H.R. 8595 – National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027; H.R. 9022 – Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027; H.R. 9237 – Take Care of America’s Veterans Act; H.R. 1181 – Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Rules U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsJames McGovern
I mean, what a joke. You know, they sit back while this war and his tariffs cause inflation to skyrocket and everyday families to struggle. And then they come here and they want a pat on the back for doing nothing to fix the mess that they've created. I mean, it is absurd. Look, the clock is ticking down for Congress to pass all 12 spending bills and fund the government.
Now, we could be writing bipartisan bills that keep the government open and help people afford groceries, housing, energy, 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. I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I now welcome our panel, Representative Cloud, Ranking Member Kaptur, from the House Committee on Appropriations Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee. That's a mouthful. 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.
Michael Cloud
Thank you, Chairwoman. Obviously, I'm not Chair Fleischmann, so I'm his stunt double today, he's on a plane, so. Hello, hello, hello. Can you hear me? All right.
I'm pleased to present to the Rules Committee the fiscal year 2027 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. The FY 27 Energy and Water Bill provides 58.5 billion to uphold our commitment to safeguarding the US national security, unleashing American energy dominance, and advancing our economic prosperity in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill delivers a historic investment in our national defense by providing 27.1 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration, prioritizing the modernization of nuclear weapons stockpile and the US Navy nuclear fleet. The bill strengthens our nation's energy security by focusing research and development efforts on baseload energy sources and maintaining funding for programs that deliver affordable energy prices, a secure grid, and long-term energy stability for all Americans. We continue our support for the Trump administration's efforts to expand domestic nuclear power capacity and advance American leadership in civil nuclear energy around the world.
I want to thank you, Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee, for the opportunity to testify before you today.
Just this month, two advanced reactors reached criticality under the Department of Energy's reactor pilot program, marking an important step toward ushering in an American nuclear renaissance. This bill also makes investments to secure our domestic supply chain of critical minerals and reduces reliance on China and other foreign adversaries. To ensure America remains at the forefront of scientific discovery and innovation, the bill includes 8.5 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science. This includes support for the Trump administration's Genesis mission, which will harness our high-performance 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 9.8 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, including full funding of Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund activities and funding for the highest priority construction projects on the inland waterways system. Funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is directed towards projects that increase water supply, assist in drought resilience, and support rural America. 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.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you for your succinctness. Ranking Member Kaptur, you're recognized.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member McGovern and members of the Rules Committee. Rising energy and water costs weigh 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 place. I'm deeply disappointed that the bill before us today tilts toward a partisan framing and hope we can course correct 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 a historical moment where again energy, water, and war are hyperlinked. Due to the current administration's war of choice on Iran, gas prices rose above $4.50 per gallon. Diesel in my region topped $6 a gallon, a shrill siren song for farmers, truckers, manufacturers, and businesses. History instructs us that when gas exceeds $4 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 $40 trillion debt, at least 20% of it, $8 trillion, 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 $774 million, or 2%, while cutting non-defense innovation programs by $1.8 billion, or 6%. 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 $1.3 billion cut, or 40%, to critical minerals and energy innovation. This devastating reduction completely cedes 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 $50 million cut is proposed, or 14%, to ARPA-E, our most advanced research in energy.
With global population surging toward 10 billion, abandoning transformative clean energy threatens our livable future. The warning signs are all around us, whether it's coastal battering, vast forest fires, prolonged droughts that destroy crops, or atmospheric rivers and gale-force winds. Also, a $25 million cut occurs to electricity and grid deployment programs. With energy prices rising, cutting funds to modernize our aging grid is a non-starter for ratepayers needing relief. Also, a $282 million cut, or 12%, 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 the Army Corps of Engineers' FUSRAP 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 directly threatens the health of our citizenry today and tomorrow. Let's not saddle the next generation with the legacy of the 20th century. Critically, this bill should only repurpose infrastructure investment and jobs funds 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 Corps 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, Ms. Kaptur. Chairman Diaz-Balart.
Mario Diaz-Balart
Madam Chairwoman, what a privilege to be in front of your committee, ranking member and all the members, what a privilege to be testifying in front of your committee on the fiscal year 2027 National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriation bills. I know that the ranking member had a flight issue, but I am joined by a brilliant member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Torres. It's a privilege to be with her as well. The bill presented today is another step in our historic efforts to strengthen national security while reducing spending. Under Chairman Cole's leadership, we have delivered nearly twelve billion in responsible, responsible cuts to spending under the purview of this subcommittee since 2023.
This bill continues that effort 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 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, 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 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 way that that's frankly as bold and durable and supports freedom and security. Let me very, I've said this before, if you're a friend or an ally of the United States, this bill supports you. But if you're an adversary or you're in cahoots with the adversaries of the United States, well, frankly, you're not going to like this bill. The bill maintains one point eight billion for partners in the Pacific, including five hundred million in military assistance for Taiwan and robust, robust funding for the Philippines and our partners in the Pacific Island countries.
It demonstrates unwavering support for Israel by providing three point three billion dollars in security assistance and maintains 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, expanding funding for counter-narcotics and related law enforcement efforts in our hemisphere, including investments to combat fentanyl trafficking, and providing funds to support democratic transitions for the people of Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua.
Last year, the members of the NSRP subcommittee, we focused on how to responsibly transition PEPFAR, a program that has been successful, 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 a 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 alongside 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 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 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 debt owed that they may owe to Communist China. It continues a key provision that blocks assistance to anyone that supports, finances, or facilitates the operations of the Cuban military, including the Cuban Ministry of the Revolutionary Armed Forces and the Ministry of the Interior.
It maintains the prohibition on all, all assistance to the Taliban. It puts America first by 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 related to restoring free speech, supporting religious freedom, and ending censorship. Assessed funding for the UN is cut by $1.8 billion. No funds are included for the UN regular budget, and funds are prohibited to the World Health Organization, 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 ensure that that we finally have justice for the victims of October 7, 2023, of those heinous terrorist attacks, by the way, that included 50, 50 murdered Americans, by requiring full accountability for UNRWA staff who participated in those heinous acts of terror.
The bill maintains all longstanding pro-life provisions, bars funding for the UNFPA, and prohibits spending that violates the President's Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance Policy. These measures, as you know, along with strong oversight, ensure taxpayer dollars do not fund abortions. So again, good bill, spends less money, does more with less money, something that we proved was possible last year. So this continues in that same vein, and with that, Madam Chair, I thank you all for allowing us to be at this hearing, and I look forward to your questions. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Ms. Torres, you're recognized. You're a former member of the committee, and we welcome you back.
Norma Torres
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, and also 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 2027 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.
USAID dismantled, programs cancelled, expertise pushed to the door. Now a weakened State Department is expected to carry the full load despite the fact that it was never built to do so. Alarmingly, this bill caters to the worst instincts of the Trump administration and pulls back American leadership at exactly the wrong moment. With another 2.7 billion cut proposed from the international affairs budget this year, we are investing 14 billion less through this bill than we were just four years ago. These reductions will weaken our diplomats, dismantle development programs, slash humanitarian aid, the lifeline that keeps millions alive, and undermine global health and security efforts that stop threats before they reach our 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 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 eliminates funding for the United Nations and UN peacekeeping at a time when global cooperation has never been more important. As Ambassador Waltz told this subcommittee when we visited the UN in March, US leadership at the UN is not optional, it is essential. This bill rescinds 1 billion in humanitarian aid while crises intensified across Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. It undermines the health and futures of women and girls worldwide by cutting family planning funding for UNFPA and reinstating an expanded global gag rule, undermining the health and futures of vulnerable people worldwide.
It zeros out critical institutions like the US Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the US African Development Foundation. This is not strength, it is retreat. And when America retreats, others like China step in. Nowhere is that clear 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 test. 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 backs on people at risk and in need.
Thank you, Chairwoman, and I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you all for being here, and I appreciate you bringing the bills forward because I support the priorities and the direction you're taking these in. I'll just start with Mr. Cloud. You know, I represent a rural district, and I was very happy to see in the bill that it does invest significant funding in many of the rural priorities that many of us share, including construction projects, flood infrastructure, and electric grid improvements. And so I'm just kind of wondering if maybe you could talk a little bit more about that and how does this bill help build a foundation for the future success in critical areas like energy, critical minerals, water, and more.
Michael Cloud
Right. I too am from a rural district, about 60,000 people. Most of my district is one of those where there's more cows than people in it, right? And this bill does a lot to get us back to base load energy, which was so important. The Biden administration put a lot of dollars into chasing intermittent energy into supply chains that went through adversarial nations.
I know, for example, in my community, there's a community in our district where they were looking to close down a coal-fire plant. It was the only source of energy for this small town. And we worked with the Trump administration, we were able to get that converted to a natural gas. But under the Biden administration, they had said no investment, literally in the budget, no investment for oil and gas, anything related to it, when we realize how important it is to have base load, and that's the quickest and easiest way to get to affordable energy. Continues the investment on water technology.
There's a new center of excellence that's been developed. This puts research dollars into providing smart water research and technologies and building out the infrastructure that's needed. That, along with what the administration is working on recently, it was just about two weeks ago, three weeks ago, OMB announced that they're lifting what had been a $30 million cap on water infrastructure projects. And so with the funds provided in this bill, along with the removing of that cap, that opens up the door to infrastructure, water infrastructure, serious water infrastructure projects going forth that can really help rural communities and really just continues to provide a future that we can, an economically sustainable path to affordable energy for specifically for our rural communities. And thank you for serving in an area like that that has certainly unique demands that we don't find in metroplexes.
Michelle Fischbach
That's right. Well, and thank you very much, and I appreciate you being here today, and thank you for the response because I do think it is that, you know, that direction that we are moving and trying to, you know, make sure that we support those areas and that we are doing what we need to do for sustainability to continue and economic growth and all of the things that we want in our rural areas. And across the country. But thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, turning to H.R. 8595, I think, you know, national security obviously is of the utmost importance and it's incredibly important right now.
And so I do appreciate, you know, the way that you've pushed the, moved, moved the direction. And you also recognize that we are facing incredible amounts of debt. And so I think one of the things that really struck me was the provision in the bill, although there's many great ones, it's the $1.6 billion for the international narcotics control and law enforcement. And that's an increase 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.
Mario Diaz-Balart
Well, thank you for the question and thank you for the interest in that issue. Look, that's an issue that I think has strong support in Congress and the House. In our committee, we're fortunate to have one of the leaders fighting fentanyl, for example, and other type drugs that are killing Americans in droves, and that's the dean of the House, Hal Rogers. He keeps us focused on that issue time and time again. And you're right, we put additional money to do that in this bill.
So while we are reducing funding, we are funding, we're putting more money onto things that are really that have an impact and that are hugely important. This was one of those. So we're putting more money, and I will tell you, I just recently got back from leading a CODEL to South America. And 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. And we're very proud of doing that.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation, while we are spending less overall, we're doing more critical spending on issues that are highly important. We did those, we did this in FY26. A lot of folks thought it was impossible. I remember coming here and we had some interesting debates. 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 by putting some more resources, is in this area that you're talking about: fighting narcotics, fighting fentanyl, fighting 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, these are dangerous organizations.
So we've put more resources, more funding. It's something that I think has, I hope, strong bipartisan support. And that I hope that we'll be able to, like we were able to do in '26, keep after the negotiations with the Senate.
Michelle Fischbach
Well, and thank you very much, because I recognize this is a huge issue with the fentanyl issue. And you mentioned the other, the other kind of crimes that you're combating by just doing this. And so I appreciate that, and I appreciate that you are redirecting. You recognize the debt, you recognize the need to reduce spending, but you also prioritize those things that will really truly make a difference. So thank you very much, and thank you both for being here.
