H.R. 8800 – National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027; H.R. 8884 – Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act; H. Res. 1383 – Commemorating the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Working Families Tax Cuts.; H.R. 8595 – National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027
Legende
Markierungen im Transkript
- Text Aktuell abgespielter Satz
- Text Suchergebnis
- Text Redebeitrag, auf den der geöffnete Link verweist
Klicken Sie auf einen Satz, um das Video ab dieser Stelle abzuspielen. Markieren Sie Text, um ihn mit Redner, Zeitstempel und Link zu zitieren.
Weitere Optionen
House Rules U.S. House of Representatives
Ihren Sitzungen folgenJames McGovern
I am, I am, I, I promise I will be as succinct as I possibly can so that you can go out and celebrate tonight. That is, that is the goal, is to get you out of here at a, at a decent hour. But, but having said that, I don't envy you today, because cleaning up the mess Republicans left last week cannot be easy. You know, we had a bipartisan housing bill ready to be signed, a rare, overwhelmingly popular bill that might actually help people afford a place to live. Republican leaders were publicly taking a victory lap on TV just as Donald Trump blew the whole thing up, saying he would refuse to sign the bill unless Congress also changes the rules on voting so that Republicans can legally kick registered voters off the rolls.
I mean, they are holding affordability hostage so they can try to rig the next election. Are you kidding me? Imagine explaining that back home. Sorry, your rent is too high, you can't afford a mortgage, Congress did pass something that might help, but Donald Trump feels his power matters more than your housing costs. I mean, you can't make this BS up.
Business stalled in the House, the rule got pulled, the floor shut down, members were sent home early, and once again, the American people got a front-row seat to Republican dysfunction. You guys control the House, you control the Senate and the White House and the Supreme Court, and you still can't govern, which brings us to today. We are meeting on a defense bill with a trillion-dollar price tag, a bad Social Security disability bill, and yet another resolution celebrating Republicans for their big ugly bill. Not bills to lower costs or raise wages or make life easier, but a trillion-dollar defense bill, a dangerous Social Security bill, and a Republican self-esteem exercise. On NDAA, I will say that better pay for service members matters, better housing matters, better support for military families matters.
But this bill authorizes more than one trillion dollars for defense and wars at a time when Donald Trump has made it clear that he is perfectly happy to start an illegal war that killed 13 American service members. I think giving that much money to Pete Hegseth is nuts. Then there is H.R. 8884. This bill hands broad authority over Social Security Disability Insurance to an administration that has already shown us exactly how it treats programs working people rely on.
Speaker Johnson has said Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be adjusted and fixed. We all know what that means. It means cuts. And we see that in the big ugly bill. If anything, we ought to be expanding Social Security Disability Insurance so that the millions of Americans that depend on it can survive the high costs of the Trump economy.
And then we have the second resolution this year that celebrates Republicans' big ugly bill. Who's for this? Nobody in America is sitting at their kitchen table now saying, you know what would really help, if Republicans in Congress spent more time congratulating themselves. Republicans want applause for a bill that cut food assistance. It cut food assistance.
It kicked people off of healthcare. It exploded the debt and handed more tax breaks to rich people and big corporations. Meanwhile, the American people are getting screwed and all Republicans offer them is a lousy resolution congratulating themselves and more Trump drama. People need this place to get serious. Instead, Republicans have us here again cleaning up after another meltdown and pretending that this is business as usual.
It is not. It is embarrassing and the American people deserve a hell of a lot better. And again, I will end as I began, promising the gentlelady that we will be as succinct and to the point as possible because it is your birthday and we, I think you deserve a nice night. With that, I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith from the House Committee on Armed Services. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask you summarize your statement in five minutes.
Chairman Rogers, I welcome your testimony.
Mike Rogers
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx and Ranking Member McGovern, for having us here today. And I want to thank you and your staff for helping us get the FY 27 NDAA to the floor. Your staff's been great to work with. And I also want to thank Ranking Member Smith, who's been an awesome partner in this process. I'm very proud of the work we did to put this bill together and report it out in a bipartisan manner again this year.
Throughout our committee's budget hearings this year, we've heard a consistent theme, that being that the defense industrial base, the foundation of our military power, is in deep trouble. Over the last 30 years, the defense industrial base has atrophied significantly. In the 1990s, we had 51 prime defense contractors. Today, there are only six remaining. Our global munitions stockpiles are low and we no longer have the surge capacity to rapidly replenish them.
Our supply chains are too reliant on our adversaries, particularly China. And we have very little industrial capacity to mine, refine, or process critical minerals we need for our defense. And our skilled workforce has shrunk. All of this is happening as our country faces the most challenging threat environment since World War II. Our adversaries are working together to build modernized forces focused on undermining our security and influence around the world.
We are being outpaced in shipbuilding, hypersonics, and autonomous systems. We must take action to address these problems before American deterrence erodes any further. The FY 27 NDAA takes action. This year's bill is focused on revitalizing the defense industrial base.
We're giving industry the certainty it needs to invest, expand, and produce faster. We're cutting needless regulations that prevent innovative businesses from working with the Pentagon. And we're creating new jobs and helping Americans build advanced technical skills. In addition to revitalizing the defense industrial base, the NDAA meets other critical needs. We are raising pay for service members and improving housing, education, and childcare for military families.
We're strengthening our nuclear deterrence and missile defense while maintaining a strong posture to deter adversaries, and we're prioritizing the development of innovative technologies that will give our warfighters the edge in future conflicts. To support these policies, we're authorizing a 1.15 trillion in discretionary funds, which matches the president's historic budget request. For the first time in 40 years, we've been presented with a budget that accounts for the true cost of American deterrence. This top line begins to reverse the damage caused by decades of underinvestment in the US military. But we understand with this historic investment comes an even more urgent need to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse.
The bill, this bill does so by cutting nearly 30 billion in wasteful spending, reducing fraudulent payments, and providing new authorities to ensure the Pentagon achieves a full and clean audit within 24 months. Peace through strength doesn't begin on the battlefield, it begins in our factories, our depots, and our shipyards. This bill reflects our commitment to rebuilding that foundation. This is a strong bipartisan bill that puts our warfighters first and I urge all of our members to support it. And I yield back.
Adam Smith
Ah, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and happy birthday. Hope it's a good one. Well, first of all, I want to thank Chairman Rogers for his leadership of the committee. I have no complaints with the process that led us to this point. We had, gosh, over a thousand amendments submitted, we had robust debates over many of them, and we put together what was a pretty fair bipartisan product out of committee.
There is one big but, which I'll get to in a minute, but I think the chairman outlined a lot of the strengths of this bill. Certainly focusing on getting an audit, getting after, you know, waste, fraud, and abuse so we can have a more efficient and effective Pentagon is enormously important. This bill continues to do that. This bill also builds off of last year's acquisition reform, which was the greatest acquisition reform that has ever been done by Congress. What does acquisition reform mean?
It basically means innovate faster at scale. Be able to buy equipment that we need in a quicker, faster fashion so that we can get the new and improved equipment that we need in a better and more effective way. And we've certainly built on that. There's strong support for the troops in here, as a number of people have noted. We also on a number of occasions note how important it is to maintain partnerships and alliances with NATO certainly, but partners elsewhere.
There were a couple of amendments that were added that I also think really strengthen this bill. One is to restore collective bargaining for Department of Defense employees, and another one was to go back to honoring what the Base Renaming Commission did in terms of renaming bases that had previously been named for white supremacist Southern generals. So there's a lot that's good in it. The one big but is the 1.15 trillion. It's actually more than a trillion.
It's 1.15 trillion, and that's just the base. As we have heard, Republicans plan to add a 350 billion dollars to that through a reconciliation package, though as Mr. McGovern notes, don't seem to be able to pass much of anything, so I'm not sure that's going to happen. But then you've got also the supplemental, which is asking for 80 billion dollars.
You throw all of that together and what we're talking about is a 1.6 trillion dollar defense budget. That is an over 50 percent increase in last year's budget. Now, I think the chairman makes a fair point. You know, we face an incredibly complex threat environment. China is rapidly building up their military.
Russia is increasingly aggressive, not just in Ukraine but throughout Europe. We've seen what Iran and terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are doing in the Middle East. North Korea is still crazy and they still have a nuclear weapon. There's a lot to deal with out there. But our budget has to fit within some sort of fiscally responsible package.
If you ask the average person, you know, sorry, if you ask an economist what the greatest threat to US national security is right now, they would say our fiscal picture. 40 trillion dollars in debt. That is becoming very difficult to sustain as interest on the debt increases year by year. We cannot afford a 1.6 trillion dollar defense budget. We just can't.
We need a national security policy that reflects what we can actually spend money on. And I think we can do that. We've got partners and allies that can help us meet those challenges. We can also invest in equipment that gives us an asymmetric advantage. We're seeing this on the battlefield.
Ukraine being the best example. By the way, this bill also speaks out loudly in support of Ukraine as right to defend itself and in support of their their war with Russia, which I think is incredibly important. But Ukraine has developed very cheap technology that has enabled them to stop in its tracks a vastly larger military. We need to develop that instead of thinking we can just buy absolutely everything as the solution to meeting our national security needs. And it's also deeply ironic that the of the three bills you have here, we have our, you know, like I said, 1.6 trillion when you add it all up defense budget and the Republicans praising all of the tax cuts.
And I don't disagree. The chairwoman's right. Pretty much everyone did get a tax cut. All right. But if you're not going to raise the revenue, you can't have a 1.6 trillion dollar defense budget.
I mean, I think one of the most hilarious things that happened in last year's Republican Congress, and that's saying something, is you passed an increase to the debt of 4 trillion plus dollars with all the tax cuts. And then shortly thereafter, you passed a balanced budget amendment. Which is absolutely hysterical if you stop and think about it. It's like we just we just want to act like we're being fiscally responsible. You know, if we're going to have all those tax cuts, we're going to have to spend less money everywhere and that includes defense.
So as good as the overall bill is, I'm deeply concerned about the amount of money and the fiscal picture. Combining this with massive tax cuts, not to mention all of the other needs that we have, I think puts us on an unsustainable pass path, which will then jeopardize our national security in ways that go beyond just whether or not we can deter our adversaries. With that, I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. I'll defer my questions for a little bit. Ms. Fischbach, you're recognized.
Michelle Fischbach
Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for bringing the bill forward. I appreciate because I think this bill includes many wins, not only for our national security, but for the people that defend it. And I think that's important to point out. It's been mentioned a cou- oh.
It's been mentioned a couple of times about the increase in pay. And I just so I want to be clear that a vote against this bill is a vote against the increased pay for our service members. And I think and maybe you just want to expand on that a little bit and explain what's going what's really happening with that.
Redner 8
Yeah, in this bill we support the president's request for 5 to 7 percent pay increase. 7 percent for junior enlisted, 6 percent for senior enlisted personnel, and 5 percent for senior officers. We also expand bonuses and special pays that we've been using to try to recruit more and keep more of our service members. And we increase their housing allowance and their special needs allowance. We also authorize 1.8 billion for new barracks and family housing and increase housing allowance for high cost areas and set deadlines for contractors to resolve housing complaints for service members.
So this is a really family-friendly bill.
Michelle Fischbach
Well, and I'm glad you mentioned the housing. There's 25 billion for military construction and family housing. And I know you've probably been on more tours than I have when you take a look at the housing conditions and what's going on. And I think it's important that we are recognizing that now, because it hasn't been for years, really recognizing that we need to improve that for our service members. So not only the pay increase, but making sure they have the housing, decent housing that they need and the kind of level that they want.
And I know that this bill also strengthens medical care for our troops, and it requires the DOD to focus on skills when hiring rather than just education levels on a resume, and it's increasing access to jobs and supplemental education. And it's doing so much. It also includes helping advance small business participation within the defense industrial base. And so there's so much good going on in this bill that it's sad to see the people are opposing it, because it's really about making sure that we're doing the right things for not only our servicemen but for the Defense Department in general, making sure we're advancing things. So yes, it does increase shipbuilding, it provides funding for shipbuilding and eliminating terrorists and developing new technology.
But I think most important about this is we are really recognizing those service members and making sure that we support them, not just saying it, but doing it, and making sure we have their backs and making sure that they have housing they need and the pay they need. And so I thank you for bringing this forward, and with that I yield back.
James McGovern
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. So 1.6 trillion dollars, trillion with a T. I mean... If you add it all up, that's the 1.15 that's in the base, the 350 billion that they want in reconciliation, and the 80 billion dollar supplemental. But 1.6 trillion dollars, even Dr. Strangelove is impressed with that figure.
That is huge, unprecedented. And you know, when we talk about national security, by the way, it's more than the number of bombs we have. I mean, people right now in this country are worried about whether they can afford groceries at the supermarket. They're worried about whether they can afford to fill their gas tank up. They're worried about, you know, whether they can afford to send their kids to school or whether they can retire.
And, you know, and they're worried about the cost of housing. I want to read you a direct quote from President Trump. A reporter asked him what are your plans for the housing bill, because as you know we were supposed to take that up. And Trump's response was, "I don't know, I think it's so unimportant compared to the Save America Act." So just to be clear, he thinks that a housing affordability bill is, quote, "unimportant" compared to his election rigging bill.
I mean, what am I missing here?
Adam Smith
Well, that's a separate subject outside of the national defense area, but I will certainly say that it shows a sense of misplaced priorities. And when you look at what Americans are dealing with, the high cost of living, housing, education, food, energy, all of these things are major problems.
Redner 11
And every single policy the Trump administration has put in place has been to drive the costs up. The tariffs, the war in Iran certainly has driven costs up, canceling energy projects all over the country so that we have less energy because he doesn't like wind turbines apparently. So there is a lack of a focus on affordability without question.
James McGovern
And I think we all agree, I think there's unanimity that when it comes to making sure that those who serve in our military and those who work for our military get a good decent pay, they could, you know, raise a family, we're all for that.
Redner 13
Yeah, let me be clear on this, spending money helps people, which is not terribly surprising. But if you're going to spend this much money, you better be prepared to raise the revenue so you're not just sending us massive deficits.
James McGovern
Well, and also understanding that, you know, increasing people's salaries while housing costs are going through the roof, while gas prices are going through the roof, while food prices are going through the roof, doesn't necessarily make their life more affordable and allow them to address some of the challenges that our constituents face. I mean, Ranking Member Smith, what is the deal with this proposed Trump-class battleship? I mean, he wants a ballroom, he wants an arch, now he wants a battleship. Is this a good use of resources or is this another vanity project?
Adam Smith
Well, I think it's another vanity, well, it's partially a vanity project and also then it's just a mistake. We're talking about building the largest battleship ever constructed. Now, we stopped building battleships near the end of World War II because they proved ineffective in World War II, which was some 80 years ago now. They're big targets, relatively slow-moving, you know, they bring firepower but at great risk. And now Trump wants to build a battleship that is the largest ever, it's going to cost over 20 billion dollars to build, and that's if we can build it.
Let's keep in mind that, you know, we have struggled to build a frigate on two occasions, we struggled to build the littoral combat ship, and now we're going to build something roughly 15, 20 times larger. It's highly questionable whether or not we're going to build it. And when you see the cost estimates, 22 billion dollars, as I always joke, take the over and I'm pretty sure you're going to be easy money. But it gets more to the point of what I was talking about earlier, how can we meet our national security needs in a more cost-effective way? Iran was able to create an asymmetric advantage over us by placing the Strait of Hormuz at risk.
And they didn't need, they don't need a lot to do that, they don't need a 22 billion dollar battleship. We need to be looking for those types of asymmetric advantages against our adversaries so that we can cost-effectively deter them. Part of that is building cheaper munitions, and I'll give you some good news, there's a lot of private investment right now in developing new munitions that are cheaper than the ones we have right now, counter-drone measures, and all of that gets us to a more cost-effective way to meet our national security needs. A battleship does not. Do you know how many drones we could buy, how many missiles we could buy with 25 billion dollars?
It's staggering, so I think it's a huge mistake.
James McGovern
Just one final quick question, Mr. Rogers, do you have assurances that Republicans will bring this to the floor? I mean, we went through a similar exercise last week and then it got pulled at the last minute because some of your members are voting against everything until they can get this election bill passed that they've been pushing. Do we have assurances that after we meet here and report this rule out that this will actually indeed come up tomorrow?
Redner 7
My conversation with the Speaker is that he intends to put this bill on the floor this week, yes sir.
I thank you both and I yield back.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I have the privilege of serving on the Armed Services Committee with these two men. They both do a fine job. It is a committee that functions the way it is supposed to. And so I want to thank you for that.
I know we've got staff here from both sides and I wish every committee functioned the way the Armed Services Committee does. And I know that there were a lot of debates in there and I know the vote was still a strong bipartisan vote, not as strong as it has maybe historically been. But I want to focus on one issue if I can, Chairman Rogers, to explain to the American citizens why the revitalization of the defense industrial base is so important. And any general that you meet with will tell you that if you don't win in space, you lose the war today. Is that a fair statement?
Absolutely.
