Fiscal Year 2027 Defense Bill
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsKen Calvert
We all know as proud members of the Appropriations Committee that mandatory funding is provided through a separate reconciliation process that is uncertain and unaligned with the annual appropriations cycle, outside the jurisdiction of this committee. Rather than using the reconciliation process as a tool to scale up and accelerate investments beyond the base budget, the mandatory request includes funding for several critical efforts such as munitions, which should have been built into the base discretionary request. The two legislative vehicles are on entirely separate tracks, with different timelines, committees of jurisdiction, and approval processes. This approach is risky and uncoordinated. This bill also fully funds military personnel requirements, including the proposed service members' pay raise and over 43 billion for military health program.
In addition, it provides over 25 billion in investments supported by the president's Golden Dome for America initiative, over 30 billion for depot maintenance efforts, 20 billion for facility sustainment, restoration, and modernization, over 4 billion for defense security cooperation efforts, and 1.2 billion for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities. Finally, I'd like to end my remarks on a note of sincere thanks to the staff. I would like to thank Ben Walters and Mary O'Brien with the Government Publishing Office, along with the entire team with GPO who's helped edit and format throughout the process and assisted in producing the searchable report for the first time. I would also like to thank Andrea Coneen and the team from the Congressional Budget Office. I'd also like to thank Brendan Gallagher and the team with the House Office of Legislative Counsel, and also like to thank Eric Jackson for his support throughout.
Also want to especially thank the subcommittee majority staff starting with our clerk, Adam Sullivan, along with Colleen, Dan, Adam, Kyle, Carrie Lynn, Max, Gina, Keaton, Jackie, Ariana, and Taylor, and my personal office team of Rebecca, Danny, Will, and Jeremy. And lastly, my thanks once again to my partner on this bill, ranking member Ms. McCollum, and her staff, Jennifer, Ed, and Jason. Their hard work has provided a bill that I think we should all be proud to support. This bill invests wisely to meet the obligations to the warfighter, keep this nation safe from ever-growing threats. In all, this bill meets the nation's most pressing national security imperatives, reflects dedicated stewardship of taxpayer funds, and will help ensure that the United States is prepared to meet the challenges of the next 250 years with strength and security.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 3
I thank gentlemen. I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, for remarks on the bill.
Betty McCollum
Thank you very much, Chairman Cole. I want to start again just echoing what the chair just said.
I want to thank the majority and minority staff. I want to thank Jennifer, Jason, and Ed on the minority side, Taylor, Carrie, Lynn, Gina, Colleen, Max, Ariana, Jack, Daniel, Adams, we have two Adams, Adams squared. And I'd also like to thank my personal staff, Ben Peterson, and my military fellow from the United States Army, Robbie, for his work on this. Each year, they are given a tremendous task, our staff, to put forth a challenging bill, and this year was no different. Fiscal year 2027, the Defense Appropriation Act totals $1.072 trillion.
It's an unprecedented top line, equal to the president's request. Now I'll address some of the concerns I have with the bill shortly. But first I'd like to say, Chairman Calvert, I thank you. I thank you for writing this bill that as of now only includes one partisan rider that the minority objects to, and I object to that basically on germanness reasons, it doesn't belong in the bill. And we on the Democratic side, but I think every single one of us in the committee should applaud the chairman's decision and the staff's decision to do this.
Because at the end of this day, and the end of every day, we want a bill that takes care of our warfighters to do their missions, to do them swiftly, successfully, and come home to their families. And we want to also support the civilian employees who serve alongside of them. I want to also to applaud the chairman's decision to reduce the department's general transfer authority from $6 billion to three. If the department and OMB have less leeway to move money around, they will be more inclined to provide us with the information that we need to conduct our oversight. That's our responsibility under the Constitution.
The majority has also worked to include a broad range of priorities that are important for many members in their constituents, and I thank the chairman for working with us in such a bipartisan fashion. But that's why I also have to say that I'm disappointed that I'm unable to support this bill as it's written today. The bill provides the Department of Defense over $1 trillion, an unprecedented top line, and that comes at the cost of deep cuts to other appropriations bills. For example, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill was cut by $19 billion, a 9% reduction. The education and workforce programs were deeply impacted by these cuts.
And that includes an $8 billion cut to the Department of Education and a $2 billion cut to teacher training opportunities. I've said this before, cuts to education will have a negative downstream impact on our national security. Engineering, math, science, cyber, computing programs, they will all be impacted by these cuts. These cuts undermine our future national security workforce, and the programs that we fund in the defense bill will suffer because of that. The majority also cut the State Department funding bill a shocking 22% from last year's level.
That would diminish diplomatic and development efforts around the world, at the same time threats to America are growing. Over $1 trillion in the defense bill is not going to keep Americans safer if we've mortgaged our children's future and our strategic diplomacy efforts to pay for it. Regarding the funding in this bill, there are several areas where I believe funding could be reduced or redirected. First, $705 million for the National Guard mobilization unit in Washington, D.C. The operations has not reduced violent crime in Washington as the president claims.
The only thing it has reduced is the readiness of these soldiers. They've lost valuable training and exercise time that's necessary for them to be ready for the conflict with a peer adversary. Second, the bill includes $216 million for the National Guard reduction force. The National Guard does not need new funding to develop law enforcement capabilities that are outside the scope of its jurisdiction. That's simply not the military's job.
Congress has rejected similar ideas during the previous administration after the January 6th insurrection. The US government has plenty of first responders, federal, state, and local, trained to handle criminal activity. Third, $1 billion in advanced procurement for a so-called battleship that has not even been designed yet. Reportedly, one ship could cost upwards towards $17 billion. I wanted to make sure I got that right, one ship, $17 billion.
The subcommittee has spent years working to get shipbuilding back on track. The industrial base still has challenges such as a backlog of 17 Virginia-class submarines or the recent cancellation of the Constellation-class frigate. We should not spend money on ships and boats that have not been designed, in this case, ships that have not even been designed yet. It's simply financially irresponsible. Fourth, I'm disappointed that the funding for Ukraine was not included in this bill, particularly because the House just took a bipartisan vote in favor of continued assistance for Ukraine last month.
Failing to include Ukraine sends the wrong signal to both Ukraine and to our European allies, especially as the president continues to reduce the military presence in Europe. I'm also concerned about these troop reductions. President Trump is giving Putin the impression that the US will not stand with our NATO allies in the event of future Russian aggression in Europe. America's national security has always been tied to Europe and NATO has been the cornerstone of peace for almost 80 years. We need only to look to the Arctic to see the threats on our own borders and to secure them we will need to work with our NATO allies.
So, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can restore this funding. And finally, I am concerned that the bill includes a new provision which indiscriminately cuts $1 billion with no congressional direction. We have seen this administration use a full-year CR and mandatory money in the reconciliation bill for the Department of Defense to circumvent congressional direction. So why would we want to give permission for the department to take more discretionary cuts? If we provide them with this authority, we simply have no idea how they will use it.
And separate from the base bill, I have real concerns about the administration's request for defense funding outside the annual appropriations process. First, we've been hearing rumors for months of a supplemental to cover the costs of the large-scale military operations around the world. SOUTHCOM operations, Operation Southern Spear, cost $600 million. In CENTCOM, President Trump's disastrous war in Iran has cost taxpayers over $31 billion. Neither of these operations have concluded or have been authorized by Congress.
We don't know when they will end and nor do we know what the full cost will be. If the administration will request a supplemental, we need to see it as soon as possible and not in the press. We must have full and detailed accounting of these operational costs. Only then will we be informed enough to determine what additional funds the department requires. Second, the reconciliation process, as the chair pointed out and I agree with him totally, is the wrong way to fund the Department of Defense and we all know that here in this room.
I'm deeply concerned that the president's proposal for a $350 billion mandatory funding for defense will have no appropriations input on the enactment.
And that's not the right way to fund the Department of Defense because it took the department 10 months to explain to Congress how they were going to spend the $150 billion in mandatory funding they received last year. It's unacceptable and I have no confidence in the department will do a better job responding to us in the future. There's also no guarantee that a reconciliation bill will pass. If it does not pass, it will be nearly impossible to fix what's called the broken glass that could occur by forcing these priorities into the base budget. When the department makes mandatory funding requests and the authorizers fail to include it, the DOD looks to the appropriations process to solve their problems.
And that means we must reopen the bill in conference and then, yes, make cuts. That will put this committee in a very difficult situation. But Mr. Chairman, I am confident, I am more than hopeful that we will have an opportunity to resolve these issues as the process moves forward. And I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, you personally have my commitment to do that in a bipartisan way for the defense of our nation. As I said, I cannot support the bill as written, but I look forward to working with you to improve the bill and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks, gentle lady, for her remarks. And now recognize myself for remarks on the bill. I want to start by thanking Chairman Calvert for his leadership on this legislation and for his unwavering commitment to America's national defense. I also thank Ranking Member McCollum for her partnership throughout this process, as well as Ranking Member DeLauro for her continued engagement and leadership on the full committee. Before I focus on the defense bill before us, I want to take a moment to recognize what today's markup represents.
This is our 12th and final fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill before the full committee. Reaching this point required long hours, thoughtful deliberation, and a tremendous amount of work from committee members and staff. It is an accomplishment we should all be proud of. And it's fitting that our final markup focuses on national defense. For there's no higher responsibility of the federal government than safeguarding our nation and the American people.
There's no denying that our defenders are the greatest force for good and freedom the world has ever seen. History has shown that time and time again. It's also revealed that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Yet I would argue that vigilance without preparedness is merely observation. True deterrence requires strength, readiness, and a military capable of meeting any challenge.
And deterrence, of course, is not self-sustained. It must be renewed, strengthened, and funded. The threat environment before us reiterates that point. The warning signs are visible in every region of the world. Iran remains, reminds us that threats must be met with strength.
And China, Russia, and other bad actors are not standing idle. They're building armies, expanding arsenals, strengthening industrial capacity, and pursuing strategic advantages at a relentless pace. Their aim is not merely to compete with the United States. It is to eclipse us where they can, challenge us where they must, and constrain our ability to lead. This bill reflects the strategic crossroads at which we find ourselves today.
It prioritizes the historic and necessary resources to rebuild readiness, modernize aging capabilities, and strengthen the deterrent power that has preserved American security for generations. The choice before us is not between spending and saving. It's between preparing for the threats of tomorrow or paying a far greater price later. This legislation chooses preparedness. It chooses strength.
And it chooses to ensure that the United States remains the world's preeminent military power. The need for these investments is not theoretical. Much of the equipment that underpins our defense today was designed decades ago for a different era and a different threat environment. The average Air Force aircraft is now more than 30 years old. Some of our B-52 bombers are projected to remain in service for nearly a century.
A large portion of the Navy's fleet is approaching or has surpassed two decades of service, even as demands on our maritime forces continue to grow. Our service members should not be asked to deter and defend 21st century threats with 20th century capabilities. President Trump recognizes this point, and so do House Republicans. The truth is that in some areas, we are no longer preserving an unquestioned advantage. We are working to regain one.
This bill helps close those gaps. The bill modernizes our force through investments in next-generation aircraft, hypersonic weapons, autonomous systems, missile defense, cyber capabilities, and the technologies that will define the future battlefield. It also strengthens our shipbuilding and submarine industrial base, accelerates innovation, expands munitions production, and reinforces the supply chains necessary to sustain military readiness during a prolonged conflict. I am particularly pleased with investments in the E-7 Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft, which will help replace the aging E-3 AWACS fleet at Tinker Air Force Base in my district in Oklahoma. Just as importantly, this bill invests in the men and women who volunteer to wear our nation's uniform.
It provides a pay raise for our troops, strengthens support for military health, and ensures our warfighters remain the best-trained, best-equipped, and best-supported fighting force on earth. The world is becoming more dangerous, not less. The answer cannot be to hope that our adversaries slow down. The answer is to ensure America remains unquestionably capable of outmatching them. This legislation ensures sustained, stable funding that advances that critical objective.
I thank Chairman Calvert for crafting a bill that will help ensure America never finishes second in a fight, and that our adversaries continue to understand the cost of challenging us before a conflict ever begins. I also thank Ranking Member McCollum for her work throughout the process, as well as the staff on both sides of the aisle for their diligence and commitment to getting this bill across the finish line. I urge support of this legislation, and with that, I yield back. I now recognize my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro of Connecticut, for her opening remarks.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum. Thank you. Thank you for your work together in and in bringing forward this bill today. I want to say a thank you at the outset to the subcommittee staff for their work on this bill: Jennifer Chartrand, Jason Gray, Ed Etzkorn on the minority side, and Adam Sullivan and his talented team on the majority side. Thank you for your hard work on this bill.
As this is our last full committee markup, our 12th and final bill, I want to reiterate my gratitude for the entire committee staff on both sides of the aisle for all of your work throughout this process, your dedication, and your commitment, with special thanks to Susan Ross and Matt Diller, who have assisted Chairman Cole to smoothly run the markups. Thank you one and all for your exceptional work.
Now onto the measure before us today. I rise in opposition to the bill under consideration. At a time when American families are begging for relief from high prices, the Trump administration is deaf to their pleas. Instead of providing relief, they are cutting domestic programs that support families who are struggling with the cost of living. Across the board, Republicans are cutting nearly 13 billion dollars from non-defense programs that support the working class, middle class, and vulnerable Americans.
They are cutting investments in education, job training, housing assistance, energy development, transportation, rural aid, and more. At the same time they are cutting these programs, they are proposing the most expensive military budget in American history. More than one trillion dollars for the Pentagon. That's a 234 billion dollar increase. And that does not even account for President Trump's so-called golden fleet, replenishing munitions, or any other, any of the other additional costs associated with President Trump's war of choice in Iran.
A war that has taken 13 American service members' lives, left the Iranian regime in place and emboldened, cost at least tens of billions of dollars, and for which we still have no detailed accounting. It is the most expensive military budget in history. And the administration still might come back to the Congress for even more funding through a supplemental request or through reconciliation. It is a 1.1 trillion dollar floor, but who knows how high the ceiling will be. Despite the astronomical increase in funding proposed in this bill, it does not include funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
How can it be that even with the largest military budget in the world, that we do not have enough resources to support a key ally as they defend their country against Russian aggression? Our partners and our allies deserve better than broken promises. This bill also continues the deployment of National Guard troops to the District of Columbia for the so-called "beautification" of DC. This week, they are guarding the reflecting pool. They have been asked to protect it against algae growth.
This is a gross misuse of military resources, a disservice to Guard soldiers whose time and energy should be spent training, supporting legitimate operations, or responding to emergencies where their skills are sorely needed. They are committed and dedicated men and women, and we are putting them and having them to defend here the reflecting pool. Think about how we are using our resources. Deploying Guard soldiers for this purpose is not only unfair and quite frankly disrespectful to them, but reduces our readiness, putting all of us at greater risk. President Trump says we do not have money for childcare, Medicare, Medicaid because we are "fighting wars."
That was not a slip of the tongue, it was a statement of policy. The Trump administration is prioritizing foreign entanglements at the expense of domestic investments, regardless of the consequences or the cost. That is exactly what the House Republicans have done. Our committee has not bothered to follow regular order and formally adopt a full slate of subcommittee allocations. We have only actually voted on six of the 12 allocations for our bills.
And only now that all 12 bills have been released, we can see the full picture. House Republicans are following the President's blueprint.
Nearly 13 billion dollars. The President's wars of choice are pushing higher prices, but he said that he does not think about Americans' financial situation at all. Recently he said, and I quote, he loves inflation, even as costs rise faster than wages. Last week the President signed a 60-day ceasefire extension in Iran, which Iran agrees to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which of course was open before the war began. It opens the door to Iran potentially extracting extraordinary sums of money through various fees in the future.
They have already gotten immediate sanctions relief with regard to their oil exports, and we have committed to provide 300 billion dollars for them in the form of reconstruction funds, it's really reparations. We spent tens of billions of dollars dropping bombs on Iran, and now we are promising to find them 300 billion dollars to rebuild what we just blew up. The hardline repressive Iranian regime is still in power. The Iranian people are not free. Their ballistic missile program is intact, their nuclear ambitions are unchanged, their proxies are emboldened, their sanctions are being lifted, their oil revenues are increasing, their leverage is greater than it has ever been before, and we have nothing to show for it.
Why did we go to war? Further, while all eyes and attention are on the conflict with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, very little attention is being given to Gaza. Only two points of the 20-point plan that was fashioned between the United States and Israel in Gaza, only two points have been implemented. Settler violence in the West Bank is increasing as more territory is annexed by Israel. The Israeli military continues to push further into Lebanon as airstrikes batter Beirut.
And the humanitarian conditions in Gaza worsen by the day. It is unconscionable. CENTCOM forces are currently working with their counterparts in the Civil-Military Coordination Center, which I was able to visit during a recent trip to the region. It is my hope that they continue their activities toward a real peace. It was an impressive operation, which I am sorry that has been curtailed at the moment.
To be clear, I support a strong national defense. I support the courageous men and women who serve our country in uniform, and I understand the need to make investments accordingly. But we need not cut non-defense programs that lower costs and help families afford basic necessities like groceries, housing, childcare, and healthcare. We ought to work together to provide relief for American families. That is what I intend to do as we continue our work on this committee.
In the meantime, I oppose the bill under consideration as it abandons a key US ally in their fight for independence from Russian aggression. It emboldens this reckless administration as they continue to pursue wars of choice around the world, and it continues the misuse of military resources for President Trump's vanity projects and does nothing to bring down the cost of living. Thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 8
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. Gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeLauro. I rise today to thank you for your hard work, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and the regular order proceedings that we are abiding by. But unfortunately, I rise in opposition to this bill and I fully recognize important, very important areas of bipartisan cooperation throughout this process, particularly communicating to the administration that the Department of Defense should be primarily funded through constitutionally mandated regular appropriations.
Congress must exercise its power. OMB must be held in check, not rampaging across federal accounts with no oversight. Unfortunately, I do not believe this bill to date is the most responsible use of taxpayer dollars. Significant levels of defense spending is not a new reality. But we must not surrender to permanent US debt increases of hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars more year after year that ratchet up the US debt.
We have to pay our bills. In particular, the Pentagon has yet to pass an audit. Further, especially now when this administration is not clearly communicating to Congress, it has serious plans to implement desired projects such as the Trump-class battleship. Please recall the quote, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." And such is this moment in the history of NATO and Europe, our closest allies and intergenerational partners in liberty's quest and defense.
Let me express deep concern that this bill does not contain assistance to Ukraine, the latest victim of Russia's brutal, unprovoked aggression. Russia is a vast nation with eleven time zones. Ukraine has but one time zone. Russia has more than four times the population of Ukraine, yet Ukraine has held the line. As leader of the free world, we should support ways to allow liberty to triumph there.
Could it be that some members of Congress have forgotten the history of what our nation sacrificed for liberty as hundreds of thousands of our beloved countrymen died across Europe during World Wars I and II, and then the nearly half-century of the bitter Cold War that followed? Perhaps you're too young or maybe absent-minded. The most unselfish generation, the most unselfish, bequeathed liberty to us. We didn't earn it. Could we now be so ungrateful and indeed unconscious of what eternal vigilance to liberty requires?
None of us did anything to achieve freedom from fascism or communism. Subsequent to World War II, it took our forebears another half-century to defeat the predatory Soviet Union across the newly freed, formerly subjugated nations of Europe. I remain in awe of what they accomplished. Their advance of liberty was profound and utterly sacrificial. American cemeteries across Europe testify to the sheer valor and sacrifice by hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens.
Have too many here forgotten? Are we spoiled? In 1991, the entire Soviet Union collapsed of its own dead weight, trip-wired by the Solidarity movement that had started in Poland through the 1980s, with its victory over Soviet domination in 1989. Liberty advanced. President Trump and his team thus far have had many opportunities to negotiate to end Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
The scrimmage line for liberty in Europe today is Ukraine and Central Europe. But his administration seems to have historical amnesia. They've not even tried. Public opinion is also seriously in favor of sending reasonable military assistance to Ukraine. This bill as written doesn't stand with our proven allies.
We must force Vladimir Putin to accept that his dream to restore the Russian Empire is a fantasy. Further, this administration's efforts to withdraw US forces from Europe are dangerous. Our nation must stand with our NATO allies and deploy the necessary assets to defend every inch of NATO soil and airwaves from Kremlin aggression.
Vladimir Putin knows well the structures of Europe, a former intelligence agent in the Soviet Union. He's coveted every square inch as far west as Germany and beyond. But in memory of every single American soldier, sailor, airman who rendered their lives and fought in the 20th century so our generation would be free, I refuse to abandon the free peoples of Europe to but the latest vicious dictator perched inside the Kremlin. I know many on this committee disagree with efforts to withdraw forces from Europe, and I hope we use every measure possible to strengthen our force posture on the eastern flank. Please let me extend my thanks to committee leadership and staff for their hard work to put this bill together.
This includes key expansion of our hypersonic testing and production while investing in the critical assets, forges, and factories which form the backbone of America's defense industry. We know American shipbuilding is in crisis. The chairman of this subcommittee fully understands that and is well aware of the challenges. Indeed, this bill makes a good faith effort toward progress there, but we must be bolder with American industrial innovation. And in closing, I want to say, it just can't be, industrial innovation just can't be about multi-million dollar tech systems and artificial intelligence.
We must revive the deep and talented workforce in defense and manufacturing at scale that built the arsenal of democracy. And the Great Lakes region did its job before and we're ready to do it again. We must make, not just import, the essentials of life in America. Thank you to my colleagues for your hard work to craft this bill. We must not accept an administration that is asking for a blank check and an OMB that is rampaging through the federal government and wants blank checks.
I look forward to continuing efforts to improve this bill as it moves forward and to support our allies. I do oppose it in its current form. Thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 12
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
John Rutherford
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be brief. I rise today in support of the FY 27 defense bill. This bill provides the resources necessary for the Department of War to maintain its readiness and to protect our nation. It invests in our critical munitions, our military industrial base, our counter-drug operations, and most importantly, our warfighters. Specifically, I'd like to thank Chairman Calvert for his leadership and support.
This bill brings home important wins for Northeast Florida, including funding for the procurement of the E-2D Hawkeyes, which are built in St. Augustine, Florida, and they provide vital protection for our carrier strike groups worldwide. It also supports critical infrastructure at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, the Fleet Readiness Center, and I really appreciate that. And finally, it has language supporting continued investment in and utilization of the littoral combat ships, which is, I think, critical to our mixed fleet strategy by the Navy. So this is a strong bill that is worthy of the sacrifices that are being made by our servicemen and women and warfighters every day. So I just want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we have a great bill.
I yield back.
Speaker 10
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Sanford Bishop
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member DeLauro, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and thank you to both the majority and the minority staffs. I appreciate the work that has gone into bringing this FY 27 Defense Appropriations Bill before the committee. Providing for the common defense is one of Congress's most solemn constitutional responsibilities, and it is a responsibility that we must approach with seriousness, discipline, and respect for the men and women who wear the uniform. I want to begin by recognizing the parts of the bill that I support. The bill makes major investments in our service members, military families, readiness, military healthcare, depot maintenance, installation sustainment, shipbuilding, aviation, munitions, and the defense industrial base.
Those are not abstract priorities; they directly affect our ability to deter our adversaries, to respond to crises, and to take care of the people who carry the burden of defending our nation. For Georgia, and particularly Georgia's Second Congressional District, these investments matter. Fort Benning, Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, Robins Air Force Base, and the supporting civilian workforce all play a direct role in maintaining military readiness and sustaining the force. When we invest in training, logistics, maintenance, healthcare, family support, and installation readiness, we're investing in the people and the communities that keep our national defense strong. I'm also pleased to see continued attention to military pay, TRICARE and private sector care, impact aid, counseling support, the Fisher Houses, Red Cross, and the USO, and the other programs that support service members and their families.
No defense bill should be measured only by the weapons systems it buys; it must also be measured by whether it supports the families who serve alongside our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, and civilians. At the same time, I have serious concerns about the bill as it is written. A defense bill of this size requires strong oversight, clear priorities, and transparency. Congress should not write a blank check without ensuring the taxpayer dollars are tied to real military requirements, executable plans, and measurable outcomes. This defense bill is lopsided.
A trillion dollars plus, but the committee has really done this by enabling this lopsided appropriation by cutting domestic investments: nutrition, healthcare, education, diplomacy, all of which are critical to supporting our national security. I'm particularly concerned by the omission of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative at a time when the Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression and all our allies are watching closely to see whether the United States will remain a reliable partner. I'm also concerned about the broad one billion dollar reduction tied to business process modernization and artificial intelligence without sufficient clarity about which programs or accounts may be affected. Innovation is important, but savings must be real, transparent, and not come at the expense of readiness of service member support. I also remain concerned about provisions related to domestic National Guard deployments.
The Guard is an essential component of our national defense and emergency response capability.
But I cannot ignore the serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and strategic judgment that the current version of the bill ignores. We can and must have a strong national defense. But strength is not measured by top-line numbers alone. It's measured by whether we make responsible choices, support our people, uphold our alliances, and ensure every dollar advances the security of the American people. Although I cannot support the bill in its current form, I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this extremely consequential legislation and right-size it to create a responsible, effective, and balanced effort to fund our national defense so as to always keep America strong and safe.
I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Strong, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Dale Strong
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this defense appropriation bill, and I commend Chairman Calvert, Chairman Cole for putting America first and our warfighters first. This bill delivers the resources our troops need, a real pay raise for our service members and their families, and additional investment into counseling services, ensuring that our men and women in uniform receive the very best resources and training. This bill strengthens America's military superiority by investing in counter-UAS, missile defense, space programs, including the Golden Dome for America, 12.5 billion for Missile Defense Agency, and 13 billion for missile warnings and tracking programs. We're also reloading America's clip by providing nearly 3 billion dollars rebuilding our industrial base and over 10.6 billion in munition procurement.
We're committed to ensuring our troops have the ammunition and technology and weapons needed to execute their mission, defend our nation, and deter our enemy. Let this bill be a clear message to every adversary who doubts America's resolve: the US military remains the world's strongest, most lethal fighting force, and we will always ensure our warfighters are ready to meet the challenge. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 14
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How about we spend a trillion dollars helping people lower their bills? How about we spend a trillion dollars making life more affordable for the people that we represent that sent us here to be their voice? Because no one's talking to me at home about spending a trillion dollars more on our military-industrial complex. We certainly have to make sure we protect our national security.
But right now, Americans are more worried than ever about how they'll pay for their electric bill, their health insurance, or their rent, or even how they're going to afford to fill up their gas tank. They face the ugly choice of buying milk and lunch meat or medicine, or the agonizing alternatives of renewing an insurance plan or just going without health coverage. Yet all that seems to be lost on the majority of this committee and the Trump administration as they ask us to approve a one trillion dollar defense bill. And it's a bill that's full of Trump vanity projects and gives Pete Hegseth unchecked power, all while America's long-term security readiness and our allies get shortchanged. This bill does not deliver solutions for today's challenges, which is why Republicans are already talking about a defense supplemental for Trump's war with Iran, which remains so unpopular and reckless that they want to ram the package through a partisan reconciliation process.
But this is now par for the course.
We thought that we would have an energy and water bill on the floor this week. Um, that doesn't appear to be in our near future anymore, but that bill does far more to help Secretary Wright's DC office staff than it will to lower the cost of electricity in my home state of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what frustrates me most is that this is not how it has to be. We all can and we should and we have worked together to protect our nation and invest in a strong Department of Defense, just as we started this appropriations season with the bipartisan military construction veterans affairs bill. We've shown it's possible.
And yep, I'm never going to stop bragging about it, Mr. Simpson, because we've shown it's possible when we work together. There are certainly positive provisions in this bill, but we are far away from a good bill. I've been able to vote for the defense bill coming out of the Appropriations Committee no matter who's been in the majority. I wish that I was in that position today, especially when you take a step back and look at this bill as a whole. The 234 billion dollar increase to this bill is greater than the entire Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill.
That's enough money to fund the Affordable Care Act premium assistance for eight years. Eight years of peace of mind that when you're sick, you can afford to go to the doctor, as opposed to a trillion dollars to fund the military industrial complex. And all this new money is in addition to the slush fund that the Department of Defense got in the first Republican reconciliation bill that we still know very little about. This bill also provides five billion dollars for the F-47 program. That's a program that's part Trump vanity project and part fiscal disaster.
I absolutely agree that we need to invest in our next generation fighter, but we're talking about a program that was paused because it's going to cost three times more per plane than the F-35 Lightning II, which was already a program plagued with cost overruns and one of the most expensive fighter jet programs in the world. As the ranking member of the MilCon-VA subcommittee, I can tell you that we have very real needs for military construction to support our service members, their families, and improve readiness. Judge Carter, when we stand up and present our bill, talk about that need all the time. But our bill received an inadequate top line to meet those needs, to meet the quality of life needs and the readiness needs of our service members. Under this grand plan, we will have billion dollar warplanes that will sit in hangars, hangars that are about to collapse in on themselves.
I've gone overseas and seen them. I know many of you have as well. Our troops will continue to live and work in buildings that are borderline unsafe and not fit very often for their intended purpose. Military families will continue to do it rough with inadequate housing, childcare centers, and support facilities. And all of this sacrifice for what?
A new 500 million dollar Air Force One that Trump will donate to himself at the end of his term? We all know that's coming. Some ships and fighter jets named after your dear leader? This isn't just putting the cart before the horse or throwing the cart and the horse along with our security right over a cliff and hoping for the best just so we don't risk upsetting Donald Trump.
