▶ 0:03:36Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider three measures. H.r. 8800. H.r. 8884 and h. Res. 1383. First, we turn to h. Res.
▶ 0:03:551383, a resolution highlighting the success of common sense tax policies that have made an overwhelmingly positive impact upon the lives of hard working americans and their families. It was almost one year ago, here, in this very room where we spent almost 21 hours discussing one of the most transformational pieces of legislation in a generation. H.r. One.
▶ 0:04:23These are the policies that our republican majority has championed and continued to champion. Almost one year ago, every single democrat in the house voted to raise taxes on the american people. House republicans did not.
▶ 0:04:38Instead, house republicans passed legislation to permanently increase the standard deduction, eliminate taxes on tips and overtime, permanently increase the child tax credit, create and fund trump accounts to help children begin saving for their future and much, much more. Some are very quick to write off the successes and the prosperity that was unleashed.
▶ 0:05:05Thanks to the working families tax cuts act. But the fact of the matter is that americans are reaping the benefits as they should be. 97% of tax filers received a tax cut this year. Working families making between 15 and $30,000 are seeing a 21% tax cut.
▶ 0:05:28The largest of any income group in an american family of four generally will not have any federal income tax liability on the first $73,000 they earn. I look forward to hearing about the additional benefits from the transformational legislation from our panel today. Next h.r.
▶ 0:05:528800, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2027 is the keystone of congress's mandate to provide for the common defense of the nation. Our panel from the armed services committee will speak about this momentarily and most monumentally important legislation at length. And I'm going to highlight a few portions that are particularly pertinent at the outside on waste, fraud and abuse. The.
▶ 0:06:23This legislation builds upon the strides made in fiscal year 2026 to streamline operations and cut nearly $30 billion in wasteful programs that spend taxpayer dollars in a very haphazard manner. Further, it creates a new task force and provides new authorities to eliminate fraudulent payments and achieve a full and clean audit within 24 months. H.r.
▶ 0:06:558800 provides our nation's service members with a 5 to 7% pay raise and couples that with increase, couples that increase with improved and strengthened benefits. For military families that relate to housing, education and access to child care.
▶ 0:07:16It also allocates the resources necessary to maintain a strong posture of defense and deterrence against our nation's adversaries, and the continued threats that they pose to the united states. The need for this legislation could not be greater. I look forward to our colleagues from the armed services committee sharing their thoughts and insights with us here today on why this is the case. H.r. 8884.
▶ 0:07:40The removing barriers to work for disabled americans act. Mr. scott's bill would amend title two of the social security act to reauthorize demonstration authority for the disability insurance program.
▶ 0:07:59This legislation works to empower americans with disabilities by restoring the social security administration's authority to run voluntary pilot programs to test policies that reward work instead of punishing it.
▶ 0:08:15It would ensure that no individual who is disabled and has a desire to work, who participates in these programs will see a reduction in their personal income as a result of attempting to better their lives. Those who are disabled and want to join or remain in the workforce should have the opportunity to do so with having, without having to worry about whether their disability benefits will just disappear.
▶ 0:08:45This legislation is about upholding fairness and opening the door to opportunity. It certainly well intentioned and I believe will make a positive impact upon many americans. With that, I look forward to the conversations we'll have today here in the rules committee. And I now yield to the ranking member for any comments that he wishes to make. >> well, thank you, madam chair. Well, I want to begin by, first of all, wishing you a happy birthday. >> thank you sir.
▶ 0:09:13>> and I, I would sing, but if you've ever heard me sing, it would clear this room in a nanosecond. So I'll spare you. >> so you're going to be much nicer today. >> I am, I am, I am, I will be, I promise you, I'm going to be as succinct as I possibly can so you can go out and celebrate tonight. That is that is the goal for us to get you out of here at a at a decent hour. But but having said that, I don't envy you today. Uh, because cleaning up the mess republicans left last week cannot be easy.
▶ 0:09:39You know, we had a bipartisan housing bill ready to be signed, a rare, overwhelmingly popular bill that might actually help people afford a place to live. Republican leaders were publicly taking a victory lap on tv, just as donald trump blew the whole thing up, saying he would refuse to sign the bill unless congress also changes the rules on voting so that republicans can legally kick registered voters off the rolls.
▶ 0:10:05I mean, they are holding affordability hostage so they can try to rig the next election. Are you kidding me? Imagine explaining that back home. Sorry. Your rent is too high. You can't afford a mortgage. Congress did pass something that might help, but donald trump feels his power matters more than your housing costs. I mean, you can't make this bs up. Business stalled in the house. The rule got pulled the floor shut down. Members were sent home early.
▶ 0:10:31And once again, the american people got a front row seat to republican dysfunction. You guys control the house. You control the senate and the white house and the supreme court, and you still can't govern. Which brings us to today.
▶ 0:10:45We are meeting on a defense bill with $1 trillion price tag, a bad social security disability bill, and yet another resolution celebrating republicans for their big ugly bill, not bills to lower costs or raise wages or make life easier, but $1 trillion defense bill, a dangerous social security bill, and a republican self esteem exercise on ndaa.
▶ 0:11:10I will say that better pay for service members matters, better housing matters, better support for military families matters. But this bill authorizes more than $1 trillion for defense and wars at a time when donald trump has made it clear that he is perfectly happy to start an illegal war to kill 13 american service members. I think giving that much money to pete hegseth is nuts. Then there is h.r. Eight, eight, eight four.
▶ 0:11:37This bill has broad authority over over social security disability insurance to an administration that has already shown us exactly how it treats programs were working. People rely on. Speaker johnson has said social security, medicare and medicaid need to be adjusted and fixed. We all know what that means. It means cuts. And we see that in the big, ugly bill.
▶ 0:12:00If anything, we ought to be expanding social security disability insurance so that so that the millions of americans that depend on it can survive the high cost of the trump economy. And then we have the second resolution this year that celebrates republicans big ugly bill, who's who who's for this? Nobody in america is sitting at their kitchen table now saying, you know what would really help if republicans in congress spent more time congratulating themselves?
▶ 0:12:30Republicans want applause for a bill that cut food assistance. It cut food assistance. It kicked people off of health care. It exploded the debt and handed more tax breaks to rich people and big corporations. Meanwhile, the american people are getting screwed, and all republicans offer them is a lousy resolution congratulating themselves and more trump drama. People need this place to get serious instead of.
▶ 0:12:56Instead, republicans have us here again, cleaning up after another meltdown and pretending that this is business as usual. It is not. It is embarrassing, and the american people deserve a hell of a lot better. And again, I will end. As I began promising the gentlelady that we will be as succinct and to the point as as possible, because it is your birthday and we. I think you deserve a nice night. With that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 0:13:24Um, without objection, any prepared statements that are witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our panel chairman rogers and ranking member smith from the house committee on armed services. Your full statements will be submitted for the record. We ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman rogers, I welcome your testimony. >> thank you, chairwoman fox and ranking member mcgovern for having us here today.
▶ 0:13:53And I want to thank you and your staff for helping us get the fy 27nda to the floor of your staff's. Been great to work with. I also want to thank ranking member smith, who's been an awesome partner in this process. Uh, I'm very proud of the work we did to put this bill together and report it out in a bipartisan manner again this year. Throughout our committee's budget hearings this year, we've heard a consistent theme.
▶ 0:14:17That being that the defense industrial base, the foundation of our military power is in deep trouble. Over the last 30 years, the defense industrial base has atrophied significantly. In the 1990s, we had 51 prime defense contractors. Today there are only six remaining. Our global munitions stockpiles are low, and we no longer have the surge capacity to rapidly replenish them.
▶ 0:14:43Our supply chains are too reliant on our adversaries, particularly china, and we have very little industrial capacity to mine, refine or process critical minerals we need for our defense. And our skilled workforce has shrunk. All of this is happening as our country faces the most challenging threat environment since world war two.
▶ 0:15:04Our adversaries are working together to build modernized forces focused on undermining our security and influence around the world. We are being outpaced in shipbuilding, hypersonics and autonomous systems. We must take action to address these problems before american deterrence erodes any further. The fy 27nda takes action. This bill's.
▶ 0:15:29This year's bill is focused on revitalizing the defense industrial base. We're giving industry the certainty it needs to invest, expand and produce faster. We're cutting needless regulations that prevent innovative businesses from working with the pentagon, and we're creating new jobs and helping americans build advanced technical skills. In addition to revitalizing the defense industrial base, the ndaa meets other critical needs.
▶ 0:15:59We are raising pay for service members and improving housing, education and child care for military families. We're strengthening our nuclear deterrence and missile defense while maintaining a strong posture to deter adversaries, and we're prioritizing the development of innovative technologies that will give our warfighters the edge in future conflicts.
▶ 0:16:20To support these policies, we're authorizing a 1.15 trillion in discretionary funds, which matches the president's historic budget request. For the first time in 40 years, we've been presented with a budget that accounts for the true cost of american deterrence. This top line begins to reverse the damage caused by decades of underinvestment in the us military.
▶ 0:16:44But we understand with this historic investment comes an even more urgent need to guard against waste, fraud and abuse. The. This bill does so by cutting nearly 30 billion in wasteful spending, reducing fraudulent payments and providing new authorities to ensure the pentagon achieves a full and clean audit within 24 months. Peace through strength doesn't begin on the battlefield.
▶ 0:17:10It begins in our factories, our depots, and our shipyards. This bill reflects our commitment to rebuilding that foundation. This is a strong bipartisan bill that puts our warfighters first and our urge all of our members to support it. And I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Ranking member smith, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. And happy birthday. Uh, hope. Hope it's a good one.
▶ 0:17:36Um, well, first of all, I want to thank chairman rogers for his leadership of the committee. I have no complaints with the process that led us to this point. Um, we had, gosh, over a thousand amendments submitted. Uh, we had robust debates over many of them. And we put together what was a pretty fair bipartisan product out of committee.
▶ 0:17:54Um, there is one big but which I'll get to in a minute, but I think the chairman outlined a lot of the strengths of this bill, certainly focusing on getting an audit, getting after waste, fraud and abuse so we can have a more efficient and effective pentagon is enormously important. This bill continues to do that. This bill also builds off of last year's acquisition reform, which was the greatest acquisition reform that has ever been done by congress. What does acquisition reform mean?
▶ 0:18:20It basically means innovate faster at scale, uh, be able to buy equipment that we need in a, in a quicker fashion so that we can get the new and improved equipment that we need in a better and more effective way. And we've certainly built on that. Um, there's strong support for the troops in here, as a number of people have noted. Uh, we also, on a number of occasions note how important it is to maintain partnerships and alliances with nato, certainly, but partners elsewhere.
▶ 0:18:48Uh, there are a couple of amendments that were added that I also think really strengthened this bill. One is to restore collective bargaining for department of defense employees, and another one was to go back to honoring what the base renaming commission did in terms of renaming bases that had previously been named for white supremacist southern generals. So there's a lot that's good in it. The one big but is the 1.15 trillion. It's actually more than a trillion. Um, it's 1.15 trillion.
▶ 0:19:17And that's just the base, as we have heard, republicans plan to add a $350 billion to that through reconciliation package, though, as Mr. mcgovern notes, don't seem to be able to pass much of anything. So I'm not sure that's going to happen. But then you've got also the supplemental, which is asking for $80 billion. You throw all of that together. And what we're talking about is a $1.6 trillion defense budget. That is an over 50% increase in last year's budget. Now, I think the chairman makes a fair point.
▶ 0:19:48You know, we face an incredibly complex threat environment. Um, china is rapidly building up their military. Russia is increasingly aggressive, not just in ukraine, but throughout europe. We've seen what iran and terrorist groups like hamas and hezbollah are doing in the middle east. North korea is still crazy, and they still have a nuclear weapon. There's a lot to deal with out there, but our budget has to fit within some sort of fiscally responsible package.
▶ 0:20:13If you ask the average person, you know, sorry, if you ask an economist what the greatest threat to U.S. national security is right now, they would say, our fiscal picture, $40 trillion in debt, that is becoming very difficult to sustain. As interest on the debt increases year by year. We cannot afford a $1.6 trillion defense budget. We just can't. We need a national security policy that reflects what we can actually spend money on. And I think we can do that.
▶ 0:20:41Uh, we've got partners and allies that can help us meet those challenges. We can also invest in equipment that gives us an asymmetric advantage. We're seeing this on the battlefield, ukraine being the best example. By the way, this bill also speaks out loudly in support of ukraine as right to defend itself and in support of their their war with russia, which I think is incredibly important. But ukraine has developed very cheap technologies that has enabled them to stop in its tracks a vastly larger military.
▶ 0:21:10We need to develop that instead of thinking we can just buy absolutely everything as a solution to meeting our national security needs. And it's also deeply ironic that of the three bills you have here, we have our you know, like I said, 1.6 trillion when you add it all up, defense budget and the republicans praising all of the tax cuts. And I don't disagree with the chairwoman's. Right. Pretty much everyone did get a tax cut, right? But if you're not going to raise the revenue, you can't have a $1.6 trillion defense budget.
▶ 0:21:39I mean, I think one of the most hilarious things that happened in last year's republican congress, and that's saying something is you passed an increase to the debt of 4 trillion plus dollars with all the tax cuts. And then shortly thereafter, you passed a balanced budget amendment, which is absolutely hysterical. If you stop and think about it, it's like, uh, we just, we just want to act like we're being fiscally responsible. You know, if we're going to have all those tax cuts, we're going to have to spend less money everywhere.
▶ 0:22:08And that includes defense. So as good as the overall bill is, I'm deeply concerned about the amount of money and the fiscal picture combining this with massive tax cuts. Um, not to mention all of the other needs that we have, I think puts us on an unsustainable path path which will then jeopardize our national security, um, in ways that go beyond just whether or not we can deter our adversaries. Um, with that, I yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr. smith. I'll defer my questions for a little bit.
▶ 0:22:38Uh, miss fischbach, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. And thank you for bringing the bill forward. Um, I appreciate it, because I think this bill includes many wins, not only for our national security, but for the people that defend it. And I think that's important to point out. Um, it's been mentioned a couple, oh, it's been mentioned a couple of times, um, about the increase in pay.
▶ 0:23:03And I just, so I just want to be clear that a vote against this bill is a vote against the increased pay for our service members. And, um, I think, and maybe you just want to expand on that a little bit and explain what's going what, what's really happening with that? >> yeah. In this bill, we, um, support the president's request for 5 to 7% pay increase, 7% for junior enlisted, uh, 6% for senior enlisted personnel and 5% for senior officers.
▶ 0:23:33Uh, we also expand bonuses and special pays that we've been using to try to recruit more and keep more of our service members, and we increase their housing allowance and our special needs allowance. We also authorize 1.8 billion for new barracks and family housing and increase housing allowance for high cost areas, um, and set deadlines for contractors to resolve housing complaints for service members. So this is a really family friendly bill. >> well, and I'm glad you mentioned the the housing.
▶ 0:24:03There's 25 billion for, uh, military construction and family housing. And I know you've probably been on more tours than I have. When you take a look at at the housing conditions and what's going on. And I think it's important that we are recognizing that now because it hasn't been for years, uh, really recognizing that we need to, we need to improve that for our service members. So not only the pay increase, but making sure they have the housing, decent housing that they need and the kind of level that they want.
▶ 0:24:30Um, and, and I know that this bill also strengthens medical care for our troops. And it requires and it requires the dod to focus on skills when hiring rather than just education levels on a resume. Um, and it increasing access to jobs and supplemental in education. And it's doing so much. It also includes helping advance small business participation within the defense industrial base.
▶ 0:24:54And so there's so much good, good going on in this bill, um, that I would, it's sad to see that people are opposing it because it's really about making sure that, uh, you know, there's, we're doing the right things for not only our servicemen, but for the defense department in general, making sure we're advancing things. So yes, it does. It does increase, uh, shipbuilding.
▶ 0:25:20It provides funding for shipbuilding and terrorists, eliminating terrorists and developing new technology. But I think most important about this is we are really recognizing those service members and making sure that we support them, not just saying it, but doing it, making sure we are back, have their backs and making sure that they have housing they need and the pay they need. And so I thank you for bringing this forward. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. fischbach. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. >> well, thank you, madam chair.
▶ 0:25:51So $1.6 trillion trillion with a t. I mean. >> if you add it all up yeah that's the 1.15 that's in the base. The three point or the 350 billion that they want in reconciliation in the $80 billion supplemental. >> but $1.6 trillion. Um, even doctor strangelove is impressed with that figure. Um, that is huge, unprecedented. And, you know, when we talk about national security, by the way, it's more than the number of bombs we have.
▶ 0:26:17Um, I mean, people right now in this country are worried about whether they can afford groceries, um, at the supermarket, you know, they're worried about whether they can afford to fill their gas tank up. They're worried about, you know, you know, whether they can afford to send their kids to school or whether they can retire. Um, and, um, you know, and they're worried about the cost of housing. You know, I want to read you a direct quote from president trump. A reporter asked him, um, what are your plans for the housing bill? Because as you know, we were supposed to take that up.
▶ 0:26:49And trump's response was, I don't know. I think it's so unimportant compared to the save america act. So just to be clear, he thinks that a housing affordability bill is, quote, unimportant compared to his election rigging bill. I mean, I mean, I what am I missing here? I mean. >> well, that's a separate subject outside of the national defense area. But I, I will certainly say that it shows a sense of misplaced priorities.
▶ 0:27:18And when you look at what americans are dealing with, the high cost of living, housing, education, food, um, energy, all of these things are major problems in every single policy that the trump administration has put in place has been to drive the costs up the tariffs. The war in iran certainly has driven costs up, uh, canceling energy projects all over the country so that we have less energy because he doesn't like wind turbines, apparently. So there is a lack of a focus on affordability, without question. >> and I think we all agree.
▶ 0:27:46I think there's unanimity that, um, if it, you know, when it comes to making sure that those who serve in our military, those who, who work for our military get a good, decent pay, they could, you know, raise a family. We're all for that. >> yeah. Let me be clear on this. Spending money helps people, right? Yeah. Which is not not terribly surprising. Um, but if you're going to spend this much money, you better be prepared to raise the revenue so you're not just sending us.
▶ 0:28:13>> well, and also understanding that, you know, increasing people's salaries while housing costs are going through the roof, while gas prices are going through the roof, while food prices are going through the roof, uh, doesn't necessarily make their life more affordable, uh, and allow them to address some of the, the challenges that our constituents face. I mean, I, um, you know, um, uh, ranking member smith, what is the deal with this proposed trump class battleship?
▶ 0:28:40I mean, I mean, he wants a ballroom, he wants an arch now. He wants a battleship. I mean, is this a good use of resources or is this another vanity project? >> um, well, I think it's another vanity. Well, it's partially a vanity project. And also then it's just a mistake. We're talking about building the largest battleship ever constructed. Now, we stopped building battleships near the end of world war two because they proved ineffective in world war two. Um, which was some 80 years ago now.
▶ 0:29:08Um, they're big targets, relatively slow moving, you know, they bring firepower, but at great risk. And now trump wants to build a battleship that is the largest ever. It's going to cost over $20 billion to build. And that's if we can build it. Let's keep in mind that, you know, we have struggled to build a frigate. Um, on two occasions. We struggled to build a littoral combat ship, and now we're going to build something roughly 15, 20 times larger.
▶ 0:29:38It's highly questionable whether or not we're going to build it. And when you see the cost estimates, $22 billion is I always joke, take the over, and I'm pretty sure you're going to be easy money. But it gets more to the point of what I was talking about earlier. How can we meet our national security needs in a more cost effective way? Iran was able to create an asymmetric advantage over us by placing the strait of hormuz at risk. And they didn't need they don't need a lot to do that. They don't need a $22 billion battleship. Okay.