Redner 14
And up to and until 2022, the United States of America, our citizens and our security, every satellite launch that we had done in a decade prior to that, my understanding is, happened with an RD-180, a Russian rocket. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Austin Scott
And up to and until 2024, because we bought some additional rockets, because the leadership of the committee in a bipartisan manner saw this coming and so we front-loaded the amount of rockets that we had until the US industrial base could develop rockets so that we could launch our own satellites and no longer be dependent on the enemy of the United States to launch satellites. Is that a fair statement?
Redner 8
We saw it coming and we energized our launch capacity and now we have multiple sources for launch and we are no longer reliant on the Russian-produced RD-180.
Austin Scott
I think we're all concerned about the amount of money that we're having to spend for national security, but I will tell you the bigger concern is not waking up secure. And what the rebuilding of the defense industrial base is not an option. It has to be done. And I think that what we've done here, and again, I give both sides credit for this in a bipartisan manner, is to give the defense industrial base the signal that they need to bring the manufacturing of the supply chain, the whole supply chain, back, if not to the United States, at least to allied and treaty nations. So Mr. Rogers, I'm not going to go a whole lot further.
I do want to give you the opportunity to say a few words if you'd like to about any of the other key provisions of the bill. But again, I appreciate both you and Mr. Smith for the way you run the committee and it's my privilege to serve with both of you on that committee.
Redner 8
Thank you. I just want to emphasize the bill that we have before you today and that we will be voting on this week is not for 1.6 trillion, it's for 1.15 trillion. There will be a supplemental request in the appropriations bill. There will be a reconciliation request, I expect. Those may or may not happen.
What we're talking about here is baseline funding and it needs to happen. The whole point of peace through strength is to stay out of wars, to deter aggression. And we can't help but recognize that we have lost the industrial strength that we need to maintain that capability.
We won World War II because of our industrial might. We won the Cold War because of our industrial might. We are going to stay out of World War III if we can rebuild our industrial might, and this bill goes a long way toward ensuring that. That's what this is all about, trying to make sure we build the capacity to deter aggression from China in particular, but also from others. We can't help but acknowledge that our adversaries, all four of them, have formed an axis of evil and they are working together.
They're helping each other. We have got to meet the moment, and this bill does that. Thank you.
Austin Scott
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the RD-180 is just one example of how we had become dependent on people that are our enemies. There are other examples out there where we're dependent on China for certain chemicals and other materials that we have to have, precious minerals. And so I look forward to continuing to work with the two of you to make sure that we are not dependent on our enemies. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield.
Mary Gay Scanlon
I want to join my colleagues in wishing you a happy birthday as well. I wore blue in your honor.
Mary Gay Scanlon
So, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith, I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into this NDAA. I would have to disagree with a little bit of the testimony. I think some would argue that strategic intelligence and proper use of our industrial base may be just as important as having that industrial base, because might alone isn't going to win the conflicts around the world, as I think we're seeing on a daily basis. There are a number of provisions in this bill that are long overdue. It expands access to contraception through TRICARE.
It broadens coverage of assisted reproductive technologies for service members and their families. It protects the collective bargaining rights of our civilian defense employees. It also includes investments that are important in my district, including funding for seven CH-47F Block 2 Chinook helicopters, manufactured very proudly in southeastern Pennsylvania. And these are all worthwhile investments. The problem with this bill is not all of the provisions, but certainly some of the misplaced priorities that have been loaded into it.
We've already had extended discussion about the fact that this is a massive amount of money, $1.15 trillion, with an additional supplemental bill, possibly a reconciliation bill, adding up to $1.6 trillion in spending, just a massive, massive increase in defense spending, which, am I correct, Ranking Member, that's discretionary spending?
Mary Gay Scanlon
All defense spending is discretionary spending, yes. Okay, other than Social Security and some of our mandatory spending.
Adam Smith
Well, sure, yes, that's, but all defense spending is discretionary spending.
Right, so we do have a lot of discretion about how much and how we spend it.
Well, not to get overly technical here, but to a certain degree, it is all discretionary in the sense that if the entitlements are simply locked in, if we want to change the policy, we can change the policy. So it's a technical difference between discretionary and mandatory that isn't worth getting into.
Mary Gay Scanlon
But I'm just so used to hearing about cuts to discretionary spending, I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing here.
Yeah.
Mary Gay Scanlon
So that is concerning. That's a lot of money towards defense, and some of it, this battleship, a billion dollars, I think, in this bill for the battle, two billion for the battleship that is supposed to cost maybe 20-ish once we get there. But in the descriptions we're seeing of it, the terms I'm seeing are it's an obsolete, vulnerable kind of a proposition. The military is not asking for this.
It requires unproven technology. Can you talk a little bit about this? It feels...
Adam Smith
Sure. We don't 100% know what it is because it's on the drawing board right now and it's something that we've never come close, nobody's ever come close to building before. The contemplation is it will be this massive power center and you'll be able to move energy around and have this massive battleship with all kinds of munitions on it.
Adam Smith
Yeah, well, I won't go there, but yeah, kind of, in a similar way. And I can understand that, but when you look at what's going on in the battlefield right now, and I mentioned Ukraine and the way they've been able to make Russia vulnerable with drones, with very low-cost drones. Hezbollah regrettably is starting to have success with similar low-cost drones. This is what gives you an asymmetric advantage, and because those weapons are cheap and effective. So that's the way the whole world is going and we decide we want to build the world's largest ship ever.
That seems to be polar opposite, it's polar opposite of actually what we've worked on in terms of acquisition reform. A lot of the acquisition reform is focused on, as I said, innovative new technologies. How can you get a more cost-effective missile, a more cost-effective missile defense system or drone defense system or drones? So to put all of that money into one place is extraordinarily risky and that assumes that we'll be capable of building it. We have major shipbuilding challenges right now just meeting our traditional needs, which this bill helps address.
And you know, there's an amendment I know, the SHIPS Act, which would take it a little bit further, which I am supportive of. But it just seems to me like bigger and more expensive is the exact opposite of where we need to be going with our weapons systems right now.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Well, I mean, it feels like there's a little bit of an analogy as we're approaching at the end of the week our 250th anniversary of the country, where the Brits in part were routed by asymmetric warfare. They came in with their large, massive troop movements and the US nibbled around the edges and they lost a 13-state advantage in that war. So it feels like hewing to outmoded ways isn't so great. And then there's the cost aspect of it. Some of our experts are saying that this is going to cannibalize our defense budget with just directing so much funding to this boondoggle of a battleship.
We're already seeing some of these vanity projects cannibalize other budgets like the National Park Service, etc. So I do think we should be very concerned about that, but I appreciate all the work you've put into this and I'll yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much. I'm going to keep deferring my comments and recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez for her comments and questions.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I will refrain from singing to you because we want to make it nice and short, maybe short and sweet or short and sour. But feliz cumpleaños. Chairman Rogers, what was the NDAA budget when you first came into office?
Yeah, but do you have an estimate?
I have no idea.
I actually looked it up because all told, the idea of 1.6 trillion, right, when we add everything up, it was 400 billion. 400 billion. So you are now asking us to approve an NDA that is four times higher than what it was back then.
I am.
Yeah.
Redner 8
We are spending less than any of our four adversaries as a percentage of GDP on defense. And if we don't stop this madness, we're going to wind up in a war.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
And well, we are in a war. You said we're going to end up in a war. We are in a war. There is a war that is ongoing. Do you deny that there's a war ongoing?
I'm not denying it.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Okay, so there is a war ongoing, started by Trump, who said he was going to make sure we didn't get involved in foreign wars. And I take it you are against deficit spending.
Mike Rogers
If we have to spend in deficit to do strong defense spending, then that's what we have to do.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right. And in fact, since you've come into office, every Republican president has increased the deficit through deficit spending, a lot of that on war.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Actually, every Republican president has increased the deficit and every Democrat president has decreased the deficit. It's actually true. And I can hand you this chart if you'd like.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Okay, we're telling it just like it is. Every Republican president has increased the deficit. Now, I think it's interesting, this idea that you mentioned earlier about how we won World War II. The reality is I just finished reading, and I'm not, you know, I just finished reading a wonderful book, Doris Kearns Goodwin book about the presidency under during World War II. And what was key there was President during World War II got the support of the American people.
Do you know what the support is of the American people for the Iran war?
I do not.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
It is the majority of Americans, about 60%, oppose that war that Trump started, that we are spending one to two billion dollars a day on. Do you know, has have you ever, what's fascinating to me is this battleship that can cost billions. Has there ever been an instance where we've had a president choose to name a class of battleships after himself? Are you ever aware of that happening?
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Ranking Member Smith, what do you make of a president who wants to spend taxpayer dollars that our children and grandchildren and we will have to pay for in the future because it's deficit spending, where he's naming it after himself? There is something kind of cringey and corrupt about that in my mind.
Adam Smith
Yes, well, there's two separate points which I want to make here. One, President Trump's focus on, you know, basically his name, his likeness, his power is authoritarian in a way that is deeply troubling to me. I think it undermines our representative democracy and I think there's no question he is governing much more like an authoritarian dictator than like a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic. And we could walk down a thousand different roads on that one, which aren't directly related to the defense bill. I do want to get back to the spending issue because I think it's important for people to understand the context here.
The chairman is right. As a percentage of GDP, we are actually spending less now on defense than we have at any point since the end of World War II. I think it is important to remember that. Now, what has changed? Well, in the 50s, 40s, 50s, 60s, there was no Medicare.
There was no Medicaid. We have massively increased spending in other areas and as well we should. Okay, I don't think the chairman or anyone wants to get rid of Medicare or Medicaid. I certainly don't, or a lot of the programs that we expanded. It's more a matter of recognizing where we are.
It is not the 1960s anymore. Okay, we are not the sole dominant power in the world economically and militarily.
We have a lot more competition and we have a lot more needs. So we have to be smarter about how we spend that money. And, you know, look, I mean, I don't know what the the total budget's like seven trillion, something like that. You know, defense would be 12, 15% of that. So there's certainly other aspects to this.
I keep harping on revenue. We're all very happy about cutting taxes, cutting taxes, cutting taxes, and yet we keep spending the money. Okay, to me, those two things have to add up. If you love tax cuts, then you shouldn't love a 1.16, 1.15 trillion dollar defense budget. Okay, the two things shouldn't go together, but we've all decided that we're going to suspend reality and truth and facts and just live in a fantasy world of basically being able to just I guess make the money, well, we do make the money appear.
It's just that we wind up owing on that. So it's a matter of having a fiscal picture that makes sense for today, not for 1950 or 1960 or 1970, but for the needs that we have today. And I think we are missing the mark by relying so much on having a a massive defense budget to meet our national security needs.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you very much and I will point out that Democrats support the increases that in pay and what we're doing with regards to our service members as the representative for Cannon Air Force Base. I'm very appreciative of many aspects in this bill, but not the concept of 1.6 trillion dollar defense budget that's deficit spending that doesn't have the same because we've been keeping par, right, where we have discretionary spending on other matters as well as on defense and this is not the case. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Thank you very much. Mr. Langworthy, you're recognized.
Nicholas Langworthy
I have no questions at this time. I thank the witnesses for appearing.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much. I do want to ask a couple of questions and make a couple of comments. Mr. Smith, you've talked a lot about our cutting taxes, but we know in every instance in the history of this country from I think John F. Kennedy, when we cut taxes, revenues go up.
That's completely false.
That is not false.
Redner 13
No, it's completely false. Look, it doesn't go down by as much as you would have expected it to, but it simply I hear that argument over and over again and it simply doesn't play out. We cut taxes in 2001, okay, significantly. And yes, as the overall growth, I mean, it grows just in general even if you didn't do anything, but it grew by less than it would have if we hadn't cut taxes. If cutting taxes reduced or sorry increased revenue, then the most effective tax rate would be zero and we would have the easiest job in the world.
Okay, you can't tell me that cutting taxes increases revenue because it doesn't.
Virginia Foxx
Okay, well we're going to disagree on that. I think I'm right, so I'm going to move on. Mr. Chairman, as you've I believe and I don't know if you believe this, that the number one role of the federal government is the defense of this nation. We are celebrating our 250th anniversary and that is about our becoming a nation and it's about our becoming a group of states who joined together to become the United States and to gain our freedom. And ever since then, we've worked on the defense of this nation.
That's what we have done. And we emphasize the word defense because that's basically what we do. So I do think we can spend too much money on defense. I appreciate very much the acquisition reform that you mentioned, Mr. Smith, that was in our last year's budget. I worked a lot on that with people in my district who were were providing services to the armed forces.
That came to my attention many years ago. I worked hard on acquisition reform. And I was very pleased that we got acquisition reform, and I think we can do more. I agree with you, Mr. Smith, on that. But, um, I think that we need to spend, as you have indicated, what it takes to keep us a strong nation.
I think Ronald Reagan was right. Uh, the best, the, we will remain a free country if we remain a strong country. That's the role of the federal government. And so I don't think 1.15 is too much to be spending. And I always get very frustrated with our Democrat colleagues when they speculate about what's going to happen.
We hear a lot of speculation in the Rules Committee. So, yes, there may be more spending in a reconciliation 3.0, and I frankly think there probably should be. But that's the role of the federal government. Most of the money that we're spending is on automatic pilot on programs that could be supported by the states and the localities without the role, without the federal government involved, without the federal government wasting a lot of money by being involved in it. And so I think we're moving in the right direction.
Let me, um, let me ask you to talk a little bit more about the domestic industrial base, which you mentioned before. I have understood that too. You mentioned going from 50 prime firms to as few as six. Competition's waned, innovation has been impacted. Um, but most concerningly, these dynamics are happening at a time of increasing kinetic engagements and hot conflicts involving the United States.
As you said, this isn't the 1990s, you mentioned that yourself. Our allies are at the doorstep of invasion from our chief adversaries. United States isn't facing attacks from proxies backed by Iran alone. So we now have the Iranian regime itself. So can you speak to how this bill offers the potential to jumpstart increased competition in the defense industrial base, um, provide the certainty they need to bring increased investment and market players, you alluded to it briefly, and then secure our supply chains against unprecedented pressure against them.
Redner 8
I will. And I do want to remind, uh, the committee that what my friend the ranking member mentioned, and that is defense spending is just 12% of our federal spending. And if we don't get it right, none of the rest matters because we won't be free and safe, we won't have a country. Uh, but to your point, uh, yeah, the what we found in in trying to help Ukraine, and I am as fierce a supporter of Ukraine as you'll find in Congress from the aggression from Russia, is that China, Iran, and North Korea have all been helping Russia in that effort as we have tried to help, uh, Ukraine push back against that aggression. But it was during that period when we were taking old stockpiles of munitions to send to Ukraine that we really realized that we didn't have the ability to replenish those aged weapons and munitions with new ones.
And that's what kind of started us down this path. But what we have done, as you mentioned, we're down to just six prime defense contractors now. To in order to help them recapitalize, we have guaranteed them seven-year contracts for production. We did that with the reconciliation bill that we passed in the current fiscal year to send a demand signal to the markets. You can loan them money to make investments in new plant and equipment to help us build.
But we've also got to start working on the supply chain, and that's what we do in this bill. We have got to have more capacity to supply these primes and hopefully invite more companies into the into the ecosystem. But we also have to reshore, onshore mining and processing of critical minerals and elements that we need for this stuff. We have a whole plethora of things that have to be done to grow the defense industrial base. And that's what this bill does.
You couldn't do it in just one year, and we're not going to get it done in this year. But we are sending the demand signal with this authorization that we are serious about reinvigorating the defense industrial base so that the market will rise to the occasion.
Virginia Foxx
A lot's been again, a lot's been being said about how much we are spending on defense this year, 1.1, 1.5 trillion in this. I don't know of a single thing to help the defense of this country that came out of the six trillion dollars spent during the Biden administration. Nothing to help the defense of this nation. There are expressions for what happened to that six trillion dollars. Suffice it to say, most of it was wasted and wasted very unceremoniously.
Thank you very much, Mr.
If I might, Madam Chair.
Norman.
Adam Smith
Just just so people know, you're talking about the six trillion that was spent during COVID. There were a variety of different it wasn't it wasn't all
Adam Smith
Well, some of some of that was spent in the Trump at the end of the Trump administration with the CARES Act and everything. So it was both that were involved.
Virginia Foxx
It was it was six trillion under the Biden administration. Mr. Norman, you're recognized.
Ralph Norman
Thank both of you for testifying today. Where the 30 billion that was cut, waste, fraud, and abuse, where did that come from? And what was the the increase from last year to the 1.1 trillion? Am I right on that bottom number? What was the total defense budget?
Redner 8
It gets a little confusing. I was going to say the baseline discretionary spending was not increased last year. It was flatlined. We put 150 billion reconciliation one-time money on top of the baseline of 886, which we took from 2024 into 2025. So baseline spending has been level for two years.
If we raise it with this bill, it'll be the first time in three years it's been increased. We had one-time reconciliation money that was passed last year to try to jumpstart the defense industrial base. And that's part of what we talked about, the seven-year guaranteed contracts, is using part of that money for that, but also replenishing munition stockpiles that we have depleted from recent endeavors.
With Iran.
Redner 8
No, that was really more Ukraine. We that's prospective what you're talking about with Iran.