As a member of Congress who proudly represents South Florida with its rich diversity as the gateway to the Americas, my constituents and I know the value of a strong defense, and we do not shrink from it. But this bill doesn't deliver a strong national defense. It throws too much money around to stroke egos, and it hopes to hide the clear lack of planning and vision from this Department of Defense and this administration. Our service members and their families need us to deliver for them, not help boost the vanity of the man sitting in the White House. This bill does not reflect our values.
It does not reflect the needs of our troops or our allies, and I would bet if we had some private conversations, many of you would acknowledge that. And it does not meet the moment that President Trump himself has put us in. I urge my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks, gentlelady, for her remarks. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Henry Cuellar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Chairman Calvert and the ranking member, Ms. McCollum, and all the staff on both sides for all the long hours and days that they put in putting this bill together. As we all know, this is a process, it's just the beginning of the process, and we all hope to get there together at the end of this process. In the meanwhile, I do want to say there's several good things, a lot of good things in this bill, and one of them that I want to talk about is one of the requests that I've added for the last couple years, and that has to do with human performance optimization. That is to make sure that our military folks are ready to go.
And this is something that we've added funding, I certainly want to thank y'all for doing this. We started this some time ago at the University of Texas San Antonio, where they've been doing, conducting groundbreaking research and performance. It's not only the exercise, but it's what they eat and how they sleep and how they think, and this human performance has been, this research has been groundbreaking, so I want to thank the committee for adding that language. The other thing is I want to thank the committee for adding funding and language on what we call the Air Force Talent Pipeline Modernization Initiative that will improve their recruiting, reduce the hiring timelines, and create a stronger pipeline in aviation. That includes training high school students to fly.
I've seen this in one of my part of the, my district, in Atascosa, in Pleasanton, and I think we all should have this in our district to make sure that we start training our young kids, the ones that are interested in aviation. It's not only the military, but in Homeland also, the Air Marine and other folks that are short on pilots, and I think if we start them off early, this will allow us to get ahead. If you look at our competitors, for example, China, as an example, has invested heavily in exposing young people to aviation and technical careers long before they start the workforce. And we, we gotta make sure that we start this early, and it's amazing the programs that we have right now. Also want to thank the, the committee for the 7% increase to our junior enlisted service members, the 6% to our senior non-commissioned officers and company grade officers, and the 5% to our senior officers.
This is important, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for adding this increase. Finally, I want to add one thing that I think we're all very familiar, and that is the United Service Organizations, known as USO. And that again has bipartisan support, and as you know, it's important to our deployed service members and to the families, and I want to thank the committee for adding this language and moneys. So, Mr. Chairman, as you know, this is a starting part of the process, and we look forward to being like we've always been there at the end when we get the input from everybody. So with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks gentleman for his remarks. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, recognized for remarks on the bill.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for all the work they're putting into this bill and all the work I know they'll continue to do to make the bill better. I'm going to trust my colleagues because I know there have been a lot of opening remarks and they'll continue to be to make sure that everybody understands the problems and challenges of this bill. But I do want to emphasize that it is a trillion dollars. That's a trillion dollars for the Pentagon.
At the same time we're cutting, and we've all been through a lot of subcommittee hearings here or markups, we're cutting over thirteen billion dollars for domestic programs that would actually support working families while we're spending this much on defense. And we all know what we've been cutting: childhood cancer research, farmers through the USDA, education, housing, childcare. It's all on the chopping block and every time we fight back, someone says, "But there isn't enough money." But there's always enough money for this bill. This bill also abandons our allies in Ukraine, continues the unchecked spending on authorized operations in the Middle East.
It's got a lot of big challenges in it. But I want to use my time just to focus on the impact on our Navy and on shipbuilding and that industry. You know, maritime competition is intensifying, especially in the Indo-Pacific, but this bill provides funding for only one DDG-51 destroyer. These ships are the backbone of our Navy and they are essential to preserving our military superiority. That's only one of those ships is provided for in this bill.
I often hear bipartisan agreement about how we need a larger, more capable fleet and last year the president himself said he wanted to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry. But without investment or a strategy, that is just talk. And it's especially just talk in a bill that gets over a trillion dollars. If we're serious about naval readiness, we cannot continue underinvesting in our ships and in our shipyards and the workforce that is needed to sustain that fleet. I'm sure many of you remember, because I love to talk about it, that Bath Iron Works, one of our important defense shipyards, is located in my district.
We're very proud of the shipbuilders and the work that gets done there and we love to say that Bath-built is the best-built because they do an amazing job building ships. And for all of you, when you take your vacation in Maine this summer to get a lobster roll and ride on a ferry, I hope you'll come by and get a tour of this shipyard because it's an amazing thing. It's a miracle to watch these ships come together. They're complex, they require incredible skill and incredibly skilled workers. Stability in the prediction of how many ships are going to be built and having sufficient orders is what helps to recruit and retain a workforce.
These workers can't just be reassigned if there's no ships to build until there's more money or until there is sufficient procurement planning done. Many of them are machine operators, highly skilled, highly specialized. They've been there for years and not having ships impacts the production line. Multi-year contracts lower the cost, ultimately saving money. I know the chair in his opening remarks talked about advanced procurement and how critically important that is in these complex industries that happen in our country.
It's especially difficult to hear about the lack of sufficient shipbuilding in this contract when you put it in a broader context and that is Russ Vought in OMB now signaling that they're thinking about buying ships from foreign shipyards. I'm going to say that again. They're thinking about using their waiver authority to actually buy ships offshore. And we know how important our six shipyards here are here in this country and it's antithetical to think that they would ever suggest that.
Just yesterday I was driving in for votes and I turned on C-SPAN Radio in my car and I heard President Trump talking to a big Pennsylvania gathering, I think he was at a Mack Truck facility, saying how important American workers and American manufacturing was and how he's on top of that and that's what we're going to do in this country. And in fact, when we got out of votes and I drove away, you'll not be surprised that the president was still talking to the Pennsylvania gathering and he was still talking about American workers and American manufacturing. Yet his official at OMB is now saying we're thinking about building ships offshore in other countries. Really, our defense industry, we're thinking of moving that manufacturing offshore? This bill's increase over FY 26 is more than the entire funding of Labor-H and Education.
And we're talking about buying destroyers from foreign nations rather than investing in our own shipyards. I appreciate that this committee has put language in to curb the president's authority to do so, but the fact that it's even being considered is shameful. Adding this language while still selling our shipyards short doesn't make sense. We need to use this bill to make strategic investments in American readiness, which includes a skilled workforce, a skilled union workforce, and we cannot stand by while the administration drives decline of our industrial base. I yield back and I thank the chair.
Thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ellzey's recognized for remarks on the bill.
Jake Ellzey
Thank you all for being here today. I'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for working so well together. It's truly a joy to watch Ken and Betty work on these bills and work together to make sure the defense of our nation is never in doubt. Woodrow Wilson got reelected based on the premise that he kept us out of war until he didn't. FDR got reelected based on the premise that he kept us out of war until he didn't.
And in both of those cases, our nation was woefully unprepared and underfunded in order to prevent war. We have a generational opportunity here today in this committee to do what's most important for the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and that's prevent war first. Because war is a catastrophic waste of irreplaceable souls. And as someone who retired 14 years ago, but for whom the sounds of combat still ring in my ears. And as the father of a 14-year-old son who I want to be a pro baseball player, is seems bound and determined to be a Marine someday, just like Lois's son.
The only thing I think about every day is how do we prevent war in this country through the funding of an appropriations process. The Defense Department has been underfunded for many, many years. The requests that are in this bill are those that come from the experts that we or at least in the Senate have deemed the experts in their field that say this is what we need to prevent war. But if we are required to go to a war in a way that the winds of war haven't blown since 1938 like they are today, with genocidal dictators in charge of nations who are determined to wrest control of the free world from the West in ways that truly are frightening.
Speaker 21
The unrestricted warfare used by the Chinese right now already seems to indicate that they are actively moving forward in the philosophy of Sun Tzu to never have to fight your enemy to win the war. This bill that we're talking about today and the way we vote today sends a message and a signal to those adversaries that we're talking about that will determine whether or not they choose to push forward or they recognize that the United States, for all of our differences, understand that we are united in one concept, that the primary job of any government is to protect her people. And I, like you, would much rather prefer to decide if there are enough jobs in the country, enough healthcare in the country. But with this bill, I'm voting to make sure that we worry about those things, but we don't worry about whether or not there're going to be more Gold Star families in this country because we go to a world war. So this bill provides us the start, and just the start, of getting us ramped up to where we should be on federal funding to provide for a defense that the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans will choose not to challenge.
In this bill are dollars for a number of companies and new technologies that four years ago we wouldn't have imagined, indeed a year ago we wouldn't have imagined having to spend money on. But now it's not an either-or negotiation, it's an all-of-the-above. With the invasion of Ukraine by Putin and his and his army to kill thousands of Ukrainians, just like they did starting in 1931 where they killed eight million Ukrainians through their Holodomor. They've had aims on this forever. We understand that and we need to be prepared for it and respond to it.
And with this bill, the ability to build new munitions much, much cheaper than we ever thought possible to reestablish our magazine depth, which is lower than we'd like right now, is an absolute must. A number of patriotic companies manned and owned by young men and women, patriotic Americans all, who want to establish a nation second to none that will never be challenged again, are waiting for the go signal from this committee and from this Congress that we are ready to make sure that nobody ever challenges us again, but if they do, we win and we win quickly with the least loss of life. I think we're all singing from the same music. I'm not sure we're all singing in the same key. But I'm asking you on the other side of the aisle today to send a signal to our adversaries and to the American people that we are ready to unite again, and I'd urge you to vote yes on this bill.
Thank you.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Frankels, recognized for remarks on the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just thank everybody here and those who have served and who are serving. I'm I am the proud mother of a United States Marine war veteran. More importantly, or as importantly, I am the grandmother to two young boys who, like all the children, I hope will grow up secure and with opportunity. I join those who believe in a strong America, who believe in protecting our service members, who believe in standing with our allies, and believe in defending this nation against any threat that comes our way.
But let's remember this. A nation's strength is not measured only by the weapons it builds, not only by the battleships that sail, or by the size of its fighting force.
A nation's strength is measured by the people it lifts up, the families it supports, the children that it educates, the communities it strengthens, and the opportunities that it creates. Because a country is not truly secure when its people are struggling, and today many Americans are struggling. Families are working harder than ever, but they can't afford the basics. Groceries cost too much, gas costs too much, rent costs too much, healthcare costs too much. And this bill provides more than one trillion dollars in defense funding, more than ever before in our history, while Donald Trump is cutting and scrimping on the very investments that protect and strengthen families here at home, and while pushing tax breaks for the super wealthy, pursuing pet projects like a golden ballroom, and allowing special interests and political allies to benefit while working families are asked to sacrifice.
So I ask my colleagues, how can we call that security? How can we say America is stronger when families are weaker? A mother who is sick, who cannot afford to see a doctor, is not secure. A parent who cannot afford childcare and has to leave the workforce is not secure. A senior choosing between a medicine or paying for their groceries is not secure.
A hungry child sitting in an overcrowded classroom without tools to succeed is not secure. And a family working harder every day but still unable to pay the rent is not secure. Yes, America needs a strong military, but I'll say it again, America's greatest strength has not come only from the battleships, it's not only come from the fighter planes, it's not only come from our weapons. America's greatest strength has always come from our people. And when families are healthy, America is stronger.
When our children learn, America is stronger. When workers succeed, America is stronger. When communities thrive, America is stronger. That's the real strength, that's the real security, and that's how we build America that is truly safe. And this bill before us shows that Donald Trump has forgotten this simple truth.
Real security means investment not only in weapons to defend our nation, but the people who make it worth defending. Taxpayer dollars should be used to make lives more affordable, not to reward powerful and privileged or rig the system against working families, and not just for war. And for that reason, I cannot support this bill. I urge my colleagues to reject it. I believe we can do much better.
And with that, I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Ed Case
Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. As I was listening to the opening comments of Chair Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum, I was reflecting that we in this area of national defense agree on far more than we disagree on. And I was also reflecting as I listened to Mr. Ellzey, that those of us that are privileged to serve on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee know that if you all would just leave this to us, we would get the job done, except that I will never sing in key with Mr. Ellzey at all, so that's pretty clear. And so it's with a great deal of regret that I rise in opposition to this particular bill, not because I disagree with the critical importance of investing in our military and national security, but because on several points, too many points, this particular measure in its form fails in context, in substance, and especially primarily in the oversight and assertion of Congress's constitutional powers and responsibilities to supervise an incredible part of our budget.
Let's just go back to the critical importance and drive that point home. I agree that the threats that we face are real, the threat from the PRC, the threats from Russia, the threats from the Middle East. I agree with Mr. Elzey that deterrence through strength is the best way to avoid war. I agree with my chair of the subcommittee that we need to move with rapidity, at speed and fluidity, to develop the next generation of kit that we need in mass. I agree that we need to reform a still-broken procurement system.
I agree that we need to invest in our service members, and all of that is in this bill and all is acknowledged and agreed to. I also agree with what my chair says many, many times, and that is that our consistency and credibility with our partners and allies in terms of our own investment in national defense is on the line right now. We ask our partners and allies to invest 5% of their GDP, and yet today we spend 2.8% of our GDP, which is well below our 50-year average of 4.1% of GDP. That is the cost of defense, the cost of freedom. We're not bearing it.
I agree with all of that. So I'm not at all reluctant to consider responsible, responsive, reasonable national defense in the big picture, including a huge increase in national defense as warranted. But in this particular bill, there are critical and fatal deficiencies that have to be addressed before we go to there. Number one, of course, is the mixed use of reconciliation. This bill is confusing, concealing in many cases, and not transparent in terms of what it's actually going to take.
Last year, or more accurately the current fiscal year, of course, we are spending well over $1 trillion in the combination of discretionary and reconciliation. We haven't supervised the reconciliation at all. And now let's not forget that we still have outstanding a request for $350 billion of reconciliation and a supplemental budget that we haven't even seen yet. And that is a disjointed, uncoordinated, and not a transparent approach. And until we are able to put this together in the whole context, understand it in the big picture, and decide it in one particular bill, I don't think we should go down any one part of that road.
Number two, we have not demonstrated that the Department of Defense has any capacity to execute on a huge 50% increase in one fiscal year budget, and much more than that if you look at two fiscal years. Let's focus on the General Accountability Office's report just recently that showed a 10.7% reduction in Department of Defense personnel in just 11 months, I'm sorry, more accurately 13 months. That is not sustainable when you increase the budget at that level, and we should settle that before we throw more money at defense. Number three, we have not demonstrated the capacity of our defense industrial base to absorb this. We all know our defense industrial base has to step up to the plate here, and yet we have not solved that problem, and this bill does not solve that problem, and all we are doing is inviting massive build-up in the production backlog as well as extortionate costs from imbalance between supply and demand.
Number four, I have substantive disagreements with the bill. Ukraine, we're going to talk more about the absolute destruction of the merit system.
Number five, a complete imbalance that my colleague Ms. Frankel has already talked about. We cannot maintain public support for a total budget that skews to 60-40 defense, non-defense. And finally, we just have not acknowledged the consequences to our national debt. We're pretending as if we can increase our defense budget by this amount without having to do anything else. And that is unsustainable as a matter of national debt.
These are all flaws that can and should be addressed in this bill, and I certainly hope they are and can be because if and as they are, I'm certainly willing to go down this road. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Joseph Morelle
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to thank Chairman Calvert and the staff once again. They work incredibly hard, and I know both in our public and in our classified briefings how much he cares about the work we do and makes sure that everyone is heard from and everyone has an opportunity to express themselves. Also want to thank the ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for her great work, her great leadership, and her friendship, and certainly to the full committee chair and ranking member, how much we appreciate them and the entire staff. You know, the committee has a solemn responsibility to invest taxpayer dollars wisely and in a manner that reflects our nation's priorities, including, importantly, our national security.
Our service members deserve training, equipment, and support necessary to carry out their mission. And I will always support investments that strengthen our military and protect our nation. National security, however, is about more than defense spending. It relies on strong communities, good schools, affordable healthcare, reliable infrastructure, and economic opportunity. It's why I'm troubled by the bill before us, which provides more than $1.07 trillion for the Department of Defense, 234 billion above current funding levels.
That increase alone exceeds the entire Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill. And now House Republicans are slashing those programs that help our families afford groceries, housing, healthcare, and other basic necessities. President Trump captured that approach earlier this year when he said, "We're fighting wars, we can't take care of daycare." I disagree. And the president's eagerness for reckless, endless wars is no justification for increased spending.
The scale of this bill is particularly difficult to justify when the Department of Defense still cannot fully account for the resources Congress has already provided. Taxpayers deserve to know that their funds are being spent effectively and in accordance with the appropriation law set by this Congress. The bill grants Secretary Hegseth broad discretion over spending discussions and decisions while providing no assurance that taxpayer dollars will be managed responsibly. And lastly, as I serve as the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, which has jurisdiction over federal elections, I was gravely concerned when President Trump said he regretted not deploying the National Guard following the 2020 election. What an incredibly difficult thing it is to conceive of such a thing happening.
And comments like those raise alarming questions about whether the American people could have confidence in an administration that understands the legal and constitutional limits on the use of military personnel in connection with our elections. At a subcommittee hearing earlier this year, I asked the National Guard Bureau Chief to provide assurances to the American people about the deployment of troops around polling places in November.
The Guard will follow the Constitution and will follow the law. And I intend, and I'm sure many members here intend, to guarantee that that's the case. We will continue to hold this administration to that promise. So, Mr. Chairman, while non-defense spending is being slashed, oversight remains inadequate, and defense spending has reached unthinkable levels, this bill sadly moves us in the wrong direction. So for these reasons, I cannot support this legislation.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Mike Levin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our service members are the finest in the world. And what my friend from Texas, Mr. Ellzey, said certainly resonated with me. I also have a 14-year-old son. He also wants to be a pro baseball player.
He may wind up a United States Marine, you never know. I'd be honored and grateful if that's the direction he took. And my commitment to our military and our service members will always be rock solid. And there's a great deal in this bill that I do support. It has a lot of important investments to support our service members, critical support for the Marines and sailors that I represent, and continued investments in impact aid, security cooperation programs, innovation.
All those are great things, and I really do want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work and their collaboration. There are a few areas where I hope we can improve the bill, and they're significant enough that unfortunately I cannot vote for the bill in its current form. The first is something that's so critically important to the region that I represent, which is the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program, or CDMRP. It's one of the most effective dollar-for-dollar investments we make. It's delivered breakthroughs in cancer, traumatic brain injury, and other conditions that hit our military families and veterans the hardest, and it's long enjoyed bipartisan support on this committee.
Unfortunately, this bill cuts CDMRP by 353 and a half million below fiscal year 26 levels, and those cuts fall hardest on specific lines. Funding for autism, melanoma, and vision research is reduced. Epilepsy, hearing restoration, and military burn research is eliminated entirely. It's a tough outcome coming off a fiscal 25 continuing resolution that had already reduced CDMRP funding significantly. Even with the substantial increases elsewhere in this bill, CDMRP would not reach the level we funded back in fiscal 24 under a Republican majority.
I would ask that as we move forward, we look for a way to restore these accounts. I believe there is common ground here, and I'd welcome working with colleagues on both sides to find it. The second concern is a challenge that has been recognized across administrations of both parties for decades. As far back as 2003, under President George W. Bush, the department warned that a destabilized climate could destabilize the geopolitical environment and create new security risks abroad. That assessment has been echoed by military leaders ever since.
At the same time, energy demand is surging, prices are climbing for families across the country. The sources we can build fastest and that can keep our constituents' energy bills in check include clean energy. Getting more of it onto the grid is squarely in our national and economic security interests. It's why I'm concerned that the review process for wind energy projects has effectively stalled at every stage, from initial determinations of presumed risk to mitigation agreements to the signatures and transmittals to the Federal Aviation Administration that allows projects to proceed. Developers tell us that the pipeline is ground to a halt, and this puts at risk at least 30 gigawatts of planned generation capacity that could be powering American homes and roughly 150,000 jobs.
That's 150,000 jobs in the red states and the blue states alike, and that helps sustain communities in many of our districts.
And delaying these projects works against both American energy independence and our national security, two goals that I know every member of this committee shares. So these are the reasons I cannot support the bill as written, and I say that with tremendous respect, again, for the effort behind it and a genuine willingness to keep working toward a bill that I hope we all can support. So I hope we get that process moving and that we'll have a better outcome in the weeks and the months ahead. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Madeleine Dean
Thanks, gentleman for his remarks. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean's recognized for remarks on the bill.
I rise in support of our men and women of the military and of their families. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you to the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee on defense and the ranking member as well. And yet I rise in opposition to this bill, which provides more than one trillion dollars, yes, one trillion for the Department of Defense. This is a more than 200 billion dollar increase compared to last year, while Republicans continue to slash domestic programs that help everyday Americans afford sky-high costs of living.
Annual inflation has hit 4.2% in May, the highest level in three years. One of the largest drivers of that number, skyrocketing energy costs, a direct result of this administration's illegal, reckless, dangerous war with Iran. We've all paid the price at the pump and at the grocery store and elsewhere, all while this administration spends billions on a war that has undeniably left us in a worse position than where we started. Moody's Analytics estimates that the cost of the war so far is 132 billion dollars. I wonder if that number is a low estimate.
From what we know of the president's MOU with Iran, which is on-again, off-again chaos, it is a far worse position for the United States and for the world than President Obama's nuclear deal, a deal we all know the president maligned as disastrous. So I guess where we are now is worse than a disaster in the president's estimation. One might call it a catastrophe. And this comes after the deaths of 13 service members, hundreds of civilians, thousands of civilian casualties, hundreds of schoolgirls, extensive damage to the United States military bases in the Middle East, damage to dozens of US aircraft, and a depletion of our stockpiles. And for what?
Here we are, and now the majority party abdicates our constitutional authority, responsibility to declare war or to stop the president from declaring war and puts us in this chaotic, dangerous space. All while we turn our back on the allies, including Ukraine. This bill provides nothing for Ukraine, nothing to prevent this administration from withdrawing US troops from Europe. Investing in Ukraine not only makes us safer, but it will also save us money and resources in the long run. Who knows what the cost will be if we continue to allow Russia to continue unchecked.
Further, we are continuing to abdicate our power of the purse to this administration, including by going along with Secretary Hegseth's arbitrary cuts under the assumption that AI will save the day. We all know that these types of unthoughtful, chaotic, arbitrary cuts end up costing us more in the long run. We know that as members of this committee. We are also doing nothing to rein in this administration's wasteful deployment of the National Guard. Drive around this city.
The National Guard is everywhere. Ironic for a president who couldn't call upon the National Guard when this very capitol was being attacked. But here we are in DC, performing, they are in DC, performing activities like trash cleanup or policing the failed reflecting pool project, all at a cost of more than a million dollars per day. They and we deserve better.
This is all from the party that claims to carry the mantle of fiscal responsibility. The hypocrisy is staggering, but maybe it's not hypocrisy, maybe it's just a straight-old showing of our values. Because as we always say, values are revealed through our budgets. A one trillion dollar cut from Medicaid in the big beautiful bill, a trillion cut. Today, we're considering a trillion to be added here to defense.
And let's not forget the more than two trillion in tax cuts for the very, very wealthiest. That reveals values of this president and of this majority party. I'll end with what the president said himself. He said, quote, "We're fighting wars, we can't take care of daycare, it's not possible to take care of daycare, Medicaid, and Medicare." Such a statement of values.
I urge my colleagues to say to the president, these do not reflect our values, they do not reflect who we are as Americans. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and I yield back.
Speaker 30
Thank the gentlelady, are there other members wishing to make general comments about the bill? Gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Steny Hoyer
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in concern about this bill. And yes, I will oppose the bill as it's currently written. I listened to my dear friend Mr. Elzey. Mr. Elzey and I have become dear friends, I have extraordinary respect for him.
First of all, let me associate myself with the remarks of our ranking member about process. And I agreed with what he had to say up to a point. There is no 302(b), this bill could be any figure. I could offer a trillion dollar addition to this bill and nobody could respond, the chairman couldn't respond, oh this is beyond the 302(b), there is no 302(b). There is no budget, there is no concept of what the trade-offs are in this bill.
That is its procedural weakness. There is no pay-for for this bill because there is no 302(b), so we don't know how much will need to be paid for. So that we're all speaking about a trillion dollar bill and who's going to pay for it? My children, your children, our grandchildren. But we say this is critically important to put on the table to make our country secure.
I think there's nobody probably other than Hal Rogers in this committee who's served longer and supported more defense bills than I have. I was a very strong supporter of the Reagan buildup. The MX missile approval and the deployment of the Pershing missiles that the Russians thought we couldn't get done politically in Europe, that accomplishment, in my opinion, led to Gorbachev's being able to convince his military-industrial complex you need to go glasnost and perestroika because we cannot compete with the Americans. So I believe that investing in our defense is important. But I think even more important than that is our performance with respect to defense.
It is my belief, and I will discuss this further when the amendment on Ukraine is offered, that our failure of the West in 2014 to respond to the Russian stealing of Crimea is the mother of this war that we now have in Ukraine. Because it said to Putin, we're not going to respond to your criminal act. Now, a president that I supported was president of the United States.
Because it said to Putin, we're not going to respond to your criminal act. Now, a president that I supported was President of the United States at that point in time. The Congress nor the president responded in a vigorous way that would say, no sir, you cannot do that. Today, we have a bill that has a trillion dollars plus in it. We have spent apparently somewhere in the neighborhood of 79 billion dollars over the last four months for an effort in Iran.
The failure to respond effectively to Crimea's theft and the extraordinary chaos and ineffective action that we've taken, which I call the art of the sellout. There's no deal. A deal implies both sides are going to do something. But very frankly, I would call your attention to an article in the Washington Post by Max Boot three days ago on the extraordinary failure of this administration and of the Secretary of Defense and the DNI and frankly the Secretary of State who seems to be like Pontius Pilate washing his hands of this effort in Iran because he thinks it is so abysmally a failure. We remove a naval blockade, we waive export Iran's crude oil sanctions, we release 24 billion dollars in frozen funds, we facilitate 300 billion dollars for reconstruction economic development in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
We terminate all types of sanctions and we allow after 60 days for Iran to charge fees in international waters for passage. What kind of message does that send to Russia? What kind of message does it send to China? What kind of message does it send to Iran? Iran thinks properly at this point in time they've won.
And yet we are about to invest in that leadership a trillion dollars plus. A failed leadership. This Secretary of Defense calls 800 of the top ranking officers, flag officers in the world to come to the Pentagon for a meeting. Does he have anything substantive to say? He did not.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote against this bill, but I'm going to argue that we certainly need to spend money, we need to spend money on industrialization, we need to spend money on acquisition, and we need to spend money on personnel. But I would add and thank you for your time, I would add that underfunding the civilians who are so critically important to our defense effort in the Pentagon and in other agencies in government is a very bad mistake, which we have avoided in the past by having some degree of equality between the civilians and the military. Both critically important to our national security.
Veronica Escobar
Well, can we deduct the two minutes from the next one? No, I try to be generous with the clock. I would ask, we are going to have a long day, so if we can stay kind of within the time limits, I think that would be helpful to everybody, but again, I appreciate what my friend always has to add to any debate. With that, gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by thanking Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member McCollum for their leadership on this subcommittee, and of course, also the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee of the Whole. But I also want to recognize, as many of my colleagues have, the incredible staff. I know that this appropriations season can be really challenging on the teams that support us, and I want to publicly recognize and acknowledge their incredible devotion to the work that we do. We are only able to do this work because of their talent and their brilliance, and I'm really grateful.
As the representative for Fort Bliss, home to the historic 1st Armored Division and the ever-important 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command, I know how crucial it is to maintain a strong national defense and ensure that our service members and their families have the resources they need and the support from Congress that they have earned. There is much in this bill that I do support. The bill makes important investments in munitions production, Patriot and THAAD interceptors, Army modernization, and defense innovation, which I find particularly exciting in this bill. Those investments matter to my district, but they also matter to our national security and they prepare us for our future fights. Fort Bliss is home to the Army's premier Army and Defense Missile Enterprise, and the soldiers of the 32nd Army Air and Missile Defense Command continue to face extraordinary operational demands across the globe.
Ensuring that they have the equipment, inventory, and sustainment necessary to accomplish their missions is a national security imperative, and it is a top priority for my team and for me. Likewise, investments in armored vehicles, Army aviation, and long-range fires directly support the 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss's role as one of the Army's premier power projection platforms. I'm also encouraged by the bill's emphasis on innovation, autonomous systems, drone and counter-drone technologies especially, defense manufacturing, and strengthening the industrial base. Congress is appropriately recognizing that future conflicts will be won by our ability to adapt, innovate, and produce faster than our adversaries. I've worked hard, long before I was in Congress, I've been working to ensure that El Paso is positioned as a growing center for defense innovation, aerospace, and advanced manufacturing.
And I'm so proud that this bill reflects an important reality. The future of American national security will not be built in just a handful of traditional defense hubs, it will be built in communities like El Paso as well, with the talent that we have been so proud to support and grow locally.
Unfortunately, despite those strengths, I am not able to support the bill as currently written. This bill provides more than one trillion dollars for the Department of Defense while significant reductions are proposed elsewhere in the federal budget. National security is not achieved solely through military strength. A secure nation also needs a strong workforce, good schools, affordable housing, accessible healthcare, and effective and strong diplomacy. Second, I remain concerned that this bill does nothing to stop the continued use of the military for non-military issues.