▶ 0:30:05We need to be looking for those types of asymmetric advantages against our adversaries so that we can cost effectively deter them. Part of that is building cheaper munitions. And I'll give you some good news. There's a lot of private investment right now in developing new munitions that are cheaper than the ones we have right now, um, counter drone measures and all of that gets us to a more cost effective way to meet our national security needs. A battleship does not do you know how many drones we could buy, how many missiles we could buy with $25 billion?
▶ 0:30:34It's staggering. So I think it's a huge mistake. >> just one final quick question, Mr. rogers. I mean, I do you have assurances that republicans are will bring this to the floor? I mean, we went through a similar exercise last week, and then it got pulled at the last minute because some of your members are are voting against, I guess, everything until, um, they can, you know, get this election bill passed that they've been pushing to do we do we have assurances that
▶ 0:31:05After we meet here and report this roll out, that this will actually indeed come up tomorrow? >> uh, my conversation with the speaker is that he intends to put this bill on the floor this week. Yes, sir. All right. >> I thank you both. And I yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr. mcgovern. Um, Mr. scott, you're recognized. >> thank. Thank you, madam chair. Uh, first of all, I have the privilege privilege of serving on the armed services committee with these two men. They both do a fine job as a committee that functions the way it is supposed to.
▶ 0:31:34And so I want to thank you for that. I know we've got staff here from both sides. And, um, I wish every committee functioned the way the armed services committee does. And I know that there were a lot of debates, um, in there and I know the, the vote was still a strong bipartisan vote, not as strong as it has maybe historically been.
▶ 0:31:57But I want to focus on one issue, if I can, chairman rogers, to explain to the american citizens why the revitalization of the defense industrial base is so important. And, um, any general that you meet with will tell you that, um, if you don't win in space, you lose the war today. Is that a fair statement? >> absolutely.
▶ 0:32:26>> and, uh, up to and until 2022, the united states of america, our citizens and our security, uh, every satellite launch that we had done in a decade prior to that, my understanding is happened with an rd 180, a russian rocket. Is that correct? >> that's correct.
▶ 0:32:48>> and up to and until 2024, because we bought some additional rockets, because the leadership of the committee in a bipartisan manner saw this coming. And so we front loaded the amount of rockets that we had up until the us industrial base could develop rockets so that we could launch our own satellites and no longer be dependent on the enemy of the united states to launch satellites. Is that a fair statement? >> we saw it coming, and we energized our launch capacity.
▶ 0:33:18And now we have multiple sources for launch. And we are no longer relying on the russian produced rd 180. >> I, um, I think we're all concerned about the amount of money that we're having to spend for national security. But I will tell you, the bigger concern is not waking up secure. And, uh, what the rebuilding of the defense industrial base is, is not an option. It has to be done.
▶ 0:33:48And I think that, uh, what we've done here and, and, and again, I give, I give both sides credit for this and in a bipartisan manner is to, is to give the defense industrial base. Um.
▶ 0:34:01The signal that they need to bring the manufacturing of, of the supply chain, the whole supply chain, uh, back, if not to the united states, at least to allied and treaty nations. Uh, so, Mr. rogers, I'm not going to go a whole lot further. I do want to give you the opportunity to, uh, say a few words, if you'd like to, about any of the, any of the other key provisions of the bill.
▶ 0:34:31But again, I appreciate both you and Mr. smith for the way you run the committee. And, uh, it's my privilege to serve with both of you on that committee. >> thank you. I just want to emphasize the bill that we have before you today, and that we'll be voting on this week, is not for 1.6 trillion. It's for 1.15 trillion. Um, there will be a supplemental request, an appropriations bill that will be a reconciliation request. I expect, uh, those may or may not happen.
▶ 0:35:01What we're talking about here is baseline funding and it needs to happen. The whole point of peace through strength is to stay out of wars, is to deter aggression. And we can't help but recognize that we have lost the industrial strength that we need to maintain, uh, that capability. Uh. We won world war two because of our industrial might.
▶ 0:35:28We won the cold war because of our industrial might. We are going to stay out of world war three if we can rebuild our industrial might. And this bill goes a long way toward ensuring that that that's what this is all about, trying to make sure we build the capacity to deter aggression from china in particular, but also for from others.
▶ 0:35:52We can't help but acknowledge that our adversaries, all four of them, have formed an axis of evil, and they are working together. They're helping each other. We have got to meet the moment. And this bill does that. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. And the the the rt 180 is just one example of how we had become dependent on people that are are our enemies. There are other examples out there where we're dependent on china for certain chemicals and, uh, uh, materials that we have to have precious minerals.
▶ 0:36:20And so I look forward to continuing to work with the two of you to make sure that we're not dependent on our enemies. And with that, madam chair, I yield. >> thank you, Mr. scott. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> I want to join my colleagues in wishing you a happy birthday as well. I wore blue in your honor. >> oh. >> thank you. Okay. Um, so, chairman rogers and ranking member smith. I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into this ndai.
▶ 0:36:46I would have to disagree with a little bit of the testimony. I think some would argue that strategic intelligence and proper use of our industrial base may be just as important as having that industrial base, because might alone isn't going to win the conflicts around the world, as I think we're seeing on a daily basis. Um, there are a number of provisions in this bill that are long overdue. It expands access to contraception through tricare.
▶ 0:37:14Um, it broadens coverage of assisted reproductive technologies for service members and their families. It protects the collective bargaining rights of our civilian defense employees. It also includes investments that are important in my district, um, including funding for seven ch 47 f block, two chinook helicopters, uh, manufactured very proudly in southeastern pennsylvania. And these are all worthwhile investments.
▶ 0:37:41The problem with this bill is not all of the provisions, but certainly some of the misplaced priorities that have been loaded into it. Um, we've already had extended discussion about the fact that this is a massive amount of money, $1.15 trillion with an additional, uh, supplemental bill, possibly a reconciliation bill adding up to $1.6 trillion in spending, just a massive, massive increase in defense
▶ 0:38:12Spending, which am I correct, ranking member? That's discretionary spending. >> all defense spending is discretionary spending. >> yes. Okay. Um, other than social security and some of our mandatory spending. >> well, sure. >> yeah. >> that's all defense spending is discretionary. >> spending, right? That's so we do have a lot of discretion about how much and how we spend it.
▶ 0:38:35>> well, not to get overly technical here, but to a certain degree, it is all discretionary in the sense that if the the entitlements are simply locked in, if we want to change the policy, we can change the policy. Um, so it's a tactical difference between discretionary and mandatory that isn't worth getting into. >> but about cuts to discretionary spending. I just wanted to make sure we were talking about the same thing here. Yeah. Um so that is concerning.
▶ 0:39:01That's a lot of money towards defense and, and some of it, um, this battleship, $1 billion, I think in this bill for the battle, 2 billion for the battleship that is supposed to cost maybe 20 ish once we get there. But in the descriptions we're seeing of it, the terms I'm seeing are it's an obsolete, vulnerable kind of a proposition. The military is not asking for this. Um, it requires, um, unproven technology.
▶ 0:39:30Um, can you talk a little bit about this? >> it sure. We don't 100% know what it is because it's on the drawing board right now. And it's something that we've never come close and nobody's ever come close to building before. The contemplation is, will be this massive power center, and you'll be able to move energy around and have this massive battleship with all kinds of munitions on it. >> kind of like the death star in star wars. >> yeah.
▶ 0:39:55Well, um, I won't go there, but yeah, kind of, um, in, in a similar way. And I can understand that. But when you look at what's going on in the battlefield right now, and I mentioned ukraine and the way they've been able to make russia vulnerable with drones with very low cost drones, hezbollah, regrettably, is starting to have success with similar low cost drones. This is what gives you an asymmetric advantage. Um, and because those weapons are cheap and effective.
▶ 0:40:24So that's the way the whole world is going. And we decide we want to build the world's largest ship ever. And that seems to be polar opposites, polar opposite of actually what we worked on in terms of acquisition reform. A lot of the acquisition reform is focused on, as I said, an innovative new technologies. How can you get a more cost effective missile, a more cost effective missile defense system or drone defense system or drones? So to put all of that money into one place. Mhm. Um, is extraordinarily risky.
▶ 0:40:53And that assumes that we'll be capable of building it. Um, you know, we have major shipbuilding challenges right now just meeting our traditional needs, which we. This bill helps address. Um, and, you know, there's an amendment I know, um, the chips act, which would take it a little bit further, which I am supportive of. Um, but it just seems to me like bigger and more expensive is the exact opposite of where we need to be going with our weapons systems right now.
▶ 0:41:21>> well, I mean, it feels like there's a little bit of an analogy as we're approaching at the end of the week, our 250th anniversary of the country where the brits, in part, were routed by asymmetric warfare, they came in with their large, massive, um, troop movements, and the U.S. nibbled around the edges. And they lost a 13 state advantage in that war. So, um, it feels like hewing to, um, outmoded ways isn't so great.
▶ 0:41:50And then there's the, um, the cost aspect of it. Some of our experts are saying that this is going to cannibalize our defense budget with just directing so much funding to, um, this boondoggle of a battleship. Um, we're already seeing some of these vanity projects cannibalize other budgets like the national park service, etc. So, um, I do think we should be very concerned about that, but I appreciate all the work you've put into this and I'll yield back.
▶ 0:42:21>> thank you very much. I'm going to keep deferring my comments and recognize miss leger fernandez for her comments and questions. >> thank you, madam chair. And I will refrain from singing to you because we want to make it nice and short, maybe short and sweet or short and sour, but feliz cumpleanos um, chairman rogers, uh, what was the ndaa budget when you first came into office? >> I couldn't I don't remember, it was 24 years ago.
▶ 0:42:53>> yeah. But I have an estimate. >> I have no idea. >> I actually looked it up because all told, the idea of 1.6 trillion, right. When we add everything up, it was 400 billion, 400 billion. So you are now asking us to approve an nda that is four times higher than what it was back then. >> I am. You are. >> I am, and. >> you're asking. >> really happy about that.
▶ 0:43:23>> I'm very happy about it. I just hate that it's not more. Yeah, we we are spending less than any of our four adversaries as a percentage of gdp on defense. And if we don't stop this madness, we're going to wind up in a war. >> and and, well, we are in a war. You said we're going to end up in a war. We are in a war. But there is a war that is ongoing. Do you deny that there's a war ongoing? >> I'm not denying it.
▶ 0:43:49>> okay, so there is a war ongoing, uh, started by trump, who said he was going to, uh, make sure we didn't get involved in foreign wars. And I take it you are against deficit spending. >> I am for strong defense spending. >> oh, but you're fine with increasing. >> we have to spend in deficit to do strong defense spending. Then that's what we have to do. >> right.
▶ 0:44:10And and in fact, uh, since you've come into office, every republican president has increased the deficit through deficit spending, a lot of that on war. >> I think every president has done that since. >> every actually, every republican president has increased the deficit. And every democrat president has decreased the deficit. It's actually true. Uh, and I'll, I can hand you this chart.
▶ 0:44:39>> but I'm telling it just like it is. >> okay. We're telling it just like it is. Every republican president has increased the deficit. Now, I think it's interesting, this idea that you mentioned earlier about how we won world war two. The reality is I just finished a reading and I'm not you know, I just finished reading a wonderful book, doris kearns goodwin book about, uh, the presidency, uh, under during world war two.
▶ 0:45:06And what was key there was president during world war two, got the support of the american people. Do you know what the support is of the american people for the iran war? >> I do not. >> it is the majority of americans, about 60%, oppose that war that trump started, that we are spending 1 to $2 billion a day on.
▶ 0:45:31Do you know, um, have have you ever, uh, what's fascinating to me is this battleship that can cost billions. Has there ever been an instance where we've had a president choose to name a class of battleships after himself? Are you ever aware of that? >> I'm not aware of one.
▶ 0:45:52>> that, uh, uh, ranking member smith, uh, what do you make of a president who wants to spend taxpayer dollars that are children and grandchildren and, and, and we will have to pay for in the future because it's deficit spending where he's naming it after himself. There was something kind of cringey and corrupt about that in my mind. >> yeah. Well, there's two separate points which I want to make here.
▶ 0:46:22One, president trump's focus on, you know, basically his name, his likeness, his power is authoritarian in a way that is deeply troubling to me. I think it undermines our representative democracy. And I think there's no question he is governing much more like an authoritarian dictator than like a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic. And we could walk down a thousand different roads on that one, um, which aren't directly related to the defense bill.
▶ 0:46:49I do want to get back to the spending issue, because I think it's important for people to understand the context here. The chairman is right. As a percentage of gdp, we are actually spending less now on defense than we have at any point since the end of world war two. I think it is important to remember that. Now, what has changed? Well, in the 5040s, 50s, 60s, there was no medicare, there was no medicaid. We have massively increased spending in other areas. And as well, we should. Okay.
▶ 0:47:16I don't think the chairman or anyone wants to get rid of medicare or medicaid. I certainly don't. Or a lot of the programs that we expanded, it's more a matter of recognizing where we are. It is not the 1960s anymore, okay? We are not the sole dominant power in the world economically and militarily. We have a lot more competition and we have a lot more needs. So we have to be smarter about how we spend that money. And yeah, look, I mean, I don't know what the total budget's like 7 trillion, something like that.
▶ 0:47:45Um, you know, defense would be 12, 15% of that. So there's certainly other aspects to this. I keep harping on revenue. We're all very happy about cutting taxes, cutting taxes, cutting taxes. And yet we keep spending the money. Okay. To me, those two things have to add up. If you love tax cuts, then you shouldn't love a 1.16 $1.15 trillion defense budget. Okay, the two things shouldn't go together.
▶ 0:48:09But we've all decided that we're going to suspend reality and truth and facts and just live in a fantasy world of basically being able to just, I guess, make the money. Well, we do make the money up here. Um, it's just that we wind up owing on that. So it's a matter of having a fiscal picture that makes sense for today, not for 1950 or 19 60 or 1970, but for the needs that we have today. And I think we are missing the mark by relying so much on having a massive defense budget to meet our national security needs. >> thank you very much.
▶ 0:48:36And I will point out that democrats support the increases, the in pay and what we're doing with regards to our service members as the representative for cannon air force base. I'm very appreciative of many aspects in this bill, but not the concept of $1.6 trillion defense budget. That's deficit spending. That doesn't have the same, because we've been keeping part right, where we have discretionary spending on other matters, as well as on defense.
▶ 0:49:05And this is not the case. And with that, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr. langworthy. You're recognized. >> uh, I have no questions at this time. I thank the witnesses for appearing. >> thank you very much. Um, I do want to ask a couple of questions and make a couple of comments. Um, Mr.
▶ 0:49:29Smith, you've talked a lot about our cutting taxes, but we know in every instance in the history of this country from, I think, john f kennedy, when we cut taxes, revenues go up. >> that's completely false. >> I does not know. >> it's completely false. Look, it doesn't go down by as much as you would have expected it to, but it simply I hear that argument over and over again and it simply doesn't play out.
▶ 0:49:59We cut taxes in 2001. Okay. Significantly. And yes, as the overall growth. I mean, it grows just in general, even if you didn't do anything, but it grew by less than it would have and cut taxes if cutting taxes reduced or sorry, increased revenue, then the most effective tax rate would be zero. And we would have the easiest job in the world. Okay, you can't tell me that cutting taxes increases revenue because it doesn't. >> okay, well, we're going to disagree on this.
▶ 0:50:29I think I'm right. So I'm going to move on. Um, Mr. chairman, um, as you've, I believe and I don't know if you believe this, that the number one role of the federal government is the defense of this nation. Because we are celebrating our 250th anniversary, and that is about our becoming a nation.
▶ 0:50:58And it's about our becoming a group of states who join together to become the united states and to gain our freedom. And ever since then, we've worked on the defense of this nation. That's what we have done. And we emphasized the word defense because that's basically what we do. So I do think we can spend too much money on defense.
▶ 0:51:30I appreciate very much the acquisition reform that you mentioned, Mr. smith. That was in our last year's budget. I worked a lot on that with people in my district who were, um, were providing services to the armed forces. That came to my attention many years ago. I worked hard on acquisition reform, and I was very pleased that we got acquisition reform. And I think we can do more. I agree with you, Mr. smith, on that.
▶ 0:52:00But, um, I think that we need to spend, as you have indicated, what it takes to keep us a strong nation. I think ronald reagan was right. Um, the best that we will remain a free country if we remain a strong country. That's the role of the federal government.
▶ 0:52:26And so I don't think 1.15 is too much to be spending. And I always get very frustrated with our democrat colleagues when they speculate about what's going to happen. We hear a lot of speculation in the rules committee. So, yes, there may be more spending in a reconciliation 3.0. And I frankly think there probably should be. But that's the role of the federal government.
▶ 0:52:56Most of the money that we're spending is on automatic pilot, on programs that could be supported by the states and the localities without the roll, without the federal government involved, without the federal government wasting a lot of money by being involved in it. And so I think we're moving in the right direction.
▶ 0:53:25Let me, um, let me ask you to talk a little bit more about the domestic industrial base, which you mentioned before. I have understood that to you mentioned going from 50 prime firms to as few as six competitions waned. Innovation has been impacted.
▶ 0:53:47Um, but most concerning, these dynamics are happening at a time of increasing kinetic engagements and hot conflicts involving the united states. As you said, this isn't the 1990s. You mentioned that yourself, our allies are at the doorstep of invasion from our chief adversaries. The united states isn't facing attacks from proxies backed by iran alone.
▶ 0:54:17So we now have the iranian regime itself. So can you speak to how this bill offers the potential to jump start increased competition in the defense industrial base? Um, provide the certainty they need to bring increased investment market players. You alluded to it briefly and then secure our supply chains against unprecedented pressure against them.
▶ 0:54:43>> I will and I do want to remind the committee that what my friend the ranking member mentioned, and that is defense spending, is just 12% of our federal spending. And if we don't get it right, none of the rest matters because we won't be free and safe. We won't have a country.
▶ 0:55:00Uh, but to your point, uh, yeah, the, what we found in, in trying to help ukraine and I'm as fierce a supporter of ukraine as you'll find in congress from the aggression from russia is that china, iran and north korea have all been helping russia in that effort as we have tried to help ukraine push back against that aggression.
▶ 0:55:20But it was during that period when we were taking old stockpiles of munitions to send to ukraine that we really realized that we didn't have the ability to replenish those age weapons, munitions with new ones. And that's what kind of started us down this path.
▶ 0:55:37But what we have done, as you mentioned, we're down to the six prime defense contractors now, uh, to in order to help them recapitalize, we have guaranteed them seven year contracts for production. We did that with the reconciliation bill that we passed in the current fiscal year to send a demand signal to the markets. You can loan them money to make investments in new plant and equipment to help us build.
▶ 0:56:04Uh, but we've also got to start working on the supply chain. And that's what we do in this bill. Uh, we have got to have more capacity to supply these primes and hopefully invite more companies in to the, to the ecosystem. But we also have to reshore onshore mining and processing of critical minerals and elements that we need for this stuff. We have a whole plethora of things that have to be done to grow the defense industrial base. And that's what this bill does.
▶ 0:56:33You couldn't do it in just one year, and we're not going to get it done in this year, but we are sending demand signal with this authorization that we are serious about reinvigorating the defense industrial base so that the market will rise to the occasion. >> um, a lot's been again, a lot's been said about how much we are spending on defense this year, 1.1.5 trillion in this.
▶ 0:57:02I don't know of a single thing to help the defense of this country that came out of the $6 trillion spent during the biden administration, nothing to help the defense of this nation. They are expressions for what happened to that $6 trillion.