Redner 8
That just has occurred over decades of reduced defense spending. The market responds to what we're spending and we were spending at a much higher clip in the 80s and early 90s. But as we began to decrease defense spending, the market responded and it shrank.
But there's also a lot of consolidation.
And there was consolidation.
Adam Smith
So those the six remaining gobbled up a lot of the 50. Some of them went under, but some of them were gobbled. Just to understand the the numbers. So last year, I thought it was 896, but 886, whatever the base budget was.
Adam Smith
Energy, right. I forgot about that. And then we added 156 billion in reconciliation. So last year's total defense spending would have been right around a trillion.
Well, over a trillion.
Adam Smith
Yeah, a little over a trillion because of that. And now this is 1.15 trillion. So even that's like a 10, a little over a 10% increase from last year. And then we don't know what's going to happen with reconciliation or the supplemental.
Ralph Norman
Well, I agree with Chairman Fox. You know, if we don't have a strong military, we don't have a strong country. But if we've got a broke country that cannot afford and adds to the continues to add to our debt, then we're we're pretty well sunk anyway. But I'm glad the on the timing of resupplying the things that we need, are we on track with that?
Redner 8
If we can get this spending, we will be. We've got the the thing that I'm trying to convey to everybody is we don't have the physical capability of building munitions and systems fast enough to meet our challenges. And if we don't correct this, this is dangerous territory we're in.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you. I want to follow up with one quick question about World War II. How many ships were we building, one every four days? Did I read that the other day? Do you remember that?
Redner 8
It was something like that. I mean, they weren't the kind of ships we build now, but yeah, we were building them at an enormous rate. But that's a wonderful example of what we demonstrated a nation we can do when we have to.
Mr. Jack, you're recognized.
Ronny Jackson
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for testifying and for your team and yourself working with me throughout this process has been very helpful. So I'm gracious for that and grateful for that. So my question is, when we look back to last year, 94 Democrats voted against final passage of the NDAA, if I'm not mistaken. Could you frame for this committee what a vote against this week's version of the NDAA is? What does that constitute?
Redner 8
Obviously, I think it's malfeasance when we know that we're in a recklessly dangerous circumstance as far as our ability to to defend ourselves and to to build munitions and weapon systems that will deter aggression. I think it's irresponsible, otherwise I wouldn't be here promoting it.
Redner 36
Wonderful. Well, with that, I think you've answered many of the questions of this committee throughout the hearing, so I will yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Mr. Jack, would you yield a moment? I believe the chairman pointed out earlier, it's a it is a slap in the face of our military people because there's a big raise in here for them. So if you vote no, you're voting against those who are serving in the military.
Adam Smith
I'm sorry, I'd like to speak up here. That that's utter nonsense, okay? And I there have been situations where
Redner 39
Mr. Smith, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
Redner 13
Okay, so you can just accuse members of being Republicans have voted against the defense budget too. Are they slapping, you know, the the armed services members in the face? We have a responsibility to make our decision one way or the other. I've voted for the bill many times, I've voted against it. I don't think we should accuse any member who votes against the defense bill of slapping our troops in the face.
Redner 43
All right, I welcome our next panel, Representative Van Duyne and Representative Moore from the House Ways and Means Committee. Give us just a minute. All right, we're going to go ahead and start in just a second, but your full statements will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. We do ask that your statement cover all legislation in your committee's jurisdiction. Representative Van Duyne, we're going to go ahead and start with you and welcome you for your testimony.
You're now recognized for five minutes.
Beth Van Duyne
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member McGovern, for this opportunity to testify on the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act that was introduced by Representative Scott, as well as my resolution celebrating the historic results of the Working Families Tax Cuts. Hey Gwen, how are you, honey? The Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act empowers Americans receiving disability insurance who want to work by addressing shortcomings in the Social Security Disability Insurance program. Today, less than 1% of disability insurance beneficiaries leave that program each year because of a successful return to the workforce, despite the fact that 60% of beneficiaries say they would like to work. Whether it is a fear of receiving overpayments, hitting a benefit cliff, or being unable to navigate confusing rules and regulations, Americans with disabilities face barriers to work.
During a Ways and Means subcommittee hearing, we heard about these bureaucratic roadblocks. We also heard from a disability advocate that if work had not been an option, he would have graduated into a graduated to the couch. Instead, his work has given him real purpose and a different outlook on life. Under this bill, the Social Security Administration can deploy demonstration projects to test policies to improve outcomes for disability insurance beneficiaries. The SSA previously had such authority, but it expired in 2022.
This bill reauthorizes it for five years, and it ensures that participation in pilot programs is completely voluntary. And let me repeat that. Participation in this program is completely voluntary. Also, any new return to work policy cannot cause a reduction in the income of any participating beneficiary. Representative Scott has long been a champion for Purple Heart veterans, many of whom are eager to return to work, but they can't afford the severe restrictions placed on their work status.
I commend Mr. Scott for expanding his bill to allow demonstration authority for so many affected groups, including blind Americans. This legislation received bipartisan support in the Ways and Means Committee, and we should all agree that empowering Americans to experience the dignity of work is a worthy cause. Turning to the Working Families Tax Cuts. President Trump and Republicans in Congress delivered tax relief to working-class Americans like waitresses, linemen, seniors, moms and dads, farmers, and small businesses so they can keep more of their hard-earned money. When my Democrat colleagues talk about this bill, all we hear about is the benefit of billionaires.
Look, I've never met a billionaire who's earned tips or worked overtime or worked for overtime. I've never met a billionaire who relied on Social Security or who needed a more than double child tax credit or that benefited from a simpler tax code that more than doubles their standard deduction. Pro-worker, pro-family tax cuts like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, a larger child tax credit, the enhanced standard deduction led to historic tax refunds that were up more than 11% on average and the total amount refunded up more than 18%. In fact, 97% of Americans got a tax cut. Meanwhile, the share of income tax that top 1% are paying rises from 37 to 40% under the working families tax cuts.
We've made it easier to afford healthcare, childcare, education, and adoption. We invested in the financial future of America's children. Starting on the 4th of July, Treasury will deposit $1,000 into Trump accounts for children born during the Trump administration. The Ways and Means Committee has heard numerous stories of how Americans benefited. A Texas steelworker is using no tax on overtime to start a family.
A waiter in Arizona used no tax on tips to start law school. A teacher from Texas said the refundable adoption tax credit will help his family adopt their second child. For rural America, Republicans made the double death tax exemption permanent so 2 million family farms can pass their legacy to the next generation as rural opportunity zones help $100 billion in investment to small towns. The permanent small business deduction helps 36 million small businesses grow and hire. Pro-growth, permanent tax policy is sparking a stronger economy.
In the last three months, manufacturers added 22,000 jobs and private businesses created 499,000 net new jobs. Businesses in foreign countries are investing trillions in new facilities in reviving forgotten communities. Manufacturing grew at the fastest level in four years and capital expenditures are up 17% overall. Democrats still refuse to acknowledge how the working families tax cuts helped Americans, including their constituents. They don't want to admit that they voted for a 22% tax hike on every single American.
But that tracks with Democrats' record on affordability. When Democrats controlled Washington, working-class folks got a 21% inflation spike from Democrats' $10 trillion spending spree. Instead of helping working families, they rewarded wealthy environmentalists with green new scam tax breaks. Billionaires were the beneficiaries of Democrat corporate welfare. Under Republicans, relief goes to working-class families.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your questions.
Gentlelady yields back and now recognize Representative Moore for her five-minute opening statement.
Gwen Moore
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have comments and remarks regarding the one-year anniversary of the working families tax cut, but also on the H.R. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act. Five minutes, okay.
Redner 47
Reality. The Trump administration's track record and its goals are clear. President Trump and his administration proposed massive benefit cuts to Social Security disability benefits. They have slashed Social Security's customer services, and they act as if laws protecting the privacy of Social Security data don't apply to them. As evidence, let me remind everyone that during his first term, President Trump proposed using Social Security's demonstration authority to slash disability benefits by 50 billion dollars over 10 years, 50 billion dollars, 50 billion dollars over 10 years.
Let me say it again. 50 billion dollars over 10 years. The first Trump administration wanted to use the demonstration authority that we're being asked today to reauthorize to slash 50 billion dollars of earned benefits. Just last year, the Trump administration wanted to enact one of the biggest cuts to disability benefits ever by changing the rules for disability claims. This change could have resulted in hundreds of thousands of older, severely disabled people being denied benefits.
And after we spoke up, they backed down from this disastrous plan. And now, our Republican colleagues want to grant the Trump administration the very demonstration authority to gut SSDI that President Trump has been begging for, and just to further exacerbate the Trump-created customer service crisis at SSA, this Republican bill would strip millions from SSA's operating funds to pay for it. Um, the Trump administration has blatantly disregarded some of our most sacred privacy laws that protect Americans' sensitive Social Security data, so it's hard to imagine that this administration wouldn't try to skirt some of the other requirements for demonstration projects. For example, current law requires that SSA must obtain the voluntary written consent of anyone who participates in a demonstration, but it's entirely up to the administration to determine what it looks like. Is this Trump administration really trying to spell out all the risks?
I am going to move on because my time is limited, and I'll talk about the one-year anniversary to the one big beautiful bill. Again, I want to thank you all for hearing me out. When I heard that we were going to do a resolution commemorating this, I wondered why my Republican colleagues were just gifting Democrats with another opportunity to talk about this deeply flawed and unpopular signature bill. American workers and families are reeling from a senseless cost-of-living crisis, higher costs of groceries, electricity, healthcare, every product. But as President Trump himself has declared, he doesn't care about the financial situation of Americans.
And I suppose I'll join you in wishing a happy birthday tax cut for billionaires. You can't really hide from the numbers, Mr. Chairman. The average 2027 tax cut for taxpayers who made over a million dollars per year will be 96,400 dollars, while the average 2027 tax cut for taxpayers who make under 50,000 dollars per year will be 247 dollars a year. That's 68 cents a day. That's right, Republicans gave millionaires a tax cut that is 390 times the size of what they gave to workers and families making less than 50,000 dollars, crumbs, crumbs from the master's table.
And while you pat, we pat ourselves on the back for doling out these meager tax cuts to working families, you know, like tax on tips for some workers temporarily, no tax on overtime for some people who are breaking their backs working extra hours and still struggling to make ends meet, again, temporarily.
Even the temporary tax cuts for the elderly have contributed to further deteriorating Social Security finances, according to the latest trustees report. People are suffering. Unless you're wealthy, if you were well off before the OBBBA, you're certainly better off now. And under the guise of tackling the favorite triplets, the boogeymen, waste, fraud, and abuse, we have taken food out of the mouths of the hungry, including over 800,000 children. We've cut access to healthcare for millions across our nation.
And instead of investing in people, we're pushing more people off. We've made them healthier, more unhealthy, more hungry, and more desperate. And Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. And I wish the chairman of the committee were here so I could wish her a happy birthday.
Redner 49
And she may step back in in a minute, but she had to take care of something. That said, appreciate the gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina. Do you have any questions?
I have no questions. Thank you.
Redner 43
All right. Yield back. Recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern.
James McGovern
Yeah, and I just want to state for the record that when I was chair of this committee, I never cut anybody off who testified. So, I mean, I know things are different, but just so you know. So, you know, the idea that we're going to have pass a resolution, you know, to celebrate the big ugly bill is beyond me. And I don't know, Ms. Van Duyne, I mean, I mean, if you go to a grocery store, prices are up. Go to a gas station, prices are still too high.
You go everywhere, the price of everything is too high. But I just want to read to you a couple of testimonies from people in this country who basically can't afford their healthcare anymore because of this administration and because of this Congress. Sharon Dunham from Grand Rapids, Michigan, a two-time cancer survivor, she went without insurance this year after her premium would have risen to about $980 a month from $614 and is paying out of pocket for tests and visits until she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare. Quote, it is definitely terrifying, she said. Arona East from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Arona and her partner and her 20-year-old son no longer have health insurance because it's too expensive.
Through her work, a family plan would cost her $800 per pay period and a state marketplace plan with a high deductible will cost about 650 a month, East said. Right now, I'm not able to pay for the marketplace insurance because it's just astronomical, she said, adding that the cost has kept her from getting care for pre-menopause symptoms. Eric and Lisa Frankenfeld from Point Pleasant, New Jersey, a chiropractor and his wife, an office manager, their premium was set to skyrocket to $1,928 a month from $340, so they decided to go without coverage for 2026. Quote, we are healthcare providers who cannot afford benefits. Oh, the irony, she said.
I can go on and on and on. I ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record, Mr. Chairman.
And what is this?
James McGovern
Yeah, these are testimonies of people who can't afford their healthcare anymore because of the policies that you put.
No, this is, this is collected by Protect Our Care organization.
It's current.
It's current. Yeah, right. Okay. All right.
All right. And it's dated?
James McGovern
Well, I mean, I'd be here all day reading it for you. But right, what we're in for. Yeah. It's real-life stories, which we should be care about. Okay, we all support helping disabled Americans who want to return to work, but as we've seen time and time again, when you give the Trump administration an inch, they take a mile.
The Trump administration has provided zero information on how it would use this authority. In fact, when asked in markup if the administration has shared any details of its plans, Republican counsel stated he was, quote, "not aware," end quote. So, Ms. Van Duyne, if you want the Social Security Administration to do these demos, why don't you authorize any specific demos in statute? Why leave it open-ended?
Beth Van Duyne
Well, I think, I mean, you're talking about the potential to be able to cut disability benefits. The bill specifically stipulates that demonstration projects may not reduce beneficiaries' total income. And this is a new beneficiary protection that was not included, by the way, in the previous authorization of the SSA's disability insurance demonstration authority.
Beth Van Duyne
You can, this is basically a reauthorization, but with stronger ethics. But I do want, I mean, you hit on gas prices. So gas prices, just by the way, have fallen for the last six weeks. Average gas price right now under Trump, under President Trump, is 16 cents lower than it was under President Biden. So if you want lower gas prices, be thankful Trump is in office and we don't have a Democrat.
James McGovern
The last time we did something similar, the fact of the matter is the last time we reauthorized something similar, we actually included demo projects. But in addition to the bill that we're considering today, my colleague, and I don't know, and he may not want me to say this, but I actually, Representative Austin Scott actually has a bipartisan bill, H.R. 7120, that would make several specific SSDI program changes to help combat disabled Purple Heart veterans who want to return to work. Would you support allowing the House of Representatives to also have an up-or-down vote on the floor for Representative Austin Scott's bill to help Purple Heart veterans on SSDI who want to return to work?
Beth Van Duyne
I think what this is, you're seeing all this put into one bill. I think it's important. This also allows a lot more flexibility.
I didn't see that in the bill.
Redner 51
No, what I'm saying is we're wrapping this up and we are working with Congressman Scott.
But it's not in the bill. Right. So I'm simply saying...
Beth Van Duyne
This would allow an opportunity. This gives a lot more flexibility if they, we wanted to have that in there.
James McGovern
No, but you know, for some of us, quite frankly, and you know, I have some of my political differences with this White House, but you know, I get the flexibility part. I just want to be assured that this stuff is going to happen. So saying that they have the flexibility to do this is different than saying they have to do this. That's all I'm saying.
Beth Van Duyne
Well, and I think the bill includes, it includes the guardrails that prevent any of the beneficiaries from being worse off, which I think was one of your concerns under demonstration. No beneficiary will see a decrease, as we've mentioned before, in income because they participate in a project. It also includes more congressional oversight, which I think is what you're asking, than any other prior authorization. So it requires Social Security Administration notify Congress of their plans 120 days, which we didn't have before.
James McGovern
But no guarantee that Austin Scott's bill will be done. And I can't believe I'm agreeing with him on something he's done. But we actually agree on this. I don't know, I just feel a hell of a lot better if, in fact, it were in this legislation, or that we had an up-or-down vote on it, and then I could be assured that it would be happening, so that we don't have to wait another year and then come back and say, "Well, it didn't happen, why not?"
Beth Van Duyne
All of that is part of the congressional appropriations efforts, as you know.
James McGovern
Well, in any event, I would, it is not in this bill.
I would feel a lot better if it was. Maybe we can address that.
Redner 53
So I understand she would then you would you would vote for this if if that was in there?
James McGovern
No, I want I would vote for Austin Scott's bill. You know, and again, I you know, and again, people's healthcare prices are going through the roof and I could read for hours and hours and hours of of people.
Beth Van Duyne
And I would love to be able to go hours and hours and hours toe-to-toe on what the one big beautiful bill did for people's affordability for for prices and allowed people to get more of their taxpayer dollars back.
James McGovern
Well, and that's why so many people in this country refer to it as the big ugly bill because for the majority of people in this country, it didn't help. It hurt them. And again, losing your healthcare is nothing worse and not being able to afford your healthcare. And we I gave you an example of a of a healthcare provider that couldn't afford their healthcare. So anyway, we have to get back to focusing on, you know, regular people and their inability to afford, you know, the cost of living.
I don't know, Mr. Moore, do you want to add anything or?
