US Congress LIVE: ‘It Is Embarrassing’ Democrats Blast GOP After Trump Refuses To Sign Housing Bill

[0:00] of the text of Chairwoman Fox's Amendment 512 to the FY 2023 NDAA has adopted on the floor with [0:08] appropriate conforming changes to create an inspector general for the Office of Management [0:12] and Budget to bring transparency and accountability to the agency. Last week, I asked my Republican [0:18] colleagues what they would do to stop the Trump administration and his Office of Management and [0:23] Budget from illegally transferring taxpayer funds that Congress appropriated for the Secret Service [0:29] into a separate account in order to make security upgrades as part of the ballroom construction [0:35] project. Republicans cannot give me an answer. Well, I have an idea, and I would expect that my [0:41] Republican colleagues would support this idea. In 2022, Chairwoman Fox submitted an amendment to the [0:49] NDAA to create an inspector general at the Office of Management and Budget. Her amendment was made in [0:55] order and subsequently passed on the House floor with both myself and Chairwoman Fox voting [1:01] for it. Unfortunately, her thoughtful proposal never became law. But let's not give up hope [1:08] on her birthday. Let's help her. You know, let's give her a gift. And I believe that a strong majority [1:14] in the House would support this amendment. It was a good idea then. It's a good idea now. And I urge a yes [1:20] vote on my motion to ensure that Chairwoman Fox's proposal gets an up or down vote on the floor. And I [1:26] yield back. The amendment proposed is completely outside the jurisdiction of the House Armed Services [1:33] Committee and lacks an appropriate nexus to the Department of War. This amendment process is [1:38] consistent with those of the last three defense authorizations. Any amendment made in order should [1:44] be tightly wound to our national security and the appropriate jurisdiction in the House. Clever try. [1:50] Well, but didn't you offer it to the NDAA in the past and it was made in order? [1:54] Under Democrat control. [1:57] Under Democrat control. [1:58] Well, I mean, look at how nice we are. I think it's a good idea. I urge a yes vote. [2:08] Nice try, McGovern. [2:12] So I urge a yes vote. [2:14] Is there a further discussion on the amendment? All those in favor say aye. [2:21] Aye. [2:22] All those opposed say no. [2:23] No. [2:24] No. [2:25] In the opinion the chair knows have it. [2:27] I ask for a roll call. [2:28] Mr. McGovern request a roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll. [2:32] Mrs. Fischbach. [2:33] No. [2:34] Mrs. Fischbach, no. Mr. Norman. [2:35] No. [2:36] Mr. Norman, no. [2:37] Mr. Roy. [2:39] Mrs. Houchen. [2:40] Mr. Langworthy. [2:41] No. [2:42] Mr. Langworthy, no. [2:43] Mr. Scott. [2:44] Mr. Scott, no. [2:46] Mr. Griffith. [2:47] No. [2:48] Mr. Jack, no. [2:49] Mr. McGovern. [2:50] Aye. [2:51] Mr. McGovern. [2:52] Mr. Scanlon. [2:53] Aye. [2:55] Mr. Ngoose. [2:56] Mr. Ngoose. [2:57] Aye. [2:58] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [2:59] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [3:00] Aye. [3:01] Madam Chair. [3:02] No. [3:03] Madam Chair, no. [3:05] Clerk will report the total. [3:06] Four yays. [3:07] Seven nays. [3:08] The noes have it. [3:09] The amendment is not agreed to. [3:10] I have another amendment to the rule. [3:11] I move the committee to add a new section to the rule providing immediate consideration [3:14] 2-0, the bipartisan Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act, introduced by Representatives Scott [3:20] and Panetta, under a closed rule, debatable for one hour, equally divided between the Chair [3:25] and Ranking Member of the Committee on Ways and Means. [3:28] This bill would modify certain rules under the Social Security Disability Insurance Program [3:32] to help combat disabled Purple Heart veterans who want to return to work. [3:38] Our Republican colleagues have pointed to the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act as an [3:41] example of what could be tested if we reauthorize the Social Security Disability Insurance Demonstration [3:48] Authority. [3:49] But if both Democrats and Republicans support this specific proposal to help Purple Heart [3:53] veterans, why aren't my Republican colleagues putting it in their bill or putting it on the [3:59] floor for a vote? [4:00] And I urge a yes vote on this motion to ensure that Rep. Scott's proposal to help veterans [4:05] and SSDI get the up or down vote it deserves. [4:09] I appreciate his leadership, and I yield back. [4:14] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [4:16] Yes, ma'am. [4:17] Madam Chair, I appreciate the newfound support of the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act, now [4:22] that we have language that would actually accomplish this that is a little different from the language [4:27] that's written in my language. [4:31] I'm happy to have you co-sponsor it, and perhaps we can pass it too. [4:34] But this language is what we were able to get through the Ways and Means Committee. [4:40] And as I said before, when the Democrats were in charge of the Ways and Means Committee, I [4:43] was unable to move the legislation. [4:45] When the Republicans have been in charge, I was able to move some legislation. [4:50] And I feel very good about the language that we have today. [4:53] But I'm happy to come back again with the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. [4:57] As I said, it's been a passion of mine for many, many years. [5:00] And I'm glad that we're having the discussion about it, and hope maybe it can move through [5:07] Ways and Means as well. [5:08] Well, I'm happy to work with it. [5:10] But there's nothing in the bill that mentions Purple Heart veterans. [5:16] And again, we're not Ways and Means with the Rules Committee. [5:19] That's right. [5:20] So we can amend things and add things. [5:21] And I think this would be a nice thing to add. [5:23] And you know, I'm trying to have your back. [5:25] I'm trying to have Chair Foxx's back. [5:28] I'm trying to have your back too. [5:29] Yeah. [5:30] I mean. [5:31] With a knife or an axe or what? [5:33] Friendly support. [5:36] I mean, I know you don't like guns, Jim. [5:39] So I'm assuming it's a knife or an axe. [5:41] That's probably correct. [5:42] It's a, look, I mean, what I would ask that you do is that you support, you know, when [5:50] I'm, you support 8884 when it comes across. [5:54] Help me get the Dems and the Senate to support it. [5:57] And we'll get Purple Heart Freedom to Work. [5:59] You know, the concept of it signed by the President. [6:04] Purple Heart Day is August 7th or 8th. [6:08] 7th, I believe. [6:09] That'd be a wonderful day for the President to sign it. [6:11] Hopefully you can join us at the White House with President Trump. [6:14] You're President of the United States. [6:16] If you vote with me, I will co-sponsor your bill. [6:19] I already can't vote. [6:20] You already agreed to co-sponsor my bill, but look, I appreciate your support for my legislation. [6:27] I do, you know, this 8884 is going to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish with the Purple [6:35] Heart Freedom to Work Act. [6:36] And with that, Madam Chair, I yield. [6:37] Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? [6:46] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [6:48] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [6:50] Aye. [6:51] Those opposed say no. [6:52] No. [6:53] In the opinion, Chair, the no's have it. [6:55] Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. [6:57] The Clerk will call the roll. [6:58] The Clerk will call the roll. [6:59] Mrs. Fishbach. [7:00] No. [7:01] Mrs. Fishbach, no. [7:02] Mr. Norman. [7:03] No. [7:04] Mr. Norman, no. [7:05] Mr. Roy. [7:06] Mrs. Houchen. [7:07] Mr. Langworthy. [7:09] Mr. Langworthy, no. [7:10] Mr. Scott. [7:11] Mr. Scott, no. [7:12] Mr. Griffith. [7:13] Mr. Griffith, no. [7:14] Mr. Jack, no. [7:15] Mr. McGovern. [7:17] Aye. [7:18] Mr. McGovern, aye. [7:19] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [7:20] Mr. Neguse, aye. [7:22] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [7:23] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [7:24] Madam Chair. [7:25] No. [7:26] Madam Chair, no. [7:27] The no's have it. [7:30] The amendment's not agreeing to. [7:32] Further discussion on the motion from the gentleman from Georgia. [7:37] I have another amendment. [7:40] Yeah. [7:41] Okay. [7:42] Yeah. [7:43] Okay. [7:44] I have an amendment to the rule. [7:45] I move the committee make an order of amendment number 1351 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative [7:50] Garamendi, which prohibits the use of funds for the East Wing Modernization Project. [7:55] Madam Chair, for months the President swore his grand ballroom was going to be building [8:00] with only private money, no taxpayer dollars. [8:03] Well, then he tried to sneak a billion dollars into the most recent reconciliation bill. [8:09] Reports are that he's still trying to use taxpayer dollars for his gaudy ballroom vanity [8:13] project, all while Americans struggle to afford gas and groceries. [8:18] The Congress has the power of the purse. [8:20] We decide how taxpayer money is spent. [8:22] We should vote to ensure that taxpayer money does not go to this project, and the President [8:27] funds it with private money like he said he would do so from the very beginning. [8:31] I urge a yes vote, and I yield back. [8:33] Thank