We still have National Guard personnel engaged in domestic activities that have little connection to military readiness, as well as immigration facilities at my installation of Fort Bliss that have hurt military readiness and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars. At a time when our military faces growing demands, we need our military to be focused on training and preparedness rather than missions better suited for civilian agencies. But the most important issue is the broader strategic backdrop against which we are being asked to fund this budget. The administration's answer to nearly every international challenge has been escalation. More threats, more military pressure, more unilateral action, and in turn more demands for increased defense spending.
I eagerly work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I always look for bipartisan solutions. This is one of the most important bills that we pass. I hope we can get to a place where bipartisan support gets this bill across the finish line. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 37
Thanks, the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to make remarks about the bill? Seeing none, I would like to recognize Chairman Calvert to offer a manager's amendment.
Ken Calvert
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for dispensing of the reading.
Speaker 33
Without objection, the reading is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment.
Ken Calvert
This amendment is agreed to by both sides, makes technical and conforming changes to the bill, includes non-controversial bill and report changes and have been cleared by both majority and minority. I urge the members to support it. Thank you.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks, gentleman. Gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum's recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Betty McCollum
Chairman Cole, Chairman Calvert, in addition to several non-conforming technical changes, the manager's amendment makes changes to the bill and the report that address a number of topics important to members of this full committee. I urge the adoption of the amendment and I yield back.
Thank the gentlelady. Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Henry Cuellar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, I just want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for adding one of my provisions that we've added to every appropriation bill, and that is the language that calls for outcome-based reviews, performance management oversight. And I want to say thank you. And again, if we're going to find efficiencies, effectiveness, we need to start looking for this type of work. With that, I want to say thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member.
I yield back.
Speaker 34
Thanks, the gentleman. Do any other members seek recognition to address the manager's amendment? Gentlelady from Washington.
Marie Perez
On March 5th, Petty Officer Second Class Tyler Jaggers succumbed to critical injuries sustained on February 27th during a maritime medical evacuation mission offshore Cape Flattery, Washington. His death is absolutely heartbreaking for his family and the entire Coast Guard community. And it was also historically significant. It was the first fatality in the line of duty in more than a generation of Coast Guard. In the aftermath of Petty Officer Jaggers' death, I've sought answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of the amendment and a provision within it related to Gold Star Advisory Council.
We need to understand the circumstances of his tragic death and take steps to make sure it never happens again. But I've also had the privilege of speaking with his family and loved ones about how I can support their efforts to honor his memory. Through those conversations, I've been reminded that the sacrifice of military service extends beyond an individual in uniform and to the entire family. It's like walking around with your heart outside your body. And their lives are forever changed by a loss of a loved one.
The Secretary of Defense and I might have disagreements, but I was encouraged to learn that the Secretary's work to establish a council to give surviving families of fallen service members a direct channel to share their experiences, elevate their families' concerns, and honor the memory of fallen service members. It's my understanding that the council currently does not have representation from families of fallen Coast Guard members. And given the Coast Guard's unique role as both an armed service and a component of the Department of Homeland Security, it's important that these families aren't overlooked and that their perspectives are represented alongside those of families from the other military services. That's why I appreciate the support of my provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to include representation for the family of fallen Coast Guard service members on the council. The families of Coast Guard service members have made an ultimate sacrifice and they deserve a seat at the table.
For the family of Petty Officer Jaggers and for every family of a fallen Coastguardsman, I urge adoption of the provision. And I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the manager's amendment? Gentlelady from Florida.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of the manager's amendment and I want to thank the Chair for including the provision I submitted to strengthen Holocaust education within the Department of Defense. And what this provision requires is the Department to report to Congress on the steps taken and the opportunities it can expand to ensure that our service members understand the history and the lessons of the Holocaust. Importantly, it focuses on opportunities for our troops serving in the United States European Command theater, the very region where the Holocaust unfolded, including the possibility of visits to historic sites and museums and engagement with Holocaust survivors, descendants, and academic experts. Because remembering history is not just about remembering the past, it is about protecting the future.
Our service members wear the uniform of the United States, they stand for freedom, they stand against tyranny, and they represent our values around the world. And as part of this mission is understanding what can happen when hatred, antisemitism, and extremism is allowed to grow unchecked. And today we are seeing a dangerous rise in that same hatred around the world. Jewish schools and synagogues have been targeted, Holocaust memorials have been vandalized, Jewish families have faced threats and violence simply because who they are. We saw a horrific attack of course in Israel on October 7th, the deadliest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
And we have seen antisemitic violence in Europe, including the firebombing of synagogues, attacks on Jewish communities, and mobs hunting Jewish soccer fans through the streets of Amsterdam. These antisemitism acts are fueled by the same poison and hate that led to one of humanity's darkest chapters.
And yet knowledge of that history, of course I'm talking about the Holocaust, the knowledge of that history is fading. A recent survey found that only 53% of American adults knew that 6 million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust. One in five Americans are unsure how many Jews were killed. Less than half can name a concentration camp. Those numbers are not just disappointing, they're a warning, because when we forget history, we risk repeating the most darkest days.
And at a time when anti-Semitism and hate are rising across the globe, we have a responsibility to make sure the next generation understands the consequences of hate. And that includes more than the 80,000 American servicemen stationed in Europe, many serving just miles from places where the atrocities of the Holocaust occurred. The Holocaust was not inevitable. It was the result of hate left unchallenged. Education is how we remember.
Education is how we honor the victims. Education is how we make never again more than a phrase, we make it a promise. Thank you, Chair, Ranking Member, for including this important provision. I yield back.
Speaker 42
Thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized for one minute to close.
Veronica Escobar
That was wonderfully eloquent. Thank you. Questions now on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no.
In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, is recognized for purpose of an amendment.
Betty McCollum
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask that the reading be dispensed with.
Dispensed with.
Speaker 41
Okay, I thank the gentlelady. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is now recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Betty McCollum
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would strike section 8144 of the bill as found on page 154 if you want to follow along. This is what gives the Secretary of Defense the authority to cut $1 billion from the bill in a proposed and possible savings of things with all AI. Now, this section does not dictate that the funds cannot come from, it does not dictate, I want to be clear, that the funds cannot come from salaries for military or civilian personnel. And that means so only there's programmatic cuts that are going to happen.
So it dictates that funds cannot come from salaries, but that leaves the programs wide open. Ceding our authority to the Secretary of Defense or any Secretary, no matter what that administration is, is of great concern to me. It's our job to craft legislation that provides the executive branch with appropriations in such a way that we know how exactly programs are to be executed. Who here would be willing to give the administration the ability to cut $1 billion without knowing what program will be cut ahead of time? Again, Congress would have no ability to deny that cut, no ability to stop that cut from happening.
And that's a precedent we should not set. If programs need to be cut, we have the constitutional responsibility to make that cut and to understand what the impacts will be. But that's not what's in this bill. The underlying rationale for this cut is based on a premise, uh, in a study that was published in 2015 by the Defense, uh, Defense Group Board. Anyways, this study indicated that savings could, could would be enacted from using, um, AI.
That's an 11-year-old study. And, uh, it still might have some use. However, I think until we have an updated assessment of how it's done based on the current understanding of how AI usage and impacts would be, I oppose, uh, this provision. Now, if the majority would seek to first understand the present scope of possibly saving through the report from the department and give us assurances that they will be targeted cuts, then I might be able to support such language in the future. But we have a ways to go before I get to that point.
My amendment would offset the $1 billion by cutting the same amount from the advanced procurement guided missile battleship. Now, the administration has requested this funding even though the Navy has not completed the ship's concept design. I ask every member in this room, if you were going to build a house yourself, would you pay for it before it had even been designed? And I think the answer would be a resounding no. So why should we do that with a ship that reportedly could cost $17 billion apiece?
It's no secret that the Navy shipbuilding has been plagued by many problems. There have been many, uh, instances where we have appropriated funds for ships that have not been built. One recent example is for the Constellation-class frigate. We invested at least $7 billion into a frigate for only a program to be canceled this year by the Navy. From the start, the Navy sent multiple change orders to the contractor.
And that means that there were several changes to cost assessments and delays to the construction of the ship. The Navy couldn't get the frigate straight from the start. And now we can be sure that they know that the cost of this ship is estimated without a design to possibly be $17 billion per ship. So its design is critical to controlling costs. And we just don't have that.
So we need the Navy to tell us what type of ship they want to build with specific details included before we provide them with any funding, including advanced funding, because of what I just mentioned what happened with the frigate. So I believe that's the responsible thing to do. And I'd like members to take this common-set approach. Mr. Chair, we can work about refining this language into the future, but the way it stands right now, uh, that is why I'm offering my amendment. And Chairman Cole, that's why I'm yielding back.
Ken Calvert
Thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized to address the amendment.
I thank the gentleman. Uh, this amendment strikes a provision that asks DOD to find cost savings from modern business practices and AI technology. The bill includes a $1 billion savings through reductions. I, I think the flexibility to cut $1 billion in a trillion-dollar budget is not too extravagant. So for those reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back.
Speaker 43
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, is recognized to address the amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I rise in support of this amendment. First, let me say that ceding any authority for cutting defense funds to the Secretary of Defense is a big mistake.
The concern with these large vessels is not that the Navy does not need more ships, they do. The concern is that this may be the wrong kind of ship to spend billions of dollars on. Modern naval warfare is moving towards smaller, more spread out, networked, and unmanned systems. We have seen how Ukraine, a nation that started with a war with a much smaller navy than Russia, has been able to effectively contest control of the Black Sea and even sink much larger advanced Russian vessels such as the Moskva, primarily using small naval drones and shore-based missiles. Long-range missiles, drones, submarines, and other modern threats make very large surface ships harder to defend.
This proposed battleship would be a ship of the past, not a ship of the future. Meanwhile, a giant battleship puts a lot of money, weapons, and people into one very expensive target. And these ships will be incredibly expensive, estimated at nearly 17 billion dollars per unit, nearly seven times more expensive than a modern Flight III Arleigh Burke destroyer. Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, their Seapower Subcommittee, called the Trump battleship, and I quote, "the exact opposite of every lesson from the recent shipbuilding failures." The Navy already has serious needs, including submarines, destroyers, unmanned systems, munitions, shipyard capacity, and maintenance backlogs.
Every dollar spent on this unproven, untested design is a dollar not spent on missiles, submarines, destroyers, or autonomous systems. Those trade-offs matter. Before Congress spends billions of dollars on a new battleship class, the Navy should explain why this ship is needed, what will it cost, and what other priorities may be delayed or cut to pay for it. Thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 41
Thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Minnesota is recognized for one minute to close.
Betty McCollum
Well thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to reiterate again, a billion dollars is a lot of money to be cut from this bill. And, you know, when you look through the bill and you look at the President's request and you look at the President's priorities, sometimes they don't align with the priorities of this committee. So will they cut health research? Will they cut the research that goes into our universities to tackle the problems with hypersonics, you know, more understanding of what's going on with AI?
Could they cut quality of life? We would hope that they wouldn't. And just as I said earlier, we would not, any of us, hand a check over to a builder without seeing the design for the home. And so that's why I oppose in this current form the way this is written, and with that I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Minnesota. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it, and the motion is not adopted.
Gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Betty McCollum
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and that I ask that it be considered read.
Veronica Escobar
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Betty McCollum
Now Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the funding in the bill that would support the National Guard's deployment to the District of Columbia for the Safe and Beautiful Task Force for the National Guard Quick and for the National Guard Quick Reaction Force. I want to start by thanking the members of the DC National Guard and the other states' National Guards who have been deployed to Washington DC. They have done their duties honorably. We were all horrified when two members of West Virginia National Guard were shot in Washington last November and one of those soldiers lost their life. But the Department has spent over $600 million in the last fiscal year on DC beautification programs.
And the administration is requesting another $605 million for fiscal year 2027 for these activities. Now the President says he wants the Guard to remain in DC until the end of his term when he leaves office in 2029. Our soldiers do not need to be patrolling monuments or picking up garbage as they're currently doing. And now they're standing guard over a reflecting pool, guarding algae, watching paint peel. Well, their job is more important than that.
Their job is to train to fight peer adversaries and to respond to emergency situations. The idea that any of the Guard's activities in Washington has improved readiness for a conflict is not based in reality. A recent study by a nonpartisan think tank stated that the deployment of these troops had no effect on the number of violent crimes in the District. Again, no effect on the number of violent crimes being reduced. The researchers also called the deployment a blunt and expensive instrument.
CBO reported that the costs were about $1.5 million a day for current troop levels. Now I know several other domestic programs or even programs in the Department of Defense for training and equipping our National Guard could be used more effectively. In total, the cost of this deployment has been $1.2 billion over the past year alone. I believe that this is a misuse of taxpayers' funds. As I also mentioned in my opening state, the bill includes $2.6 million for the National Guard Reaction Force.
Now the National Guard does not need new funding to develop law enforcement capabilities that are outside of the scope of its jurisdiction. The US government right here in Washington DC has plenty of first responders, federal, state, local, that are trained to handle criminal activity. It's not the military's job and we should not be funding this request. For these reasons, Mr. Chair, I hope you and my colleagues will support my amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 47
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Ken Calvert
I thank the gentleman. This amendment strikes funding for the National Guard mission to keep DC safe and beautiful. It's one thing to disagree with a policy, but we should all agree that the National Guard cannot be left without the resources to pay them and what they need. So for those reasons, I oppose this amendment. Yield back.
Madeleine Dean
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is recognized to address the amendment.
I rise in strong support of Ranking Member McCollum's amendment, which cuts funding for President Trump's wasteful deployment of the National Guard for the DC Safe and Beautiful mission. Let me start by saying my tremendous respect for our National Guardsmen and women. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. They do extraordinary work responding to national disasters and other domestic emergencies, in addition to supporting combat missions abroad.
I am so grateful to the men and women in this country who choose to serve our country through the National Guard, as my late father-in-law did. I've had the opportunity to interact with so many of these patriots recently, which is both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because they are truly extraordinary, hardworking, service-minded citizens, dedicated to this country. But a curse because the reasons for many of my interaction in the National Guards is their unjustifiable presence here in DC. For those watching remotely, who haven't been to DC recently, you might not realize the extent of the National Guard's presence here, and just how dystopian it feels.
If you go for a walk along the National Mall, if you go to any Metro station, you will encounter multiple patrols of National Guardsmen. The administration claims they are necessary and they are presence to deter violent crime. In reality, studies have found that while the deployment has perhaps led to a small reduction in opportunistic crimes, it has no meaningful impact on violent crimes. All of this at a cost of $1.5 million a day, according to CBO, and that's before the so-called summer surge. Do my Republican colleagues truly think this is taxpayer money well spent?
How could you? $1.5 million a day to deter criminal activities like touching the reflecting pool or touching a piece of peeled paint, to assist in picking up trash and putting down mulch. This deployment is a waste of resources and talent. It is disrespectful to the mission and reputation of our National Guard. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting our National Guard and their proper training and deployment, and I ask you to please support this amendment.
I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing, oh, where? Oh, the gentleman from California is recognized.
Speaker 46
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of Ranking Member McCollum's amendment preventing funding for this in this bill for the deployment of the National Guard reserves for the beautification task force. Not only is it an egregious misuse of funds to spend a half a billion dollars so the National Guard can continue to pick up trash in DC, it also, more importantly for this subcommittee's work, it impedes our readiness and deprives our soldiers of valuable training opportunities. The brave men and women of the Guard deployed in DC could have spent the last 10 months preparing for a fight against our adversaries, supporting legitimate military operations, or responding to emergencies, instead of militarizing local neighborhoods in DC. But instead they've been robbed of these opportunities because the president's insistence that the nation's capital needs to be cleaned up.
In reality, this operation has done little to reduce violent crime in Washington, which was already trending downward before Trump took office. Providing more funding for this unnecessary and expensive deployment is a disservice to our national security and to the National Guard troops who serve our country. That's why I urge an aye vote on the McCollum amendment, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Glenn Ivey
Thanks the gentleman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ivey, is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One is, as you've heard, the amount of money, the expenditure on this is frankly outrageous and totally misdirected. I rise in support of the amendment. You know, this is one that's been of significant concern to me since it was first instituted for a couple of reasons. If you really wanted to spend the money to try and help make the streets of Washington DC safer, hiring police officers would be much better than assigning National Guards folks for a variety of reasons.
One is the National Guard's a band-aid approach. These guys are going to leave eventually and go back to doing the things that they ought to be doing, and I hope that comes sooner rather than later. Hiring police officers, though, would be much more beneficial to the community, A, because they're trained to actually police the streets of Washington D.C. or whatever community they're in, as opposed to the National Guard, which is not. And their training should remain on other things unrelated to policing. But the policing piece is of particular concern to me because part of the training is making sure you know how to use force on the street.
And so if you're on the street and you have a situation where you need to use some sort of force to resolve a criminal activity, regular police have a whole range of options and tools that are available to them. It's called the force continuum, and it can be, you know, lethal force at the far end, weapon or, but it can also be a nightstick or a taser or something in between. National Guard is not equipped with those tools by and large. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen any of them with those. And so the problem that creates is that a relatively minor situation puts them in the position of having to make a decision about whether, instead of having a taser or some sort of intermediate tool that you could use, it's nothing or it's the M4.
And we don't really need that. That's not where we need to be. And we've seen that from years and years of excessive force issues on the street where police officers have made decisions that, in my view, have been bad and dangerous and have led to criminal prosecution. So let's not put these National Guard personnel in the situation that they haven't been trained to deal with and don't have the tools to deal with. And then finally I'll say this, with respect to actually trying to make the streets safer, it's not just enforcement that's been effective in communities across the country.
And as my colleague from California noted a minute ago, these violent crime trends had been going down for years already anyway, including in the District of Columbia, and they continue to go down in cities where there's no National Guard presence that's been made. That's in part because they don't use just enforcement as a tool. They also use intervention prevention mechanisms to try and bring criminal activity down. And it's been effective. Why don't we actually try and use the tools that are effective to reduce crime in our streets?
My colleague from Illinois was just showing me an article a few minutes ago about research that's been done in Chicago just along these lines. And it's something that we really ought to continue to try and expand. Sadly, when the Trump administration came into office, they slashed the funding for many of these programs, which is really distressing in a number of ways because violent crime on our streets, especially gun violence on our streets, has, you know, will continue to move in the wrong direction if we don't use solutions that we've developed and tested and realized that they work. So let's get the National Guard back to doing what they're supposed to do. And if you really want to bring down crime on the streets of Washington D.C., use the funding instead of 1.5 million dollars a day for these National Guard folks that aren't trained to be out there.
Let's put it towards people, whether it's enforcement tools, more police, whether it's violence interrupters, whatever you want to use, let's use people out there on the street who are actually trained to handle these situations and can truly make a difference. So I urge you to support the amendment, and with that I yield back.
Speaker 53
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady from Minnesota is recognized for one minute to close.
Betty McCollum
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the people who volunteer for our National Guard are very special to each and every one of us in our state. And they're special to us as they are often called on to deploy nationally in the total service of this country. Many of us have been with them at their posts out in theaters and they put their lives on the line for us every single day. They need to be used effectively.
They need to be used with dignity and honor. And so I ask the committee to support this amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Minnesota. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested.
Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 51
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Alford. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Aguilar, aye.
Mr. Amodei. Mr. Amodei, no. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case, aye. Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Ciscomani, no. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline, no.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde, no.
Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar. Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean, aye.
Ms. DeLauro. Ms. DeLauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards, no.
Mr. Ellzey. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder. Mr. Harder, aye.
Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, no.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. LaLota. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye. Ms. Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy. Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum, aye.
Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Molinaro. Mr. Molinaro, no. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye. Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan, aye. Ms. Quigley. Ms. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, no.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive.
Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, no.
Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye.
Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke. Mr. Zinke, no.
Veronica Escobar
Are there members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. Clyburn, aye.
Gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Bishop, aye.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, no.
Gentlelady from Ohio.
Ms. Kaptur, aye.
Gentleman from New York.
Mr. LaLota, no.
Mr. Ellzey, no.
Gentlelady from Utah.
Ms. Maloy, no.
Gentleman from Alabama.
Speaker 54
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 33, the amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and I ask that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. My amendment would apply the same responsible guardrails that we have agreed to in this committee on a bipartisan basis to the funding of the Pentagon receives through reconciliation. These are not unreasonable constraints, they are not needlessly burdensome regulations. They are fundamental protections against waste, abuse, and corruption that both sides have agreed should apply to the funding that we approve.
For example, we prohibit funds from being used to award government contracts to companies that are deficient in their taxes, or that have been found guilty of a felony within the past two years. Do my Republican colleagues really believe the same standard ought not to apply to reconciliation funding? Should tax cheats and corporate criminals be eligible for lucrative government contracts simply because the money was passed through a different process? We include language in this defense bill to prohibit the use of funding for torture. Is torture somehow more acceptable because it is funded through reconciliation rather than appropriations?
Is it any less a crime against humanity because of a legislative technicality? We include a prohibition on the use of funds to contravene a War Powers Resolution, rightly asserting Congress's constitutional prerogative, not only the power of the purse, but the power to declare war. There are dozens of these guardrails that we routinely include in the bills that we pass through the appropriations process. But the Trump administration has argued that these do not apply to the money they have received through the reconciliation process, that those funds come with no strings attached. That is a direct affront to the institution of the Congress.
Allowing these funds to flow without the guardrails that we consistently see fit to include on our bills is an abdication of our authority, not only on this committee, but in the Congress as a whole. Our constitutional responsibility is to allocate funding on behalf of the American people whom we serve. Refusing to apply these guardrails to reconciliation funds, refusing to remove any doubt as to where the power of the purse lies, will come back to haunt us in the future.
These are reasonable provisions that we have already agreed to on a consistent and on a bipartisan basis. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and assert our power of the purse. I yield back.
Speaker 58
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized to address the amendment.
Ken Calvert
I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. We already, the one big beautiful bill or the first reconciliation bill, whatever we want to call it, passed and we shouldn't reopen the debate during this markup. We should focus on the bill that's before us and work together on how we can improve it, move forward, providing for the common defense. So for those reasons, I oppose this amendment. Yield back.
Speaker 57
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Betty McCollum
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I rise in full support of this amendment. Everyone in this room is an appropriator. We pay the bills, we manage the funds. With that in mind, it's my hope that we can have a unanimous approach to this amendment.
This amendment would bring the defense funds that were appropriated last year into Public Law 119-21 under the purview of this committee. It's necessary for proper congressional oversight. As I said in my opening statements, the Department of Defense took ten months to get us an adequate spend plan on the 150 billion dollars from the reconciliation bill. We should never accept that kind of a spend plan timeline with an annual appropriated funds. These funds should be subject to the same terms and conditions as every other dollar we allocate to the Department of Defense.
It's just not responsible for the Department of DOD's programs to fully utilize funds that are subject to one's offset rules versus another. We all agree reconciliation is not the right way to do business. This amendment would correct those concerns and abuses, and I support its adoption and I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, this is really not reopening a debate. This is about applying the same, as I say, rules that we engage in in this committee with appropriations bills to what is in essence an appropriations bill, but it's gone through a different process. But it's still the advocates, it is still appropriation of funds. And this is the power of the purse, which belongs constitutionally to the Congress.
The amendment doesn't add any condition to any funding that we have not already agreed upon in this committee. It simply applies the standards that we have set for ourselves on how the money Congress approves ought to be spent to the money that is provided outside of this committee. If we do not believe these provisions should apply to the funding that Congress provides, then why are they included in this bill we considered today? Why have my colleagues not stripped them out entirely? The answer is because they are eminently reasonable provisions that we have found common ground on.
We've agreed to this. We cannot forfeit our power of the purse. We cannot abdicate our responsibility on this committee. We cannot continue to write blank checks for the executive branch. That is not how the Constitution envisions our role in this institution.
I encourage my colleagues, support this amendment. Apply these basic guardrails to the vast sums of money that are being funneled to the government outside of this committee. And to a person in this committee, we really do not believe that reconciliation is a laudable process for appropriating dollars. Why not apply these guardrails to funds that are being appropriated, if you will, outside of the Appropriations Committee? Thank you and I yield back.
I ask your support for the amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor say aye.
Veronica Escobar
In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 51
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter, no.
Mr. Case. Mr. Case, aye. Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline, no.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar. Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Ellzey. Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar. Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder. Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, no.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. LaLota. Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye.
Ms. Malliotakis, no. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malliotakis.
Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Molinaro.
Mr. Molinaro, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye.
Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Mrvan, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez.
Ms. Perez, aye. Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye.
Ms. Quigley. Ms. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Schrier. Mr. Schrier, no.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, no.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack.
Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke. Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 60
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from Ohio.
Ms. Kaptur, aye.
Gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cuellar, aye.
Mr. Harder, aye.
Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Speaker 60
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Maryland.
Gentleman from Arizona.
Speaker 69
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Hoyer, aye.
Gentlelady from Texas.
Speaker 54
Again, are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 32, the amendment is not adopted. Excuse me. Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar is recognized for purpose of amendment.
John Moolenaar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and request unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Veronica Escobar
The reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 67
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would fully fund Exercise Northern Strike that is held at Camp Grayling in Northern Michigan. Northern Strike provides realistic and robust training experiences for units and leaders to strengthen joint all-domain warfighting capabilities. It is at the forefront of UAS and counter-UAS training that provides service members critical exposure to current real-world threats. Additionally, our partners and allies travel from around the world to participate. It was publicly reported that hundreds of troops from Taiwan were included in the specialized training last year.
I greatly appreciate Chairman Calvert's and the subcommittee staff's work on this bill. It's a great bill that I will not hesitate to vote for today. Yet, there are always difficult choices when crafting these bills, and Northern Strike was a casualty this year. While I'm going to withdraw this amendment, I look forward to working with Chairman Calvert on securing this funding through the conference process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman, the amendment is withdrawn, but the gentleman from California is recognized to address for remarks.
Ken Calvert
Just wanted to let the gentleman know I'm looking forward to working with you as we move this process forward. I know it's an important training exercise and is supported by many members and we'll continue to work with you on this program. Thank you. Yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from Minnesota is also... she's declined, okay. If there's no further debate, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 66
Well thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership and willingness to work together and I withdraw the amendment and yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Thank you. My amendment would block a proposed regulation put out by the Office of Management and Budget that would overhaul how federal grants are dispersed across the government, including congressionally directed medical research programs. The change would require all federal grants to be approved by President Trump's political appointees.
I repeat, all federal grants to be approved by President Trump's political appointees. It is just the latest attempt by OMB Director Russ Vought to exert unmitigated control over federal spending. The proposed rule is more than 400 pages long. It is not written to be read, but buried in this obscure document is an extraordinary and unprecedented political power grab. The rule proposes to give President Trump's political appointees complete control over grant making.
It no longer requires that peer review be binding. It allows active grants to be terminated anytime for any reason. It severely limits foreign research partnerships. In practice, this gives political appointees a veto over any science that conflicts with the current administration's ideology. It in fact dismantles the post-World War II system used for the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA, and nearly every science agency.
Under this rule, a political appointee can simply override the scientific community's judgment with no finding of cause. I find that pretty extraordinary, my colleagues. The political allies, it's a veto over any science that conflicts again with the current administration's ideology. No longer will grants be dispersed in the manner Congress envisioned. No more will the recipient be evaluated on their merit or their qualifications or according to science.
The test is a simple one: are you conforming to the president's political ideology? Let us take the congressionally directed medical research program as an example, which is within this bill. The program supports crucial life-saving breakthrough research into a wide array of afflictions: Duchenne muscular dystrophy, bone marrow failure, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, traumatic brain injuries, psychological health, military burns, tick-borne diseases, spinal cord injuries, toxic exposure, the list goes on. But this rule under OMB puts the sustainability of this research at risk. CDMRP is a grant program.
It awards funding to institutions to conduct research on behalf of the federal government. If the proposed rule were to take effect, political appointees in the Trump administration would make decisions on who received these awards, not based on any empirical or evidentiary standard, not based on whether the recipient is well-equipped to conduct the research, but on whether they are politically aligned with the current administration.
This is an extraordinarily dangerous precedent that's being set. It reduces the likelihood that the research we fund will yield a breakthrough, and as awards granted according to politics and not merit will undoubtedly yield research of a less quality. There is a recent article published in the New England Journal of Medicine, and it notes the incredible harm this rule will inflict if it is allowed to take effect. I have, I will be happy to provide and I will provide you with copies of what the New England Journal of Medicine has said here. They go on that given political appointees' ultimate authority to determine federal grant funding as proposed by the OMB would politicize and weaken biomedical research.
And it's staggering what the effect of this rule would do. The article says, and let me quote it, "A non-scientific process for determine what is scientifically sound has not worked in the past. It will not work now." It continues, and I quote, "Erratic funding would fundamentally undermine innovation and dramatically impair America's ability to address today's health challenges," end quote. This rule undermines our authority as a co-equal branch of government.
Our prerogative is to provide funding that will support the American people, not just the people who are politically aligned with the president. It is a circumvention of our constitutional authority. It is a spoils system applied to medical research. We will be worse off for it. I encourage my colleagues, understand what's happening here, support this amendment, reassert our power of the purse, refute the administration's cynical attempt and the OMB's cynical attempt to exploit the power of his office for political gain.
I yield back. I thank the chair for the time.
