned under they've stopped the visitation uh and the ballroom portion

but but this this

let's just but no let him answer

i i think he is not the truth

there there there's a

no he isn't he

no he isn't i mean with all due respect i'm here

there's a security component to the ballroom that you should you should probably look into and certain things of course we can't talk about in this committee

my my my my my my question is as appropriate as why don't you appropriate the funding why do you allow the administration to do an end around this i mean you you have appropriation bills coming up right now you can fund hundreds of millions of dollars as you see fit why not just do it

valid question uh it but it is a little rich because i do remember when in the previous administration there were hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent by then president biden's administration that were neither appropriated nor authorized and then it went to the supreme court of the united states and the supreme court of the united states said it was unconstitutional by the way they said it uh i don't remember uh the outrage by some of our democratic colleagues about that taking place now having said that so you're saying is that constitutional then having no no what a no what unconstitutional was a time when the democrats did not speak out when president biden did it now

excuse me let me re clear let me re clear my tongue let me re clear my tongue

well but uh

well if if you don't want me to answer it then i get that cause you don't like the answer but that is

my my my my question is uh are you saying that this money that the president

that's a good answer

uh is spending which was not authorized or appropriated for this use is unconstitutional if not then do you approve of this money being spent on the ballroom it's a simple question not a trick question

no if i may what i'm saying is that we are here we have appropriation

yeah

We have two appropriation bills, by the way none of these two bills deal with that specific uh issue, um but again it's it's a little rich when I hear all of a sudden, all of a sudden a wake up that uh that that you know money that was not Yeah. appropriated should or should not be appropriated when the previous administration did so and the Supreme Court of the United States said Yeah. So. that it was wrong and I do not remember I may be wrong cause maybe I can get you can get me some of your quotes uh demanding uh accountability to the President. Yeah yeah. So, but uh you you you support the

taxpayer funding for this uh for this ballroom.

I support

Because the reason why is because it was they tried to put in the reconciliation bill, but it became so unpopular they removed it.

I support these two appropriation bills that are in front of you right now,

So so the

again neither of which have that issue.

No, how about if I so I then I I I will put you both down as saying that you support that money.

No, no, I'm saying what I'm saying, Mister uh Mister Raine,

Then then I'll put you down as you don't support that money.

remember? No, what I am saying is I support these appropriation bills in front of you,

Okay. That's like So maybe

none of these

Is it maybe? I don't know, I'm I'm trying to

No?

I mean, I mean, anyway.

Well, look, you don't like the answer and and you sure and you sure were not

But let me put it in a different way.

complaining when the previous administration did a lot more egregious

Sorry. It's not it's not it's not like you're defending the

than what you're claiming is happening today.

president's uh unauthorized transfer of funds uh to to do this. But let me ask you, Mister Cloud, you have submitted your amendment to permanently block the federal government from issuing a central bank digital currency thirty eight times to this Congress.

You're welcome.

And each and every one of those times the rules committee, controlled by your party, um, has blocked your amendment from being made in order. So I see that you have filed your amendment for thirty-ninth time today, uh, before our committee. My question is,

Holding out hope.

if Republicans block your amendment for the thirty-ninth time,

Bill.

will you vote against the rule? The currency bill.

I'll think about it.

Oh, okay, because I'm, uh, because I have a question, why would you continue to vote for rules? to block your own amendments from from getting votes um i mean your your party is in the majority let me just one final question for mister um

mmm

uh yeah i you know i i'm looking over the um you know the your your the national security department of state and uh related programs appropriations bill and i'll be honest with you it it um it does not reflect my values and i think it weakens the united states i think gutting programs uh that actually help uh deal with humanitarian crises um is a bad thing for the united states undercuts our national security and I think national security needs to be thought of in terms that is not just about our military might but about the good stuff that we do. Um and um and and I also uh am deeply um troubled by the de-emphasis of human rights by this administration um and by quite frankly by congress, I mean I the president went to china recently um and met with president xi, I was stunned that human rights was not a priority on their agenda. um, and not part of the readout of his of his statement. I think President Xi is a horrific dictator that is abusing the Chinese people, that anybody who disagrees with them is put in jail, we have tons of political prisoners, and I would like to think that if any country in the world was out there, fighting for these people it would be the United States. But my question to you is the Trump administration is relying on the UN over and over, for their priorities, as the main channel for humanitarian aid, to legitimize the Gaza ceasefire for new security arrangements in Haiti and now to get nuclear weapons inspectors back into Iran that's what the trump administration is relying on the UN yet this committee isn't funding the UN that just seems illogical it's counter-productive and it makes us look like a cowardly cheapskate in the eyes of the world the US should lead um and it is beneath us to be a freeloader so my question is why isn't this committee funding the UN to meet both the president's priorities what the president has said he wants the UN to do and congress's on human rights on disease prevention uh on conflict prevention and other matters

thank you um yeah you're right that we do um we do cut a lot of funding for the for the for example the UN general fund we do however fund some key issues that the UN does now we don't fund some things that frankly are just a waste of money um you mentioned human rights

yeah

i i think you and i would probably agree on one thing which is that the human rights council the un un human rights council is made up of among the worst human rights violators in the planet and to continue to fund entities like that which all they do is they take our money and then use that money to frankly uh you know just go after the united states and our allies while being made up of the worst human rights violators in the world is just not serious Uh, so while we're fund- again, I go back to what I said at the beginning, we're funding key issues, but we're not just spending money and throwing money away on wasteful issues.

But the but the money doesn't go to those countries, it goes to the body, right, I mean it doesn't it doesn't go to those countries, and I and I and I and I and I and I and I'm just gonna say this,

Yes, it goes

because I'm about to be gaveled down here, um, you know, as the co-chair of the Human Rights uh, Tom Lantos Human Rights uh, Commission, named after Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, it is stunning to me how our country has withdrawn from being a leader on human rights it is an afterthought and some of the the the president's closest allies are the worst human rights abusers uh in the world and i again it it's really troubling and i think it it's it's it's one of those things that undercuts our overall national security and i'm being cut off so i yield back

thank you mister mcgovern mister griffith you're recognized

thank you madam chair uh anything additional mister cloud that you would like to add

about the bill

uh uh about the bills always it's always good to talk about the bill i mean

oh there's yeah there's uh i i love an energy and water question uh i kind of thought this what we're gonna be talking about today so

yeah well welcome to rules

oh thank you

we don't always talk about what we're supposed to i understand it drives me crazy to

yeah i i will say a central bank digital currency would present uh eh the ultimate surveillance tool and tool of control Uh, and it is so vitally important that we do everything we can to to make sure that our kids and our grandkids never have to deal with that.

And and I agree with you. Uh, I am told, however, it's not germane to this bill.

I I understand that, but I will keep trying.

Uh, and I and I appreciate your efforts. And when we can get it germane, I will vote with you. Uh, Chairman Diaz-Belard,

Yes, sir.

uh, did you have anything additional you'd like to add to this?

No, thank you. Look, I think this is a very good bill. Um, you'll recall that when we were here uh for fiscal year twenty-six, we heard of the same naysayers say that uh we couldn't cut spending, that it was gonna the world's is gonna fall apart, and what we found is that um if you're an ally, we're supporting you, we're helping you, but we're just not wasting money on things that don't work, or that are actually not only not helping our national security, but they're hurting our national security. Uh, this goes, this bill goes a little bit further in that same direction. We proved that we were right in fiscal year twenty-six. And uh if if assuming this bill goes to the floor, uh we hope to continue in that same trajectory of spending less money, while doing more to strengthen our national security. So thank you, sir. I appreciate it. With that, Madam Chair, you're back.

Thank you, Mister Griffith. Um, Miss Ganlin.

Yeah, I just want to say for the record, um, you know, this committee, um, while it may not they may not make specific amendments in order that are non-germane routinely, you know self execute uh matters that are non germane into bills um and so uh the reality is that that's just not a good excuse but i want to clarify that for the record i yield back

thank you uh so we've got two appropriations bills here today and i don't think by any stretch of the imagination you can credibly say that they put americans first instead they cut programs they cut programs that would increase our national security and they cut programs that would decrease energy costs. I mean, for months the president has been waging a war against Iran that has cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Every American is feeling the impact of this illegal war as it's disrupted global energy markets it's driven up fuel and fertilizer costs and it's worsened the cost of living crisis that is facing families and businesses across the country. My constituents feel it every time they fill up their gas tanks, pay their electric bills, or try to make ends meet. But instead of addressing these challenges, these two appropriation bills are going to make those problems worse. In the energy and water bill, Republicans cut billions from non-defense programs so they can increase defense spending by nearly eight hundred million dollars. It slashes funding for programs that help develop clean, affordable, and secure energy by forty percent. investments that would strengthen American energy independence and promote the all of the above strategy rather than increasing reliance on fossil fuels. The alternative would help lower costs. This bill will raise them. It also cuts funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by six hundred and sixty million dollars. In my district, that agency has been an essential partner in developing long overdue flood mitigation solutions for Eastwick a community that has experienced repeated and devastating flooding because of unchecked development and aging infrastructure, but just recently the corps said, " Oh, we can't afford to continue helping you." So the misplaced priorities don't stop with the energy and water bill. While Republicans spend billions on foreign wars and power grabs, their National Security and State Department bill continues to gut global health programs and humanitarian assistance, which objectively have made us more secure. We're already seeing the consequences of hollowing out USAID, withdrawing from the World Health Organization, and cancelling programs to identify and contain dangerous disease outbreaks. Research indicates that already seven hundred and fifty thousand people, including half a million children, have died as a direct result of the cuts that have already been made. to USAID and the cancellation of programs which have allowed malaria, HIV, AIDS and tuberculosis to spread without being checked, that have interrupted nutrition, vaccines and treatment for new mothers and and infants. And the abrupt end of humanitarian aid lead has led to the collapse of food distribution and sanitation services in several countries. It is projected that the cuts to USAID will cause more than fourteen million deaths by twenty thirty. I mean, we've just seen in recent days that health officials are struggling to contain the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa. The US is once again confronting the spread of the New World Screwworm, a pest that was eradicated in this country in the nineteen sixties, but is now on the move again in several states, threatening our beef industry. So we know that an outbreak miles away, countries away, can become local in a matter of days, and investments in global health are investments in American national security. And because no Republican appropriations bill would be complete without partisan culture war riders, uh, this bill also includes provisions to ban pride flags at U S embassies and to dramatically expand the global gag rule which prohibits even foreign nonprofits from providing reproductive counseling or services if they receive US dollars, um, and if those services include abortion care, even if no US funds are being used to provide those services. We know where that leads. Clinics close, health care providers withdraw services, and patients lose access to maternal health care, HIV treatment, and other basic health services. So, as one of our witnesses said earlier, national security is about more than military We have to prioritize energy security, resilient infrastructure, and our ability to respond to global crises before they reach our shores. These bills don't meet that test, and they fail to address the real challenges facing Americans. Um, ranking member, CAPTA, um, Americans are paying higher prices for gas, electricity and other necessities. Um, does this energy and water bill do anything meaningful to lower energy costs and does it help us reach energy independence

no actually the bill takes a backward step uh in so many of the areas that we summarized in our formal testimony to uh provide more modern grid to provide greater competition which is really the answer to uh lowering costs to invest in innovation in the energy sector all of those accounts have been um, reduced. Uh, and in the critical min- minerals area which is so important to new forms of power, the cut is forty percent. I mean, it's, it's massive. It yields, unfortunately, extra advantage especially to China, but not only China, uh, as we look at the ways in which we source critical minerals around, uh, the world. So it doesn't reduce energy prices to anyone. And it cuts many of the behind the grid uh inventions that have made um more affordable power possible. Uh so for example in the foster, in in the um uh arena of uh uh solar power for example. Um and I could give you many examples um Mrs. uh Fischbach was talking about rural America or even in Ohio, uh what innovative mayors have been doing in towns of under five thousand people, actually providing back of the grid power to their people, uh it's it's revolutionary and it's important to them, uh and it reduces costs. So um no this bill is not admirable uh in in that regard and I wanted to just if I could just say a word, a ranking member of McGovern talked about the role of the appropriations committee. I'm a senior member on the appropriations committee, I've never served and I've served in Congress a long time. uh through many presidencies, I have never seen an administration abuse the appropriations power, as this administration is doing, unconstitutionally. Certainly in the examples you pointed out with the ballroom, but now we're at war. And when we attempt to find out, and that is not the purpose of this hearing today, I understand that, where the money is being taken from, billions of dollars a week to conduct this war, there are no appropriated accounts that have been submitted to us for approval on an emergency basis. And that money is being taken from somewhere, and this is what Secretary Hegseth said to me when I asked him from which accounts are you taking dollars in order to conduct this war. He said from the general accounts. I replied to him, " There are no such accounts. I want to know exactly from where you are taking the funds away." And his answer was, " Call my office." I said, " With whom,

Mm.

uh, in your office should I speak?" And he said anyone. Now, uh, the law will eventually lock down and we will follow the constitutional mandates for the movement of dollars. That is our responsibility under article one of the Constitution as appropriators and we intend to pursue it, uh, but it won't happen tomorrow, what will re- it will require litigation.

Thank you for that. Um, I I share your concern, I mean, with respect to the energy and water bill, with respect to solar energy, we've seen the pact of federal investment in being able to move communities, churches, temples, mosques, schools to adopt solar energy, which then lowers their costs and enables them to accomplish their mission. And and it just doesn't happen without assistance from the government to help people make that transition. So it is very concerning to see um those cuts coming in and and undermining the progress that that our country has been making in that way.

Very good point. Very good point.

Um Representative Frankel, um, you know, we're seeing a lot of this sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish um approach to the appropriations bills, you know, talking about oh we're saving X amount of money by um cutting all these efforts to control diseases overseas or to uh relieve hunger overseas. Um, what is the impact when we cut this kind of humanitarian aid and crises worsen instability grows how does this create greater costs and security challenges for our country

thank you thank you for your question thank you to the members of rules uh for your work and uh i just to say that uh regretfully i i am not as you know i am not supporting this bill i i am hoping we can do a better job together we do work well together but uh we this is bill falls very short i don't know if you know this but my my My son, Ben, he's alive and well. I'll start with that. But he's always a U he's a US Marine veteran. He went to two wars. And I came to Congress with the mission to keep any of other people's children from going to war. And that's really what, uh, drove me to get on this particular committee. We call it the committee really of soft power.

Mm-hmm.

As my colleague, uh, Miss Torres said that you you ca- can't just have uh the the trump administration with the bombs and the tariffs and the bullying that's not gonna be the way to keep us secure and prosperous and it is through diplomacy development and humanitarian assistance is the way to we create trading partners we uh keep uh uh people from uh from being uh disenchanted and maybe joining terrorist terrorist groups and we keep diseases from com- coming here. So, uh, th- this bill fall falls far short. I think we can do better. I know we're gonna strive to do better. And I thank you for your attention.