Redner 57
You know, it it really is really is really interesting to see how people see the same thing in different ways. And when I think about the four million people who've already lost healthcare and we haven't even really phased in all of the cuts to Medicaid yet. It's just reminiscent of 1929 when the when the stocks were doing well and everybody was doing very poorly. Oh, I'm sorry. And so it is reminiscent of a K-shaped economy.
And I think that's why people see it very differently.
James McGovern
And I appreciate that. I guess we just have a different interpretation of, you know, where our priorities ought to be. We live in the richest country in the history of the world right now and we've got 48 million Americans who are food insecure. We should be ashamed of that and we should be doing something about it. But having said that, I thank you for being here.
I yield back.
Redner 56
Chairman yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from Georgia. I apologize that I got out of order earlier and recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Austin Scott
Not a problem. And I appreciate Mr. McGovern mentioning my legislation and I want you to know that I do think it is the intent of the administration to do carry out the intent of the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act if we're able to pass this. And so I would just tell you the way this came about and I've worked on this for almost a decade. I was taking a young man hunting, a young man, a young Marine. He stepped on a pressure plate, lost both legs.
And I won't call him by name, but if we do get to sign the bill, I hope the President will allow him to be there for the signing. I'm on 475 in Georgia. I'm taking him hunting at a friend's place. And he says, I work at O'Reilly's Auto Parts, but if I make more than, and at the time it was about 1100 dollars a month, I lose my Social Security benefits. So I have to be very careful not to work more than X numbers of hours a week or my family is backing up and literally has less money because he worked more.
And I actually couldn't believe it. I said, you know, that doesn't sound right, but I'm going to go to DC, I'm going to meet with the lawyers. And I came up here and I met with the Social Security lawyers and they told me that I was absolutely right, or that he was absolutely correct.
So I wrote the legislation. It was very narrowly tailored. Purple Heart, which means it's combat wounded. Total and permanent, which means it is obviously a total and a permanent disability. I intentionally narrowly tailored it because I wanted to make sure that it could work.
And if it can work, then hopefully it could be expanded to other people that want to go back to work as well. But I'm a firm believer that the number one thing that you can do for somebody, especially if they have been one of our people that's been at the tip of the spear and has a combat injury, is to get them back to work. And their paycheck should not be penalized if they work an extra hour or two. So we wrote the bill, Purple Heart Freedom to Work. It's had broad bipartisan support.
Have not been able to move it, whether the Democrats or the Republicans have been in charge of Congress. Working with Chairman Smith, this was the suggestion that he had for the fastest way to make this happen. And as you know, if we write the perfect piece of legislation in the House of Representatives and it goes to the Senate, they're going to turn around and put take their sweet time with it, and then maybe it doesn't get done. But Purple Heart Day is August 7th, I believe. I think there is broad agreement that if somebody is combat wounded, total and permanent, that they should be allowed to go back to work and they shouldn't have less money at the end of the month for going back to work.
Hang on. Does the gentleman yield?
I will yield.
Gentleman yields to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
James McGovern
I very rarely say this, but I agree with you. And that's why, you know, I can't it troubles me because it would have been easy just to include your legislation in this. But I get it. But I hope you're right.
Austin Scott
And with respect, Mr. McGovern, we have had that legislation whether the Democrats have controlled or the Republicans have controlled and not been able to get it. This legislation here, this legislation here, if you look at this, this authority has existed since 1980. It was reauthorized in '89. It was reauthorized again in '99. It was reauthorized again in 2015 is my understanding, and it has now expired.
And so I have every belief in the world that if we're able to pass this, that the president will do something similar to similar to and I don't trust me, I don't speak for President Trump, but I have talked to the administration and I do believe that they will do something very similar to the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act if we're able to get this this through.
Redner 55
And if they don't, I'll be happy to work with the gentleman to see get over the finish line.
Austin Scott
Thank you very much for that. And with that, but that is the intent of that is that is the origin of the legislation and and that is this is the fastest way to get this done for our veterans. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Redner 54
Gentleman yields back. Now recognize the gentlelady of Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her time.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to speak first to the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act. Congress has repeatedly given the Social Security Administration limited authority to test new approaches that help beneficiaries transition back to work. And some of those demonstration projects have improved health outcomes, increased employment, and raised earnings for participants. But as the ranking member suggested, times have changed, and those demonstration projects have always come with careful oversight.
This bill is a sharp departure from that. This legislation would give the Trump administration open-ended authority to shape programs impacting Americans with disabilities, even though this administration has repeatedly proposed slashing disability programs and benefits, including special education programs for children with disabilities. Just this month, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion which completely undermines the right to live in community for people with disabilities.
It's an open attempt to overturn decades of disability rights laws, including the Olmstead decision from the Supreme Court. I don't think this is a point in time when we can give unlimited discretion to shape disability policy to an administration that's openly advocating for a return to institutionalization for our disabled family members and neighbors. Now, the second bill is just as hard to justify. This is the second time this year that Republicans have wasted time and tax dollars to pass a bill that does nothing more than congratulate themselves for passing their reconciliation bill last July. Uh, this is a bill that was so deeply unpopular with the American public that they had to change the name of their one big beautiful bill.
But changing the name of that travesty of a bill doesn't change what it did or make it any more popular. It cut one trillion dollars from Medicaid and Medicare, and that has already led four million Americans to lose their health coverage. It enacted the largest SNAP cut in our nation's history, causing 770,000 children to lose SNAP benefits. And it rescinded community investments in renewable energy. And it delivered enormous tax breaks to corporations and billionaires, adding over four trillion with a T to our national debt.
So when I talk to my constituents, they don't say, "Gosh, I wish you could go to Congress and say, 'Attaboy, guys, thanks for passing that one big ugly bill.'" Um, they're asking us to lower costs, strengthen Social Security, and make government work better for the people, not for the billionaires. And unfortunately, neither of the bills before us here do that. Um, Ranking Member Moore, during your committee markup, Democrats offered amendments to require public notice and comment, preserve existing beneficiary protections, and give Congress greater oversight on these Social Security demonstration projects. Um, Republicans rejected this amendment unanimously.
Why are these kind of guardrails important?
Redner 47
And, uh, and we don't want them, we need guardrails so that there'll be ways for them to back out of unsustainable, uh, events. These guardrails are so very important because we're dealing with the most vulnerable population. And, you know, as they, you know, we think it's honorable that people want to return to work, uh, but we do know that they're very vulnerable. We have, we have typically as a caucus, the Democrats have always appreciated efforts to get people back into the workforce. Why not?
But we have seen from the past behavior of this administration that they have tried to cut 50 billion dollars over 10 years out of programs for disabled people. And one of our senior members, Danny Davis, Dr. Danny Davis, quoted, uh, Maya Angelou, who said that when people, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. And so we have seen this administration time and again try to cut disability benefits, and so we are unwilling and unready to do that at this moment.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Yeah, it is a matter of context. I mean, I worked primarily with children with disabilities in the special ed context, but we, I'm hearing a lot from our community with really grave concern about the cuts that are happening to those programs, particularly the removal of guardrails, things like the OSERs and Office of Civil Rights programs, which have been gutted so there aren't the guardrails that we would have had in the past, and I think that's raising even more concern.
Redner 47
It is, that they're taking this out of the jurisdiction of the Office of Civil Rights and educational departments there, are disaggregating these protections, and it's a very frightening thing for disability rights across the board for children and adults.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Thank you. And for veterans, I know there's been concern among veterans that the veterans with disabilities have not been treated with the same respect that they deserve. So, thank you for your work on the bill. I yield back.
Thank you.
Beth Van Duyne
The gentlelady yields back. Now recognize myself for such time as I may consume and would ask Ms. Van Duyne, are there comments that you want to make in response to things that have been said or that you've heard?
The fact is that 96% of filers receiving a tax credit earned less than $200,000 annually. I appreciate that opportunity. When we talk about some of the impacts that the Working Families Tax Cut bill has had, I've listened to the criticisms. That's an average savings of $815 to $1,250. We've listened about affordability, we've listened about not being able to pay for healthcare.
These are not billionaires, these are people who are making less than 200,000. That supported the creation of, the economic impact of the Working Families Tax Cut supported the creation of 6.1 million new full-time jobs versus higher and also higher capital investment and business expansion. It delivered up to $7,600 in higher wages per worker through increased productivity and capital stock. It provided up to $10,900 more in annual take-home pay for a median family with two children and an overtime worker. It prevented a scheduled 22% tax hike, which my Democrat friends supported, a 22% tax hike on average taxpayers.
And the bill delivered an additional $1,300 tax cut per family versus current law. It made the small business deduction permanent, creating over a million new Main Street jobs annually. And it generated $750 billion in economic growth for small businesses, not for massive corporations, not for businesses, not for billionaires, but for small business owners. It allowed over 7.5 million filers to claim no tax on tip with an average deduction of $7,700. These are for working families.
It allowed over 29 million filers to claim no tax on overtime with an average deduction of over $3,100. Again, these are not for billionaires, these are for working class, working families, working families in America. It also boosted the child tax credit to $2,200. So if we really want to talk about how we are helping, you know, the working families in this country be able to pay for healthcare, first of all, if you want to talk about what a disaster Obamacare was, let's look at how much it's increased the premiums, 80%. Why?
Because it was a horrible deal to begin with. So giving us options that we don't have to pick Obamacare would be one.
Are you saying, are you saying Representative Van Duyne that the Affordable Care Act was not affordable?
Redner 43
I'm saying that's exactly right. We hear these words and if we are really wanting to allow Americans to be able to have more of their money, to be able to take more of it home, let's tax them less. And let's allow businesses to thrive. Let's protect the small businesses and protect the working families.
Beth Van Duyne
Absolutely. All those things would have expired January 1st of this year had we not passed this bill.
Redner 60
And what were some of those? Can you can you tell them what some of those were?
Redner 46
So for example the the deductions for small businesses. There are indeed all of those things that small businesses depended on to be able to be able to reinvest.
Redner 43
And am I not correct that that also included the accelerated depreciation so that if you went out and you bought a new photocopier for your small law practice on Main Street in Salem Virginia you used to have to take that out over a period of years you didn't get the deduction in the first year it was a number of years and then under the first Trump administration and a Republican House they reduced that you could take it all in the first year is that not correct?
That is absolutely correct.
Redner 43
And that helps lots of small businesses stay in business they have a one good year they can then buy new equipment isn't that correct?
Beth Van Duyne
Not only did we were we able to make these these tax cuts so that we didn't have them expire at the end of the next year but they were also made permanent. So because the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act was expected to only last you know a certain number of years it's estimated that about $800 billion of potential investment didn't wasn't actually made because of that expiration. With the permanency expect all of that plus more plus the foreign investment in our country that we're seeing.
Redner 64
And if we didn't pass the reconciliation bill then that would have meant a tax increase for all those Main Street businesses whether it be Salem Virginia or Texas or Georgia or South Carolina or Massachusetts.
Beth Van Duyne
In addition to being on the Ways and Means Committee I'm also on small business and we had small business after small business come and testify that if those those tax relief were allowed to expire they would have to shut down their business.
Redner 58
Would have hurt a lot of Main Street businesses across the country. Anything else you want to add?
No you've been great.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
All right well I appreciate it and I now yield back and recognize the gentlelady Ms. Leger Fernandez from New Mexico.
Thank you so very much. You know Representative Van Duyne you lauded the fact that the one big beautiful bill and you referred to it that. I mean I think it is hilarious that you have to change the name of your bill because it is so unpopular but let's not spend too much time on that. But the two to one two to one people opposed this bill right when you were enacting it and now they still don't like it. You said there was this great thing that you had a $2,500 child tax credit.
What was the Democrats when Democrats were in control what was the child tax credit back then?
Don't know.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
You don't know? It was $3,600 a month refundable paid out. So what the Republicans did was enact a child tax credit which was worse than the Democrats. So I wouldn't brag about that one too much. Now do you know what Amazon's Ms. Van Duyne do you know what Amazon's how their taxes went up or down after your one big beautiful bill?
Beth Van Duyne
We're looking at small businesses I'm sorry you're asking me about Amazon's tax I I don't work for Amazon I'm sorry.
Well you were just saying.
Redner 59
And I'm not a tax attorney for Amazon so I don't have their books in front of me.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Well it's general knowledge that this big beautiful bill benefited the wealthiest corporations. Amazon's Amazon's tax bill went down by $9 billion. By $9 billion.
We can also prove that it benefited small businesses over across the country.
Redner 62
So the wealthiest corporations in America, their tax bill went down because of your one big beautiful bill. Now, I want to go back to the issue of whether...
Teresa Leger Fernandez
And yet they're paying more in taxes now than they ever have before.
Now, Representative Moore, were there amendments proposed in Ways and Means that would have extended those tax cuts but not given all of this giveaway to the biggest corporations? Now, were there those amendments made in Ways and Means? I didn't ask you a question. I'm going to go back to the question of whether, you know, the middle income, the working families, the tax cuts could have been extended.
Redner 47
Absolutely, there were amendments to try to extend the Affordable Care Act. There were amendments to try to make the child tax credit refundable, to try to extend some of the expiring tax cuts that would benefit lower income people. We've heard Representative Van Duyne wax on about the efforts and help that we gave small businesses through the 199A. But as you've pointed out, that benefit was not to people who were buying a printer for their office, but they were getting millions of dollars in tax benefits through this giant loophole. We had amendment after amendment that would have focused on providing tax breaks for lower income families.
I think Ms. Van Duyne is sort of conflating the tax benefits that went to lower income people as I've indicated before. You make fifty thousand dollars a year, your tax break was two hundred and forty-seven dollars a month.
Right. And Americans have had to spend three thousand one hundred dollars more on everyday items thanks to inflation.
On healthcare, we have people now in the Medicaid program, I know of one constituent who makes one hundred and twenty-five, social security benefit is one hundred and twenty-five dollars a month over the poverty line, and so they're going to have to pay fifteen hundred dollars a year to qualify for Medicaid. And so this is where we have placed people. The one point two trillion dollar cut in Medicaid, the eighty-seven, the billions of dollars in cuts in SNAP, all of these things have not been compensatory for the two hundred and forty-seven dollar tax break that they may have gotten through the one big beautiful bill.
Redner 63
Now, what's amazing is that usually, you know, you show up in your community, you have town halls. I take it Representative Moore, you have in-person town halls?
Absolutely.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right. And Representative Van Duyne, do you have in-person town halls?
Beth Van Duyne
What we've found is we actually have thousands of people who come to our town halls online. But people who have children, people who have aged parents, people who don't want to actually have to get out, we reach them more.
I have marvelous in-person as well as online town halls. Do you have in-person town halls?
Redner 61
I can't speak to the needs of your constituents. We have online town halls. And we have found that that is actually much more responsive to the needs of our constituents.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
What happens when you have in-person town halls and anybody can come and anybody can ask questions is you hear from people. It's unfiltered. You don't filter.
We have people who ask questions on our town halls all the time that everyone can hear.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
What is interesting is that, you know, Republicans don't seem to want to have in-person town halls. And I think they don't have in-person town halls because when they do, people show up and express their opinion about their bills and their policies and these tax cuts and whether the economy is doing well. And it is not for working families, for farmers. We have an increase in bankruptcies, a forty-five percent increase in bankruptcies. Forty-five percent increase in bankruptcies, I think that's the correct number, right?
So people are suffering. And it takes showing up and listening to people to know where they're feeling. But instead of doing that, what we have is we have resolutions, the second resolution, this the second resolution that Republicans are bringing to pat themselves on the back. Representative Moore, is there anything else you want to add to this? Oh, we didn't really get to talk about the disabilities, but one of the issues that concerns me is that we have a president who's made fun, he's mocked people with disabilities.
He has issued opinions to strip people of disabilities of their civil rights. He has taken action that is negative to families with disabilities, from Medicaid funding to his mocking, to his stripping of their rights. And that's why something like this reauthorization is so concerning. But I wanted to just give you the last word, Representative.
Redner 47
Yeah, thank you so much for that, Representative. And one of the things I'm concerned about is not just that people might lose their disability benefits, but they lose access to healthcare as well. You know, in an administration where the thrust seems to be to cut people's healthcare benefits as well as cut the amount of money that they receive, I think it is very risky to give the administration the authority to do both of those things and give them a two-edged sword to be able to do that. And so Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee have been very empathetic to the idea of creating more employment opportunities for everybody, but we don't want to do it at the expense of people being able to have a decent standard of living.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Right. Thank you very much. And I did ask whether it was a 45% increase in farm bankruptcies. It's a 46%, so a little higher. But basically, this one big beautiful bill did not make the kind of difference for rural America.
It's hurting it. We have rural health centers, rural hospitals closing because of this big beautiful bill.
Redner 47
And suicide rates. I'm from Wisconsin and we have seen a real uptick in suicide rates among farmers. Very, very concerning about the rural America. Even though I represent Milwaukee, Wisconsin is a rural state and so I'm very mindful of what happens throughout the state.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Ms. Moore. Thank you very much. We are classmates. I think I'm the last person here, so I'm going to ask some questions.