Veronica Escobar
I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Ken Calvert
I thank the chairman. I thank the gentlelady for her amendment. This amendment would block the Trump administration's proposal to reform the framework for federal agencies' competitive grantmaking. The administration's proposal seeks to strengthen oversight, increase transparency into federal grants. It seeks to ensure federal grants align with the agency priorities and are in the best interests of the nation.
For those reasons, I oppose this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.
Betty McCollum
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Minnesota is recognized to address the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. During last year, DOJ cut the entire federal government, including financial assistance, was in chaos. My constituents didn't know what to do. If your offices were like mine, I suspect your casework also was a nightmare. OMB's proposed rule would codify that chaos by building politically charged uncertainty at the beginning, in the middle, and the end of every single grant process.
This is not how the grant approval process is supposed to work. Our constituents, our states, our local governments, our counties, our cities, they deserve predictability. And Congress is charged by the Constitution with the power to ensure that once a law is enacted, it is carried out in a fair way for the benefit of all our constituents, of all Americans.
And that includes the programs in this bill like life-saving congressionally directed medical research programs that the chair just, that the ranking member just spoke to. These are research programs that depend upon science and politics has no place in them. We cannot let OMB needlessly politicize research and many of our military service members and their families' lives depend on. And on a side note, as a state that did not support President Trump in the last election, as a state that stood up and resisted the ice surge of 4,000 people into Minnesota, we've watched our grants be cut. We've watched the political actions take place.
It has no business in doing that in those instances, but it certainly doesn't when it comes to medical research. With that I yield back and approve the adoption of this amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank the gentlelady. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also rise in support of Ranking Member DeLauro's amendment, which strikes down yet another authoritarian maneuver by the Trump administration. OMB's proposed rule would bring unprecedented corruption and partisanship to our federal grant-making process. Under the guise of increasing transparency, it would allow political appointees near total control of how and where federal dollars are spent. I, it's incomprehensible to me how our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would want that.
In place of a merit-based review process, it inserts President Trump's culture war crusaders directly into the system that funds critical scientific research, community development, disaster recovery, and countless other priorities. The rule gives the Trump administration carte blanche to deny funding based on vague and subjective ideas like anti-Americanism. Sounds McCarthy-esque to me. Mr. Chairman, the President has very different ideas of what is anti-American than me and my constituents. Ripping families apart without due process, using taxpayer dollars to build a ballroom or pave over the Everglades, those are anti-American.
The federal grant-making process is designed to be fair, rigorous, and free from political influence. It has given us cancer therapies, semiconductors, the internet, and the list goes on. When we insert political preferences into this process, we lose scientific objectivity. What is good for the American people and for our future is not always necessarily politically convenient for Republicans or Democrats for that matter, or for President Trump. This rule would allow President Trump to continue his scorched earth revenge tour, yanking funding at any time from whoever has most recently offended him with absolutely no accountability.
Federal grant awardees need consistency, objectivity, and stability to carry out the public good and advance projects that they've been chosen for, whether it's building housing, researching disease, or cleaning up our environment. The looming threat that Trump could pull their funding at any time would have a chilling effect on recipients, stunting innovative research and scientific advancement. We all saw the chaos that unfolded when Trump allowed DOGE to illegally freeze all federal grants. This is pure insanity. We can't let that nightmare be repeated.
There is too much on the line. Stop the run-amok madness, collision course, out of control, roller coaster ride this President has taken us on. We need to get off before it's too late. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment and I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from Maine, Ms. Pingree, is recognized to address the amendment.
Chellie Pingree
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to Ms. DeLauro for submitting this amendment and I speak in wholehearted support of it and echo the remarks that my colleagues have already made. I mean, this is so simple. It just says that no funds can be implemented, can be used to implement the OMB's outrageous proposed rule to rewrite how we make grants and regulations related to this.
With this rule, Russ Vought, the chief architect of Project 2025 and one of the most nefarious and destructive forces in this administration, would give veto power over every single federal grant to administration loyalists like himself. Now let let's just be simple here. Federal grants. You want to believe and you want to be able to say to your constituents back at home that their tax dollars are invested in a process that is nonpartisan, driven by the actual needs of people and communities. There should be no ideological litmus test in any of these things.
These should be based on the very factors that the ranking member mentioned: merit, qualifications, science, things like peer review that give us a sense that this was actually looked at by a group of peers who know that this is necessary research or that it's appropriate science. But this administration has been doing just the opposite. Haven't we lived through enough of this in the past two years? This administration, and we've seen it countless times, has blocked grants, rescinded grants, taken back the money, or blocked something because they just mentioned a few words: climate, race, gender. How many times have you had to intervene for institutions and organizations in your districts and try to call someone at the administration and say, why in the world are you taking back this perfectly innocent money that goes to a good purpose?
Do you recall last year? I recall it very well, in April, where it was revealed that there were 110 words at the USDA. And if your grant used any of those words, they could take the money back or stop your grants. Now it seems like those must have been, oh my gosh, what kind of words were they, must have been big. But here's a few.
Now I know you're not all farmers and you don't know all these things, but really. You couldn't use the word tile drain. You couldn't say safe drinking water or clean water. I mean really, that could make your grant be rescinded? And that still goes on to this day.
Uh remember that video of the young punk kid who worked for DOGE? And he said, yeah, we just use some AI, we look for those words, and then we cancel your grant. He didn't know a thing about the subject matter area. He didn't know anything about what was going on. Remember DOGE, do we want to bring it back and that insanity?
I too come from a state where my governor got in a fight with the president. At a governor's lunch last year, she got in a tiff with the president over something he didn't like going on in the state of Maine and she said I'll see you in court. Oh my god, that unleashed a firestorm of cutting school lunch programs, of cutting funding at the university for agricultural research projects. They even interfered with our um Social Security Administration on enrolling babies in social security saying people would have to bring the baby into the office that was rarely even personed, didn't always have someone there, uh instead of just doing it in the normal process. I mean it's outrageous what this administration could possibly do, has done, and this just goes against every kind of process in an administration that we know we can't trust to believe in science, we know we can't trust them to be balanced and fair, and we cannot let partisan hacks decide how the money is spent that we appropriate in this committee.
It needs to be fair and we cannot let this process go forward and I think the only way to stop it uh is to support this amendment and get it approved today. So I yield back and I thank my colleague for this amendment.
Speaker 37
I thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment?
Rosa DeLauro
Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Okay. I thank my colleagues for speaking in support of the amendment. I think we could all agree that federal funding should be awarded according to objective criteria and not political preference. When we're talking about applying a political filter to all of the federal grants, think about that. Grants is one word, but think about FEMA and disaster relief, where some political person, some person who doesn't know jack about your district or what happened and so forth, will say yea or nay.
Transportation, the SAFER grants, the COPS grants. My colleague from Maine talked about agricultural grants, rural grants in your community. Any grant that we deal with, and we provide the funding in this committee for these efforts. And they're going to say that our judgment is flawed, that we don't know what we are doing, but some political lackey is going to make that decision on behalf of your constituents and my constituents. Why in God's name would we turn it over to these, to these folks?
It's not transparency. It's not waste or fraud or abuse. Boy, I tell you, when your grant gets challenged and you scream from the rooftops or you call the administration and you say you have to reverse it, then you'll know what is being wrought here. We should not be conditioning access to critical resources that support medical breakthroughs, and that's the program we're talking about in this bill, like I have introduced. I asked for funding for ovarian cancer.
Others have asked for funding in this bill that they care about deeply, and I mentioned that, that they could just say no to it because they don't like the program. The award should be granted on merit, on the qualifications of the recipient, awarded to ensure the greatest likelihood of success. And we owe that to the American people. Read, I'm going to get distributed, the OMB and the politicization of science in the New England Journal of Medicine. My God, let's look at the trusted resources that we have over the years.
I urge my colleagues, support the amendment, oppose a dangerous precedent this administration is attempting to set. I thank the chair for the time and I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
You're welcome. Again, chair would just remind everyone please try to stay within the time limits. Chair will continue to be generous with the clock, but it's going to be a long day. Question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
Roll call.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Mr. Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, aye. Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean, aye. Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar.
Speaker 51
Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Elzey, no. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar, I. Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Fleischmann.
Speaker 51
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel, I. Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin, no.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Speaker 51
Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder. Mr. Harder, I. Dr. Harris.
Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson. Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey, I.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur, I. Mr. LaLota.
Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, I.
Ms. Malloy. Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum. I.
Ms. McCollum, I. Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, I. Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Moolenaar, no.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, I. Mr. Mrvan.
Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez, I. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree, I. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, I. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley, I.
Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, no.
Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, I. Ms. Underwood.
Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Mrs. Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke. Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 60
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Mr. Chairman, I.
Speaker 55
I was going to get to the gentleman, but thank you. That's all right. Gentleman from Indiana.
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote?
Mr. Mrvan, I. Mr. Hoyer, I.
Speaker 75
Wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, clerk will tally. Gentlemen, is the gentleman from Nevada recorded?
Veronica Escobar
The gentleman from Nevada is recorded as a no. Mr. Amodei, no.
On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 33, the amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur, is recognized for an amendment.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask to dispense with the reading of this very worthy amendment. I rise today in support of my amendment with the support of my co-leads, Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois and Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Our amendment would appropriate 400 million dollars to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This will allow funds to be available until 2029.
This program has long had significant bipartisan support, including from members of this committee who have previously voted in support of it. It's unfortunate that this provision was not in the original bill. And I would like very much to see this amendment agreed to. But I recognize that the best way to ensure this program continues is for necessary negotiations to occur in conference with our Senate counterparts. This is a massive bill of which this amendment is but a mere part.
The Senate is likely to pass $750 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. This House just passed the Ukraine Support Act, and I'm heartened to see Congress's reassuring itself to fund strategic programs such as this security initiative that carry broad bipartisan support. I would encourage my colleagues to work in good faith with our Senate colleagues to ensure this support continues as long as necessary. The flame of liberty is priceless, and it flickers with our every move. And thus I offer my amendment as a model for how this can be done without new costs on the American taxpayer.
Secondly, our colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee have included in the Defense Authorization Bill that the BBGX battleship program should not move forward until it is actually designed. I also thank the chair and ranking member of our subcommittee for voicing that sentiment during our Navy budget hearing. My amendment would retool some of the funds from that paused program. Supporting our Ukrainian allies isn't charity. It is a strategic and rational move to support American interests, essentially freedom's interests.
When our soldiers were under attack by Iranian murder drones in the Middle East, with Russia helping and supplying Iran, it was Ukraine that sent hundreds of experts to help intercept and defend our soldiers, our people. Ukraine again came to our aid. It is time for us again to come to Ukraine's aid and rightly stand on the side of liberty. This isn't really a very hard choice. I've been pleased to see positive steps from the administration in recent weeks, including agreement at the G7 to accelerate the provision of air defense systems to Ukraine and licensing production of air defense and long-range strike capabilities to that country.
And I would encourage this committee to support these efforts. We and our European allies are stronger with Ukraine than without it. The United States urgently needs to boost production of air defense, long-range strikes, and to work with Ukraine to learn from its pathbreaking experience in unmanned systems. By extending and investing in the USAI and Ukraine's capability, we're investing in a powerful partner and future ally, as well as our own defense industry. And there's a reason that almost every member of this committee has voted in support of USAI in the past.
I hope to see that support continue going forward. Thank you, and I would yield back for the moment.
Ken Calvert
Thank you, Chairman. Thank the gentlelady for her amendment. The amendment adds $400 million in funding for Ukraine. I've long supported and continue to support Ukraine's efforts to defend itself from Russian aggression. Our current approach is to maintain a high level of support using the assistance of our European allies and partners.
The administration asked our allies and partners to step up, and they have in a big way through the Pearl Initiative. Our preference is to stay on that path. With that, I understand that Ms. Kaptur, after your remarks, you may offer to withdraw your amendment, but I'll leave that up to you.
Betty McCollum
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have two people that wish to speak prior to my withdrawing the amendment.
Thanks, Julie. Gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum's recognized to address the amendment.
On June 11th, the war between Russia and Ukraine reached 1,569 days, which means it's gone on longer than World War I. This war has also gone on longer than our own involvement in World War II as we fought alongside many allies. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Ukraine still fights this war alone. But Ukraine continues to surprise Russia with its innovative and inexpensive, inexpensive drone attacks.
In the last few weeks, Ukraine has been able to successfully attack both St. Petersburg and Moscow, hitting critical oil and infrastructure targets, targets that seemed unreachable in the past. Russia has taken over 1 million casualties during this war. Think about it. It's simply astounding. No major power has had that number of casualties since World War II.
The loss of life is tremendous and it's sad. The Ukrainians have had success, however, in defending their homeland, their democracy because they have continued to provide, we have continued to provide material and intelligence support to them. We must continue our support to Ukraine. We need to continue to provide assurances to our European allies that we do stand with them. Since the start of the war, I've continued to speak with our allies in Europe.
Our allies in the Baltics are seriously concerned, very seriously concerned about how Russia drone incursions over their own territory. They fear that if Putin wins in Ukraine, they are next in line for an invasion from Russia. That cannot happen because if that does happen, Article 5 of the NATO Charter will be triggered. And what does that mean? It means a war between Russia and NATO, NATO, that includes us.
This is something we must avoid at all costs. The Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a gathering of countries to support Ukraine, met just last week to continue to express their support for Ukraine. The Secretary of Defense did not attend the meeting with the other European allies and ministers. Instead, the Under Secretary for Policy listened on the phone. That's how much weight the administration has given to this important meeting.
Congress has continued to provide funding for Ukraine assistance in every appropriations bill since 2015. And we shouldn't stop now. We need to publicly show our support for Ukraine and show this administration that Congress has a voice and a vote in this issue too. I support the amendment and I ask you all to do the same.
Speaker 78
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro's recognized to address the amendment.
Mike Quigley
I think there are, I think other people, other, I'll wait. Okay, and I know we have Mr. Hoyer and we have Mr. Quigley.
Speaker 77
Okay, Mr. Hoyer, did you want to address the amendment? Gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley's recognized to address the amendment.
Mike Quigley
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it's important as I support this amendment to recognize the difference between the Ukrainian army in 2014 and 2022. In 2014, when the Russians invaded Crimea, the Ukrainian army wasn't close to what it was in 2022.
And that is in large part because of the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. The funding, the training made that army extraordinary. And it gave them the opportunity to defend themselves. But by excluding funding for Ukraine here, we are signaling to Putin and the world that America's commitment to defending democracy is somehow negotiable. That is not strength, that is failure.
This investment of 300 million not only bolsters our own defenses, it also protects democracy in Eastern Europe, which is again in our direct interest. We have seen firsthand the results of failure to act. We should have taken the annexation of Crimea more seriously, taken Russia's actions as a grave warning and invested more in Ukraine's defenses then. We must learn from these mistakes if we are to succeed in the future. General Milley, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said himself that failing to aid Ukraine could result in a dramatic increase in a budget, defense budget on our own.
Ukraine has been battling one of the world's largest armies for over three years. Time is running out. The USAI program helps fund critical capabilities including air defense, artillery, long-range fires, armored vehicles, maintenance and sustainment needs and other priority requirements. More importantly, it is an authority that allows the US to procure capabilities from US industries or partners. It is funding for Ukraine to purchase weapons and equipment directly from US manufacturers.
Put simply, it is an investment in our own defense capabilities and a return to our own economy. Funding this program enables the US to address the most pressing immediate needs and the longer-term capability needs of Ukraine. A lack of funding would severely undermine Ukraine's security and our own national security. It would serve as a negative signal to Ukraine, to allies and partners, to Russia and other aggressors around the world. We would effectively demonstrate to authoritarian leaders that the US will allow them to act with impunity.
This cannot be the case. As US has for the better part of a century, we will continue to stand up to tyrants and defend freedom. I've been to Ukraine five times since this conflict started, sometimes with many of you. We're left to wonder, and I know there are those amongst both sides that want to strongly defend Ukraine, but this is the embodiment of the Reagan doctrine, that we will defend our allies against, at the time, Soviet aggression at all costs. When I see the votes on the full floor when it comes to supplementals and other support measures, at the most it was about half of your caucus that supported those measures.
Again, we're talking about the Reagan doctrine, something so fundamental not just to ourselves but our democracy and our allies. A reminder that as FDR said in his last inaugural, we have learned that what happens over there affects us over here. And he quoted Emerson when he said, to have a friend you need to be one. Just ask yourself today, let's put down a list of the United States' friends. Who are they?
Who trusts us now? Who has faith that we will be there when we are needed? Reciprocal matters as well, and today would be an important part of that element. Thank you, and I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
I thank the gentleman. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Morelle, is recognized to address the amendment.
Joseph Morelle
Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment as well. Ukraine is at a turning point in its war against Russia. For more than four years, the Ukrainian people have fought with extraordinary courage in defending their country and their democracy. Now is not the time for us to walk away.
Zeroing out the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Russia remains one of the most significant threats to our national security and to the security of our NATO allies. And Vladimir Putin has made it clear that his ambitions extend well beyond Ukraine. If Russia succeeds because we lose our resolve, it could embolden further aggression against nations along NATO's eastern flank, including the Baltic states. And the cost of this assistance is indeed small compared to the consequences.
Ukraine is doing the fighting. Our funding through USAI helps them defend their country and helps prevent a wider conflict that would carry far greater costs for our allies, for our security, for the world. I think often about meeting with members of RocMaidan back home in Rochester. For years, these people have organized fundraisers, collected supplies, assembled medical kits for people that they will never meet. They understand that this war is not an abstraction.
They see the human consequences of this war every day. This committee should stand with them. We should continue providing Ukraine the tools it needs to defend itself and preserve the freedom that we all cherish. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank the gentlelady for offering it, and I yield back my time.
Speaker 37
Thanks to the gentleman. The gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Perez, is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Marie Perez
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I thank my colleague Ms. Kaptur for offering it. Russia continues to ruthlessly attack Ukrainian civilians and destroy Ukrainian infrastructure. It is in our national interest to support our ally Ukraine in their long work of preserving democracy and working towards a durable peace. And we must ensure Ukraine is in the best possible position to continue this vital work.
The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative is a prudent investment in Ukraine's security and our own national security through strengthening our domestic manufacturing supply chains. The long-term success of Ukraine's pursuit of democracy is a righteous fight. What we do is in our own, this is in our national interest. Like, yes, we talk about values, but we also need to talk about the nuts and bolts of our national interest. And it lies in ensuring not that we're just talking about values, but that we have the domestic supply chains, we have the machinists, we have the equipment, we have the supply chains to preserve our values.
It is the muscle of how we stand behind our values, and it reflects our values as well. This is one of the best investments we could make. And again, it is our national interest to ensure that Ukraine has the resources to first defend their homeland and then rebuild their country for long-term peace. For these reasons, I strongly support the amendment and urge its adoption.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks to the gentlelady. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Dean, is recognized to address the amendment.
Madeleine Dean
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of Congresswoman Kaptur's amendment, and I really honor and admire your extraordinary support, so many of our colleagues here, extraordinary, undying support for Ukraine. I wear this pin. It was given to me from my Ukrainian American coalition back home. Suburban Philadelphia has tremendous numbers of terrific Ukrainian American constituents with such a love of country, love of democracy, and a wish for justice and peace that they are inspiring.
So thank you, Congresswoman Kaptur, for standing on Ukraine's side and with this amendment. I also associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Hoyer, I'm sure Mr. Quigley, Ms. DeLauro, and others who have been such stalwart voices for Ukraine in its existential struggle to defend itself from Russian aggression. I'm so lucky to have had the opportunity to visit Ukraine. I'm a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, and four of us, two Republicans, two Democrats, took the long train ride in from Poland, the 10-hour train ride in, right after we passed the supplemental funding a couple of years ago. I cannot tell you the admiration, the appreciation, the thanks that we got both on the American side with the supply logistics, but also of course on the Ukrainian side and directly from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
If we, we know that supporting Ukraine is one of the most important and effective investments we can make in global stability. If we allow Russian aggression to continue unchecked, if we allow Russia to win, God forbid, who knows what they or other like-minded nations might attempt next. Ukrainians are paying an enormous price to defend their democracy, to defend their neighboring country's democracy. Frankly, it is a global fight. If this war is allowed to continue and expand, just imagine the cost to our allies, the cost to us here in the United States, God forbid the conflict expands to the point where we are compelled to put troops on the ground.
We should be so grateful to the people of Ukraine and doing everything in our power to ensure they are successful in defending their sovereignty. And of course, we must do everything in our power to hold Russia accountable for their crimes. In particular, we must hold Russia accountable, the world must hold Russia accountable for their unlawful abduction of tens of thousands of Ukrainian children. We know this is nothing short of a crime against humanity, and we must do everything to support their somehow safe return. I was heartened by the House passing the Ukraine Support Act with bipartisan support earlier this month, sending a strong signal of Congress's continued support.
But there's more we can do right here in this bill, in appropriations. We should do it, we should not rest until we do. I hope this committee will show similar support. Think about it, I'll end with this: it's four years and four months since Russia's illegal invasion and oppression, attempted oppression and murder in Ukraine. And I think that we see in Ukraine a young democracy, something we search for in ourselves, the world's oldest democracy.
A belief in democracy, a belief in freedom and liberty and the ability to chart one's own destiny without fear of oppression and murder. We must do everything in our power to support Ukraine and to bring peace in that region of the world. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Sanford Bishop
Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentlelady's amendment to provide additional funding for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. At a time when Ukraine continues to resist Russian aggression, the United States must remain clear-eyed about what's at stake. It's not only about Ukraine's sovereignty, it's also about the credibility of American leadership, the strength of our alliances, and the message we send to our adversaries who are watching whether the United States will stand with democratic partners under attack.
This amendment takes a responsible approach. It provides targeted funding through the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to support Ukraine's military and national security forces, including training, equipment, logistics support, sustainment, intelligence support, and replacement of United States stocks. Just as importantly, it includes congressional notification and quarterly reporting requirements so that Congress can maintain oversight over how these funds are being used. That is the right balance. We can support Ukraine while also insisting on transparency, accountability, and careful stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
The underlying bill makes major investments in deterrence, readiness, and the defense industrial base. But deterrence is not only measured by what we buy for ourselves. It's also measured by whether we help our partners resist aggression before it spreads and becomes more costly for the United States and our service members. This amendment, the gentlelady's amendment, strengthens this bill. It supports our allies, it reinforces America's commitment to standing against Russian aggression.
And so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. It will enhance and strengthen this bill. With that, I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Steny Hoyer
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the gentlelady from Ohio both for offering this amendment and for her extraordinary leadership and faithfulness in this cause. Helping the people of Ukraine defend their nation against Putin's tyranny is a central battle in a global fight between democracy and despotism. That's the issue here. It is not simply 400 million dollars.
It is whether or not America is going to continue to stay strong in the fight against despotism. America has a critical role to play in that fight. And this is something the House recognized recently on a bipartisan basis with passage of the Ukraine Support Act. This amendment does not add any funding to this bill. It simply carves out 400 million from funds already appropriated herein and sets it aside specifically for Ukraine's Security Assistance Initiative.
This is money well spent. This is money that will send a message. This is a money that will, this is money that will reaffirm America's continuing willingness to defend democracy. The Ukrainian military is making steady progress because of its growing technological edge, particularly in drone warfare. You all read about that.
Our military is watching and learning so we can adopt those new technologies and tactics to strengthen our own capabilities. Spending 400 million to help Ukraine defeat Russia's invasion is a much better bargain than spending 80 billion dollars on a war in Iran. I hope the Senate will move swiftly on the Ukraine Support Act and that we can come together to send the President legislation that includes funding for this program as well. Ladies and gentlemen, two-thirds of this committee has voted 12 times to support Ukrainian funding. 16 of the majority members have supported it 100 percent of the time.
On those 12 votes, we only had one time when the majority of Republicans did not vote to support Ukraine. And that was three votes changed on the Republican side, there would have been a majority of the Republicans. It was an extraordinary bipartisan statement. We were unanimous on our side. Extraordinary statement of support for democracy, for freedom, against the breaking of international law.
And because we are an exceptional nation. We are the symbolic nation. We are the nation who says if we support you, you're going to do well. And that is why our silence essentially for the last 24 months, actually April of '24, is so deafening and so demoralizing for our Ukrainian friends and sends such a bad message to Putin of inaction. $400 million in a $1 trillion $72 billion bill.
But it will make a difference psychologically as well as militarily because that $400 million will provide weapons that the Ukrainians badly need to meet the Russian threats of their bombing of Kyiv on a regular basis. 100% of the time, 16 of you have voted for Ukraine. I hope you do so one more time. Because as the gentleman from Texas said, what America says matters. What America votes for matters.
What this House does matters. As a result, I would hope that we could get a bipartisan vote on this piece of legislation. $400 million. During the course, I have 23 seconds, during the course of the amendment that we had on the floor, the Ukraine Support Act, member after member rose and said you only have 300 million. We authorized 400 million.
You're cutting it 100 million. How ironic it would be for that debate to be that we cut 100 million when we can't add the 400 million which your side spoke about as us cutting and therefore a reason not to support the Ukraine Support Act. This 400 million is exactly what has been authorized by the Defense Committee, Defense Authorization Committee. We should take their advice, move on this, send a message that America continues to be the defender of freedom and the opponent of despotism.
Speaker 80
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Connecticut is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, which provides Ukraine with the funding they need to continue defending their freedom. This funding has been part of this bill for nearly 10 years, included in the 2025 continuing resolution. These funds are used to build Ukraine's capacity to defend itself from Russia and has been central to supporting Ukraine in its fight against the Russian invasion. And it has been extremely effective.
Let us not forget that many people, including Putin himself, and we all went to briefings at the outset of this war, and the view was that Russian forces would march straight through Kyiv and overwhelm the country in a matter of days. Days. It has now been over four years, and Russia still has not been able to achieve its initial goals. We continue to see just how effectively Ukraine's military and security service can use the resources that it has. Over the past few weeks, Ukraine has carried out multiple strikes against Russian oil refineries, munitions factories, and other infrastructure critical to the Russian war effort within Russian territory, and in some cases using domestically produced long-range missiles.
These attacks represent Ukraine's capability not just to hold the front lines, but to make the war effort increasingly costly for Russia to maintain. Ukraine's innovation, their daring, their determination is degrading Russia's war capabilities, changing the shape of warfare in real time. And through this all, we have seen the courage, the courage of the Ukrainian people every day. We have seen Russia kidnap their children, and yet they continue on fighting because they're fighting for their freedom. And they're fighting for democracy, and yes, they're fighting because they want to tilt to the Western world.
They don't want to be under the thumb of Russia. They have proven over and over and over again that the Ukrainians deserve our support. You know, the Trump administration talks about peace through strength. The Ukrainian people have proven their strength. We should be supporting the strength of Ukraine's soldiers and citizens so that they can stand up to authoritarian aggressors like Russia who seek to undermine peace, security, democracy, and freedom that serves US interests.
That is what this amendment is all about. Ukraine needs continued security assistance funding for critical capabilities: air defense, artillery, long-range fires, armored vehicles, maintenance and sustainment needs, and more. Our national security requires this investment. So does Ukraine. And keep in mind, we replenish our own stocks with what happens here.
So it pays for our military might and our military strength. So far, our investments have significantly degraded the capabilities of Russia, a major peer adversary. You know, the Ukrainian people are fighting for their lives. They're fighting for their identity, and they're fighting for their freedom every day. What is it about that that we don't understand?
It would send a terrible message to the Ukrainian people, to our allies around the world, and to supporters of democracy around the world if this amendment were to fail. If Russia's invasion is truly such a threat to democracy around the world, and we believe that it is that threat, and this administration claims to defend Western values, then why, why are we not providing Ukraine with what it needs to succeed? Are we still failing to meet the moment, as Neville Chamberlain did when he thought he could appease a dictator in 1938?
If we fail to fund Ukraine, if we pull our troops from Europe, if we abandon our allies in NATO, Vladimir Putin will run rampant through Ukraine and the Balkans will be next. He will not stop. We cannot capitulate to Russia's aggression or we will be condemned by history as Neville Chamberlain was. In the face of our providing most recently and allowing Iran to have ballistic missiles to threaten, we say yes. We're going to give them some nuclear capability.
We're going to provide them with 300 billion dollars to repair their country as reparations. We're going to unfreeze 100 billion dollars in assets for Iran. When the hell has Iran been our ally? When, my friends? Ukraine is our ally.
We need to stand with Ukraine. We have a moment to do that. This committee can make a difference in that. Please. Please.
On behalf of who we are as Americans, on behalf of our allies, and on behalf of the Ukrainian people who fight every single day for their hope, their freedom, and how do we turn our back? I yield back and I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just say a deep thank you of appreciation to our colleagues for their serious attention to this consequential amendment. Ukraine is the scrimmage line for liberty on the continent of Europe today. With our closest time-tested allies in NATO, adjoining countries like Poland, Hungary, Moldova, listen to the list, Serbia, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, all these hang in the balance.
They are small countries. Russia is so large, 11 time zones, a full military. Russia has stolen over 20,000 Ukrainian children and hidden them inside Russia to reprogram these youngsters with brainwashing. These are war crimes. Historically, no place on earth has borne more cold-blooded murder by Russian dictators of innocent people.
14 million or more starved to death in the last century, forced famine as a form of warfare on civilians, annihilating them in forests, drowning them in rivers, bullets to the back of the head, no trial, no justice, wiping out of religious believers until today, throwing them in the Dnieper River, assassinating people by the thousands in forests, in church basements, smothered and left to die. Russia's tyranny is infamous for annihilation. What we are doing here by supporting this amendment is drawing a line for justice in a very important location on this globe. I withdraw my amendment knowing that we will work forward in working with the Senate to do something that is worthy of our time and generation. I thank my colleagues for their support and attention.