I appreciate that. I was really struck a few years back, I had the opportunity to visit the Northern triangle countries in Central America,

Mm-hmm.

and meet with folks there, and and they talked about how the very small investments, six hundred dollars a year, I think was the figure we were given, could provide enough support to fight corruption, fight hunger, fight disease, and help people stay in their home countries as opposed to migrating. And that's much of what can be done with this bill, um, as opposed to this migration from this administration to renaming, you know, where they're no longer trying to defend the country, they're trying to commit wars. So it's no l-

Well, you could see tom- tomorrow we'll be marking up a defense bill over a trillion dollars for the first time in our history. That's where the money's going. It's not going to lift us up domestically or even where I think we should be going in the soft power. And I I wanna just add this. Um We had Marco Rubio uh in front of our committee uh committee and uh we asked him why uh contraceptives were just basically rotting away in warehouses overseas,

Yes.

millions of dollars worth. And he said to us, "Well, we're not in the family planning business." And uh that was evident when we, this bill came across to us, where family planning for women, uh under-resourced women around the world was completely cut.

Right.

Uh, we need to do much more to uplift the mothers and the grandmothers and the sisters.

Absolutely. I mean, we've seen time and again food left to rot, medicines left to spoil, or um become out of date. It is the worst form of fraud, waste and abuse, I think. Although, of course the rotting reflecting pool is is way up there. Um, I yield back. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mister Jack. You're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Chairman Diaz-Balart, appreciate your testimony today. Could you walk us through, compared to twenty twenty six, how much um, spending you were able to cut from this appropriations bill? in line with what the american people wanted when they elected us the majority which is a more efficient government that spends money more wisely

yes sir thank you thanks for the question uh it's this this bill has an additional two point seven billion dollar reduction from the enacted fiscal year twenty six

and just to frame this going forward you know i always like to try to bring voters back home into uh the mindset that we have here in congress what is a vote against this bill what do you when when we have this on the floor later this week if the rule passes which it will what are voters or what rather what are members of congress voting against if they vote no

um confronting our adversaries um helping our allies

what was that last time

making sure that the that our country is stronger more secure more prosperous safer um but in a way that also spends less money and so what we have proven in this congress, uh w- under the chairmanship of tom cole of chairman cole is that in this particular subcommittee we've proven it this is no longer a theory is that we can spend less and do better uh that not only helps our taxpayer our our fiscal situation which is obviously a grave concern it should be a grave concern to everyone everyone but but we can also while spending less overall do more to help our our allies do more to confront our adversaries do more for the national security interests of the united states we proved that in fiscal year uh actually we started that process in fiscal year twenty five under president biden but those were tough negotiations but we reduced some spending even uh with president biden in the white house once uh i got this chairmanship uh in fiscal year twenty six we did it in a much more dramatic way i think in a much more effective fashion this takes us in the in the same direction so if you vote against this bill you're voting in essence against confronting our adversaries in a stronger way, helping our allies in a more forthright way, and yet doing so with spending less taxpayer money.

Well put. Madam Chair, you're back.

Hey, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Mister McGovern?

Yeah, I just just for the record, um, the size of the cut in your bill is about four percent of what you spent um on ice and CVP with no offset. Which is one of the reasons why the debt is one of three trillion dollars since Trump took office.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Um. Mister, um, Chairman, I was going to ask you a similar question to what Mister Jack asked you. Uh, I think he, um, did a very good job of helping, um, helping you explain a little bit more when you were interrupted earlier, I think, in your comments. And Let let me step back a minute. I I wanna thank the veterans who are here in the Rules Committee today. Uh, thank you for coming to the Rules Committee, but more importantly, thank you very much for your service. We're very grateful to have you here today. Um, is there anything else, Chairman Diaz-Balart, that you wanna add to why it seems to me that you've spelled out very clearly the choice that we will be making on whether we vote for or against this piece of legislation as you said helping our allies denying money to our adversaries those things that you spelled out is there anything else you'd like to add

i look uh you you all are extremely busy and i wanna thank you all for your service and your time and i think i've uh i've explained it but obviously always willing to answer any other uh any other questions but i'm i'm a chairwoman i think i think uh we've uh i hope that i've explained this bill in a way that is understandable Uh, it's a good bill, it's a common sense bill, spends less money does more. Uh, for our national security, I think uh, it's a darn good bill. Thank you.

And national security is our number one role at the federal government level. Our number one role. It's why we are a United States of America. It's why we came together two hundred and fifty years ago. And that was for national security. I thank our witnesses very much for being here. you are excused

that's a good way to say it yeah ok thanks great

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

Yeah, I have a bunch of people who don't have time to talk about it, Yeah. I have a bunch of people who don't have time to talk about their work.

I have to be the time to talk about it cuz I'm so busy today. I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like, I'm like,

mmm, that's funny.

Oh, thank you.

Oh, thank you. I represent a lot of small, big companies,

Yes.

and, Are you still doing well?

Mm-hmm.

Oh, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, twelve, thirteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, eighteen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, eighteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen, nineteen,

Oh, yeah.

I now welcome our panel, nineteen, nineteen, chairman Bost and ranking member, nineteen, nineteen, last year. And I'm a I'm a Takano, from the House Veterans Affairs Committee. I'm a a Yeah. I'm a Yeah, sure. mark mark hand those to me if you want to

no it's good water

it's ok yeah just put them up here it's ok just put them up here and we'll get them we'll take care of them it's just a table it's just a table it's good that's

if you want

we'll take care of them thank you but alright i didn't want you to have a chance of spilling them so so i'll spill them for you

No need to spill.

Thank you, Ryan.

Yeah, if you want to, maybe.

Thank you, Ryan. Again, I welcome our panel, Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Ticano from the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Bost, I welcome your testimony.

Well, thank you, Chairman, Women Fox, Ranking Member, Governor and members of the Rules Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today. And I am uh here to speak on support of H R ninety-two thirty-seven, the Take Care of American Veterans Act. A I respectfully ask that you issue an appropriate rule for its consideration. If you choose to make amendments in order, um I ask that you do not include any amendments that would undermine the purpose of the bill or increase its cost. Madam Chairwoman, the legislation is the most comprehensive of a veteran's package to be considered in Congress in decades. H. R. ninety-two thirty-seven includes more than sixty bipartisan bills to improve VA veterans' benefits, veterans' health care, and accountability across the entire department. But this bill is not important because of how many provisions are in it. It is important because of whom it helps. The bill begins with the major Richard Starr Act. For decades, combat injured veterans who were medically retired from the military have been forced to give up a portion of their earned retirement pay simply because, they also receive VA disability compensation. This issue has persisted for years because we cannot and have not been able to find a way to pay for fixing it. These are men and women who were injured in service to their country. And the federal government turned around and told them they could not receive the full benefits they had earned. This bill would end that injustice and allow combat injured veterans to receive both benefit by ensuring these veterans receive no more than twenty years, retirees, with the same disability. This bill also includes the Love Lives On Act, which would eliminate the choice surviving for survivors have to face when choosing to remarry or keep their benefits. Under current law, those that choose to remarry before age fifty-five must give up those VA benefits. But those who benef- the but those benefits were earned by us service members and veterans who sacrificed for this country. We want surviving spouses to rebuild their lives. This bill would make sure to help them make that a little easier. H. R. ninety-two thirty-seven also includes the Sharon Brierley, Richard Edmondson Veterans Benefit Expansion Act. This would increase benefits for catastrophic disabled veterans who require round-the-clock care and increase survivors' pensions. These are veterans whose injuries change the course of their lives and the lives of their families forever. Our nation's surviving spouses and several uh and severely disabled veterans have not seen an increase in benefits in decades. And I'm proud to announce that this bill would significantly boost and increase both of those. H. R. ninety-two thirty-seven also includes the Veterans Access Act. For years veterans have watched government bureaucracies re- restrict the community health care access Congress promises them. That is not what Congress intended under the Choice Act, that is not what Congress intended under the Mission Act, and veterans deserve better. Veterans should be able to access care in their communities, period. This bill rightfully puts veterans back in the center of VA health care. It would also improve transitions, assistance, and education benefits to better prepare veterans for s- for civilian life. Furthermore, it would m- modernize the disability claims appeals process so veterans are not treated like a number and lost in a huge system. This bill would also reform VA construction, leasing, and IT systems that are bogged down with red tape. Madam Chairman, consideration of this legislation is long overdue. Many of these provisions are not new ideas. They are long-standing priorities of veterans, military families, survivors, caregivers, veteran service organizations have been waiting for Congress to fix for years. The Major Richer Start Act is the best example. A press release and a hand and a handshake alone will not end an unfair policy. Only passing paid-for legislation does that. I want to take a moment to address the offset in this legislation. House Democrats' opposition to this offset is politic is is politics at its worst. This offset con codifies a Biden era proposed rule. Let me say it again. This proposal came from the Biden administration originally. The rule would alter the way VA evaluates service-connected sleep apnea and tendinitis. The offset is pointing forward. Let me say this very clearly. No current recipient would see their benefits change by this legislation. No. No current recipient would see their benefits changed by this legislation. VA testified that VA c- before the VA com- subcommittee that they planned to finalize this rule by the end of the fiscal year. These changes are not new. They reflect a bipartisan scientific process. I want these changes to benefit the veterans. Democrats want to play politics. This bill would give the House a serious, responsible path to promote to promoting real change for our veterans. Madam Chairman, this is basic good government principle at stake here. When Congress passes legislation, it has a responsibility to pay for it. Senate VA Committee Chairman Jerry Moran and I have worked hard to put forward a paid-for package that can become law. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues have chosen a different path. They have pushed a discharge petition uh, designed to message vote uh, message a vote on legislation that they know will die in the Senate because it's not paid for. My colleagues know that and my fellow veterans deserve more. That is what the Take Care of American Veterans Act will do. I spec- I respectfully ask the committee to report an appropriate rule and allow the house to consider the Take Care of American Veterans Act. Thank you for your consideration. your back

thank you chairman bost ranking member ticano you're recognized

thank you madam chair well good afternoon chairwoman fox and ranking member govern uh you know i wish i would hear under better circumstances yet here i am to warn you and members of this house about the dangerous and harmful bill before you today what my republican colleagues have concocted a bill they've completely without irony called the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. It is the largest cut to veterans' benefits in the history of this country. Now, I wish I were being hyperbolic here, but I'm sadly not. Republicans are prepared to rip away benefits from at least one point five million veterans, including currently serving members of the military. Members are willingly taking, Republicans, are willingly taking tens of billions of dollars from veterans' pockets because they are too timid to do the right thing for our nation's veterans. They have argued that this is inevitable. Y- my my colleague, uh, Mr. Chairman Baas just said, uh, referred to as something inevitable, that it is necessary and that it is the only way. Emphatically, it is not, and they know it, and veterans know it. And even the Trump VA knows it, and has said so publicly when Republicans tried to pin this cut on the VA. Veterans are telling us they don't want this cut. Veteran service organizations, including veterans of foreign wars and disabled American veterans, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, and many others have publicly stated that they oppose this bill and reject the premise of its funding mechanism. We should reject it too. We cannot accept that the only way to fulfill our sacred promise to veterans is by taking benefits away. What makes me most angry is how cynical this legislation is and how cruel it is. This bill represents Republicans' response to the fact that we are just five signatures away from getting the Major Richard Starr Act to the House floor. Momentum is growing here and in the Senate, and their plan to tamp down that enthusiasm and stop the train on the number one VSO priority is to cram a watered-down concurrent receipt section into a monster bill, slap benefit cuts and home loan fees increases on it, and then have the goal to call it the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. No. This bill is the taking benefits from America's Veterans Act, and I want to emphasize the word " taking". What is even more confounding is that this bill takes benefits from veterans to pay for what the Department of Defense owes. Military retirement is a DOD obligation and DOD holds the balance of what is owed to veterans who were medically retired due to combat injuries. So why are Republicans insisting on siphoning money away from veterans to pay for the Major Richard Starr Act? This stands in direct contradiction to what Chairman Boss told this committee the last time we were here and what he's said on the floor numerous times. He loves to boast that as a veteran himself, he would never do anything to harm veterans. We know that isn't true because of the very bill we have before us today. Now how is it okay for DOD to reach into veterans' pockets, past, present, or future, to pay for this bill? It makes no sense in any context. The House has reached new lows this Congress, but this is a new low for our committee. A totally partisan bill, drafted in secret, No discussion, no negotiation, no collaboration with VSOs and stakeholders, no legislative process, or mark-up on a massive six hundred page bill. This is a complete departure from how the Veterans Affairs Committee has done business in the past. Maybe it was drafted in the dark because Republicans know that if this bill were exposed to the light of day for too long, it would be revealed to be for what it truly is. Unfortunately for my colleagues, their ploy didn't work. Veterans have taken notice and they overwhelmingly object. My Republican colleague has also tried to argue that this benefits cut is inevitable because of the Department of Veterans Affairs uh was already tr- was already trying to do the same thing and they needed to get ahead of it, so Republicans can control the money. And he's also referred to uh the false notion that uh this was uh an attempt by the Biden administration to put through a similar rule. They did propose a rule overwhelmingly uh opposed by the veteran service organizations uh public comments uh you know thousands and thousands of public uh public comments were were filed and the biden administration retreated from that proposed rule so no uh this was never a rule that was ever completed by the biden administration and it is not a rule that the current uh administration is looking to put forward yet this has also been revealed uh this so it is a false a false premise VA itself VA itself stated last week that there are no plans to move forward on making changes to regulations that will lead to a benefits cut saying quote "no changes are planned or eminent". VA knows that doing so would be deeply unpopular just as it was unpopular uh during the Biden administration and VSOs and veterans spoke loud and clear on that. And just as they did earlier this year when VA issued an interim final rule that would have significantly changed how disability ratings are determined and that would have negatively impacted thousands of veterans. VA rescinded that rule because veterans were again vocal in opposition, just as they are now. Sadly, the problems with this bill don't end here. In addition to the poison pill funding mechanism, there are numerous provisions in this bill that are hugely problematic. This bill hastens the privatizations of VA, including for mental health services. It ho- it contains handouts to industry and allows them to double dip, diverting taxpayer dollars meant to serve veterans. It creates a slush fund, uh, for the tech industry. It harms student veterans by throwing more dollars at predatory for-profit schools. It also strips away collective bargaining rights from certain VA employees. This bill does not have enough redeeming value, and when you tie it to harmful funding provisions, it should be a non-starter. The harms of this bill do not end with benefits cuts. It also includes significant home loan fee, increases for veterans and service members who are in financial distress. Our country is in the middle of an affordability crisis brought on by the terrible Trump administration policies. And yet my Republican colleagues wanna pile on with more fees in order to make it unaffordable for veterans to stay in their homes during a foreclosure crisis. Benefit cuts, higher housing costs for veterans, that is what this bill is built on. I cannot support it, I reject the premise, and I urge all my colleagues to reject the premise as well. I yield back.