▶ 0:57:31Suffice it to say, most of it was wasted and wasted very unceremoniously. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr. >> if I might, madam chair. >> norman. >> just just so people know, you're talking about the 6 trillion that was spent during covid. There were a variety of different. It wasn't it wasn't all. >> I guess. Yes. Mr. smith, I think people understand that. >> well, some of some of that was spent in the trump at the end of the trump administration with the cares act, I think.
▶ 0:58:00So it it was both that were involved. >> it was, uh, it was 6 trillion under the biden administration. Mr. norman, you're recognized. >> thank both of you for testifying today where the 30 billion that was cut waste, fraud and abuse, where did that come from? And what was the the increase from last year to the 1.1 trillion? Am I right on that bottom number? What was I total. >> it gets a little confusing. >> yeah.
▶ 0:58:29I think you say the baseline discretionary spending was not increased last year. It was flatlined. We put 150 billion reconciliation one time money on top of the baseline of 886, which we took from 2024 into 2025. So baseline spending has been level for two years. If we raise it with this bill to be the first time in three years it's been increased.
▶ 0:58:52We had one time reconciliation money that was passed last year to try to jumpstart the defense industrial base. And that's part of what we did when I talked about the seven year guaranteed contracts, is using part of that money for that, but also munitions stockpiles that we've depleted from recent endeavors with iran. No, that was really more ukraine. We that's perspective, what you're talking about with iran. Okay.
▶ 0:59:23And the reduction on the to six main suppliers that just has occurred over decades of reduced defense spending. The market responds to what we're spending. And we were spending at a much higher clip in the 80s and early 90s. Uh, but as we began to decrease defense spending, the market responded and it shrank. >> well, there was also a lot of consolidation. >> and there was consolidation. >> the six remaining gobbled up a lot of the 50.
▶ 0:59:50Some of them went under, but some of them were gobbled up just to to understand the numbers. So last year I thought it was 896, but 886, whatever the base budget. >> was, including energy, energy. >> yeah, I forgot about that. And then we added 156 billion in reconciliation. So last year's total defense spending would have been right around a trillion. Um, yeah, a little over a trillion because of that. And now this is 1.15 trillion. So even that's like a ten, a little over a 10% increase from last year.
▶ 1:00:20And then we don't know what's going to happen with reconciliation or the supplemental. >> well, I agree with chairman fox. You know, the we don't have a strong military. We don't have a strong country. But if we've got a broke country that cannot afford and adds to the. Continues to add to our debt that we're we're pretty well sunk anyway. Um.
▶ 1:00:45But I'm glad the on the timing of resupplying the things that we need, are we on track with that? We can get this spending. We will, we've got the, the thing that I'm trying to convey to everybody is we don't have the physical capability of building munitions and systems fast enough to meet our challenges. And if we don't correct this, this is dangerous territory we're in. Okay. Well thank you. Appreciate it. No further questions, I yield back.
▶ 1:01:16>> thank you. I want to follow up with one quick question about world war two. How many ships were we building? One every four days. Did I read that the other day? Do you remember. >> that like that? I mean, they weren't the kind of ships we build now. But yeah, we were building them at an enormous credit. But that's a wonderful example of what we demonstrated a nation we can do when we have to. >> yeah, but but we did have an industrial base at that time. >> we well, we swelled up and created one. Yes, ma'am. >> Mr. jack, you're recognized.
▶ 1:01:48>> thank you, madam chair. And thank you, Mr. chairman, for testifying and for your team and yourself. Working with me throughout this process has been very helpful, so I'm grateful. Great, gracious for that and grateful for that. So my question is, when we look back to last year, 94 democrats voted against final passage of the ndaa, if I'm not mistaken. Um, could you frame for this committee what a vote against this. This week's version of the ndaa is. What does that constitute?
▶ 1:02:17>> uh, obviously, I think it's malfeasance when we know that we're in a recklessly dangerous circumstance as far as our ability to, to defend ourselves and to, to, to build munitions and weapon systems that will deter aggression, I think it's irresponsible. Otherwise I wouldn't be here promoting it. >> wonderful. Well, with that, I think you've answered many of the questions of this committee throughout the hearing, so I will yield back. >> Mr. jack, would you yield a moment?
▶ 1:02:41I believe the chairman pointed out earlier it's a it's a slap in the face of our military people because there's a big raise in here for them. So if you vote no, you're voting against those who are serving in the military. >> I'm sorry, I get to speak up here that that's utter nonsense. Okay. And I there have been situations where. Smith I'm sorry. >> thank you very much. >> yeah. >> thank you very much. Thank you very much. >> okay.
▶ 1:03:07So you can just accuse members of being republicans have voted against the defense budget too. Are they slapping, you know, the the armed services members in the face? We have a responsibility to make a decision one way or the other. I voted for the bill many times. I voted against it. I don't think we should accuse any member who votes against the defense bill of slapping our troops in the face. I think that is just out of order. >> thank you, Mr. smith. No further questions. You to ask any questions?
▶ 1:04:28>> all right. I welcome our next panel, representative van dyne and representative moore from the house ways and means committee. Give us just a minute. All right. Uh, we're going to go ahead and start in just a second.
▶ 1:04:55But your full statements will be submitted for the record. And we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. We do ask that your statement cover all legislation in your committee's jurisdiction. Representative van dyne, we're going to go ahead and start with you and welcome you for your testimony. You're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, Mr. chairman and ranking member mcgovern, for this opportunity to testify on the removing barriers to work for disabled americans act that was introduced by representative scott, as well as my resolution celebrating the historic results of the working families tax cuts.
▶ 1:05:25Hey, gwen, how are you? The removing barriers to work for disabled americans act empowers americans receiving disability insurance who want to work by addressing shortcomings in the social security disability insurance program. Today, less than 1% of disability insurance beneficiaries leave that program each year because of a successful return to the workforce, despite the fact that 60% of beneficiaries say they would like to work.
▶ 1:05:51Whether it is a fear of receiving overpayments, hitting a benefit cliff, or being unable to navigate confusing rules and regulations, americans with disabilities face barriers to work during ways and means subcommittee hearing. We heard about these bureaucratic roadblocks. We also heard from a disability advocate that if work had not been an option, um, he would have graduated into graduated to the couch. Instead, his work has given him real purpose in a different outlook on life.
▶ 1:06:17Under this bill, the social security administration can deploy demonstration projects to test policies to improve outcomes for disability insurance beneficiaries. The ssa previously had such authority, but it expired in 2022. This bill reauthorizes it for five years and ensures that participation in pilot programs is completely voluntary. And let me repeat that participation in this program is completely voluntary.
▶ 1:06:42Also, any new work, uh, any new return to work policy cannot cause a reduction in the income of any participating beneficiary. Representative scott has long been a champion for purple heart veterans, many of whom are eager to return to work, but they can't afford the severe restrictions placed on their work status. I commend Mr. scott for expanding his bill to allow demonstration authority for so many affected groups, including blind americans.
▶ 1:07:11This legislation received bipartisan support in the ways and means committee, and which we all agree that empowering americans to experience the dignity of work is a worthy cause. Turning to the working families tax cuts, president trump and republicans in congress delivered tax relief to working class americans like waitresses, linemen, seniors, moms and dads, farmers and small businesses so they can keep more of their hard earned money. When my democrat colleagues talk about this bill, all we hear about is the benefit of billionaires.
▶ 1:07:41Look, I've never met a billionaire who's earned tips or worked overtime or worked for overtime. I've never met a billionaire who relied on social security or who needed a more than double child tax credit, or that benefited from a simpler tax code that more than doubles their standard deduction. Pro-worker pro-family tax cuts like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on social security, a larger child tax credit.
▶ 1:08:06The enhanced standard deduction led to historic tax refunds that were up more than 11% on average, and the total amount refunded up more than 18%. In fact, 97% of americans got a tax cut. Meanwhile, the share of income tax that top 1% are paying rises from 37 to 40%. Under the working families tax cuts, we've made it easier to afford health care, child care, education and adoption. We invested in the financial future of america's children.
▶ 1:08:34Starting on the 4th of july, treasury will deposit $1,000 into trump accounts for children born during the trump administration. The ways and means committee has heard numerous stories of how americans benefited. A texas steelworker is using no tax on overtime to start a family. A waiter, a waiter in arizona use no tax on tips to start law school. A teacher from texas to the refundable adoption tax credit will help his family adopt their second child for rural america.
▶ 1:08:58Republicans made the double death tax exemption permanent, so 2 million family farms can pass their legacy to the next generation as as rural opportunity zones help $100 billion in investment to small towns, the permanent small business deduction helps 36 million small businesses grow and hire. Pro-growth permanent tax policy is sparking a stronger economy, and the last three months, manufacturers added 22,000 jobs in private businesses, created 499,000 net new jobs.
▶ 1:09:25Businesses in foreign countries are investing trillions in new facilities and reviving forgotten communities. Manufacturing grew at the fastest level in four years. In capital, expenditures are up 17% overall. Democrats still refuse to acknowledge how the working families tax cuts helped americans, including their constituents. They don't want to admit that they voted for a 22% tax hike on every single american. But that tracks the democrats record on affordability.
▶ 1:09:50When democrats controlled washington, working class folks got a 21% inflation spike from democrats $10 trillion spending spree. Instead of helping working families, they're rewarded wealthy environmentalists with green new scam tax breaks. Billionaires were the beneficiaries of democrat corporate welfare. Under republicans, relief goes to working class families. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
▶ 1:10:16>> gentlelady yields back and now recognize representative moore for her five minute opening statement. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. I, um, I have comments and remarks, uh, regarding the one year anniversary of the working families tax cut, but also on the, um, the h.r. Eight eight for the removing barriers to work for disabled americans act.
▶ 1:10:47So what would you like to hear about? >> well, we're here on, on the, uh, just disabled americans act. >> okay. Thank you so much. Well, I'm here. >> or both. >> five minutes. Okay.
▶ 1:11:27Reality. The trump administration's track record and his goals are clear. President trump and his administration have proposed massive benefit cuts to social security disability benefits. They have slashed social security's customer services, and they act as if laws protecting the privacy of social security data don't apply to them as evidence.
▶ 1:11:46Let me remind everyone that during his first term, president trump proposed using social security's demonstration authority to slash disability benefits by $50 billion over ten years, $50 billion, $50 billion over ten years. Let me say it again $50 billion over ten years.
▶ 1:12:08The first trump administration wanted to use the demonstration authority that we're being asked today to reauthorize to slash $50 billion of earned benefits. Just last year, the trump administration wanted to enact one of the biggest cuts to disability benefits ever by changing the rules for disability claims. This change could have resulted in hundreds of thousands of older, severely disabled people being denied benefits.
▶ 1:12:36And after we spoke up, they backed down from this disastrous plan. And now our republican colleagues want to grant the trump administration the very demonstration authority to gut ssdi that president trump has been begging for. And just to further exacerbate the trump created customer service crisis at ssa, this republican bill would strip millions from ssa operating funds to pay for it.
▶ 1:13:07The trump administration has blatantly disregarded some of our most sacred privacy laws that protect americans sensitive social security data. So it's hard to imagine that this administration wouldn't try to skirt some of the other requirements for demonstration projects.
▶ 1:13:23For example, current law requires that ssa must obtain the voluntary written consent of anyone who participates in a demonstration, but it's entirely up to the administration to determine what it looks like. Uh, is this the trump administration really trying to spell out all the risks? Um, I am going to move on because my time is limited. And I'll talk about, uh, the one year anniversary to the one big, beautiful bill.
▶ 1:13:53Um, I, again, I want to thank you all for hearing me out. Uh, when I heard that we were going to do a resolution, uh, commemorating this, I wondered why my republican colleagues were just shifting democrats with another opportunity to talk about this deeply flawed and unpopular signature bill.
▶ 1:14:18Uh, american workers and families are reeling from a senseless cost of living crisis, higher cost of groceries, electricity, health care, every product, as president trump himself has declared, he doesn't care about the financial situation of americans. And I suppose I'll join you in wishing a happy birthday tax cut for billionaires. You can't really hide from the numbers, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:14:45The average 2027 tax cut for taxpayers who made over $1 million per year will be $96,400, while the average 2027 tax cut for taxpayers who make under $50,000 per year will be $247 a year. That's $0.68 a day. That's right.
▶ 1:15:06Republicans gave millionaires a tax cut that is 390 times the size of what they gave to workers and families making less than $50,000 crumbs, crumbs from the master's table. Uh, and while you pat. We pride ourselves on the back for doling out these meager tax cuts to working families.
▶ 1:15:26Uh, um, you know, like tax on tips for some workers temporarily, no tax on overtime for some people who are breaking their backs, working extra hours and still struggling to make ends meet again temporarily. Even the temporary tax cuts for the elderly have contributed to further deteriorating social security finances. According to the latest trustee's report.
▶ 1:15:54People are suffering and unless you're wealthy, uh. If you are well off before the oh baby, you're certainly better off now. And under the guise of tackling the favorite triplets, the boogeyman, waste, fraud and abuse, we have taken food out of the mouths of the hungry, including over 800,000 children.
▶ 1:16:16We've cut access to health care for millions across our nation, and instead of investing in people, we're pushing more people off who made them healthier and more unhealthy, more hungry and more desperate. And, Mr. chairman, thank you so much. And I, I wish the chairman of the committee were here so I could wish her a happy birthday. >> and she may step back in in a minute. But she had to take care of something. Uh, that said, appreciate the gentlelady yields back. Now recognize the gentleman from south carolina.
▶ 1:16:49Do you have any questions? Uh, I have no questions. Thank you. I yield back. Recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, Mr. mcgovern? >> and I just want to say for the record that when I was chair of this committee, I never cut anybody off, um, who testified?
▶ 1:17:05Um, so, I mean, I know things are different, but just so, you know, um, so, uh, you know, uh, the idea that we're going to have a, have a resolution, you know, to celebrate the big ugly bill is, is, is beyond me. Uh, and, uh, I don't know, miss van dien, I, I mean, I mean, if you go to grocery store, prices are up, go to gas station prices are still too high. You go everywhere, the price of everything is too high.
▶ 1:17:34But but but I just want to read to you a couple of testimonies from people in this country who basically can't afford their health care anymore because of this administration and because of this congress. Sharon dunham from grand rapids, michigan, a two time cancer survivor. She went without insurance this year after her premium would have risen to about $980 a month from 614, and is paying out of pocket for tests and visit until she turns 65 and qualifies for medicare. Quote.
▶ 1:18:03It is definitely terrifying, she said. Aaron east from harrisburg, pennsylvania, aronow and her partner and her 20 year old son no longer have health insurance because it's too expensive. Through her work, a family plan would cost her $800 per pay period and a state marketplace plan with a with with a high deductible will cost about 650 a month, he said.
▶ 1:18:28Right now, I'm not able to pay for the marketplace insurance because it's just astronomical, she said, adding that the cost has kept her from getting care for pre menopause symptoms. Um, eric and lisa frankenfeld from point pleasant, new jersey, a chiropractor, and his wife, who's an office manager. Their premium was set to skyrocket to $1,928 a month for $340, so they decided to go without coverage for 2026. Quote, we are health care providers who cannot afford benefits.
▶ 1:18:57Oh, the irony, she said. I go on and on and on. I ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record. Um, Mr. chairman. >> uh, what is this? It's just a list of. >> yeah. These are these are testimonies of people who can't afford their health care anymore because of the policies of this. You know, this is, uh, this is collected by. Protect our care organization. Uh. >> and it's dated.
▶ 1:19:29>> it's current, its current. Yeah. Right. Okay. All right. Yeah. >> I'm happy. >> to keep reading. Well, I mean, I'll be here all day reading it for you, but. Right, right. Yeah. Yeah. It's real life stories. Real life stories, which we should be, we should care about because we all support, um, helping disabled americans who want to return to work. But as we've seen time and time again, when you give the trump administration an inch, they take a mile. The trump administration has provided zero information on how it would use this authority.
▶ 1:20:00In fact, when asked in markup if the administration has shared any details of its plans, republican counsel stated he was, quote, not aware, end quote. Mr. van dine, um, if you want the social security administration, uh, to do these demos, why don't you authorize any specific demos in statute? Why leave it, leave it open ended, ended. >> well, I think I mean, you're you're talking about the potential to be able to cut disability benefits.
▶ 1:20:27The bill specifically stipulates that demonstration project may not reduce beneficiaries total income. And this is a new beneficiary protection that was not included, by the way, in the previous authorization the ssa disability insurance demonstration authority. >> why not authorize specific demos in the statute? >> you can. This is basically a reauthorization, but with stronger effects. But I do want I mean, you, you, you you hit on gas prices. So gas prices just, by the way, have fallen for the last six weeks.
▶ 1:20:53Average gas price right now under trump, under president trump is $0.16 lower than it was under president biden. So if you want lower gas prices, thank be thankful trump is in office and we don't have a democrat. >> the last time we did. >> you talked about affordability. You talked about health care. I'm happy to answer the questions as opposed to just kind of just. >> last time we reauthorized something similar. We actually included a demo projects.
▶ 1:21:14But in addition to the bill that we're considering today, my colleague and I, I don't know, and he may not want me to say this, but I actually, uh, representative austin scott actually has a bipartisan bill, h.r. 7120, that would make several specific ssdi program changes to help combat disabled purple heart veterans, uh, to help combat disabled purple heart veterans who want to return to work.
▶ 1:21:38Would you support allowing the house of representatives to also have an up or down vote on the floor for rep austin scott bill, uh, to help purple heart veterans on ssdi who want to return to work? >> I think what this is you're seeing all this put into one bill. I think it's important because it also allows a lot more flexibility. >> I didn't see that in the bill. >> no, what I'm saying is we're wrapping this up and we are working with with with congressman scott. >> right. So I'm just saying. >> this would allow an opportunity.
▶ 1:22:08This gives a lot more flexibility if they wanted to have that in there. >> you know, for some of us, quite frankly, and you know, and I have some my political differences with this white house, but, you know, I'm I get the flexibility part. I just want to be assured that this stuff is going to happen. Um, so saying that they have the flexibility to do this is different than saying they have to do this. That's all I'm saying.
▶ 1:22:33>> well, and I think the bill includes it includes the guardrails that prevent any of the beneficiaries from being worse off, which I think is one of your concerns. And demonstration. No beneficiary will see a decrease, as we mentioned before, in income because they participate in a project. It also includes more congressional oversight, which I think is what you're asking than any other prior authorization. So it requires social security administration notify congress of their plans 120 days, which we didn't have before. >> no guarantee that austin scott bill will be done. And I can't believe I'm agreeing with him on something he's done.
▶ 1:23:03But we actually we actually agree on this. Um, I know I just feel a hell of a lot better if in fact, it were in, you know, in this legislation or that we had an up or down vote on it and that I could be assured that it will be happening so that we don't have to wait another year and then come back and say, well, it didn't happen. Why not? >> all of that is part of the congressional appropriations, uh, efforts, as you know. Yeah. >> well, in any event, I, I would, um, it is not in this bill.
▶ 1:23:32I, I would feel a lot better if it was maybe we can address that. Um, you know. >> so I understand that you would then you would, you would vote for this if. >> I want, I would vote for austin scott bill. Okay. You know, I and um, and again, I, you know, and again, people's health care prices are going through the roof and I could go, I could read for hours and hours and hours about people. >> and I would love to be able to go hours and hours and hours toe to toe on what the one big, beautiful bill did for people's affordability. >> for, for, for price.
▶ 1:24:01>> for allowing people to get more of the taxpayer dollars. >> back referred to it as a big ugly bill because for the majority of people in this country, um, it didn't help. It hurt them. And again, losing your health care is nothing worse than not being able to afford your health care. And we, I gave you an example of a, of a health care provider that couldn't afford their health care. So anyway, we have to get back to focusing in on, you know, regular people and their inability to afford, you know, the cost of living. I don't know, miss moore, do you want to add anything or.