And I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Fischbach. I understand we're going to have a little switch in witnesses here. So we'll give them a chance to do that, and then I'll recognize Mr. McGovern.
James McGovern
I love when my Republican friends talk about the need to cut humanitarian aid programs, food aid programs, because they're worried about the debt. But nobody on the other side said a word when we passed the tax cut bill that benefited multi-millionaires and billionaires that added trillions to the debt. And last week, or the week before last, we added another $70 billion to the $100 billion 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 hungry people, all of a sudden, you know, oh, we got to tighten our belts. Let me begin with, I have a few questions. I'll try to be quick here. Since you're all appropriators, this is a question that I got asked a lot during the break by my constituents. In fact, a gentleman on the airplane down here today asked me about this, and that's the President's ballroom.
You know, his lavish ballroom, which he said on multiple occasions would be 100% privately funded. I mean, he said that a million times. 100% privately funded. So let me just ask you, yes, no, or maybe. Do you support using taxpayer dollars to fund President Trump's ballroom, Ms. Kaptur?
Speaker 11
Do you support using taxpayer funding to fund the ballroom? No, Mr. Ranking Member, I do not.
Thank you. Ms. Hranko?
Mr. Diaz-Balart?
Mario Diaz-Balart
There's no funding for any ballroom in my appropriation bill, just so you know, because it deals with foreign policy.
Mr. Cloud?
James McGovern
So let me let both of you, Mr. Diaz-Balart and Cloud, in on something. You're appropriators, and I'm surprised you don't know this. But are you aware that President Trump and his team have transferred roughly $400 million in taxpayer dollars that Congress appropriated to the Secret Service and put into the White House Repair and Restoration account in order to make, quote, security upgrades as part of the ballroom construction project? So when you say there's no taxpayer funds going to this, are you aware that hundreds of millions of dollars are going to this ballroom?
Mario Diaz-Balart
So I am aware that we have a pretty high-risk security situation. We have a President who's now suffered...
And so you support that?
Mario Diaz-Balart
I support making sure that the President of the United States is safe. But I have not seen any details.
James McGovern
Well, I will provide you the details. OMB has provided us all the money where they were transferred. I mean, in fact, I could tell you right now that a transfer of $340.8 million in taxpayer dollars to the ballroom construction on June 12, 2026. A second transfer of $10.75 million in taxpayer dollars to the ballroom construction, also on June 12. A third transfer on June 15 of $45 million in taxpayer dollars, again to the ballroom construction.
I mean, I have the documents from the Office of Management and Budget right here. So it's stunning to me that as appropriators 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 want to make sure that the executive branch, whether it's a Republican administration or a Democrat 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 this is like an end run around Congress.
Is that is that something you support? And if not, what can the Appropriations Committee do to stop it?
Michael Cloud
I want to note, I took a tour of the White House defense apparatus with the Secret Service recently. I would wonder if you've taken that same tour.
James McGovern
I don't think they'll let me on the White House grounds. So, I mean, you know, I mean, with this president, I don't think. But I mean, but the point of matter is if you support if you support.
But have you ever taken have you ever taken that tour?
I have been to the White House many times. But if you support.
Have you ever taken that tour?
Yeah, I have taken a tour, yeah.
Michael Cloud
Not the White House tour, of the security defense apparatus. I had the chance to talk to the Secret Service and you know when we visit the White House right now, the visitors to the White House go through tents basically. They stand out in the open when we hold state dinners, it's basically on lawn that could be have just been rained under. And the ballroom portion.
But this but this.
Michael Cloud
There's a security component to the ballroom that you should probably look into and certain things of course we can't talk about in this committee.
Speaker 15
My question is, as appropriators, why don't you appropriate the funding? Why do you allow the administration to do an end run around this? I mean, 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?
Mario Diaz-Balart
Can I may I address that? May I address that? Thank you, sir. Look, valid question, 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 when the Supreme Court of the United States said it was unconstitutional, by the way, I don't remember the outrage by some of our Democratic colleagues about that taking place.
Now, having said that.
So you're saying it's unconstitutional?
Speaker 28
No, no, what was unconstitutional was the time when the Democrats did not speak out when President Biden did it.
Speaker 27
Well, if you don't want me to answer it, then I get that because you don't like the answer, but that is.
James McGovern
My question is, are you saying that this money that the president is spending, which was not authorized or appropriated for this use, is unconstitutional? If not, then do you approve of this money being spent on the ballroom? It's a simple question, not a trick question.
Mario Diaz-Balart
No, if I may, what I'm saying is that we are here, we have appropriation bills in front of you. We have two appropriation bills. By the way, none of these two bills deal with that specific issue. But again, it's a little rich when I hear all of a sudden, all of a sudden a wake up that that, you know, money that was not appropriated should or should not be appropriated when the previous administration did so and the Supreme Court of the United States said that it was wrong and I do not remember, I may be wrong because maybe I can get you can get me some of your quotes demanding accountability to the president.
James McGovern
So you support taxpayer funding for this for this ballroom. And the reason why is because it was they tried to put it in the reconciliation bill, but it became so unpopular that they removed it.
Speaker 27
I support these two appropriation bills that are in front of you right now, again, neither of which have that.
Then I'll put you down as you don't support that money.
Mario Diaz-Balart
Is it a maybe? I don't... No. I mean... Anyway.
Well, look, you don't like the answer and you sure were not complaining when the previous administration did a lot more egregious than what you're claiming is happening today.
James McGovern
So you're defending this president's unauthorized transfer of funds to do this. But let me ask Mr. Cloud, you have submitted your amendment to permanently block the federal government from issuing a central bank digital currency 38 times to this Congress.
You're welcome.
James McGovern
And each and every one of those times, the Rules Committee, controlled by your party, has blocked your amendment from being made in order. So I see that you have filed your amendment for a 39th time today before our committee. My question is... Holding out hope. If Republicans block your amendment for the 39th time, will you vote against the rule?
James McGovern
Okay, because the question would be why would you continue to vote for rules that block your own amendments from getting votes? Your party's in the majority. Let me just one final question for Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah, I'm looking over the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, and I'll be honest with you, it does not reflect my values. And I think it weakens the United States.
I think gutting programs that actually help deal with humanitarian crises 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. And I also am deeply troubled by the de-emphasis of human rights by this administration and by, quite frankly, Congress. I mean, the president went to China recently and met with President Xi. I was stunned that human rights was not a priority on their agenda and not part of the readout of his statement.
I think President Xi is a horrific dictator that is abusing the Chinese people, that anybody who disagrees with him is put in jail. We have tons of political prisoners. And I would like to think that if any country in the world was out there fighting for these people, it would be the United States. 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 counterproductive and it makes us look like a cowardly cheapskate in the eyes of the world. The US should lead 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, on conflict prevention, and other matters?
Mario Diaz-Balart
Thank you. Yeah, you're right that we do, we do cut a lot of funding 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. You mentioned human rights.
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, 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. So while we're funding, again, I go back to what I said at the beginning, we're funding key issues, but we're not just spending money and throwing money away on wasteful... But the money doesn't go to those countries. It goes to the body, right?
I mean, it doesn't go to those countries.
James McGovern
Yes, it goes... And I, and I, and I'm just going to say this because I'm going to about to be gaveled down here. You know, as the co-chair of the Human Rights- Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, named after Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress, 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 president's closest allies are the worst human rights abusers in the world.
And I, again, it's really troubling, and I think it's one of those things that undercuts our overall national security. And I'm being cut off, so I yield back. Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. Griffith, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Anything additional, Mr. Cloud, that you would like to add? About the bill? About the bill's always- it's always good to talk about the bill. I mean, I'd love an energy and water question. I kind of thought this is what we were going to be talking about today, so.
Yeah, welcome to Rules. Oh, thank you. We don't always talk about what we're supposed to. I understand. It drives me crazy too.
Yeah. I will say the central bank digital currency would present the ultimate surveillance tool and tool of control. And it is so vitally important that we do everything we can to make sure that our kids and our grandkids never have to deal with that. And I agree with you. I am told, however, it's not germane to this bill.
Well, I understand that, but I will keep trying. And I appreciate your efforts, and when we can get it germane, I will vote with you. Chairman Diaz-Balart, did you have anything additional you'd like to add? No, thank you. Look, I think this is a very good bill.
You'll recall that when we were here for fiscal year '26, we heard the same naysayers say that we couldn't cut spending, that the world was going to fall apart. And what we found is that 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. This bill goes a little bit further in that same direction. We proved that we were right in fiscal year '26. And if- assuming this bill goes to the floor, we hope to continue in that same trajectory of spending less money while doing more to strengthen our national security.
So thank you, sir. I appreciate it. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Ms. Scanlon.
Yeah, I just want to say for the record, this committee, while they may not make specific amendments in order that are non-germane, routinely self-execute matters that are non-germane into bills. And so the reality is that that's just not a good excuse, but I want to clarify that for the record. I yield back. Thank you. So we've got two appropriations bills here today.
And I don't think by any stretch of the imagination you can credibly say that they put Americans first. Instead, they cut programs. 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.
Speaker 25
But instead of addressing these challenges, these two appropriations 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 $800 million. It slashes funding for programs that help develop clean, affordable, and secure energy by 40%. Investments that would strengthen American energy independence and promote the all-of-the-above strategy rather than increasing reliance on fossil fuels. The alternative would help lower costs; this bill will raise them.
It also cuts funding for the Army Corps of Engineers by $660 million. In my district, that agency has been an essential partner in developing long-overdue flood mitigation solutions for Eastwick, a community that has experienced repeated and devastating flooding because of unchecked development and aging infrastructure. But just recently, the Corps said, oh, we can't afford to continue helping you. So the misplaced priorities don't stop with the Energy and Water bill. 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 canceling programs to identify and contain dangerous disease outbreaks. Research indicates that already 750,000 people, including half a million children, have died as a direct result of the cuts that have already been made to USAID and the cancellation of programs which have allowed malaria, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis to spread without being checked; that have interrupted nutrition, vaccines, and treatment for new mothers and infants; and the abrupt end of humanitarian aid 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 14 million deaths by 2030. I mean, we've just seen in recent days that health officials are struggling to contain the Ebola outbreak in Central Africa. The US is once again confronting the spread of the New World screwworm, a pest that was eradicated in this country in the 1960s but is now on the move again in several states, threatening our beef industry.
So we know that an outbreak miles away, countries away, can become local in a matter of days, and investments in global health are investments in American national security. And because no Republican appropriations bill would be complete without partisan culture war riders, this bill also includes provisions to ban pride flags at US embassies and to dramatically expand the global gag rule, which prohibits even foreign nonprofits from providing reproductive health counseling or services if they receive US dollars 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, healthcare providers withdraw services, and patients lose access to maternal healthcare, HIV treatment, and other basic health services. So, as one of our witnesses said earlier, national security is about more than military force. 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.
Speaker 26
Ranking Member Kaptur, Americans are paying higher prices for gas, electricity, and other necessities. Does this energy and water bill do anything meaningful to lower energy costs, and does it help us reach energy independence?
Marcy Kaptur
No, actually the bill takes a backward step in so many of the areas that we summarized in our formal testimony to provide more modern grid, to provide greater competition, which is really the answer to lowering costs, to invest in innovation in the energy sector. All of those accounts have been reduced. And in the critical minerals area, which is so important to new forms of power, the cut is 40%. I mean, it's massive. It yields unfortunately extra advantage especially to China, but not only China, as we look at the ways in which we source critical minerals around the world.
So it doesn't reduce energy prices to anyone, and it cuts many of the behind-the-grid inventions that have made more affordable power possible. So for example, in the arena of solar power, for example, and I could give you many examples. Mrs. Fischbach was talking about rural America, where even in Ohio, what innovative mayors have been doing in towns of under 5,000 people, actually providing back-of-the-grid power to their people. It's revolutionary and it's important to them, and it reduces costs. So no, this bill is not admirable in that regard.