Thank you, Mister Ticono, Miss Fischbach, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Chairman Bost, I I really appreciate that you brought this package forward. And I and I wanna thank you for your service, and I think it's incredibly important that a veteran brought this legislation, this package forward to help your fellow veterans.

Thank you.

And so I appreciate that. Um, and it contains more than sixty bipartisan bills. Um, and it really is aimed at improving veterans' benefits, expanding access to care, and enhancing enhancing veterans' quality of life. This administration, under this administration, The Department of Veterans Affairs has reduced processing times for disability claims and pension and survivor benefits and it's reduced the VA benefits backlog to less than a hundred thousand, so there have been great achievements, an achievement that the Biden administration failed to reach in four years. Trump's VA has also decreased the time to complete veterans' pension claims, burial burial claims, DIC claims, and more. And President Trump and the Republicans did commitment to fight for our veterans as you are doing as they fought for our country, and we continue to deliver on that promise. And your bill brings together dozens of measures focused on improving veterans' careers even further, strengthening benefits and enhancing the quality of life for veterans. And I thank the Chairman for bringing it forward.

Thank you.

Um, and I actuall- I look forward to supporting it on the floor. Um, and I know this is a very comprehensive package. with many significant reforms. So before I yield back, I just want to check with you to see if there's anything, given there's so much in this bill, is there anything that you want to specifically highlight that you didn't in your opening um statement?

Right. Well, you you brought up the fact, first off, remember the the the four important is Richard Starr Act, uh, it is the the Briley, uh, Edmondson Act, which is our most, uh, vulnerable veterans that really do need the support. the Love Lives On Act for those widows uh that that for years have had to try to make a choice whether they go ahead and have it alive and get married or they wait until they are fifty-five uh not to lose their benefits. Now those are just three, there there there are so many others in there, and what is vitally important is is that there are sixty bills um of those about no forty-eight of them were cosponsored and or already been supported by Democrats in bipartisan way. And it has been brought up that that we are actually taking benefits away from veterans and that is not true. No one who receives a benefit today will have that benefit reduced or changed in any way, shape, or form. There are pay-fors here that is vitally important as we move forward. And let me say this, as my veterans and the veterans that I know and let me tell you there's veterans of organizations also in Okay, there's a there's several organizations in support of the bill. Let me say that the the thing we need to realize is that pay-for rule is a rule of this house and a rule in the senate. And we can either go down the path of trying to push something over that has a pay-for or just tell our veterans, oh, we're going to do great and wonderful things for you, only to watch it go to the senate and die. As a veteran, I want to see something passed. And there's a whole pile of things here that have been promised to be passed for a long time, and we're gonna get it done.

Well, thank you very much, Chairman Boss. And I just I do wanna just recognize that there are veterans in the audience from,

Yes, Kara.

I believe, from the VFW, so thank you for being here with us. Um, always appreciate having, um, the the public come and and hear what's going on here. So thank you for being here and thank you all for your service. Really genuinely appreciate it. And, um, I appreciate your response. Um, and, uh, thank you very much, and with that I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Bischbach. Mister McGovern, you're recognized.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I, too, want to thank our veterans here, um, and thank you for your service to our country, um, and, uh, and we appreciate your presence here in this committee. And, um, and, Chairman Bosta, um, and, uh, our Ranking Member Takano, thank you for being here. Mister Chairman, um, I'm t- I think you said that you asked for an appropriate rule with no amendments basically that you don't like uh that you think will

mmm

kind of that you believe will undermine the bill uh i think basically that's uh how i interpreted it but the whole point um but here's the problem the whole point of having a vote is because you might think an an amendment makes the bill worse but i might think it makes it better right and um and that's the whole point of why we have votes and uh this isn't mock debate club Um, if you think an amendment undermines a bill then you vote against it. Uh, but this majority kinda has one mode which is block, block, block, uh, almost everything. And just for the record, I w- uh, the Republican majority so far, uh, has, uh, six, has blocked sixty percent of all bipartisan amendments that have been offered uh, to various bills. They've blocked sixty percent of Republican amendments that have been offered to bills, uh, that we've considered. and they blocked ninety percent of democratic amendments. Uh, so I mean I um, you know I find that in pretty disturbing. I also wanna ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement by Veterans of Foreign Wars uh that's entitled VFW strongly opposes disability benefit cuts included in proposed Take Care of America's Veterans Act.

Well then.

Yeah. And let me just read a paragraph here. Says the VFW strongly opposes the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, it's currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the VA rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea, which are common conditions associated with combat polytrauma. Uh, this is according to the VFW National Commander, Carol Whitmore. "We have long maintained that veterans' benefits are an earned obligation of the nation, a promise made through the military service contract, uh, and should not be financed through offsets, fee increases or reductions, that place additional burdens on veterans, military families and survivors. Um, Mister Chairman, um, you know, um, I I assume you have seen the latest cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office which says that your bill would be a net one point three billion dollar cut uh, to benefits for veterans.

Actually, what it says is one point three billion is, um, in excess because of and let me also say again, no reduction in benefits for our veterans. It's very clear that it's not an deduction deduction uh reduction in any benefits. The proposal that we're using truly was and is a Biden era, um, uh, proposal, that this administration actually set before us in committee and said they were going to implement it, at which time, if we should not use that as an offset in a sensible way, it seems only proper to do that. We are not trying to reduce any benefits for our veterans. We are trying desperately to make sure all the positive things in this bill get done, which we have been doing, that, as I said, is a majority of a bipartisan group of bills.

Well, I appreciate, but I'm I'm reading, I don't know if you've seen the same CBO uh document that I have, but it this document's cuts uh for a total of one point three billion dollars in cuts. Um and this bill would cost veterans um refinancing their homes an additional three thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars uh in fees on average. Uh it would cut uh benefits for tinnitus and sleep apnea um which as I as the VFW pointed out are some of the most common medical conditions that qualify veterans um for disability benefits and and and and Kenny here's my problem when you know you keep on talking about uh pay go and you gotta everything requires pay fors you you guys pick and choose you know when you need to pay for you need to pay for when it comes to benefits for veterans uh but when it comes to tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires there's no there's no offset uh when a you a couple of weeks ago you all voted for an additional seventy billion dollars billion with a b for uh cbp and um and ice on top of the one hundred billion dollars that they already have they haven't spent none of none of that was offset nobody none of you guys asked for a pay for for that and let's not even get into the current war in iran um mr. takano do you wanna anything

yeah yeah uh mr. ranking member uh you know chairman boss clearly does not understand the disability how the disability rating system works because while the bills while the bills cuts to disability ratings may not directly be retroactive they can and will lead to cuts for those who already have a service connected disability ratings for sleep apnea and tinnitus this is because anytime a veteran applies for a rating increase or applies for a new rating for some other condition, VA can and does review previous ratings, sometimes even lowering them. So when he says no veterans' ratings are are subject to uh any danger, he's not being, he's not being uh actually accurate. It's foolish to think that VA won't apply the new rules that statutorily were being asked to put into effect for sleep apnea and tinnitus when veterans have their ratings reviewed. But let's be clear. The forward-looking application of these changes, meaning to present and future veterans, is problematic as well. It means that veterans who aren't currently rated and active duty service members who are incurring these injuries right now will be treated worse than those that came before them. The contract will unilaterally be changed on them for the worst. How can we say with a straight face that two veterans with the same exact condition should be treated differently? This is beyond me. Now, Ranking Member McGovern, let's be clear what the chairman wants to completely ignore. We've had veterans subjected on our military bases to blasts from Iranian missiles. Uh, we've had, we've ha- not veterans, we've had active duty service members, active duty service members on ships. He's, what this legislation would do, what members of this committee are s- are are being asked to do, is to move forward legislation which would, which would make it impossible for those veterans to go in the future and get a diagnosis of of tinnitus which is a very common diagnosis with with with good reason uh they're subjected to blasts all the time subjected to loud noises uh they will not be able to apply that diagnosis to a disability rating

and i suspect that that's why the vfw um has concerns about this bill and why many veterans are have concerns about this bill is because um you know they interpret the cuts to actually mean cuts in the future. I just, let me just kind of end with one question, cause this, I've I've been asking this of various panels when we we talk about offsets and and you know and and need for savings. I I ju- I just wanna under why didn't why did you vote for uh uh a uh for seventy billion dollars in in additional money for CBP and ICE without asking for an offset? I mean I I don't I just don't understand like why that's OK. But, you know, um, but this is, this has to be thought of in a different way. I mean, what what makes that different? I mean, and why didn't anybody offer I mean, some of us tried to offer amendments on, you know, on making sure it was offset, but I j- I d- That that's the thing. You you you guys vote for things all the time that have no offsets. That's why the the debt has gone up three trillion dollars, since you uh, since we have a total Republican government here. Uh, but I'm just curious, I don't know whether there's an explanation for that.

Uh, yeah. I know what I was going with my committee, and I know the rules of my committee, and I have to have the offsets. I moved forward so that actually the veterans are not lied to and said, oh, look, we're going to move this bill knowing it's going to die in the Senate. The offsets that we're using

So, do you have any

do not reduce

Do you have any

any other any person's benefits.

Well, we we we we've we've heard that it would impact certainly few people.

Well, you've you've heard from his side, now you're hearing from my side.

Oh, and I also heard, we're also from veterans.

And I hear from veterans that say they understand this offset.

But what

So it they understand this. We can't say that all veterans because if you look at the groups, with all due respect if you look at the groups that are in support many of the S O's organizations are in support of the legislation. Yes, there are some that are opposed,

But

based on what their their rules are and everything like that.

But but but my my question, though, is it's not about your committee, it's about your vote on the floor. for a for seventy billion dollars with with that have no offset and i i'm just and that's i mean i i asked basically the same question of the previous panelists i i mean you you have to cut they're cutting programs to help hungry people here we're uh negatively impacting veterans because we need to may have have offsets but yet there there was no nobody wanted nobody cared about an offset and you all voted for it and so i just yeah I'll I'll I'll yield to Mr. Cannell and then I'll

Yeah, well, well, mister uh ranking member of government,

use it.

I agree with you this inconsistency on the insistence on offsets. Uh, but you know what? Uh, what I object to most is that the offset that the majority is attempting to use here is to take money from veterans, to take money out of veterans' pockets, disabled veterans' pockets, and to give it to other disabled veterans. That to me is abhorrent. Look, I agree with you that they've passed legislation without offsets, so here's what I would urge this committee to do. To consider making my amendments in order to meet the the chairman, the chairman's insistence on an offset, we have alternatives. Make DOD pay for a DOD program. This is a deal, we're asking for uh uh uh, you know, DOD pensions to be paid for.

And and and Chairman Vos, just one quick question, if the if the major Richard Starr bill were put on the floor uh today without an offset, would you vote for it or against it? Because that's what the Jewish March petition said.

Right. Well, you know what? A lot of people claim they'll vote for it, so if if it comes and this this doesn't go, we'll see what happens.

Okay.

The problem is the problem is that's a lie to your veterans because you you you just lied to your veterans because you think it's gonna pass in the Senate and the Senate has already been very very clear they will not support it.

We're five signatures away, uh, from getting that to the floor, but I mean the idea that, you know, when it comes to other things nobody wants it no one cares about an offset but when it comes to veterans who were insisting on an offset i just find that a little bit you know puzzling but i thank you i yield back

thank you mister mcgovern mister griffith you're recognized

chairman boss you you've uh we've heard uh one of the vso's uh referenced by name uh as being opposed and you said there are vso's that support i'm just wondering if you could list those

list list total is is and then if you then you have to look at is it is it the vso's or is it Um, there is about twelve uh in opposition and fourteen to fifteen uh that are in support, and there are a couple that are waiting on uh what the administration's positions come down.

Can can you give us the names of a couple of them? I don't have to have all fourteen in favor.

I'd

There you go.

The American um the American Legion is one of them that's in support. Um.

There's a whole lot more. Hold on just a second.

Uh, BBA, Legion, Amvets, Taps, uh, Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Gold Star Spouses, Gold Star, uh, Wings, um, so there's several,

Okay. Uh, fair number.

yeah.

And, I I'm trying to get my arms around it, uh, on the sleep apnea.

Mm-hmm.

My understanding is, and and I could be mistaken, is that currently if you if you are a veteran and you come in and you have a sleep apnea problem you are automatically given a fifty percent disadvantage.

That is your correct, fifty percent. Um, and

And does this bill lower that to ten percent automatically or does it lower

No, no, it doesn't lo what it does is it says that you are it is a revamping of it to say, okay, what's the scientific background of that is what caused it, and then, uh, you can still apply for it, however, Uh, it under current rule, it's just kind of granted out there.

Yeah. No, but I guess what I'm saying is, is that you can show science up to whatever level with the medical histories and so forth but I thought it was ten percent automatic if you had sleep apnea. Is that not accurate?

It fifteen. Fifty, it's fifty automatic.

It's fifty now,

Fifty, fifty, fifty automatic.

but I thought the bill said ten.

Is that right?

Am I right or wrong on that?

Sorry, it's on scale, but

It's on a sliding scale with the, with the least being ten.

Is that correct?

With the least being ten, OK. That, and that, that was my understanding. I just wanna make it clear.

Yep.

So if you come in and it's clear that it was caused by action in, in,

Right.

in Iran or anywhere else,

Then you get the, yeah, they can show that,

then you,

yep.

you get, you get the, and you have sleep apnea, it's ten percent minimum, but then it could go up as high as a hundred percent, theoretically.

Theoretically.

It's unlikely to go to a hundred percent, but it could. OK. I mean, that was kind of my understanding as well. Uh, is there anything else that you want to say in response to comments today?

No, I think I think, you know, we it's wild at around this place when we talk about offsets and everything like that. But other thing we do is the people that argue that you want to follow science, up until that science doesn't fit where you want it to be. And I think that we do not want to reduce uh vet- and and remember this, this is the most important thing, it doesn't reduce veterans' benefits that already receive them. It does not.

I appreciate that. Now you go back, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Miss Ganlin, you're recognized.

Thank you. Uh, I mean, this is a massive bill, right? Over five hundred pages of

Yes, it is.

Mm-hmm.

text and all and and some really important provisions that have bipartisan support, um, from veterans, military, families, et cetera. But despite all that, because of what a fair number of people say are the cuts to veterans' benefits, so we seem to have a a real

Very nice.

Um, dispute here about that, the veterans of foreign wars, the disabled American veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan veterans of America all oppose the bill, um, not because of the provisions that are in it, but because of how Republicans have chosen to pay for it, um, with, um, what appears to be sixty-four billion dollars in cuts from other benefits, um, not the same ones that issue in the bill.

No cuts.

I mean, we absolutely strengthening benefits for veterans and their families, but not by taking benefits away from other veterans veterans or increasing costs on military families now we've mentioned um the support or lack thereof from the vfw and other organizations but um uh afge a major union is also opposing um this bill because it is going to remove um psychologists who provide thousands of psychologists from their current um, protected status under uh the VA and remove labor protections from them. Um, we're already seeing at the VA a real problem with being able to hold on to our medical personnel because of the cuts to the VA, because of the overturning of labor provisions. Um, and here it looks like we're about to see more of that and that kind of disruption of care really impacts our veterans because our VI folks are specialists. They are, you know, world experts on this, and if we are pushing them out, then it has a real impact. Can you comment on that?