▶ 1:24:30>> you know, it really is really. It's really interesting to see how people see the same thing in different ways. And when I think about the 4 million people have already lost their. And we haven't even really phased in all of the cuts to medicaid yet. 4 million people have lost their health care already.
▶ 1:24:51And I think about the $187 billion loss in snap when I think about, uh, about the increased inflation on groceries and stuff, it's just very difficult to see how people are measuring this k street economy, where stocks are going up and people are doing so badly.
▶ 1:25:16It's just reminiscent of 1929, right when when the stocks were doing well and everybody was doing very, oh, I'm sorry. And so, uh, it is reminiscent of a, a k-shaped economy. And I think that's why people see it very differently. >> and I appreciate that. I guess we, we just have a different interpretation of, you know, where our priorities ought to be. We live in the richest country in the history of the world right now. And we've got 48 million americans who are food insecure.
▶ 1:25:46We should be ashamed of that, and we should be doing something about it. But having said that, I thank you for being here. I yield back. >> gentleman yields back. Now, recognize the gentleman from georgia. I apologize that I got out of order earlier and recognize the gentleman from georgia. Mr. scott. >> not a problem. And, uh, I appreciate Mr.
▶ 1:26:02Mcgovern mentioning my legislation, and I want to, uh, you to know that I do think it is the intent of the administration to do, uh, carry out the intent of the purple heart freedom to work act if we're able to pass this. And so I will just tell you the way this came about, and I've worked on this for almost a decade, I was taking a young man hunting a young man, a young marine.
▶ 1:26:27He, um, stepped on a pressure plate, lost both legs, and I won't call him by name. Uh, but if we do get to sign the bill. I hope the president will allow him to be there for the signing. Uh, I'm on four four, 75 in georgia. I'm taking him hunting, uh, at a friend's place. And he says, I work at o'reilly auto parts, but if I make more than.
▶ 1:26:53And at the time it was about $1,100 a month, I lose my social security benefits. So I have to be very careful not to work more than x number of hours a week or my family is backing up and literally has less money because he worked more. And, um, I actually couldn't believe it. I said, you know, that doesn't sound right, but, uh, I'm gonna go to D.C. I'm gonna meet with the lawyers.
▶ 1:27:19And I came up here and I met with social security lawyers, and they told me that I was absolutely right or that he was absolutely correct. So I wrote the legislation. It was very narrowly tailored. Purple heart, which means it's combat wounded, total and permanent, which means it is obviously a total and permanent disability. Uh, I intentionally narrowly tailored it because I wanted to make sure that it could work.
▶ 1:27:46And if it can work, then hopefully it could be expanded to other people that want to go back to work as well. But I'm a firm believer that the number one thing that you can do for somebody, especially if they have been one of our people that's been at the tip of the spear and has a combat injury is to is to get them back to work. And their paycheck should not be penalized if they work an extra hour or two. So we wrote the bill, purple heart freedom to work.
▶ 1:28:10It's had broad bipartisan support, have not been able to move it, whether the democrats or the republicans have been in charge of congress, working with chairman smith. This was the suggestion that he had for the fastest way to make this happen. And as you know, if we write the perfect piece of legislation in the house of representatives and it goes to the senate, they're going to turn around and put take their sweet time with it, and then maybe it doesn't get done.
▶ 1:28:34But purple heart day is august 7th, I believe. Um, I think there is broad agreement that if somebody is combat wounded, total and permanent, that they should be allowed to go back to work and they shouldn't have less money at the end of the month for going back to work. >> can I just can I very rarely say this, but I agree with you. >> hang on. Does the gentleman yield? >> I will yield. >> gentleman yields to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> I very rarely say this, but I agree with you. And that's why you know I can't.
▶ 1:29:04I it it troubles me because it would have been easy just to include your legislation in this. But I get it. But I hope you're right. >> and with respect, Mr. mcgovern, we have had that legislation, whether the democrats have controlled or the republicans have controlled and not been able to get it. This legislation here, this legislation here. If you look at this, this authority has existed since 1980. It was reauthorized in 89.
▶ 1:29:30It was reauthorized, authorized again in 99. Uh, it was reauthorized again in 2015, as my understanding. And it is now expired. And so I, I have every belief in the world that if we're able to pass this, that the president will do something similar to, similar to.
▶ 1:29:51And I don't trust me, I don't I don't speak for president trump, but I have talked to the administration, and I do believe that they will do something very similar to the purple heart freedom to work act if we're able to get this this through. >> and if they don't, I'll be happy to work with the gentleman to get over the finish line. >> thank you very much for that. And with that, um, but, but that that is the intent of that is that is the origin of the legislation.
▶ 1:30:21And, and that is this is the fastest way to get this done for our veterans. And with that, Mr. chairman, I yield. >> gentleman yields back now recognized the lady of pennsylvania, miss scanlon, for her time. >> thank you, Mr. chairman. Um, I want to speak first to the removing barriers to work for disabled americans act.
▶ 1:30:44Congress has repeatedly given the social security administration limited authority to test new approaches that help beneficiaries transition back to work. And some of those demonstrations have improved health outcomes, increased employment, and raised earnings for participants. But as the ranking member suggested, times have changed and those demonstration projects have always come with careful oversight. This bill is a sharp departure from that.
▶ 1:31:10This legislation would give the trump administration open ended authority to shape programs impacting americans with disabilities, even though this administration has repeatedly proposed slashing disability programs and benefits, including special education programs for children with disabilities.
▶ 1:31:30Just this month, the department of the department of justice issued a legal opinion which completely undermines the right to live in community for people with disabilities. It's an open attempt to overturn decades of disability rights laws, including the olmstead decision from the supreme court.
▶ 1:31:48I don't think this is a point in time when we can give unlimited discretion to shape disability policy to an administration that's openly advocating for a return to institutionalization for our disabled family members and neighbors. Now, the second bill is just as hard to to justify.
▶ 1:32:08This is the second time this year that republicans have wasted time and tax dollars to pass a bill that does nothing more than congratulate themselves for passing the reconciliation bill last july. Uh, this is a bill that was so deeply unpopular with the american public that they had to change the name of their one big, beautiful bill. But changing the name of that travesty of a bill doesn't change what it did or make it any more popular.
▶ 1:32:36It cut $1 trillion from medicaid and medicare, and that has already led 4 million americans to lose their health coverage. It enacted the largest snap cut in our nation's history, causing 770,000 children to lose snap benefits.
▶ 1:32:56And it rescinded community investments in renewable energy, and it delivered enormous tax breaks to corporations and billionaires, adding over 4 trillion with a t to our national debt. So when I talk to my constituents, they don't say, gosh, I wish you could go to congress and say, attaboy, guys. Thanks for thanks for passing that one big ugly bill.
▶ 1:33:22Um, they're asking us to lower costs, strengthen social security, and make government work better for the people, not for the billionaires. And unfortunately, neither the bills before us here do that. Um, ranking member moore, during your committee markup, democrats offered amendments to require public notice and comment, preserve existing beneficiary protections, and give congress greater oversight on these social security demonstration projects.
▶ 1:33:50Um, republicans rejected this amendment unanimously. Why are these kind of guardrails important? Really important. >> the most vulnerable population. And, you know, as a, you know, honorable that people want to return to work.
▶ 1:34:09Um, but we do know that they're very vulnerable and, uh, and we don't want them, we need guardrails so that they'll be ways for them to back out of unsustainable events. We have, we, we have typically as a caucus, the democrats have always appreciated efforts to get people back into the workforce. Why not?
▶ 1:34:35But we have seen from the past, uh, behavior of this administration that they have tried to cut $50 billion over ten years out of programs for disabled people.
▶ 1:34:49And one of our our senior members, danny davis doctor danny davis, uh, quoted, uh, um, um, my, uh, maya angelou, who said that when people, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. And so we have seen this administration time and again trying to cut disability benefits. And so we are unwilling and unready to do that at this moment. >> it is a matter of context.
▶ 1:35:21When I worked with primarily with children with disabilities in the special ed context. But we I'm, I'm hearing a lot from our community with really grave concern about the cuts that are happening to those programs, particularly the removal of guardrails, things like the oscars and office of civil rights programs, which have been gutted. So there aren't the guardrails that we would have had in the past. And and I think that's raising even more concern.
▶ 1:35:45>> it is that that they're taking the this out of the jurisdiction of the office of civil rights and educational departments. There are disaggregating these protections. And it's it's a very frightening thing for disability rights across the board for children and adults. >> thank you. And for veterans, I know there's been. And veterans, veterans that the veterans with disabilities have not been treated with the same respect that they deserve. So thank you for your work on the bill, I yield back.
▶ 1:36:16>> thank you. >> jenny lee yields gentlelady yields back. Now recognize myself for such time as I may consume and would as miss van dine. Uh, are there comments that you want to make in response to things that have been said or that you've heard? >> I, I appreciate that opportunity. Uh, when we talk about some of the impacts that the, uh, the working families tax cut bill has had, I've listened to the criticisms. I, we've listened about affordability. We've listed about not being able to pay for health care.
▶ 1:36:45The fact is that 96% of filers receiving a tax credit earned less than $200,000 annually. That's an average savings of 815 to $1250. These are not billionaires. These are people who are making less than 200 000. That supported the creation of the economic impact of the working families. Tax cut supported the creation of 6.1 million new full time jobs versus higher and also higher, higher capital investment and business expansion.
▶ 1:37:12It delivered up to $7,600 in higher wages per worker through increased productivity and capital stock, it provided up to $10,900 more in annual take home pay for a median family with two children in an overtime worker.
▶ 1:37:26It prevented a scheduled 22% tax hike, which my democratic friends supported a 22% tax hike on average, taxpayers, and the bill delivered an additional $1,300 tax cut per family versus current law. And may the small business, uh, small business deduction permanent, creating over a million new main street jobs annually.
▶ 1:37:51And it generated $750 billion in economic growth for small businesses, not for massive corporations, not for businesses, not for from from, for billionaires, but for small business owners. It allowed over 7.5 million filers to claim no tax on tip, with an average deduction of $7,700. These are for working families and allowed over 29 million filers to claim no tax on overtime, with an average deduction of over $3,100.
▶ 1:38:19Again, these are not for billionaires. These are for working class working families, working families in america. And also boosted the child tax credit to $2,200. So if we really want to talk about how we are helping, you know, the working families in this country be able to pay for health care. First of all, if you want to talk about what a disaster obamacare was, let's look at how much it's increased the premiums, 80%. Why?
▶ 1:38:46Because it was a horrible deal to begin with. So, so giving us options that we don't have to pick obamacare would be one. >> are you saying, representative van dyne, that the affordable care act was not affordable? >> I'm saying that's exactly right. We we we hear these words. And if we are really wanting to, to allow americans to be able to have more of their money, to be able to take more of a home, let's tax them less and let's allow businesses to thrive. Let's protect the small businesses and protect the working families.
▶ 1:39:17>> now, I, I know where the numbers come from, but I think the folks back home who might be watching this sometime later in the middle of the night, not necessarily right now, but on the replays on c-span, they may not understand this 22% tax hike because that was a very real possibility, was it not? And isn't it accurate that that 22% tax hike would come in because the tax deductions or the tax benefits that were in the first trump administration were set to expire?
▶ 1:39:44A lot of things that people had gotten used to having. Is that not correct? >> absolutely. All those things would have expired january 1st of this year had we not passed. >> this bill. Can you can you tell them what some of those were? >> so, for example, the the deductions for small businesses, their r&d, all of those things that small businesses depended on to be able to be able to reinvest. >> and the. >> was about. >> to, to not correct that. That also included the accelerated depreciation.
▶ 1:40:10So that if you went out and you bought a new photocopier for your small law practice on main street in salem, virginia, uh, you, you used to have to take that out over a period of years. You didn't get the deduction in the first year. It was a number of years. And then under the first trump administration and a republican house, they reduced that. You could take it all in the first year. Is that not correct? >> that's absolutely correct. >> and that helps lots of small businesses stay in business. They have one good year. They can then buy new equipment.
▶ 1:40:41Isn't that correct? >> not only did we were we able to make these these tax cuts so that we didn't have them expire at the end of the next year, but they were also made permanent. So because of the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act was expected to only last, you know, a certain number of years. It's estimated that about $800 billion of potential investment didn't wasn't actually made because of that expiration. The permanency expect all of that plus more plus the foreign investment in our country that we're seeing.
▶ 1:41:10>> and if we didn't pass the reconciliation bill, then that would have meant a tax increase for all those main street businesses, whether it be salem, virginia or texas or georgia or south carolina or massachusetts. >> in addition to being on the ways and means committee, I'm also on small business, and we had small business after small business, come and testify that if those those tax relief were allowed to expire, they would have to shut down their business.
▶ 1:41:41>> yeah. >> would have heard a lot of main street businesses across the country. Anything else you want to add? >> no. You've been great. >> all right. Well, I appreciate it. And I now yield back and recognize the gentlelady, uh, miss leger fernandez from new mexico. >> thank you so very much. Um, you know, representative van dien, you, uh, lauded the fact that the, uh, one big, beautiful building, you referred to it that.
▶ 1:42:03I mean, I think it is hilarious that you have to change the name of your bill because it's so unpopular, but let's not, uh, spend too much time on that. We changed that. We changed the. >> character several times. >> yeah. >> you had to. I understand. >> you changed the name of the bill because it was it's it's so improbable. It was 2 to 1, uh, 2 to 1. People opposed this bill, right? Uh, when you were enacting it and now they still don't like it.
▶ 1:42:32You said there was this great thing that you had a $2,500 child tax credit. What was the democrats when democrats were in control? What was the child tax credit back then? I don't know. You don't know. It was $3,600 a month refundable, paid out. So what the republicans did was enact a child tax credit, which was worse than the democrats. So I wouldn't brag about that one too much.
▶ 1:42:59Um, now do you know what amazon's, uh, miss van dine? Do you know what amazon's, uh, how their taxes went up or down after your one big, beautiful bill? >> we're looking at small businesses. I'm sorry. You're asking me about amazon's tax. I don't work for amazon. I'm sorry. >> okay. Well, you were just. >> saying and I'm not a tax attorney for amazon. So I don't have their books in front of me. >> well, it's general knowledge that this big, beautiful bill benefited the wealthiest corporations. And we.
▶ 1:43:29>> can also say that it benefited small businesses over across the country. >> amazon's tax bill went down by $9 billion by $9 billion. So the wealthiest corporations in america, their tax bill went down because of your one big, beautiful bill. Now I want to go back. And yet they're. >> paying more in taxes now than they ever have before. >> I didn't ask you a question.
▶ 1:43:54I'm going to go back to the question of whether, you know, the middle income, the working families, uh, the tax cuts could have been extended. Now, uh, representative moore, were there amendments proposed in ways and means that would have extended those tax cuts, but not given all of this giveaway to the biggest corporations. Now, were there were those amendments made in ways and means? >> absolutely.
▶ 1:44:22There were amendments to try to extend the affordable care act. There were amendments to try to make the child tax credit refundable, to try to extend some of the expiring tax cuts that would benefit lower income people.
▶ 1:44:37We've heard, uh, representative van dyne wax on about the efforts and help that we gave small businesses through the 199 a but as you've pointed out, uh, that benefit was not to people who were buying a, a printer for their office, uh, but they were getting millions of dollars in tax benefits through this giant loophole.
▶ 1:45:01We had amendment after amendment that would have focused on providing tax breaks for lower income families. I think Mr. van dyne is sort of conflating, uh, the tax benefits that went to lower income people, as I've indicated before, you make $50,000 a year, your tax break was $247 a month. >> right.
▶ 1:45:28And americans have had to spend $3,100 more on everyday items. >> on every on health care. Uh, we have people now in the medicaid program. I know of one constituent who makes 125 social security benefit is $125 a month over the poverty level. So they're going to have to pay $1,500 a year to qualify for medicaid. And so this is this is this is where we have placed people.
▶ 1:45:56They are the $1.2 trillion cut in medicaid. Uh, the 187, the 80, the billions of dollars in cuts and snap. All of these things have not been compensatory for the $247 tax break that they may have gotten through the one big, beautiful bill. >> now, what's amazing is that, uh, usually, you know, you show up in your community, you have town halls. I take it, representative moore, you have in-person town halls. >> absolutely. >> right.
▶ 1:46:26And where representative van dorn, do you have in-person town halls? >> what we found is we actually have thousands of people who come to our our town halls online. But so people who who have children, people who, who have age parents, people who don't want to actually have to get out. We reach them more. >> I have I have marvelous in-person as well as online town halls. Do you have in-person town halls? >> we have online town halls. And we have found that that is actually that that is much more responsive to the needs of our constituents. I can't speak to the needs of your constituents.
▶ 1:46:56>> what what happens when you have in-person town halls? Anybody can come and anybody can ask questions is you hear from people. It's unfiltered. You. You don't. >> we have people who ask questions in our town halls all the time that everyone can hear. >> what what is interesting is that, you know, republicans don't seem to want to have in-person town halls.
▶ 1:47:17And I think they don't have in-person town halls because when they do, people show up and express their opinion about their bills and their policies and the these tax cuts and whether the economy is doing well. And, uh, it is not for working families, for for farmers. We have an increase in bankruptcies of 45% increase in bankruptcies, 45% increase in bankruptcies. I think that's the correct number.
▶ 1:47:47Right. So people are suffering and it takes showing up and listening to people to know where they're feeling. But instead of doing that, what we have is we have resolutions. The second resolution, this is the second resolution that republicans are bringing to pat themselves on the back. Uh, representative moore, is there anything else you want to add to this? Uh, we didn't really get to talk about the disabilities, but one of the issues that concerns me is that we have a president who's made fun.
▶ 1:48:17He's mocked people with disabilities. He has issued, uh, opinions to strip people of disabilities of their civil rights. He has taken action that is negative to families with disabilities, from medicaid funding, uh, to his mocking, to his stripping of their rights. And that's why something like this reauthorization is so concerning. But I wanted to just give you the last word, representative. >> yeah.
▶ 1:48:47I thank you so much for that, representative. And one of the things I'm concerned about is not just that people might lose their disability benefits, but they'd lose access to health care as well. You know, in an administration where the thrust seems to be to cut people's health care benefits, as well as cutting the amount of monies that they receive.
▶ 1:49:10I think it is very risky to give the administrations the authority to do both of those things and give them a two edged sword to be able to do that. And so democrats in the ways and means committee have been very empathetic to the idea of creating more employment opportunities for everybody, but we don't want it to do it at the expense of people being able to have a decent standard of living. >> right. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:49:39And I, I did ask whether it was a 45% increase in, uh, foreign bankruptcy. It's a 46%. So a little higher. But basically, uh, this one big, beautiful bill, uh, did not make the kind of difference for rural america. It's hurting it. We have rural health centers, rural hospitals closing because of this big, beautiful bill and. >> suicides rates.
▶ 1:50:04I'm from wisconsin, and we have seen a really uptick in suicide rates among farmers. Very, very concerning. Um, uh, about the rural america. Uh, even though I represent milwaukee, wisconsin is a rural state. And so I'm very mindful of what happens throughout. Thank you. >> thank you very much. And I yield back. >> thank you, miss leger fernandez. Thank you, miss moore. Thank you very much. We are classmates.
▶ 1:50:33So, um, uh, I, I think I'm the last person here, so I'm going to ask some questions. Um, representative van dyne, our democrat friends claim that h.r. 8884 removing barriers to work for disabled americans act will hurt beneficiaries. And that president trump wants to reduce or eliminate disability insurance benefits.