And I wanted to just, if I could, just say a word. Ranking Member McGovern talked about the role of the Appropriations Committee. I'm a senior member on the Appropriations Committee. I've never served, and I've served in Congress a long time 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's being taken from somewhere. And this is what Secretary Hicks has 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 in your office should I speak? And he said, anyone. Now, the law will eventually lock down, and we will follow the constitutional mandates for the movement of dollars.
That is our responsibility under Article 1 of the Constitution as appropriators, and we intend to pursue it, but it won't happen tomorrow. It will require litigation.
Speaker 22
Thank you for that. I share your concern. I mean, with respect to the energy and water bill, with respect to solar energy, we've seen the impact of federal investment in being able to move communities, churches, temples, mosques, schools to adopt solar energy, which then lowers their costs and enables them to accomplish their mission. And it just doesn't happen without assistance from the government to help people make that transition. So it is very concerning to see those cuts coming in and undermining the progress that our country has been making in that way.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Very good point. Representative Frankel, you know, we're seeing a lot of this sort of penny-wise, pound-foolish approach to the appropriations bills, you know, talking about, oh, we're saving X amount of money by cutting all these efforts to control diseases overseas or to relieve hunger overseas. 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?
Lois Frankel
Thank you for your question. Thank you to the members of Rules for your work. And I just to say that regretfully, I'm not, as you know, I'm not supporting this bill. I'm hoping we can do a better job together. We do work well together, but we're this bill falls very short.
I don't know if you know this, but my son Ben, who's alive and well, I'll start with that, but he's a US Marine veteran. He went to two wars. And I came to Congress with the mission to keep any other people's children from going to war. And that's really what drove me to get on this particular committee. We call it the committee of soft power.
As my colleague Ms. Torres said, that you can't just have the Trump administration with the bombs and the tariffs and the bullying. That's not going to be the way to keep us secure and prosperous. And it is through diplomacy, development, and humanitarian assistance is the way to we create trading partners, we keep people from from being disenchanted and maybe joining terrorist groups, and we keep diseases from coming here. So this bill falls far short. I think we can do better.
I know we're going to strive to do better. And I thank you for your attention.
Mary Gay Scanlon
I appreciate that. I was really struck a few years back, I had the opportunity to visit the Northern Triangle countries in Central America and meet with folks there. And they talked about how the very small investment, 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 as opposed to this migration from this administration to renaming, you know, they're no longer trying to defend the country, they're trying to commit wars. So it's no longer...
Well, you could see 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 want to just add this. We had Marco Rubio in front of our committee, and we asked him why contraceptives were just basically rotting away in warehouses overseas, millions of dollars worth.
And he said to us, well, we're not in the family planning business. And that was evident when this bill came across to us where family planning for women, under-resourced women around the world, was completely cut. We need to do much more to uplift the mothers and the grandmothers and the sisters. Absolutely. I mean, we've seen time and again food left to rot, medicines left to spoil or become out of date.
It is the worst form of fraud, waste, and abuse, I think, although of course the rotting reflecting pool is way up there. I yield back. Thank you.
Ronny Jackson
Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman Diaz-Balart, appreciate your testimony today. Could you walk us through, compared to 2026, how much spending you were able to cut from this appropriations bill in line with what the American people wanted when they elected us the majority, which is a more efficient government that spends money more wisely?
Mario Diaz-Balart
Yes, sir. Thank you, thanks for the question. It's an addi- this- this bill has an additional 2.7 billion dollar reduction from the enacted fiscal year 26 bill.
Speaker 18
And just to frame this going forward, you know, I always like to try to bring voters back home into the mindset that we have here in Congress. What is a vote against this bill? What are you- when- when we have this on the floor later this week, if the rule passes, which it will, what are voters, or rather, what are members of Congress voting against if they vote no?
Mario Diaz-Balart
Confronting our adversaries. Helping our allies. Making sure that the- that our country is stronger, more secure, more prosperous, safer. But in a way that also spends less money. And so what we have proven in this Congress, under the chairmanship of Tom Cole, of Chairman Cole, is that in this particular subcommittee, we've proven it.
This is no longer theory, is that we can spend less and do better. That not only helps our taxpayer, our fiscal situation, which is obviously a grave concern and 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, actually we started that process in fiscal year 25 under President Biden, but those were tough negotiations, but we reduced some spending even with President Biden in the White House once I got this chairmanship. And in fiscal year 26 we did it in a much more dramatic way and I think in a much more effective fashion.
This takes us in the same direction. So if you vote against this bill, you're voting in essence against confronting our adversaries in a stronger way, helping our allies in a more forthright way, and yet doing so with spending less taxpayer money.
Well put. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Hey, Madam Chair.
James McGovern
Yeah, I- just- just for the record, the size of the cut in your bill is about 4% of what you spent on ICE and CBP with no offset, which is one of the reasons why the- the debt has gone up 3 trillion dollars since Trump took office.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Um, Mr.- Chairman, I was going to ask you a similar question to what Mr. Jack asked you. I think he did a very good job of helping- helping you explain a little bit more when you were interrupted earlier, I think, in your comments. And let me step back a minute. I- I want to thank the veterans who are here in the Rules Committee today.
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. Is there anything else, Chairman Diaz-Balart, that you want to add to what it seems to me that you've spelled out very clearly the choice that we will be making on whether we vote for or against this piece of legislation, as you said, helping our allies, denying money to our adversaries, those things that you spelled out. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
Mario Diaz-Balart
I- look, you- you all are extremely busy and I want to thank you all for your service and your time and I think I've- I've explained it. But obviously always willing to answer any other- any other questions, but Madam Chairwoman, I think- I think we've- I hope that I've explained this bill in a way that is understandable. It's a good bill, it's a common sense bill, spends less money, does more for our national security. I think it's a darn good bill. Thank you.
Virginia Foxx
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 250 years ago, and that was for national security. I thank our witnesses very much for being here. You are excused. I now welcome our panel, Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano from the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Yeah.
Yeah, sure. Okay. Mark, Mark, hand those to me if you want to. Just put them up here. It's okay, just put them up here and we'll get them.
We'll take care of them. We'll take care of them. Thank you. I don't want you to have a chance of spilling them, so I'll spill them for you. No need to spill them.
Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Ryan. Again, I welcome our panel, Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano from the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes.
Chairman Bost, I welcome your testimony.
Mike Bost
Well, thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the Rules Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today, and I am here to speak on support of H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. I respectfully ask that you issue an appropriate rule for its consideration. If you choose to make amendments in order, I ask that you do not include any amendments that would undermine the purpose of the bill or increase its cost. Madam Chairwoman, the legislation is the most comprehensive veterans' package to be considered in Congress in decades.
H.R. 9237 includes more than 60 bipartisan bills to improve VA veterans' benefits, veterans' healthcare, and accountability across the entire department. But this bill is not important because of how many provisions are in it. It is important because of whom it helps. The bill begins with the Major Richard Star Act. 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 received VA disability compensation.
This issue has persisted for years because we cannot and have not been able to find a way to pay for fixing it. 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 20-year retirees with the same disability.
This bill would end that injustice and allow combat-injured veterans to receive both benefits by ensuring these veterans receive no more than 20-year retirees with the same disability. This bill also includes the Love Lives On Act, which would eliminate the choice survivors have to face when choosing to remarry or keep their benefits. Under current law, those that choose to remarry before age 55 must give up those VA benefits. But those benefits were earned by a service member 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. 9237 also includes the Sharon-Briley Richard-Edmundson Veterans Benefit Expansion Act. This would increase benefits for catastrophically disabled veterans who require round-the-clock care and increase survivors' pensions. These are veterans whose injuries changed the course of their lives and the lives of their families forever. Our nation's surviving spouses and severely disabled veterans have not seen an increase in benefits in decades.
And I'm proud to announce that this bill would significantly boost and increase both of those. H.R. 9237 also includes the Veterans Access Act. For years, veterans have watched government bureaucracies restrict the community healthcare access Congress promised 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 healthcare. It would also improve transitions assistance and education benefits to better prepare veterans for civilian life. Furthermore, it would modernize the disability claims appeals process so veterans are not treated like a number and lost in a huge system.
This bill would also reform VA construction, leasing, and IT systems that are bogged down with red tape. Madam Chairman, consideration of this legislation is long overdue. Many of these provisions are not new ideas. 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 Richard Star Act is the best example.
A press release 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 politics at its worst. This offset codifies a Biden-era proposed rule.
Let me say it again. This proposal came from the Biden administration originally. The rule would alter the way VA evaluates service-connected sleep apnea and tendonitis. The offset is pointing forward. 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 change by this legislation.
VA testified that VA before the VA subcommittee that they plan 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 designed to message vote message a vote on legislation that they know will die in the Senate because it's not paid for. My colleagues know that and my fellow veterans deserve more. That is what the Take Care of America's Veterans Act will do. 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.
Yield back.
Mark Takano
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, good afternoon, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern. You know, I wish I were here under better circumstances. Yet here I am to warn you and members of this House about the dangerous and harmful bill before you today. What my Republican colleagues have concocted, a bill they've completely without irony called the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, is the largest cut to veterans' benefits in the history of this country.
Now, I wish I were being hyperbolic here, but I'm sadly not. Republicans are prepared to rip away benefits from at least 1.5 million veterans, including currently serving members of the military. Members are willingly taking Republicans are willingly taking tens of billions of dollars from veterans' pockets because they are too timid to do the right thing for our nation's veterans. They have argued that this is inevitable, as my colleague Chairman Bost just said, referred to something inevitable, that it is necessary and that it is the only way. Emphatically, it is not and they know it, and veterans know it.
And even the Trump VA knows it and has said so publicly when Republicans tried to pin this cut onto 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 Star 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 gall 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 Star Act? This stands in direct contradiction to what Chairman Bost told this committee the last time we were here, and what he said on the floor numerous times. He loves to boast that as a veteran himself, he would never do anything to harm veterans.
We know that isn't true because of the very bill we have before us today. 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 markup on a massive 600-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 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 was already trying to do the same thing and they needed to get ahead of it so Republicans can control the money.
And he's also referred to the false notion that this was an attempt by the Biden administration to put through a similar rule. They did propose a rule, overwhelmingly opposed by the veteran service organizations, public comments, thousands and thousands of public comments were filed, and the Biden administration retreated from that proposed rule. So no, this was never a rule that was ever completed by the Biden administration, and it is not a rule that the current administration is looking to put forward. Yet, this has also been revealed, so it is a false promise, false premise. VA itself stated last week that there are no plans to move forward on making changes to regulations that would lead to a benefits cut, saying, quote, "no changes are planned or imminent."
VA knows that doing so would be deeply unpopular, just as it was unpopular during the Biden administration, and VSOs and veterans spoke loud and clear on that. And just as they did earlier this year when VA issued an interim final rule that would have significantly changed how disability ratings are determined and that would have negatively impacted thousands of veterans, 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 privatization of VA, including for mental health services.
It creates a slush fund for the tech industry. It harms student veterans by throwing more dollars at predatory for-profit schools. It contains handouts to industry and allows them to double dip, diverting taxpayer dollars meant to serve veterans. It also strips away collective bargaining rights from certain VA employees.
I cannot support it. I reject the premise, and I urge all my colleagues to reject the premise as well. I yield back.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Madam Chair. Chairman Bost, I really appreciate that you brought this package forward, and I want to thank you for your service. And I think it's incredibly important that a veteran brought this legislation, this package forward to help your fellow veterans. And so I appreciate that. And it contains more than 60 bipartisan bills, and it really is aimed at improving veterans' benefits, expanding access to care, and enhancing veterans' quality of life.