And I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady, and the amendment is withdrawn. We will next move the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley's recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
I ask the reading be dispensed with.
Veronica Escobar
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Mike Quigley
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm offering an amendment to preserve the US military presence in Europe and reaffirm our commitment to our NATO alliance. My amendment would ban funds from being used to significantly reduce US forces stationed in Europe, close or return key military facilities, withdraw major military equipment from the European theater, or separate the position of commander of United States European Command from the position of Supreme Allied Commander Europe. The NATO alliance has kept Americans and the rest of the world safe since the Second World War. Congress enacted this exact provision in last year's bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act.
And we did so because we all agree that a strong US presence in Europe is strategically important to Americans at home. Without NATO, we are alone. We do not have a guarantee that our allies will help us when we need it. Those concerns have not gone away. In fact, they've become even greater as Secretary Hegseth has curbed troop deployments in Europe.
For 75 years, NATO has been the most successful military alliance in human history. It has prevented wars, strengthened American security, increased prosperity, and ensured that no hostile power could dominate the European continent. NATO helps the US project strength alongside dozens of capable allies and partners rather than confronting global threats alone. I agree that our allies should continue increasing their defense spending; many of them have already done so, and we should continue encouraging every NATO member to meet its commitments. But burden-sharing and American leadership are not mutually exclusive.
A stronger Europe complements American leadership; it does not replace it. Secretary Hegseth has suggested that the US should further reduce its military presence because our allies are spending more on their own defense. This is simply illogical given a growing Russian threat. Our military presence in Europe is not a favor we provide to our allies; it's an investment in our own security. It is a guarantee for mutual safety.
Our forces stationed in Europe deter Russian aggression. They provide forward positioning for crises in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and they ensure that the US can respond rapidly to emerging threats without having to surge forces from across the Atlantic after a crisis has already begun. Hegseth has recently dismissed NATO as small flags on fancy tables. Well, those flags represent allies who came to our defense after the September 11th attacks. They invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in history, and our allies answered the call.
Thousands served alongside American troops in Afghanistan; many never came home. Those flags represent real soldiers, real sacrifice, and real commitments. This is the foundation of the strongest military alliance in the world. It provides military bases, intel, logistical support, military capabilities, and diplomatic partnerships that multiply American power across the globe. At a time when we face challenges not only from Russia but also China, Iran, and other authoritarian actors, weakening our alliances would make America less secure, not more.
This amendment simply preserves the forces that Congress deemed essential enough to protect in last year's NDAA. It ensures that major changes to our military presence in Europe cannot occur without congressional approval and careful consideration of its consequences. Mr. Chairman, NATO remains indispensable to American security, our presence remains indispensable to NATO's credibility, and maintaining both is firmly in the national security interest of the United States. Our allies' security is ours. I hope this committee will continue to see that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thanks the gentleman for his amendment. Gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized to address the amendment.
Ken Calvert
Thanks, Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment. This amendment restricts the department's ability to make force posture changes in Europe. I'd like to highlight that my bill continues to support our force posture in Europe, fully funds the US portion of the common funding requirement for the NATO international military headquarters as requested by the administration. Recent events have shown how important it is that the department remain flexible where it can quickly address requirements that emerge in any area of the world.
And for those reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back to the gentleman.
Speaker 81
Thanks the gentleman. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Betty McCollum
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in support of this amendment. Last week at the 2026 NATO Defense Ministerial, Secretary Hicks announced the Department of Defense would be conducting a six-month review of US force posture and basing in Europe. And I want to acknowledge what the chair said that he has in this bill for Europe and for NATO. But given the administration's recent actions, I'm very concerned that this decision, that the decisions that are being made by the Department of Defense may further damage our relationship with our NATO allies.
Putin must be thrilled at what he's seeing. Putin's greatest desire is for the United States to abandon Europe. And slowly this year, the administration has been giving him what he wishes for. In May, the administration announced that we would withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany, and the Pentagon then cancelled a rotation of US soldiers to Poland. Now, the president later reversed that decision on social media, but this created tremendous amount of confusion in Europe and here in Congress too.
President Trump then made a decision to take us to war in Iran. When that turned into a complete debacle, the president responded by blaming our European allies for not supporting his disastrous war and demanded that they use their naval forces to open up the Straits of Hormuz. Can't make this stuff up. And that's why I believe Congress, even though there's language in this bill, needs to do more to be a steady voice to our allies. As we provide funds for Ukraine and the Baltics and encourage exercises with our NATO's allies, we are the consistent partner.
We have to be the consistent partner. And that leaves it up to us to do what we can here in this committee. So if we're going to defend democracy here at home, we also need to defend it around the world. I support the amendment and I ask you to do the same.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
I ask for your support.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks the gentleman. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois. All opposed say no. All those in favor say aye. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Roll call has been requested. Have a few more hands, please, if you're going to support. Okay, sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 51
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford, no.
Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur.
Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee.
Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy.
Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Molinaro.
Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez.
Ms. Perez, aye. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Cline, no.
Mr. Cuellar, aye.
Gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. Bishop, aye.
Gentleman from Maryland.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no.
Speaker 54
Are there others wishing to vote or change their votes? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 26, the noes are 31, the amendment is not adopted.
Veronica Escobar
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Edwards, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Chuck Edwards
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk and I ask that the reading be dispensed.
Veronica Escobar
Without objection, the reading for the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Chuck Edwards
Thank you, Chairman Calvert, and thank you to the members of the Defense Subcommittee for your leadership and the tremendous work that went into producing this bill. Your commitment to strengthening our national defense and supporting the warfighter is quite evident throughout this bill, and I'm grateful for all of your thoughtful, disciplined approach. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment providing additional funding for lightweight strike munitions, mobile live-fire targeting systems, the joint biological detection system, hypersonic composite materials, and biomarker-based human performance optimization for special operations forces. Our warfighters are confronted threats that evolve faster than our acquisition cycles. These investments, developed and manufactured in North Carolina, directly strengthen our national defense and preserve the industrial base that we rely on in times of crisis.
First, the amendment provides $18 million for lightweight strike munitions capable of operating in GPS-denied environments. Our adversaries already have similar technology, and failing to invest now risks seeding an asymmetric advantage on the battlefield. Second, it includes $6 million for a mobile live-fire targeting system. Today, more than 90% of Air Force pilots enter combat having never engaged a moving ground target with live munitions. That is unacceptable readiness.
This investment gives aviators realistic maneuvering threats that reflect the fight that they will face. Third, the amendment urges inclusion of a $54 million to accelerate fielding of joint biological detection systems. Biological threats are advancing rapidly, we've seen evidence of that, and early detection is the difference between a contained incident and a crisis. Fourth, it provides $8 million to expand production of hypersonic composite materials that are essential to missile and rocket systems. These materials allow hypersonic weapons and advanced missiles to survive extreme thermal and mechanical loads.
Finally, the amendment includes $6.2 million to advance biomarker-based supplementation supporting human performance research at Fort Bragg, aligning with the Pentagon's holistic health and fitness framework. One North Carolina manufacturing supporting these capabilities is currently gapped for fiscal year 2027, operating without the sustained environment needed to scale production and to meet emerging demands. Without support, we risk losing a uniquely capable supplier at a very critical moment. These are not abstract technologies. They're jobs in advanced manufacturing and capacities in North Carolina.
When requests like these are not included, we weaken both our defense posture and the workers who form the backbone of our national security enterprise. I understand that not everyone's request could be included, but I am hopeful that we can work with the committee on these requests during the conference process. And for that reason, and because the only way I could get an offset would be to suggest that we take somebody else's priorities, I withdraw this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 83
I thank the gentleman. Well, I just want to, gentleman from California's recognized to address the amendment.
Ken Calvert
Certainly, and I'm looking forward to working with the gentleman as we move this process forward. I know these are important programs and look forward to trying to work this all out. So thank you, thank you for removing the amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Frankel, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Well, I know you will all be pleased to know that today marks the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of women entering the United States Service Academies. Gerald Ford signed the law opening the academies to women in 1975. The first co-educational classes graduated in 1980.
50 years ago, America made a promise that talent matters, that courage matters, that service matters, that every qualified American willing to wear the uniform deserves the opportunity to rise. And my amendment is about protecting this promise. First, some recent history. This is really shocking. I know Mark is listening, if no one else, because this is shocking.
Secretary Hegseth left Fox News and came into office declaring war on what he calls wokeness. He attacked DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, and questioned whether women should serve in combat. And then what happened? And listen to this. General Charles Q. Brown Jr., decorated fighter pilot, second Black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, removed.
Admiral Lisa Franchetti, first woman to lead the United States Navy and the first woman on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, removed. Admiral Linda Fagan, first woman to lead a branch of America's armed forces as the Coast Guard's highest ranking officer, removed. Vice Admiral Shoshana Chatfield, senior Navy officer, America's representative to NATO, removed. Vice Admiral Nancy Lacore, three-star admiral, 35-year veteran, chief of the Navy Reserve, removed. Vice Admiral Yvette Davids, first woman selected to lead the United States Naval Academy, pushed aside.
These are patriots wearing the uniform, answering the call, defending our flag, earning their stars, all removed or pushed aside, and no explanation. And let's be clear, women and service members of color have already answered the call with their actions. They've served, they've sacrificed, they've led, and their service has strengthened America. And the fact is, folks, America's military, America's military is strongest when we draw from the full strength of America itself. The best minds, the best leaders, the best talent from every community in every corner of this country, because diversity is a force multiplier, which brings me to the subject at hand of this amendment, the recent promotion lists of the Army and the Navy.
Now first I'll talk about the Army. The Army's promotion selection board reviewed records. They reviewed service. They reviewed leadership. About three dozen officers selected for promotion from a colonel to one-star general.
And then Secretary Hexeth, he stepped in. And even though Army leaders supported their promotions, Hexeth removed only four officers. Guess who? Two black men and two women. No explanation.
And then came the Navy. Another promotion board. Another review. Another group of qualified leaders. Thirty-one officers selected for promotion to admiral.
The Navy looked at their records and said they earned it. But once again, Hexeth stepped in and he removed nine. He removed nine. Every woman on the list removed. Two black officers removed.
Not one woman remained. And just like in the Army list, no finding of misconduct. No finding of failure. No finding that they could not lead. Just removed, no answers, no explanation, no accountability.
And that should trouble every one of us because in the United States military, stars should be earned through service, not through assorted ideological politics. So I ask, were the women and the men of color removed from promotion lists by Hexeth despite recommendations of those in command who knew them best because they could not lead? Were they removed because they lacked courage? Were they removed because they lacked competence? Were they removed because they failed the standards of the United States military, or were qualified leaders, women and people of color who have already earned their place, denied the opportunity to rise because of a narrow political agenda rooted in discrimination?
So I end where I began. Why were qualified American patriots removed from promotion lists after they earned their place? And until, until Secretary Hexeth answers, Congress must demand accountability and we must hold back some of his travel money. Boy, we should do more than that. I'm being gentle and kind today.
Please, everybody, join me in passing this amendment.
Speaker 89
Thanks the gentlelady for a minute or amendment. The gentleman from California is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Ken Calvert
Thank the chairman, thank the gentlelady for her amendment. This amendment unnecessarily limits the Secretary of Defense's ability to travel until he provides information on general officer promotion boards. It's well within the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense to review promotions. We want to have a secretary to be able to understand, address, and properly advise the President on all matters relating to national security. Travel is vital to that.
For those reasons, I oppose this amendment and yield back my time.
Speaker 88
Thank the gentleman. Gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum's recognized to address the amendment.
Betty McCollum
Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest support possible from this podium to support the Frankel amendment. Secretary Hexeth's direct interference in military promotion boards should be a concern for each and every one of us. This is unprecedented, folks. This is not normal. This is not normal behavior at all.
This year alone, Secretary Hexeth has blocked promotions for at least forty senior officers. Ms. Frankel mentioned a few, but forty. These officers who have received initial approval from their peers for promotion to general officers. They have yet they have been struck off a list by Secretary Hexeth with no explanation given. And I've, I've seen him in committee when he's been asked, no explanation given.
Approximately half of these officers were women or minorities. And this gives an alarming impression to these officers that they are being passed over because of their race or their sex. And that should concern each and every one of us. When the Secretary does this, what is the impact on a junior officer of color? What is the impact on a junior officer who's a woman?
Are they seeing our military put up a "we don't want you" sign, "no help wanted from you"? Will they choose to leave the service prematurely? And I don't think any of us want that. When I hear Secretary Hicks has been asked, as I said earlier, in public congressional hearings why he took these actions, he has refused. Flat out, "I don't have to give you an answer."
"I don't have to tell you why 40 people were taken off of a list." "I don't have to tell you anything." "I made this decision." This goes smack in the face of what the military stands up for when it promotes officers. And we can't sit idly by and watch our officer corps being depleted, being insulted, and being attacked.
These officers are all patriots. They've volunteered, they put up their hand, they took an oath of office, they have been serving their nation. They deserve, we just don't deserve, they deserve to know what specific reason why their record did not conform for a promotion that the board had given them. And if the Secretary's not going to support someone for promotion, or maybe even fire them, he should provide a rationale to Congress when asked. The gentlewoman's amendment would accomplish this.
We have to get the Secretary's attention somehow. So I support my colleague's amendment to restrict some travel funds, and I ask all of you to seriously think what this amendment sends a signal when we say the Secretary has a green light not to explain his decisions for not promoting men who are of color and women in general. They deserve an answer. They served our country. We deserve an answer when we ask a question for oversight.
With that, I yield back.
Sanford Bishop
The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in full support of Representative Frankel's amendment. The military promotion process is one of the most important systems that we have for maintaining professionalism, merit, continuity, and trust in our armed forces. Officers who are selected for promotion to the general officer ranks have gone through a rigorous process. As a consequence, when an officer who has already been selected is removed from that process, Congress has a legitimate oversight interest in understanding why.
This amendment does not prevent the Secretary from making lawful personnel decisions. It doesn't dictate who must be promoted. It simply says that if an officer has been selected for promotion and is later removed, the Secretary should provide a justification to the congressional defense committees before a portion of the Secretary's travel funds is made available. This is a modest and a reasonable oversight requirement. Our service members deserve to know that promotions are based on merit, on performance, on experience, and the needs of the force, not politics, not personal preference, or unexplained decision-making.
Congress also has a responsibility to ensure that senior military leadership decisions are transparent enough to preserve confidence in the institution. A strong national defense depends not only on weapon systems and funding levels, it also depends on trust. Trust in the chain of command, trust in professional military judgment, and trust that decisions affecting the careers of our senior leaders are made for sound reasons. This amendment strengthens transparency, it protects the integrity of the promotion process, and it strengthens this bill and our military forces. I urge my colleagues to support it.
It's a good amendment, it is needed at this time particularly, and I urge its adoption. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks to the gentleman, the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized to address the amendment.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank my friend from Florida, Congressman Frankel, for offering this important amendment to stand up for our service members. Mr. Chairman, it is incredibly unfortunate that this amendment is even necessary, but the reality is that we've seen Secretary Hegseth repeatedly single out service members for punishment who are women or people of color. Under the Trump administration, these officers are routinely dismissed from their roles, denied promotions, kept out of key jobs, and sidelined. For decades, advancement to the rank of general or admiral was earned, not handed out as a political favor.
And a promotion selection board reviews every candidate against written standards and certifies that each one is qualified. That merit-based, nonpartisan process is precisely what rewards quality and competence and keeps politics and bias from tarnishing our officer corps. So when officers who earned their place on that list are repeatedly stripped of it, Congress deserves an explanation, and to date, we have not been given one. Why don't you care? This amendment is quite simple: provide that justification for these highly questionable attacks on this merit-based promotion system, or accept a limit on your travel budget until you do.
We're the Appropriations Committee. That is the accountability measure that we are able to use. We exercise it, we withhold funds, and have done so consistently. We're not wiping out an entire budget. This is not the end of the world.
This is a, you know, mild rebuke and accountability measure to ensure that we get the information that we need to make a determination about the appropriateness of the Secretary of Defense's decision-making when it comes to interfering with promotions. That is not too much to ask. It's the basic accountability and transparency we owe the men and women who devote their lives and careers to defending this nation. And I'll be honest, the pattern here is hard to ignore. Our Senate colleagues have noted that around 60% of the senior officers this Secretary has removed or sidelined are women or black, even though they make up fewer than one in five of our generals and admirals.
This year's Navy one-star list came back without a single woman on it. Consider the four Army colonels struck from the list of nominees for one-star general earlier this year: it was two black women, two black men, and two women. When a merit-based system suddenly produces a result like that, the American people are owed an explanation. Trump's own Army Secretary said they had a long history of exemplary service and had done nothing wrong, yet they were removed anyway, and to this day, no reason has been given.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro, is recognized to address the amendment.
Rosa DeLauro
I rise in strong support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I just want to read headlines. The last one is June 19th, 2026, June 1st, 2026, March of 2026. March, the headline reads, Hegseth strikes two black and two female officers from a promotion list. The second one is Hegseth strikes female and black Navy officers from promotion list.
Third, of June 19th, just last week, secret vetting and blocked promotions inside Hegseth's war on diversity. The Navy's top leadership believed that Rear Admiral Stephen Barnett was by far the best choice to lead the command that oversees the Navy's bases at home and abroad. More experienced than other candidates, successfully managed the aftermath of one of the Navy's biggest messes, a fuel spill that contaminated an aquifer on the base in Hawaii, sickening thousands. Final decision fell to Defense Secretary Hegseth. To many in the Navy, Admiral Barnett's promotion seemed like a foregone conclusion.
However, he had one big strike against him. Like other black military leaders, he'd been encouraged by his superiors to help the Navy recruit and retain minority officers, who remain significantly underrepresented in the force. His years-old remarks on the importance of diversity had been flagged in a secret vetting process designed to weed out senior leaders who Mr. Hegseth and his team pegged as a problem. He finds them as a problem. This is like a Star Chamber meeting and making the decisions here.
You've got, last year Hegseth and his top aides ordered the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Marine Corps to do online searches of the officers selected by the boards to look for photos, videos, news articles that might draw Hegseth's ire, current and former defense officials said. The officials, they undertook the reviews so that they could show what was going on. It wasn't, and inside the Pentagon, such material was referred to as derog, short for derogatory material, looking for something to which would create the ire of Secretary Hegseth. And note what, you know, a couple of amendments ago, I talked about a rule which the Management and Budget, OMB, is looking at that says no longer are we going to deal with merit, no longer are we going to do peer review efforts, we're just going to use a political process to deal with grants across the whole federal government, every single agency. This is no merit, no basis, just someone's political ideology, what they care for.
And these are individuals who have dedicated their lives to the military and to their careers in the military and how critically important it is for them. And it's not clear whether Hegseth had the authority to pull names off the list. Congress, Congress, friends, by the way, we are the Congress here. Congress had entrusted management of one-star, two-star promotion boards to the service secretaries, not the Secretary of Defense. A young woman among those targeted was Vice Admiral Sarah Joyner, a three-star fighter pilot who military officials wanted to move to a higher-profile job in the Pentagon.
Hegseth says no, and she worked for Kane, head of the Joint Chiefs. She ran a team that conducted classified war games and assessments of new weapons systems. Kane urged Hegseth to nominate her for the position. The interventions failed.
What is going on, my friends? And as I said, the ranking member mentioned this, and it is the crux of the amendment of my colleague from... Not only do we have to get his attention, we have to grab him by the scruff of the neck and say, "What in the hell are you doing?" Making a determination that people who are qualified, probably more qualified than you are, to take on these positions, and you are saying no based on nothing but your own view. My God, what kind of a merit system is that?
We pride the military on what they do in allowing people to move forward and to raise their career and to get those bars and those stripes on their uniform. That's what it's about. And now we just... we're so devoted to the military, so devoted that we would just see them degraded, demeaned, and disrespected because one man doesn't like what their political beliefs are, or he doesn't believe in diversity. What are we doing? Vote for the gentlelady's amendment.
Tell this man that he has to come before the Congress. He has a price to pay for this, for destroying... destroying the infrastructure and the strength of our military and the people who lead us. I yield back and please support the gentlelady's amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Pocan, is recognized to address the amendment.
Mark Pocan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to admit I'm disappointed this wasn't just put in the manager's amendment. 25% of the travel budget of the Secretary of Defense. As the author of this amendment said, that's probably weak, but we were trying to make it just to get a reason. But bluntly, it is a sign of a weak character if you're afraid of people who don't look exactly like yourself.
And unfortunately, this just reeks of some of the worst parts of our history as a country coming back again, that based on racism, sexism, homophobia, other issues, people want to be able to discriminate. And we should all be repulsed by this. The pride, one of the prides of the American government, is that we had a military that was representative of this country. And now we've got someone who bluntly was a Fox News host. We're not checking his merit.
He was a Fox News host, a pretty boy who put on makeup and had his hair done and sprayed, making decisions. And now he's the Secretary of Defense, or War, and somehow we're okay with him saying that based on merit, people who deserve to be in the places they are based on their work and their history and their commitment to this country, and yet that's not enough. This guy, Pete Hegseth, he wrote a book. You know, he's talked about wokeness. Okay, sometimes you can say stuff and maybe you're a little loose, but you put something in your book and you pretty well damn mean it, okay?
This is what he put in his book in 2024, "The War on Warriors." It's black over white, female over male, gay over straight. This guy has an opinion, and we're letting this opinion that I thought we kind of put back in our history because it was such an awful, disgusting position back into play again. And we're not respecting a merit system in one of the most important institutions we have in this country.
So this Fox News host slash Secretary of Defense is making decisions based on his political beliefs. And all we're saying is give us a reason why these individuals aren't qualified based on their merit. And if you don't, you can't travel 25% as much. It's not like a big bar. It was worth more than 30 seconds of a rebuttal.
It should have been in the manager's amendment. And instead, we have to debate this and honestly bring back all the ugliness that this country's gone through to get where we are today. So, you know, I wish it would have been the manager's amendment. It should have been. It wasn't.
We have an opportunity to add it to the bill right now. But the gentlewoman from Florida is exactly right. We at least deserve to have the information. And when people don't want to give you the information, just like we don't get in so many other areas, we get upset and we stand up as Congress because we should, as a co-equal branch of government. But at least we deserve to know why individuals that have served this country well and through the merit system we have been lined up to have promotions didn't get those from a guy who spent most of his time in a chair getting hairspray.
Right? That's what he's done more in his life than been a Secretary of Defense. We deserve a better response. I hope we'll support this amendment. And if we don't, unfortunately, it says a whole lot about where we are and how we actually consider the defense of this nation.
And I hope that's not something that gets embedded in how we operate. So I urge a yes vote and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks the gentleman for his comments. Gentleman from Maryland is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 90
Thank you very much. Let's get Pete Hegseth's history right. Before he was on Fox News, he was in the military. I'll just read it. You all can Google it.
That's what I did to find out. Served as an infantry platoon leader in Baghdad. Anybody in this room serve as a platoon infantry leader in Baghdad? I don't know. I guess you kind of figured out what you're close, right?
Yeah, you're close. You're right. Civil military operations officer in Samarra, 101st Airborne, served as senior counterinsurgency instructor in Kabul, and he also was in Guantanamo Bay. Earned two Bronze Star medals. You don't get those for showing up to work.
I know, I was in the military. You don't get a Bronze Star medal for showing up to work in the morning. You get it for knowing what war is really like and what it takes to conduct a war. Earned the combat infantryman badge. You're right, he wasn't a general.
He wasn't a flag officer. He wasn't a senior officer. He was an enlisted guy who got the job done and who knows what war was like firsthand. And let me tell you something. Just like the pilot who flies your airplane, you want the most qualified person in the role of conducting war.
Period. Full stop. The last administration did not just promote on merit. Google Lloyd Austin's quotes. He came in and said he's going to institute DEI in the military.
Now, we can have a debate about whether that improves or doesn't improve the military. He had a right to his opinion, and under his watch, people were promoted under DEI. And I know everybody in the military knows it. They knew it. It was there when I was in the military.
This administration has a different view. This administration thinks you should purely be promoted on merit, and not just at the highest levels, but in reviewing the record of all promotions up to flag rank, you could perceive that someone else might be able to fulfill that role better. And I want a Secretary of War who actually makes that decision, reviews the entire record of those individuals without regard, because again, the last administration used it with regard to DEI. We should be making that decision without regard to DEI, the most qualified, just like the person who flies your airplane, you want the person who conducts that war, the most qualified person to make sure our men and women are protected in the military. And we can have a philosophical argument about whether DEI should enter into it.
But this administration feels it shouldn't, it should be purely based on merit. That's what this Secretary did. Please don't denigrate this Secretary's military record. It's beneath anyone on this committee to do that. He is a hero.
Two Bronze Stars, you don't get them for showing up to work. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman for his comments. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized to address the amendment.
James Clyburn
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and in strong opposition to Secretary Hegseth's myopic views and harmful actions. I often refer to the aspirations declared by the preamble to the Constitution, and I quote, "to form a more perfect union," and just a few words later, "provide for the common defense." I firmly believe that these aspirations, together with others laid out in the preamble, are mutually reinforcing. Our nation is most secure when everybody's talents are utilized and recognized.
The current Secretary of Defense has a different view. He has made it clear that he believes that our nation's security and pursuit of a more perfect union require us to reject the skills and performances of those whose gender and ethnicity, God's work, do not meet with his approval. It is reported that just this year, Secretary Hegseth has denied the promotion of more than 40 officers recommended by, and I'm quoting the article, "promotion selection boards made up of senior military officers."
The self-appointed Secretary of War is at war with his own military, employing unfairness and demoralizing high achievers. Nothing is more important to our common defense than highly trained and, I might add, highly morale in our military. In the case of one black admiral to whom the gentlelady referred, let me just quote the three things the Secretary held against him when he said to a group of black recruits, "Just one generation before me, it was nearly unthinkable for a black person to become a naval aviator. Think Tuskegee Airmen." The second quote: "What helped me was people who didn't look like me."
That's what he said to young black recruits to encourage them to come into the military, and the Secretary said that should be held against him. I want you to think about John Glenn and his refusal to take off until those three black women passed on the math, the figures that were given him, thanked them for it, but he said, "I want to see those three women." And this body honored Mrs. Johnson a few years ago in the movie Hidden Figures. That was held against him. "As the country becomes more diverse, it makes sense for our military to become more diverse."
That's what he said, and this Secretary held that against him and denied... just want to think about Colin Powell. I want us to just think. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with these sentiments and will welcome here different perspectives. I just heard one that Secretary Hegseth or any of my colleagues may have on this subject. That's why he should be brought here to explain why he is doing this.
My uncle, Joseph Henry Washington, was on the USS Arizona on that fateful day, December 7th, 1941, but he would never talk about his experiences. They were so bad, he would never talk about them. All in defense of this country, and there were people with military records who denied him everything he deserved when he was on that ship in the Navy. Let's not hide from what's going on here. We know exactly what is happening here.
He has said it in his book. I read that book, not all of it. If I had read all the garbage he had in that book, I'm not sure I could stand here today and use polite language. That's garbage, and this man has brought that garbage into our military, and he is denying the future of people just because of their skin color and their gender, and we know that.
And we ought to be congressional enough to have him to come up here and explain why he is doing this. The record is clear and I think we all know it. And with that I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks gentleman. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Quigley, is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Mike Quigley
I hate talking about racism, but let's give it a shot. Maybe I can at least speak from the voice of my friend Brad Lang I went to school with. The reason this matters is he just retired as a career pilot for Delta Airlines. He was also a champion pilot when it comes to acrobatics. But the real story is his father was Tuskegee.
When he got out of the military his father, who should, you know, who's the pilot issue was raised, the guy we honored a year or so ago, said, when I see a black pilot I wonder if he's qualified. My friend's dad was denied the ability to be a commercial pilot even though he was Tuskegee. So he worked in New Jersey in the postal service and every day he saw other people taking off in the jets flying over his head. So his son, my friend, made it his life's goal to do what he was not allowed to do. And on the anniversary of Tuskegee ceremony right here, they allowed Brad to fly the same kind of plane Tuskegee flew over the nation's capital.
Can you imagine what that meant to him? So let's not wash over that history there and the sins of the past and recognize this isn't just about equalizing numbers. It's giving extraordinary opportunities to extraordinary people and not forgetting the pain and loss that was there that we're coming back to today. So I'd hate to think we're creating situations and the pain that my friend Brad and his father went through all over again simply because it makes us feel better to BS that answer and not imagine that skill sets are spread out equally by the Almighty. Thank you and I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks gentleman. The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case, is recognized to address the amendment.
Ed Case
Thank you Mr. Chair. I endorse so many of the comments of my colleagues. Of all of the wrong directions that this secretary is taking our armed services in, and there are many, I think that I feel personally that the demoralization and the decimation of our officer corps and our enlisted ranks as a result of his actions are among the worst. And I don't only talk about today. I talk about the broad implications, the long-term effects of what he is doing in this department because this twisted inquisition and purge for any hint of the horror of thinking about diversity, equity, and inclusion and talking about your own personal experiences as you went through your career and giving inspiration to other Americans to join the military and to try to achieve their best is exactly what Mr. Clyburn just called it.