▶ 1:51:03Does this bill actually prevent income from being reduced or eliminated? For those beneficiaries who choose to participate in a demonstration program. >> it absolutely does. The bill explicitly states that the social security administration may not conduct a demonstration project that would reduce a participant's total income.
▶ 1:51:26This is a new beneficiary protection that was not included in any previous authorization of the ssa disability insurance demonstration authority, and further participation in a demonstration is completely voluntary, requiring the commission to obtain an individual's informed written consent, which a participant may then revoke at any time. >> thank you very much. I have one more question. Well, maybe a couple of part a question with several parts. Um, so representative van dyne on um.
▶ 1:51:59H.r. H. Res. 1383. Your bill on commemorating the one year anniversary of the enactment of the working families tax cuts act. Um, our democrat friends like to characterize these tax cuts as, quote, giving tax relief to the richest americans at the expense of hard working americans, end quote.
▶ 1:52:19Is it true that families of four making under $73,000 will generally face zero federal income tax liability due to the working families tax cut? >> yes. A family of four making $73,000 owes uncle sam $0 in federal income tax, and that's thanks to a bigger standard deduction and a child tax credit increase to $2,200 per child.
▶ 1:52:47And without the working families tax cuts act, the same family would have seen their taxes go up, would have seen their standard deduction cut, and would and their child tax credit halved. Republicans made sure that that didn't happen, that families keep moving, keep making more of their hard earned dollars. >> thank you very much. I to me that is that is a huge statement for the american people to understand.
▶ 1:53:12Uh, and this would affect a lot of people in my district because I think the average income in my in my district is about $63,000. So a lot of people are going to pay no taxes, um, on this. And north carolina has done a wonderful job of offering, uh, real benefits to north to people in north carolina too.
▶ 1:53:36So there'll be a lot of working families who won't have to pay federal or state taxes in north carolina. So another question or another part. Have americans whose income is in the bottom 40% of all taxpayers seeing a 15% reduction in their taxes? >> um, yeah, the bottom 40% got a 15% tax cut, which is the biggest cut by percentage of any income group.
▶ 1:54:03That's thanks to no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, a larger standard deduction, and a bigger child tax credit. Republicans targeted relief at the americans whose paychecks had been stretched thin by democrat inflation, and the data confirms that republicans actually delivered. >> and the is the largest percentage reduction going to the bottom 20% of working people. >> um, the bottom 20%. Absolutely.
▶ 1:54:33Um, that is exactly who this bill was meant to help. This is exactly where those dollars have been going. And they're getting the biggest benefit of it. >> so we keep hearing that it's the wealthiest people who are benefiting from this. But this is my understanding.
▶ 1:54:47Tell me if you agree, have the share of total income taxes paid by americans whose income is in the top 1% increase to over 40% as a result of the working families tax cuts, meaning the wealthiest people are paying more and the share paid by americans in the remaining 99% decreased to 60%. >> yes, absolutely.
▶ 1:55:17It's it's an inconvenient fact that I think a lot of democrats, they don't want to talk about, but the very rich are paying more. And that was my point that I made a moment ago. But they are paying more of the tab. Um, after the working families tax cuts than they were before, there aren't a whole lot of billionaires who are taking advantage of no tax on tips or taking advantage of no tax on overtime. Uh, republicans wrote this people for the wrote this bill for the people that do. >> thank you very much.
▶ 1:55:45I appreciate both of you all being here. Mr. mcgovern. >> said that democrats don't want to talk about it. I'm happy to talk about it. If you want me to engage. >> that's okay, Mr. mcgovern, I believe I believe I asked you, you you said you'd done your questioning. So thank you very much. >> I really appreciate your line of questioning.
▶ 1:56:08And just think about the more, uh, 20 percentile of taxpayers, like 13 million children behind by not presiding over some effects, but, um, you say that, that >> I'm so sorry. The people in the lower quintile don't pay any taxes, but they also don't benefit from our tax code.
▶ 1:56:33Uh, in ways that would help the child tax. >> they're not paying taxes. Then they're benefiting from the tax code. They're benefiting from the tax. >> they're not paying taxes, but they're also not benefiting from refundable the refundable tax credit that they had been. Well well 50% of children out of poverty.
▶ 1:56:57>> what you're talking about is they're not getting welfare in addition to they're not paying taxes. So if they're going to get more money than they're paying in taxes, then that's welfare. >> well it's not. Well. >> and it's. >> not fair. >> they're they're getting money from other people who are. >> well, I just I just wanted to be clear that when we start talking about how well off the lower 20% are, um, that you are making a distinction because those people are really poor.
▶ 1:57:30Uh, they don't pay taxes and they also do not get, uh, many of the benefits they. >> miss more. Miss moore? Yes. You're talking to probably the person who grew up, the poorest of any person in this congress. You need to know that. You need to know that there's probably no other person in this congress who grew up as poor as I did. And so don't talk to me about poverty, because I know it better than anybody.
▶ 1:58:00>> well, ma'am, I, I will not talk to you about poverty. I just wanted to set the record straight that while we're talking about how well families are off, that there are children who are hungry that don't. >> have, I'm saying is they're better off. As a result of this bill passed. >> no they're not. >> thank you all very much. >> let's talk. >> about we appreciate your coming. You're dismissed. Thank you. We obviously have a lot of interest today.
▶ 1:58:29Um, as soon as our witnesses for this panel are away, we would invite Mr. not Mr. sessions, Mr. haridopolos, miss houlihan, Mr. moylan and pete stauber in the house, Mr. stauber. That's a little inside joke between Mr. stauber and me.
▶ 1:58:54We're taking people in the order in which they came in. So, okay. Not sessions. If you guys can take a seat. Not sessions. Haridopolos, houlihan, moylan and stauber. Yeah.
▶ 1:59:15Maybe move down a little bit to let people squeeze in there. Either place. Yeah. Yes, sir. We normally have eight seats, but today we've got seven.
▶ 1:59:43I guess somebody figured out we could do the panels. Okay, I'm going to call on you in the order in which I called your name, not sessions haridopolos houlihan, moylan and stauber. Yes, sir. Thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. >> before my colleague from north carolina, Mr. norton. >> before we get started, I'd be remiss if I did not wish you a very happy birthday on the record.
▶ 2:00:13Um, I hope it's been a good day for you, and we're thrilled to be here. >> it'll be better. >> Mr. ranking member, good to see you. And today, it's my privilege to speak about two of my amendments to the national defense authorization act for this year. Immigration security, as you all know, is pivotal, is pivotal for national security. Without secure borders, we do not have any hope or possibility for a secure nation. Both of the amendments I'm offering have previously passed the house with strong bipartisan support.
▶ 2:00:41The first amendment deals with the national security threat that is unique to the criminal group. Tren de agua tren de agua started out as a prison gang from the venezuelan state of aragua, and has since grown into a sprawling criminal empire that has grown pretty much without any exception throughout the western hemisphere, including the united states and canada.
▶ 2:01:02Tda's criminal activities include, but are not limited to, kidnaping, human trafficking, smuggling, sale of dangerous drugs, money laundering, organized retail crime, murder and violent extortion of small business owners. Tda is not in any way an average criminal organization. This is a sophisticated and international enterprises that terrorizes americans. We've seen numerous examples of this all over our country.
▶ 2:01:29Accordingly, the president correctly issued executive order 14157 to designate tda as a foreign terrorist organization. My amendment builds on the president's actions by requiring the department of homeland security and the intelligence committee, excuse me, the intelligence community, to collaborate on a detailed border threat assessment regarding threats posed by tda members.
▶ 2:01:53Dhs would also be required to develop a strategy for countering tda within a year. The second amendment I have today deals with another pressing issue, and one that I am very well familiar with. Based off of my experience prior to congress. The purpose of the amendment is quite simple. It's.
▶ 2:02:14It's to prevent and to disincentivize the illegal re entrants from coming back into the country and is to prevent and disincentivize illegal immigrants who are already here from committing crimes. To achieve these goals. It would first again to deter illegal reentry from any illegal alien who has been deported. And stated differently, it would encourage anyone who has been deported to come back to this country legally, if at all.
▶ 2:02:42The second goal is to deter criminal activity from any illegal immigrant who is in this country, whether it is fraud, terrorism, driving while intoxicated, assault, drug trafficking, human trafficking, violent crime of all sorts. All are greatly disincentivized by this amendment because it streamlines and makes more efficient their charging and convictions. I want to reiterate that immigration security is national security.
▶ 2:03:11I believe that my two amendments will build on the good work that has already been done in this administration to secure the borders and to combat dangerous criminal organizations. Again, I want to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member today for having us, and I urge inclusion of these two amendments in the rule I yield back. >> thank you very much. I forgot to mention earlier that we would ask you to and to summarize your statement in five minutes or less, and the whole statement would be entered into the record.
▶ 2:03:40And you did great. Mr. sessions, the former chairman of the committee, um, is here recognized. >> madam chairman, thank you very much. Mr. mcgovern. Good to see you in the committee. It's good to be with you. As a matter of fact, I did spend virginia 20 years up here and enjoyed every single minute.
▶ 2:03:58Uh, so it's a great opportunity to be back before you today, I lay before the committee and I what I think is a very important bill, it is actually ndaa amendment number 1102 this amendment is very important. It's what's called the independent investment fund act.
▶ 2:04:21And I come to you today representing a bipartisan, uh, uh, caucus that is called the biotech caucus, represented by also chris christie houlihan and stephanie bice.
▶ 2:04:35The interest of this bipartisan caucus is to have america be better positioned in biotech against the leaders around the world that oppose the united states, not only in marketplaces, but in the reliability of their products and what they do. We could specifically say china. And so I could say china and mean that because I do. But what's happened is several years ago, the united states senate formed what is called an ind.
▶ 2:05:05They formed what is called the national security commission on emerging technology, and this was the congress's attempt to begin looking at how important biotech companies are.
▶ 2:05:18Medicine, the development of ipos, the development of ai drugs, the development of a whole lot of things that would keep the united states of america and our friends and allies in the lead against others who perhaps would use this biotech area against the best interest of not only consumers, but perhaps the united states and our friends. I bring this to you today. I dropped the bill.
▶ 2:05:44We dropped the bill a full year ago, but feel like that today that this independent fund that could be easily added into nandaa would fit very reasonably because the united states of america finds itself on the backside of being able to adapt itself and adjust, including the government, as they learn things, uh, about biotech, as they learn things about maybe things that they see in the marketplace.
▶ 2:06:13We've been aware of this. The cia has been through this for a long time, that they needed to know more about the things that they encounter. So this is very simply put, an opportunity for dod, which is in this department of war bill, to be able to deal with the treasury department and other agencies have a fund that would be available to immediately begin the investigation and the bringing together of ideas to
▶ 2:06:44Support national security issues as they develop. And this is done through this commission, and it would be done with across government, and I believe that it would be the right thing to do. And so I come to the rules committee today to ask for your gracious consideration. >> thank you, Mr. sessions. Mr. haridopolos, madam chair. >> ranking member and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify and ask for the committee's support on my bipartisan amendment. On to the ndaa.
▶ 2:07:14The amendment authorizes nasa to conduct a pilot program to 2031, allowing the agency to accept private contributions for infrastructure improvements at nasa's ten centers. This is a common sense proposal, in my opinion, that gives nasa an additional tool to address critical infrastructure needs without costing the taxpayers additional dollars, rather than appropriating new federal dollars.
▶ 2:07:40This authority simply allows private companies to invest their own resources in projects that directly support nasa operations. While this authority would apply across all the ten centers, it is especially clear in florida's kennedy space center as launch activity continues to accelerate, many of the nation's national security missions rely on kennedy's infrastructure.
▶ 2:08:04Heavy launch vehicles routinely damage the roadways used to transport rockets and critical equipment throughout the center, thus delaying, uh the flights and increasing costs. The companies using these facilities have requested this authority because they're willing to pay for the infrastructure improvements. They understand that repairing damaged roadways quickly means getting the national security mission on track. This bipartisan amendment. Congressman whitesides and I are working on this together.
▶ 2:08:32Uh, has the support of nasa leadership, nasa administrator jared isaacman, and provides the fiscal responsibility necessary to meet this growing challenge. I have also been working with senator moody on this amendment, and it has the support of the commercial industry, the senate commerce committee and the house science committee as well. It is strengthened the. It will strengthen the infrastructure that supports american civil and national security and space missions while preserving taxpayer needs.
▶ 2:09:01As our global competitors continue investing heavily in space capabilities, america cannot afford unnecessary delays, especially as we look to win the race to the moon. This amendment helps ensure nasa facilities remain ready to support the defense of our nation and america's continued leadership in space. I respectfully request the committee to make this amendment in order, and thank you very much for your consideration, and I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. haridopolos.
▶ 2:09:32Miss allen, you're recognized. >> chair and ranking member and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to ask today that several of my amendments be made in order and allowed a vote, because they all advance one simple goal, which is keeping america's military ready to fight and win and come back home.
▶ 2:09:58Our military is strongest when decisions are driven by evidence, by our professionalism and by mission, and not by politics or ideology. Every amendment that I'm offering today is about protecting our readiness, strengthening accountability, and ensuring that the department of defense remains focused on the threats we actually face. First amendment number 69 protects a simple principle that military service should be based on whether you can meet a standard, not whether you are a man or a woman.
▶ 2:10:28For years, we have built a force where standards determine qualification and mission determines the assignment, and that has only made us stronger and we should not throw that away. Secretary hagel sets effort to impose the so-called highest moral standard is not grounded in military necessity. It is driven instead by ideology. And every time that we tell a qualified american who can meet the standard that they cannot serve, we make our military smaller, weaker, and less ready.
▶ 2:10:58Second, my amendment number 105, reaffirms religious neutrality at the department of defense. Religious freedom is one of our nation's most fundamental values. Protecting it requires government neutrality. Every service member has the right to practice their faith or not practice a faith with without pressure from their chain of command. That's not anti-religion. It is indeed the constitution.
▶ 2:11:22This amendment protects every service member's freedom of conscience and strengthens this trust and cohesion that our military depends on. Third amendment 200 would fence or stop the implementation of this bill until such time as there is new leadership at the department of defense. This is not about politics. It is about doing our jobs and protecting the institution we are entrusted to oversee. Congress has a constitutional responsibility not only to authorize policy, but to ensure that it is carried out faithfully.
▶ 2:11:53Secretary hegseth has repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to full and faithfully execute the authorities that congress entrusts in him. The greatest threat to our military readiness is leadership that mistakes political loyalty for military excellence. A secretary of defense who spends more time fighting culture wars than preparing for real wars, is weakening this force that he swore to lead. He has purged experienced military leaders for political reasons.
▶ 2:12:20He has pursued ideological crusades inside the pentagon. He has sidelined military expertise and injected instability into an institution whose very success depends on discipline, on professionalism and on trust. Congress should not provide a hand sweeping new authority to a secretary whose own actions have repeatedly undermined confidence in his ability to lead. Oversight is not obstruction. Indeed, it is our constitutional duty.
▶ 2:12:48If the committee is not willing to adopt a full implementation fence, I urge you, at a minimum, to require meaningful guardrails or certification before these provisions are taken effect. Fourth amendment 1193 restores the annual influenza vaccine vaccine while preserving medical waivers. Readiness begins, starts and ends with healthy troops.
▶ 2:13:09We have already seen the consequences of abandoning long standing military health policy since this policy was enacted, nearly 300 influenza cases have been reported at lackland air force base alone, and these numbers only continue to grow. Now, the pentagon is scrambling to create exceptions to their ban on vaccines and workarounds to restore protections it never should have abandoned in the first place.
▶ 2:13:36Instead of this confusing patchwork, restore the very straightforward policy that protected our force for decades and ensure that every recruit enters service healthy and ready. And finally, my amendment 1336 establishes a commission we already spoke about with my colleague, Mr. sessions of emerging technology. As he mentioned, china is not slowing down in ai, in biotech, in autonomous systems or advanced manufacturing, and neither should we.
▶ 2:14:04Congress needs a bipartisan, independent mechanism to identify where we are falling behind, where we need to invest, and how we preserve our technological edge before our competitors gain one. Every amendment, every last amendment that I proposed here today comes down to one question and one question only. Will this ndaa make our military stronger and more ready to fight and win tonight? If it makes our military stronger, we should adopt it.
▶ 2:14:33If it advances ideology instead of readiness, we should reject it. I respectfully urge that the committee make these amendments in order. I thank you, and I yield back. >> thank the gentlelady. Gentlelady yields back. Now recognize Mr. moylan for his time. >> chairman, ranking member mcgovern and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. While I respectfully ask. The committee makes all my amendments in order, I would like just to focus on two.
▶ 2:15:01During this limited time amendment. First amendment 432 and the second 113. Amendment 432 removes language in the bill, which would require the war department to deploy and operate a transportable nuclear micro reactor in indopacom by january 1st, 2030. This is a policy.
▶ 2:15:23The pacific islands community has nearly unanimously opposed, and my amendment is co-sponsored by members of hawaii, the northern mariana islands and american samoa. Pacific communities agree we should not assume the risk of testing new technologies before the rest of the country is willing to assume similar risks. Our voices cannot be an afterthought. They need to be included throughout the process.
▶ 2:15:53Speaking as guam's representative, the guam power authority gpa must be consulted prior to the new energy policies. Unfortunately, what we see today is gpa is being directed what to do from thousands of miles away, if not sidelined entirely. I want to thank congresswoman tokuda from hawaii for her partnership on this amendment.
▶ 2:16:18She has constantly worked with me on issues of shared concern for guam and hawaii, and I know this is an amendment she is uniquely passionate about. As she mentioned during the markup, the status of forces agreements in indopacom would mean that microreactors would be deployed on american soil in the pacific. In other words, one of our islands.
▶ 2:16:43I support a strong military, robust supply chains and national security strategy designed for us to win, but I have never backed down from my position that the military build up in guam must not come at a cost of our island. It must be done right. Policies that deny our people the right to object or properly consider such huge decisions do not happen with us.
▶ 2:17:12They happen to us. So I respectfully urge the committee to make this amendment in order and allow the full house to consider the merits of such a proposed program for the second amendment. I also ask the committee to make one one, three an order which would establish a first look period for businesses in the joint regional mariana area of operations to bid on local contracts.
▶ 2:17:42Too often, defense contracts in guam and northern mariana islands are snatched by large national wide nationwide contractors who are very good at bidding for contracts, but very bad in performing work in the western pacific themselves. These companies scrape their profits off the top and subconscious contract to local businesses.
▶ 2:18:05The result is taxpayers are left holding the bag, while mainland companies get richer and do little to none of the work. This problem extends even to sometimes as simple as catering a company better at bidding wins and contract, and then simply subcontracts the entire job to a local company. Talk about broken. Now my amendment takes a simple approach to fix this problem.
▶ 2:18:31Let the people actually doing the work get the contract. If we do so, it cuts the middleman. Invest directly into local economies and workforce, and cuts bloated contracts. That means more funding for warfighters, improving their quality of life, or doing more for less, and strengthening our national security. I look forward to answering any questions. Thank the committee that the committee may have. Thank you, Mr. chair. >> thank you.
▶ 2:19:01And now recognize Mr. stauber for his time. >> thank you, Mr. chair and ranking member mcgovern. I want to start by thanking the committee for your consideration on my amendment, amendment number 761 to the national defense authorization act. I also want to thank representative begich for his support of this amendment. My amendment addresses a concerning reality that is one of the greatest threats to our national security. Communist. China's chokehold on our strategic supply chains, including for critical minerals.
▶ 2:19:28Currently, communist china controls roughly 80% of our critical mineral supply chains. We are net import reliant on china for roughly 31 critical minerals, and the ccp has taken advantage of this reality over the past several years by banning the export of certain, certain minerals to the united states that are used in key defense technologies and our equipment. This is a direct attack on U.S. national security and our defense posture on the world stage.