Representative Van Duyne, our Democrat friends claim that H.R. 8884, Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act, will hurt beneficiaries and that President Trump wants to reduce or eliminate disability insurance benefits. Does this bill actually prevent income from being reduced or eliminated for those beneficiaries who choose to participate in a demonstration program?
Beth Van Duyne
It absolutely does. The bill explicitly states that the Social Security Administration may not conduct a demonstration project that would reduce a participant's total income.
This is a new beneficiary protection that was not included in any previous authorization of the SSA's disability insurance demonstration authority. And further participation in a demonstration is completely voluntary, requiring the commission to obtain an individual's informed written consent, which a participant may then revoke at any time.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much. I have one more question. Well, maybe a couple of part, a question with several parts. So, Representative Van Duyne, on H. Res. 1383, your bill on commemorating the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act. Our Democrat friends like to characterize these tax cuts as, quote, giving tax relief to the richest Americans at the expense of hard-working Americans, end quote.
Is it true that families of four making under $73,000 will generally face zero federal income tax liability due to the Working Families Tax Cut?
Beth Van Duyne
Yes. A family of four making $73,000 owes Uncle Sam zero dollars in federal income tax. And that's thanks to a bigger standard deduction and a total tax credit increase to $2,200 per child. And without the Working Families Tax Cuts Act, the same family would have seen their taxes go up, would have seen their standard deduction cut, and their child tax credit halved. Republicans made sure that that didn't happen, that families keep making more of their hard-earned dollars.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much. I, to me, that is, that is a huge statement for the American people to understand. And this would affect a lot of people in my district because I think the average income in my district's about $63,000. So a lot of people are going to pay no taxes on this. And North Carolina's done a wonderful job of offering real benefits to people in North Carolina too.
So there'll be a lot of working families who won't have to pay federal or state taxes in North Carolina. So another question, or another part. Have Americans whose income is in the bottom 40% of all taxpayers seen a 15% reduction in their taxes?
Beth Van Duyne
Yeah, the bottom 40% got a 15% tax cut, which is the biggest cut by percentage of any income group. That's thanks to no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, a larger standard deduction, and a bigger child tax credit. Republicans targeted relief at the Americans whose paychecks had been stretched thin by Democrat inflation. And the data confirms that. Republicans actually delivered.
Virginia Foxx
And is the largest percentage reduction going to the bottom 20% of working people?
Beth Van Duyne
The bottom 20% absolutely. That is exactly who this bill was meant to help. This is exactly where those dollars have been going and they're getting the biggest benefit out of it.
Virginia Foxx
So we keep hearing that it's the wealthiest people who are benefiting from this. But this is my understanding too, tell me if you agree. Has the share of total income taxes paid by Americans whose income is in the top 1% increased to over 40% as a result of the Working Families Tax Cuts, meaning the wealthiest people are paying more and the share paid by Americans in the remaining 99% decreased to 60%?
Beth Van Duyne
Yes, absolutely. It's an inconvenient fact that I think a lot of Democrats they don't want to talk about, but the very rich are paying more. And that was my point that I made a moment ago. But they are paying more of the tab after the Working Families Tax Cuts than they were before.
There aren't a whole lot of billionaires who are taking advantage of no tax on tips or are taking advantage of no tax on overtime. Republicans wrote this people for the wrote this bill for the people that do.
Redner 67
It's been said that Democrats don't want to talk about it. I'm happy to talk about it if you want me to engage.
Redner 66
That's okay, Mr. McGovern. I believe I asked you, you said you'd done your questioning, so thank you very much.
Redner 47
Madam Chair, I really appreciate your line of questioning. And just think about the lower 20th percentile of taxpayers. We left like 13 million children behind by not providing them with some tax relief. They say that, oh I'm so sorry, that people in the lower quintile don't pay any taxes, but they also don't benefit from our tax code in ways that would help the child tax credit.
If they're not paying taxes, then they're benefiting from the tax code.
They're not paying taxes, but they're also not benefiting from the refundable tax credit that had lifted 50% of children out of poverty.
Virginia Foxx
Well, what you're talking about is they're not getting welfare in addition to their not paying taxes. So if they're going to get more money than they're paying in in taxes, then that's welfare.
Well, it's not well and it's not fair.
Redner 47
Well, I just wanted to be clear that when we start talking about how well off the lower 20% are, that you are making a distinction because those people are really poor, they don't pay taxes, and they also do not get many of the benefits.
Virginia Foxx
Ms. Moore, Ms. Moore, you're talking to probably the person who grew up the poorest of any person in this Congress. You need to know that. You need to know that there's probably no other person in this Congress who grew up as poor as I did. And so don't talk to me about poverty because I know it better than anybody.
Redner 47
Well, ma'am, I will not talk to you about poverty. I just wanted to set the record straight that while we're talking about how well families are off, that there are children who are hungry, they don't have healthcare.
Virginia Foxx
What I'm saying is they're better off than before this bill passed. Thank you. Thank you all very much. We appreciate your coming. You're dismissed.
Thank you. We obviously have a lot of interest today. As soon as our witnesses for this panel are away, we would invite Mr. Knott, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Heradopolis, Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Moylan, and Pete Stauber's in the house, Mr. Stauber. That's a little inside joke between Mr. Stauber and me. We're taking people in the order in which they came in.
So, okay, Knott, Sessions, if you guys can take a seat, Knott, Sessions, Heradopolis, Houlahan, Moylan, and Stauber. Yeah, yeah, maybe move down a little bit to let people squeeze in there.
Either place. Yeah. Yes, sir. We normally have eight seats, but today we've got seven. I guess somebody figured out we could do the panels.
Okay, I'm going to call on you in the order in which I called your name: Knott, Sessions, Heradopolis, Houlahan, Moylan, and Stauber. Yes, sir.
My colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Knott.
Redner 74
Before we get started, I'd be remiss if I did not wish you a very happy birthday on the record. I hope it's been a good day for you, and we're thrilled to be here.
Thank you very much. It'll be better.
Redner 77
And today it's my privilege to speak about two of my amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act for this year. Mr. Ranking Member, good to see you. Immigration security, as you all know, is pivotal for national security. Without secure borders, we do not have any hope or possibility for a secure nation. Both of the amendments I am offering have previously passed the House with strong bipartisan support.
The first amendment deals with the national security threat that is unique to the criminal group Tren de Aragua. Tren de Aragua started out as a prison gang from the Venezuelan state of Aragua and has since grown into a sprawling criminal empire that has grown pretty much without any exception throughout the Western Hemisphere, including the United States and Canada. TDA's criminal activities include, but are not limited to, kidnapping, human trafficking, smuggling, sale of dangerous drugs, money laundering, organized retail crime, murder, and violent extortion of small business owners. TDA is not in any way an average criminal organization. This is a sophisticated and international enterprise that terrorizes Americans.
We've seen numerous examples of this all over our country. Accordingly, the President correctly issued Executive Order 14157 to designate TDA as a foreign terrorist organization. My amendment builds on the President's actions by requiring the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence community to collaborate on a detailed border threat assessment regarding threats posed by TDA members. DHS would also be required to develop a strategy for countering TDA within a year. The second amendment I have today deals with another pressing issue and one that I am very well familiar with based off of my experience prior to Congress.
The purpose of the amendment is quite simple: it's to prevent and to disincentivize the illegal entrants from coming back into the country, and it's to prevent and disincentivize illegal immigrants who are already here from committing crimes. To achieve these goals, it would first, again, to deter illegal reentry from any illegal alien who has been deported. Instead of different, it would encourage anyone who has been deported to come back to this country legally, if at all. The second goal is to deter criminal activity from any illegal immigrant who is in this country. Whether it is fraud, terrorism, driving while intoxicated, assault, drug trafficking, human trafficking, violent crime of all sorts, all are greatly disincentivized by this amendment because it streamlines and makes more efficient their charging and convictions.
I want to reiterate that immigration security is national security. I believe that my two amendments will build on the good work that has already been done in this administration to secure the borders and to combat dangerous criminal organizations. Again, I want to thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member today for having us, and I urge inclusion of these two amendments in the rule.
I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you very much. I forgot to mention earlier that we would ask you to, to summarize your statement in five minutes or less, and the whole statement would be entered into the record. And you did great. Mr. Sessions, the former chairman of the committee, is here, recognized.
Pete Sessions
Madam Chairman, thank you very much. Mr. McGovern, good to see you in the committee. It's good to be with you. As a matter of fact, I did spend, Virginia, 20 years up here and enjoyed every single minute. So it's a great opportunity to be back before you.
Today, I lay before the committee what I think is a very important bill. It is actually NDAA amendment number 1102. This amendment is very important. It's what's called the Independent Investment Fund Act. And I come to you today representing a bipartisan caucus that is called the Biotech Caucus, represented by also Chrissy Houlahan and Stephanie Bice.
The interest of this bipartisan caucus is to have America be better positioned in biotech against the leaders around the world that oppose the United States, not only in marketplaces, but in the reliability of their products and what they do. We could specifically say China, and so I could say China and mean that because I do. But what's happened is several years ago, the United States Senate formed what is called an, they formed what is called the National Security Commission on Emerging Technology. And this was the Congress's attempt to begin looking at how important biotech companies are, medicine, the development of IPOs, the development of AI drugs, the development of a whole lot of things that would keep the United States of America and our friends and allies in the lead against others who perhaps would use this biotech area against the best interest of not only consumers, but perhaps United States and our friends. I bring this to you today.
I dropped the bill, we dropped the bill a full year ago, but feel like that today that this independent fund that could be easily added into NDAA would fit very reasonably because the United States of America finds itself on the backside of being able to adapt itself and adjust, including the government, as they learn things about biotech, as they learn things about maybe things that they see in the marketplace. We've been aware of this. The CIA has been through this for a long time, that they needed to know more about the things that they encounter. So this is, very simply put, an opportunity for DOD, which is in this Department of War bill, to be able to deal with the Treasury Department and other agencies, have a fund that would be available to immediately begin the investigation and the bringing together of ideas to support national security issues as they develop. And this is done through this commission, and it would be done with across government.
And I believe that it would be the right thing to do. And so I come to the Rules Committee today to ask for your gracious consideration.
Mike Haridopolos
Madam Chair, ranking member, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify and ask for the committee's support on my bipartisan amendment to the NDAA. The amendment authorizes NASA to conduct a pilot program through 2031, allowing the agency to accept private contributions for infrastructure improvements at NASA's 10 centers.
This is a common sense proposal in my opinion that gives NASA an additional tool to address critical infrastructure needs without costing the taxpayers additional dollars. Rather than appropriate new federal dollars, this authority simply allows private companies to invest their own resources in projects that directly support NASA operations. While this authority would apply across all the 10 centers, it is especially clear in Florida's Kennedy Space Center. As launch activity continues to accelerate, many of the nation's national security missions rely on Kennedy's infrastructure. Heavy launch vehicles routinely damage the roadways used to transport rockets and critical equipment throughout the center, thus delaying the flights and increasing costs.
The companies using these facilities have requested this authority because they are willing to pay for the infrastructure improvements. They understand that repairing damaged roadways quickly means getting the national security mission on track. This bipartisan amendment, Congressman Whitesides and I are working on this together, has the support of NASA leadership, NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman, and provides the fiscal responsibility necessary to meet this growing challenge. I have also been working with Senator Moody on this amendment and it has the support of the commercial industry, the Senate Commerce Committee, and the House Science Committee as well. It is strengthened, it will strengthen infrastructure that supports American civil and national security and space missions while preserving taxpayer needs.
As our global competitors continue investing heavily in space capabilities, America cannot afford unnecessary delays, especially as we look to win the race to the moon. This amendment helps ensure NASA facilities remain ready to support the defense of our nation and America's continued leadership in space. I respectfully request the committee to make this amendment in order and thank you very much for your consideration. And I yield back.
Chrissy Houlahan
Chair and ranking member and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to ask today that several of my amendments be made in order and allowed a vote because they all advance one simple goal, which is keeping America's military ready to fight and win and come back home. Our military is strongest when decisions are driven by evidence, by our professionalism, and by mission and not by politics or ideology. Every amendment that I'm offering today is about protecting our readiness, strengthening accountability, and ensuring that the Department of Defense remains focused on the threats we actually face. First, amendment number 69 protects a simple principle: that military service should be based on whether you can meet a standard, not whether you are a man or a woman.
For years, we have built a force where standards determine qualification and mission determines the assignment, and that has only made us stronger. And we should not throw that away. Secretary Hegseth's effort to impose the so-called highest male standard is not grounded in military necessity. It is driven instead by ideology, and every time that we tell a qualified American who can meet the standard that they cannot serve, we make our military smaller, weaker, and less ready. Second, my amendment number 105 reaffirms religious neutrality at the Department of Defense.
Religious freedom is one of our nation's most fundamental values. Protecting it requires government neutrality. Every service member has the right to practice their faith, or not practice a faith, without pressure from their chain of command. That's not anti-religion, it is indeed the Constitution. This amendment protects every service member's freedom of conscience and strengthens the trust and cohesion that our military depends on.
Third, amendment 200 would fence or stop the implementation of this bill until such time as there is new leadership at the Department of Defense. This is not about politics. It is about doing our jobs and protecting the institution we are entrusted to oversee. Congress has a constitutional responsibility not only to authorize policy, but to ensure that it is carried out faithfully. Secretary Hegseth has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to full and faithfully execute the authorities that Congress entrusts in him.
The greatest threat to our military readiness is leadership that mistakes political loyalty for military excellence. A Secretary of Defense who spends more time fighting culture wars than preparing for real wars is weakening this force that he swore to lead. He has purged experienced military leaders for political reasons, he has pursued ideological crusades inside the Pentagon, he has sidelined military expertise and injected instability into an institution whose very success depends on discipline, on professionalism, and on trust. Congress should not provide a hand-sweeping new authority to a secretary whose own actions have repeatedly undermined confidence in his ability to lead. Oversight is not obstruction, indeed it is our constitutional duty.
If the committee is not willing to adopt a full implementation fence, I urge you at a minimum to require meaningful guardrails or certification before these provisions are taken effect. Fourth, amendment 1193 restores the annual influenza vaccine while preserving medical waivers. Readiness begins, starts and ends with healthy troops. We have already seen the consequences of abandoning long-standing military health policy. Since this policy was enacted, nearly 300 influenza cases have been reported at Lackland Air Force Base alone, and these numbers only continue to grow.
Now the Pentagon is scrambling to create exceptions to their ban on vaccines and workarounds to restore protections it never should have abandoned in the first place. Instead of this confusing patchwork, restore the very straightforward policy that protected our force for decades and ensure that every recruit enters service healthy and ready. And finally my amendment 1336 establishes a commission we already spoke about with my colleague Mr. Sessions of emerging technology. As he mentioned China is not slowing down in AI, in biotech, in autonomous systems or advanced manufacturing and neither should we. Congress needs a bipartisan independent mechanism to identify where we are falling behind, where we need to invest and how we preserve our technological edge before our competitors gain one.
Every amendment, every last amendment that I've proposed here today comes down to one question and one question only: will this NDAA make our military stronger and more ready to fight and win tonight? If it makes our military stronger, we should adopt it. If it advances ideology instead of readiness, we should reject it. I respectfully urge that the committee make these amendments in order, I thank you and I yield back.
Thank the gentlelady, gentlelady yields back, now recognize Mr. Moylan for his time.
James Moylan
Chairman, Ranking Member McGovern and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. While I respectfully ask the committee makes all my amendments in order, I would like just to focus on two during this limited time. Amendment, first amendment 432 and the second 113. Amendment 432 removes language in the bill which would require the War Department to deploy and operate a transportable nuclear microreactor in INDOPACOM by January 1st, 2030. This is a policy the Pacific Islands community has nearly unanimously opposed.
My amendment is co-sponsored by members of Hawaii, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Pacific communities agree we should not assume the risk of testing new technologies before the rest of the country is willing to assume similar risk. Our voices cannot be an afterthought. They need to be included throughout the process. Speaking as Guam's representative, the Guam Power Authority, GPA, must be consulted prior to the new energy policies.
Unfortunately, what we see today is GPA is being directed what to do from thousands of miles away, if not sidelined entirely. I want to thank Congresswoman Tokuda from Hawaii for her partnership on this amendment. She has constantly worked with me on issues of shared concern for Guam and Hawaii, and I know this is an amendment she is uniquely passionate about. As she mentioned during the markup, the status of force agreements in INDOPACOM would mean that microreactors would be deployed on American soil in the Pacific, in other words, one of our islands. I support a strong military, robust supply chains, and national security strategy designed for us to win.
But I have never backed down from my position that the military buildup in Guam must not come at a cost of our island. It must be done right. Policies that deny our people the right to object or properly consider such huge decisions do not happen with us, they happen to us. So I respectfully urge the committee to make this amendment in order and allow the full House to consider the merits of such a proposed program. For the second amendment, I also ask the committee to make 113 in order, which would establish a first-look period for businesses in the Joint Region Marianas area of operations to bid on local contracts.
Too often, defense contracts in Guam and Northern Mariana Islands are snatched by large nationwide contractors who are very good at bidding for contracts but very bad in performing work in the Western Pacific themselves. These companies scrape their profits off the top and subcontract to local businesses. The result is taxpayers are left holding the bag while mainland companies get richer and do little to none of the work. This problem extends even to sometimes as simple as catering. A company better at bidding wins and contract and then simply subcontracts the entire job to a local company.