This administration, under this administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs has reduced processing times for disability claims and pension and survivor benefits, and it's reduced the VA benefits backlog to less than 100,000. 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 claims, DIC claims, and more. And President Trump and the Republicans did make a commitment to fight for our veterans as you are doing, as they fought for our country, and we continue to deliver on that promise. And your bill brings together dozens of measures focused on improving veterans' care even further, strengthening benefits, and enhancing the quality of life for veterans.
And I thank the chairman for bringing it forward. And I actually look forward to supporting it on the floor. 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 statement?
Mike Bost
Right. Well, you brought up the fact, first off, remember the four important is Richard Star Act, it is the Braley-Edmundson Act, which are our most vulnerable veterans that really do need the support. The Love Lives On Act for those widows that for years have had to try to make a choice whether they go ahead and have a life and get married or they wait until they're 55 not to lose their benefits. Now, those are just three, there are so many others in there. And what is vitally important is that there are 60 bills.
Of those, about 48 of them were co-sponsored and or already been supported by Democrats in bipartisan way. And it has been brought up 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' organizations also in support of this bill. Okay, there's several organizations in support of the bill. Let me say that 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 put something over that has a pay-for or just tell our veterans, oh, we're going to do great and wonderful things for you, only to watch it go to the Senate and die. As a veteran, I want to see something pass, and there's a whole pile of things here that have been promised to be passed for a long time, and we are going to get it done.
Michelle Fischbach
Well, thank you very much, Chairman Bost. And I just I do want to just recognize that there are veterans in the audience from I believe from the VFW. So thank you for being here with us. Always appreciate having the public come in and hear what's going on here.
So thank you for being here and thank you all for your service. Really genuinely appreciate it. And I appreciate your response and thank you very much. And with that, I yield back.
James McGovern
Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I too want to thank our veterans here and thank you for your service to our country and we appreciate your presence here in this committee. And Chairman Bost and Ranking Member Takano, thank you for being here. Mr. Chairman, I think you said that you asked for an appropriate rule with no amendments basically that you don't like, that you think will kind of that you believe will undermine the bill. I think basically that's how I interpreted it.
But the whole point but here's the problem. The whole point of having a vote is because you might think an amendment makes the bill worse, but I might think it makes it better, right? And that's the whole point of why we have votes. And this isn't mock debate club. If you think an amendment undermines a bill, then you vote against it.
But this majority kind of has one vote, which is block, block, block almost everything. And just for the record, the Republican majority so far has blocked 60% of all bipartisan amendments that have been offered to various bills. They've blocked 60% of Republican amendments that have been offered to bills that we've considered. And they've blocked 90% of Democrat amendments. So I mean, I you know, I find that pretty disturbing.
I also want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a statement by Veterans of Foreign Wars that entitled VFW strongly opposes disability benefit cuts included in proposed Take Care of America's Veterans Act.
James McGovern
And let me just read a paragraph here. Says the VFW strongly opposes the Take Care of America's Veterans Act as currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the VA rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep apnea, which are common conditions associated with combat polytrauma. This 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, and should not be financed through offsets, fee increases, or reductions that place additional burdens on veterans, military families, and survivors. Mr. Chairman, you know, I assume you've seen the latest cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office which says that your bill would be a net $1.3 billion cut to benefits for veterans.
Mike Bost
Actually, what it says is is $1.3 billion is in excess because of and let me also say again, no reduction in benefits for our veterans. It's very clear that it's not a deduction reduction in any benefits. The proposal that we're using truly was and is a Biden-era proposal that this administration actually set before us in committee and said they were going to implement it. At which time, if we should not use that as an offset in a sensible way seems only proper to do that. 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.
James McGovern
Well, I appreciate it, but I'm reading, I don't know if you've seen the same CBO document that I have, but this documents cuts for a total of $1.3 billion in cuts. And this bill would cost veterans refinancing their homes an additional $3,780 in fees on average. It would cut benefits for tinnitus and sleep apnea, which is, as I, as the VFW pointed out, are some of the most common medical conditions that qualify veterans for disability benefits. And, and here's my problem when, you know, you keep on talking about PAYGO and everything requires pay-fors. You guys pick and choose, you know, when you need a pay-for.
You need a pay-for when it comes to benefits for veterans, but when it comes to tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, there's no, there's no offset. When, a couple weeks ago, you all voted for an additional $70 billion, billion with a B, for CBP and, and ICE on top of the $100 billion that they already have, they haven't spent. None, none of that was offset. None of you guys asked for a pay-for for that. And let's not even get into the current war in Iran.
Mr. Takano, do you want to add anything?
Mark Takano
Yeah, yeah, Mr. Ranking Member, you know, Chairman Bost clearly doesn't understand the disability, how the disability rating system works, because while the bills, while the bill's cuts to disability ratings may not directly be retroactive, they can and will lead to cuts for those who already have a service-connected disability rating 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 veteran's ratings are, are subject to any danger, he's not being, he's not being actually accurate. It's foolish to think that VA won't apply the new rules that statutorily we're being asked to put into effect for sleep apnea and tinnitus when veterans have their ratings reviewed. But let's be clear, the forward-looking application of these changes, meaning to present and future veterans, is problematic as well.
It means that veterans who aren't currently rated and active duty service members who are incurring these injuries right now will be treated worse than those that came before them. The contract will unilaterally be changed on them for the worse. How can we say with a straight face that two veterans with the same exact condition should be treated differently? This is beyond me. Now, Ranking Member McGovern, let's be clear what the Chairman wants to completely ignore.
We've had veterans subjected on our military bases to blasts from Iranian missiles. Uh, we've had, 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, are being asked to do, is to move forward legislation which would make it impossible for those veterans to go in the future and get a diagnosis of, of tinnitus, which is a very common diagnosis with, with good reason. Uh, we're, 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.
James McGovern
And I suspect that that's why the VFW has concerns about this bill and why many veterans are, have concerns about this bill is because, you know, they interpret the cuts to actually mean cuts in the future. I just, let me just kind of end with one question because this, I've been asking this of various panels when we, we talk about offsets and, and the need for savings.
I just want to understand why didn't you vote for $70 billion in additional money for CBP and ICE without asking for an offset? I just don't understand why that's okay, but this has to be thought of in a different way. What makes that different? And why didn't anybody offer, I mean some of us tried to offer amendments on making sure it was offset, but I just, that's the thing. You guys vote for things all the time that have no offsets.
That's why the debt has gone up $3 trillion since we have a total Republican government here. But I'm just curious, I don't know whether there's an explanation for that.
Mike Bost
I know what it was with my committee and I know the rules of my committee and I have to have the offsets. I've 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 do not reduce any other, any person's benefits.
Speaker 37
Well, we've heard that it would impact certainly future... Well, you've heard from his side, now you're hearing from my side. Well, we've also heard from veterans.
Mike Bost
And I hear from veterans that say they understand this offset. So 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 VSO organizations are in support of the legislation. Yes, there are some that are opposed based on what the rules are and everything like that.
James McGovern
But my question though is not about your committee, it's about your vote on the floor for a $70 billion with no offset. And I'm just, and that's, I mean, I asked basically the same question of the previous panelists. I mean, you're cutting programs to help hungry people, here we're negatively impacting veterans because we need to have offsets, but yet nobody cared about an offset and you all voted for it. And so I just, yeah, I'll yield to Mr. McGovern.
Mark Takano
Well, Mr. Ranking Member McGovern, I agree with you this inconsistency on the insistence on offsets. What I object to most is that the offset that the majority is attempting to use here is to take money from veterans, to take money out of veterans' pockets, disabled veterans' pockets, and to give it to other disabled veterans. That to me is abhorrent. Look, I agree with you that they've passed legislation without offsets. So here's what I would urge this committee to do, to consider making my amendments in order to meet the chairman's insistence on an offset.
We have alternatives. Make DOD pay for a DOD program. This is a, we're asking for DOD pensions to be paid for.
Mike Bost
And Chairman Bost, just one quick question. If the Major Richard Star bill were put on the floor today without an offset, would you vote for it or against it? Because that's what the discharge petition... Well, you know what, a lot of people claim they'll vote for it. So if it comes and this doesn't go, we'll see what happens.
The problem is, the problem is, that's a lie to your veterans because you just lied to your veterans because you think it's going to pass in the Senate and the Senate has already been very, very clear they will not support it. We're five signatures away from getting that to the floor. But I mean, the idea that when it comes to other things, nobody cares about an offset, but when it comes to veterans, we're insisting on an offset. I just find that a little bit puzzling. But I thank you, I yield back.
Mike Bost
Chairman Bost, we've heard one of the VSOs referenced by name as being opposed and you've said there are VSOs that support. I'm just wondering if you could... The list total is, and then you have to look at is it the VSOs or is it PACs.
There is about 12 in opposition and 14 to 15 that are in support and there are a couple that are waiting on what the administration's position is.
Speaker 41
Can you give us the names of a couple of them? I don't have to have all 14 in favor.
Mike Bost
There you go. The American, the American Legion is one of them that's in support. There's a whole lot more. Hold on just a second. BVA, Legion, AMVETS, TAPS, Elizabeth Dole Foundation, Gold Star Spouses, Gold Star Wings, so there are several.
Speaker 44
Okay, a fair number. And I'm trying to get my arms around it on the sleep apnea. My understanding is, and I could be mistaken, is that currently if you are a veteran and you come in and you have a sleep apnea problem, you're automatically given a 50% disability.
That is correct, a 50%.
Mike Bost
No, no it doesn't lower. What it does is it says that you're, it is a revamping of it to say, okay, what's the scientific background of that is what caused it and then you can still apply for it. However, it under current rule it just kind of granted out there.
Speaker 43
I guess what I'm saying is that you can show science up to whatever level with the medical histories and so forth, but I thought it was 10% automatic if you had sleep apnea. Is that not accurate?
It's 15, it's 50 automatic. It's 50 now, 50 automatic.
Speaker 40
With the least being 10. Okay, that and that was my understanding. I just want to make it clear. So if you come in and it's clear that it was caused by action in Iran or anywhere else, then you get the and you have sleep apnea, it's 10% minimum, but then it could go up as high as 100% theoretically.
Speaker 45
Okay. I mean that was kind of my understanding as well. Is there anything else that you want to say in response to comments?
Mike Bost
No, I think I think, you know, it's wild 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 and remember this, this is the most important thing, it doesn't reduce veterans' benefits that already receive them. It does not.
Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. I mean, this is a massive bill, right? Over 500 pages of text and all and and some really important provisions that have bipartisan support from veterans, military families, etc. But despite all that, because of what a fair number of people say are the cuts to veterans' benefits, so we seem to have a real dispute here about that. The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled American Veterans, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America all oppose the bill, not because of the provisions that are in it, but because of how Republicans have chosen to pay for it with what appears to be $64 billion in cuts from other benefits, not the same ones at issue in the bill.
I mean, we absolutely should be strengthening benefits for veterans and their families, but not by taking benefits away from other veterans or increasing costs on military families.
Now, we've mentioned the support or lack thereof from the VFW and other organizations, but AFGE, a major union, is also opposing this bill because it is going to remove psychologists who provide thousands of psychologists from their current protected status under the VA and remove labor protections from them. 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, and here it looks like we're about to see more of that. And that kind of disruption of care really impacts our veterans because our VA folks are specialists. They are, you know, world experts on this, and if we are pushing them out, then it has a real impact. Can you comment on that?
Mark Takano
Yeah, well, I wanted to say the chairman was able to mention less than ten VSO, veteran service organizations, that favor this bill. I have a list here of twenty, at least twenty that are in opposition. And I doubt there's any VSO in the room that's represented. It's unprecedented that we have veteran service organizations represented in the Rules Committee hearing room, but I don't, I would defy the chairman to point to one VSO present today, look around me, that is in favor of this bill.