▶ 2:19:53There is no doubt that china will continue to exploit this vulnerability, which would be devastating to america's security across the world. That is why it is critical that we begin to invest in domestic capabilities to unravel ourselves from this dangerous web. My amendment is simple.
▶ 2:20:06It requires the secretary of commerce and secretary of war, along with several other agencies, to identify all supply chains in which communist china maintains a global market share exceeding 50% of global production or processing capacity for the relevant material, component, or product.
▶ 2:20:26Further, these entities must develop a plan to diversify each supply chain they identify, which will help inform the united states and our allies as to what steps and which investments we must make to retake control of these supply chains. The reality is that we have offshored critical defense and manufacturing capabilities to unfriendly, unfriendly nations for too long. But it doesn't have to be this way. American can can control its own destiny.
▶ 2:20:51If we begin to invest in our domestic workforce and industries, including the domestic mining sector, and that includes responsibly developing the vast mineral resources our country is blessed with, including the duluth complex in northern minnesota. It's a win win across the board. We can develop these minerals domestically under the strictest labor and environmental standards, support domestic jobs and our economy, and lessen china's grip on america's national security.
▶ 2:21:18And a great first step is by taking full inventory of our supply chain dependance on communist china, and developing an actionable plan to ensure our strategic supply chains and our national security is decoupled from foreign adversarial nations. I urge the committee to make my amendment in order, and I thank you for your time, and I stand for questions. >> gentleman yields back indicated indications for miss hutchens that she has no questions. So I now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, Mr. mcgovern. >> yeah. I want to thank you all for being here.
▶ 2:21:47I hope your amendments are made in order. It's great to see Mr. sessions again. Chrissy houlahan, I thank you for all of your amendments as well. Um, and, um, again, I hope to make an order and I have no questions. I yield back. >> and now recognize miss scanlon, pennsylvania. >> I would associate myself with the ranking members remarks. Thank you. >> now recognize miss leger fernandez. >> thank you. I just wanted to take a moment to address representative moylan's bipartisan amendment. It also has representative cuda.
▶ 2:22:15Uh, I come from a place where we tested, uh, the nuclear bomb. Uh, and we tested it in the pacific islands. And to mandate mandate that there be nuclear reactors, uh, before we know whether they're safe, before we are willing to do it on our own mainland, I think is wrong. I think having encouraging it, incentivizing those are different things. But to mandate it.
▶ 2:22:41So I'm very particularly sensitive because I've been to the pacific islands and they've raised this issue. They've suffered the pain. Uh, we have a multibillion dollar compensation fund going because we didn't take care before we started doing nuclear testing. So we should not repeat the mistakes of the past. So thank you very much, representative moylan and representative, you put it precisely correct.
▶ 2:23:09Will this make us safer? And refusing to grant promotions, refusing to treat women and black americans and others with the same merit and respect does not make us safer. Thank you for bringing that. >> generally is back. Joined by Mr. scott. Mr. scott has no questions. Thank the witnesses for being present, and thank you for being ready to answer questions. Uh. We'll give them time to clear out.
▶ 2:23:38Our next panel will be, uh, Mr. luttrell, miss garcia, Mr. mcdowell, Mr. smith, Mr. turner, and Mr. goldman. Give them a minute to come up and take a seat.
▶ 2:24:12On the trail. Garcia. Mcdowell. Smith. Turner. Goldman. Okay, we'll start with Mr. luttrell. Morgan. It's always good to have one. Morgan. Recognize another. Morgan. >> and and and there's three of us in congress. Oddly enough, I've never met another male, morgan, in my entire life that I got here. So always a pleasure to work with you, Mr. mcgarvey. Uh, so thank you, Mr. chairman. Mr.
▶ 2:24:40Ranking member mcgovern and the rest of the members on the committee for this opportunity to talk about my amendments that I would like to add to the national defense authorization act, first of which is amendment 81, that extends a currently authorized walter reed trial studying psychedelic assisted therapies on traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress through september 23rd, 2033, and then amendment 71 for initiating biomedical outcomes to garner
▶ 2:25:10Advancements into innovative efficacy. A better part of 15 years, I would say thousands and thousands of our veterans have been traveling outside of our country for psychedelic assisted therapies for a myriad of issues, whether it's post-traumatic stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, cognitive emotional disabilities, or addiction, whether that's alcohol or drug related.
▶ 2:25:33And for the past 15 years, we've been begging and pleading with the us ourselves to support this because currently, the studies that are being conducted inside the united states are small in places like johns hopkins university and stanford university, the state of texas, the state of mississippi, and the state of kentucky, amongst other states.
▶ 2:25:56They're trying to pass legislation individually to support these medications is great, but I often ask myself, why can't we do this? Why isn't the united states government coming in to support our veteran community? And the results that we're seeing in these studies are profound. And this medication, when given under, very, under, very under very restrictive guardrails.
▶ 2:26:23Is absolute. And you can't argue that I've gone through the journey myself. The treatment, excuse me, my brother has gone through the treatment, my wife has gone through the treatment. And it's been life changing. And these amendments allow the department of veterans affairs, with fda and hhs to start moving the needle forward. So we don't have to talk about the 6000 plus veterans. We lose a year, the 100,000 to suicide, the 100,000 civilians we use.
▶ 2:26:54We lose to suicide because of opioids and ssri addictions. And I haven't been here in congress that long. But my research before I showed up says that this is a move that we should absolutely take. So sitting at the table today, I will not drop to a knee and beg and plead with you to do this. But as a veteran myself, I ask us to stop looking down around the corner and kicking the can down the road and do something profound for our veteran community. Madam chairwoman, thank you and happy birthday.
▶ 2:27:27>> thank you, Mr. luttrell. I'm sorry, you're not going to be staying in congress. You know that. I feel that way. >> thank you. Yes, ma'am. And I, I don't know if I should say how happy I am that I'm leaving, but I appreciate that. >> miss goodlander, would you like to join us? Since miss garcia had left and she her name was called.
▶ 2:27:47You're taking her place? >> I appreciate the opportunity to come and speak on three categories of amendments to the national defense authorization. In the defense budget for the coming year.
▶ 2:28:15Expected to be over $1.5 billion. And I thank you so much. Is that better? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. And happy birthday. Thank you. Um, my first two amendments really go to the core of how we in congress must ensure these 1.5 trillion taxpayer dollars are being spent responsibly and transparently. Transparently.
▶ 2:28:42That's why I'm supporting amendment 1006, a straightforward amendment that says no funds will be expended from under this under this authorization to fund the president's war of choice in iran. Unless congress has declared war or authorized that war, we have learned the lessons of recent history. When we write a blank check for a war of choice, it has cost us gravely in american lives and in taxpayer dollars.
▶ 2:29:09So this common sense amendment will will bring power under our constitution back where it belongs, here in the people's house. I have a separate amendment. Amendment 955 that would likewise go to the core of the first amendment protections that are so urgent for our national security and public safety. Uh, not a single taxpayer dollar should be used by the department of defense to restrict the free and independent press.
▶ 2:29:35What we have learned in the last year and a half is that when the leadership of the pentagon goes to war with the free press, our jobs in congress become infinitely harder. We need to ensure that the independent press is able to do their important work at the department of defense. This goes to the core of oversight and transparency upon which all public trust depends.
▶ 2:29:58So I urge this committee to rule these amendments in order um and to allow them to be debated on the floor. I'll just add three more areas where I believe taxpayer dollars must go. The first is to pay our troops, and amendment 1057 would adopt the pay our troops act into this national defense authorization act. Not a single service member of this country should ever be forced to work without a paycheck.
▶ 2:30:25And that is what our bill would correct this wrong and ensure that moving forward, our service members are not at the whims of congressional debates, that when they do, they raise their right hand to serve this country. They will be paid for their service. In the middle of an affordability crisis. Our men and women in uniform should never be asked to work without a paycheck, and our bipartisan amendment would right this wrong.
▶ 2:30:50I'll conclude, um, by urging your support for amendment 327. This would close gaping loopholes that have prevented our public safety officers, the survivors of fallen officers and injured officers who have put their lives on the line and been killed or injured in the line of duty.
▶ 2:31:15Um, last year we made some very important steps forward to make sure that the public safety officer benefit program operates as it should. This amendment. 327 would close loopholes and right wrongs that have stood in the way of our fallen heroes and their family members, from receiving the benefits that they have earned. So I urge your support on that, and I urge all of our colleagues to support the major richard star act.
▶ 2:31:43It is on the floor of the house right now as a discharge petition. It's the most bipartisan bill before the congress right now, and it would right an important wrong by ensuring that we pay our combat injured veterans who have been forced to make an outrageous choice between the benefits that they've earned and their retirement pay, this bipartisan bill would right that wrong. We can get it done even before we get the ndaa done. And with that, I yield back, madam chair. Thank you. >> thank you, miss goodlander. Mr. mcdowell, you're recognized.
▶ 2:32:16>> thank you, madam chair. And happy birthday to you. I have seven amendments that are under consideration to the ndaa, and I want to thank the committee for their consideration for each of them. But given the limited time, I'd like to briefly discuss two of my amendments. I'm proud to say that both as standalone bills have bipartisan support. Amendment 758 would add the text of my bill to preventing rogue equipment for synthetic substances act, or the press act to the ndaa.
▶ 2:32:44I'm especially proud to have worked closely with the dea to craft the press act, which will address an issue that is deeply personal to me. I lost my younger brother, luke, to the fentanyl crisis, and I vowed to do everything that I could to help end this epidemic in our communities. And the press act targets one of the key tools that foreign drug traffickers rely on to manufacture counterfeit pills, pill press and tabulating machines.
▶ 2:33:10By stopping the importation of illegal pill press machines, we can disrupt the production of fentanyl laced narcotics before they ever reach our streets. We must strengthen federal law to target the equipment the cartels use to mass produce these deadly counterfeit drugs. This is a national security issue. Many of these machines are smuggled across our border by our global adversaries. It is like a slow drip nuclear weapon that is taking out men and women that are 18 to 45.
▶ 2:33:41Our military age, men and women at an incredible clip fighting this poison. It goes beyond party lines, and we must ensure law enforcement has the tools that they need to stop illicit drug manufacturing and save our lives.
▶ 2:33:54The other amendment I'd like to highlight is amendment 745, adding the text of my bill, the foreign robocall elimination act, to address the flood of foreign scam calls that so many in my district receive by providing the resources needed to strengthen interagency coordination and build on the traced act, we can better combat illegal robocalls originating overseas.
▶ 2:34:16These bad actors target millions of americans every month attempting to steal sensitive personal information, such as social security numbers and banking information through sophisticated scams. I think we can all agree that we don't need foreign robocalls in our lives. Uh, with that, madam chairman, I thank the committee for their consideration of these amendments, and I yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr. smith. You're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair, and I'll be very brief. I do have seven amendments.
▶ 2:34:45I'll just highlight three very quickly. The first is the stopped forced organ harvesting act, one of the atrocities that's occurring in this world today, especially in china, is that young people are having their inner organs stolen by the government. Uh, and in the case of china, it's 60,000 to 100,000 organs per year, mostly from the falun gong and the uyghurs. Uh, but the military is absolutely involved in this.
▶ 2:35:14In china, there's an estimation that 43 military hospitals, uh, are engaged in these illegal transplants. They strap a guy down or a woman equally divided between male and female. They take out at least two organs per victim. Uh, and and if you're in the military and you need an organ, you'll get it from one of the people that you're that is now the, the subject of a genocide like the uyghurs. It's outrageous. The taliban are involved in all of this and other places around the world.
▶ 2:35:42There's definitely a military connection. It passed 406 to 1 last year, and the year before that, it passed with a similar margin. And as Mr. scott said earlier today, so much of what we do goes over the the the senate and just dies in languages. This has an opportunity to save a lot of lives. I'll go into detail if you'd like. Then there's the trafficking victims protection act, which was named after frederick douglass that passed in two congresses back to back. Never went anywhere in the senate.
▶ 2:36:09And I would point out that 26 years ago, I authored the trafficking victims protection act. Uh, and when we did it, it's a comprehensive effort to stop sex and labor trafficking. It has made a major difference. But we found when we did the first reauthorization that many militaries are involved, peacekeepers are involved. I went to goma and then held a series of hearings and did some work to try to stop the un peacekeepers from raping little children. Uh, so there's definitely a connection for this bill.
▶ 2:36:38Finally, the third one is the stop support for unra do when we're, uh, relief works, uh, agency. In the last congress, I chaired four hearings on unra and anti-semitism. Bottom line, they have aided and abetted hamas like no one else, and many have died. Uh, you know, people say, well, what are you going to do for those who are suffering in gaza?
▶ 2:37:01Well, the administration has made sure that the world food program, for example, got an obligation of $250 million. And there's other obligations as well. We need to get it to a non anti-semitic organization. And again, unrra has aided and abetted all of this, all of this these crimes for years. 70 individuals were just fired by unwra. That's a tip of the iceberg. I hope that you'll make that one in order as well. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. smith. Mr.
▶ 2:37:30Turner, I said I would distribute these. Notebooks. I would have distributed them. >> I'm sorry I was on. >> thank you, Mr. turner. You're recognized. >> madam chair. Happy birthday. Um, I the the books that I just distributed, I distributed because they're part of my testimony is that's that's why we've done it. I apologize.
▶ 2:37:50Um, and to the who's ever serving as ranking member members of the rules committee, I'm here to testify in support of this, the amendment number 730 to the fiscal year 2027 national defense authorization act that would restore the pension benefits of the delphi salary. Retirees. And I respectfully ask this committee to allow it to be attached to the ndaa.
▶ 2:38:15This amendment would has the support of the president, the speaker and the chairman of the house armed services committee in 2009, as part of the taxpayer funded gm bankruptcy, more than 20,000 delphi retirees and employees had their earned health and pension benefits terminated. For many, their pensions were cut dramatically, in some cases by as much as 70%. There is no precedent for what happened.
▶ 2:38:47The government terminated their pensions as part of a tarp. Government funded, government led gm bankruptcy and bailout. The government only terminated their pensions. Everyone else had their pensions restored. Many members of congress have worked with the delphi retirees to right this wrong.
▶ 2:39:09The special inspector general for the troubled asset relief program, or sigtarp, was asked to examine treasury's decision making related to delphi. The findings were deeply troubling, and that's the binders that you just have.
▶ 2:39:25If you go to the first tab in your binder, you'll see that sigtarp, the ig, uh, reviewed the decision making and found that the as and there were hearings on this in the oversight committee, the, that found that, um, there was a, that the delphi retirees were found to have had no political leverage or no leverage.
▶ 2:39:52Sigtarp found that while other workers pensions were topped up, the delphi retirees pensions that had been fully funded prior to the bankruptcy were treated differently because they had no political or bargaining leverage. We highlighted for each of you the the the language that was there. This is the heart of the issue. This was not a private pension plan failing on its own. This was the federal government making decisions that picked winners and losers among workers at the same company.
▶ 2:40:18Never before or since has the government caused the termination of pension benefits for one group of workers, especially when those pensions were more than funded simply because those workers lacked political leverage? This is why it's wrong to call a fix for these retirees a pension bailout. It's not a bailout. It's a remedy. It's this congress correcting a wrong caused by government action. There is no precedent for the government doing this. This is an injustice.
▶ 2:40:45After the pension termination, the delphi retirees pursued every avenue available to them. They went to court but were unsuccessful. Then they turned to the executive branch. In october 2020, president trump issued a presidential memorandum. That's item number two in your binders. In that memorandum, he directed the secretaries of treasury, commerce and labor to examine what actions could be taken to make these retirees whole. In 2022, the executive branch determined that legislative action would be necessary.
▶ 2:41:12That means congress is now the last and only path for restoration. Most recently, this legislation has also earned the support of the white house and was included in the administration's supplemental appropriations request. That's number three in your tabs. With bipartisan support in the house, support from members of this committee and support from president trump. Now is the time to finally right this wrong. This bill is previously passed. This house has been amended to reflect changes to address concerns faced in the senate.
▶ 2:41:41I asked the committee to allow this fix to move forward. I ask you to stand with the workers who kept their promises and deserve to have their promises made to them kept as well. I also ask you to give these retirees the opportunity. Finally, receive the retirement benefits that they earned. These are grandmothers and grandfathers that can't pay their bills. Where government is the fault, not theirs. Um. Many on this committee has have voted for this in the past. Again, president trump campaigned on this three times.
▶ 2:42:09He's asked this committee, he's asked, and he has the full support of the speaker and of the author of this bill, uh, for this to be added into this bill. Uh, president biden also campaigned on this. Uh, I ask you to add this to this bill. Thank you, madam chair, and. >> thank you, Mr. turner. Thank you, Mr. goldman. You're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:42:31Happy birthday, ranking member mcgovern, members of the committee today, I speak in support of my amendment number 1306, which seeks to expand on the successful and bipartisan work of the abraham accords in the fy 24 national defense authorization authorization act, congress took a significant step to establish a special presidential envoy for abraham accords, a senate confirmed ambassador level position focused on expanding and deepening the normalization agreements between israel and the neighboring states.
▶ 2:43:00My straightforward amendment updates the special envoys mandate to include central asia and the south caucasus states, including kazakhstan, armenia, georgia and azerbaijan. My amendment doesn't require any new funding. It explicitly requires the envoy to use existing programs and authorizes already on the books.
▶ 2:43:23This amendment is about directing diplomatic energy, where we are already paying for toward a broader strategic opportunity. I'll also note that this policy has strong bipartisan support. My underlying bill, h.r. 9147, the abraham accords expansion act, is supported by every co-chair of the bipartisan house abraham accords caucus, including representative wagner, um schneider, and wasserman schultz.
▶ 2:43:50The abraham accords are critical to promoting greater peace in the middle east. This amendment gives us the. The tools to extend that vision further, building directly on a foundation congress itself created. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and I yield back. Thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. Mr. goldman. Does any republican wish to ask any member of the panel any question? Miss hatch, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 2:44:18Um, congressman luttrell, I wanted to commend you for your amendments. Um, and ask you a couple of questions about, um, the potential for the therapies to help us transition away from some of the more costly and long term, um, medications that we're currently using for drug addiction in america, most notably methadone treatment.
▶ 2:44:46And how psychedelics, in your experience, might be able to be a shorter term, but longer, longer term, shorter term, uh, solution. But a longer term fix for this issue is question one. And then you mentioned the states are starting to engage in, um, trying to, uh, advance, um, psychedelic brain therapies. Um, but that it is important that there are very restrictive guardrails around this use of therapy.
▶ 2:45:15Um, and so second question is, wouldn't it make more sense from a federal standpoint, from a safety perspective for the patients who are engaging in the therapies for the federal government to play a role in setting these guardrails and, and setting a framework for, to make this accessible versus having a 50, 50 different ways to do it in the states. >> there's no way. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the question. There's always 50 different problems, 50 different solutions.
▶ 2:45:42I think the federal government and the states themselves need to run in parallel with this. I think educated conversations from our brilliant scientists, neuroscientists, clinicians, uh, from the state and the federal level can set those guardrails. The countries outside the continental united states have been doing this for a while. And I think conversations with them here and texas was very open about those conversations. And I, I think that they're in a really good place.
▶ 2:46:12Uh, I, I would, I hate to say that. Can we get there? I hope so, you know, this place is this place and the states of the states as far as results when it comes to highly addictive drugs. Um, I'll speak specifically on heroin. Um, there's now longitudinal studies that say treatments with ibogaine. Uh, those that are addicted to heroin.