Yeah, well,

Uh, to comment?

I wanted to say, uh, the chairman was able to mention less than ten, uh, VSO, Veterans Service Organizations that favor this bill. Um, I have a list here of twenty, uh, at least twenty that are in opposition and Um, I I doubt there's any, uh, VSO, uh, in the room. Uh, that's right, we, uh, it's unprecedented that we have veteran service organizations represented in the Rules Committee hearing room. But I, I don't, I would defy the chairman to point to one VSO present today. Uh, look around. That is in favor of this bill.

It's usually pretty quiet in the Rules Committee, but we do have a number of folks from the VFW here today.

So, let me also say, um, the chairman says he doesn't wanna lie to veterans about the passage in the Senate of the Richard Starr Act. Um, I would argue that the Richard Starr Act, if we passed it in the House, would have so much momentum. It's, that's what's irresistible. What's irresistible is the grassroots support across this country for the Richard Starr Act, which is the number one priority of all the veteran service organizations, including the ones who the chairman cites as favoring this bill before us. I would I I I I say the Senate has been clear that there's not a path forward for the taking care of veterans uh America's Veterans Act uh that he's proposing I I have here a letter signed by forty-six senators uh two Doug Collins uh Secretary Collins stating uh that they would that they opposed the taking care of America's Veterans Act and uh Madam Chair I would ask that it be put into the record

Without objection

uh uh so uh you know I I also wanna say one thing uh, Congresswoman Scanlon. Um, you know that uh, let's talk about some of the offices a little bit. You know that ten days of war in Iran, the ten days of a war in Iran is about a billion dollars a day, will pay for ten years of the major Richard Starr Act.

Mm-hmm.

There is right now a hundred billion dollars of unused money uh, that was appropriated to uh, the Department of Defense. Uh, we could just take one tenth of that. and pay for this act. So there are other ways to pay for this. Uh, I have I have amendments, uh, that I wish would be made, that I hope would be made in order. Uh, let the house, let our colleagues decide if the Taking Care of Veterans Act is the only way to move forward. What what the chairman proposes to do, proposes to do, is to take money out of some disabled veterans' pockets and to give it to others that are very, very deserving. But this is not a path we wanna go down, I don't think.

Mm.

i think we have alternatives to pay for this we don't have to pay for it in this way and as rinky member Mcarvern says there are other instances when uh when this body the majority the majority of this the majority that governs this house has decided that we don't need offsets

mmm

so anyway i yield back

well i i'm really concerned about the impact on service because we've already seen a great deal of impact on the medical personnel who provide services to our veterans in our area between layoffs, cuts and squeezing the folks who who do provide those services. Um, I understand that there are also issues created by this bill concerning increasing home loan costs for service members and veterans. And that one really concerns me because, I mean, we're seeing this housing crisis across the country. And is this really a time when we should be putting more home loan costs on our veterans who've already served us so well?

Well, thank you for asking that question. You know, I'm disappointed that the majority cancelled, uh, a Economic Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on this very issue. Um, we had, uh, with us, a plan to have witnesses, uh, testify about the imminent danger they are of losing their homes. Why? Uh, because the majority and the secretary ended the VASP program. Uh, they have so they have supposedly implemented a partial claims uh you know substitute which is not fully operational and which is leaving our veterans in danger of losing ten thousand veterans

mmm

have lost their homes unnecessarily to foreclosure and what this what this bill does before us today is increase the burden on our active duty so our our active duty service members are eligible for the veteran home loan program right now What this majority is proposing to do is ask Congress to vote to increase the burden of the fees that our active duty service members have to pay uh for their GI Bill loans. Um, you know, I think this is unconscionable, um, at a time when housing costs are high, we expect the the Federal Reserve probably to raise uh interest rates. Um, this is, this is going the opposite direction to help uh our service members and veterans afford homes.

Certainly a a big concern as we hear from too many service members who have trouble affording food and housing for their families so to see this going in the wrong direction as you suggest is really really concerning so thank you for your work on this and I'll join you in opposing the bill I yield back.

You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Mister Chairman, I wanna ask you at the outset, how many bills

There are there are sixty proposals that have already many of them have already been moving through the process either this year or years before and forty-eight of them are bipartisan in nature matter of fact if you add up the amount of sponsors on these bills uh there are over five hundred democrat cosponsors of those forty-eight so this is truly a bipartisan

And if you could help define for this committee, when members of Congress are considering this legislation later this week, once we pass the rule, um, what are people voting against? If a member of Congress votes against this bill on the floor, what i- what are they doing?

Right. What you're voting against is one, uh, the correction that would need to be done as far as the Richard Starr Act, which is one of the major issues that that we're trying to deal with here. Two is you're voting against the increase for the first time in decades to those uh uh most disabled veterans, about the quadriplegic, paraplegic, that that have twenty-four hour care in their home, their families, whether it's a spouse or whether it's mothers and fathers, other family members have to take care of, you're voting against that. Um, if you're uh and you're voting against an increase in the benefit of the surviving spouses. You're also voting against the opportunity for the widows and our uh widowers of the uh of the the that person that gave all um from getting remarried and without losing their benefit until they're fifty-five years old. And when you start looking through all of those bills, those sixty bills, you put those those are huge things to our veterans. Now, we are doing what's right and what's really important is is that you're not just telling the veterans in a political way, oh yeah, see I voted for that, and then they're wondering next year, man, why didn't that happen? This one this time it will happen if we get it through.

I'll put Madam Chair Yield back.

Thank you very much, Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you uh very much uh Chair Roman uh and thank you to the chair and ranking member, it's good to see you again. We have just a few weeks ago we were having uh conversations

Thank you.

and those conversations are kind of similar. Uh because we were discussing legislation uh part of which we have strong bipartisan support for. But the question that Democrats were posing is how do you pay for it? Do you pay for it by making other veterans suffer consequences or should Congress prioritize? And that's what we have here, uh, in terms of some of the inclusion of these bipartisan pieces of legislation. We are not against the bipartisan piece of legislation. The Richard Starr Act, Major Richard Starr.

Well, you don't have to.

I'm a sponsor I'd signed the discharge petition I would like to see that bill come to the floor and we're really close to getting it to the floor and I love looking out and looking out at at at the veterans uh my father was a veteran the only place I could ever get Shirley temples was at the VFW loved it uh we my sister and I had to share one and we'd they would give us two cherries though so we were always really happy um How many uh veterans are in the room, if I could have a raise of hands? Uh, I always say it's not enough, and and you you made that real clear, chairman, um last time is that you were bring to this job your role as veteran, but how many of you are in favor of the Richard Storack? I I want I wanna recognize that, have the record show that I think every single veteran in the room is also in favor of the Major Richard Storack. Chairman, are you also in favor of the Major oh,

I am.

have you signed the have you signed the discharge petition? I am. I have not. I have not. You have not signed the discharge petition.

I have not signed the discharge petition. One, I'm Chairman, two, is is that it is vitally important to make sure that whatever we do, that we pay for it. And the reason I say that is because if we if we give up

We pay for it.

and not pay for and continue down the path that we continue not paying for, that these veterans fought for behind us is for not if china owns our debt because i got a feeling if china owns our debt they won't take care of our veterans

ah so i find that very interesting cause uh yes last uh was uh last time we were in session did you vote for a reconciliation two point O which was seventy two billion dollars

yes i did

and how is that being paid for

through the same process as as You know, and and when those bills come before us,

But you're gonna have to do the same process as what?

if you want to vote for it Well, let me tell you that as far as our committee is concerned, we are required to have papers.

Okay.

And so, as Chairman, I have a responsibility.

So just so the may the record reflect that the Chairman voted for a bill that was seventy two billion dollars that is not paid for. Seventy two billion dollars that is not paid for. He voted and last uh last uh god how long has it been almost a year ago for a bill that was paid for but was paid for on the backs of veterans uh entitlement uh to nutrition assistance uh um medic you know medicaid and so many other things but last just the last time we were in session seventy two billion dollars that were not paid for but you won't move to the floor a bill that every veteran in this room supports, a bipartisan bill that every veteran in this room supports. Now that is your bill, isn't it, ranking member Tucano?

Uh, the uh, the Riches Ruck,

Major Riches Ruck.

um, uh, it's a bill that I have um,

You you you're a discharge petition.

which is I've I've discharge petition on, that's actually Doctor Ruiz and uh uh Bill Arrakis' bill. Uh, but let me say, look, uh, yes, you make a good point. about how the majority um has spent tens of billions of dollars without having it being paid for and the chairman wanted to go off onto a tangent about uh about china uh and uh you know that they hold our our our bonds our us bonds um but the fact is he has voted for tens of billions of dollars uh for that to happen but is insisting on paying for this particular bill uh by reaching into the pockets of disabled veterans That's what I find so galling. Um, I mean, he will rail about like doesn't wanna see us go into more debt, uh, and have it be financed by China and other countries. But when it comes to taking care of veterans who, uh, present-day veterans that are fighting for us right now in the Gulf, they're not gonna be able to go and get their tinnitus be recognized uh as a percentage of their disability rate. Uh, they're not gonna get their sleep apnea, can range now it's not true that automatically it's fifty percent but look this is the first time in history that we are trying to put into statute that congress is trying to decide something which should be decided by professionals and medical professionals we are uh we are now getting into the business of deciding what should be counted as a disability that's kind of a ridiculous debate to be having so i i think i wanna just make sure the american people know how ridiculous this Congress is being, how the majority is being, we should not be uh legislating into statute uh which is very difficult to remove how disability ratings are gonna operate from now on and especially when in what's at stake is what our brave men and women right now whose lives are in the balance in uh in the waters around Iran, uh that that's who we're talking about. we're saying that all we're gonna treat these veterans in the future differently than present day veterans and that is what i think really riles our veteran service organizations. By the way i just wanna add uh to the record this letter from seven VSOs in opposition, including the disabled veterans who are also in the audience along with the VFW, so i just wanna make sure.

Right. Because i think that gets to the point of where i think veterans want us to do the right thing, in terms of there are many aspects in this bill that are the right thing to do. But I would I would venture to ask again of the question of the veterans in the room, does anybody want them to see benefits come? No? Does anybody want to see Congress making the decisions about disability benefits? I I don't see anybody in the room, Chairman Boss, j- you uh you I mean you you are it's it's not that you have your back to them, you have your No, I mean, I just think it would be easier. And if And if you turn it, I don't know if you know their benefits or not, but they, they do not want to see their disability benefits cut, but that's what this does. And Oh. Uh, that, that, you know, I th I think that, uh, it's I'm I would like to enter into the record, Madam Chair, um, a, uh, article dated June twenty twenty six from the government executive titled gop's va overhaul bill narrows some employees rights versus privatization union says uh

without objection

thank you and a quote the vfw strongly opposes the take care of americans veterans act as currently because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the va rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep disorder and in in regards to some of the questions and discussion earlier um with regards to how disability benefits are doing right now no changes are planned or imminent

right the the the VA is is the the majority has has said has uh

right still reviewing

inaccurately stated in the previously that we should take advantage of the cost savings because of a projected uh VA uh change in how disability ratings are gonna change in the, specifically, the tinnitus uh and the uh sleep apnea. But the VA has stated flat out they have no intention of changing uh those the the eligibility of those conditions precisely because they know that change would be hugely hugely unpopular just as the biden administration discovered the same thing the uh the the chairman had has tried to refer to oh well biden tried to do the same thing it is true that they did propose a rule but they pulled back from it so they did not go forward just as this va is not going forward with it um but what are they doing instead the va is refusing to to move forward with a rules change but this congress under this bill what's being proposed in this congress is that statutorily we're gonna change the rules of what is eligible for disability ratings we're gonna make sleep apnea uh and uh uh uh uh tinnitus uh ineligible and understand that tinnitus tinnitus is a very common common disability why it deals with hearing loss uh and uh of course it's gonna save us a lot of money by taking money from the pockets of very very deserving the disabled veterans who deserve that rating.

so we should not be saving money on the pain of our veterans who suffered whether it's CBI or tinnitus because of the sound i just wanna read uh madam chair uh uh as uh the va spokesman uh i mean i think i wanted to introduce this letter because it was the va itself who said we have no plans and and

without without objection

right and the the an interesting continuation of the quote which w- uh the ranking member accurately summarise that the VA learned of the Take Care of Americans Veterans Act last week uh and it's sort of like this is being moved so quickly I think precisely because veterans are really good at making their voices heard you know veterans are really I was in we've all attended events in our home district with veterans uh you know several days ago and they made their voices heard to me they like what we're you're doing here with your discharge petition they do not like and they are opposed to having veterans lose benefits whether it's housing or any other benefit in order to pay for other benefits that is not how it works you do not say thank you for your service and then take away some of the benefits that you've earned. These are not giveaways, these are not gifts. Veterans have earned this. And I think we should all be in opposition uh to this thrown together uh uh impact, which does have some bipartisan bills in it, but the way they are paying for it is outrageous, and I think a disgrace for a bit of us.

There are a number of poison pills in this bill. Because of the process, uh, it's been inserted. Yes, there are some bipartisan elements to this bill, but there are a lot of poison pills in this bill that are that have not been duly considered.

Thank you very much, and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Um, Mister Bost, I've think you might want to say some things,

Yes.

uh, in response

First off, one one state

about comments that have been made by Mister Ticano, Miss Ledger-Francis.

Thank you.

Would you like to clarify the

Once again, they've they've continued to say that there's going to be, um, reductions in benefits for our veterans. There is not going to be reductions. Their science is applied on the one question as far as tendinitis and, and it was a and both Biden and this administration. The letter they quoted was by a group, or by a person at the VA. However, we also had the VA say specifically in committee that they were going to implement this. That being said, also as far as the rush with these bills, a bill does not become part um partisan just because it it it's finally moving. If these policies were good enough to have all those cosponsors on them, then it it wasn't rushed. We've already moved many of these bills. All we did was come up with a sensible pay-for for the future that reduces no veteran's benefit. I think we should also say that in our last hearing, whenever we talked about a pay-for and we talked about the home loans, the advantage is is that it does not put a fee on any veteran, first off, at a veteran's uh disability la la they have to be under a certain disability rating. Two, it is not on their primary loan, it is on a refund financing of the loan, and it's an $8 fee per month. Let me tell you that another pay-for that they don't mention is is that in here, we also now make it easier for those who are veteran or tho- those who have served in National Guard and Reserve rather than having ninety days of either article ten uh rating, they only need ten, which gives us a tremendous amount of people also participating in that loan that helps offset that. That's not reducing a benefit, that's actually adding a benefit. And so all we're doing is using those things that were available to offset this bill. But if you look, the most important thing is it covers so many things that are vitally important including the Richard Starr Act, no, the the uh the the the spouses of our veterans who could not receive or would lose their benefit if they married before fifty-five, You've got also your, uh, Briley and Edmondson Act, which is our most vulnerable to provide for. Veterans sometimes disagree, as we can show you that the veterans' organizations, certain ones for, certain ones against. But the package itself is a long-term benefit for our veterans and will be so done.