Speaker 50
It's usually pretty quiet in the Rules Committee, but we do have a number of folks from the VFW here today.
Mark Takano
So let me also say, the chairman says he doesn't want to lie to veterans about the passage in the Senate of the Richard Star Act. I would argue that the Richard Star Act, if we pass it in the House, would have so much momentum. It's that's what's irresistible. What's irresistible is the grassroots support across this country for the Richard Star 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 say the Senate has been clear that there's not a path forward for the Take Care of America's Veterans Act that he's proposing.
I have here a letter signed by forty-six senators to Doug Collins, Secretary Collins, stating that they would, that they oppose the Take Care of America's Veterans Act. And Madam Chair, I would ask that it be put into the record.
Without objection.
Mark Takano
So, you know, I also want to say one thing, Congresswoman Scanlon. You know that, let's talk about some of the offsets 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 Star Act. There is right now a hundred billion dollars of unused money that was appropriated to the Department of Defense. We could just take one-tenth of that and pay for this act.
So there are other ways to pay for this. I have, I have amendments that I wish would be made, that I hope would be made in order. Let the House, let our colleagues decide if the Take Care of Veterans Act is the only way to move forward. What the chairman 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 want to go down, I don't think. I think we have alternatives to pay for this.
We don't have to pay for it in this way. And as Ranking Member McGovern says, there are other instances when this body, the majority of this body, the majority that governs this House, has decided that we don't need offsets.
So anyway, I yield back.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, 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 do provide those services. 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?
Mark Takano
Well, thank you for asking that question. You know, I'm disappointed that the majority canceled a Economic Opportunity Subcommittee hearing on this very issue. We had with us planned to have witnesses testify about the imminent danger they are of losing their homes. Why? Because the majority and the Secretary ended the VAST program.
They have supposedly implemented a partial claims substitute, which is not fully operational and which is leaving our veterans in danger of losing... 10,000 veterans have lost their homes unnecessarily to foreclosure. And what this bill before us today is increase the burden on our active duty. So our active duty service members are eligible for the veteran home loan program. Right now, what this majority is proposed to do is ask Congress to vote to increase the burden of the fees that our active duty service members have to pay for their GI Bill loans. You know, I think this is unconscionable at a time when housing costs are high.
We expect the Federal Reserve probably to raise interest rates. This is going the opposite direction to help our service members and veterans afford homes.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Certainly 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.
Thank you.
Mike Bost
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you at the outset, how many bills are tucked into this overarching legislation?
There are 60 proposals that have already... many of them have already been moving through the process either this year or years before, and 48 of them are bipartisan in nature. Matter of fact, if you add up the amount of sponsors on these bills, there are over 500 Democrat cosponsors of those 48. So this is truly a bipartisan bill.
Speaker 18
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, what are people voting against? If a member of Congress votes against this bill on the floor, what are they doing?
Mike Bost
Right. What you're voting against is, one, the correction that would need to be done as far as the Richard Star Act, which is one of the major issues that we're trying to deal with here. Two is you're voting against the increase for the first time in decades to those most disabled veterans, the quadriplegic, paraplegic, that have 24-hour care in their home, their families, whether it's a spouse or whether it's mothers and fathers, other family members have to take care of. You're voting against that. And you're voting against an increase in the benefit of the surviving spouses.
You're also voting against the opportunity for the widows and widowers of that person that gave all from getting remarried without losing their benefit until they're 55 years old. And when you start looking through all of those bills, those 60 bills, you put those... those are huge things to our veterans. Now, we are doing what's right, and what's really important 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?"
Speaker 62
This time it will happen if we get it through. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much, Chairwoman, and thank you to the Chair and Ranking Member. It's good to see you again. It was just a few weeks ago we were having conversations and those conversations are kind of similar because we were discussing legislation, 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 in terms of some of the inclusion of these bipartisan pieces of legislation. We are not against the bipartisan piece of legislation, the Richard Star Act, Major Richard Star Act. I'm a sponsor. I signed the discharge petition. I would like to see that bill come to the floor.
And we're really close to getting it to the floor. And I love looking out and looking out at the veterans. My father was a veteran. The only place I could ever get Shirley Temples was at the VFW. Loved it.
My sister and I had to share one and they would give us two cherries though, so we were always really happy. How many veterans are in the room if I could have a raise of hands? I always say it's not enough and you made that real clear, Chairman, last time is that you bring to this job your role as veteran, but how many of you are in favor of the Richard Star Act? I want to recognize that, have the record show that I think every single veteran in the room is also in favor of the Major Richard Star Act. Chairman, are you also in favor of the Major Richard Star Act?
Have you signed the discharge petition? You have not signed the discharge petition.
Mike Bost
I have not signed the discharge position. One, I'm Chairman. Two 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 give up and not pay for and continue down the path that we continue not paying for, everything that these veterans fought for behind us is for naught if China owns our debt. Because I got a feeling if China owns our debt, they won't take care of our veterans.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Ah, so I find that very interesting because last time we were in session, did you vote for a reconciliation 2.0, which was $72 billion?
Yes, I did.
And how is that being paid for?
Mike Bost
Through the same process as, you know, this and when those bills come before us, if you want to vote for it.
But you didn't answer the same process as what?
Mike Bost
Well, let me tell you that as far as our committee is concerned, we are required to have pay-fors. And so as Chairman, I have a responsibility.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Okay. So may the record reflect that the Chairman voted for a bill that was $72 billion that is not paid for. $72 billion that is not paid for. He voted in last almost a year ago for a bill that was paid for, but was paid for on the backs of veterans' entitlement to nutrition assistance, of Medicaid and so many other things. But last, just the last time we were in session, $72 billion that were not paid for, but you won't move to the floor 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 Takano?
Mark Takano
The Richard Star Act. It's a bill that I have a discharge petition on, it's actually Dr. Ruiz and Bilirakis's bill. But let me say, look, yes, you make a good point about how the majority has spent tens of billions of dollars without having it being paid for, and the chairman wanted to go off onto a tangent about China and that they hold our bonds, our US bonds. But the fact is he has voted for tens of billions of dollars for that to happen, but is insisting on paying for this particular bill by reaching into the pockets of disabled veterans. That's what I find so galling.
I mean, he will rail about like doesn't want to see us go into more debt and have it be financed by China and other countries, but when it comes to taking care of veterans, present-day veterans that are fighting for us right now in the Gulf, they're not going to be able to go and get their tinnitus be recognized as a percentage of their disability rate. They're not going to get their sleep apnea, which can range, now it's not true that automatically it's 50 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 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 think I want to make sure that the American people know how ridiculous this Congress is being, how the majority is being. We should not be legislating into statute, which is very difficult to remove, how disability ratings are going to operate from now on. And especially when what's at stake is what our brave men and women right now, whose lives are in the balance in the waters around Iran, that that's who we're talking about. We're saying that we're going to 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 want to add to the record this letter from seven VSOs in opposition, including the disabled veterans who are also in the audience along with the VFW.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
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's many aspects in this bill that are the right thing to do. But I would venture to ask again of the question of the veterans in the room, does anybody want them to see benefits cut? No. Does anybody want to see Congress making the decisions about disability benefits? I don't see anybody in the room, Chairman Bost.
I mean, it's not that you have your back to them, you have your face to us, but if you turned around, if you turned around you would see the veterans shaking their head. They do not want to see their disability benefits cut, but that's what this does.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Oh. Yeah. But that, that... You know, I think that it's... I would like to enter into the record, Madam Chair, an article dated June 16, 2026, from the Government Executive, titled "GOP's VA Overhaul Bill Narrows Some Employees' Rights, Spurs Privatization, Union Says."
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you. And quote, "The VFW strongly opposes the Take Care of America's Veterans Act as currently drafted because it asks future disabled veterans to bear the cost of expanding benefits through changing the VA rating schedule for tinnitus and obstructive sleep disorder." And in regards to some of the questions and discussion earlier with regards to how disability benefits are joined, right now, no changes are planned or imminent.
Mark Takano
Right. The VA is... The majority has inaccurately stated previously that we should take advantage of the cost savings because of a projected VA change in how disability ratings are going to happen, specifically the tinnitus and the sleep apnea. But the VA has stated flat out that they have no intention of changing 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 chairman 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. But what are they doing instead? The VA is refusing to move forward with a rules change, but this Congress, under this bill, what's being proposed in this Congress is that statutorily we're going to change the rules of what is eligible for disability ratings. We're going to make sleep apnea and tinnitus ineligible.
And understand that tinnitus is a very common, common disability. Why? It deals with hearing loss. And of course it's going to save us a lot of money by taking money from the pockets of very, very deserving disabled veterans who deserve that rating.
Speaker 58
So we should not be saving money on the pain of our veterans who suffered, whether it's sleep apnea or tinnitus, because of the sound. I just want to read, Madam Chair, the VA spokesman... I mean, I think I wanted to introduce this letter because it was the VA itself who said we have no plans.
Without objection.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right. And an interesting continuation of the quote, which the ranking member accurately summarized, that the VA learned of the Take Care of America's Veterans Act last week. 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. Veterans are really... I was in...
We've all attended events in our home district with veterans several days ago, and they made their voices heard to me. They like what 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 benefits, in order to pay for other benefits. That is not how it works. You do not say thank you for your service and then take away some of the benefits that you've earned.
These are not giveaways. These are not gifts.
Speaker 61
Veterans have earned this. And I think we should all be in opposition to this thrown together impact, which does have some bipartisan bills in it. But the way they are paid for is outrageous and I think a disgrace.
Mark Takano
There are a number of poison pills in this bill because of the process as it's been inserted. Yes, there are some bipartisan elements of this bill, but there are a lot of poison pills in this bill that have not been duly considered.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much and with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. Bost, I think you might want to say some things in response to comments that have been made by Mr. Takano, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Would you like to respond?
Mike Bost
First off, one statement. Once again, they've continued to say that there's going to be reductions in benefits for our veterans. There is not going to be reductions. Their science is applied on the one question as far as tendonitis and it was 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 to put these bills, a bill does not become partisan just because it's finally moving. If these policies were good enough to have all those cosponsors on them, then 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 disability they have to be under a certain disability rating. Two, it is not on their primary loan, it is on a refinancing of the loan and it's an eight dollar 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 those who have served in National Guard and Reserve rather than having ninety days of Article 10 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 Star Act, 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 Brierley 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.
Virginia Foxx
A lot is being said in the press these days about how few days we have available to us. You have 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.
That that is correct, yes.
Virginia Foxx
So I I've yet to see a perfect bill here in the House of Representatives.
Nor I.
Virginia Foxx
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 non-taxable, 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 can make things prospective 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 not make it prospective but just apply to people current going forward. That sounds a lot like what you're doing to me.
Right.
Virginia Foxx
And I'm very concerned about the 48 bipartisan bills that you have that won't get passed in this session of Congress if this bill isn't passed. So I just wanted to clarify that for you and also clarify Mr. Griffith's question, which was people who have service-related tinnitus and service-related sleep apnea will still be eligible for those benefits.
That's correct.
That's not true.
No, that's correct.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you. I believe what Mr. Bost told me, I've never had any reason to doubt him in what he has said. Thank you very much, Mr. Bost. I see no other people eligible to ask questions, therefore the witnesses are excused.
Speaker 59
Thank you very much, and I thank the veterans for being here too. We may disagree at times, but we're still working for them.
Chairwoman Foxx, you got a full committee today.
You have a full committee today.
Bryan Steil
I am. It was a little hard, a little hard to hear. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee. And thank you for the opportunity to testify today on H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act.