▶ 2:46:35Um, it is an 85% success rate with the first dose of medication and then over a 90% success rate if there's a second dose given, which sometimes is not needed. And that is a single dose. This isn't a methadone prescription. Uh, and the, the institutes of higher learning and education and the scientists abroad are, are taking a very hard look at at that.
▶ 2:47:02And I hope that one day, if we can align ourselves and all the other government institutions and states aside to see what this is doing and pay attention to it, that we will, we'll absolutely get to where we need to go. Thank you for the question. >> yeah, I really commend you for the work that you're doing on it. And, you know, talking about your own experience and that of your family in, in successfully, um, undergoing the treatment.
▶ 2:47:28Um, I also would love to see us move away from and really actually help people get their lives back, uh, than to just put them on another medication that they have to take long term. So thank you for your work on this and, um, I'll be supporting your amendments. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you. >> Mr. mcgovern. >> thank you for being here, and I hope your members have made an order I yield back. >> thank you. Anyone? Mr. langworthy. >> I just want to salute Mr.
▶ 2:47:55Turner for bringing forward the cause of the delphi salaried employees that were so terribly treated, uh, in the restructuring of general motors. I mean, many live in my district, and, um, this has been a, uh, sadly, almost a decades long fight now. Uh, so thank you for continuing to work for them. >> thank you so much, if I may, the so this comes to you with the president's support to be in this bill.
▶ 2:48:21Um, the, um, the president's legislative team has been working with this committee. Uh, the speaker supports it being in this bill, as does the chairman of the armed services committee. Um, and in the past you have voted for it. Thank you for your support. Austin scott is has voted for it and is of course, uh, a sponsor of the amendment. Um, the ranking member has voted for it. Leger fernandez has voted for it. Um, this is, um, this is one of those issues where there is no precedent.
▶ 2:48:50Uh, the, uh, there has never been a situation where a, a decision in the white house has solely singled out a group of workers in a, a company and had their, their pensions terminated and taken away, uh, their pensions. Thank you. >> thank you, Mr. turner. Thank you, Mr. langworthy. Miss scanlon, no questions. Mr. scott. >> no, I, uh, thank you all for coming. Mr.
▶ 2:49:19Turner and I have worked together on this issue. There was a battery plant in fitzgerald, georgia, where the salaried employees lost their pension. Um, and I'm certainly supportive of the amendment. And, Mr. luttrell, uh, I hope this isn't your last meeting before the rules committee, but I hope it is successful.
▶ 2:49:35Um, either way, um, I know a couple of people who have actually left the country to go seek, um, treatment if that's the right word for it and have been, uh, very well served by, um, by that. And with that, I yield. >> thank you, Mr. scott. Miss leger fernandez. No questions. Mr. thank you. Mr.
▶ 2:50:04Oops, sorry, Mr. griffith. No. Mr. jack. >> I just want to commend my freshman colleagues, craig goldman addison mcdowell for your testimony today. Look forward to supporting your back. >> um, Mr. turner, are you aware that your amendment has a point of order against it in the rules committee does not waive points of order on amendments? >> yes.
▶ 2:50:34We're looking forward to you considering waiving the point of order with the support of the speaker and being waived and the president having supported it being on this, you have, uh, both. >> that's the that that's. >> if I. >> may, you ask me the question. >> if you have the you have the author of the bill in front of you, you have the speaker who appoints this committee, and you have the president who'll be signing the bill, all asking for it to be in this bill. >> anyone else have a comment?
▶ 2:51:04The committee stands in recess until immediately following call for the last vote. Thank you all.
▶ 3:19:58Reconvene. Thank you all very much for being so patient. So, Mr. whitesides, Mr. carter, Mr. underwood, Mr. burleson, and Mr. mast and Mr. mast told me, unfortunately, he could not come back because he's on the floor. Warren. Mr.
▶ 3:20:14Davidson, join us, please. So I think you all know the drill.
▶ 3:20:36Your full statements will be put into the record, but we ask you to keep your verbal comments to five minutes. I will call you out in order that I called your name before. Um, and the committee looks forward to your comments, Mr. whitesides. >> thank you, madam chair. And happy birthday.
▶ 3:21:01I'm here to today to talk about my bipartisan amendment that supports dod efforts to protect our military installations by tracking changes and conditions of natural resources that may threaten the infrastructure of bases across the country. We saw this at the marine corps base, camp pendleton in southern california, when three wildfires burned.
▶ 3:21:23Over 15% of the base posed a risk to service members and disrupted marines ability to operate and train wildfires like the one at pendleton and vandenberg are a year round national crisis and a threat to military installations everywhere, including in and around my district. If we can use existing technology to collect better data and identify trends, we can protect more installations from natural disasters like wildfires. My amendment does not propose a new program.
▶ 3:21:50The department is already doing this work through its natural resources program. That program is actively working to preserve military readiness by improving ecological conditions, and I applaud these efforts. My amendment encourages the department to enhance this work by simply standardizing their metrics and promoting the use of cutting edge technologies, which would allow us to work alongside interagency partners and appropriate state agencies to get better, regular and consistent data on military installations.
▶ 3:22:18That information would then be used to identify and address risks that will benefit military installations across the country. Importantly, this data will also allow the department to demonstrate when conditions on an installation are moving in the right direction, which will allow us to then reward that performance with less paperwork, faster approvals, and more efficient reviews. I urge this committee to support this amendment and include it in the ndaa. Thank you, and I yield back. >> thank you very much, Mr. whitesides. I said, Mr.
▶ 3:22:45Carter, but he's not here, miss underwood. >> thank you, madam chair and ranking member mcgovern. I'm grateful for this opportunity to talk about my bipartisan amendment, which is co-led by congressman fitzpatrick. The text of our amendment is identical to the nih improve act, which recently passed the energy and commerce committee unanimously.
▶ 3:23:07The united states has the highest pregnancy related death rate of any high income country, and black women are dying at the highest rate of all, and the crisis is only getting worse. Over the past two decades, maternal mortality rates have doubled, more than doubled, and disparities have worsened. What's both frustrating and promising is that over 80% of these deaths are preventable. That's why I have long advocated for and for focused and robust funding for maternal health research.
▶ 3:23:33This has led to the creation of the implementing a maternal health and pregnancy outcomes vision for everyone or improve initiative at nih since 2019. Congress has increased funding for improved nine fold. Improve has so far invested more than $200 million in life saving research that will help end our nation's maternal health crisis. Right now, this critical research program lacks a sustained funding source which threatens its mission to save lives.
▶ 3:23:59My bipartisan amendment, the nih improve act, would authorize consistent funding for this existing program for the next six years, providing nih with the support and resources it needs to understand and address the root causes of america's maternal mortality crisis. Friends, we have an opportunity today to actually solve a problem. We have a chance to prevent maternal deaths and improve health outcomes for women before, during, and after pregnancy. This legislation is common sense. It's bipartisan. It's part of the momnibus. And most importantly, it would save lives.
▶ 3:24:29If we want to make real strides to end our nation's devastating maternal mortality crisis, we need to pass it now. Thank you again for the opportunity to work together on this urgent issue. American moms need our help. Let's get this done. I yield back. >> thank you, miss underwood. Mr. garamendi, I think we can include you in this panel. If you would like to come up. Oh, Mr. burleson, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. And happy birthday.
▶ 3:25:00>> thank you very much. >> um, I'm here to present to this committee for your consideration a bill that is extremely bipartisan. Um, that is amendment amendment 1044. >> is your mic on? >> it is. Okay. I'll try to speak more directly into amendment 1044. The american people deserve nothing less than full transparency on unidentified anomalous phenomena.
▶ 3:25:25Through a president trump's leadership and initiatives such as the presidential unsealing and reporting system for uap encounters otherwise called pursue, the president has signaled the era of secrecy must end. What was once dismissed is now the subject of serious congressional and executive attention.
▶ 3:25:42This amendment before us, the unidentified anomalous phenomenon disclosure act, is a comprehensive bill that's in the style of the bill that congress passed the jfk records release act. It is built upon that framework that will finally bring accountability. Members of this committee, the uap information belongs to the american people, and transparency is a simple step towards restoring public trust.
▶ 3:26:08For too long, records concerning uap have been scattered across agencies, shielded by contractors or lost to time. The president has changed this. He has championed historic progress toward genuine disclosure, declassification, and transparency. Congress needs to support those measures now, and my amendment does so by strengthening the national collections at the national archives. For one simple reason we will make the records open source and available for public inspection. This is not optional.
▶ 3:26:36This is a direct commitment to ending fragmented control and giving the american people one clear, trustworthy repository. The amendment before us creates mandatory timelines. Every federal office must identify, organize, and transmit its uap records within 300 days. No records may be destroyed or altered. Previous disclosure disclosed records cannot be reclassified or redacted. This is the kind of decisive action that the american people have demanded, concrete steps that close loopholes and move us from rhetoric to results.
▶ 3:27:06The amendment before us embodies the principle that has been established by this president. It requires agencies to conduct thorough reviews, create identification aids, and transmit records with clear documentation of any postponement from our investigation that we have already conducted. We have found that meaningful transparency requires us to look beyond our traditional government channels.
▶ 3:27:31Significant uap related information resides with private contractors, specifically, the federally funded research and development centers. And this disclosure act explicitly includes contractor held materials and closes the oversight gaps that have frustrated many previous efforts. It. This amendment creates strong safeguards as well.
▶ 3:27:51It establishes an independent uap records review board, a nine member body appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate with full subpoena power and access to all records and facilities and the authority to conduct hearings. Um, again, the american people deserve the truth. And with this amendment, we can deliver it. And I urge your support for this amendment. Thank you, madam chair, and I welcome your questions. >> thank you, Mr. burleson. Mr. davidson, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman and members of the rules committee.
▶ 3:28:22Uh, and happy birthday, chairwoman. Um, I appreciate the chance to emphasize one amendment I'm offering in particular. Uh, it's it's an amendment one, two, two, three. It is also known as h.r. 425, which is titled the repealing big brother overreach act. It repeals the corporate transparency act, which was enacted in the fy 2021ndaa in order to combat illicit finance. But it was written too broadly.
▶ 3:28:51It requires millions of americans to small business owners to report the beneficial ownership of their their companies. And it's sweeping. So this this congress, as chairman of the subcommittee for national security and illicit finance, we've had extensive hearings on this. The courts have already issued injunctions, pausing it because just today, the supreme court held that a geo fencing, uh, location for your, uh, geo location data from your phone was too broad. And so they said you have to get a warrant.
▶ 3:29:21This is far broader. The presumption is if you own a business, you must be engaged in illicit finance. So it's had problems in the court. And for that reason, the trump administration halted the application of the previous administration's rule. And they said, we're going to more narrowly apply it to foreign ownership interests. And that's what this does. The trump administration, um, codifies that policy so that fincen fincen can focus on genuine national security concerns.
▶ 3:29:51This was brought into this world through the ndaa, and it's fitting that we bring it out through the ndaa this bill has, uh, 40, uh, 40 co-sponsors on the amendment and 193 co-sponsors on the act massively, uh, supported this reform, including from the trump administration. So along with all the amendments I've offered, I would I would plead with the rules committee to give us a vote on this amendment, and I yield. >> thank you, Mr. davidson. Mr.
▶ 3:30:21Garamendi, you're recognized. >> I need a lot of help. Uh. Happy birthday. I've got a a. Cuddle up to the. Let's see if I can get this straight. There are several issues that are going to be in the ndaa that are out there.
▶ 3:30:48First of all, the ships act, which I'm sure Mr. trent kelly has brought to your attention. Uh, it is a significant national security issue to be able to, uh, put that into the national defense authorization act would very significantly strengthen the various elements that are already in it. Uh, beyond that, um, I want to speak to you about a couple of other things.
▶ 3:31:15The, uh, titus has an amendment 40, and that's for nuclear testing. Uh, there's been increasing discussion that we really need to, uh, light up some nukes and let them explode so that we understand all of the ins and outs of it not necessary. And really a very, very bad, uh, thing for us to do. Therefore, the titus amendment 40.
▶ 3:31:37Um, and I would also bring to your attention deluise's amendment 634 uh, he and I dealing with stock buybacks, uh, this lines up with president trump's executive order about the defense industry spending a good deal of its money buying back stocks rather than investing in, uh, plant equipment and personnel.
▶ 3:32:00Uh, also, uh, in the ndaa, there's the one of my amendments, nine, seven, five dealing with the nuclear national nuclear security agencies and the cost overruns. Uh, this moves it closer to the. Method that we presently have within the defense industry.
▶ 3:32:24When their cost overruns, it sets up a special system to review why that's happening. Uh, this would go almost as far, but not quite as far as that system. And finally, amendment 1351, which would prohibit the ndaa funds to reconstruct or to use in any way the demolition and the eventual, uh, ballroom on the east wing of the white
▶ 3:32:54House. There's some talk that the president's looking for ways to pay for it. We think that the use of military funding for that is inappropriate. So those are the amendments I wanted to bring to your attention. Uh, the nnsa cost overruns, the ndaa prohibition on funds for the east wing, uh, ballroom, the ships act, uh, and the nuclear testing. And finally, uh, defense contractor stock buybacks.
▶ 3:33:21I find myself in alignment with trump, which is an uncomfortable position, but it is the right position. So with that, thank you for your time. >> thank you very much. Does anyone on our side have any questions? Mr. norman? >> uh, Mr. davidson, on identifying the ownership of companies, foreign companies. Is this what your bill does, what your amendment does? Well.
▶ 3:33:51>> that's what the president's executive order does. And so the corporate transparency act, we had a case where someone said, I'm the president of a homeowners association. They're telling me, I gotta fill out this form and comply with this reporting rule, uh, which is overly broad. And so this eliminates the overly broad application of the corporate transparency act from the biden administration. So then what would remain is the president's executive order. >> okay. Now, once it. What are the consequences as.
▶ 3:34:21Let me give you an example of tick tock. That was the. That was the hot rage a while back. Had foreign ownership. Some. Magically it disappeared. Uh, they were supposed to sell it, get a new board of directors, no consequences once in your amendment and I, I get this an executive order. What happens when you identify foreign actors? Is it like tick tock? It just goes away?
▶ 3:34:48>> no, this is, uh, this goes back to, um, years ago, the fincen financial crimes enforcement network came out with a customer due diligence rule. You know, banks basically spy on their customers and for that, they get to be banks. If they don't, they don't get a stay banks. Right. And so one of the things that they have is know your customer rules.
▶ 3:35:08And there were, uh, directed by fincen in a rulemaking process to be able to disclose to the government upon request without a warrant, who are the beneficial owners of this corporation. So if acme corporation, uh, is there, they said, well, you gotta, you gotta disclose, uh, who would be the beneficial owners? They had drafted that rule in such a broad way that it said not even a defined percentage of the company.
▶ 3:35:36It was anyone who's exerts significant influence over the company. I'm like, so, you know, if, if, uh, an author of a book was guiding the business model and the people that run the business never met him, is he a beneficial owner under that? That's how ridiculous it was. Well, democrats had a long standing, uh, kind of coalition around disclosing the beneficial owners, regardless of privacy concerns.
▶ 3:36:05And so they passed this bill and the that would make every business disclose it. Well, the chamber of commerce didn't like that. And the banks wanted the monkey off their back. So they said, well, if the business has 20 or fewer employees, well, then we'll assume that those are the kind of shell companies that launder money. >> yeah. That whole bill was. >> so this is what the this is what this is. It's just that it's like if, if if you look who's the beneficial owner of ibm, they're publicly traded.
▶ 3:36:35You would know if you want to look at who's the beneficial owner of, you know, a privately held business, um, it's harder to know, but not impossible. You get a warrant. Um, they want to be able to do it without getting a warrant. And that's problematic for the courts, but they don't even want to do it to all businesses. They just want to do it if you're small. And and that's where the national federation of independent businesses have pushed this to say, look, you're really targeting our members, the smallest, least sophisticated businesses.
▶ 3:37:04You're talking like plumbers, painters, hvac companies. Yeah, that's who they're targeting with this. >> yeah, that was off the charts. You couldn't you couldn't pay the accounting bill to get the material to do that. Uh, so bottom line is yours as far as the consequences. >> it gets rid of that burden. And right now, if they don't comply, you could go to jail, uh, and, and be fined up to $10,000 for not filling out this form with fincen, which is an agency most people don't even know exists. Yeah.
▶ 3:37:36>> okay. >> and there's other lower burdens to be able to comply with the government's interest in knowing who the beneficial ownership of companies are and all those things have been proposed. And so this just gets back to what started out as, uh, as an executive agency rulemaking to where the president, uh, his executive order would be the effective order and we'd nullify, uh, this, this burdensome approach. >> okay, I yield back no further. >> thank you, Mr. norman. Mr.
▶ 3:38:07Mcgovern. >> thank you for your thoughtful amendments. I hope they made an order. And, madam chair, I want to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record written testimony from representative kaptur in support of amendment 1065 to hr 8800. And I also want to ask unanimous consent to insert the record written testimony from representative cohen in support of amendments 4992312hr8800.
▶ 3:38:31>> without objection, and I will ask unanimous consent to submit written statements from representative beyer, representative weber, representative hill, representative king, representative. Kline's. Representative. Mast, Mr. scanlon. >> I just want to thank everyone for their testimony. In particular, representative underwood, who has been such a champion on the issue of maternal mortality and doing what we need to do to get the us rate of maternal mortality down.
▶ 3:39:00It's an absolute crime that it's 3 to 4 times the rest of as greater than the rest of the developed world. So we really appreciate your continued work. Thank you, I yield back. >> just a second, Mr. griffith, do you have any questions? Any questions? Mr. garamendi. >> a question, if I might. Mr.
▶ 3:39:22Perry introduced an amendment dealing with the appropriation for the state department, and among those he eliminated the soft power, uh, organizations like the peace corps, millennium challenge and so forth. It's not clear if that amendment passed this committee, if it's on the floor, where it is, if it is still before the this committee, I would be happy to speak to it. If it is not, then we'll let it go. >> thank you.
▶ 3:39:52Um, anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none. This closes the hearing portion of our meeting. And you all are allowed to leave.
▶ 3:40:28Oh, sorry, buddy, we just closed. If if you'll give me your statement, I'll put it in the record. Okay. >> I'll give it to you. >> without objection. Um, I'd like to enter the comments from Mr. carter into the record. About three minutes.
▶ 3:40:57Two minutes. >> thank you. Miss a great. >> without objection, the committee stands in recess.
▶ 5:16:03I'm chair. I move the committee. Grant h.r. 8800, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2027, a structured rule. The waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees. The rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of substitute recommended by the committee on armed services not present in the bill. An amendment in the nature of substitute consisting of the text of rules committee. Print 119-33 shall be considered as adopted in.
▶ 5:16:31The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions of the bill as amendment as amended. The rule makes an order only those amendments, printed in part a of the rules committee report amendments in block described in section three in pro forma amendments described in section four, each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report may be offered only by a member designated in the report shall be considered as read. Shall be debatable for the time specified in the report.
▶ 5:16:56Equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in part a of the rules committee report or amendments in block described in section three of the rule. Rule provides that the chair of the committee on armed services or his designee may offer amendments in block consisting of further amendments printed in part a of the rule committee report not earlier disposed of.
▶ 5:17:26Amendments in block shall be considered as read. Shall be debatable for 40 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section four of the rule, shall not be subject to a demand for division of. The question rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services or their respective designees, may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. The rule provides one motion to recommit the rule. Rule further provides for consideration of h.r.
▶ 5:17:568595 national security department of state and related programs appropriations act, 2027. Under a structured rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. Rule provides that the bill shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause two or clause five a of rule 21.