you, Mr. McGovern. [8:35] Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? [8:40] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [8:42] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [8:44] Aye. [8:45] Those opposed say no. [8:46] No. [8:47] No. [8:48] The opinion, Chair, the noes have it. [8:49] The amendment is not agreed to. [8:50] As for roll. [8:51] Mr. McGovern, request a roll call vote. [8:54] The Clerk will call the roll. [8:55] Mrs. Fishbach. [8:56] No. [8:57] Mrs. Fishbach, no. [8:58] Mr. Norman. [8:59] No. [9:00] Mr. Norman, no. [9:01] Mr. Roy. [9:02] Mrs. Halchin. [9:03] Mr. Langworthy. [9:05] Mr. Langworthy, no. [9:06] Mr. Scott. [9:07] Mr. Scott, no. [9:08] Mr. Griffith. [9:09] Mr. Griffith, no. [9:10] Mr. Jack, no. [9:11] Mr. McGovern. [9:12] Aye. [9:13] Mr. McGovern, aye. [9:14] Mr. Ngoose. [9:16] Mr. Ngoose. [9:17] Aye. [9:18] Mr. Ledger-Fernandez. [9:19] Aye. [9:20] Mr. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [9:21] Madam Chair. [9:22] No. [9:23] Madam Chair, no. [9:24] Hook, report the total. [9:25] Four yays, seven nays. [9:26] The noes have it. [9:27] The amendment is not agreed to. [9:29] Madam Chair. [9:30] Mr. McGovern. [9:31] I have an amendment to the rule. [9:32] I move the committee make an order of amendment number 961 to H.R. 8800, offered by myself, [9:37] which restricts certain security assistance to Pakistan unless the Secretary of State, in consultation [9:42] with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that the government of Pakistan has taken measures [9:46] to prevent human rights violations. [9:48] Madam Chair, in Pakistan, the military has always loomed over the shoulder of civilian [9:52] institutions. [9:53] As the Trump administration pursues closer ties to the Pakistani government and its military [9:59] leadership, we cannot ignore continuing concerns about human rights violations, not [10:04] least because U.S. funds can be used to train Pakistani military officers. [10:09] Last week, a court sentenced Dr. Marang Balak to life imprisonment. [10:14] Dr. Balak is a 33-year-old physician and the leader of a peaceful civil rights movement [10:20] demanding an end to enforce disappearances and extrajudicial killings. [10:24] Her trial was held inside a prison. [10:27] Her lawyers didn't know who the judge was, who the witnesses were, and where the proceedings [10:32] were taking place. [10:33] This is not an isolated case. [10:35] In January of this year, human rights lawyer Iman Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chata were [10:42] violently dragged from their car by police and sentenced to 17 years in prison for tweets [10:47] criticizing the military's role in enforced disappearances. [10:50] And behind these names are thousands more. [10:53] Balak activists, opposition party workers, journalists, lawyers, the former prime minister [10:58] of Pakistan, Imran Khan, and his wife, Bouchra Bibi, all rotting in Pakistani jails without [11:05] any due process. [11:06] U.S. assistance should not be given unconditionally. [11:10] We uphold American values and credibility when we insist that security cooperation aligns [11:15] with the rights for fundamental freedoms and human rights. [11:19] Amendment 691 would require the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of [11:24] Defense, to certify that Pakistan is actively taking steps to prevent human rights abuses [11:31] before its military may receive U.S. security assistance. [11:35] Accountability strengthens, not undermines, our partnerships. [11:39] And again, I don't understand why we can't even have a vote on this, but I urge a yes [11:44] vote and I yield back my time. [11:48] Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? [11:53] Hearing none, the questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. [11:58] Aye. [11:59] All those opposed say no. [12:00] No. [12:01] No. [12:02] In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. [12:03] The amendment's not agreed to it. [12:04] I ask for a roll call. [12:05] Mr. McGovern request a roll call. [12:06] The clerk will call the roll. [12:08] Mrs. Fischbach. [12:09] No. [12:10] Mrs. Fischbach, no. [12:11] Mr. Norman. [12:12] No. [12:13] Mrs. Houchen. [12:14] Mr. Langworthy. [12:16] No. [12:17] Mr. Langworthy, no. [12:18] Mr. Scott. [12:19] Mr. Scott, no. [12:20] Mr. Griffith. [12:21] No. [12:22] Mr. Griffith, no. [12:23] Mr. Jack, no. [12:24] Mr. McGovern. [12:25] Aye. [12:26] Mr. McGovern, aye. [12:27] Ms. Scanlon. [12:28] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [12:29] Mr. Neguse. [12:31] Mr. Neguse, aye. [12:32] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [12:33] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [12:34] Madam Chair, no. [12:35] The clerk will report the total. [12:36] Four