Talk about broken. Now my amendment takes a simple approach to fix this problem. Let the people actually doing the work get the contract. If we do so, it cuts the middleman, invests directly into local economies and workforce, and cuts bloated contracts. That means more funding for warfighters, improving their quality of life or doing more for less, and strengthening our national security.
I look forward to answering any questions the committee may have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, and now recognize Mr. Stauber for his time.
Pete Stauber
Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ranking Member McGovern. I want to start by thanking the committee for your consideration on my amendment, amendment number 761 to the National Defense Authorization Act. I also want to thank Representative Begich for his support on this amendment. My amendment addresses a concerning reality that is one of the greatest threats to our national security, Communist China's chokehold on our strategic supply chains, including for critical minerals.
Currently, Communist China controls roughly 80% of our critical mineral supply chains. We are net import reliant on China for roughly 31 critical minerals, and the CCP has taken advantage of this reality over the past several years by banning the export of certain minerals to the United States that are used in key defense technologies and our equipment. This is a direct attack on US national security and our defense posture on the world stage. There is no doubt that China will continue to exploit this vulnerability, which would be devastating to America's security across the world. That is why it is critical that we begin to invest in domestic capabilities to unravel ourselves from this dangerous web.
My amendment is simple. It requires the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of War, along with several other agencies, to identify all supply chains in which Communist China maintains a global market share exceeding 50% of global production or processing capacity for the relevant material, component, or product. Further, these entities must develop a plan to diversify each supply chain they identify, which will help inform the United States and our allies as to what steps and what investments we must make to retake control of these supply chains. The reality is that we have offshored critical defense and manufacturing capabilities to unfriendly nations for too long. But it doesn't have to be this way.
America can control its own destiny if we begin to invest in our domestic workforce and industries, including the domestic mining sector. And that includes responsibly developing the vast mineral resources our country is blessed with, including the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota. It's a win-win across the board. We can develop these minerals domestically under the strictest labor and environmental standards, support domestic jobs and our economy, and lessen China's grip on America's national security. And a great first step is by taking full inventory of our supply chain dependence on Communist China and developing an actionable plan to ensure our strategic supply chains and our national security is decoupled from foreign adversarial nations.
I urge the committee to make my amendment in order, and I thank you for your time and I stand for questions.
Redner 71
Chairman yields back. Indications from Ms. Houchin that she has no questions, so I now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. McGovern.
James McGovern
Yeah, I want to thank you all for being here. I hope your amendments are made in order. It's great to see Mr. Sessions again. Ms. Houlihan, I thank you for all of your amendments as well. And again, I hope they're made in order, and I have no questions.
I yield back.
And now recognize Ms. Scanlon, Pennsylvania.
Now recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez.
Teresa Leger Fernandez
Thank you. I just wanted to take a moment to address Representative Moylan's bipartisan amendment. It also has Representative Tokuda. I come from a place where we tested the nuclear bomb, and we tested it in the Pacific Islands. And to mandate, mandate that there be nuclear reactors before we know whether they're safe, before we are willing to do it on our own mainland, I think is wrong.
I think having encouraging it, incentivizing it, those are different things, but to mandate it. So I'm very particularly sensitive because I've been to the Pacific Islands and they've raised this issue. They've suffered the pain. We have a multi-million dollar compensation fund going because we didn't take care before we started doing nuclear testing. So we should not repeat the mistakes of the past.
So thank you very much, Representative Moylan. And Representative Houlihan, you put it precisely correct. Will this make us safer? And refusing to grant promotions, refusing to treat women and Black Americans and others with the same merit and respect does not make us safer. Thank you for bringing that up.
Redner 43
Gentlelady yields back. Joined by Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott has no questions.
Thank the witnesses for being present and thank you for being ready to answer questions. We'll give them time to clear out. Our next panel will be Mr. Luttrell, Ms. Garcia, Mr. McDowell, Mr. Smith, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Goldman. We'll give them a minute to come up and take a seat. Luttrell, Garcia, McDowell, Smith, Turner, Goldman.
Okay. We'll start with Mr. Luttrell.
Morgan Luttrell
Morgan. It's always good to have one Morgan recognize another Morgan. And there's three of us in Congress, oddly enough. I've never met another male Morgan in my entire life until I got here. So it's always been a pleasure to work with you and Mr. McGarvey.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member McGovern, and the rest of the members on the committee for this opportunity to talk about my amendments that I would like to add to the National Defense Authorization Act. First of which is amendment 81 that extends a currently authorized Walter Reed trial studying psychedelic-assisted therapies on traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress through September 2033. And then amendment 714, initiating biomedical outcomes to garner advancements into innovative efficacy. In the better part of 15 years, I would say thousands and thousands of our veterans have been traveling outside of our country for psychedelic-assisted therapies for a myriad of issues, whether it's post-traumatic stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, cognitive emotion instabilities, or addiction, whether that's alcohol or drug-related. And for the past 15 years, we've been begging and pleading with us, ourselves, to support this because currently the studies that are being conducted inside the United States are small in places like Johns Hopkins University and Stanford University.
The state of Texas, the state of Mississippi, and the state of Kentucky, amongst some other states that are trying to pass legislation individually to support these medications, is great. But I often ask myself, why can't we do this? Why isn't the United States government coming in to support our veteran community? And the results that we're seeing in these studies are profound. And this medication, when given under very restrictive guardrails, is absolute.
And you can't argue that. I've gone through the treatment myself. My brother has gone through the treatment. My wife has gone through the treatment. And it's been life-changing.
And these amendments allow the Department of Veterans Affairs with FDA and HHS to start moving the needle forward so we don't have to talk about the 6,000-plus veterans we lose a year to suicide, the 100,000 civilians we lose to suicide because of opioids and SSRI addictions. And I haven't been here in Congress that long, but my research before I showed up says that this is a move that we should absolutely take. So sitting at the table today, I will not drop to a knee and beg and plead with you to do this, but as a veteran myself, I ask us to stop looking around the corner and kicking the can down the road and do something profound for our veteran community. Madam Chairwoman, thank you and happy birthday.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. Luttrell.
I'm sorry you're not going to be staying in Congress. You know that, I feel that way.
Morgan Luttrell
Thank you, yes ma'am, and I don't know if I should say how happy I am that I'm leaving, but I appreciate that.
Virginia Foxx
Ms. Goodlander, would you like to join us since Ms. Garcia had left and she, her name was called? You're taking her place.
Maggie Goodlander
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak on three categories of amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act. To begin, the defense budget for the coming year is expected to be over 1.5 trillion dollars at the top line. Thank you so much. Is that better?
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you, and happy birthday.
Thank you.
Redner 79
My first two amendments really go to the core of how we in Congress must ensure these 1.5 trillion taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly and transparently. That's why I'm supporting amendment 1006, a straightforward amendment that says no funds will be expended from under this authorization to fund the President's war of choice in Iran unless Congress has declared war or authorized that war. We have learned the lessons of recent history when we write a blank check for a war of choice, it has cost us gravely in American lives and in taxpayer dollars. So this common sense amendment will bring power under our Constitution back where it belongs, here in the People's House. I have a separate amendment, amendment 955, that would likewise go to the core of the First Amendment protections that are so urgent for our national security and public safety.
Not a single taxpayer dollar should be used by the Department of Defense to restrict the free and independent press. What we have learned in the last year and a half is that when the leadership of the Pentagon goes to war with the free press, our jobs in Congress become infinitely harder. We need to ensure that the independent press is able to do their important work at the Department of Defense. This goes to the core of oversight and transparency upon which all public trust depends. So I urge this committee to rule these amendments in order and to allow them to be debated on the floor.
I'll just add three more areas where I believe taxpayer dollars must go. The first is to pay our troops, and amendment 1057 would adopt the Pay Our Troops Act into this National Defense Authorization Act. Not a single service member of this country should ever be forced to work without a paycheck, and that is what our bill would correct this wrong and ensure that moving forward our service members are not at the whims of congressional debates, that when they raise their right hand to serve this country, they will be paid for their service. In the middle of an affordability crisis, our men and women in uniform should never be asked to work without a paycheck, and our bipartisan amendment would right this wrong. I'll conclude by urging your support for amendment 327.
This would close gaping loopholes that have prevented our public safety officers, the survivors of fallen officers, and injured officers who have put their lives on the line and been killed or injured in the line of duty. Last year we made some very important steps forward to make sure that the Public Safety Officer Benefit Program operates as it should. This amendment 327 would close loopholes and right wrongs that have stood in the way of our fallen heroes and their family members from receiving the benefits that they have earned.
So I urge your support on that, and I urge all of our colleagues to support the Major Richard Star Act. It is on the floor of the House right now as a discharge petition. It's the most bipartisan bill before the Congress right now, and it would right an important wrong by ensuring that we pay our combat-injured veterans who have been forced to make an outrageous choice between the benefits that they've earned and their retirement pay. This bipartisan bill would right that wrong. We can get it done even before we get the NDAA done, and with that I yield back, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Goodlander. Mr. McDowell, you're recognized.
Ezra McDowell
Thank you, Madam Chair, and happy birthday to you. I have seven amendments that are under consideration to the NDAA, and want to thank the committee for their consideration for each of them, but given the limited time, I'd like to briefly discuss two of my amendments. I'm proud to say that both as standalone bills have bipartisan support. Amendment 758 would add the text of my bill, the Preventing Rogue Equipment for Synthetic Substances Act, or the PRESS Act, to the NDAA. I'm especially proud to have worked closely with the DEA to craft the PRESS Act, which would address an issue that is deeply personal to me.
I lost my younger brother Luke to the fentanyl crisis, and I vowed to do everything that I could to help end this epidemic in our communities. And the PRESS Act targets one of the key tools that foreign drug traffickers rely on to manufacture counterfeit pills: pill press and tableting machines. By stopping the importation of illegal pill press machines, we can disrupt the production of fentanyl-laced narcotics before they ever reach our streets. We must strengthen federal law to target the equipment that the cartels use to mass-produce these deadly counterfeit drugs. This is a national security issue.
Many of these machines are smuggled across our border by our global adversaries. It is like a slow-drip nuclear weapon that is taking out men and women that are 18 to 45, our military-age men and women, at an incredible clip. Fighting this poison, it goes beyond party lines, and we must ensure law enforcement has the tools that they need to stop illicit drug manufacturing and save our lives. The other amendment I'd like to highlight is amendment 745, adding the text of my bill, the Foreign Robocall Elimination Act, to address the flood of foreign scam calls that so many in my district receive. By providing the resources needed to strengthen interagency coordination and build on the TRACED Act, we can better combat illegal robocalls originating overseas.
These bad actors target millions of Americans every month, attempting to steal sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers and banking information through sophisticated scams. I think we can all agree that we don't need foreign robocalls in our lives. With that, Madam Chairman, I thank the committee for their consideration of these amendments, and I yield back.
Redner 80
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'll be very brief. I too have seven amendments. I'll just highlight three very quickly. The first is the Stop Forced Organ Harvesting Act. One of the atrocities that's occurring in this world today, especially in China, is that young people are having their inner organs stolen by the government.
In the case of China, it's 60,000 to 100,000 organs per year, mostly from the Falun Gong and the Uyghurs. But the military is absolutely involved in this in China. There's an estimation that 43 military hospitals are engaged in these illegal transplants. They strap a guy down or a woman, equally divided between male and female, they take out at least two organs per victim.
And if you're in the military and you need an organ, you'll get it from one of the people that is now the subject of a genocide, like the Uyghurs. It's outrageous. The Taliban are involved in all of this and other places around the world. There's definitely a military connection. It passed 406 to 1 last year, and the year before that it passed with a similar margin.
And as Mr. Scott said earlier today, so much of what we do goes over to the Senate and just dies and languishes. This has an opportunity to save a lot of lives. I'll go into detail if you'd like. Then there's the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which we named after Frederick Douglass. That passed in two Congresses back-to-back, never went anywhere in the Senate.
And I would point out that 26 years ago, I authored the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. And when we did it, it's a comprehensive effort to stop sex and labor trafficking. It has made a major difference. But we found when we did the first reauthorization that many militaries are involved, peacekeepers are involved. I went to Goma and then held a series of hearings and did some work to try to stop the UN peacekeepers from raping little children.
So there's definitely a connection for this bill. Finally, the third one is the Stop Support for UNRWA, the UN Relief Works Agency. In the last Congress, I chaired four hearings on UNRWA and antisemitism. Bottom line, they have aided and abetted Hamas like no one else. And many have died.
You know, people say, well, what are you going to do for those who are suffering in Gaza? Well, the administration has made sure that the World Food Programme, for example, got an obligation of $250 million, and there's other obligations as well. We need to get it to a non-antisemitic organization. And again, UNRWA has aided and abetted all of this, all of these crimes for years. Seventy individuals were just fired by UNRWA.
That's a tip of the iceberg. I hope that you'll make that one in order as well. Thank you.
Redner 84
Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Turner, I said I would distribute these notebooks. I would have distributed them.
I'm sorry, I was unaware. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Turner. You're recognized.
Michael Turner
Madam Chair, happy birthday. The books that I just distributed, I distributed because they're part of what my testimony is. That's why we've done that. I apologize. And to whoever's serving as ranking member, members of the Rules Committee, I'm here to testify in support of the amendment number 730 to the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act that would restore the pension benefits of the Delphi salaried retirees.
And I respectfully ask this committee to allow it to be attached to the NDAA. This amendment has the support of the President, the Speaker, and the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. In 2009, as part of the taxpayer-funded GM bankruptcy, more than 20,000 Delphi salaried retirees and employees had their earned health and pension benefits terminated. For many, their pensions were cut dramatically, in some cases by as much with 70%. There is no precedent for what happened.
The government terminated their pensions as part of a TARP government-funded, government-led GM bankruptcy and bailout. The government only terminated their pensions. Everyone else had their pensions restored. Many members of Congress have worked with the Delphi salaried retirees to right this wrong. The Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or SIGTARP, was asked to examine Treasury's decision-making related to Delphi.
The findings were deeply troubling, and that's the binders that you just have. If you go to the first tab in your binder, you'll see that SIGTARP, the IG, reviewed the decision-making and found that there were hearings on this in the Oversight Committee that found that the Delphi salaried retirees were found to have had no political leverage or no leverage.
SIGTARP found that while other workers' pensions were topped up, the Delphi salaried retirees' pensions that had been fully funded prior to the bankruptcy were treated differently because they had no political or bargaining leverage. We highlighted for each of you the the language that was there. This is the heart of the issue. This was not a private pension plan failing on its own. This was the federal government making decisions that picked winners and losers among workers at the same company.
Never before since has the government caused the termination of pension benefits for one group of workers, especially when those pensions were more than funded, simply because those workers lacked political leverage. This is why it's wrong to call a fix for these retirees a pension bailout. It's not a bailout, it's a remedy. It is Congress correcting a wrong caused by government action. There is no precedent for the government doing this.
This is an injustice. After the pension termination, the Delphi salaried retirees pursued every avenue available to them. They went to court but were unsuccessful. Then they turned to the executive branch. In October 2020, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum.
That's item number two in your binders. In that memorandum, he directed the Secretaries of Treasury, Commerce, and Labor to examine what actions could be taken to make these retirees whole. In 2022, the executive branch determined that legislative action would be necessary. That means Congress is now the last and only path for restoration. Most recently, this legislation has also earned the support of the White House and was included in the administration's supplemental appropriations request.
That's number three in your tabs. With bipartisan support in the House, support from members of this committee, and support from President Trump, now is the time to finally right this wrong. This bill has previously passed this House, has been amended to reflect changes to address concerns faced in the Senate. I ask the committee to allow this fix to move forward. I ask you to stand with the workers who kept their promises and deserve to have their promises made to them kept as well.
I also ask you to give these retirees opportunity finally receive the retirement benefits that they earned. These are grandmothers and grandfathers that can't pay their bills where government is the fault, not theirs. Many on this committee have voted for this in the past. Again, President Trump campaigned on this three times. He's asked this committee, he's asked and he has the full support of the Speaker and of the author of this bill for this to be added into this bill.
President Biden also campaigned on this. I ask you to add this to this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Craig Goldman
Thank you, Mr. Turner. Thank you. Mr. Goldman, you're recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy birthday, Ranking Member McGovern, members of the committee. Today I speak in support of my amendment number 1306, which seeks to expand on the successful and bipartisan work of the Abraham Accords. In the FY24 National Defense Authorization Act, Congress took a significant step to establish a special presidential envoy for the Abraham Accords, a Senate-confirmed ambassador-level position focused on expanding and deepening the normalization agreements between Israel and the neighboring states. My straightforward amendment updates the special envoy's mandate to include Central Asia and the South Caucasus states, including Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan.