Um, a lot is being said in the press these days about how few days we have available to us. You have the legislative days available to us and to the Senate. We have you have sixty bills here, forty-eight of them that are bipartisan. You've already indicated that if this bill does not pass with this package does not pass, it is unlikely that any of the things that everybody agrees on will pass in this session. Is that correct?

That is that that is correct, yes.

So I I've yet to see a perfect bill here in the house of representatives.

Nor have I.

My first bill here was to benefit active duty military, was called the Hero Act. It allowed members of the military to put combat pay, which is nontaxable, into an IRA. I had a young soldier in my district who wanted that. We passed it out of the house with, I think, four people voting against it, I'm not, I don't really, I think it was four, went to the Senate. The Senate wanted to make it retroactive. But even in those days, no, you couldn't do that, because we had pay-fors. You could make things prospective

Hmm.

without a pay-for. And we finally got that bill passed after it sat in the Senate for almost a year by getting the Senate to s- not make it prospective, but Just apply to people um uh current going forward. Uh that sounds a lot like what you're doing to me.

Right.

And I'm very concerned about the forty-eight bipartisan bills that you have that won't get passed in this session of Congress.

At all. At all.

If this bill isn't passed.

Right.

I just wanted to clarify that for you, and also clarify Mister Griffith's question, which was people who have service-related tinnitus and service-related

It's the only seat.

sleep apnea will still be eligible

Yeah.

for those benefits.

That's correct.

That's not true.

OK.

No, it's correct.

No, it's incorrect. Going f- going forward

Uh, Mister Takano, I didn't recognize you.

That's fine. But I just wanted to say it's not correct.

I I believe what Mister Boss told me. I've never had any reason to doubt him in what he has said. Thank you very much, Mister Boss. I see no other people eligible to ask questions. Therefore, the witnesses are excused.

Thank you very much, and I thank you, Bradford, for being here too. We may disagree at times, but we're still working for him.

Ready.

chairman of infox you got a you got a full committee today

do i have one

you have a full committee today

yes sir thank you

thank you You're recognized.

I am. It was a little hard, a little hard to hear. Thank you very much. Uh, thank you, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. Uh, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H R eleven eighty-one, the Protecting Privacy and Purchases Act. This legislation addresses a fundamental principle that she unite every American, regardless of party. Law-abiding citizens should not be monitored, tracked, or profiled by the government simply for exercising their constitutional rights. However, under the Obama and Biden administrations, we saw that federal financial regulators and their agencies blurred the lines between legitimate law enforcement and surveillance of ordinary Americans in dangerous ways. Take, for example, the House Judiciary Committee's twenty twenty-four report that detailed how federal law enforcement agencies engaged in broad financial surveillance of Americans and pride into the private transactions of consumers. This was not based on specific evidence of criminal conduct, but instead relied on sweeping searches of financial data that touched on constitutionally protected political and religious activity. The report found that the federal officials encouraged financial institutions to use keyword filtering, transaction monitoring, to identify Americans based on search terms such as MAGA. or trump. They also flagged book purchases, including religious texts, and transactions involving firearm-related products as indicators warranting scrutiny, including at places such as the Bass Pro Shop or Dick's Sporting Good. Think about what that means. A marigot who buys a bible or purchases hunting equipment at an outdoor sporting goods store has unique scrutiny by the federal government. None of these actions, of course, are crimes. None of these activities justify government's suspicion, their lawful expressions of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet this surveillance likely swept in millions of Americans who simply held conservative political views, or exercised their second amendment rights. That should concern you, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, because you can easily imagine how the shoe would fit on the other foot. The question that each member of this committee should ask themselves is whether The payment system should be surveilled to monitor lawful purchases. The obvious answer is no. Unfortunately, this is part of a broader pattern that many of Americans have watched develop over the years. From Operation Chokepoint to the debanking of the digital asset sector, we have seen repeated attempts to use the financial sector as a political tool for monitoring and discouraging lawful behavior that some in government may disfavor. That's why H. R. eleven eighty-one is so important. The bill establishes clear guardrails to prevent payment card networks from requiring retailers to use a separate merchant category code, solely because they sell firearms or ammunition. It protects Americans from the creation of financial tracking systems that could be used to identify monitor and profile citizens, based on lawful purchases. Importantly, H. R. eleven eighty-one does not prevent law enforcement from investigating crimes. It does not shield illegal conduct. It simply ensures that Americans are not treated as suspects because they engage in legal commerce exercise their constitutional rights or hold views that some in Washington may not agree with. Americans shouldn't have to worry that legally purchasing a firearm will place them in a government database or trigger enhanced scrutiny. The Constitution does not condition our rights on government approval. Americans do not surrender their privacy when they make a lawful purchase. H. R. eleven eighty-one is a common sense measure that protects privacy, safeguards civil liberties, and reinforces the constitutional principles that define our nation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chairman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Green for his five minute for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking member. Thank all of the members of the committee as well. And I would rise today in the name of the mothers and fathers who have laid their children to rest as a result of senseless gun violence. I rise in the name of the children who've had to look over into the casket and see their parents who have been killed by gun violence arise in the name of liberty and justice for all, as told in the Jeffersonian Independence Declaration. And I believe and urge this committee to oppose this bill which limits efforts to combat gun violence. And let's start with a few statistics. Americans are twenty-six times more likely to be shot and killed than if you lived in any other high income country. On average, three hundred and twenty-seven people are shot in the United States daily. This includes twenty-three children who are shot daily. On average, one hundred and seventeen people die every day in the United States because of senseless gun violence. Now, a few states, including California, New York, and Colorado, have taken action to require payment card networks to use a merchant category code, or MCC, to distinguish firearm retailers from other types of retailers. Many different types of retailers require this unique MCC code, including florists, barbershops, art dealers, automotive tire shops, and even candy stores. While those don't reveal the individual goods are purchased, they can indicate an unusual large purchase at a type of business that might reveal a risk. This information could be used to help law enforcement track suspicious purchases to prevent even more gun violence. We really are. at a point where continuing to do nothing is not a very good option. In fact, it's not a good option at all. Leading gun safety groups, including Brady, Community Justice, Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, Guns Down America, and Newtown Action Alliance have sent a letter to urge members to vote no on this harmful legislation. And I might add, in some cases it will be deadly harmful. Madam Chair, excuse me, Mister Chair now, my my pardon, pardon my my commentary please. I ask unanimous consent uh to enter the letter from these various groups in the record.

with that objection. So

I also, thank you, Mr. Chair, I also ask unanimous consent to enter records in the record letters that I have sent to the equivalent of our chamber of commerce in Houston, Texas. It's called a partnership. These are letters that I've sent over the years, uh, since, uh, twenty twenty-two. These letters are indicative of something that I believe to be very important, a request to meet with the partnership to discuss gun violence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are addressed in these letters. I actually list violent activities that have occurred, mass shootings, and I have not been accorded an opportunity to speak to the Houston partnership about the gun violence. I ask that these letters be submitted and received into the record, Mister Chair.

Without objection. Seeing none, so ordered.

Thank you. In their letter, and I'm talking about the letter from the many organizations that I referenced, they quote, "We write in strong opposition to H. R. eleven eighty-one, the Protecting Privacy and Purchases Act, This bill would make it easier for mass shooters, gun traffickers, and even terrorists who abuse our financial systems to stockpile firearms and ammunitions undetected. They go on to note that between two thousand seven and two thousand eighteen credit cards were used to finance at least eight major mass shootings. One of those included the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Stepping aside from the letter for just a moment, I went to Orlando, Florida after the Pulse shooting. One standing in the area where the shootings took place would have tears too well in your eyes, understanding what took place. a dastardly deed that took lives. Forty-nine people were killed. Fifty more were injured. Just days before the shooter opened fire, his internet search history included the terms "credit card unusual spending", FBI in quotes, and " why banks stop your purchases". He had opened six new credit card accounts in the eight months prior and twelve days before the shooting. Spent more than twenty-six thousand dollars on things like a rifle, a semi-automatic pistol, several large magazines, and thousands of rounds of ammunition. Before this, his average monthly spending on his single card was about one thousand five hundred dollars. None of these credit card operators, payment processors, or banks were alerted to the types of transactions being undertaken. And they did not notify law enforcement officials about these purchases. Americans are tired of the senseless gun violence and want Congress to act and enact stricter gun control measures. Unfortunately, this bill goes in the opposite direction and would implement a ban on such such merchant reporting on the federal level and would preempt existing state laws like those in California, New York, and Colorado. If I may just end end this with my closing then, uh, Mister Chairman, this is about SARS, suspicious activity for anomalous behavior. When anomalous behavior, unusual behavior, is detected, even in the banking system, we report it. I think that when we can save lives, we should do a similar thing, and I thank you for allowing me the time.

Chairman Yates is back, now recognize uh Miss Fischbach for her five minutes, or for her time.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and mister style i just wanna just yes or no but the purpose really of this bill is to prevent a firearm specific merchant category code m c c um and that's the four digit code that identifies a retailer truck type so is that correct because we we strayed a little bit and so i wanted to make sure that we were focused on what was actually in the bill

yeah no that's uh exactly right representative fischbach

ok ok because uh eh you know more and more recently gun control advocates have called for a firearm specific m c c that would allow financial institutions and credit card companies to track firearm and firearm related purchases um and they argue as we've heard that it is uh to prevent mass shootings but really, their intention is really to create a back door gun registry uh by private institutions and establish a tool that can be used to block an american from exercising their constitutional second amendment rights. uh i so mister stile isn't it also true that financial institutions can block purchases based on specific mcc's

well this is the whole challenge is to if we look back to operation chuck point one point O in particular under the biden administration they're putting significant pressure on financial institutions in the united states to take action um to or to not engage or provide them the capital so so they could operate uh and so this is a backdoor attempt uh by the federal government then and or choke point one point O under the obama administration uh to accomplish through the financial regulatory framework what they couldn't accomplish politically or constitutionally uh in my opinion and so this code uh is a mechanism um that we need to prevent from being labeled on uh lawful uh the sale of firearms or ammunition uh so individuals aren't tracked in a suspicious manner simply for making what is otherwise a legal purchase.

So just a a firearm-specific MCC could act as a tool for the financial institution to block an everyday citizen from exercising their second amendment, right, is that

Yeah, it get it gets a little technical as to what the exactly uh the financial institutions can use the MCC code for, uh but unquestionably the the the driving concern of this is the tracking mechanism that that meta-data uh would exist uh and be susceptible uh to government review.

ok well thank you very much and i just just to sum it up a firearm specific mcc would not prevent mass shootings um but it would create in essence a national gun registry and allow financial institutions to to block americans second amendment right is that

there there there it's pretty clear there are those in the federal government in particular previous administrations

fair summary

uh that don't share our belief uh in the importance of the second amendment are looking for backdoor avenues to um stifle the ability of the private sector to actually produce and sell uh these types of firearms legally uh and this is the mechanism that they have tried to utilize it's the exact reason why this legislation is so important

and and mister stile i think to to kind of reiterate what you said is they couldn't do it one way so they're trying it this way so i thank you and i yield back

general lady yields back now recognize the ranking member mr.

yeah no i i um i'm just trying to understand some of the facts here i i just looked online and for mastercard and visa i mean there are hundreds literally hundreds of different quote merchant category codes are you aware that there is a code for floris

the there i i don't know floris but there is a very significant large number of codes

yeah there there is there yeah and and what there is a there is a uh uh uh code for cigar stores uh there's a there's a code for massage parlors uh did you know that there's even a code for dating and escort services um and um and it and you know and you know and if i understand correctly what we're talking about here is that this code doesn't tell you whether somebody bought a gun or ammunition it basically just focuses on the place where you you know where you made the purchase you could buy you know, a thousand dollars worth of potato chips at an am- at a gun store. Um, and so it doesn't tell you, it doesn't tell you where you might, but I guess my my question to you,

The

Mr. Thales, is when it comes to gun gun and ammo dealers, suddenly they need republicans in congress to step in to make a special exemption just for them. And I guess if you have concern about these codes, then the policy solution should apply to everyone. Uh, not not a not make a special car vote, for your friends in the gun industry who quite frankly support uh the republicans generously financially i mean i i just it just it reeks of like a a payoff to a special interest payback to a special interest why why why just why why just um gun and ammo dealers why not why not everything

the i i actually think the answer to that uh ranger member govern is is rather straightforward these mcc codes

what is this

have been abused by democratic administrations So this is, this is not about telling the free market exactly how they should or should not utilize the MCC codes which you noted has a, there's a large number of them.

Right.

The concern is the abuse we have seen through previous democratic administrations to utilize these codes to drive forward a political agenda,

Well,

against second amendment rights.

I, we don't, I don't wanna be lectured on political agendas and political vengeance from anybody who supports the current administration um because what they're doing. But I would just simply say going to mister green's uh point i mean if somebody walked into a gun and ammo store you know and bought you know this exorbitant amount i mean we don't know what they're buying but an unusual yeah high tens of thousands of dollars in purchases i i you know um you know i don't know i mean that might be somebody going uh going in there to to do something terribly bad i mean we you talked about the pulse nightclub You talked about the, you know, other instances where where where the where this has happened. I mean, I guess I'm just so sick and tired of every time there's a mass shooting and a massacre, that we come to the floor and you guys have a moment of silence, and then we move on to the next thing. Uh, and and and don't do a damn thing about preventing uh, mass shootings, which unfortunately are a regular occurrence in this country. You know, I mean, we're we're unique uh, in that regard, where mass shootings happen on a regular basis they're no longer kind of a you know a a a you know an isolated instance uh mr green um i mean i mean the whole point of this you know is not to track people you know you well you you know every purchase they make it's it's to to to detect whether something unusual and whether something highly suspicious is happening that might in fact be somebody planning a mass shooting am i am i correct on that

eminently so, anomalous activity,

Right.

unusual activity, something that would cause one to pause and question why is this occurring? Uh, I think that we ought to note also, if I may say so, uh, Mr. Ranking Member, this notion that codes have been abused. We have a president that abuses the Constitution.

Uh, yeah, I mean,

And we're we're not going to eliminate the Constitution because he abuses the Constitution. Why eliminate the cause? This is no backdoor to anything. It's a front door to saving lives. At some point we have to do more than have moments of silence.