yays, seven nays. [12:37] The amendment is not agreed to. [12:39] Is there further discussion? [12:40] Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. [12:42] I move the committee make an order of amendment number 511 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative [12:46] Moulton, which reduces the total amount authorized to be appropriated for the FY27 NDAA by $150 [12:53] billion. [12:54] No reductions may be made to military personnel accounts, MILCON, or the Defense Health Program. [13:01] Madam Chair, the Department of Defense needs to become more innovative and efficient in terms [13:05] of developing capabilities to meet our national security needs in a more cost-effective manner. [13:10] That's what this amendment is about. [13:13] I urge a yes vote. [13:14] I yield back. [13:16] Ms. Is there further discussion on the amendment? [13:19] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [13:25] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [13:27] Aye. [13:28] All those opposed say no. [13:29] No. [13:30] In the opinion of the chair, the no's have it. [13:32] The amendment is not agreed to. [13:33] Mr. McGovern request a roll call. [13:36] The clerk will call the roll. [13:37] Mrs. Fischbach. [13:38] No. [13:39] Mrs. Fischbach, no. [13:40] Mr. Norman. [13:41] Mr. Norman, no. [13:42] Mr. Roy. [13:43] Mrs. Elgin. [13:44] Mr. Langworthy. [13:45] Mr. Langworthy, no. [13:46] Mr. Scott. [13:47] Mr. Scott, no. [13:49] Mr. Griffith. [13:50] Mr. Griffith, no. [13:51] Mr. Jack, no. [13:52] Mr. McGovern. [13:53] Aye. [13:54] Mr. McGovern, aye. [13:55] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [13:56] Mr. Neguse. [13:57] Aye. [13:58] Mr. Leisure Fernandez. [14:00] Mr. Leisure Fernandez, aye. [14:01] Madam Chair. [14:02] No. [14:03] Madam Chair, no. [14:04] Clerk will court the total. [14:05] Four yays, seven nays. [14:07] The amendment is not agreed to. [14:09] Is there further discussion? [14:10] Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. [14:12] I move the committee to make an order of amendment number 1006 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative [14:17] Ryan, which prohibits the use of FY 2027 DoD funds for military action in or against Iran, [14:24] unless explicitly authorized by Congress. [14:27] Madam Chair, both chambers of Congress have now voted to end President Trump's illegal war [14:32] in Iran. [14:34] It costs billions of dollars in 13 American lives. [14:37] Another dollar should not go to this illegal war unless and until it is explicitly authorized [14:42] by Congress. [14:43] We ought to bring this to the floor and debate it, and I urge you, yes, welcome. [14:46] Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Mr. McGovern? [14:53] Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. [14:55] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [14:57] Aye. [14:58] Those opposed say no. [14:59] No. [15:00] In the opinion of the Chair, the no's have it. [15:01] The amendment's not agreed to. [15:02] Ask for roll call. [15:03] Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. [15:06] The clerk will call the rolls. [15:07] Mrs. Fishbuck. [15:08] Mrs. Fishbuck, no. [15:09] Mr. Norman. [15:10] Mr. Norman, no. [15:11] Mr. Roy. [15:12] Mrs. Houchen. [15:13] Mr. Langworthy. [15:14] Mr. Langworthy, no. [15:15] Mr. Scott. [15:16] Mr. Scott, no. [15:17] Mr. Griffith. [15:18] Mr. Griffith, no. [15:19] Mr. Jack, no. [15:20] Mr. Jack, no. [15:21] Mr. McGovern. [15:22] Mr. McGovern, aye. [15:23] Mr. McGovern, aye. [15:24] Mr. Ngoose. [15:25] Mr. Ngoose, aye. [15:27] Mr. Ngoose, aye. [15:28] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [15:29] Mr. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [15:30] Madam Chair. [15:31] No. [15:32] Madam Chair, no. [15:33] Clerk, report the total. [15:34] Four yays, seven yays. [15:35] The amendment is not agreed to. [15:37] Is there further discussion? [15:38] Madam Chair, I know that there's a few other amendments here, but I just have one final one [15:43] that I want to offer, and that's an amendment to the rule. [15:45] I move the committee make an order of amendment number 974 to HR 8800, offered by myself, which prohibits [15:53] the use of the Department of Defense funds to transport individuals to countries in which they [16:00] would be at risk of being subjected to torture. [16:04] Madam Chair, in February of 2025, Secretary of State Rubio condemned Thailand's forced [16:09] return of at least 40 Uyghurs to China, where they could face persecution, forced labor, [16:14] and torture, and death. [16:16] And he was right to do so. [16:18] Secretary Rubio cited Thailand's obligations under the UN Convention against torture, [16:23] which prohibits the deportation or extradition of a person to a country