▶ 5:18:22The rule makes an order only those amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report amendments in block described in section eight and pro forma amendments described in section nine. Each amendment shall be considered only in the order printed in the report may be offered only by a member designated in the report. Shall be considered as read. Shall be debatable for the time specified in the report. Equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section nine of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
▶ 5:18:52The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in part b of the rules committee report or amendments in block described in section eight of the rule. Rule provides that the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee may offer amendments in block consisting of amendments printed in part b of the rules committee report not earlier disposed of. Amendments in block shall be considered as read.
▶ 5:19:10Shall be debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by section nine of the rule, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of. The question rule provides that the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to ten pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate. Rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 8884.
▶ 5:19:40The removing barriers to work for disabled americans act under a closed rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. Rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on ways and means now printed in the bill. An amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of rules committee print 119-34 shall be considered as adopted in. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.
▶ 5:20:07The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or other respective designees. Rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h. Res. H. Res. 1383. Commemorating the one year anniversary of the enactment of the working families tax cuts under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, it shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order to consider h. Res. 1383.
▶ 5:20:33The rule provides that the amendment that the preamble printed in part c of the rules committee report shall be considered as adopted and h.r. As 1383, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their respective designees. Rule further provides that h. Res. 1377 shall be laid on the table. Finally, the rule provides that in the engrossment of h.r.
▶ 5:20:588800, the clerk shall add the text of s 1383 as passed by the house as new matter at the end of h.r. 8800. Assign appropriate designations to provisions within the engrossment conform cross references and provisions for short titles within the engrossment and be authorized to make technical corrections to include corrections and spelling, punctuation page and line numbering section numbering and insertion of appropriate headings.
▶ 5:21:30>> you've heard the um, recommendation from the gentleman from georgia. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. uh, scott, is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? >> yeah. Yes, ma'am. >> Mr. mcgovern. >> first of all, I just want to set the record straight about this rule. Um, in this rule, house republicans blocked over 1000 amendments submitted to the rules committee. This rule blocks over three quarters of amendments.
▶ 5:21:58Over 90% of democratic amendments were blocked. More than 8 in 10 bipartisan amendments were blocked. Even members of the majority have a bad deal here. Nearly 60% of republican amendments are being blocked. So that's what that's what this rule is about. But I do have an amendment, madam chair, I, I move that the committee strike section 14 of the rule, which provides that in the engrossment of h.r.
▶ 5:22:258800, the clerk shall add the text of the save america act as passed by the house. Madam chair, it looks like the reason we had a recess and come back. Here is this section which connects the save act to the nda before sending it to the senate. Let's be clear. Let's be honest here. Um, I think that the save act is an awful, awful, terrible bill. It's not about election security.
▶ 5:22:52It's about relitigating donald trump's loss in 2020. His feelings were hurt, so he had a meltdown. You guys keep saying we need this bill because our elections are not secure. Trump says the 2020 election was rigged. Many of you in this room, when your elections in 2020, you were elected in that election, was your election rigged? Um, you know, uh, I mean, the save act is just insane and you know it enough already. I mean, trump won in 2024.
▶ 5:23:22Was that election rigged? I mean, I couldn't believe that people voted for him. So maybe it was rigged under under his under his mindset. I also want to speak directly to congresswoman luna and anyone who thinks that this scheme has accomplished anything. It has not. It's just been a big waste of time. So let me be clear. The senate will just strip the save act out.
▶ 5:23:47They've already said that merging it with the ndaa bill doesn't prevent that. Nothing in this rule will prevent that. Hell, leader thune four days ago already filed cloture on the senate's own version of the ndaa, and their version does not include the save act. There is a 0% chance save ends up in the nda because of this rule today. You know. So this is a a cover your behind maneuver, if you will.
▶ 5:24:15And to my republican colleagues who want this nda to advance, you should also reject this rule because all you're doing by supporting this shell game is giving false hope to those like representative luna, who think that this will do something down the line. It will not make a difference at all. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Um, is there any further discussion on the amendment from Mr. mcgovern? Hearing none.
▶ 5:24:45The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it the amendment. >> roll call. >> madam chair, the Mr. mcgovern request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. mcgovern, Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr.
▶ 5:25:15Mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. neguse, Mr. neguse, I miss leger. Fernandez. Mr. leger. Fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> four days. Seven days. >> the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion? >> madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order.
▶ 5:25:38An amendment to hr 8800, consisting of the text of chairwoman fox's amendment 512 to the fy 2023ndaa as adopted on the floor with appropriate conforming changes to create an inspector general for the office of management and budget to bring transparency and accountability to the agency.
▶ 5:25:57Last week, I asked my republican colleagues what they would do to stop the trump administration and his office of management and budget from illegally transferring taxpayer funds that congress appropriated for the secret service into a separate account in order to make security upgrades. As part of the ballroom construction project. Republicans could not give me an answer. Well, I have an idea, and I would expect that my republican colleagues should support would support this idea.
▶ 5:26:25Um, in 2022, chairman chairman fox submitted an amendment to the ndaa to create an inspector general at the office of management and budget. Her amendment was made in order and subsequently passed on the house floor with both myself and chairwoman fox voting for it. Um. Unfortunately, her thoughtful proposal never became law. But let's not give up hope. Uh, on her birthday, let's give let's let's help her, you know, let's give her a gift.
▶ 5:26:53And I believe that a strong majority in the house would support this amendment. Um, it was a good idea then. It's a good idea now. And I urge a yes vote on my motion to ensure that chairwoman fox's proposal gets an up or down vote on the floor, and I yield back. >> the amendment proposed is completely outside the jurisdiction of the house armed services committee and lacks an appropriate nexus to the department of war.
▶ 5:27:15This amendment process is consensus consistent with those of the last three defense authorizations. Any amendment made in order should be tightly wound to our national security and the appropriate jurisdiction in the house. Clever try. >> well, but didn't you offer it to the ndaa in the past? And it was made in order. >> not under democrat control. >> well, I mean, I, you. >> know. >> look at how nice we are. Uh, I think it's a good idea.
▶ 5:27:44Let's I. >> nice try. >> mcgovern I I, I heard you. Yes. >> is there a further discussion on the amendment. All those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair noes have it. >> I ask for a roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. Vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs.
▶ 5:28:14Fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. houchin, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. >> aye. >> Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, I miss scanlon, I Mr. joe neguse, Mr. joe neguse. I miss leger fernandez, miss leger fernandez I madam chair. No, madam chair, no. >> clerk will report the total. >> 47 ayes. >> and noes have it.
▶ 5:28:44The amendment is not agreed to. >> I have another amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Add a new section of the rule providing immediate consideration of h.r. 7120. The bipartisan purple heart uh freedom to work act, introduced by representative scott and panetta under a closed rule debatable for one hour. Equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means.
▶ 5:29:07This bill would modify certain rules under the social security disability insurance program to help combat disabled purple heart veterans who want to return to work. My republican colleagues have pointed to the purple heart freedom to work act as an example of what could be tested if we reauthorize the social security disability insurance demonstration authority.
▶ 5:29:28But if both democrats and republicans support this specific proposal to help purple heart veterans, um, why aren't my republican colleagues putting it in their bill or putting it on the floor for a vote? Um, and I urge a yes vote on this motion to ensure that rep scott's proposal to help veterans in ssdi get the up or down vote it deserves. I appreciate his leadership and I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? >> yes, madam.
▶ 5:29:56Madam chair, I appreciate I appreciate the new found support of the purple heart freedom to work act. Uh, now that we have language that would that would actually accomplish this, that is a little different from the language that's written in my language that, that, uh, I'm happy to have you co-sponsored and perhaps we can pass it too. But this, this language is what we were able to get through the ways and means committee.
▶ 5:30:18And as I said before, when the democrats were in charge of the ways and means committee, I was unable to move the legislation when the republicans have been in charge, uh, I was able to move some legislation and and I feel very good about the language that we have today. But, uh, I'm happy to come back again with the purple heart freedom to work act. As I said, it's been a passion of mine for many, many years. And, uh, I'm, I'm glad that we're having the discussion about it and hope, hope maybe, maybe it can move through ways and means as well.
▶ 5:30:50>> well, I'm happy to work with it, but there's nothing in the bill, uh, that mentions purple heart, uh, veterans that, that. And again, we're not ways and means we're the rules committee. That's right. We can amend things and add things. And, and I think this would be a nice thing to add. And, um, you know, I'm, I'm trying to have your back. I'm trying to have. Well, chair fox is back. I'm trying to have your back too. And yeah, I. >> mean, with a knife or an ax or what? I mean. >> friendly support. How do you want it?
▶ 5:31:17>> I mean, I know you don't like guns, jim, so I'm assuming it's an. >> that's probably correct. >> but it's a look, I mean, what, what what I would ask that you do is, is that you support you, you know, when, when I, I, if you support 8884 when it comes across, help me get the dems in the senate to support it and we'll get purple heart freedom to work.
▶ 5:31:38Uh, you know, the, the concept of it signed signed by the president, uh, purple heart days, august 7th or eighth seventh, I believe. That'd be a wonderful day for the president. Sign it. Hopefully you can join us at the white house with president trump. You're president of the united states. >> if you vote with me, I will cosponsor your bill. I already. >> you're already agreed to co-sponsor my bill. But, um, I'm look, I appreciate your support for my legislation.
▶ 5:32:06Uh, I do you know, this 88, 84 is going to accomplish what what we're trying to accomplish with the purple heart freedom to work act. And with that, madam chair, I yield. >> can we agree on that? But I agree, yes. >> is there further discussion on the amendment for Mr. mcgovern? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos.
▶ 5:32:36Have it. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. joe neguse, Mr. joe neguse. I miss leger fernandez, miss leger fernandez I madam chair. >> no. >> madam chair, no.
▶ 5:33:05>> the clerk will report the total. >> 47 ayes. >> the nos. Have it. The amendments not agreed to are further discussion on the motion from the gentleman from georgia. >> uh, I have another amendment. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um, uh, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, make an order. Amendment number 1351 to h.r. 8800, offered by representative garamendi, which prohibits the use of funds for the east wing modernization project.
▶ 5:33:35Madam chair, for months, the president swore his grand ballroom was going to be built with only private money, no taxpayer dollars. Well, then he tried to sneak a $1 billion into the most recent reconciliation bill. Reports are that he's still trying to use taxpayer dollars for his gaudy ballroom vanity project, all while americans struggle to afford gas and groceries. The congress has the power of the purse. We decide how taxpayer money is spent.
▶ 5:34:01We should vote to ensure that taxpayer money does not go to this project, and the president funds it with private money, like he said he would do so from the very beginning. I urge a yes vote and I yield back. >> thank you. Mr. mcgovern. Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. mcgovern? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no, no, no. Any opinion chair? The nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr.
▶ 5:34:31Mcgovern, request a roll call. Vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> michelle fischbach Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. hodge. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, I miss scanlon, I Mr. Mr. I Mr. leger. Fernandez. Miss. Leger. Fernandez I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no.
▶ 5:35:01>> clerk. Report the total. >> 47 days. >> the amendment is not the nos. Have it. The amendment is not agreed to. >> madam chair. >> Mr. mcgovern. >> an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 961 to hr 8800, offered by myself, which restricts certain security assistance to pakistan. Unless the secretary of state, in consultation with the secretary of defense, certifies that the government of pakistan has taken measures to prevent human rights violations.
▶ 5:35:27Madam chair, in pakistan, the military has always loomed over the shoulder of civilian institutions. As the trump administration pursues closer ties to pakistan, the pakistani government and its military leadership, we cannot ignore continuing concerns about human rights violations, not least because U.S. funds can be used to train pakistani military officers. Last week, a court sentenced doctor moran baloch to life imprisonment.
▶ 5:35:53Doctor bela is a 33 year old physician and the leader of a peaceful civil rights movement, demanding an end to enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Her trial was held inside a prison. Her lawyers didn't know who the judge was, who, who, who the witnesses were, or where the proceedings were taking place. This is not an isolated case.
▶ 5:36:16In january of this year, human rights lawyer aiman mazari and her husband, hadi ali chatah, were violently dragged from their car by police and sentenced to 17 years in prison for tweets criticizing the military's role in enforced disappearances. And behind these names are thousands more baloch activists, opposition party workers, journalists, lawyers. The former prime minister of pakistan, imran khan, and his wife, uh, bushra bibi, all rotting in pakistani jails without any due process.
▶ 5:36:47U.S. assistance should not be given unconditionally. We uphold american values and credibility when we insist that security cooperation aligns with the rights for fundamental freedoms and human rights. Amendment amendment 691 would require the secretary of state, in coordination with the secretary of defense, to certify that pakistan is actively taking steps to prevent human rights abuses before its military may receive U.S. security assistance.
▶ 5:37:16Accountability strengthens, not undermines our partnerships. And again, I, I don't understand why we can't even have a vote on this, but I urge a yes vote and I yield back my time. >> is is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. mcgovern? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr.
▶ 5:37:45Mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. I miss leger fernandez. Miss. Leger. Fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair. No.
▶ 5:38:14>> the clerk will report the total. >> four yeas, seven days. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion? >> madam chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 511 to hr 8800, offered by representative moulton, which reduces the total amount authorized to be to be appropriated for the fy 27ndaa by $150 billion. No reductions may be made to military personnel, accounts, milk con or the defense health program.
▶ 5:38:41Madam chair, the department of defense needs to become more innovative and efficient in terms of developing capabilities to meet our national security needs in a more cost effective manner. Um, that's what this amendment is about. I urge a yes vote. I yield back. >> um, is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I all those opposed say no. No.
▶ 5:39:11In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern. I miss scanlon, I miss scanlon, I Mr. neguse, Mr. negus, I miss ledger fernandez, miss ledger fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no.
▶ 5:39:44>> clerk of court. The total. >> four days, seven ayes. >> uh, the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion? >> madam chair? I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment number 1006 to hr 8800, offered by representative ryan, which prohibits the use of fy 2027 dod funds for military action in or against iran unless explicitly authorized by congress. Madam chair, both chambers of congress have now voted to end president trump's illegal war in iran.
▶ 5:40:13It's cost billions of dollars and 13 american lives. Another dollar should not go to this illegal war unless and until it is explicitly authorized by congress. We ought to bring this to the floor and debate it. And I urge a yes vote. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? By the by, Mr. mcgovern, hearing none. The questions on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed.
▶ 5:40:44>> to ask for roll call. >> Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman, Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I. Mr. Mr. negus, I miss ledger fernandez. Mr. ledger fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. >> clerk. Report the total.
▶ 5:41:14>> four a seven a's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion? >> madam chair, I know that there's a few other amendments here, but I just have one final one that I want to offer, and that's an amendment to the rule. I move the committee, make an order, amendment number nine, seven four to hr eight, 800, offered by myself, which prohibits the use of the of department of defense funds to transport individuals to countries in which they would be at risk of being subjected to torture.
▶ 5:41:43Madam chair, in february of 2025, secretary of state rubio condemned thailand's forced return of at least 40 uyghurs to china, where they could face persecution, forced labor and torture and death. And he was right to do so.
▶ 5:41:57Secretary rubio cited thailand's obligations under the un convention against torture, which prohibits the deportation or extradition of a person to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
▶ 5:42:13The united states is also a party to the torture convention, which, along with section 241 of the immigration and nationality act, prohibits the us from deporting people to a country where they might be tortured. We have we have deported individuals to china, russia, iran and other places with a record of torture. It's shameful. It is illegal under our law. My amendment is simple. It simply reaffirms this law of the land.
▶ 5:42:41Let us not be like china. Let us be better than china. Let us abide by the law. Let us not abet torture. I urge a yes vote and I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair of the nos. Have it the amendment is not agreed to. >> ask for roll call. >> the clerk will call the roll.
▶ 5:43:12>> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy. Missus. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffith. No. Mr. griffith. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Aye. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. negus. Mr. I miss ledger fernandez, Mr. ledger fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. >> clerk will report the total. >> 47 ayes. >> and the amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion or amendments, miss scanlon? >> yes. Thank you.
▶ 5:43:42I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee. Make an order. Amendment 1196 to h.r. 8800, offered by representative brownlee, which ensures access to abortion care, abortion counseling and related services and medication for veterans. Our veterans rely on the va for the health care they earn through their service to our country. But the trump administration has reversed long standing policy and eliminated access to abortion care, counseling and related medications through the va.
▶ 5:44:11Even in cases of rape or incest, women are the fastest growing population of veterans, and hundreds of thousands of women rely on the va for their health care. Veterans answered our nation's call to service. They shouldn't have to fight their own government for access to medically necessary legal care when they return home.
▶ 5:44:29This amendment would restore access to abortion services, abortion counseling and related medications through the va, ensuring that veterans can receive the comprehensive, medically appropriate care they've earned free from partizan political interference. Our obligation to veterans does not end when they complete their service. I urge a yes vote on this amendment and I yield back. >> is there further discussion on the amendment from miss scanlon?
▶ 5:44:59Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion chair, madam chair, have it. Mr. chandler, request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, Mr. norman, Mr. norman, Mr. roy, Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr.
▶ 5:45:30Jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern, I miss scanlon, I miss scanlon, I Mr. negus. Mr. news. I miss ledger. Fernandez. Ledger. Fernandez, I madam chair. No. Madam chair, no. >> clerk. Report the. Pardon me. Clerk. Report the total. >> for eight nays. >> and the amendment is not agreed to. The nos. Have it. Uh, further discussion, miss scanlon? >> yes. Thank you, madam chair. I have another amendment to the rule involving veteran benefits.
▶ 5:46:00I move the committee making order amendment number 947 to hr 8800, offered by representative bilirakis, which would add the major richard star act to the bill. As we know from last week's debate, uh, this bill is a priority for our veterans groups, and it has 330, uh, co-sponsors. So it should be an easy passage here.
▶ 5:46:25This bill would allow combat injured veterans with fewer than 20 years of service to receive their full dod retirement and disability disability pay, so that combat injured veterans are not penalized for being seriously injured while in combat. So I think this is something we owe to our veterans. It's it's very popular with the veteran community. And I would urge a yes vote. I yield back. >> thank you, miss scanlon. This amendment.
▶ 5:46:52The amendment proposed by this motion retains a point of order against it. As a minority is aware, this committee has not made an order. Amendments that are exposed to a point of order. This has been true under both democrat and republican majorities. >> understood. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The question is on the amendment.
▶ 5:47:21All those in favor signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair of the nose, have it the scanlon request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No. Mr. norman. Mr. norman. No. Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. h.r. No. Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy. No. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. griffin. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. I miss. Scanlon, miss scanlon, I Mr. joe neguse. Mr.
▶ 5:47:50I miss leger fernandez. Miss. Leger. Fernandez. I madam chair. No. Madam chair. No. >> clerk will report the total. >> four yeas, eight nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Further discussion. Okay. Hearing. No further discussion. The question is on the motion from the gentleman from georgia. All those in favor signify by saying I, I.
▶ 5:48:20Those opposed say no, no. In the opinion chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. >> for roll call, madam chair. >> certainly. Clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Yes, Mrs. fischbach, I Mr. norman, Mr. norman, I Mr. roy, Mrs. horton, Mrs. houchin I, Mr. langworthy, Mr. langworthy, I Mr. scott, Mr. scott I Mr. griffith. Mr. griffith I. Mr. jack, Mr. jack I Mr. mcgovern. >> no. >> Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss.
▶ 5:48:51Scanlon, miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. neguse, no. Mr. no. Miss. Fernandez, Mr. leger. Fernandez. No. Madam chair I madam chair, I. >> clerk. Report the total. >> 84 nays. >> the ayes have it. Um the um rule will be handled by for the majority by Mr. scott. >> and by me. >> and by Mr. mcgovern for the minority.
▶ 5:49:20Without objection, the committee is adjourned.