That's exactly what it is. You know, to my colleague from Maryland, yes, I also reviewed Mr. Hegseth's record and I read this quote from his book: "When I think about my career in uniform, in almost every instance where there has been poor leadership or people in positions they're not qualified for, it was based on either the reality or the perception of a diversity hire." Think about that comment for a second. Just, just consider that comment. What does that actually mean?
Does that, that must mean that every single time he encountered poor leadership, um, it was based on the reality or perception of a diversity hire. Well, a diversity hire does not refer to the hire of a white male. Let's face it. Diversity hire refers to leaders in our armed services that are not white males. And the reality or the perception, does that mean that he's making his judgment just at looking at somebody and perceiving that they are not white males, they're not qualified to lead in every instance?
That's an unbelievable statement when you really dig down into it. I guess the next step here is to start distinguishing between white males based on their ethnic group, based on their height. I don't, I don't know. I mean, there's lots of things I can see about people. And that's just, um, indicates so much what is going through this person's mind.
And let's, let's talk about merit because my colleague from Maryland rightly pointed out that this should be about merit. That's what we're talking about here today: merit promotion boards. These people have been through a process, a rigorous process. It is so rigorous that people can't say that they're on the merit promotion board. They're being judged by their peers, by their superiors, presumably of all races and genders, by the way.
And they were put on those promotion boards because they qualified. They passed the merit test. They're regarded by their peers in the military as having merit to advance. And yet they're yanked off. This is not something that is standard.
This is new for a secretary to interfere with a merit promotion board. This secretary went into a merit promotion board that was set up to avoid political influence to start with and said, "I'm going to make a different judgment based on merit because somehow I had a bad experience with the perception of a diversity hire somewhere in my illustrious military career." And that doesn't pass any test. This is, this is personal, by the way. Two of the people on those lists, General C.Q. Brown and Admiral Barnett, are people that I have personal experience with in Hawaii.
I served with C.Q. Brown when he was PACAF, the head of our Air Forces. There was every bit of merit in that person. He didn't deserve that once, not once, not at all. And General, I mean, Admiral Barnett, same thing, came into a very difficult situation in Hawaii and saved the Navy's bacon, and it wasn't just about Red Hill. This was a person that deserved to advance on the basis of merit, and his peers said he should advance on the basis of merit.
But he talked about his own experiences and talked about and tried to inspire the next generations into service. What's the consequence? Should I not even consider the military whatsoever anymore if I'm a white male?
Hey, in Hawaii, 75% of us are not white. Should I tell all of my people in Hawaii, this is not a career for you anymore? I've just spent the last eight years trying to get people from Hawaii into the military to consider it a career. But what message are we sending to those people by sanctioning what the Secretary is doing here today? And yet the Secretary, when we ask him these questions, he gives Congress the middle finger.
And that's what this is all about. This is the middle finger to Congress. The Chair here, I'm sorry, Chair, I disagree with you. You say that this amendment would impede his discretion. And I think that that's our job, to get in his face when we have a problem and when we think that he's doing the wrong thing.
I don't care whether it's travel or anything else. That's not the point here. We all know that. The point is he's doing the wrong thing. We know it.
He's telling us, I don't care what you think, and we don't have the guts to call him on it. The consequences of this action and allowing it to happen are going to resonate far and wide beyond the people that are unfairly targeted and affected by this. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Chair would remind people, try to stay within the time limits, please. Gentlelady from Pennsylvania is recognized. Oh, sorry. Gentlelady from New Jersey is recognized to address the amendment.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my colleague for sponsoring this particular amendment, which is mostly about showing that discrimination is alive and unfortunately well in this administration. I may, this may be a bit redundant because I've not been here. My colleague from Hawaii said that this was personal, and for him it was personal because he knew individuals who were negatively impacted. It's personal for me because as a woman and a black woman, I'm a double reason that this Secretary has a problem with allowing someone like me to serve in a position I'm eminently qualified for, and a merit board has even said so. You know, that's disgusting coming from an individual who's so woefully inadequate in his position as Secretary.
And for us as a Congress not to stand up and tell him we're not going to tolerate this anymore because we've got friends and we've got relatives and we have colleagues that we know are black and are women who are eminently qualified to serve in the capacity that they have been elected to or those who have been recommended for appointment. This is in violation of the law against discrimination. Under any other circumstances, there would be case upon case upon case that this administration would lose because it was violating the law against discrimination. It is disgusting that the most incompetent, corrupt, inept, and careless administration is allowed to get away with these things.
And it is triply disgusting that the man who has to have a studio to make up his face in the in his department, a man who wishes to be known as the Secretary of War as opposed to the Secretary of Defense, and a man who has demonstrated day in and day out that he is incompetent and incapable of doing his job in a manner that is respectful of this country and who we are. I support this amendment, Congresswoman Frankel. I thank you for raising it. I recognize you used his travel and his frivolity as a way to get our attention, and I appreciate that because every chance we get, we need to highlight the frivolity, the corruption, the incompetence, and the disgusting display of I hate America that they demonstrate. I yield back.
Speaker 102
Thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Deans, recognized to address the amendment.
Madeleine Dean
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I associate myself with the words from my colleagues on this side of the room, the extraordinary reminder of our past, of our history, of our present, of our excellence within our military that is being denied. I rise in support of Congresswoman Frankel's amendment, which calls attention to Secretary Hegseth's firing of highly regarded senior military leadership, often without any apparent reason, or should I say any apparent legitimate reason. As has been said, the New York Times from last week, and I quote, Mr. Hegseth has blocked the promotions of at least 40 senior officers of general and admiral ranks, about half of these of those are women or people of color. Secretary Hegseth must be held to account. He is the Secretary of Defense.
If his decisions to fire or block promotions were based on merit, he should come right here and give us justification for them. His silence is appalling. Something might have gotten past you, and that's why I brought this image. In the chaos of this administration, in the racism and bigotry of this administration, in the sexism of this administration, it might have gotten past you that we had to cancel something that has gone on, a ceremony that has gone on for 27 years. This year's cancellation of the bipartisan Women's Caucus annual wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.
We've done it for 27 years. This is a couple of years back when I had the pleasure, the honor, the awe of being in the presence of the living women members of the military, all branches, and of course to lay a wreath in honor of those women who served and have passed. It's a solemn event. It's a time when Republican women and Democratic women come together to honor the immense service of women in the United States Armed Forces, until this year. So what happened this year?
Several military branches declined to participate in what should have been the 28th annual wreath-laying ceremony. That led to the event being cancelled. And when asked why those branches of the military didn't want to be a part of it, they cited Trump executive order and Department of Defense guidelines that ban celebration of identity months or diversity events.
America is home to more than 2 million living women veterans. For 250 years, women have fought and sacrificed for our nation. Instead of honoring their service, the Trump administration, Secretary Hegseth, they're trying to erase women's contribution to our nation and our history. They want to diminish and deny their sacrifice. They want to hold back high-ranking, hard-working, patriotic women and men on the basis of sex or color.
We all know it in this room. It's un-American. It's sexism. It's racism. It's bigoted.
It's shameful. Because I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment, because Mr. Hegseth cannot erase their DEI. He cannot erase their dedication, their excellence, and their integrity. I yield back.
Glenn Ivey
I thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Ivey, is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment. Also, I think there's going to be a Republican amendment down the road that's going to address DEI issues too, so I'm going to object to that amendment now as part of the en bloc amendment there. But, you know, what Hegseth is doing is beyond disturbing, I think. And I just want to make one point with respect to what my colleague from Maryland, Dr. Harris, was saying about these being DEI appointments.
I just want to talk about the actual chain of how some of this played out. So General C.J. Brown was raised up, offered for a promotion, went up to Hegseth. He wanted to deny it, and he did. He chose General Kane instead. And General Kane was number three on the promotions list, but he picked him instead of General Brown.
Now, later on, Admiral Barnett, who we just talked about a few minutes ago, was also on the promotion list. General Kane wanted him to be elevated, but Hegseth denied him the promotion as well. So presumably the guy Hegseth picked because he was anti-DEI wasn't recommending that Barnett be promoted for DEI purposes. Presumably he was doing it based on merit. So just based on the fact that people in the administration that Trump and Hegseth like offered him up seems to undermine the argument that Barnett must have been a DEI promotion as well.
I think it's probably more like what my colleague from South Carolina mentioned, and that's the comments that he made at a speech encouraging actually minorities to join the military. I didn't hear anything particularly offensive or disturbing in what he said. But I guess anything that you say, if you use anything related to race or any kind of comment along those lines, that's disqualifying in this administration. And I think that's kind of pathetic because it ignores the reality of what's going on. But it's also consistent with what they've tried to do with respect to the whitewash of military history, trying to remove Jackie Robinson's military service, for example, from the websites and the like, trying to remove information about the Tuskegee Airmen.
It's sad and ridiculous and pathetic and real un-American. We've got a history in this country of people who've made contributions across the board on the military front as well, dating all the way back to the American Revolution all the way up to now. My father-in-law served in World War II and Korea, ground combat. My colleague from Maryland suggested that all those promotions that were received were DEI-related.
He served before there was DEI or affirmative action or actually even integrated military service. And he came away with a Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and yeah, he had two Purple Hearts too, although he always said, "Who wants a Purple Heart?" "I don't like how I had what I had to do to get that." But at the end of the day, I think it's important for us to understand that maybe Hegseth had a good military career, I'm not criticizing it at all, but many of the people that he denied a promotion to, to be really, really blunt, had far more distinguished combat careers than he did. And from the standpoint of elevating them to leadership positions in the Pentagon, especially when he had no leadership experience of that magnitude of his own, elevating people who already had it only would have made sense.
So I'm deeply disturbed by what I've heard so far today. And I've got to leave with this. The whole DEI debate with respect to the Trump administration, it's kind of hard to square it with when you look at the people that the president has tried... Let's start with Matt Gaetz, who was supposed to be the Attorney General of the United States. Then you've got Pam Bondi, who became the United States Attorney General, and all of the destruction of the rule of law under her leadership.
Last thing I remember her saying was that Jamie Raskin was a washed-up lawyer, but I think she's the one heading to Bar Council right now. You've got Noem put in charge of Homeland Security with zero experience in having run it, and I think we saw how badly she did it. Politi now they're trying to put in charge of the intelligence and national security, and that's replacing Gabbard, who also had no experience on that front. Kennedy, the anti-vaccine HHS Secretary, who brought back the measles outbreaks to the United States. Patel at the FBI.
This is his cabinet. And he's going to stand up and lecture us about DEI? Give me a break. We should at least be able to have the Secretary of Defense come to Congress and explain to us why he's denied promotions to people who have distinguished military careers who are recommended by the panels that Congress set up, and he doesn't have any objections he can voice in defense of his decision. Let's have him come up and explain why he's making these decisions.
Maybe while he's here we can also ask him about maybe one of the worst decisions a Secretary of Defense has ever made to the extent he recommended that we go into this war. He's got to be on the short list for that. And with that I yield back.
Speaker 104
Gentlemen, the gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized to address the amendment.
Mike Levin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't planning to speak, but I feel compelled to note that this amendment really isn't about Pete Hegseth or any one secretary. It's about two things I think everybody here is sworn to protect. The first is that we want a military led by our best officers. And the second is that we want a constitution that doesn't bend to whoever happens to hold power.
So starting with merit, we don't hand out the rank of general by whim. I know many of us, you know, we know our generals. They are the best of the best. We have a promotion selection board. You have career officers, men and women who've served for decades.
They sit down, they judge each candidate on record, on service, whether they've proven they can lead. And by the time an officer is selected as a general, the professionals have already said this is somebody we trust to lead American service members. That process exists to keep politics out of the chain of command. And the moment that it becomes a political prize to become a flag officer, I think we lose the very thing that makes our military the finest in the world.
So ask this, if you have an officer that the board chose on merit and then they're suddenly removed and no reason is given, what took the place of merit? Something else took the place of merit. And whatever that something is, it's not the judgment of those seasoned officers who are measuring against our military mission. This amendment, I think, just says that when merit gets overruled, somebody has to explain why. And that somebody is the secretary.
Now to the Constitution, Article 1, the power of the purse, the duty of oversight, we say it again and again, but it belongs to this body on purpose, by design, because the founders didn't trust any single official to act without answering to us and to the people we represent. So this amendment is that idea in its plainest form. The executive is making serious decisions, the people's representatives are asking why, and then the funding requires an answer. That's the separation of powers working exactly as it was intended to. And this new standard that Hegseth is setting is about far more than him, it's about far more than who sits in the office today.
If you would want a future secretary to justify firing the generals that our board selected, then you'd want that same standard today, wouldn't you? And all that this amendment asks for is a justification. If Hegseth's reasons are sound, his explanation should take the afternoon. The only official that has anything to fear from this amendment is one who can't defend a decision. And a choice about who leads our service members should never be one that they cannot defend.
So I encourage us, think about this, protect merit, protect the chain of command, and protect the constitutional order that will outlast all of us. At least I hope it outlasts all of us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Veronica Escobar
Thank gentleman, are there others wishing to address the amendment? Gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, like my colleague Mr. Levin, I was not planning on speaking on this amendment. I was going to stay focused in this committee hearing today on my amendments. But I'm so proud of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and all of the great amendments that they've brought forward, amendments meant to strengthen our national security, amendments in support of our national defense. And I am very proud to support Ms. Frankel's amendment as well.
And here's in part what inspired me to stand up and speak on this issue and this amendment. Representative Levin and Representative Aguilar, just as Ms. Frankel was giving her opening remarks on this amendment, the three of us stepped out to talk to a group of high school students who are part of CHCI, an organization that uplifts Hispanic young people in our country. And it was a really lovely conversation. When it was my opportunity to speak to these talented, brilliant, wonderful young Latinos, what I said to them was, never forget your brilliance and your talent, how valued it is, how important it is to our country, how much your leadership matters. Don't ever let anyone make you doubt that brilliance, that talent, that leadership.
And I say that to a lot of young people, the young people who come and intern in my office, the young people I meet in this journey in Congress. I've said it to my two children over the years over and over again. I represent a community that is 85% Latino.
I'm right on the US-Mexico border. A lot of Latino veterans, a lot of Latino active duty service members, a lot of incredible women that I've met along the way devoted to our national defense, eager to be a part of this great mission that our United States military pursues. And I know all of you on the other side of the aisle, you are good people and I know you value these incredible service members and leaders in our military. I know you do. This is an important moment for us as members of Congress to hold accountable a cabinet member that is telling military leaders who do not look like him that they don't have value in the hierarchy of the United States military.
I think every person in this room knows that that is wrong. That is wrong what he's doing. And we were elected to stand up for what is right. Holding him accountable on this is the right thing to do. So I ask my colleagues to join us to send a message.
We deserve an explanation. And those military leaders deserve our advocacy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
You know, I have to just say, it breaks my heart to have to bring this amendment. It breaks my heart because as a mother of a son who served in two wars, I know the sacrifice and the patriotism of the people who put on the uniform. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And today we need to send a message to them. You will be judged by your ability, you're going to be judged by your service, you're going to be judged by your character, not by the color of your skin, not by your gender, not by politics.
Yes, the Secretary of Defense has the authority to review promotion lists, but that authority comes with the responsibility. It's not a license to deny qualified service members the opportunity to rise for reasons that can only be described as prejudice or bigotry. If a decorated service is removed because they cannot meet the standards, tell us. If they cannot lead, tell us. If they have failed in their duty, tell us.
But if qualified women and people of color who have earned their place are being denied opportunities because of who they are, that is wrong. That is not strength. That is not merit. And that is not the American way. And this amendment simply requires Secretary Hegseth to explain his decisions because America deserves a military where excellence, not ideology, determines who rises.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this amendment. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor say aye.
Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, aye. Ms. Dean. Ms. DeLauro.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Joyce, no.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy.
Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Pocan, aye. Ms. Quigley.
Ms. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive.
Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong.
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres.
Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao.
Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Speaker 51
Are there others or members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Dean, aye.
Mr. Moore, no.
Gentlelady from Oklahoma.
Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke.
Speaker 37
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. Gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. Cline, no.
Speaker 112
Food must be good. On this vote, the ayes are 26 and the noes are 33, the amendment is not adopted. I now recognize Chairman Calvert to offer Republican en bloc amendment.
Ken Calvert
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, ask unanimous consent that we waive the reading.
Veronica Escobar
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment.
Ken Calvert
The Republican en bloc amendment incorporates a number of Republican priorities in the bill and report, includes provisions that have been included in the Republican bills in prior years. I urge the adoption of this amendment and yield back.
Speaker 123
Thank the gentleman, the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Betty McCollum
Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening statement, I believe your decision to eliminate all but one of the partisan riders in this bill was the right decision. Your decision made me optimistic that when you reported the bill out of subcommittee, the road to enacting this bill would even be smoother than it has been in previous years. So let's be clear about what partisan riders do to appropriation bills. They bog the entire process down. They make deliberations more difficult as we move towards conference with the Senate.
And make no mistake, if the gentleman's amendment were to pass, that's exactly what this amendment would do to the bill, and I think he's pretty aware of that. But I understand the role that you play in leadership as the chair of this subcommittee. So folks, I'm going to tell you a couple of reasons why I'm opposing this amendment. Part of this amendment would prohibit the department from conducting research using human fetal tissue if that tissue is obtained from an abortion. Well, here's a quick fact for you: the Department of Defense does not do that type of research.
So I'm not sure why this needs to be in the bill or what's trying to be accomplished with this amendment, because it's going to come out because it doesn't happen in the Department of Defense. So, you know, we're prohibiting the department from doing things they already don't do, and especially under this administration, I think we all know it wouldn't happen. And then, Mr. Chair, I also oppose the part of the amendment that would justify the use of funds for changing the Department of Defense's name back to the Department of War. Now, when Congress and the Truman administration reorganized our national security agencies in 1947, they made a decision to create the Department of Defense and bring all the military services underneath it. The reason why they chose the Department of Defense instead of the Department of War, they chose, they talked, this is right after World War II and Korea's conflict was raging then, is because they did not want to be overly aggressive towards the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Now, war is something we should all want to avoid, and that's why I believe in a strong defense. Defense through strength, through power, right? But I think the Americans who settled on the Department of Defense in 1947, they knew what they were talking about. They knew we should want to deter war, not advertise we want war. So along with this comes with a name change.
Well, there was never any outreach to the Appropriations Committee as to the funding for the cost of these changes. CBO did a study of the cost of this name change in June, and it advised that the cost of changing the name across the department would range up to $125 million. Now, we could be asking ourselves, what programs or activities did the Secretary short-circuit in order to cover the cost of this now name change, which we know that the President through executive order and what Secretary Hegseth has done by wanting to be called the Secretary of War and the Department of War, they're doing it. They can do that, but to officially change it's going to cost a lot more money than what CBO's already been talking about. And the other thing that I object to this en bloc is we should be focusing on what brings us together to make our warfighter the most successful in the world, what brings them home safely after a conflict, not dividing us.
So here's some of the old list of division riders that have now been put into the bill, but they've never once been enacted into law. Okay? There's language in the bill that attacks the LGBTQ community. That's always been in the bill. We've argued about that in committee.
It always comes out. That divides us. It hurts our military. Language that requires that marriage be defined as only for a man and a woman. Well, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.
That's in the bill. Do you think that's going to stay in? The language that bans funding for DEI and critical race theory programs that don't even exist in this bill. So we're taking up the committee's time working on this. But there is something I do want to discuss before I close.
Today's the fourth anniversary of the Dobbs decision, which took away the nationwide protection for women's reproductive health. Women used to, you know, as US citizens, we could live anywhere in this country, anywhere in the territory, and our reproductive rights were guaranteed. Now women are living with a patchwork of state laws, many of which limits the healthcare that all women deserve access to. So I'm not surprised to see language that limits the servicewoman's ability to travel easily to a state for reproductive health procedures. Now let's be clear.
The government's not going to pay for that procedure if it includes abortion. The Hyde Amendment's alive and well. So if all the things in this amendment are enacted, in my opinion, we would be wasting precious time with negotiating over positions that will not be enacted into law. And I watch the chairman do it, and he defends the House position, Mr. Chair, you do defend the House position. This is one of the positions in the House that I don't defend when we're in conference.
So this amendment is more of the same thing we've been doing year after year in this bill. Some of the things the department doesn't even do. And I strongly urge this amendment to be rejected. Some of the things are illegal.
Speaker 126
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Missouri is recognized to address the amendment.
Mark Alford
Well, thank you, Chairman Calvert, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member McCollum, and Ranking Member DeLauro. I just want to thank the staff for the tremendous work that they went into crafting this bill and for your willingness, Chairman, and our clerk and the staff, willingness to address issues that arise as this legislative process moves forward. When I first was elected to this office, my predecessor, whom many of you know, Vicky Hartzler, had a great passion for Missouri, a great passion for our DOD bases.
She said one thing to me: Mark, take care of our district. And that's why I rise today to take care of our district and our great Department of War facility in the southeastern part of my district, Fort Leonard Wood. Just a few days ago, I was alerted by community leaders and stakeholders in Missouri to reports from well-sourced information at high levels that elements within the Army were developing a proposal to relocate basic combat training missions currently conducted at Fort Leonard Wood in my district and Fort Sill in Chairman Cole's district. This proposal was reportedly structured around a series of troop movements of up to 750 soldiers at a time. The concern is not a single move, but rather the cumulative effect.
By breaking a major realignment into smaller pieces, the transformation in training command could effectively dismantle basic combat training missions at Fort Leonard Wood and Fort Sill without ever presenting Congress with the full scope, the cost, or readiness implications of the plan, basically doing an end-run around us in this committee and Congress as a whole. According to these reports, this effort could ultimately result in the consolidation of basic combat training missions away from installations that have trained generations of American soldiers and have received substantial taxpayer investments over many decades. I want to be clear: Congress has established a process for major installation realignments. We should not allow decisions of this magnitude to be made through a series of administrative actions that effectively bypass congressional oversight and public transparency. Fort Leonard Wood and Fort Sill are not simply interchangeable locations on a map.
They are the centers of excellence, the centers of excellence with specialized facilities, experienced personnel, and critical training missions that support Army readiness every day. Moving these missions would come at enormous cost to taxpayers. It would require new infrastructure, personnel relocation, and significant military construction, all while existing taxpayer-funded facilities remain available and operational. And it would also reduce training capacity at a time when we should be strengthening, not shrinking, our ability to train the next generation of soldiers and respond to future national security challenges. And that's why I raised this issue with the committee and worked with the chairman and committee staff to make sure that language preventing the relocation of basic combat training missions was included in this bill.
I appreciate the committee's willingness to act quickly and send a clear message that Congress expects any proposal of this magnitude to receive proper scrutiny, proper authorization, and a full accounting of the costs and impacts before moving forward. This provision protects taxpayer dollars, protects military readiness, and protects the installations that have faithfully carried out these missions for decades. I thank the chairman for including this language in the en bloc amendment, which simply reads: None of the funds made available by this act or any other act may be used to carry out the relocation, consolidation, or realignment of any Army basic combat training unit. It's simple.
Speaker 119
I thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one... Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry, gentleman from Maryland.
Steny Hoyer
Mr. Chairman, when I first heard the assertion that we were going to change the Department of Defense's name to Department of War, I thought to my... I thought of something much deeper than that. It is the actions of a bully. I didn't think of the cost, but it has a substantial cost. It is the actions of a country that really doesn't have confidence.
It's the action of a nation that says, "We want to go to war." And that's what SecDef Hextas, of course, thinks of his department. It is a war department. After World War II, we changed the name because we didn't want to be a nation to go to war. We would go to war, we have gone to war, but that was not our intent.
Our intent was to have an establishment that could prevent war, and prevent war by being strong so that those would see us as not a target they ought to go after. And so we named it the Department of Defense. And it's been that for over 70 years. The other thought I had was this was akin to saying, "Well, we might use military force to take Greenland." Or we might use it to have Canada become the 51st state.
Or we would rename the Gulf of Mexico, that's been the Gulf of Mexico forever, the Gulf of America. Are we so small that we need to make these silly assertions? Are we a bully nation who is not self-confident enough to say, "We are for defense." "We are for protecting democracy," as we talked about with respect to Ukraine. Or have we simply now decided we're big and strong and we're going to spend a trillion dollars and we're going to go to war?
We're in a war of choice, a disastrous war of choice that has gotten us absolutely nothing. Because, I guess, we're a nation for war. I grieve for my nation that we would perceive ourselves so weak that we have to enunciate that we are a nation for war.
And perhaps all of you want to be a nation for war. And perhaps you'll all vote that way. And I am sorry for us as America, the strongest nation on earth that need not proclaim its strength every day by these small acts of bluster. Vote no.
Speaker 114
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde, is recognized to address the amendment.
Andrew Clyde
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the chairman for including my amendment to codify the renaming of the Department of Defense as the Department of War and the Secretary of Defense as the Secretary of War throughout applicable provisions of federal law. As a 28-year Navy combat veteran, restoring the warrior ethos here in the United States and ensuring the world understands that is very important to me. For a little history, the War Department was among the first executive departments established by the first Congress in 1789 and signed into law by none other than the founding father of our country, President George Washington. For more than half a century under that name, the department helped oversee the military forces that defended and advanced the interests of the United States through conflicts ranging from the War of 1812 to both World Wars.
The title Department of War reflected the founders' understanding that preserving peace requires maintaining the capability, readiness, and resolve to prevail in war when necessary. Last year, President Trump issued an executive order to restore the US Department of War, which recognized that the former title, Department of Defense, may not fully convey the strength, deterrent capability, and warfighting mission entrusted to America's military. Therefore, the executive order authorized the use of the title Department of War within the executive branch and directed recommendations for permanently restoring the department's historic name through legislation. This amendment advances that objective by making the statutory changes necessary to formally redesignate the Department of Defense as the Department of War throughout titles 10, 32, and 37 of US Code, along with numerous conforming amendments. It also redesignates the Secretary of Defense as the Secretary of War and updates references to departmental offices and activities to reflect the new title.
You know, the best defense is a good offense, and names communicate priorities. For decades, America's military has remained the most lethal and capable fighting force in the world, but our principal national security institution bore a title that emphasized only one aspect of its mission. The historic title Department of War more directly reflects the warrior ethos and the department's responsibility to prepare for, deter, and when required, successfully wage war in the defense of the United States and its interests. I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc and I yield back.
Mike Levin
Thanks the gentleman for his remark. Gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Chairman. I want to expand for just a minute on the history that my colleague mentioned.
Then came World War II. My grandfather served in World War II, so I think he's, that's great, I think my grandpa's looking over my shoulder now, and I think he wants me to express this to you because I know how he felt. He's passed away, but I know how he felt. We fought that war with the services divided. He was in the Army Air Corps.
We paid for it in confusion and duplication and at Pearl Harbor in blood. So the generation that won that war came home and fixed it. And then in 1947, we unified the Army and the Navy and the new Air Force. Then in 1949, we settled on the name that captured what we'd built: the Department of Defense. Not a retreat from strength, the consolidation of strength.
Now a few more things worth mentioning. The men who chose defense and the women who chose defense at that time, they were not soft. This was the Cold War. They were staring straight at Stalin. They were staring straight at the Soviet bomb.
They had just defeated Germany and Japan. They picked the name on purpose because it described the whole force, land and sea and air under one roof, not just one branch fighting alone. Dwight Eisenhower had every chance to change it back. He was a five-star general. He was the man who commanded D-Day.
He saw more war than anybody in this room ever will. He reorganized the department from the ground up in 1958, but he kept the name Defense because, as he said at the time, the future would be fought by all services as one single concentrated effort. That's what Defense meant to him. Ronald Reagan had every chance too. He signed the largest overhaul of the department since its founding, and he built on the Department of Defense, reaching back actually to quote Eisenhower as his guide.
And the price of undoing all that, I think, is very real. Formally renaming this department requires us, requires Congress. The estimates are that it's an expensive process, but beyond new signs and seals and letterheads and badges across hundreds of thousands of facilities across the world, think about what that could buy. It could buy the ships and the missiles and the housing for our service members. I think that's a better use of that money than stationery.
So the choice is pretty simple. We can spend this time actually building the force, or we can spend it relabeling things. I think Eisenhower and Reagan would be appalled. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks to the gentleman. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized to address the amendment. Okay. Very good. Are there any other members wishing to address the amendment?
Seeing none, the gentleman, Mr. Calvert, is recognized for one minute to close.
Veronica Escobar
Eloquent and to the point. Thanks. Questions now on the amendment. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
Veronica Escobar
Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Roll call is requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Speaker 51
Mr. Alford, aye. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei, aye. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice, aye. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop, no.
Speaker 51
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert, aye. Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter, aye. Mr. Case.
Mr. Case, no. Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Ciscomani, aye. Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline, aye.
Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud, aye. Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn, no. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Ms. Dean, no. Ms. DeLauro. Ms. DeLauro, no.
Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards, aye. Mr. Ellzey. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar, no.
Mr. Clyde, aye. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole, aye. Mr. Cuellar. Ms. Dean.
Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Fleischmann, aye. Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel, no.
Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin, aye. Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest, aye. Mr. Harder.
Mr. Harder, no. Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris, aye. Mrs. Hinson. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Hoyer, no. Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey, no. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, aye.
Ms. Kaptur. Mr. LaLota, aye. Ms. Kaptur, no. Ms. Lee. Mr. LaLota.
Ms. Lee, no. Mr. Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, no. Ms. Malloy.
Ms. Malloy, aye. Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum, no. Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, no.
Mr. Moolenaar. Mr. Moolenaar, aye. Mr. Moore. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, no.
Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Mrvan, no. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, aye. Ms. Perez.