Yeah, I I agree. I mean, we have a president right now who's trying to prosecute people for hanging out around the reflecting pool, for God's sakes. I mean, uh, I mean, talk about, you know, nuts. that's kinda where we are but i mean i i just like i mean i i i'll be honest with you with all that's going on um in this country people can't afford their groceries people can't afford their rents you know i mean uh gas prices are still too high um inflation is still too high i mean all the stuff that's going on and and we had the chairwoman uh basically say before she left that we we only have a few days uh that we can legislate because we're gonna be in recess and people aren't gonna be here so you know we gotta get stuff done right away that this is the priority i'll i'll i don't know i mean i i i don't know i we we just don't we don't share the same values and i um again i i i just think this is ridiculous that we're wasting time on this but in any event you guys are in charge of all of government so you can do whatever the hell you want i yield back

Gentleman yields back now. Recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mister Scott, for his time.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I think that uh it's pretty clear if you watch the testimony that uh they'd, from the democratic standpoint, they do want these codes so that they can track the purchases of firearms. That That's what Mister McGovern pretty much just said. Uh, it you know, Mister Stile, I've got a couple of other things to say, but before I go any further, I wanna give you an opportunity to speak for just a few minutes i don't i don't have many other questions but the debanking of the firearms industry was real

you

and it's bigger than just this it's the debanking of the whole industry i know manufacturers the whose uh banks were pressed to cancel their loans

yeah this this is a really important point that's a lot of appreciation flagging and it is if the bill doesn't stop right let's just come back and keep legal active what we're trying to prevent is regulators from going after legal activities constitutionally protected

hmm

and the evidence is incredible the biden administration in joke point two point O demonstrated uh uh demonstrated right where he held financial institutions and tried to cost services to lawful industries like fire engines

hmm

and so as we

thank you very much is as we see this you see the biden administration drive forward their agenda in choke point two point O

mmm

you see the obama administration in choke point one point O we know that these mcc codes are a mechanism that can be utilized by administrations that don't believe in this the the the role of the second amendment like you and i do mister scott

mmm

and they we hear time and again about what this is this is again it's not about uh preventing people from combating illegal behavior we should be encouraging combating illegal behavior and enforcing our laws on the books this is about really preventing your federal government from targeting legal activity that an administration simply disagrees with

well i'll i'll put in quotation marks a couple of the words that were used from my democratic colleagues who i respect and we just have a different opinion on this but the the words they used literally were law enforcement to track. And we have a constitution in the United States of America, and unless, unless law enforcement has probable cause, they do not have the right to track your purchases.

And and this is why the the backdoor aspect of this is so important for people to understand what is actually taking place. We saw the Obama administration and then the Biden administration try to utilize the financial services industry in the united states to obtain the political goals stifle the second amendment and go after firearms dealers that they can't accomplish through the regular legislative channels it was why when the ranking member pointed out that there are a large number of m c c codes we're specifically interested in the the m c c code that relates to firearms and ammunition dealers the reason for that is Because they have been targeted by the previous two democratic administrations. There's there's a lot of work we could do to clean up. The reason there there's a lot of work we could do to clean up in the previous two administrations. This is focused in on making sure that we're protecting Americans' second amendment rights which is constitutionally protected.

Well, there there's a lot of discrimination against firearms owners. I mean, you can go on Amazon right now and you can literally buy a bong to smoke dope. But they prohibit uh those of us who actually own firearms from being able to list and i'm not talking about a gun i'm just talking about accessories to firearms uh a lot of it a lot of accessories uh are not available but but you can buy stuff to smoke dope if you want to i mean it's a it it's just a sad day that america has gotten to the point that people think that dope is good and guns are bad and um you know i look forward to the day when uh when we get back to some sense of normalcy in this country and with that Mister Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.

Gentleman yields back. Now I recognize the gentlelady of Pennsylvania, Miss Scanlon, for her time.

Thank you. Um, our Republican colleagues are claiming that this bill is about protecting privacy, but in reality it's going to make it harder for law enforcement to do its job, and for communities across the country who want to prevent crime and gun violence to do their jobs. It's one more roadblock that is thrown up by folks uh for whom the second amendment might as well be a death pact um one more roadblock to throw in the way of actually um being able to combat gun violence whether it's outlawing lawsuits against gun manufacturers whether it's underfunding the bureau of alcohol tobacco and firearms whether it's um preventing the digitalization of records um regarding gun shops all of these things are roadblocks to actually being able to get a handle on gun violence in this country, and particularly gun trafficking. Um, you know, merchant category codes, MCC's are used throughout our financial system. There is nothing in the law or nothing that's been proposed that says that the merchant category codes will be turned over to the federal government. Mm-hmm. You have a law in the books saying there's no federal registry of gun owners or guns. Um, this Um, the merchant category codes don't change that at all. Um, now it's true that the government could get warrants if they go to a judge, and they're able to prove that there's some reason to believe, um, that crimes might be being committed. We're big believers in warrants around here except apparently when it comes to the FISA bill. Um, but this just takes a tool away from federal law enforcement, uh, or from local law enforcement as well. And what we've seen in recent years is that when there's seriousness about addressing gun violence our communities can make progress in uh Philadelphia and Chester two cities in in my district which has had historically high rates of gun violence when there was the ability of law enforcement to work with community groups um with our merchants with um faith groups and with um folks on the ground we've seen over sixty percent reduction in gun violence in communities that took it seriously so we need to encourage this kind of strategic collaboration um representative green um what we're hearing here is that this is yet another area where uh firearms uh dealers should be given special treatment um do you have any response to that

indeed i do they should not be given special treatment. And you are again, uh, eminently correct. Um, this is about really saving lives.

Mm-hmm.

It's about providing law enforcement with the tools that they can utilize to save lives.

Mm-hmm.

At some point, doing nothing becomes more than an option it becomes a methodology by which we allow things to occur. I've been to the funerals. I've seen the bodies over in the caskets. I've seen the parents who have seen the natural order circumvented by having to lay their children to rest. At some point, Thoughts and prayers are not enough. I'm a prayerful guy. I uh, I retain the wearer pen that says God is good all the time. I believe this. But I also believe that here on earth, as John Kennedy put it, God's work must truly be our own. This is our time, this is our moment. We can do something to circumvent some of the gun violence that takes lives. mass killings. Uh, I would add this also. There's been quite a bit said about the Biden administration. I sit on the Financial Services Committee, and I'm familiar with what is being said. But let's just for a moment put it aside and say this. We have law enforcement officers who commit crimes. But we don't want to end the police departments. We don't want to prevent law enforcement officers from doing their jobs. We have judges that have taken bribes. But we don't conclude that the judiciary is no longer fit to serve the purpose that we intend it to serve. Uh, w- I I don't want to see anybody abused ever, but in the process of doing things, occasionally that may happen. I don't say that it happened in the Biden administration, but what I am saying is If we do nothing, you will see more deaths. And when you see these deaths, I trust that you'll harken back to this moment and realize that we could have done something possibly to prevent it when we have an anomalous activity not just a usual course of business, but an anomal anomalous activity where someone goes in and buys this unusual amount of guns and ammunition uh we're not tracking people. we're trying to prevent crime and save lives.

well i i i would disagree with you in that this isn't about doing nothing this is about actively impeding a tool that could be used to prevent mass shootings and we've seen that um there have been credit card purchases used in a number of mass shootings and you mentioned the pulse shooting which was so um devastating Uh so we're not talking about not doing anything, we're talking about actively impeding the ability of law enforcement to find a pattern to track down a killer um and prevent shootings in the future so um I think it's actually enabling um gun violence or the use of guns for violence and um it it just just obviously doesn't support the bill but it's not going to help

May I just may I concur with you I I concur with you in every way Uh, when I use the terminology doing nothing, I mean that that my dear colleagues on the other side, whom I have great respect for, would have us do nothing in the area of utilizing the codes.

Mm-hmm.

They would have us do nothing, that let let's let this just go away. And if this just goes away, you're right, that is in a sense enabling, but they would have us do nothing and and take law enforcement out of the game.

Mm-hmm. Well, certainly law enforcement is not in the game when we are talking about Yes. Um, it's it's simply one more piece and it's just not giving preferential Yes. treatment to something which actually is a proven danger to the public. Um, I yield back. Thank you. Thank you.

Gentlelady yields back now recognizes the other gentleman from Georgia, Mister Jack.

Uh, n- no questions other than to say, Mister Stile, you always testify well, and I also want to applaud my colleague, Riley Moore, who authored this legislation. A freshman member of the House of Representatives who's done a trem- tremendous job on second amendment rights. and uh very much appreciate your testimony so with that i yield back oh please

if i can i should have opened my remarks uh with the work of riley moore uh in this regard in the importance of protecting second amendment rights he's been a great leader uh in this and i'm proud to be here uh on his behalf for his legislation thank you

thank you chairman i yield back

now recognize miss uh ledger fernandez for her time

uh thank you chairman thank you chairman uh and representative um actually the two representatives i find it fascinating you know i come from a family my kids all went shooting uh yesterday uh we had a box of ammo delivered uh to my house uh we had lots of other things delivered to my house over the last week uh and all of that other stuff had a code didn't it uh uh representative green

it did

everything else had a code

it

it and and and so what what the republicans are doing is saying we are gonna have a carve out we're gonna have a carve out for the gun industry and things you buy from there when i went and bought anything at the grocery store when i went and bought anything uh when i filled a prescription there was a code on that wasn't there uh representative green

yes a code is utilized as has been indicated at the florist shop if you're going to buy automotive parts, and this would be a carve-out, and it would be a carve-out that would um allow someone to buy an automatic Kalashnikov, perhaps many of them, to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition, and to do so uh and go out and do something dastardly, when there's a possibility that there could be a means by which this could be circumvented.

So for every other purchase, none of them would have had the consequences where there have been over two hundred mass shootings. You've already pointed that out. Uh, and we also pointed out that you submitted this letter, um, uh, the June twenty second, twenty twenty six letter, opposing this legislation. And some of these numbers are staggering, right? We we bought a box of ammunition, right? My kids are getting ready to go hunting this fall. And so they need to go do some target practice. I don't, you know, everything else we purchased this last week had a code. Ninety five thousand dollars were spent by the shooter in Las Vegas, Nevada, in just a few weeks. which it could have provided or would provide after the fact important information. Right? And I think that what's interesting is what we publicans are proposing is not supported by the American people. The American people actually want us to do gun safety legislation. We recognize

Yeah.

the constitutional right, but we also recognize that these are deadly weapons. And I'm looking at some polls here that actually show that, uh, strengthening background checks, twenty ho- twenty, twenty-four voters were seventy-nine percent. You know what? Trump voters, seventy-three percent. Gun owners, seventy-five percent. Holding the gun industry to similar regulatory standards as the tobacco, audible, automobile, and opioid industries. sixty nine percent, gun owners, sixty four percent, twenty twenty four Trump voters, fifty eight percent, the kind of stuff that they are trying to impose, not undo, as uh Representative Scandler pointed out, is not publicly supported. People want us to take action, not to eliminate our ability to safely own and utilize guns, but to take action to protect those children that you described, Representative Green, the idea that children are not just mourning their parents, they are looking, they are looking at other children who've been killed and bloodied in their schoolroom. And we had shootings in my district, and everybody in this congress was gonna eventually go down and have a moment of silence. And the idea that we can't do a basic thing like track I'm the last democrat to speak, representative green, is there anything else you would like to clarify about why this law is deadly for our children and deadly for our communities?

Well, some things just bear repeating that um this is not about gun control, you are correct, it's about gun safety. Uh, it is about wanting people to live their lives and do safe things and enjoy the benefits of owning firearms. Uh, this is not about eliminating firearms or preventing persons from purchasing firearms. It does not stop one single purchase. So at some point, I just believe that we ought to honor the notion that all persons are created equal. endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness with the emphasis on life. Thank you.

I have no further questions. Uh, I yield back.

Generally, it yields back, now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mister Norman.

Mister Al, thank you for your putting this bill up, appreciate your work on it. Uh, does this take an Attorney General if there's a if if a violation occurs, does a Attorney General have the only say-so to prosecute this?

Yeah, this would go to the United States Attorney General, uh, for uh, any violation would be submitted to uh, to the United States Attorney General's office. They would do a review, uh, and then decide if enforcement action is warranted.

If Attorney General, okay. So once you follow that, if nothing is still done. There's no private action that you can take.

There's not a private right of action in the newsletters.

OK. Um, you know, I keep hearing things like no action taken and things like that. Was the action taken by the Biden administration to stop the em mass immigration of twenty million people?

No.

Was the Biden administration, any Democrat, uh, uh, offering prayers of uh and sympathy for the children who were trafficked as a result of illegal immigration?

No, it's my recollection.

Was there any um, was there any um, uh, thought given to those who are killed by illegal aliens that are direct result of this of the Biden administration letting any and everyone in this country?

That's my recollection.

So it's kind of uh interesting that now when you're trying to protect legal gun owners from buying things, from being exploited and being tracked by an administration, we we may have one in the future. Thank God this administration Bayes's second amendment and um Bayes's um the right to carry a gun and not be tracked down by the federal government. So thanks for putting it up and um, think it's a good bill, we'll be supporting it. Now, you're back.

Gentleman yields back, now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mister Langworthy.