My amendment doesn't require any new funding. It explicitly requires the envoy to use existing programs and authorizes already on the books. This amendment is about directing diplomatic energy where we are already paying for toward a broader strategic opportunity. I'll also note that this policy has strong bipartisan support. My underlying bill, H.R. 9147, the Abraham Accords Expansion Act, is supported by every co-chair of the bipartisan House Abraham Accords Caucus, including Representative Wagner, Schneider, and Wasserman Schultz.
The Abraham Accords are critical to promoting greater peace in the Middle East.
This amendment gives us the tools to extend that vision further, building directly on a foundation Congress itself created. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Redner 89
Thank you, Mr. Goldman. Does any Republican wish to ask any member of the panel any question? Ms. Houchin, you're recognized.
Erin Houchin
Thank you, Madam Chair. Congressman Luttrell, I wanted to commend you for your amendments and ask you a couple of questions about the potential for the therapies to help us transition away from some of the more costly and long-term medications that we're currently using for drug addiction in America, most notably methadone treatment, and how psychedelics in your experience might be able to be a shorter-term but longer-term, shorter-term solution but a longer-term fix for this issue is question one. And then you mentioned the states are starting to engage in trying to advance psychedelic brain therapies, but that it is important that there are very restrictive guardrails around this use of therapy. And so second question is, wouldn't it make more sense from a federal standpoint, from a safety perspective for the patients who are engaging in the therapies, for the federal government to play a role in setting these guardrails and setting a framework for to make this accessible versus having 50 different ways to do it in the states?
Morgan Luttrell
There's always, yes ma'am, thank you for the question, Ms. Houchin. There's always 50 different problems and 50 different solutions. I think the federal government and the states themselves need to run in parallel with this. I think educated conversations from our brilliant scientists, neuroscientists, clinicians from the state and the federal level can set those guardrails. The countries outside the continental United States have been doing this for a while, and I think conversations with them here and Texas was very open about those conversations, and I think that they're in a really good place.
I would, I hate to say can we get there, I hope so. You know, this place is this place and the states are the states. As far as results when it comes to highly addictive drugs, I'll speak specifically on heroin. There's now longitudinal studies that say treatments with ibogaine, those addicted to heroin, it is an 85% success rate with the first dose of medication and then over a 90% success rate if there's a second dose given, which sometimes is not needed. And that is a single dose.
This isn't a methadone prescription. And the institutes of higher learning and education and the scientists abroad are taking a very hard look at that. And I hope that one day if we can align ourselves in all of the government institutions and states aside to see what this is doing and pay attention to it, that we will, we'll absolutely get to where we need to go. But thank you for the question.
Erin Houchin
Yeah, I really commend you for the work that you're doing on it and talking about your own experience and that of your family in successfully undergoing the treatment. I also would love to see us move away from and really actually help people get their lives back than to just put them on another medication that they have to take long-term. So thank you for your work on this and I'll be supporting your amendments.
Yes ma'am, thank you.
Mr. McGovern.
Erin Houchin
Thank you for being here and hope your amendments are made in order. I yield back.
Nicholas Langworthy
I just want to salute Mr. Turner for bringing forward the cause of the Delphi salaried employees that were so terribly treated in the restructuring of General Motors. I mean many live in my district and this has been a sadly almost a decades long fight now. So thank you for continuing to work for them.
Michael Turner
Thank you so much if I may. The so this comes to you with the president's support to be in this bill. The the president's legislative team has been working with this committee. The speaker supports it being in this bill as does the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And it in the past you have voted for it.
Thank you for your support. Austin Scott is has voted for it and is of course a sponsor of the amendment. The ranking member has voted for it. Leger Fernandez has voted for it. This is this is one of those issues where there is no precedent.
The there has never been a situation where a decision in the White House has solely singled out a group of workers in a company and had their their pensions terminated and taken away their pensions. Thank you.
Redner 26
Thank you Mr. Turner. Thank you Mr. Langworthy. Ms. Scanlon. No questions. Mr. Scott.
Austin Scott
No, I thank you all for coming. Mr. Turner and I have worked together on this issue. There was a battery plant in Fitzgerald, Georgia where the salaried employees lost their pension and I'm certainly supportive of the amendment. And to Mr. Luttrell, I hope this isn't your last meeting before the Rules Committee but I hope it is successful either way. I know a couple of people who have actually left the country to go seek treatment if that's the right word for it and have been very well served by that and with that I yield.
Redner 26
Thank you Mr. Scott. Ms. Leger Fernandez. No questions. Thank you. Mr. Oops, sorry.
Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jackson.
Ronny Jackson
Just want to commend my freshman colleagues Craig Goldman, Ezra McDow for your testimony today. Look forward to supporting. Yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Mr. Turner, are you aware that your amendment has a point of order against it and the Rules Committee does not waive points of order on amendments?
Michael Turner
Yes, we're looking forward to you considering waiving the point of order with the support of the speaker and it being waived and the president having supported it being on this. You have both the ma'am if I may you asked me the question. If you have the you have the author of the bill in front of you, you have the speaker who appoints this committee and you have the president who will be signing the bill all asking for it to be in this bill.
Virginia Foxx
Does anyone else have a comment? The committee stands in recess until immediately following call for the last vote. Thank you all.
The committee will reconvene. Thank you all very much for being so patient. So, Mr. Whitesides, Mr. Carter, Ms. Underwood, Mr. Burlison, and Mr. Mast. And Mr. Mast told me unfortunately he could not come back because he's on the floor. Warrant, Mr. Davidson, join us, please.
Okay.
So, I think you all know the drill. Your full statements will be put into the record, but we ask you to keep your verbal comments to five minutes. I will call you out in order that I called your name before. And the committee looks forward to your comments. Mr. Whitesides.
George Whitesides
Thank you, Madam Chair, and happy birthday. I'm here today to talk about my bipartisan amendment that supports DOD efforts to protect our military installations by tracking changes in conditions of natural resources that may threaten the infrastructure of bases across the country. We saw this at the Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in Southern California when three wildfires burned over 15% of the base, posed a risk to service members and disrupted Marines' ability to operate and train. Wildfires like the one at Pendleton and Vandenberg are a year-round national crisis and a threat to military installations everywhere, including in and around my district. If we can use existing technology to collect better data and identify trends, we can protect more installations from natural disasters like wildfires.
My amendment does not propose a new program. The department is already doing this work through its natural resources program. That program is actively working to preserve military readiness by improving ecological conditions and I applaud these efforts. My amendment encourages the department to enhance this work by simply standardizing their metrics and promoting the use of cutting-edge technologies, which would allow us to work alongside interagency partners and appropriate state agencies to get better, regular, and consistent data on military installations. That information would then be used to identify and address risks that will benefit military installations across the country.
Importantly, this data will also allow the department to demonstrate when conditions on an installation are moving in the right direction, which will allow us to then reward that performance with less paperwork, faster approvals, and more efficient reviews. I urge this committee to support this amendment and include it in the NDAA. Thank you, and I yield back.
Redner 26
Thank you very much, Mr. Whitesides. I said Mr. Carter, but he's not here. Ms. Underwood.
Lauren Underwood
Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member McGovern. I'm grateful for this opportunity to talk about my bipartisan amendment, which is co-led by Congressman Fitzpatrick. The text of our amendment is identical to the NIH IMPROVE Act, which recently passed the Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously. The United States has the highest pregnancy-related death rate of any high-income country, and Black women are dying at the highest rate of all. And the crisis is only getting worse.
Over the past two decades, maternal mortality rates have doubled, more than doubled, and disparities have worsened. What's both frustrating and promising is that over 80% of these deaths are preventable. That's why I have long advocated for focused and robust funding for maternal health research.
This has led to the creation of the Implementing a Maternal Health and Pregnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone, or IMPROVE initiative at NIH. Since 2019, Congress has increased funding for IMPROVE ninefold. IMPROVE has so far invested more than $200 million in life-saving research that will help end our nation's maternal health crisis. Right now, this critical research program lacks a sustained funding source, which threatens its mission to save lives. My bipartisan amendment, the NIH IMPROVE Act, would authorize consistent funding for this existing program for the next six years, providing NIH with the support and resources it needs to understand and address the root causes of America's maternal mortality crisis.
Friends, we have an opportunity today to actually solve a problem. We have a chance to prevent maternal deaths and improve health outcomes for women before, during, and after pregnancy. This legislation is common sense, it's bipartisan, it's part of the Momnibus, and most importantly, it would save lives. If we want to make real strides to end our nation's devastating maternal mortality crisis, we need to pass it now. Thank you again for the opportunity to work together on this urgent issue.
American moms need our help, let's get this done. I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Underwood. Mr. Garamendi, I think we can include you in this panel if you would like to come up. Mr. Burlison, you're recognized.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and happy birthday.
Thank you very much.
Eric Burlison
I'm here to present to this committee for your consideration a bill that is extremely bipartisan, that is amendment 1044.
Is your mic on?
Eric Burlison
It is. I'll try to speak more directly into it. The amendment 1044. The American people deserve nothing less than full transparency on unidentified anomalous phenomenon. Through President Trump's leadership and initiatives such as the Presidential Unsealing and Reporting System for UAP Encounters, otherwise called PURSUE, the President has signaled the era of secrecy must end.
What was once dismissed is now the subject of serious congressional and executive attention. This amendment before us, the Unidentified Anomalous Phenomenon Disclosure Act, is a comprehensive bill that's in the style of the bill that Congress passed, the JFK Records Release Act. It is built upon that framework that will finally bring accountability. Members of this committee, the UAP information belongs to the American people, and transparency is a simple step towards restoring public trust. For too long, records concerning UAPs have been scattered across agencies, shielded by contractors, or lost to time.
The President has changed this, he has championed historic progress toward genuine disclosure, declassification, and transparency. Congress needs to support those measures now. And my amendment does so by strengthening the national collections at the National Archive for one simple reason. We will make the records open source and available for public inspection. This is not optional, it is a direct commitment to it ending fragmented control and giving the American people one clear trustworthy repository.
The amendment before us creates mandatory timelines. Every federal office must identify, organize, and transmit its UAP records within 300 days. No records may be destroyed or altered. Previously disclosed records cannot be reclassified or redacted. This is the kind of decisive action that the American people have demanded, concrete steps that close loopholes and move us from rhetoric to results.
The amendment before us embodies the principle that has been established by this President. It requires agencies to conduct thorough reviews, create identification aids, and transmit records with clear documentation of any postponement. From our investigation that we've already conducted, we have found that meaningful transparency requires us to look beyond our traditional government channels. Significant UAP-related information resides with private contractors, specifically the federally funded research and development centers.
And this disclosure act explicitly includes contractor-held materials and closes the oversight gaps that have frustrated many previous efforts. It, this amendment creates strong safeguards as well. It establishes an independent UAP records review board, a nine-member body appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate with full subpoena power and access to all records and facilities and the authority to conduct hearings. Again, the American people deserve the truth, and with this amendment, we can deliver it, and I urge your support for this amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I welcome your questions.
Warren Davidson
Thank you, Chairwoman and members of the Rules Committee, and happy birthday, Chairwoman. I appreciate the chance to emphasize one amendment I'm offering in particular. It's an amendment 1223. It is also known as H.R. 425, which is titled the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act. It repeals the Corporate Transparency Act, which was enacted in the FY 2021 NDAA in order to combat illicit finance.
But it was written too broadly. It requires millions of Americans to, small business owners to report the beneficial ownership of their companies. And it's sweeping. So this Congress, as chairman of the Subcommittee for National Security and Illicit Finance, we've had extensive hearings on this. The courts have already issued injunctions pausing it because just today the Supreme Court held that a geofencing location for your geolocation data from your phone was too broad.
And so they said you have to get a warrant. This is far broader. The presumption is if you own a business, you must be engaged in illicit finance. So it's had problems in the court, and for that reason, the Trump administration halted the application of the previous administration's rule, and they said we're going to more narrowly apply it to foreign ownership interests. And that's what this does.
The Trump administration codifies that policy so that FinCEN can focus on genuine national security concerns. This was brought into this world through the NDAA, and it's fitting that we bring it out through the NDAA. This bill has 40 cosponsors on the amendment and 193 cosponsors on the act. Massively supported this reform, including from the Trump administration. So along with all the amendments I've offered, I would plead with the Rules Committee to give us a vote on this amendment.
And I yield.
John Garamendi
I need a lot of help. Happy birthday. I've got to cuddle up to the mic. Let's see if I can get this straight. There are several issues that are going to be in the NDAA that are out there.
First of all, the SHIPS Act, which I'm sure Mr. Trent Kelly has brought to your attention. It is a significant national security issue to be able to put that into the National Defense Authorization Act would very significantly strengthen the various elements that are already in it. Beyond that, I want to speak to you about a couple of other things. The Titus has an amendment 40, and that's for nuclear testing. There's been increasing discussion that we really need to light up some nukes and let them explode so that we understand all of the ins and outs of it.
Redner 90
Not necessary and really a very, very bad thing for us to do. Therefore, the Titus amendment 40. And I would also bring to your attention Deluzio's amendment 634. He and I dealing with stock buybacks. This lines up with President Trump's executive order about the defense industry spending a good deal of its money buying back stocks rather than investing in plant equipment and personnel.
Also in the NDAA, there's one of my amendments, 975, dealing with the National Nuclear Security Agency and the cost overruns. This moves it closer to the method that we presently have within the defense industry when there're cost overruns. It sets up a special system to review why that's happening. This would go almost as far, but not quite as far as that system. And finally, amendment 1351, which would prohibit the NDAA funds to reconstruct or to use in any way the demolition and the eventual ballroom on the east wing of the White House.
There's some talk that the president's looking for ways to pay for it. We think that the use of military funding for that is inappropriate. So those are the amendments I wanted to bring to your attention: the NNSA cost overruns, the NDAA prohibition on funds for the east wing ballroom, the Ships Act, and the nuclear testing. And finally, defense contractor stock buybacks. I find myself in alignment with Trump, which is an uncomfortable position, but it is the right position.
So with that, thank you for your time.
Ralph Norman
Well, Mr. Davidson, on identifying the ownership of companies, foreign companies, is this what your bill, what your amendment does?
Redner 97
Well, that's what the president's executive order does. And so the Corporate Transparency Act, we had a case where someone said, "I'm the president of a homeowners association and they're telling me I've got to fill out this form and comply with this reporting rule," which is overly broad. And so this eliminates the overly broad application of the Corporate Transparency Act from the Biden administration, so then what would remain is the president's executive order.
Ralph Norman
Okay. Now, once it, what are the consequences? Let me give you an example of TikTok. That was the, that was the hot rage a while back. It had foreign ownership.
Some, magically it disappeared. They were supposed to sell it, get a new board of directors. No consequences. Once in your, your amendment, and I get it's an executive order, what happens when you identify foreign actors? Is it like TikTok, it just goes away?
Redner 99
No, this is, this goes back to years ago, the FinCEN, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, came out with a customer due diligence rule. You know, banks basically spy on their customers and for that they get to be banks. If they don't, they don't get to stay banks, right? And so one of the things that they have is know-your-customer rules. And they were directed by FinCEN in a rulemaking process to be able to disclose to the government upon request without a warrant who are the beneficial owners of this corporation.
So if Acme Corporation is there, they said, "Well, you've got to, you've got to disclose who would be the beneficial owners."
They had drafted that rule in such a broad way that it said not even a defined percentage of the company, it was anyone who exerts significant influence over the company. I'm like, so, you know, if an author of a book was guiding the business model and the people that run the business never met him, is he a beneficial owner under that? That's how ridiculous it was. Well, Democrats had a long-standing kind of coalition around disclosing the beneficial owners regardless of privacy concerns, and so they passed this bill that would make every business disclose it. Well, the Chamber of Commerce didn't like that, and the banks wanted the monkey off their back.
So they said, well, if the business has 20 or fewer employees, well, then we'll assume that those are the kind of shell companies that launder money.
Yeah, Warren, that whole bill was accounting-wise. So this is what this is, it's just that. It's like if you look at who's the beneficial owner of IBM, they're publicly traded, you would know. If you want to look at who's the beneficial owner of, you know, a privately held business, it's harder to know, but not impossible, you get a warrant. They want to be able to do it without getting a warrant, and that's problematic for the courts, but they don't even want to do it to all businesses, they just want to do it if you're small.
And that's where the National Federation of Independent Businesses has pushed this to say, look, you're really targeting our members, the smallest, least sophisticated businesses. You're talking like plumbers, painters, HVAC companies. That's who they're targeting with this.
Ralph Norman
Yeah, that was off the charts. You couldn't pay the accounting bill to get the material to do that. So bottom line is yours as far as the consequences.
Redner 99
It gets rid of that burden, and right now, if they don't comply, you could go to jail and be fined up to $10,000 for not filling out this form with FinCEN, which is an agency most people don't even know exists. Yeah, okay. And there's other lower burdens to be able to comply with the government's interest in knowing who the beneficial ownerships of companies are, and all those things have been proposed. And so this just gets back to what started out as an executive agency rulemaking to where the president and his executive order would be the effective order and we'd nullify this burdensome approach.
Okay. I yield back. No further questions.
James McGovern
Thank you for your thoughtful amendments. I hope they're made in order. And Madam Chair, I want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from Representative Kaptur in support of amendment 1065 to H.R. 8800. And I also want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from Representative Cohen in support of amendments 199, 231 to H.R. 8800.