This legislation addresses a fundamental principle that should unite every American, regardless of party. Law-abiding citizens should not be monitored, tracked, or profiled by the government simply for exercising their constitutional rights. However, under the Obama and Biden administrations, we saw that federal financial regulators and their agencies blurred the lines between legitimate law enforcement and surveillance of ordinary Americans in dangerous ways. Take, for example, the House Judiciary Committee's 2024 report that detailed how federal law enforcement agencies engaged in broad financial surveillance of Americans and pried into the private transactions of consumers. This was not based on specific evidence of criminal conduct, but instead relied on sweeping searches of financial data that touched on constitutionally protected political and religious activity.
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 Goods. Think about what that means. An American 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 suspicion. They're lawful expressions of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Yet this surveillance likely swept in millions of Americans who simply held conservative political views or exercised their Second Amendment rights. That should concern you whether you're a Democrat or Republican, because you can easily imagine how the shoe would fit on the other foot. The question that each member of this committee should ask themselves is whether the payment systems should be surveilled to monitor lawful purchases.
The obvious answer is no. Unfortunately, this is part of a broader pattern that many of Americans have watched develop over the years. From Operation Choke Point to the de-banking of the digital asset sector, we have seen repeated attempts to use the financial sector as a political tool for monitoring and discouraging lawful behavior that some in government may disfavor. That's why H.R. 1181 is so important. 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. 1181 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. 1181 is a common-sense measure that protects privacy, safeguards civil liberties, and reinforces the constitutional principles that define our nation.
Speaker 56
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 had to look over into the casket and see their parents who have been killed by gun violence.
I rise in the name of liberty and justice for all as extolled 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 26 times more likely to be shot and killed than if you lived in any other high-income country. On average, 327 people are shot in the United States daily.
This includes 23 children who are shot daily. On average, 117 people die every day in the United States because of senseless gun violence. 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 retails 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, Mr. Chair now. My, my pardon, pardon my commentary, please.
I ask unanimous consent to enter the letter from these various groups in the record.
Al Green
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 the Partnership. These are letters that I've sent over the years since 2022. 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, Mr. Chair.
Al Green
Thank you. In their letter, and I am talking about the letter from the many organizations that I referenced, they quote, "We write in strong opposition to H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act." "This bill would make it easier for mass shooters, gun traffickers, and even terrorists to abuse our financial systems to stockpile firearms and ammunition undetected." They go on to note that between 2007 and 2018, 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 to well in your eyes understanding what took place, a dastardly deed that took lives. 49 people were killed, 50 more were injured. Just days before the shooter opened fire, his internet search history included the terms "credit card unusual spending," "FBI" in quotes, and "why banks stop your purchases." He had opened six new credit card accounts in the eight months prior and 12 days before the shooting, spent more than $26,000 on things like a rifle, a semi-automatic pistol, several large magazines, and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Before this, his average monthly spending on his single card was about $1,500. 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 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 this with my closing then, Mr. 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 yields back. Now recognize Ms. Fischbach for her five minutes, or for her time.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Steil, I just want to just, yes or no, but the purpose really of this bill is to prevent a firearm-specific merchant category code, MCC, and that's the four-digit code that identifies a retailer type. So is that correct? Because we strayed a little bit, and so I wanted to make sure that we focused on what was actually in the bill.
Michelle Fischbach
Okay. Okay. Because, you know, more and more recently, gun control advocates have called for a firearm-specific MCC that would allow financial institutions and credit card companies to track firearm and firearm-related purchases. And they argue, as we've heard, that it is to prevent mass shootings, but really their intention is really to create a backdoor gun registry by private institutions and establish a tool that can be used to block an American from exercising their constitutional Second Amendment rights. So, Mr. Steil, isn't it also true that financial institutions can block purchases based on specific MCCs?
Bryan Steil
Well, this is the whole challenge is to, if we look back to Operation Choke Point 1.0 in particular under the Biden administration, they're putting significant pressure on financial institutions in the United States to take action, to or to not engage or provide them the capital so that they could operate. And so this is a backdoor attempt by the federal government then under Choke Point 1.0 under the Obama administration to accomplish through the financial regulatory framework what they couldn't accomplish politically or constitutionally, in my opinion. And so this code is a mechanism that we need to prevent from being labeled on lawful the sale of firearms or ammunition so individuals aren't tracked in a suspicious manner simply for making what is otherwise a legal purchase.
Michelle Fischbach
So just a firearm-specific MCC could act as a tool for that financial institution to block an everyday citizen from exercising their Second Amendment right, is that?
Bryan Steil
Yeah, it gets a little technical as to what exactly the financial institutions can use the MCC code for, but unquestionably the driving concern of this is the tracking mechanism that that metadata would exist and be susceptible to government review.
Michelle Fischbach
Okay. Well, thank you very much. And I just, just to sum it up, a firearm-specific MCC would not prevent mass shootings, but it would create in essence a national gun registry and allow financial institutions to block Americans' Second Amendment right. Is that?
Bryan Steil
That's pretty clear. There are those in the federal government, in particular previous administrations, that don't share our belief in the importance of the Second Amendment, are looking for backdoor avenues to stifle the ability of the private sector to actually produce and sell these types of firearms legally. And this is the mechanism that they have tried to utilize.
Speaker 73
And Mr. Steil, I think to 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.
James McGovern
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the ranking member, Mr. McGovern, for his time.
I just looked online and for Mastercard and Visa, I mean, there are hundreds, literally hundreds of different quote merchant category codes. Yeah, no, I'm just trying to understand some of the facts here. Are you aware that there's a code for florists?
Bryan Steil
I didn't know florists, but there's a very significant large number of codes.
James McGovern
Yeah, there's a code for cigar stores. There's a code for massage parlors. Did you know that there's even a code for dating and escort services? 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 made the purchase.
You could buy a thousand dollars worth of potato chips at a gun store. And so it doesn't tell you what you buy. But I guess my question to you, Mr. Steil, is when it comes to gun and ammo dealers, suddenly they need Republicans in Congress to step in to make a special exemption just for them. And I guess if you have concern about these codes, then the policy solution should apply to everyone, not make a special carve-out for your friends in the gun industry who, quite frankly, support Republicans generously financially. I mean, it just reeks of like a payoff to a special interest, payback to a special interest.
Why just gun and ammo dealers? Why not everything?
Bryan Steil
I actually think the answer to that, Ranking Member McGovern, is rather straightforward. These MCC codes have been abused by Democratic administrations. So this is not about telling the free market exactly how they should or should not utilize the MCC codes, which you noted there's a large number of them. The concern is the abuse we have seen through previous Democratic administrations to utilize these codes to drive forward a political agenda against Second Amendment rights.
James McGovern
Well, I don't want to be lectured on political agendas and political vengeance from anybody who supports the current administration because of what they're doing. But I would just simply say, going to Mr. Green's point, I mean, if somebody walked into a gun and ammo store and bought this exorbitant amount, I mean, we don't know what they're buying, but an unusual, high tens of thousands of dollars in purchases, I don't know, I mean, that might be somebody going in there to do something terribly bad. I mean, you talked about the Pulse nightclub. You talked about the other instances 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 and don't do a damn thing about preventing mass shootings, which unfortunately are a regular occurrence in this country.
You know, I mean, we're unique in that regard, where mass shootings happen on a regular basis. They're no longer kind of an isolated instance. Mr. Green, I mean, the whole point of this, you know, is not to track people, you know, every purchase they make. It's to detect whether something unusual and whether something highly suspicious is happening that might in fact be somebody planning a mass shooting. Am I correct on that?
Al Green
Eminently so. Anomalous activity. Unusual activity. Something that would cause one to pause and question why is this occurring? I think that we ought to note also, if I may say so, Mr. Ranking Member, this notion that codes have been abused.
We have a president that abuses the Constitution. And we're not going to eliminate the Constitution because he abuses the Constitution. Why eliminate the codes? 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.
James McGovern
Yeah, I agree. I mean, we have a president right now who's trying to prosecute people for hanging out around the reflecting pool, for God's sakes. I mean, talk about, you know, nuts. That's kind of where we are. But I mean, I just like, I mean, I'll be honest with you, with all that's going on in this country, people can't afford their groceries, people can't afford their rents, you know, I mean, gas prices are still too high, inflation is still too high.
I mean, all the stuff that's going on, and we had the chairwoman basically say before she left that we only have a few days that we can legislate because we're going to be in recess and people aren't going to be here. So, you know, we've got to get stuff done right away. That this is the priority? I don't know. I mean, I don't know.
We just don't share the same values. And I, again, I just think it's ridiculous that we're wasting time on this. But in any event, you guys are in charge of all of government, so you can do whatever the hell you want. I yield back.
Speaker 67
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for his time.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that it's pretty clear if you watch the testimony that they, from the Democratic standpoint, they do want these codes so that they can track the purchases of firearms. That's what Mr. McGovern pretty much just said. Mr. Steil, I've got a couple of other things to say, but before I go any further, I want to give you an opportunity to speak for just a few minutes. I don't have many other questions, but the debanking of the firearms industry was real, and it's bigger than just this.
It's the debanking of the whole industry. I know manufacturers whose banks were pressed to cancel their loans.
This is a really important point that I appreciate you flagging is the build-up to stop regulators from going after illegal activity. What we're trying to prevent is regulators from going after legal activity that's constitutionally protected. And so as we, thank you very much, as we see this, you see the Biden administration drive forward their agenda in Choke Point 2.0. And the evidence is incredibly clear. The Biden administration Choke Point 2.0 demonstrated that regulators can compel financial institutions to try to cut off services to lawful industries like firearms.
You see the Obama administration in Choke Point 1.0. We know that these MCC codes are a mechanism that can be utilized by administrations that don't believe in the role of the Second Amendment like you and I do, Mr. Scott. And that we hear time and again about what this is. This is again, it's not about preventing people from combating illegal behavior.
Bryan Steil
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.
Speaker 71
Well, I'll put in quotation marks a couple of the words that were used from my Democratic colleagues, who I respect and just have a different opinion on this. But the 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.
Bryan Steil
And this is why 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 MCC codes, we're specifically interested in the the MCC code that relates to firearms and ammunition dealers. The reason for that is because they have been targeted by the previous two Democratic administrations. There's a lot of work we could do to clean up the reason there's a lot of work we could do to clean up from the previous two administrations.
This is focused in on making sure that we're protecting Americans' Second Amendment rights, which is constitutionally protected.
Austin Scott
Well, there's a lot of discrimination against firearms owners. I mean, you can go on Amazon right now and you can literally buy a bong to smoke dope, but they prohibit 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. A lot of a lot of accessories are not available, but but you can buy stuff to smoke dope if you want to. I mean, it's a it's just a sad day that America's gotten to the point that people think that dope is good and guns are bad.
And, you know, I look forward to the day when when we get back to some sense of normalcy in this country. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time.
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize gentlelady Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time.
Mary Gay Scanlon
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 for whom the Second Amendment might as well be a death pact. One more roadblock to throw in the way of actually being able to combat gun violence, whether it's outlawing lawsuits against gun manufacturers, whether it's underfunding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, whether it's preventing the digitalization of records 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.
Uh, you know, merchant category codes, MCCs, 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. You have a law on the books saying there's no federal registry of gun owners or guns. This um the merchant category codes don't change that at all. 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 that crimes might be being committed.
We're big believers in warrants around here, except apparently when it comes to the FISA bill. But this just takes a tool away from federal law enforcement or from local law enforcement as well.
And what we've seen in recent years is that when there's seriousness about addressing gun violence, our communities can make progress. In Philadelphia and Chester, two cities 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, with our merchants, with faith groups, and with folks on the ground, we've seen over 60% reduction in gun violence in communities that took it seriously. So we need to encourage this kind of strategic collaboration. Representative Green, what we're hearing here is that this is yet another area where firearms dealers should be given special treatment. Do you have any response to that?
Al Green
Indeed I do. They should not be given special treatment, and you are again eminently correct. This is about really saving lives. It's about providing law enforcement with the tools that they can utilize to save lives. At some point, doing nothing becomes more than an option.