Ms. Perez, no. Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, no. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, no.
Mr. Rutherford. Ms. Quigley. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, aye.
Mr. Rutherford, aye. Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, aye. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, aye.
Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, aye. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, no. Ms. Underwood.
Ms. Underwood, no. Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no.
Mrs. Watson Coleman. Mrs. Watson Coleman, no. Mr. Womack. Mr. Womack, aye. Mr. Zinke.
Mr. Zinke, no. Mr. Zinke, aye.
Speaker 60
All right. Are there any members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Gentleman from California.
Mr. Aguilar, no.
Gentleman from West Virginia.
Mr. Moore, aye.
Mr. Ellzey, aye.
Speaker 60
Gentleman from California. Okay, I'm sorry, when you're standing up, it's hard to tell. Gentleman from Florida. Okay. Is the gentleman from Nevada actually on there this time?
He kind of slips in and out. Are there any other members wishing to vote or cast or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. While the clerks are tallying, obviously we have votes underway. We're not going to try and do anything more.
You've been here a long time, obviously. So as soon as we announce the tally, you can leave anytime you want. We're going into recess immediately, and then please come back immediately after the votes. And we'll resume. I think we're not too far away from dinner, so Chinese food will be available in the not distant future.
It's ironic, Chinese food.
Speaker 37
Only from you. You're the one that picked the cuisine. On this vote, the ayes are 32, the noes are 25, and the amendment is adopted. Votes have been called. The committee will now stand in recess.
Please return promptly after votes so we can continue consideration of the bill.
Speaker 135
Committee is reconvened. Gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Alford, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Mark Alford
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk and ask for dispensing of the reading of that amendment. Thank you, sir, thank you, Chairman Calvert, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member McCollum, and Ranking Member DeLauro. This bill covers many very important aspects of bringing back our industrial base to America. However, I do want to bring one important shortfall, which concerns me. Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in Independence, Missouri, just outside of Kansas City, is a key aspect of our defense industrial base, and the fluctuation of funding to our army ammunition depot forces mass layoffs of highly specialized workforce that cannot be turned back simply overnight.
As it stands now, the funding levels would likely cause loss of some 500 jobs between Missouri and Mississippi. This is the exact opposite result of which we are fixing across many different sectors in this very bill. And I understand the Army is the main requester for which caliber rounds are to be funded, but the current request does not meet the high-pace training and operation requirements of what the most lethal and most effective fighting force in the world requires. I do want to thank the committee again, and I know there were some very difficult decisions that had to be made. We simply did not have the money for some of these programs and projects.
I am going to withdraw this amendment and I would appreciate working with Chairman Calvert and others if we can continue this work, sir, on this very important issue to lessen the burden on our domestic workforce and I yield back.
Speaker 138
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized to address the amendment.
Ken Calvert
Thank you. I'm happy to work with the gentleman from Missouri to make sure that the men and women in the United States military have the ammunition they need and look forward to working as we go through this process. Thank you. Thanks.
Speaker 138
My friend from Minnesota wish to address that or... Okay, very good. Did not think so. If there's no further debate, the gentleman's actually recognized for one minute to close if he wants the time.
Mark Alford
Again, thank you, Chairman, for working with us on this. Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is a very intricate part of our Department of War and making sure that our munitions are restocked. They are making the new NATO round out there. We have the building built, they're waiting on the equipment. Wonderful people out there, I have close friends who work out there and constituents, but it's not just about them.
It is about the readiness for our military and restocking our munitions, which are so important to all of us here in this committee. Thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 136
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. Watson Coleman, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have an amendment at the desk and I seek unanimous consent to dispense with its reading.
Speaker 137
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would strike funding for the Golden Dome for America Fund, for which this bill provides $398 million. As our adversaries grow stronger and threats to our allies proliferate, it's important to have a missile defense system that is truly effective. Unfortunately, this is the wrong way to implement one. The Golden Dome for America Fund is physically, fiscally irresponsible and lacking in important details.
To make matters worse, the President has a failed track record for planning and execution of national projects already. The CBO estimates that the entire project will cost at least $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. Who can trust this administration to be careful stewards of our public dollars? Donald Trump started a war that we didn't ask for and did so many without any sound strategy. So far it has cost us $29 billion and that's not even accounting for the subsequent cost imposed on our economy.
Now this, his administration is asking for a billion more. He has also blown an enormous amount of money on his vanity projects, like the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool, which was supposed to cost $1.8 million, ballooned to $14 million and now millions more will be needed to fix mistakes made under his incompetent leadership. The proposed White House ballroom started as $200 million project, but recently it was reported that his contractors estimate the total construction cost at $600 million, with half intended to come from taxpayers. Do you see the theme here? Trump is an incompetent leader who has a track record of poor planning and a reputation for being an untrustworthy and prolific spender of the public purse.
The CBO said that the true cost of the so-called Golden Dome can't be calculated due to how expensive it would be to operate and maintain. How can we trust him with an important project that has an arbitrary cost like this and why should we? And here's the kicker. We have no assurance that the dome would even be fully effective against all missiles. The potential for our adversaries to overwhelm the system is too high and its costs are too great without more information.
With the strength of our military, why would we choose to sink so much money into a defense system that is incapable of fulfilling its promise? It's not unreasonable to wonder if this is just the largest of his growing collection of vanity projects intended to stroke his insatiable ego. And for the president who has rewarded his friends and donors while enriching himself, there are certainly opportunities for fraud and abuse here. We should not be giving a massive handout to defense contractors for a project that we know so little about. The American people want to be able to pay their bills.
They want to be able to afford their groceries, housing, childcare, and healthcare. They deserve better than this from their government. There must be accountability and careful oversight of any defense system. We have neither the details nor the true costs. I do not believe we should appropriate these funds under these conditions.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thanks the gentlelady, the gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert is recognized to address the amendment.
Ken Calvert
Thank you Chairman, thank you gentlelady for her amendment. The amendment cuts the funding for the Golden Dome provided in this bill. The bill provides 398 million for the Golden Dome for America fund to support the development of a defense shield for our homeland. I oppose this amendment and would hope the rest of the conference would agree with me, yield back.
Betty McCollum
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment does highlight one huge problem with the president's budget request for 2027. The total department says it needs 17.5 billion dollars for the Golden Dome this year. However, the president's budget only asks our committee for 398 million dollars or 2% of its need. The rest of the 17.1 billion for Golden Dome is requested through the reconciliation process which we've pointed out and that the chair and I both agree is not an efficient or effective way to budget for the needs of the Department of Defense.
Now, I want to be clear, I do support working towards a missile defense system. We need it as we continue to see our adversaries become more and more engaged with hypersonics and some of the other weapons that they're coming up with. But you can still have serious questions about whether the department can prudently spend 398 million dollars without the rest of the funding. How can they act, what can they actually buy for 2% of the budget if they don't receive the other 98%? And that for me is the underlying question and why I support this amendment at this time.
We deserve to have those answers before supporting the funding in this bill. The overall cost for Golden Dome is estimated at 185 billion dollars. That's just for the research to deliver the architecture, so we're still in the research and architecture phase.
It doesn't even include the cost to use or operate the system even in one place. We don't have that information. So when you add to the mix what the Congressional Budget Office puts the estimate at $1.2 trillion for 20 years, the administration is far too cavalier in how they're going about with reconciliation and combining the base bill and taxpayers' funds for this. So I would like to see some more accountability in how this is moving forward because we need to get it done. We need a missile defense for what we know is coming our way, what our adversaries are planning, and what we think they have in their arsenal right now.
So we need a missile defense system, but we need more information on how Golden Dome's going to work, more accountability, and in a timeline that Congress can see how it's being laid out. For that reason, I support the amendment and I yield back.
Ed Case
Thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case, is recognized.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment, and I want to amplify what my ranking member has said because I think it's a very important point that she is making, and it is fundamental to how this committee and this subcommittee goes about funding an incredible need in our Defense Department going forward. We absolutely need a missile defense system. Any of us that study the advances of our adversaries or potential adversaries, any of us that study the rapidity of change with weapons systems today and extrapolating out into the future understands that we have to continue to develop a missile defense system that even if it doesn't deliver 100% defense, which no missile system does, we've seen that even in Israel with Iron Dome, that we still have to move in this direction, and to fail to move in this direction is irresponsible. And so this is very, very much an endorsement of continuing down this road. And I say that not just for our country, not just for our allies, but I say it for my state because I'm in the third island chain here.
Missile defense is a very personal thing to me in Hawaii, being within range of all of the missiles. But the problem that we're having here goes back to what I said at the very beginning. I outlined six reasons why I could not support this bill overall, and one of those six reasons had to do with how we are going about hodgepodge budgeting without a big-picture context, without a budget, without a cohesive approach. And we are doing this piecemeal through discretionary funding, through reconciliation mandatory funding, and now, of course, we're being presented with a supplemental, finally, that we don't even know what is in it other than what somebody is reporting online for us as we're sitting here debating an over $1 trillion budget. And so the problem here is that we are taking a critical need that is going to cost a lot of money.
Let's not be under any illusions. A missile defense system is going to be one of the most expensive and complicated and, yes, subject to fraud and abuse efforts that we have ever undertaken in this federal government. And yet we have to do it all. But we should be doing it in an organized, orderly, coordinated way. Now, we started out with Golden Dome, and I'm sorry this has become a political issue because it shouldn't be a political issue.
This should be something that we can all sit down and work on and agree on without getting through the divisive politics and whether we like the term Golden Dome or not. What a stupid debate that is. We need something, right? Let's call it, I don't know, let's call it something other than Golden Dome for the second. But we started out in FY26, and what did we do in FY26?
We had zero for this project in discretionary funding. We stuck $21 billion into reconciliation to get this going.
We waited as already noted nine months to get any detail on what that reconciliation was going to go to and we did not get adequate answers on where they were going with this project. 21 billion dollars already sunk or sinking into Golden Dome. Oh, I said it there. Um, now let's get to this year. This year 17.5 billion in the president's budget, 17.5 billion more of which 400 million in discretionary funding leaving 17.1 billion out there hanging for some reconciliation bill that we don't know where it's coming from or whether it's going to get here.
Now why would I want to spend 400 million dollars today in discretionary funding without knowing what the big picture is? It may well be worth it and it may well be necessary and I'm sure it is necessary for us to spend at some point or another 400 million dollars of for this project. But why should we do this in this bill when we don't have the big picture, when we don't have the detail, when that detail has not been provided to us whatsoever? And so the bottom line here is in my mind, show me the big picture, show me the cost, show me the allocation over time and show me the details and I will work with you to figure out when and how to fund it, but not on a piecemeal basis, not without the big picture. I support this amendment for those reasons and I yield back.
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Thanks the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it is obvious that we have an administration doesn't think things through. We're currently involved in a war we can't figure out why we got there in the first place, can't figure out what it means to end it, can't figure out when it is going to end or what that means. So last thing we need to do is to give them additional money to do anything for which we don't have information as to the how, what, when, where, and why. I am a strong component of advocate for a nuclear defense fund.
I am a strong proponent of making sure that my country is safe and that we monitor ourselves accordingly. And so I just don't think that this bill provides what we need in order to move forward. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 138
Thanks the gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from New Jersey. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The opinion of the chair the noes have it and the amendment is not adopted.
Gentlelady from California, Ms. Torres is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Norma Torres
I rise to offer an amendment and ask that the reading be dispensed with. Thank you, Chairman. My amendment is very simple. It prohibits funds from being spent for an illegal war with Iran without congressional authorization. And let me be clear about what this amendment does not do.
It does not jeopardize troop pay. It does not slash healthcare. It does not compromise our defense or readiness, intelligence sharing or critical counterterrorism operations. What this amendment does is restore constitutional order. Under Article 1, Section 8, the power to declare war belongs to Congress, not the executive branch.
No president, regardless of party, has the right to drag our nation into another costly, open-ended conflict without the clear consent of the American people through their elected representatives. We have been down this road before. The American people are tired of watching trillions of dollars vanish into endless foreign wars, Iraq and Vietnam, just to name a few. Billions, billions spent while our communities suffer budget cuts to healthcare, childcare, food and housing, to name a few. And right now, working families are bearing the brutal economic brunt of this conflict.
This war has already cost American households over 100 billion. Inflation hit a three-year high of 4.2% in May. Gas prices over $4 a gallon in every single state, a 50% spike since this war began. Airfares up 27%. Working families are being forced to choose between putting food on the table, going to the doctor or driving to work.
And what are we getting in return? A terrible, temporary MOU. Chairman, I would also like to include as part of my statement an article from CBS News dated June 24th that talks about the incompetence of the Secretary of War and the number of injuries that we have had while we have been at war with Iran.
Norma Torres
Thank you, Chairman. Chief Warrant Officer Rodney Berman, I'm reading from this report. His body was riddled with shrapnel in the early hours of the war on March 1st when an Iranian drone slammed into his workstation in Kuwait. His wife, however, was told that his injuries were not serious and that they were classified. In addition to that, Master Sergeant Nicole Amore, one of the six soldiers killed, would have survived her wounds had there been a doctor, a fixed station or more than one ambulance at the post.
The soldiers, according to witnesses, instead triaged themselves with makeshift bandages, braces and tourniquets. They took vehicles, civilian vehicles to drive the wounded to two local Kuwaiti hospitals. Imagine the incompetence that our service members injured while we declared war and no one there to help them. Since signing the MOU, Iran has seized control of the Strait of Hormuz, gained sanctions relief, pocketed unfrozen assets and immediately turned around and banned international nuclear inspectors. Importantly, this amendment will prohibit US tax dollars from going to the government of Iran for reconstruction of their regime.
Congress needs to reassert its authority and stop letting the president's failed foreign policies drive up costs for our constituents.
Colleagues, if you want US taxpayer dollars to go toward prolonging this war and reconstructing the Iranian regime, vote against this amendment. But if you want to support our Constitution, our service members, protect the hardworking taxpaying constituents that we serve, then I urge you to join me and support my amendment and I yield back.
Speaker 139
Thank the gentlelady for her amendment. Gentleman from California, Mr. Calvert, is recognized to address the amendment.
Ken Calvert
I thank the chairman, thank the gentlelady for the amendment. This amendment prohibits funding for United States military forces in hostilities against Iran unless Congress passes a declaration of war. For that and for other reasons, I oppose this amendment and urge that we not allow it to pass. With that, I yield back.
Betty McCollum
I rise in support of this amendment. But I want to be clear. I support our servicemen and women who are serving in the Middle East. I had the privilege and the honor of attending a very sad event and that was Nicole's funeral. We've lost too many souls over there and many have been injured.
But we also need to be clear about the cause of this war. There was no immediate security threat to the United States from Iran that required military action. Iran was not attempting a nuclear breakout. This is a war of choice started by President Trump. He did not make even the case to the American people before starting it.
He launched this war without congressional authorization. And given the damage across the region, the economic havoc unleashed by the war, clearly the president failed to understand all the risks that were going to be involved. The president's war has direct costs to the American people, too. Increasing prices for necessities like groceries. It's affected housing prices, healthcare, utilities, gasoline, and so much more.
And that's because the Strait of Hormuz was effectively closed for the last four months. This is a key waterway. It's an international waterway and it's critical to the global energy supply. And to be clear, it was completely open prior to the war and is still not completely open yet from reports as negotiations continue to hopefully get to a peace negotiated settlement. Despite this fragile peace agreement, which is only focused on a ceasefire, the strait, as I said, is not reliably open.
The president's new agreement with Iran is just a tenuous 60-day extension of an extending ceasefire. The framework announced by the president does nothing to resolve the most critical issues of this conflict, such as the status of the Iranian nuclear program, ballistic missile programs, frozen Iran's financial assets, or imposed US sanctions. Nor does it ensure that Israel will honor its ceasefire with Lebanon, which is part of keeping the whole peace ceasefire agreement moving forward. Without resolutions to these issues, long-term peace and stability in the region will remain out of reach. This war is a disaster, full stop.
And that's why a few weeks ago the House adopted a war powers resolution directing the president to end the war, and the Senate did the same thing just yesterday. Congress has told the president in a bipartisan fashion enough is enough. We have no obligation to provide funding to cover operational costs of a war we never were consulted on.
It would also send a signal to future military campaigns require congressional authorization before they can proceed. So let's support this amendment. Let's get the co-equal branch of government actually happening between us and the administration by reminding the administration that support for future military campaigns requires our consent and the president needs to give us a full disclosure on the negotiations and and when he plans on being able to say this is finally over and how much it's going to cost until then. I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank gentlelady for comments. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Gentlelady from Connecticut, Ms. DeLauro is recognized.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, which would prohibit additional use of military force in Iran. After reviewing the terms of President Trump's memorandum of understanding, I have one question: why did we go to war? The administration claims they have effectively destroyed Iran's military. Its navy, air force, and key infrastructure are obliterated, apparently, just like the nuclear program was obliterated by Operation Midnight Hammer last year.
But in spite of all this supposed tactical success, none of the president's aims have been achieved. I might just very quickly take from a statement, which is an unclassified document, a statement of the commander of US Central Command, CENTCOM, before the Defense Appropriations Committee. This is Operation Epic Fury, 38 days, major combat operations delivered long-term rollback of Iran's ability to project power in the region beyond. More than 10,200 sorties, over 13,500 strikes, we targeted the full breadth of the regime's ability to project power. We damaged or destroyed over 85% of Iran's ballistic missiles, drone, and naval defense industrial base.
1,450 strikes on weapons manufacturing facilities set the regime's ability to build and stockpile ballistic missiles and long-range drones back by years. The factories and technical workforce that produce Iran's ballistic missiles, long-range attack drones, and naval platforms have been degraded to the point that Iran cannot replace its lost capabilities in the near term. We destroyed or buried much of Iran's ballistic missiles. Talk about air domain, Iran's air and defense forces functionally and operationally irrelevant. At sea, we destroyed 161 vessels, total access across 16 classes of warships, etc.
It goes on. So in short, in 38 days, we'd rolled back 40 years of Iranian military investment. We seem to have talking about everything that was accomplished, everything that was done, that we, you know, it's we did it. We did it all. But in spite of the tactical success, none of the president's aims have been achieved.
The authoritarian Iranian regime is still in power. They retain their stores of enriched uranium and a significant arsenal of ballistic missiles, along with their regional proxy militias. The initial MOU committed Iran to nothing but reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war began. Meanwhile, the Iranian government receives the ability to resume selling its oil. Before the war, the strait was open, ships went through freely.
Now there's a possibility that Iran will be able to charge tolls for passage through the strait. If the president is able to convince our Gulf allies, Iran could receive access to reconstruction funds worth nearly $300 billion.
We will unfreeze frozen assets to the tune of about $100 billion. And finally, it would allow the lifting of nearly all US economic sanctions. And President Trump even made an offhanded remark that Iran may be able to keep its ballistic missile program, which I just read from this report, which seems to have been pretty much demolished. It may not be there, but they'll keep it, and that ensures that it's able to continue threatening our Middle East allies. Let me emphasize that President Trump said it would be okay if Iran kept its missiles, the missiles that it used to attack American bases and to attack Israel.
So why did we go to war? A war that killed 13 Americans and an untold amount of Iranian civilians and cost the American people tens of billions of dollars in higher fuel and grocery prices during a cost-of-living crisis, if we were simply going to walk away and let Iran keep conducting business as usual. The American military has incredible power, and wielding that power is an awesome responsibility. President Trump has failed to wield that power with any responsibility. All of the tactical success in the world cannot make up for his fundamental strategic errors.
It is one part of a larger pattern. The President tore up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA, which subjected Iran to the strictest nuclear inspection regime in history and successfully kept it from enriching uranium for years because he thought he could do better. He failed. And the American people, our Middle East allies, and our nation's credibility will pay the price. The Senate has now passed the same bipartisan War Powers Resolution that the House passed a few weeks ago.
The President's strategic failure cannot be ignored, and even Republicans are now agreeing this all must end. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back. Thank you, Chairman. The Constitution is not optional. It is clear: only Congress has the authority to declare war.
Yet here we are again, watching the executive branch bypass the people's house. At a time when families across America and in my home district are struggling to afford basic housing, healthcare, and groceries, and with electricity bills projected to climb another 10% this summer, we cannot keep writing blank checks. This administration is pouring hard-earned taxpayer dollars into an escalating conflict abroad with no clear strategy, no plan for victory, and zero accountability. Our troops deserve better. Working-class Americans deserve better.
This war must end on terms that make Americans safer, stabilize the Middle East, and prevent Iran from threatening our allies, our troops, and the global economy. When drafting this amendment, I looked back at how Congress finally brought the Vietnam War to a close in the 1970s. It did not happen because of a presidential decree. It happened because this very committee used its power of the purse to write a funding ban into a spending bill. Congress used its constitutional authority to end an endless war then.
We have the exact same opportunity and the exact same responsibility to do that today. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 37
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from California. All those in favor say aye.
Speaker 51
Mr. Aderholt. No. Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford. No. Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Amodei.
No. Mr. Amodei, no. Mrs. Bice. No. Mrs. Bice, no.
Mr. Bishop. Aye. Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert. No.
Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. No. Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case.
Aye. Mr. Case, aye. Mr. Ciscomani. No. Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Mr. Cline. No. Mr. Cline, no. Mr. Cloud. No.
Mr. Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn. Aye. Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde.
No. Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Cole, no.
Mr. Cuellar. Miss Dean. Aye. Miss Dean, aye. Ms. DeLauro.
Aye. Ms. DeLauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. No. Mr. Diaz-Balart, no.
Mr. Edwards. No. Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey. No.
Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar. Aye. Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat.
Aye. Mr. Espaillat, aye. Mr. Fleischmann. No. Mr. Fleischmann, no.
Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel. Aye. Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
No. Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Guest, no.
Mr. Harder. Aye. Mr. Harder, aye. Dr. Harris. No.
Mr. Ivey. Aye. Mr. Ivey, aye. Aye. Mr. Hoyer, aye.
Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson. No. Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Joyce. No. Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur. Aye.
Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota. No. Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee.
Aye. Ms. Lee, aye. Ms. Letlow. No. Ms. Letlow, no.
Mr. Levin. Aye. Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy. No.
Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum. Aye. Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng.
Aye. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar. No. Mr. Moolenaar, no.
Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Aye.
Mr. Morelle, aye. Mr. Mrvan. Aye. Mr. Mrvan, aye. Mr. Newhouse.
No. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Aye. Ms. Perez, aye.
Ms. Pingree. Aye. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Aye.
Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Aye. Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler.
No. Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. No. Mr. Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford. No. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive. No.
Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson. No. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong.
No. Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Aye. Mrs. Torres, aye.
Ms. Underwood. Aye. Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao. No.
Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Aye. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman.
Aye. Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. No. Mr. Womack, no.
Mr. Zinke. No. Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 60
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, clerk will tally. Gentleman from Texas is not recorded.
Mr. Cuellar, aye.
Mike Levin
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When the federal government commits hundreds of millions of dollars of the people's money, the people have a right to know how that decision was made. That's the reason the Government Accountability Office exists, and it's why this committee, under chairs of both parties, has asked GAO countless times to review how dollars are spent. This amendment applies that principle to one transaction, a single loan to a company named Vulcan Elements. And I want to explain why this particular loan, more than any other loan the Office of Strategic Capital, or OSC, has made, deserves a closer look.
Let me start by saying I strongly support the mission of OSC. Reducing our dependence on China for rare earth minerals is a genuine national security priority, and I expect there's no disagreement in this room about that. That's exactly why I want this program to be beyond reproach. If we believe in it, we should want its decisions to be clean, competitive, and defensible, able to withstand scrutiny rather than avoid it. So let me walk through what makes this particular loan an outlier.
First is the size. It's $620 million. It's one of the single largest loans in the history of OSC, and a commitment of that scale warrants careful review. Then the speed, how it came about. Loans like this are normally the product of many months of diligence, but this one was finalized in a matter of weeks.
And according to public reporting, career staff at OSC were told this deal was a priority by Peter Navarro. You probably know who he is, a senior White House advisor. And the deal did not go through OSC's normal review process. I believe that alone is reason enough for GAO to look into it. Then consider the company itself, Vulcan Elements.
It was founded in 2023, and at the time of this loan, it had only a small fraction of the production capacity the money was meant to build. This wasn't an established producer with a long track record, as is usually the case. It was a two-year-old startup receiving the largest loan, or among the largest loans, that this office had ever issued. Then look at the timing of the private investment. Just months before the Pentagon announced this loan, a venture firm connected to the president's family took a stake in the company.
The proximity of that investment to a huge federal loan pushed by White House advisor Peter Navarro is precisely the kind of sequence oversight is meant to examine. And consider the result. After the loan was announced, the company's reported valuation jumped roughly tenfold, from about $200 million to around $2 billion from a single federal lending decision. The public and all of our constituents have a clear and legitimate interest in knowing that decision was made on the merits. I want to be careful and fair here.
Not one of these facts standing alone proves anything improper. It's entirely possible that Vulcan was the strongest applicant and that every rule was followed. If that's the case, the review this amendment calls for will confirm it, and the program will be stronger for having been tested. But the only way to know is to look. And taken together, one of the largest loans in the program's history, finalized in weeks rather than months, pushed by a White House advisor to a two-year-old startup shortly after a politically connected investment followed by a tenfold valuation increase, this is not an ordinary transaction by any measure.
So let me be clear about what this amendment does and does not do. It is report language that directs GAO to examine how this loan was pursued and finalized and to assess whether the office's procedures for preventing conflicts of interest and ensuring open competitive access were followed.
It doesn't accuse anybody of a crime, it doesn't cut a dollar, it doesn't block the loan, it doesn't slow the program. It simply asks a nonpartisan independent agency to verify that this transaction was handled the way the program's own standards require. I believe this is the easiest vote in the world to explain to the people we serve because every one of them already knows that the biggest and fastest deals are exactly the ones that deserve a second set of eyes. One last thing, I would respectfully remind my colleagues, if the names were reversed, if it was a Biden or Obama advisor instead connected to a Biden or Obama family investment, I'm confident that many of you would call for a GAO review. In fact, that would be a modest request, I think, compared to what you might call for.
So I encourage an aye vote and I yield back.
Ken Calvert
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman for his amendment. This amendment directs an investigation to the Office of Strategic Capital to assess whether conflicts of interest drive decisions on financing. The Office of Strategic Capital is a transformative tool and without them we would not be able to strengthen our national industrial base. I believe that they're doing a good job and was happy to help create the national strategic capital account and I oppose this amendment.
Yield back.
Speaker 142
Thank the gentleman for comments. The gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, is recognized to address the amendment.
Betty McCollum
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The ethical questions surrounding this administration are growing by the day. The president and his family have benefited from cryptocurrency deals, reports of donations for pardons continue to swirl, the amount of outside influence from campaign donors is unparalleled, and with respect to the department, I'm concerned at their increasing reliance on sole source contracts, other transactional authorities, often referred to as OTAs. These are used to augment existing contracts outside of the competitive bidding process. At the end of May, the department had issued over six billion dollars in space contracts using other OTAs.
No bids, no competition. Now we need sunlight on a whole lot of these issues going on with this administration and that includes the DOD. And this loan from the Office of Strategic Capital, which I support and I want to make sure stays healthy and strong into the future. However, was processed with an extraordinary amount of speed and clear ties to the president's family. We need to conduct the proper oversight here and this amendment does that.
And as I said, I support the Office of Strategic Capital and I want to see it healthy and strong, so I think sunlight on this transaction would do exactly that. I urge its adoption and I yield back.
Speaker 143
Thank the gentlelady for comments. Gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Lee, is recognized to address the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to the gentleman.
Mike Levin
Thank you to my good friend from Nevada. My colleague the chairman just said what a transformative tool the Office of Strategic Capital is, how we couldn't have strengthened our industrial base without it, how glad he was to help create it. And you know what, I agree with every word of that, Mr. Chairman, I do. I'm not here to attack the tool at all.
I'm here because I believe in it. I want it to be transparent. I want it to succeed. I want everything to be on the level. And I note that the chairman defended the program and praised the mission and said how proud he is of the office, but what I did not hear is one single substantive reason to oppose the amendment.
Not anything. Because I don't think there is one. The amendment doesn't touch this program at all. It doesn't cut it, it doesn't slow it, it doesn't block a single loan, it doesn't claw back a single dollar. It just directs GAO, the non-partisan watchdog, the auditors who work for all of us, to look at one transaction, this one transaction, and to tell us whether the rules were followed.
That's the whole amendment. If you love this program, you should be the first to want it protected from any cloud of doubt. The strongest protection of a program is ensuring that it operates cleanly. So again, I tried for this to be as narrow and as fact-based as possible, asking only for information and giving the institution, giving our institution exactly what our institution should want, which is clarity on how the people's money is being spent. There's nothing to fear here unless you fear the facts of what GAO might find with an investigation.
And I'll yield back to my good friend from Nevada.
Thank you and I yield.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized.
Marcy Kaptur
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Levin amendment on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States. Obviously these moneys come from tax payments to the government of the United States. And I've been reading several articles that reference self-dealing by the Trump family in many of these business relationships where they kind of involve themselves in government funds and private interests. The American people deserve the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
So the, when hundreds of millions of dollars from the taxpayers are being directed through federal loan authorities, Congress has a responsibility to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness. This amendment does not cancel the program. It simply directs the GAO to review how conditional loans were pursued, finalized, and awarded through the Office of Strategic Capital to ensure no waste, fraud, or abuse. This is a big loan. I don't think in my whole career any company in my district got this kind of loan other than when we bailed out the automotive industry, and that was done with total transparency.