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. Um, coming from a state like New York, I've seen firsthand uh with our state capital's obsession with constantly finding ways to target law abiding gun owners. No matter how many laws we have on the books, regulations, mandates, it seems that there's always another proposal designed to make it harder uh for lawful firearm owners to exercise their second amendment rights. Now we're seeing that same debate play out across the country through firearm specific merchant category codes. florida indiana and utah they've prohibited these codes because they believe lawful firearm purchases should be treated the same as any other legal transaction now meanwhile states like new york have moved in the opposite direction and chosen to require them

mmm

the result is a state by state tug of war that leaves americans facing different rules depending on where they happen to live uh i represent thousands and thousands of hunters and sportsmen in law abiding gun owners across western New York and the southern tier, and many of them are frustrated by efforts to single out lawful firearm purchases, and they're concerned about the direction that our home state of New York has continued to take uh to strip away their second amendment rights. Chairman Stile, can you talk about why a consistent national standard is needed and why many Americans believe lawful firearm purchases should not be treated differently simply because they involve the exercise of a constitutional right?

thank you thank you very much

thank you very much mister langworthy uh if i can let me when i open this i i just wanna address a comment that was made earlier cause i think it's a point of clarification that's pretty worthy everything you buy utilizing a credit card functionally has an mcc code and i think that there was uh an assumption possibly made that this legislation would remove all mcc codes from firearm purchases that would not be accurate it simply says you're not going to have a firearm specific m c c code so just to step back if you went into uh you go to your super targeted home you got some groceries on one side you got some uh sports equipment on the other side of the store that store may or may not have one code it may have two so if you go to a florist it may have one code and you might buy uh a card to write your mom a note um and you might buy a some flowers might just show up as a a florist shop even though you bought a card on one and you bought flowers on the other other places, some stores, have multiple MCC codes inside the store. And so you go into some big box store and you buy, uh, a hundred dollars of groceries and you buy a hundred dollars of sporting equipment, it may show up actually as two separate MCC codes, which is the issue when we are talking about Bass Pro Shop or other, uh, sporting goods stores, uh, that an individual may go into. It doesn't just always show up as, uh, Sporting Goods, Bass Pro Shop, a single code. It may show up uh is sporting goods for this but firearms under the firearm code so when we remove that MCC code from being utilized specifically for firearms and ammunition there will be a code it will just be a a a non ammunition or non firearm specific code it may go back into sporting goods we don't dictate what code they use we just simply say you can't have a specific firearm or ammunition code and then of course the question was like well why why single out those um businesses engaged in providing goods uh based on the second amendment well the answer is pretty obvious the past two democratic administrations went after ammunition and firearm dealers and tried to stifle them out using the regulatory framework of the financial services space and so if the previous democratic administration was going after an attacking florist I bet our friend Riley Moore would have a bill up to say, no, you're not gonna have MCC codes going after florists. But uniquely in the second amendment space, we have a constitutional right to bear arms. And what we have seen is the past two democratic administrations, one after the other, choke p- choke point one point O, choke point two point O, trying to utilize the financial services space to specifically target lawful transactions protected by your second amendment. I think it would also be misleading to allow a comment that was made stand without without point of clarification. Nothing in this legislation stops regulators from combating illegal activity. So if an individual goes and engages in illegal activity, they should rightfully be prosecuted, held accountable. Lawful gun owners want individuals that engage in illegal behavior to be held accountable. I'm a I'm a gun owner, I want people who utilize a a weapon or a gun, who illegally, to be held accountable. This legislation is about preventing the abuses that we saw under the two previous democratic administrations from continuing in the event that a future administration does not share the second amendment view that you and I do, Mister Langworthy. And so I think it's just so important to clarify that, that this is a this is a bill directly coming out of the fact that the previous two democratic administrations, in particular the biden administration were abusive of the fact that they could track these mcc codes and i think a lot of americans would actually be really surprised to realize uh that there is an mcc code specifically tied uh to ammunition and firearms and that the previous biden administration uh has a history of abuse of of trying to stifle uh constitutionally protected uh transactions for individuals to buy uh both both guns as well as ammunition

well i think you're exactly right mister chairman um in law abiding americans shouldn't have one set of rules in new york and other set of rules in texas or florida congress has the opportunity to provide consistency and ensure that lawful purchases are treated the same way across this country i appreciate the work uh that has gone into this legislation and i yield back mr. chairman

chairman yields back and i recognize myself for my time uh could ask some interesting questions uh but i thought your answers to mister langworthy were uh outstanding and made a good summation is there anything you wish to add to that

uh uh i'll just close out by saying this is a really important piece of legislation for those of us that believe in protecting the second amendment and the abuses that we've seen in the previous administrations Uh, and I'd like to, just to close by thanking, uh, Riley Moore, uh, Congressman from West Virginia for his hard work on this.

And, uh, I I concur with your comments and I yield back, and that concludes this panel's testimony. You all are excused. alright we will now recognize uh miss stansberry and miss ramirez for amendment testimony members alright That's our first panel. Is there anybody else in the room that I failed to recognize, that wishes to add to the amendment testimony? No other members being seen. Let's get, let's get going. Miss Stansberry, if you would like to start with your five minutes.

Yes, thank you so much, Mister Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee, I wanna say thank you to the Rules Committee for giving us the opportunity to testify today on the set of bills that are included in this rule and I'm going to focus my attention today on the energy and water appropriations bill. I've also offered amendments for the state and foreign affairs budget as well, but we'll discuss those elsewhere because I really want to focus on the importance of water to the west and especially states like New Mexico where water is life, and water is essential to everything that we do in our state. And I've offered three amendments to help our communities across the west who are facing unprecedented water challenges. especially due to low snowpack and drought conditions this year. In particular, I have filed an amendment to restore funding in the budget for the Water Smart program. This program is essential to communities across the West for modernizing infrastructure, preparing from drought, and also to help our communities get through difficult times and has been cut in this budget, and we would propose to restore that funding. I've also offered an amendment to provide additional funding to our tribes, in particular our New Mexico Pueblos, to address the water challenges and infrastructure needs they have around water. And finally, I filed an amendment to include my Water Data Act, which is a bipartisan bill that would transform the way that we manage water, not just in the West, but all across the United States. Now I wanna zoom out and talk about why these amendments are so critical as a water resources professional i have worked on water and drought management most of my career and in new mexico and across the west we are experiencing some of the most challenging water years in recent memory across our state drought conditions are continuing to intensify with rising temperatures reduced precipitation and particularly because we have seen the lowest snowpack in recorded history year after year over the last several years but this is not simply a temporary drought condition i wanna make clear that what we are witnessing is a long-term shift in the baseline of conditions in the west's water systems. Snowpack, which is our natural reservoir, has becoming increasingly variable, it's reduced the reliability of runoff, and it has changed the entire way in which we are going to have to manage water going forward. This means our farmers, our tribes, our our local governments, our states are being forced to make difficult decisions about how to stretch increasingly limited water supplies. And as we sit here today, the Rio Grande, which is the major river of our state, is dry. Now as a child it was very unusual for the river to go dry, but what we have seen is that this river has been dry now for weeks because of the low snowpack year and that is why I cannot sit silently as we watch as the budget for one of the most essential water infrastructure programs in the west is being cut in this budget. And these challenges are not unique to New Mexico, they are not unique to the Rio Grande. We know that communities from the southwest to the great plains and beyond are facing these challenges. And now is the time for Congress to step up and answer the call, to invest in water conservation, to modernize our aging infrastructure, to address drought preparedness and to invest in the fundamental long-term changes in how we manage water so that our communities are able to be resilient in the face of drought and climate change. That is our responsibility as Congress. So I urge the adoption of these amendments. I ask for your support for these vital programs and ask for your support for our communities who are facing severe water challenges. and the farmers tribal communities and local governments who are currently trying to figure out how they're going to get through this difficult year and i thank you and yield back

i thank jen elay and uh now ms ramirez

thank you chairman and thank you making member McGovern uh for the opportunity to testify today i often say that budgets are moral documents they reflect our values and they certainly reflect our priorities for far too long our appropriations have failed to demonstrate that in fact our priority are working people. What HR eight five nine five, the National Security Department of State and related programs appropriation act is telling us is that, we live in a country that's addicted to war, competition, death and destruction. With leaders who wage war because they believe in this whole strongman idea and peace through strength. And we've seen the effects of appropriations like HR eight five nine five. Because across the globe our communities are confronting interconnected acts of violence. We're seeing cuts to services that Americans rely on. We're seeing mass detention and deportations. We're seeing attacks on human right defenders. We're seeing the displacement of Puerto Ricans, the violent extraction of resources in Congo, the genocide of Palestinian people, and unlawful wars waged against Iran, against Cuba, Venezuela, and Lebanon, just to name a few. When our nation funds wars, when it defunds diplomacy, and it rolls our commitment to the international community, we fail to confront global crisis. And frankly, we all become complicit to those crisis. And our colleagues on the right are doubling down, rolling back commitments to around reproductive health care, LGBTQ rights and climate change, cutting over a billion dollars to the United Nations international bodies that hold war criminals accountable, decimating life-saving humanitarian aid, and gutting migration refugee assistance. and undermining domestic and international laws. What does that do to us? It makes us all less safe in the process. You see, true safety cannot be brought into our lives at the end of a barrel of a gun, by a bomb, or via the chokehold of suppression or oppression. True safety results when we build a world that's rooted in peace, that's strengthened through democracy and justice, and that's built on diplomacy and undeniable understanding of universal human rights. And that is the security our researchers must advance. My amendments today, I have six of them, recognize our interconnectedness and strengthen the partnership needed to confront the complex challenges of the twenty-first century. They direct resources from death and destruction, and we affirm our commitment to advance our collective interest and build stronger relationships across the Americas and across the world. My amendment number fifty-six directly strikes at three point three billion dollars of foreign military funding earmarked for Israel, putting an end to the money that is being used to commit genocide against Palestinians with absolutely no accountability. Especially when Israeli ministers are explicit about their intention of expanding their genocidal campaign to Lebanon. My amendment number one sixty-two explicitly prohibits funds to Trump's Board of Peace, a money laundering scam meant to displace Palestinians and ensure a new Riviera for Trump and his billionaire friends. My amendment number one hundred and sixty-three strikes a section of the bill that limits funds to the Palestinian Authority, if Palestinians initiate or support an international criminal court investigation into Israel's crimes against Palestinians. Because let's be frank, impunity can't be and should not be an option. Amendment number one sixty four strikes a language of the bill that allows Trump and the GOP to continue their harmful interference in Colombian affairs. Amendment number sixty strikes a section of the bill limiting funds to countries that facilitate irresponsible migration which has really devastated the local organizations supporting vulnerable communities and frankly the organizations that actually help us limit migration by providing stability in the region my amendment number sixty two increases the available assistance to the inter-american foundation to twenty nine million dollars which in fact just restores the funding to what we had in twenty twenty six so that we can continue to strengthen civil society and economic stability through the americas You see, these amendments ask us, what type of member, what type of country, and what type of world do we wanna be? One that is obsessed with war, or one that is committed to peace? One that's perpetrating domination and cruelty, or one that is committed to dignity and compassion? One steeped in selfishness, or one committed to community? Look, my constituents have made it very clear, our tax dollars must not be used to terrorize our communities at home or abroad. So, my message today is very simple. There is another way. We can reimagine security. We can build another world, a w- a world where our children, regardless of their race or origin or geography, can in fact thrive. And we can redirect our resources to do just that. With that, Chairman, I yield back in hopes that you will support my amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your coming forward and testifying before us today and uh this panel is now excused i think i have thank you oh question sorry i have a question

i had i had

bad to get rid of all the questions back in there for jack um any no questions for mister jack mister lyle mister martin we don't have any questions

i don't i well i well i just well let me let me just say i wanna thank both of you for being here i think you're two of the most thoughtful members

sorry

um in in the house and um and i i support them uh and i just wanna say you know um the the humanitarian crisis in the middle east continues to worsen um and i i worry that when i pay enough attention to it because there are so many other crises that are happening uh thanks to the guy in the white house right now but i appreciate you bringing those uh to our attention and i hope all your amendments are made in order and i yield back

thank you

well thank you for assuming that was uh

oh and and just wanna and i ask you in the name of his consent to insert into the record written testimony from representative docket in support of amendments forty six and forty seven to hr ninety twenty two which would transfer a hundred and three million to the national nuclear security administration's defense nuclear non-proliferation account

without objection miss scanlon

thank you and i would just uh adopt the ranking members remarks and also wanted to thank miss Dansbury for her long-standing expertise on on the water issues because uh

they really are important. So thank you. Uh, I'd just also like to express gratitude. I mean, uh, it was disappointing to see that unlike last year, uh, last fiscal year where we had the appropriations really come together in a very bipartisan way and very much agree on many of their uh bills we had so much more tension. And we had the kind of cuts that we're seeing, right? We have the kind of cuts that uh for a place like

Mm-hmm.

New Mexico and the entire Southwest, the entire Southwest, uh, that we're having a six percent cut of the non-defense budget is really worrisome. And then that in terms of what we're doing, uh, on the other side, uh, represent what I mean is, you highlight how important it is to actually have the budget reflect these values that need to be applied at home. and everywhere else. And so I really thank both of you for raising these issues, uh, uh, not just in the amendments you spoke to, but in all of the amendments you submitted. And so no questions, but a lot of gratitude for your, uh, your very thoughtful work.

Thank you.

Thank you both very much. Oh. Uh. I um I don't have it in my hand, but I would like to um introduce into the record Representative Fein's statement relative to his amendment.

Do we have the microphone back?

Without objection.

Ma- Madam Chair? Oh. Uh I I would just like to say that earlier uh you referred to the seventy two billion dollar reconciliation bill and it was seventy billion it was originally seventy two but in the in the senate they took out the two billion that was gonna go to the slush fund and so I misspoke because there was uh so I just wanna make sure that uh I I correct the record there thank you. Um

Always good to correct the record. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Is there anyone else seeking

Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H R one one eight one, the Protecting Privacy and Purchases Act, a close rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill

Mm.

shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR nine zero two two, the Energy and Water Development and related agencies appropriations act twenty twenty seven, under a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two of rule twenty-one. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report amendments en bloc described in section four and pro forma amendments described in section five. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent, and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section five of the rule and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part A of the rules committee report or amendments on block described in section four of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee may offer a memo on block consisting of amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, not earlier disposed of. Amendments on block shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for twenty minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section five of the rule and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to ten perform amendments, each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule per further provides for consideration of H R eight five nine five, the National Security Department of State, and related programs, Appropriations Act twenty twenty seven, under a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two or clause five A of rule twenty-one. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report, amendments en bloc described in section nine and pro forma amendments described in section ten. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled. by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to an amendment except as provided by section ten of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report or amendments on block described in section nine of the rule. The rule provides that the Chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee may offer amendments on block consisting of amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments on block shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for twenty minutes, divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or the respective designees shall not be subject to the amendment except as provided by section ten of the rule and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question the rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or the respective designees may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate the rule provides one motion to recommit rule further provides for consideration of hr nine two three seven the take care of america's veterans act under a close rule the rule

Thank you, Mister Jack. Thank you, Mister Jack. Um, Um, You've now heard the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

Yes. Uh, Madam Chair.

Mister McGuire.

Yeah, well, first of all, I, uh, there are, I wanna know for the record there were two additional closed rules contained in this big rule, which brings, um, the total, you know, my my, uh, the majority's total up to a hundred and fifty-four closed rules this session, which is, uh, again, breaks every record in the book. And Of the amendments that are being made in order today, I just want the record to reflect that you're blocking the majority of bipartisan amendments, you're blocking over ninety percent of democratic amendments, and you're blocking forty-four percent of republican amendments. Uh, and having said that, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order, amendment number two, to H R eleven eighty-one, offered by Representative Pedersen, which would strike the language that would preempt state and local laws governing the assignment use, or disclosure of merchant category codes associated with firearms related retailers. Again, Republicans love to talk about states' rights when it's convenient for them, but you all have repeatedly tried to pass laws this Congress to preempt existing state laws. You all tried to pass a nationwide preemption so that states would not be allowed to regulate AI. You tried to pass a nationwide preemption to block states from having laws to protect college athletes. And now you're trying to preempt states like Colorado, that wanna be able to use credit card codes to crack down on illegal uh gun rings, and possibly stop mass shooters. So I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.

Anyone else? Um, any further discussion on Mister McGovern's amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

those opposed no no

no no

in the opinion and chair of the no's have it the amendment's not agreed to

ask for a roll call then sure

mister mcgovern requests a roll call the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fishbach Mrs. Fishbach no Mr. Norman Mr. Norman no Mr. Roya Mrs.

no

Houchin Mrs. Houchin no Mr. Langworthy Mr. Langworthy no Mr.

no yes

Scott Mr. Scott no Mr. Griffith Mr. Griffith no Mr.

no no

Jack Mr. Jack no Mr. McGovern Mr. McGovern I am Miss Galvin

no

aye

uh

Miss Galvin I am Mr. Nagoose

uh

Mr. Nagoose I am Miss Ledger Fernandez Miss Ledger Fernandez I am Madam Chair

i

No.