It becomes a methodology by which we allow things to occur. 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 routinely wear a pin 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. 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 intended it to serve. 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 this: 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 the usual course of business, but an anomalous activity where someone goes in and buys this unusual amount of guns and ammunition. We're not tracking people. We're trying to prevent crime and save lives.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, 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 there have been credit card purchases used in a number of mass shootings, and you mentioned the Pulse shooting, which was so devastating. 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, and prevent shootings in the future.
So I think it's actually enabling gun violence or the use of guns for violence. And I just, I just obviously oppose the bill.
Al Green
May I just, may I concur with you? I concur with you in every way. When I use the terminology doing nothing, I mean that my dear colleagues on the other side, whom I have great respect for, would have us do nothing in the area of utilizing the codes. They would have us do nothing. 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 take law enforcement out of the game.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, certainly law enforcement is not in the game when we are talking about merchant codes. It's, it's simply one more piece and it's just not giving preferential treatment to something which actually is a proven danger to the public. I yield back. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 76
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the other gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack.
Ronny Jackson
No questions other than to say, Mr. 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 tremendous job on Second Amendment rights and very much appreciate your testimony. So with that, I yield back. Oh, please.
Speaker 75
If I can, I should have opened my remarks with the work of Riley Moore in this regard and the importance of protecting Second Amendment rights. He's been a great leader in this and I'm proud to be here on his behalf for his legislation.
Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Chairman and Representative, actually the two representatives. I find it fascinating, you know, I come from a family, my kids all went shooting yesterday. We had a box of ammo delivered to my house. We had lots of other things delivered to my house over the last week. And all of that other stuff had a code, didn't it, Representative Green?
It did.
Everything else had a code.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
It did. And so what the Republicans are doing is saying we are going to have a carve-out. We're going to have a carve-out for the gun industry and things you buy from there. When I went and bought anything at the grocery store, when I went and bought anything, when I filled a prescription, there was a code on that, wasn't there, 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 allow someone to buy an automatic Kalashnikov, perhaps many of them, to buy thousands of rounds of ammunition and to do so 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 200 mass shootings. You've already pointed that out. And we also pointed out that you submitted this letter, the June 22nd, 2026 letter, opposing this legislation. And some of these numbers are staggering, right? We bought a box of ammunition, right?
My kids are getting ready to go hunting this fall. And so they need to go do some target practice. I don't, you know, everything else we purchased this last week had a code. $95,000 were spent by the shooter in Las Vegas, Nevada, in just a few weeks, which could have provided or would provide after the fact important information, right? And I think that what's interesting is what Republicans are proposing is not supported by the American people.
The American people actually want us to do gun safety legislation. We recognize the constitutional right, but we also recognize that these are deadly weapons. And I'm looking at some polls here that actually show that strengthening background checks, 2024 voters were 79%. You know what Trump voters, 73%. Gun owners, 75%.
Holding the gun industry to similar regulatory standards as the tobacco, automobile, and opioid industries, 69%. Gun owners, 64%. 2024 Trump voters, 58%. The kind of stuff that they are trying to impose, not undo, as Representative Scanlon 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 is going to eventually go down and have a moment of silence. And the idea that we can't do a basic thing like track the purchase. 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 children and deadly for our community?
Al Green
Well, some things just bear repeating, that this is not about gun control. You are correct. It's about gun safety. It is about wanting people to live their lives and do safe things and enjoy the benefits of owning firearms. This is not about eliminating firearms or preventing persons from purchasing firearms.
It does not stop one single purchase. So at some point, I've just believed 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.
Speaker 77
Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Norman.
Ralph Norman
Mr. Steil, thank you for your putting this bill up. Appreciate your work on it. Does this take an Attorney General if there's a if if a violation occurs, does the Attorney General have the only say-so to prosecute this?
Bryan Steil
Yeah, this would go to the United States Attorney General for any violation would be submitted to to the United States Attorney General's office. They would do a review and then decide if enforcement action is warranted.
Ralph Norman
And if Attorney General, okay. So once you follow that, if nothing is still done, there's no private action that you can take.
Ralph Norman
Okay. You know, I keep hearing things like no action taken and things like that. Was action taken by the Biden administration to stop the mass immigration of 20 million people?
Ralph Norman
Was the Biden administration or any Democrat offering prayers of and sympathy for the children who were trafficked as a result of illegal immigration?
Not to my recollection.
Ralph Norman
Was there any was there any thought given to those who are killed by illegal aliens that are a direct result of this of the Biden administration letting any and everyone in this country?
Not to my recollection.
Ralph Norman
So it's kind of interesting that now when you're trying to protect legal gun owners from buying things when they've been exploited and being tracked by an administration, and we may have one in the future. Thank God this administration values the Second Amendment and values the right to carry a gun and not be tracked down by the federal government. So thank you for putting it up and it's a good bill. We'll be supporting it. I yield back.
Speaker 80
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Coming from a state like New York, I've seen firsthand what 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 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. In states like Texas and Florida, Indiana and Utah, they've prohibited these codes because they believe lawful firearm purchases should be treated the same as any other legal transaction.
Now meanwhile, states like New York have moved in the opposite direction and chosen to require them. The result is a state-by-state tug-of-war that leaves Americans facing different rules depending on where they happen to live. I represent thousands and thousands of hunters and sportsmen and law-abiding gun owners across Western New York and the Southern Tier, and many of them are frustrated by efforts to single out lawful firearm purchases and they're concerned about the direction that our home state of New York has continued to take to strip away their Second Amendment rights. Chairman Steil, 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?
Bryan Steil
Thank you very much, Mr. Langworthy. If I can, let when I open this, I just want to address a comment that was made earlier because I think it's a point of clarification that's pretty worthy. Everything you buy utilizing a credit card functionally has an MCC code. And I think that there was an assumption possibly made that this legislation would remove all MCC codes from firearm purchases.
That would not be accurate. It simply says you're not going to have a firearm-specific MCC code. So just to step back, if you went into, you go to your Super Target at home, and you got some groceries on one side, you got some sports equipment on the other side of the store, that store may or may not have one code, it may have two. So if you go to a florist, it may have one code, and you might buy a card to write your mom a note, and you might buy some flowers, it might just show up as a florist shop, even though you bought a card on one and you bought flowers on another. Other places, some stores, have multiple MCC codes inside the store.
And so you go into some big-box store and you buy 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 were talking about Bass Pro Shops or other sporting goods stores that an individual may go into. It doesn't just always show up as sporting goods, Bass Pro Shops, a single code. It may show up as sporting goods for this, but firearms under the firearm code. So when we remove that MCC code from being utilized specifically for firearms and ammunition, there will be a code. It will just be a 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 asked, well why, why single out those businesses engaged in providing goods based on the Second Amendment? Well, the answer's 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 and attacking florists, I bet our friend Riley Moore would have a bill up to say, no, you're not going to 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 Point 1.0, Choke Point 2.0, trying to utilize the financial services space to specifically target lawful transactions protected by your Second Amendment. And it would also be misleading to allow a comment that was made stand without 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 gun owner, I want people who utilize a weapon or a gun who illegally to be held accountable. This legislation is about preventing the abuses that we saw under the two previous Democratic administrations from continuing in the event that a future administration does not share the Second Amendment view that you and I do, Mr. Langworthy. And so I think it's just so important to clarify that, that this is a bill directly coming out of the fact that the previous two Democratic administrations, and 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 that there is an MCC code specifically tied to ammunition and firearms, and that the previous Biden administration has a history of abuse of trying to stifle constitutionally protected transactions for individuals to buy both guns as well as ammunition.
Nicholas Langworthy
Well, I think you're exactly right, Mr. Chairman. And law-abiding Americans shouldn't have one set of rules in New York and another 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 that has gone into this legislation and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 44
Gentleman yields back and I recognize myself for my time. I could ask some interesting questions, but I thought your answers to Mr. Langworthy were outstanding and made a good summation. Is there anything you wish to add to that?
Bryan Steil
I'll just close out by saying I think this is a really important piece of legislation for those of us that believe in protecting the Second Amendment and the abuses that we've seen in the previous administrations. And I'd like to just close by thanking Riley Moore, Congressman from West Virginia, for his hard work on this.
Melanie Stansbury
And I concur with your comments and I yield back and that concludes this panel's testimony. You all are excused. All right, we will now recognize Ms. Stansbury and Ms. Ramirez for amendment testimony. Members. All right.
That's our first panel. Is anybody else in the room that I've failed to recognize that wishes to add to the amendment testimony? No other members being seen, let's get let's get going. Ms. Stansbury, if you would like to start with your five minutes.
Yes, thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, members of the committee. I want to say thank you to the Rules Committee for giving us the opportunity to testify today on the set of bills that are included in this rule. And I'm going to focus my attention today on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. 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 WaterSMART program. This program is essential to communities across the West for modernizing infrastructure, preparing for drought, and also to help our communities get through difficult times and has been cut in this budget and we would propose to restore that funding. 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've filed an amendment to include my Water Data Act, which is a bipartisan bill that would transform the way that we manage water not just in the West, but all across the United States. Now I want to zoom out and talk about why these amendments are so critical.
As a water resources professional, I've worked on water and drought management most of my career. And in New Mexico and across the West, we are experiencing some of the most challenging water years in recent memory. Across our state, drought conditions are continuing to intensify with rising temperatures, reduced precipitation, and particularly because we have seen the lowest snowpack in recorded history year after year over the last several years.
But this is not simply a temporary drought condition. I want to make clear that what we are witnessing is a long-term shift in the baseline of conditions in the West's water systems. Snowpack, which is our natural reservoir, is becoming increasingly variable, it's reduced the reliability of runoff, and it has changed the entire way in which we're going to have to manage water going forward. This means our farmers, our tribes, our acequias, our local governments, our states are being forced to make difficult decisions about how to stretch increasingly limited water supplies, and as we sit here today, the Rio Grande, which is the major river of our state, is dry. Now, as a child, it was very unusual for the river to go dry, 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.
Delia Ramirez
Thank you, Chairman. And thank Ranking Member McGovern for the opportunity to testify today. I often say that budgets are moral documents. They reflect our values and they certainly reflect our priorities. For far too long, our appropriations have failed to demonstrate that, in fact, our priority are working people.
What H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, is telling us is that we live in a country that's addicted to war, competition, death, and destruction, with leaders who wage war because they believe in this whole strongman idea and peace through strength. And we've seen the effects of appropriations like H.R. 8595. Because across the globe, our communities are confronting interconnected acts of violence. You're seeing cuts to services that Americans rely on. We're seeing mass detention and deportations.
We're seeing attacks on human rights defenders. We're seeing the displacement of Puerto Rico, 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 erodes 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 around reproductive healthcare, LGBTQ rights, and climate change, cutting over a billion dollars to 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 the barrel of a gun, by a bomb, or via the chokehold of suppression or oppression.
And that is the security our resources 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 21st century. They direct resources from death and destruction and reaffirm our commitment to advance our collective interest and build stronger relationships across the Americas and across the world. My amendment number 56 directly strikes the 3.3 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 162 explicitly prohibits funds to Trump's Board of Peace, a money laundering scam meant to displace Palestinians and ensure a new Riviera for Trump and his billionaire friends. My amendment number 163 strikes a section of the bill that limits funds to the Palestinian Authority if Palestinians initiate or support an International Criminal Court investigation into Israel's crimes against Palestinians. Because let's be frank, impunity can't be and should not be an option. Amendment number 164 strikes the language of the bill that allows Trump and the GOP to continue their harmful interference in Colombian affairs. Amendment number 60 strikes the section of the bill limiting funds to countries that facilitate irresponsible migration, which has really devastated the local organizations supporting vulnerable communities and, frankly, the organizations that actually help us limit migration by providing stability in the region.