Virginia Foxx
Without objection. And I will ask unanimous consent to submit written statements from Representative Baird, Representative Weber, Representative Hill, Representative Kiggans, Representative Cline, Representative Mast. Ms. Scanlon.
Mary Gay Scanlon
I just want to thank everyone for their testimony, in particular Representative Underwood, who has been such a champion on the issue of maternal mortality and doing what we need to do to get the U.S. rate of maternal mortality down. It's an absolute crime that it's three to four times as greater than the rest of the developed world. So we really appreciate your continued work. Thank you. I yield back.
Redner 26
Just a second. Mr. Griffith, do you have any questions? No questions. Mr. Garamendi.
Redner 90
A question if I might. Mr. Perry introduced an amendment dealing with the appropriation for the State Department.
And among those, he eliminated the soft power organizations like the Peace Corps, Millennium Challenge, and so forth. It's not clear if that amendment passed this committee, if it's on the floor, if where it is. If it is still before this committee, I would be happy to speak to it. If it is not, then we'll let it go.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you. Anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting and you all are allowed to leave. Oh, sorry buddy, we just closed. If you'll give me your statement, I'll put it in the record.
Without objection, I'd like to enter comments from Mr. Carter into the record.
How late was I?
About three minutes, two minutes.
Well, thank you anyway. You missed a great one.
Without objection, the committee stands in recess.
Redner 100
The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
Austin Scott
Madam Chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027, 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 Armed Services or their respective designees. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-33 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 makes in order only those amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, amendments in block described in section 3, and pro forma amendments described in section 4. 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 4 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 amendment printed in part A of the Rules Committee report or amendments in block described in section 3 of the rule. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee may offer amendments in block consisting of further amendments printed in part A of the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 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 Armed Services 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 in block described in section 8, and pro forma amendments described in section 9. 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 9 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 amendment printed in part B of the Rules Committee report or amendments in block described in section 8 of the rule.
The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee may offer amendments in block consisting of amendments printed in part B of the Rules Committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block 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 9 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. 8884, the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-34 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 Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H. Res. 1383, commemorating the one-year anniversary of the enactment of the Working Families Tax Cuts, under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider H. Res. 1383.
The rule provides that the amendment to the preamble printed in part C of the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted and H. Res. 1383, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The rule further provides that H. Res. 1377 shall be laid on the table. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 8800, the clerk shall add the text of S. 1383 as passed by the House as new matter at the end of H.R. 8800, assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment, conform cross-references and provisions for short titles within the engrossment, and be authorized to make technical corrections to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, page and line numbering, section numbering, and insertion of appropriate headings.
Virginia Foxx
You've heard the recommendation from the gentleman from Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?
James McGovern
Yes, Madam Chair. First of all, I just want to set the record straight about this rule. In this rule, House Republicans blocked over 1,000 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. This rule blocks over three-quarters of amendments. Over 90% of Democratic amendments were blocked.
More than eight in 10 bipartisan amendments were blocked. Even members of the majority have a bad deal here. Nearly 60% of Republican amendments are being blocked. So that's what this rule is about. But I do have an amendment, Madam Chair.
I move that the committee strike section 14 of the rule, which provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 8800, the clerk shall add the text of the SAVE America Act as passed by the House. Madam Chair, it looks like the reason we had a recess and come back here is this section, which connects the SAVE Act to the NDAA before sending it to the Senate. Well, let's be clear. Let's be honest here. I think that the SAVE Act is an awful, awful, terrible bill.
It's not about election security. It's about relitigating Donald Trump's loss in 2020. His feelings were hurt. So he had a meltdown. You guys keep saying we need this bill because our elections are not secure.
Trump says the 2020 election was rigged. Many of you in this room won your elections in 2020. You were elected in that election. Was your election rigged? I mean, the SAVE Act is just insane and you know it.
Enough already. I mean, Trump won in 2024. Was that election rigged?
I mean, I couldn't believe that people voted for him, so maybe it was rigged under his, under his mindset. And I also want to speak directly to Congresswoman Luna and anyone who thinks that this scheme has accomplished anything. It has not. It's just been a big waste of time. So let me be clear, the Senate will just strip the SAVE Act out.
They've already said that. Merging it with the NDAA bill doesn't prevent that. Nothing in this rule will prevent that. Hell, Leader Thune four days ago already filed cloture on the Senate's own version of the NDAA, and their version does not include the SAVE Act. There is a zero percent chance SAVE ends up in the NDAA because of this rule today.
You know, so this is a cover-your-behind maneuver, if you will. And to my Republican colleagues who want this NDAA to advance, you should also reject this rule because all you're doing by supporting this shell game is giving false hope to those like Representative Luna who think that this will do something down the line. It will not make a difference at all. And with that, I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Aye. Those opposed say no.
Virginia Foxx
No. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. The amendment's not agreed to.
Mrs. Fischbach.
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.
Ms. Leger Fernandez aye. Madam Chair.
Madam Chair no.
The clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, seven nos.
Redner 107
The nos have it, the amendment's not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion?
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order an amendment to H.R. 8800 consisting of the text of Chairwoman Foxx's amendment 512 to the FY 2023 NDAA as adopted on the floor with appropriate conforming changes to create an Inspector General for the Office of Management and Budget to bring transparency and accountability to the agency. Last week I asked my Republican colleagues what they would do to stop the Trump administration and his Office of Management and Budget from illegally transferring taxpayer funds that Congress appropriated for the Secret Service into a separate account in order to make security upgrades as part of the ballroom construction project. Republicans could not give me an answer. Well, I have an idea, and I would expect that my Republican colleagues should support, would support this idea.
In 2022, Chairwoman Foxx submitted an amendment to the NDAA to create an Inspector General at the Office of Management and Budget. Her amendment was made in order and subsequently passed on the House floor with both myself and Chairwoman Foxx voting for it. Unfortunately, her thoughtful proposal never became law. But let's not give up hope on her birthday. Let's help her, you know, let's give her a gift.
And I believe that a strong majority in the House would support this amendment. It was a good idea then, it's a good idea now, and I urge a yes vote on my motion to ensure that Chairwoman Foxx's proposal gets an up or down vote on the floor, and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
The amendment proposed is completely outside the jurisdiction of the House Armed Services Committee and lacks an appropriate nexus to the Department of War. This amendment process is consistent with those of the last three defense authorizations. Any amendment made in order should be tightly wound to our national security and the appropriate jurisdiction in the House. Clever try.
Redner 106
Well, but didn't you offer it to the NDAA in the past and it was made in order?
Redner 104
Well, I mean, I look at how nice we are. I think it's a good idea. Let's I urge a yes vote.
Nice job, McGovern.
I'm so I I urge a yes vote.
Redner 105
Is there further discussion on the amendment? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No.
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
I ask for a roll call.
Redner 103
Mrs. Fischbach. No. Mrs. Fischbach no, Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Norman no, Mr. Roy.
Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Langworthy no, Mr. Scott. No.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack. No. Mr. Jack no, Mr. McGovern.
Aye. Mr. McGovern 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.
Clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, seven nays.
The noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
Redner 107
I I have another amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a new section to the rule providing immediate consideration of H.R. 7120, the Bipartisan Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act introduced by Representatives Scott and Panetta under a closed rule, debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. This bill would modify certain rules under the Social Security Disability Insurance program to help combat disabled Purple Heart veterans who want to return to work. My Republican colleagues have pointed to the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act as an example of what could be tested if we reauthorize the Social Security Disability Insurance demonstration authority. But if both Democrats and Republicans support this specific proposal to help Purple Heart veterans, why aren't my Republican colleagues putting it in their bill or putting on the floor for a vote?
And I urge a yes vote on this motion to ensure that Rep. Scott's proposal to help veterans in SSDI get the up or down vote it deserves. Appreciate his leadership and I yield back.
Austin Scott
Yes ma'am, Madam Chair. I appreciate I appreciate the newfound support of the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act now that we have language that would that would actually accomplish this that is a little different from the language that's written in my language that that I'm happy to have you cosponsor and perhaps we can pass it too. But this this language is what we were able to get through the Ways and Means Committee. And as I said before, when the Democrats were in charge of the Ways and Means Committee, I was unable to move the legislation. When the Republicans have been in charge, I was able to move some legislation and and I feel very good about the the language that we have today.
But I'm happy to come back again with the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. As I said, it's been a passion of mine for many, many years and I'm I'm glad that we're having the discussion about it and hope hope maybe it maybe it can move through Ways and Means as well.
James McGovern
Well, I'm happy to work with it, but there's nothing in the bill that mentions Purple Heart veterans that that's and again, we're not Ways and Means, we're the Rules Committee. So we can amend things and add things and and I think this would be a nice thing to add and, you know, I'm trying to have your back. I'm trying to have Chair Foxx's back, I'm trying to have your back too and I mean.
Yeah, with a knife or an axe or what?
Redner 117
Friendly support. How do you want it in I mean, I know you don't like guns, Jim, so I'm assuming it's a knife, that's probably correct.
Austin Scott
But it's a look, I mean, what what I would ask that you do is is that you support you, you know, when when I I if you support 8884 when it comes across, help me get the Dems in the Senate to support it and we'll get Purple Heart Freedom to Work, you know, the concept of it signed signed by the president. Purple Heart Day is August 7th or 8th, 7th I believe, that'd be a wonderful day for the president to sign it.
Redner 14
Hopefully you can join us at the White House with President Trump, your President of the United States.
Austin Scott
You already agreed to co-sponsor my bill, but I'm, look, I appreciate your support for my legislation. I do, you know, this 8884 is going to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish with the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield.
Virginia Foxx
Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed say no.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach no, Mr. Norman.
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.
Madam Chair no.
Four ayes, seven nays.
Redner 107
The noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia.
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 1351 to H.R. 8800 offered by Representative Garamendi, which prohibits the use of funds for the East Wing modernization project. I have another amendment. Okay. Yeah, okay.
Madam Chair, for months the President swore his grand ballroom was going to be built with only private money, no taxpayer dollars. Well, then he tried to sneak a billion dollars into the most recent reconciliation bill. Reports are that he's still trying to use taxpayer dollars for his gaudy ballroom vanity project, all while Americans struggle to afford gas and groceries. The Congress has the power of the purse. We decide how taxpayer money is spent.
We should vote to ensure that taxpayer money does not go to this project and the President funds it with private money like he said he would do so from the very beginning. I urge a yes vote and I yield back.
Those opposed say no.
Virginia Foxx
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.
Ask for a roll.
Mrs. Fischbach.
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, seven nays.
Redner 107
The amendment is not agreed, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to.
Madam Chair.
Mr. McGovern.
Redner 107
I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 961 to H.R. 8800 offered by myself, which restricts certain security assistance to Pakistan unless the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that the government of Pakistan has taken measures to prevent human rights violations. Madam Chair, in Pakistan the military has always loomed over the shoulder of civilian institutions.
Last week, a court sentenced Dr. Mahrang Baloch to life in prison. Dr. Baloch is a 33-year-old physician and the leader of a peaceful civil rights movement demanding an end to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Her trial was held inside a prison. Her lawyers didn't know who the judge was, who the witnesses were, or where the proceedings were taking place. This is not an isolated case.
In January of this year, human rights lawyer Imaan Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chatha were violently dragged from their car by police and sentenced to 17 years in prison for tweets criticizing the military's role in enforced disappearances. And behind these names are thousands more: Baloch activists, opposition party workers, journalists, lawyers, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan, and his wife Bushra Bibi, all rotting in Pakistani jails without any due process. US assistance should not be given unconditionally. We uphold American values and credibility when we insist that security cooperation aligns with the rights for fundamental freedoms and human rights. Amendment 691 would require the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, to certify that Pakistan is actively taking steps to prevent human rights abuses before its military may receive US security assistance.
Accountability strengthens, not undermines, our partnership. And again, I don't understand why we can't even have a vote on this, but I urge a yes vote and I yield back my time.
Virginia Foxx
Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed say 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, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach no, Mr. Norman.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack.
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.
The clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, seven nays.
The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion?
Redner 107
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 511 to H.R. 8800 offered by Representative Moulton, which reduces the total amount authorized to be appropriated for the FY 27 NDAA by 150 billion dollars. No reductions may be made to military personnel accounts, MILCON, or the defense health program. Madam Chair, the Department of Defense needs to become more innovative and efficient in terms of developing capabilities to meet our national security needs in a more cost-effective manner. That's what this amendment is about.
I urge a yes vote and I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
All those opposed say no.
Redner 26
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to.
I ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mr. Scott no, Mr. Griffith.
Mr. Griffith no, Mr. Jack.
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, seven nays.
The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion?
Redner 107
Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 1006 to H.R. 8800 offered by Representative Ryan, which prohibits the use of FY 2027 DOD funds for military action in or against Iran unless explicitly authorized by Congress. Madam Chair, both chambers of Congress have now voted to end President Trump's illegal war in Iran. It's cost billions of dollars and 13 American lives. Another dollar should not go to this illegal war unless and until it is explicitly authorized by Congress.
We ought to bring this to the floor and debate it, and I urge a yes vote.
Virginia Foxx
Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Mr. McGovern? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it.
The amendment's not agreed to.
I ask for a roll call.
Redner 103
Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy.
Mrs. Houchin. 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, seven nays.
James McGovern
The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion or amendments?
Redner 107
Madam Chair, I know that there's a few other amendments here, but I just have one final one that I want to offer, and that's an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment number 974 to H.R. 8800 offered by myself, which prohibits the use of Department of Defense funds to transport individuals to countries in which they would be at risk of being subjected to torture. Madam Chair, in February of 2025, Secretary of State Rubio condemned Thailand's forced return of at least 40 Uyghurs to China, where they could face persecution, forced labor, and torture and death. And he was right to do so. Secretary Rubio cited Thailand's obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, which prohibits the deportation or extradition of a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
The United States is also a party to the Torture Convention, which along with Section 241 of the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits the US from deporting people to a country where they might be tortured. We have deported individuals to China, Russia, Iran, and other places with a record of torture. It's shameful. It is illegal under our law. My amendment is simple.
It simply reaffirms this law of the land. Let us not be like China. Let us be better than China. Let us abide by the law. Let us not abet torture.
I urge a yes vote and I yield back.
Redner 26
Is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos have it.
The amendment's not agreed to.
The clerk will call the roll.
Redner 103
Mrs. Fischbach. Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy.
Mrs. Houchin. Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, no.
Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. Mr. Jack, no.
Redner 125
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.
Clerk will report the total. Four ayes, seven nays. And the amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendments? Ms. Scanlon.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Yes, thank you. I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee make in order amendment 1196 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative Brownley, which ensures access to abortion care, abortion counseling, and related services and medication for veterans. Our veterans rely on the VA for the healthcare they earned through their service to our country, but the Trump administration has reversed long-standing policy in eliminating access to abortion care, counseling, and related medications through the VA, even in cases of rape or incest. Women are the fastest-growing population of veterans, and hundreds of thousands of women rely on the VA for their healthcare.
Veterans answered our nation's call to service. They shouldn't have to fight their own government for access to medically necessary legal care when they return home. This amendment would restore access to abortion services, abortion counseling, and related medications through the VA, ensuring that veterans can receive the comprehensive, medically appropriate care they've earned, free from partisan political interference. Our obligation to veterans does not end when they complete their service. I urge a yes vote on this amendment, and I yield back.
Redner 103
Is there further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Scanlon? 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 noes have it. Madam Chair, I'd request the recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. 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. 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. Clerk will report the total.
Four ayes, eight nays. And the amendment is not agreed to. The noes have it. Further discussion, Ms. Scanlon.
Mary Gay Scanlon
Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I have another amendment to the rule involving veteran benefits. I move the committee make in order amendment number 947 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative Bilirakis, which would add the Major Richard Star Act to the bill. As we know from last week's debate, this bill is a priority for our veterans groups, and it has 330 cosponsors, so it should be an easy passage here. This bill would allow combat-injured veterans with fewer than 20 years of service to receive their full DOD retirement and disability pay so that combat-injured veterans are not penalized for being seriously injured while in combat.
So I think this is something we owe to our veterans. It's very popular with the veteran community, and I would urge a yes vote. I yield back.
Virginia Foxx
Thank you, Ms. Scanlon. This amendment, the amendment proposed by this motion, retains a point of order against it. As the minority is aware, this committee has not made in order amendments that are exposed to a point of order. This has been true under both Democrat and Republican majorities. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Redner 26
Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Ms. Scanlon requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fischbach.
Mrs. Fischbach no. Mr. Norman.
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.
Clerk will report the total.
Virginia Foxx
The amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion? Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.
No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Those opposed say no. The motion is agreed to.
We ask for a roll call, Madam Chair.
Certainly. Clerk will call the roll.
Mrs. Fischbach.
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.
Madam Chair aye.
Clerk will report the total.
Virginia Foxx
The ayes have it. The rule will be handled for the majority by Mr. Scott.
And by me.
Virginia Foxx
And by Mr. McGovern for the minority. Without objection, the committee is adjourned.