Madam Chair, no.

Clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, eight nays.

The no's have it, the amendments not agreed to. Any other amendment or discussion?

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make an order amendment number four to HR ninety two thirty seven, offered by ranking member Takano, which would strike the entire text and uh replace it with the te- the text of the major Richard Starr act using Department of Defense funds from the Republicans one big beautiful act as the offset. Madam Chair, last July, Republicans voted to give the military more than a hundred and fifty billion dollars without any offsets. The DOD s- still has over a hundred billion dollars unspent. And instead of cutting benefits for veterans within the tinnitus or sleep apnea, um, or or raising fees on VA home loans, which your proposal would do, this amendment would cut the bloated DOD budget by thirteen billion dollars in order to fully pay for the major rich and star act um republicans seem obsessed with making sure there's an offset in this bill uh as i pointed out earlier you didn't insist on an offset for the seventy billion dollars additional seventy billion dollars for ice and cbp you didn't insist on a offset for the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires you've added three trillion dollars to the debt since you all took over so um you know i think uh we're trying to find an offset I and that's what we have done here, I think it's reasonable, and I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Any further discussion?

Madam Chair.

Miss Ledger-Fernandez.

Madam Chair, I think that this is exactly the kind of thing that can be done in the Rules Committee, where we uh uh acknowledge that Chairman Boss did not uh uh sign the discharge petition. He felt he could not uh move forward without uh bringing a bill. to the committee and to the floor that uh didn't like cut from other uh from other programs from the veterans and this is the way to do it so there is an offset there's lots of money uh available as uh the ranking member has has pointed out and i sure i think we should support the veterans by not cutting veterans benefits and with that i yield back

thank you um further discussion Hearing none the questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. The opinion share the no's have it.

No.

No.

As for roll call.

Mister McGregor requests a roll call. Clerk will call the roll.

Mrs. Fischbach.

No.

Mrs. Fischbach, no, Mister Norman. Mister Norman, no, Mister Roy. Mrs. Houchin, no, Mister Langworthy.

No. No.

Mister Langworthy, no, Mister Scott.

No.

Mister Scott, no, Mister Griffith.

No.

Mister Griffith, no, Mister Jack. Mister Jack, no, Mister McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern, I am a Scallon.

Aye.

I'm a Scallon, I am Mr. Nguz.

Aye.

Mr. Nguz, I am Ms. Ledger-Fernandez.

Aye.

Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, I am Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

Clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, eight nays.

The no's have it, the amendments not agreed to. Further discussion.

So, yeah, Madam Chair, so I this may this may be an oversight, but I'm I'm looking on the M's for McGovern uh amendments and I I can't find it. Um, so I think

Must be an oversight, this is.

it has to be an oversight. Because uh the amendment that I offered is totally rule compliant. Uh so if finally it's no rules it's perfectly uh within making it in order. So I have an amendment to the rule, I move the committee make an order amendment number forty to H R eighty five ninety five, offered by myself, which prohibits funds from being used to withdraw the United States from three duly ratified international human rights treaties. Madam Chair, in May nineteen ninety eight, President Ronald Reagan put the United States' signature on the UN convention against torture. In his statement he said, I quote, " ratifications of the convention by the United States will clearly express United States' opposition to torture, an abhorrent practice unfortunately still prevalent in the world today." Thanks to the implementing legislation of this convention, torture is illegal in the United States. The convention helps our foreign policy. In February last year, Secretary Rubio condemned the government of Thailand for sending Uighurs back to China where they could be tortured. This convention is what gave legal force to Secretary Rubio's statement. International human rights treaties help Americans safeguard their own basic rights. The international covenant on civil and political rights, enhances our First Amendment rights on free speech. religious freedom and freedom of the press. It protects Americans when they travel and live in other countries. International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination helps Americans defend their civil rights. It gives international sanction to the core idea in our Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. And under Executive Order one four one nine nine, the State Department is reviewing whether to recommend to the president that the United States withdraw from any conventions or treaties. It would be disastrous to withdraw from the international human rights treaties, it is party to. It would send a signal to the world that we are on the side of the dictators and the thugs, who repress human rights, rather than those who seek to defend them. It would deny a tool for Americans to assert their own rights. Most of us, both parties have cosponsored legislation or signed letters about human rights cases or conditions in other countries. Withdrawal would cut the legs out from under those efforts. So I I believe unilateral withdrawal would be illegal. The Senate would need to vote to give its approval. My amendment simply says that no funds under the bill can be used to withdraw from any of these treaties. I ask that it be made in order. Uh, the only reason why I think it's not being made in order is because the chairman probably thinks it's gonna pass. Um, but the idea that this is even controversial, um, you know, is is is not only stunning, but chilling. And I would urge us to, uh, correct the omission and make this amendment in order. And I yield back my time.

Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I recognize myself. Mister McGovern, um, there are a lot of people who are opposed to your amendment. It, that amendment does not advance civil rights or anti-torture protections. It locks the US into treaty regimes that are vehicles for overreach and ideological abuse. Let's start with the facts. Torture is already a federal crime in the United States. Racial discrimination is already prohibited by core US law. Title six already prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance and title seven already prohibits employment discrimination. You said that we need these treaties to have legal force for Mr. Rubio's statement. No, Mr. Rubio's statement is a moral statement. ought to be able to stand by itself. Concerns with your amendment are not opposition to civil rights or anti-torture protection. It's opposition to locking the United States into treaty regimes that are vehicles for overreach and ideological abuse. Frankly, there are many of us who would get the United States out of the UN altogether, let alone not being signed on to most of these Congress should not lock the United States into those dynamics through an appropriations rider. This is not the appropriate place to do that. So, um, the, uh, the UN is basically a feckless organization. And again, in my, my opinion and I think the opinion of many, many, um, people in this body and in the United States, would get us out of the United Nations. We we the interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee that treaties can't be withdrawn from at all is is an overreach, which should give us every right not to be supporting these.

I

Miss Gendler?

Yes, thank you. I I would have to vehemently disagree, and and I think it's one of the reasons why the the amendment deserves a vote, but I think the main point here is that it's not just about our domestic law, it's about whether we participate in the rule of law of nations. And that's why it is important to engage in treaties, important to engage in the UN, and while some, including this administration, think we should go it o- alone, I think many of us disagree, and I would yield time to Mister McGovern if he wishes it.

Yeah, I mean, uh, I mean, the idea that the administration can unilaterally withdraw from treaties that were voted for by uh the united states senate um again i i question the legality of all of that but the idea that somehow we think that the uh the un convention against torture that president reagan signed us onto is somehow signs us onto some sort of ideological you know um you know uh uh course that uh goes against our values i mean i don't know torture is torture torture is wrong

right and it it's a federal crime in the united states

torture and it is wrong and and and and the idea is that when If we withdraw from that treaty, you know, our standing um in the world in terms of condemning torture um becomes less a- effective and and and basically non-existent. I'm gonna be I I said this earlier, I'm gonna say it again because I want everyone to hear this. When Donald Trump went to China, I expected him to raise the issue of human rights front and center. I I expected him to call for the release of all the political prisoners. to talk about Jimmy Lai, to talk about the genocide against the Uighurs, and to talk about the persecution of Tibetans. We got none of that. We got none of that. We got none of that. Um, and, and and too many ca- and too many instances we are looking the other way, when countries are torturing and abusing their own people. So the idea that somehow joining together with the world community, and condemning human rights atrocities is somehow, that's that's a bad thing? you know, or that we should be able to unilaterally withdraw without even, you know, a vote by Congress or the or the Senate. I mean, I just I just find this stunning. You know, I I will tell you this, and I I s- I I say this sincerely, our our standing in the world is being diminished because we are walking away from a commitment to human rights. Everything is transactional. It's about money, it's about oil, it's about a deal, it's about that. And we are we are losing our credibility on this issue.

Mm-hmm.

I think that jeopardizes our national security. If we stand for anything, we need to stand out loud and far square for human rights in this country. Um, and, you know, the idea that we are walking away from this, and not only walking away, in some cases deliberately turning a blind eye uh to the mistreatment of innocent civilians, we are we are no longer being regarded as a defender of human rights, but as an abuser of human rights. And so, I'll uh I think maybe one of the reasons, as I said, that this is being blocked is because you're afraid it may pass on the floor. I think we ought to have a debate on this, and if a majority of people, Madam Chair, agree with you that we should just tear all this up and walk away from it, so be it, go on record. But the idea that a totally rule compliant amendment um you know, uh uh uh on a subject that is germane to what we're talking about here today, um is being blocked because for because I I you know, I I what, I don't know who, I don't know who made the decision, but the the deal is is that uh I'm urging my colleagues to reverse that decision. This is not the way we should be running this committee, and certainly on these issues uh they ought to be front and center on the House floor for debate. I thank the General Lady and I yield back to her.

Well, I would agree with that, and and not only should they be front and center in this committee, they should be front and center in this Congress and for this country. I I think it goes beyond what you said that This administration is turning a blind eye to torture in some cases. Uh, this administration has purchased it from other countries, such as when we send innocent people to El Salvador to be

I just

Yeah.

Yeah.

in a gulag down there where there is known torture occurring.

Yeah.

So I think it is time that we reclaim the moral high ground and actually live up to it. So I wholeheartedly support this amendment and I yield back.

Further discussion. hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye aye

those opposed say no

no

no

no in the opinion of the chair the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to

i would ask for recorded vote

clerk will call the roll

don't everybody have record of it yeah

clerk will call the roll

mrs. Fischbach

no

mrs. Fischbach no mr. Norman

no

mr. Norman no mr. Roy mrs. Houchin

no

mrs. Houchin no mr. Langworthy

no

mr. Langworthy no mr. Scott

no

mr. scott no mr. griffith

mmm no

mr. griffith no mr. jack

no

mr. jack no mr. mcgovern

aye

mr. mcgovern i am a scanlon

aye

i am a scantlin i am a s. mr. nguz i am a s. leger fernandez i am a s.

aye

leger fernandez i am madam chair

oh no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

four yeas eight nays

the amendments not agreed to oh so sad are there other amendments or discussion

Yes.

Miss Kenly.

Um, Madam Chair, and I have I have an amendment to the rule I move the committee make in order amendment eighty seven to H R eighty five ninety five offered by representative Jayapal which repeals the anti-equality provisions in that bill. Once again, our colleagues are using an appropriations bill to score political points by targeting some of the most vulnerable people in the world. These riders include petty performative provisions like banning pride flags at US embassies and dangerous clauses restricting programs that assist LGBTQ individuals who face violence, discrimination and persecution. In dozens of countries that criminalize same-sex relationships, people face can face life imprisonment or even the death penalty because of who they are or who they love. For decades, bipartisan American foreign assistance has helped provide healthcare, legal services and basic protections for people living under those conditions. These programs save lives, but my Republican colleagues want to eliminate them because they serve people that this administration has decided to target and discriminate against, in order to score political points. This amendment would strip the anti-equality provisions from this bill because American foreign assistants should promote dignity and opportunity, not discrimination. i urge a yes vote on the amendment and i yield back

thank you miss canlon is there any further discussion on the amendment hearing none the question is on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

aye

those opposed say no

no no

in the opinion chair the ayes uh the no's have it

no no i would i would request a recorded vote please

miss canlon requests a recorded vote the clerk will call the roll

miss fishbach

no

miss fishbach and i'm mr. norman no

aye

Mrs. Houchin, no, Mr. Langworthy.

No.

Mr. Langworthy, no, Mr. Scott.

No.

Mr. Scott, no, Mr. Griffith.

No.

Mr. Griffith, no, Mr. Jack.

No.

Mr. Jack, no, Mr. McGovern.

Aye.

Mr. McGovern, I'm Miss Scanlon.

Aye.

Miss Scanlon, I'm Mr. Neguse.

Aye.

Mr. Neguse, I am Miss Ledger-Fernandez.

Aye.

Miss Ledger-Fernandez, I am Madam Chair.

No.

Madam Chair, no.

The clerk will report the total.

Four yeas, eight nays.

The amendment's not agreed to. Is there further discussion?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Miss Scanlon, you're recognized.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule, I move the committee make an order amendment ninety-seven to H R eighty-five ninety-five offered by Representative Wasserman Schultz, which strikes new global gag rule riders. For decades, the global gag rule has prohibited certain organizations that receive US global health funding from using their own resources to provide, refer for, or even discuss abortion care or abortion-related care. Republicans are now trying to take that policy even further. by expanding those restrictions across virtually all non-military foreign assistants. Organizations will be forced to choose between accepting US assistance or complying with sweeping restrictions on the services they provide, what populations they serve, and even what they're allowed to say. We know where that leads. Clinics close, health care providers withdraw services, and patients lose access to maternal health care HIV treatment, and other basic health services. People's health, women's health, shouldn't be held hostage to political ideology. This amendment strikes the harmful codification of the expanded global gag rule to help ensure US foreign assistance is driven by public health and national security interests, not partisan politics. I urge a yes vote on this amendment and I yield back.

Is there further discussion on the amendment from Miss Gendlin? hearing none the questions on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye aye

those opposed say no

no

no in the opinion share the no's have it Mr. Scanlon requests a recorded vote the clerk will call the roll amen chair

Mrs. Fischbach

no

Mrs. Fischbach, no Mr. Norman

boo

Mr. Norman, no Mr. Roy Mrs. Houchin, Mrs. Houchin, no Mr. Langworthy Mr. Langworthy, no Mr. Scott

no

Mr. Scott, no Mr. Griffith

no

Mr. Griffith, no Mr. Jack

no

Mr. Jack, no Mr. McGovern Mr. McGovern, aye miss gamlin i am mr. neguse mr. neguse i am miss ledger fernandez miss ledger fernandez i am madam chair

no

madam chair no

mmm

clerk will report the total

forty a's eight nays

the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to so further discussion or amendment hearing none the question is on the motion from the gentleman from georgia all those in favor signify by saying aye

uh

aye those opposed say no

aye no

no

in the opinion shared the ayes have it the motion is agreed to

we have a we have to roll call

mister mcgovern request a roll call the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fischbach

yes

Mrs. Fischbach aye Mister Norman Mister Norman aye Mister Roy Mister Houchin Mister Houchin aye Mister Langworthy

yes

yes yes

Mister Langworthy aye Mister Scott Mister Scott aye Mister Griffith

yes

yes

uh-huh

Mister Griffith aye Mister Jack Mister Jack aye Mister McGovern Mister McGovern no Mister Gallin Mister Gallin no Mister Neguse

aye

no

no

no

Mister Neguse no Ms. Leger-Fernandez.

No.

Ms. Leger-Fernandez, no. Madam Chair.

Aye.

Madam Chair, aye.

Clerk will report to total.

Eight ayes, four nays.

Um the ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to, Representative Jack, remanaging the rule for the majority.

I vote for the Democrats.

And Mister Dem- Mister McGovern for the Democrats. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.