where there are substantial [16:29] grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. [16:34] The United States is also a party to the Torture Convention, which along with Section 241 [16:40] of the Immigration and Nationality Act, prohibits the U.S. from deporting people to a country [16:46] where they might be tortured. [16:48] We have deported individuals to China, Russia, Iran, and other places with a record of torture. [16:54] It's shameful. [16:55] It is illegal under our law. [16:57] My amendment is simple. [16:58] It simply reaffirms this law of the land. [17:01] Let us not be like China. [17:03] Let us be better than China. [17:05] Let us abide by the law. [17:07] Let us not abet torture. [17:09] I urge a yes vote, and I yield back. [17:11] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [17:16] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [17:18] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [17:20] Aye. [17:21] Those opposed say no. [17:22] No. [17:23] In the opinion, Chair, the noes have it. [17:25] The amendment is not agreed to. [17:26] I ask for roll call. [17:27] The clerk will call the roll. [17:30] Mrs. Fischbach. [17:31] No. [17:32] Mrs. Fischbach, no. [17:33] Mr. Norman. [17:34] Mr. Norman, no. [17:35] Mr. Roy. [17:36] Mrs. Salchin. [17:37] Mr. Langworthy. [17:38] Mr. Scott. [17:39] No. [17:40] Mr. Scott, no. [17:42] Mr. Griffith. [17:43] Mr. Griffith, no. [17:44] Mr. Jack. [17:45] Mr. Jack, no. [17:46] Mr. McGovern. [17:47] Aye. [17:48] Mr. McGovern, aye. [17:49] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [17:50] Mr. Neguse, aye. [17:51] Mr. Neguse, aye. [17:52] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [17:53] Madam Chair. [17:54] No. [17:55] Madam Chair, no. [17:56] The clerk will report the total. [17:58] Four yays, seven nays. [17:59] And the amendment is not agreed to. [18:00] Further discussion or amendments? [18:01] Ms. Scanlon? [18:02] Yes. [18:03] Thank you. [18:04] I have an amendment to the rule. [18:05] I move the committee making order amendment 1196 to H.R. 8800, [18:09] offered by Representative Brownlee, which ensures access to abortion care, abortion counseling, [18:14] and related services and medication for veterans. [18:17] Our veterans rely on the VA for the health care they earn through their service to our [18:21] country, but the Trump administration has reversed long-standing policy and eliminated [18:26] access to abortion care, counseling, and related medications through the VA, even [18:31] in cases of rape or incest. [18:33] Women are the fastest-growing population of veterans, and hundreds of thousands of women [18:38] rely on the VA for their health care. [18:40] Veterans answered our nation's call to service. [18:43] They shouldn't have to fight their own government for access to medically necessary legal care [18:48] when they return home. [18:50] This amendment would restore access to abortion services, abortion counseling, and related medications [18:56] through the VA, ensuring that veterans can receive the comprehensive, medically appropriate [19:02] care they've earned, free from partisan political interference. [19:05] Our obligation to veterans does not end when they complete their service. [19:10] I urge a yes vote on this amendment, and I yield back. [19:13] Is there further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Scanlon? [19:19] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [19:25] All those in favor, signify by saying aye. [19:27] Aye. [19:28] Those opposed say no. [19:29] No. [19:30] In the opinion, Chair, the noes have it. [19:32] Ms. Scanlon requests the recorded vote. [19:34] The Clerk will call the roll. [19:35] Mrs. Fishbach. [19:36] No. [19:37] Mrs. Fishbach, no. [19:38] Mr. Norman. [19:39] Mr. Norman. [19:40] Mr. Roy. [19:41] Mrs. Houchen. [19:42] Mrs. Houchen, no. [19:43] Mr. Langworthy. [19:44] Mr. Langworthy, no. [19:45] Mr. Scott. [19:47] Mr. Scott, no. [19:48] Mr. Griffith. [19:49] Mr. Griffith. [19:50] Mr. Jack, no. [19:51] Mr. McGovern. [19:52] Mr. McGovern, aye. [19:53] Ms. Scanlon. [19:54] Aye. [19:55] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [19:56] Mr. Neguse. [19:57] Mr. Neguse, aye. [19:58] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [19:59] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [20:00] Madam Chair. [20:01] No. [20:03] Madam Chair, no. [20:04] Clerk will report the total. [20:06] Four yays, eight nays. [20:09] And the amendment is not agreed to. [20:12] The noes have it. [20:13] Further discussion? [20:14] Ms. Scanlon. [20:15] Yes. [20:16] Thank you, Madam Chair. [20:17] I have another amendment to the rule involving veteran benefits. [20:20] I move the committee make an order amendment number 947 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative [20:27] Bill Arrakas, which would add the Major Richard Starr Act to the bill. [20:31] As we know from last week's debate, this bill is a priority for our veterans groups, and [20:37] it has 330 co-sponsors, so it should be an easy passage here. [20:45] This bill would allow combat-injured veterans with fewer than 20 years of service to receive [20:50] their full DOD retirement and disability pay so that combat-injured veterans are not penalized [20:58] for being seriously injured while in combat. [21:00] So I think this is something we owe to our veterans. [21:03] It's very popular with the veteran community, and I would urge a yes vote. [21:07] I yield back. [21:08] First of all, wishing you a happy birthday. [21:10] Thank you, sir. [21:11] And I would sing, but if you've ever heard me sing, it would clear this room in a nanosecond, [21:17] so I'll spare you that. [21:18] So you're going to be much nicer today. [21:20] I am, I will be, I promise you I want to be as succinct as I possibly can so that you [21:25] can go out and celebrate tonight. [21:27] That is, that is the goal, to get you out of here at a decent hour. [21:30] But having said that, I don't envy you today, because cleaning up the mess Republicans [21:36] left last week cannot be easy. [21:38] You know, we had a bipartisan housing bill ready to be signed. [21:43] A rare, overwhelmingly popular bill that might actually help people afford a place to live. [21:48] Republican leaders were publicly taking a victory lap on TV just as Donald Trump blew [21:53] the whole thing up, saying he would refuse to sign the bill unless Congress also changes [21:58] the rules on voting so that Republicans can legally kick registered voters off the rolls. [22:04] I mean, they are holding affordability hostage so they can try to rig the next election. [22:10] Are you kidding me? [22:11] Imagine explaining that back home. [22:13] Sorry, your rent is too high, you can't afford a mortgage. [22:16] Congress did pass something that might help, but Donald Trump feels his power matters more [22:21] than your housing costs. [22:22] I mean, you can't make this BS up. [22:24] Business stalled in the House, the rule got pulled, the floor shut down, members were sent [22:31] home early, and once again the American people got a front row seat to Republican dysfunction. [22:36] You guys control the House, you control the Senate, and the White House, and the Supreme Court, [22:42] and you still can't govern. [22:43] Which brings us to today. [22:45] We are meeting on a defense bill with a trillion dollar price tag, a bad Social Security disability bill, [22:53] and yet another resolution celebrating Republicans for their big ugly bill. [22:57] Not bills to lower costs or raise wages or make life easier, but a trillion dollar defense bill, [23:03] a dangerous Social Security bill, and a Republican self-esteem exercise. [23:08] On NDAA, I will say that better pay for service members matters, better housing matters, [23:15] better support for military families matters. [23:18] But this bill authorizes more than $1 trillion for defense and wars at a time when Donald Trump [23:24] has made it clear that he is perfectly happy to start an illegal war to kill 13 American service members. [23:30] I think giving that much money to Pete Hegseth is nuts. [23:34] Then there is H.R. 8884. [23:37] This bill has brought authority over Social Security disability insurance to an administration [23:43] that has already shown us exactly how it treats programs working people rely on. [23:49] Speaker Johnson has said Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be adjusted and fixed. [23:55] We all know what that means. It means cuts. [23:58] And we see that in the big ugly bill. [24:00] If anything, we ought to be expanding Social Security disability insurance [24:03] so that the millions of Americans that depend on it can survive the high costs of the Trump economy. [24:10] And then we have the second resolution this year that celebrates Republicans' big ugly bill. [24:15] Who's for this? [24:19] Nobody in America is sitting at their kitchen table now saying, [24:22] you know what would really help if Republicans in Congress spent more time congratulating themselves? [24:28] Republicans want applause for a bill that cut food assistance. [24:32] It cut food assistance. It kicked people off of health care. [24:36] It exploded the debt and handed more tax breaks to rich people and big corporations. [24:41] Meanwhile, the American people are getting screwed. [24:46] And all Republicans offer them is a lousy resolution congratulating themselves. [24:51] And more Trump drama. [24:53] People need this place to get serious. [24:56] Instead, Republicans have us here again, cleaning up after another meltdown [25:00] and pretending that this is business as usual. [25:03] It is not. It is embarrassing. [25:05] And the American people deserve a hell of a lot better. [25:08] And again, I will end, as I began, promising the General Lady that we will be as succinct and to the point as possible, [25:16] because it is your birthday. [25:18] And we, I think you deserve a nice night. [25:21] Six trillion dollars. Trillion with a T. [25:24] I mean, if you add it all up. [25:26] Yeah. [25:27] That's the 1.15 that's in the base, the three point, or the 350 billion that they want in reconciliation, [25:32] and the 80 billion dollars supplemental. [25:34] But 1.6 trillion dollars. [25:36] Even Dr. Strangelove is impressed with that figure. [25:40] That is huge, unprecedented. [25:42] And, you know, when we talk about national security, by the way, it's more than the number of bombs we have. [25:48] I mean, people right now in this country are worried about whether they can afford groceries at the supermarket. [25:55] You know, they're worried about whether they can afford to fill their gas tank up. [25:59] They're worried about, you know, whether they can afford to send their kids to school or whether they can retire. [26:05] And, you know, and they're worried about the cost of housing. [26:08] You know, I want to read you a direct quote from President Trump. [26:11] A reporter asked him, what are your plans for the housing bill? [26:16] Because, as you know, we were supposed to take that up. [26:18] And Trump's response was, I don't know. [26:20] I think it's so unimportant compared to the Save America Act. [26:25] So, just to be clear, he thinks that a housing affordability bill is, quote, unimportant compared to his election rigging bill. [26:36] I mean, what am I missing here? [26:40] Well, that's a separate subject outside of the national defense area. [26:44] But I will certainly say that it shows a sense of misplaced priorities. [26:48] And when you look at what Americans are dealing with, the high cost of living, housing, education, food, energy, all of these things are a major problem. [26:57] Every single policy the Trump administration has put in place has been to drive the costs up. [27:03] The tariffs, the war in Iran certainly has driven costs up. [27:07] Canceling energy projects all over the country so that we have less energy because he doesn't like wind turbines, apparently. [27:13] So, there is a lack of a focus on affordability, without question. [27:17] And I think we all agree. [27:18] I think there's unanimity that if it, you know, when it comes to making sure that those who serve in our military, [27:24] those who work for our military get a good, decent pay, they could, you know, raise a family. [27:30] We're all for that. [27:31] Yeah. [27:32] And let me be clear on this. [27:33] Spending money helps people. [27:34] Right. [27:35] You know, which is not terribly surprising. [27:37] Right. [27:38] But if you're going to spend this much money, you better be prepared to raise the revenue so you're not just sending us massive money. [27:43] Well, and also understanding that, you know, increasing people's salaries while housing costs are going through the roof, [27:50] while gas prices are going through the roof, while food prices are going through the roof doesn't necessarily make their life more affordable [27:57] and allow them to address some of the challenges that our constituents face. [28:03] I mean, I am, you know, ranking member Smith, what is the deal with this proposed Trump class battleship? [28:12] I mean, he wants a ballroom, he wants an arch, now he wants a battleship. [28:16] I mean, is this a good use of resources or is this another vanity project? [28:20] Well, I think it's another vanity. [28:23] Well, it's partially a vanity project and also then it's just a mistake. [28:27] We're talking about building the largest battleship ever constructed. [28:31] Now, we stopped building battleships near the end of World War II because they proved ineffective in World War II, [28:38] which was some 80 years ago now. [28:42] They're big targets, relatively slow moving. [28:45] You know, they bring firepower, but at great risk. [28:48] And now Trump wants to build a battleship that is the largest ever. [28:51] It's going to cost over $20 billion to build. [28:55] And that's if we can build it. [28:57] Let's keep in mind that, you know, we have struggled to build a frigate on two occasions. [29:03] We struggled to build the littoral combat ship. [29:05] And now we're going to build something roughly 15, 20 times larger. [29:09] It's highly questionable whether or not we're going to build it. [29:11] And when you see the cost estimates, $22 billion, as I always joke, take the over. [29:16] And I'm pretty sure you're going