My amendment number 62 increases the available assistance to the Inter-American Foundation to 29 million dollars, which in fact just restores the funding to what we had in 2026 so that we can continue to strengthen civil society and economic stability through the Americas. You see, these amendments ask us: what type of member, what type of country, and what type of world do we want to be? One that is obsessed with war or one that is committed to peace? One that's perpetrating domination and cruelty or one that is committed to dignity and compassion? One steeped in selfishness or one committed to community?
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 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.
Speaker 89
Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming forward and testifying before us today, and this panel is now excused. Thank you. Oh, questions, sorry. About to get rid of all the questions.
Any questions for Mr. Jack? We don't have any questions. Sorry.
James McGovern
I just, well, let me just say I want to thank both of you for being here. I think you're two of the most thoughtful members in the House, and I support them. And I just want to say, you know, the humanitarian crisis in the Middle East continues to worsen. And I worry that we're not paying enough attention to it because there are so many other crises that are happening thanks to the guy in the White House right now. But I appreciate you bringing those to our attention, and I hope all your amendments are made in order.
And I yield back.
James McGovern
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Oh, and just one, and I ask unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from Representative Doggett in support of amendments 46 and 47 to H.R. 9022, which would transfer 103 million to the National Nuclear Security Administration's Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account.
Without objection. Ms. Scanlon.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you, and I would just adopt the ranking member's remarks and also wanted to thank Ms. Stansbury for her long-standing expertise on the water issues because they really are important. So thank you.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
I'd just also like to express gratitude. I mean, it was disappointing to see that unlike last year, last fiscal year where we had the appropriations really come together in a very bipartisan way and very much agree on many of the bills, we had so much more tension. And we had the kind of cuts that we're seeing, right? Where we have the kind of cuts that for a place like New Mexico and the entire Southwest, the entire Southwest, that we're having a 6% cut of the non-defense budget is really worrisome. And then that in terms of what we're doing on the other side, Representative Valadao, 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, 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 very thoughtful work.
Thank you.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you both very much. Oh, I, um, I don't have it in my hand, but I would like to introduce into the record Representative Fine's statement relative to his amendment. Without objection. Madam Chair?
I would just like to say that earlier I referred to the 72 billion dollar reconciliation bill, and it was 70 billion. It was originally 72, but in the Senate they took out the 2 billion that was going to go to the slush fund. And so I misspoke because there was, so I just want to make sure that I correct the record there. Thank you.
Virginia Foxx
Always good to correct the record. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack.
Ronny Jackson
Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 9022, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027, 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 2 of rule 21. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, amendments en bloc described in section 4, and pro forma amendments described in section 5.
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 5 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report or amendments en bloc described in section 4 of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee may offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 5 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate.
The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027, under a structured rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read.
The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or clause 5A of rule 21. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report, amendments en bloc described in section 9, and pro forma amendments described in section 10. 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 10 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report or amendments en bloc described in section 9 of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee may offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to the amendment except as provided by section 10 of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 9237, the Take Care of America's Veterans Act, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
The rule provides that the amendment printed in part C of the Rules Committee report 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 Veterans' Affairs or the respective designees. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit.
Speaker 88
Thank you, Mr. Jack. You've now heard the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?
James McGovern
Mr. McGovern. Yeah, before I, first of all, I want to note for the record there were two additional closed rules contained in this big rule, which brings the total, the majority's total up to 154 closed rules this session, which is, 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 90% of Democratic amendments, and you're blocking 44% of Republican amendments. And having said that, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number two to H.R. 1181, offered by Representative Pettersen, 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 want to be able to use credit card codes to crack down on illegal gun rings and possibly stop mass shooters. So I urge a yes vote on my motion and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Anyone else, any further discussion on Mr. McGovern's amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, no.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
I ask for a roll call vote.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach no, Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman no, Mr. Roy, Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin no, Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy no, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack no, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern aye, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon aye, Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse aye, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Four ayes, eight nays.
Virginia Foxx
The noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Any other amendment or discussion?
James McGovern
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number four to H.R. 9237, offered by Ranking Member Takano, which would strike the entire text and replace it with the text of the Major Richard Star Act, using Department of Defense funds from the Republicans' one big beautiful act as the offset. Madam Chair, last July, Republicans voted to give the military more than $150 billion without any offsets. The DOD still has over $100 billion unspent. And instead of cutting benefits for veterans within the tinnitus or sleep apnea or raising fees on VA home loans, which your proposal would do, this amendment would cut the bloated DOD budget by $13 billion in order to fully pay for the Major Richard Star Act.
My Republicans seem obsessed with making sure there's an offset in this bill. As I pointed out earlier, you didn't insist on an offset for the additional $70 billion for ICE and CBP. You didn't insist on an offset for the tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. You've added $3 trillion to the debt since you all took over. So, you know, I think we're trying to find an offset 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.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Any further discussion? Madam Chair. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Madam Chair, I think that this is exactly the kind of thing that can be done in the Rules Committee where we acknowledge that Chairman Bost did not sign the discharge petition. He felt he could not move forward without bringing a bill to the committee and to the floor that didn't like cut from other programs, from other veterans. And this is the way to do it. So there is an offset, there's lots of money available as the ranking member has pointed out, and I think we should support the veterans by not cutting veterans' benefits. And with that, I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you. Further discussion? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Those opposed, say no.
The opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
I ask for a roll call.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, no.
Clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, eight nays.
Virginia Foxx
The noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Further discussion.
James McGovern
So, yeah, Madam Chair, so this may be an oversight, but I'm looking at the Ms for McGovern amendments and I can't find it. So it must be an oversight. It has to be an oversight because the amendment that I offered is totally rule-compliant. So it violates no rules, it's perfectly within making it in order. So I have an amendment to the rule.
I move the committee make in order amendment number 40 to H.R. 8595 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 1988, President Ronald Reagan put the United States' signature on the UN Convention Against Torture. In his statement, he said, and I quote, "Ratification 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," end quote. 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 Uyghurs 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 14199, the State Department is reviewing whether to recommend to the president that the United States withdraw from any conventions or treaties. It would be disastrous to withdraw from the international human rights treaties it is party to. It would send a signal to the world that we are on the side of the dictators and the thugs who repress human rights rather than those who seek to defend them.
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 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. The only reason why I think it's not being made in order is because the chairman probably thinks it's going to pass. But the idea that this is even controversial, you know, is not only stunning but chilling. And I would urge us to correct the omission and make this amendment in order. And I yield back my time.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. I recognize myself. Mr. McGovern, there are a lot of people who are opposed to your amendment. 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 VI already prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance, and Title VII 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 treaties. Congress should not lock the United States into those dynamics through an appropriations rider.
This is not the appropriate place to do that. So, the UN is basically a feckless organization. And again, in my opinion, and I think the opinion of many, many people in this body and in the United States, would get us out of the United Nations. The interpretation by the UN Human Rights Committee that treaties can't be withdrawn from at all is an overreach, which should give us every right not to be supporting these.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Yes, thank you. I would have to vehemently disagree. And I think it's one of the reasons why the amendment deserves a vote. But I think the main point here is that it's not just about our domestic law. It's about whether we participate in the rule of law of nations.
And that's why it is important to engage in treaties, important to engage in the UN. And while some, including this administration, think we should go it alone, I think many of us disagree. And I would yield time to Mr. McGovern if he wishes it.
James McGovern
Yeah, I mean, I think the idea that the administration can unilaterally withdraw from treaties that were voted for by the United States Senate, again, I question the legality of all of that. But the idea that somehow we think that the UN Convention Against Torture that President Reagan signed us onto is somehow signs us onto some sort of ideological, you know, course that goes against our values. I mean, I don't know. Torture is torture. Torture is wrong.
And the idea is that if we withdraw from that treaty, you know, our standing in the world in terms of condemning torture becomes less effective and basically non-existent.
I'm going to be I said this earlier and I'm going to say it again because I want everyone to hear this. When Donald Trump went to China, I expected him to raise the issue of human rights front and center. 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 Uyghurs, and to talk about the persecution of Tibetans. We got none of that. We got none of that.
None of that. And and in too many in 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 in 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'm I will tell you this and 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. I think that jeopardizes our national security. If we stand for anything, we need to stand out loud and four-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 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 I think maybe one of the reasons, as I said, that this is being blocked is because you're afraid it might 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, you know, 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 what? I don't know who. I don't know who made the decision, but the the deal is is that 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, they ought to be front and center on the House floor for debate. I thank the gentlelady and I yield back to her.
Mary Gay Scanlon
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 think it goes beyond what you said that this administration is turning a blind eye to torture. In some cases, this administration has purchased it from other countries, such as when we send innocent people to El Salvador to be in a gulag down there where there is known torture occurring. So I think it is time that we reclaim the moral high ground and actually live up to it. So I wholeheartedly support this amendment and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Further discussion? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
Speaker 100
I would ask for a recorded vote. Let's everyone go on record on this. Yeah.
Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman.
Mr. Norman no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchin.
Mrs. Houchin no. Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy no. Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott no. Mr. Griffith.
Speaker 92
No. Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack?
No. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern? Aye. Mr. McGovern, aye.
Ms. Scanlon? Aye. Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Neguse? Aye.
Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez? Aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair?
No. Madam Chair, no.
Four ayes, eight nays.
Mary Gay Scanlon
The amendment's not agreed to. Are there other amendments or discussion? Yes. Ms. Scanlon.
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment 87 to H.R. 8595 offered by Representative Jayapal, which repeals the anti-equality provisions in that bill. Once again, our colleagues are using an appropriations bill to score political points by targeting some of the most vulnerable people in the world. These riders include petty performative provisions like banning pride flags at U.S. 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 assistance should promote dignity and opportunity, not discrimination. I urge a yes vote on the amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 102
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes, the nays have it. I would, I would request a recorded vote, please. Ms. Scanlon requests a recorded vote.
The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 96
Mrs. Fischbach? No. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman? No.
Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy? Mrs. Houchin? Mrs. Houchin, no. Mr. Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith?
Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack? No. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern?
Aye. Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon? Aye. Ms. Scanlon, aye.
Mr. Neguse? Aye. Mr. Neguse, aye. Ms. Leger Fernandez? Aye.
Ms. Leger Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair? No. Madam Chair, no.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment 97 to H.R. 8595 offered by Representative Wasserman Schultz, which strikes new global gag rule riders. For decades, the global gag rule has prohibited certain organizations that receive U.S. 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 assistance. Organizations will be forced to choose between accepting U.S. assistance or complying with sweeping restrictions on the services they provide, what populations they serve, and even what they're allowed to say.
The clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, eight nays.
Speaker 95
The amendment's not agreed to. Ms. Scanlon, you're recognized. Is there further discussion? Yes, Madam Chair.
Mary Gay Scanlon
We know where that leads. Clinics close, healthcare providers withdraw services, and patients lose access to maternal healthcare, 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 U.S. 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.
Virginia Foxx
Is there further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Scanlon? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack no, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern aye, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon aye, Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse aye, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez aye, Madam Chair.
Virginia Foxx
The noes 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.
Those opposed say no.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the motion's agreed to. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call, the clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach aye, Mr. Norman.
Mrs. Houchin aye, Mr. Langworthy.
Mr. Langworthy aye, Mr. Scott.
Mr. Scott aye, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith aye, Mr. Jack.
Mr. Jack aye, Mr. McGovern.
Mr. McGovern no, Ms. Scanlon.
Ms. Scanlon no, Mr. Neguse.
Mr. Neguse no, Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Ms. Leger Fernandez no, Madam Chair.
Virginia Foxx
The ayes have it, the motion to report is agreed to. Representative Jack will be managing the rule for the majority and Mr. McGovern for the Democrats. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.