The amendment asks GAO to examine the $620 million loan for Vulcan Elements and assess whether proper safeguards were in place to identify potential conflicts of interest when there so clearly seem to be those associated with this. The Trump family has seemingly found endless opportunities to enrich itself through access to power to a level never seen before in our country. We cannot turn a blind eye to such blatant nepotism and outright corruption. Strategic Capital is an important tool for strengthening the defense industrial base, but it should be used responsibly. I would say that the taxpayers from my region of the country, and yours too, trust the government to institute fair processes, sound oversight, and protection against favoritism.
I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment and ensure that GAO provides the oversight necessary to protect taxpayers and preserve confidence in this important defense financing program. Thank you and I yield back.
Speaker 145
Thank the gentlelady for her comments. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Mike Levin
Mr. Chairman, this should not be controversial at all. We are simply asking GAO to look, to send the nonpartisan auditors who work for all of us to examine one transaction and to report back. That's the whole of it. And if it's too much to ask, then I think we have to ask ourselves what oversight in this committee means anymore. So I'll ask it plainly: when will enough be enough?
One of the largest loans in this office's history, finalized in weeks instead of months to a company less than two years old, pushed by a White House advisor tied to a firm the President's own family had just bought into, followed by a valuation that jumped tenfold overnight. If that's not enough to merit a simple nonpartisan look at the facts, then I have to ask my colleagues: when will you admit what is so patently obvious to the rest of us? This amendment accuses no one. It cuts nothing. It blocks nothing.
We're asking one question of GAO. And if the deal was clean, we all win; this program comes out stronger. The only thing a no vote protects is silence. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Roll call's been requested, sufficient support is demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 51
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Amodei. Mr. Amodei, no. Mrs. Bice. Mrs. Bice, no.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert. Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, no. Mr. Case. Mr. Case, aye. Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline, no. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Clyburn. Mr. Clyburn, aye.
Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole, no. Mr. Cuellar.
Ms. Dean. Mr. DeLauro. Mr. DeLauro, aye. Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Ellzey. Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel. Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest. Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder. Mr. Harder, aye.
Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson. Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer, aye.
Mr. Ivey. Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota. Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye.
Ms. Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malliotakis. Ms. Malliotakis, no.
Ms. McCollum. Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Moolenaar, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye.
Mr. Mrvan. Mr. Mrvan, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, aye. Ms. Perez.
Ms. Perez, aye. Ms. Pingree. Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye.
Ms. Quigley. Ms. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Rogers.
Speaker 60
Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no. Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, no.
Mr. Simpson. Mr. Strong.
Are there any members wishing to cast their vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
Ms. Dean, aye.
Gentleman from Florida.
Gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Edwards, no.
Gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no.
Gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Cloud, no.
Gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. Simpson, no.
Speaker 138
Okay. Are there others wishing to record their vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 32, the amendment is not adopted. A gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer an amendment that directs the Department of Defense to assess the readiness impacts associated with the use of military installations to support immigration detention or processing activities. When we were here two weeks ago debating the DHS appropriations bill, I shared with all of you the incredible deficiencies and serious concerns that exist at Camp East Montana, which is the world's largest detention facility for immigrants.
It's in my district. It's at the Fort Bliss military installation. And I shared with you all the GAO report that had been released really the day before our committee markup that explicitly outlined many of those deficiencies. And I asked that we prohibit the use of military installations for immigration detention. I shared with you all that I expressed those same concerns and objections under the prior administration.
In fact, I had many press conferences in front of Fort Bliss during the Biden administration, calling on the Biden administration to stop using Fort Bliss for HHS facilities for unaccompanied minors. I worked with the administration to seek to expand shelter space for unaccompanied minors so that we could get those kids off of the installation and allow the installation to focus on its mission. And I'm not asking in this amendment that we prohibit the use of military installations for immigration detention. I made that pitch, I made my arguments, and I lost in this committee. But here's what I am asking for instead, and I do hope we can get this amendment passed and I hope you will support it.
This amendment essentially is asking the department to provide Congress with a comprehensive assessment of the costs, resource requirements.
This amendment essentially is asking the department to provide Congress with a comprehensive assessment of the costs, resource requirements, and readiness implications associated with having facilities like this on the installation. I think we have a right to know, I think we have an obligation to know as members of Congress, and then together we can chart a path forward with potentially some guardrails around this. I want you to know this amendment, I hope you've all heard the pride that is in my voice and in my actions when I speak about Fort Bliss and our military installation. I'm proud of the way my community has supported and uplifted our military installation. We've taxed ourselves as a community to build roads and schools to support our military installation.
We offer specific workforce programs for spouses of our military personnel. We pride ourselves on welcoming and creating a community where veterans can retire. So my motivation comes from a place of wanting to ensure our military installations focus on their mission and that we hold administrations accountable, Democratic administrations and Republican administrations, on the use of our military installations. So this report will give us some, I think, very useful information, and when we get the report, if I have your support, then let's talk about next steps. What could or should it look like when our installations are utilized by an administration for purposes other than the national defense?
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, I ask for everyone's support.
Ken Calvert
This amendment is to include report language that raises concerns about military installations being used for ICE detention facilities. I understand the gentlelady's concerns on using a military facility, however, current policy already permits other federal agencies to use vacant facilities on military bases. I thank the chairman and understand this amendment and its impact. Current policy already looks at readiness parameters addressed in this report language, and it's in my opinion it's redundant. So for those reasons and others, I oppose this amendment.
Betty McCollum
Thank you, Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I realize that several administrations have utilized military installations in areas to detain individuals. However, when this is done, it should be done in a standard to ensure that any person on the base feels safe, both military and detained personnel. ICE officials should provide the proper equipment to ensure that there's a delineation between where ICE will operate and where it's separated from where the military personnel are going to be operating. For example, they should install perimeter cameras to ensure that there aren't any blind spots.
And in one instance, security guards lost a loaded firearm on a Camp East Montana facilities. That's not how a federal facility should be maintained. Military personnel cannot perform their duties or train effectively if they're concerned about just anyone walking around with a loaded firearm. Our military personnel need to be focused on preparing for near-peer conflicts and not worrying about whether ICE counterparts are doing their job effectively. I hear what the chairman's saying and yes, bases are sometimes used as a for other for other purposes and other uses.
But I think it's time to refresh and relook at how it's being used in the way that these detention facilities are housing at times, you know, hundreds of people. They're being run by private contractors that we need to be doing audits and oversight on to make sure that they're following all the rules. So for this instance alone, I think it's a good idea for us to do report language, maybe even more expansive than what Ms. Escobar is asking for and just review the whole situation on how they're being used. For that reasons, I support this amendment and I would hope that we could do the same into the future. Thank you.
Veronica Escobar
Thank the gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the ranking member bringing up a very alarming example of what has happened on our military installation while ICE essentially has a private contractor operating a 5,000-bed facility on the military installation. Camp East Montana has seen all sorts of security breaches. One of them being a lost loaded gun that has never been recovered. Another being three detainees who've escaped.
This is on our military installation. There are other issues around TB outbreaks, measles outbreaks. That is a DHS function. And we should allow DHS to do its job and we should preserve our military's ability to do their job and to be ready. This is just a report.
I think we should know whether all of these activities have impacted military readiness. I know I want to know. I'd appreciate your support. Thank you, I yield back.
Thank the gentlelady. The question's now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Roll call is requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, no. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei, no. Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice, no. Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Case, aye. Mr. Ciscomani.
Mr. Ciscomani, no. Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline, no. Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole.
Speaker 60
No. Ms. Escobar? Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat? Mr. Fleischmann?
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel? Ms. Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin? Mr. Franklin, no.
Mr. Guest? Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder? Mr. Harder, aye. Dr. Harris?
Dr. Harris, no. Mrs. Hinson? Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer? Mr. Hoyer, aye.
Mr. Ivey? Mr. Ivey, aye. Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce, no. Ms. Kaptur?
Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. LaLota? Ms. Lee? Ms. Lee, aye. Ms. Letlow?
Mr. Levin? Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malliotakis? Ms. Malliotakis, no. Ms. McCollum?
Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng? Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Moolenaar? Mr. Moolenaar, no.
Mr. Moore? Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle? Mr. Morelle, aye. Mr. Mrvan?
Mr. Mrvan, aye. Mr. Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez? Ms. Perez, aye.
Ms. Pingree? Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan? Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley?
Mr. Quigley, aye. Mr. Reschenthaler? Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers? Mr. Rogers, no.
Mr. Rutherford? No. Mr. Shrive? Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong? Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres? Mrs. Torres, aye.
Ms. Underwood? Ms. Underwood, aye. Mr. Valadao? Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz?
Mrs. Watson Coleman? Mrs. Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack? Mr. Womack, no. Mr. Zinke?
Mr. Zinke, no.
Speaker 37
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Carter, no.
Mr. LaLota, no.
Speaker 138
Are there others wishing to change their vote or... Gentleman... Okay, thank you. Gentlelady from Florida.
Speaker 152
Are there any others wishing to vote or change their vote? With that, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 34, the amendment is not adopted. Gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar is recognized for an amendment.
Veronica Escobar
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer an amendment to ensure that the Department of Defense's Worldwide Expeditionary Multiple Award Contract, or WEMAC, is reserved for the military missions for which it was created. Last week, I'm sorry, not last week, two weeks ago, going back to the DHS markup that we had two weeks ago, when I again talked about this GAO report about Camp East Montana, the largest immigration detention facility in the world, which is in my district, 1.3 billion dollars of American taxpayer dollars.
The GAO report exposed a number of deficiencies, the failure for the of the private contractor to meet federal standards. And one of my amendments, which I'm very grateful was adopted by this committee and made it into the bill, was about pursuing, instructing ICE to pursue the tens of millions of dollars that were wasted by the private contractor. Just to refresh everyone's memory, the private contractor was charging the American government for three meals a day, every single day, at a 5,000-bed facility when there wasn't a single detainee held inside the facility. Tens of millions of dollars of waste. Well, part of the problem identified in the GAO report was the use of WEXMAC.
This military procurement tool is intended for rapid deployment for really essentially it's a it's an important tool for the United States military. DHS has their own procurement tool. DHS should be using their procurement tool. That procurement tool that DHS normally uses analyzes experience, analyzes cost, takes a whole host of things into consideration before awarding something like a 1.3 billion dollar bid. But because WEXMAC was used, it it defers to a low bid, the lowest bidder.
And in this case, the lowest bidder, which was 1.3 billion dollars, the lowest bidder had zero experience in immigration detention. Can you imagine that the federal government used a DOD contracting tool to award a low bid, which 1.3 billion isn't really a low bid if you ask me, but we used a DOD procurement tool that should be reserved for the military. So I'm asking that we prohibit the use of this tool for purpose purposes that are outside of military purposes. DHS has purchased warehouses in my district, three warehouses, and I recently asked ICE, will will these warehouses that are going to be used for immigration detention, how are you going to contract that? I'm assuming you're going to use a private contractor.
The answer was yes. How are you going to find the contractor for this for these warehouses? WEXMAC. We keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. These are costly mistakes, and we're using a tool that wasn't intended for this purpose.
Let's use WEXMAC, but let's allow this tool to be retained by the DOD for DOD purposes. I ask for your support. I yield back.
Ken Calvert
Thank the chairman. As explained, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for the worldwide expeditionary multiple award contract, or otherwise known as WEXMAC, for civil immigration purposes. The department continues to support various federal agencies with contracting vehicles such as this one. Prohibition of this contracting vehicle is premature in my mind and could limit the department's ability to manage these activities effectively. For that reason and others, I oppose this amendment.
Betty McCollum
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The Department of Defense should not be providing any funds to cover the Department of Homeland Security costs for the internment of immigrants. Excuse me, migrants. Even when prior administrations have utilized the military installations for housing migrants, the Department of Defense did not pay for any portion of these activities. So in recent GAO studies, they found several mistakes that both the Department of the Army and ICE officials made in using and executing these activities on Fort Bliss.
For example, the Army did not incorporate enough flexibility into the contract to account for the occupancy level below the maximum, and that's resulted in millions of dollars of waste. Now, is the Army at fault then? Does the Department of Defense then pay for the mistake? Was the Department of Homeland Security, were they there when the inputs were going on, seeing how this usually works? I have a lot of questions.
In 2025, the Army paid the full cost for meals and services for two weeks when there were no detainees, non-citizens in the facility. Now, was that the Department of Defense's fault? They shouldn't be in charge of doing these kinds of inputs for these kinds of contracts when that's not their role. It should have been the Department of Homeland Security doing that. Even if they're using a defense system, they should be using it themselves, the Department of Homeland Security, with the approval of the Department of Defense, not the other way around.
ICE has provided funding for these activities in the last year when the Department of Defense mission is not to do law enforcement. So in the reconciliation bill, there was so much funding in there for ICE that they should have, they had plenty of money to cover these costs themselves. The Department of Defense shouldn't have been picking it up. So the GAO did report that the Army's no longer funding any of these activities, but I believe that we need to be a little more aggressive on our oversight functions to ensure this issue doesn't happen again. And one of the reasons why, Mr. Chairman, I know you want to see audits happening as much as I do, but in the Department of Defense, it's only the Marine Corps that's doing an audit.
So without audits, we don't see these things when they come up. And so by having this report, GAO might give us some guides to use not only for this system that was used by Homeland Security, but some guidelines and protocols to be used for other systems that the Department of Defense rightly uses for other agencies, but to make sure the Department of Defense isn't being overcharged or that we overcharge another agency that's using these systems. And for those reasons alone, I support this amendment and I would ask the members to think about doing the same thing. But let's get some audits. Go Marines, but we need them for the other branches as well.
With that, before I yield back to the full chairman of the committee and to the ranking member, having this is the last bill I'm up on the dais, I just want to thank you both for being, as Ken and I like to say, disagree without being disagreeable. You have made these markups remarkably functional and for that, I think I express for a lot of people here our gratitude and our great thanks.
Veronica Escobar
Thanks, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to reiterate, military contracting authorities and vehicles are developed to meet unique national defense requirements. And as we see conflicts across the globe, we should want our military to be focused on those conflicts. We should want the tools we provide to our military to be used for those conflicts. When we use those tools for missions outside their intended purposes, we risk creating acquisition failures, wasting taxpayer dollars, degrading congressional oversight, and diverting attention away from the military missions that those tools were designed to support.
Having a GAO report lay out very plainly major problems that Congress should fix is an opportunity. Choosing not to fix those problems is a mistake. Let's not make that mistake. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
Thanks, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Texas. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.
Speaker 51
Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford, no.
Mr. Amodei. Mrs. Bice. Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop, aye. Mr. Calvert.
Mr. Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mr. Case. Mr. Ciscomani. Mr. Ciscomani, no.
Mr. Cline. Mr. Cline, no. Mr. Cloud. Mr. Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde, no. Mr. Cole. Mr. Cole, no.
Mr. Cuellar. Ms. Dean. Ms. Dean, aye. Ms. DeLauro. Ms. DeLauro, aye.
Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Diaz-Balart, no. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Edwards, no. Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, no. Ms. Escobar. Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espaillat. Mr. Fleischmann.
Mr. Fleischmann, no. Ms. Frankel. Mr. Franklin. Mr. Franklin, no. Mr. Guest.
Mr. Joyce, no. Mr. Joyce. Ms. Kaptur. Ms. Kaptur, aye. Mr. Ivey, aye.
Mr. Guest, no. Mr. Harder. Mr. Harder, aye. Dr. Harris. Dr. Harris, no.
Mr. LaLota. Mr. LaLota, no. Ms. Lee. Ms. Lee, aye. Ms. Letlow.
Mrs. Hinson. Mrs. Hinson, no. Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Hoyer, aye. Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin, aye. Ms. Malloy. Ms. Malloy, no. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum, aye. Ms. Meng. Ms. Meng, aye. Mr. Molinaro. Mr. Molinaro, no.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, no. Mr. Morelle. Mr. Morelle, aye. Mr. Mervan.
Mr. Newhouse. Mr. Newhouse, no. Ms. Perez. Ms. Perez, aye. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler, no. Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, no.
Mr. Shrive. Mr. Shrive, no. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, no. Mr. Strong.
Mr. Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, aye. Ms. Underwood. Mr. Valadao.
Are there any members wishing to vote?
Speaker 60
Mr. Valadao. Mr. Valadao, no. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Mr. Zinke, no.
Veronica Escobar
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlelady from Florida.
Ms. Frankel, aye.
Gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Mrvan, aye.
Gentleman from California.
Mr. Aguilar, aye.
Gentlelady from Illinois.
Ms. Underwood, aye.
Gentleman from Nevada.
Mrs. Bice, no.
Mr. Amodei, no.
Speaker 37
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. Oh, gentleman from Texas.
Veronica Escobar
On this vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Before the chair turns to Mr. Rogers for the final motion, my good friend the ranking member asks for to be recognized to address the committee. Gentlelady's recognized.
Rosa DeLauro
Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And as this is the last full committee session at 12 for 12, it's a damn good outcome here. So I offer my congratulations. First, let me just say a thank you to all of the members of the committee.
Thank you for your tenacity and but your, you know, your commitment to what we do in this committee. And it's not just the long hours, but it's the thoughtfulness that goes into the issues that we are discussing and trying to come to grips on. These are all the very, very serious issues that face this nation. And because again, you've heard me say it before, I believe what happens in this committee, this is the heart and soul of the federal government. Without the agreement of the Appropriations Committee, House and Senate, Democrats and Republicans, that the government shuts down and it collapses.
And we've seen that before and what we don't want to do that. And that's why the commitment to get bills passed and then try to get them over the finish line. And what I'd like to do is you know, say a big thank you to you, all of you. It's an honor to work with you again because I, you know, we share so much about what the role of this institution is and our part in the role in the institution. So thank you all.
Highest regard for the people who serve here and the motivation that you have to serve and to serve your constituents. To the staff, it goes without saying none of this works unless you have people who have the granular knowledge of every single subcommittee and not only know the policy, but they understand the politics and they understand operationally how we get from A to B.
And we are blessed to have your knowledge, your commitment. You share the same commitment that all of us do to making the process work. And that is really, I've often said that we come, all of us come here who serve or elected with a set of principles, values of where we want to go and what we want to do. But I believe equally the staff shares those same values, which is the reason why they work so damn hard and the long hours that they put in. And certainly not, I don't, this is not last on the list.
I probably should have started here, but I wanted to say some things to the committee and to the staff. But I want to just say a, as we're almost done, to share some thoughts and words about someone who is my dear friend in this process, and that is Chairman Tom Cole. All of us here in the room know that the chairman and I don't agree on everything and we can have some heated discussions. But that doesn't, that doesn't get in the way of a friendship or the goal, our understanding of what the goal is. And that's very, very reassuring.
I've only sat on the Appropriations Committee since I arrived all those years ago. No, that's not true. I was on T and I and I was on Oversight with Henry Waxman and so forth. And then when my seniority, when we lost the majority, didn't carry me here, I served for a while on the Armed Services Committee. But as soon as I could, I got back here.
So it's, you know, certainly almost, you know, probably almost 30 years. And so, and I just wanted to, never quite thought that, you know, given the way the process works, that I would wind up either as chair or ranking member because of, you know, the, but there's, there's also a way that this, this committee works and the way that events unfold that provides opportunities for all of us to be able to serve. So I feel blessed that I am in this position. And whether as chair or as ranking member, I will just say that the, the relationship, the strength of the relationship of myself and Tom Cole is a security about it. So that you can disagree without feeling that you have to go back to square one to start to build a relationship over again.
We each know, who was it, Tom, who said it's like an old married couple, we know where the lines are. We know where it is drawn and you know that you know how far you can go. That was so quickly determined over the last couple of years where I understood that the restrictions and the parameters that Tom had in trying to get some things done and he clearly understood what I needed to do because that's, that's the way the process works here. When you have to come to a conclusion, we function because of votes here. We know that you have to get enough votes to do what you need to do.
It's, it's mathematics in the long run to get the number of votes and what the market could bear on either side. And understanding that quite honestly gives you such a perspective on what you can accomplish. You can't enter this, the negotiation without understanding where the boundaries are.
Otherwise, you're all over the lot, you don't know where you want to go, and you figure, you, you know, because the process is ever just spreads out. So if you know where you want to try to wind up, that gives you the, the, the purpose. The core value, um, and that's, uh, we've had, I, I, I tell this, tell the story about when we had our breakfast, it was Trio and Gear Up and Title I and NIH about mutual concerns and burned bacon. Uh, so those are the, that was, you know, solidified a very strong relationship. But I think that there is a fundamental core value which we share.
Um, and it is foundational, uh, and the belief of the work of this committee, of its importance, of its role in the Congress, and of the Congress's role, uh, in, in, in government, because there are three branches of government, but our role in the government, uh, but our, our role in, uh, providing the opportunities that this great institution has, um, uh, for people, which is for me, um, the greatest strength of this institution. And I think, I think Tom and I share this is the potential that it has for helping to make a difference in people's lives. Uh, it doesn't always do what you want it to do, we all know that, some days it's quite the opposite of where you want to try to go, but you always work, and I know that Tom does and I try to push the edge of that envelope so that you try to make it work for the people that, uh, really put their faith and trust in what you do. They give you this honor, only 11,000 of us have served in this position, and it comes with a great, uh, comes with a great mission, uh, that, that, that we all have. And we have a shared faith, Tom and I, in the wisdom of Article I, so stated on the plaque.
Uh, it makes the work of the committee possible, um, and so, in so many ways. Uh, we, we passed 11 of the 12 the last time, uh, we'll see what happens on, on the floor, uh, but I always, when the press says are you going to shut the government down, my response to that is no, we're going to do what we need to do to get it done. And I know that Tom Cole, uh, not only shares that value and that view, but, uh, helps to make it a reality, uh, so that, uh, in many respects while we have the other parts of the government to try to deal with the other branches, we need to be very concerned and vigilant about, um, how, uh, we may, we preserve, uh, what is the constitutional authority, uh, that we have. So I particularly want to just say I say thank you to all of you, I want to thank the staff, but particularly say a thank you to my colleague too, to Tom Cole, and it's, uh, uh, it's a professional relationship, it's a personal relationship, and it's friendship. So thank you very, very much, um, and, uh, the diligence and the commitment of everyone here makes this process work.
We've done our job, um, and we'll see what happens with when we get to the floor on a number of these issues. But we, uh, we executed, uh, I think with, with great, um, uh, success where we need to go for the future. So thank you very much, Chairman Cole, and thank all of you and thank the staff.
Tom Cole
Well, such a fulsome set of remarks demand a little response, and, uh, but, uh, as I hope everybody on this committee knows, uh, number one, uh, Rosa is my friend. Uh, we are very close friends, and, uh, as she said, we don't always agree, but we usually find a way to get to a deal.
This is an important inflection point in the process, but we're going to be negotiating and things are going to change. There's nothing on any of these bills that are written in stone. They didn't come down from Mount Sinai. They're going to change when we engage with the Senate and they're going to change when we come to what I hope is a genuinely bipartisan deal across the board. So I agree very much with my friend and my counterpart that the last thing I want is a government shutdown.
I think that's the last thing any of us should want. And the thing I want the most is a bipartisan deal that all of us can be proud of and feel like we all achieved some of the things we think are important in the country. I think right now the Senate for a variety of reasons is having a more difficult time than us. You know, we can't get too far without our friends on the other side of the rotunda. So we're going to have to wait and see how that all shakes out.
I don't know what will happen in the elections. I will tell you, I'm chairing Republicans for Rosa, whether she's running for chairman or ranking member. That's probably the way I could hurt you the most. But I just genuinely appreciate the friendship and the relationship, the manner in which you lead and the way in which you work across the aisle. I've never ever seen Rosa DeLauro break her word or do something that you would think was unfair or untoward.
She's tough, as I said in an article once, she knows how to throw a punch, but she never punches below the belt. And she is a very tough competitor, but again, wants to get to the right places within the parameters of the possible. So that's what we're going to try and do. I will tell you briefly, we started some discussions with my cardinals and members, mostly cardinals at this point, but we're going to have to talk next week. We're not going to be like idle between now and September 30th.
I think we're probably going to have some subcommittee meetings where we look particularly at some of the problems that we don't normally get to, that you'd like to get to, but the pace of events keeps us. We've got the luxury of a little bit of time here. We may, and I haven't made a decision, I wouldn't make this decision without talking to my friend the ranking member, but we may even do two or three full committee meetings if we can find something we, you know, is not contentious, but we're working in common on something we think might make some sense. And I've got some ideas I want to run by Rosa. She may have some ideas she wants to run by me.
But I don't want us just being fallow for this amount of time. I think there's some things that we can do here and hopefully some things we can find that we can do together and topics that members on both sides want to explore that we can explore together and sort of educate ourselves. Frankly, even looking ahead to some of the things that in '28, whoever's running this place might want to do. I think those things would be worth talking about. But again, we would have that conversation with the ranking member and her team before we did anything.
So I want to join Rosa in thanking all of you. These are very long days. These are sometimes very contentious issues. I'm very proud of the committee on both sides of the aisle for the manner in which it's operated and the civility with which you've treated one another. And you know, it's an interesting process to watch and there's certainly a certain amount of tension and a certain amount of throwing punches back and forth, but nothing's gotten out of hand here.
And everything I think has been fair and appropriate. And I don't have any problems at all with my friends have raised on the other side of the aisle or what my colleagues have thought was important on this side. This is an important place to hash this stuff out while we can.
And there'll be some discussions, you know, that was a really good point, maybe we should do that sometime in the weeks and months ahead without a doubt. But again, I want to thank you. I wish you well. And I have to say, I've been around this committee a long time, probably the best set of food member or day today we've ever had. I mean, you guys have really upped your game.
It's no more cold sandwiches. It's, you know, we got food from Laredo flying in here. It's a pretty spectacular thing and makes it a lot more pleasant to get through. And I thought today was particularly good. So, you know, Chinese is always, I don't know, but boy, anytime you want to go to Capital Grille, just go right ahead.
That was all spectacular. You bet. And thank you on both sides of the aisle. With that, seeing no further amendments, I now would recognize Chairman Rogers for a motion.
Harold Rogers
Mr. Chair, I move to favorably report to the House the fiscal year 2027 Department of Defense appropriations bill.
Veronica Escobar
The question's now on the motion to favorably report fiscal year 2027 Department of Defense appropriations bill to the House. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say no.
Mr. Aderholt.
Mr. Aderholt, aye.
Mr. Aguilar.
Mr. Aguilar, no.
Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford, aye.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei, aye.
Mrs. Bice.
Mrs. Bice, aye.
Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop, no.
Oh, aye.
Mr. Carter, aye.
Mr. Case.
Mr. Case, no.
Mr. Ciscomani.
Mr. Ciscomani, aye.
Mr. Cline.
Mr. Cline, aye.
Mr. Cloud.
Mr. Cloud, aye.
Mr. Clyburn.
Mr. Clyde.
Mr. Clyde, aye.
Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole, aye.
Mr. Cuellar.
Mr. Cuellar, no.
Ms. Dean.
Ms. Dean, no.
Ms. DeLauro.
Ms. DeLauro, no.
Mr. Diaz-Balart.
Mr. Diaz-Balart, aye.
Mr. Edwards.
Mr. Edwards, aye.
Mr. Ellzey.
Mr. Ellzey, aye.
Ms. Escobar.
Ms. Escobar, no.
Dr. Harris.
Mr. Espaillat.
Mr. Harder, no.
Dr. Harris, aye.
Mr. Espaillat, no.
Mr. Fleischmann.
Mrs. Hinson.
Mr. Fleischmann, aye.
Mrs. Hinson, aye.
Ms. Frankel.
Ms. Frankel, no.
Mr. Hoyer.
Mr. Franklin.
Mr. Franklin, aye.
Mr. Hoyer, no.
Mr. Guest.
Mr. Guest, aye.
Mr. Ivey.
Mr. Harder.
Mr. Ivey, no.
Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce, aye.
Ms. Kaptur.
Ms. Kaptur, no.
Mr. LaLota.
Mr. LaLota, aye.
Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee, no.
Ms. Letlow.
Ms. Letlow, aye.
Mr. Levin.
Mr. Levin, no.
Ms. Malloy.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum, no.
Ms. Meng.
Ms. Meng, no.
Mr. Moolenaar.
Mr. Morelle.
Mr. Mrvan.
Mr. Mrvan, no.
Mr. Newhouse.
Mr. Newhouse, aye.
Ms. Perez, no.
Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree, no.
Mr. Pocan.
Mr. Pocan, no.
Mr. Quigley.
Mr. Quigley, no.
Mr. Reschenthaler.
Mr. Reschenthaler, aye.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers, aye.
Mr. Rutherford.
Mr. Rutherford, aye.
Mr. Shrieve.
Mr. Shrieve, aye.
Speaker 60
Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Pocan, no. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Quigley, no. Mr. Reschenthaler. Mr. Reschenthaler, aye.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, aye. Mr. Rutherford. Mr. Rutherford, aye. Mr. Shrieve.
Mr. Shrieve, aye. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, aye. Mr. Strong. Mr. Strong, aye.
Mr. Simpson, aye.
Speaker 60
Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres, no. Ms. Underwood. Ms. Underwood, no. Mr. Valadao.
Mrs. Torres.
Veronica Escobar
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. The chair will add one thing of note. I think this is the only bill where only one person got an amendment, and that was Calvert. He didn't let nobody else got one.
He got two. Brutal. On this vote, the ayes are 34, the noes are 27, the motion is agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and report just approved. Three days.
Other than that, seeing no objection, so ordered. There being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.