to be easy money. [29:19] But it gets more to the point of what I was talking about earlier. [29:22] How can we meet our national security needs in a more cost effective way? [29:26] Iran was able to create an asymmetric advantage over us by placing the Strait of Hormuz at risk. [29:32] And they didn't need they don't need a lot to do that. [29:34] They don't need a $22 billion battleship. [29:36] OK, we need to be looking for those types of asymmetric advantages against our adversaries so that we can cost effectively deter them. [29:43] Part of that is building cheaper munitions. [29:45] And I'll give you some good news. [29:46] There's a lot of private investment right now in developing new munitions that are cheaper than the ones we have right now. [29:52] Counter drone measures. [29:54] And all of that gets us to a more cost effective way to meet our national security needs. [29:59] A battleship does not. [30:02] Do you know how many drones we could buy, how many missiles we could buy with $25 billion? [30:07] It's staggering. [30:08] So I think it's a huge mistake. [30:10] Just one final quick question, Mr. Rogers. [30:12] I mean, do you have assurances that Republicans will bring this to the floor? [30:18] I mean, we went through a similar exercise last week and then they get pulled at the last minute because some of your members are voting against, I guess, everything until they can, you know, get this election bill passed that they've been pushing. [30:33] Do we have assurances that after we meet here and report this rule out that this will actually indeed come up tomorrow? [30:40] My conversation with the speaker is that he intends to put this bill on the floor this week. [30:45] Yes, sir. [30:46] I thank you both and I yield back. [30:49] So, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith, I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into this NDAA. [30:56] I would have to disagree with a little bit of the testimony. [30:59] 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 [31:08] because might alone isn't going to win the conflicts around the world as I think we're seeing on a daily basis. [31:15] There are a number of provisions in this bill that are long overdue. [31:19] It expands access to contraception through TRICARE. [31:22] It broadens coverage of assisted reproductive technologies for service members and their families. [31:30] It protects the collective bargaining rights of our civilian defense employees. [31:35] It also includes investments that are important in my district, including funding for seven CH-47F Block II Chinook helicopters, [31:45] manufactured very proudly in southeastern Pennsylvania. [31:48] And these are all worthwhile investments. [31:50] The problem with this bill is not all of the provisions, but certainly some of the misplaced priorities that have been loaded into it. [31:58] We've already had extended discussion about the fact that this is a massive amount of money, $1.15 trillion, [32:06] with an additional supplemental bill, possibly a reconciliation bill, adding up to $1.6 trillion in spending, [32:17] just a massive, massive increase in defense spending, which am I correct, Ranking Member? [32:23] That's discretionary spending. [32:25] All defense spending is discretionary spending, yes. [32:28] Okay. [32:29] Other than Social Security and some of our mandatory spending. [32:32] Well, sure, yeah. [32:34] Okay. [32:35] But all defense spending is discretionary spending. [32:37] Right. [32:38] So we do have a lot of discretion about how much and how we spend it. [32:42] Well, not to get overly technical here, but to a certain degree, it is all discretionary, [32:48] in the sense that if the entitlements are simply locked in, if we want to change the policy, we can change the policy. [32:54] So it's a technical difference between discretionary and mandatory that isn't worth getting into. [33:00] I'm just so used to hearing about cuts to discretionary spending. [33:03] I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. [33:07] Yeah. [33:08] So that is concerning. [33:09] That's a lot of money towards defense. [33:12] And some of it, this battleship, a billion dollars, I think, in this bill for the battle, [33:18] two billion for the battleship that is supposed to cost maybe 20-ish once we get there. [33:23] But in the descriptions we're seeing of it, the terms I'm seeing are it's an obsolete, vulnerable kind of a proposition. [33:32] The military is not asking for this. [33:35] It requires unproven technology. [33:40] Can you talk a little bit about this? [33:42] Sure. [33:43] We don't 100% know what it is because it's on the drawing board right now. [33:48] And it's something that we've never come close, nobody's ever come close to building before. [33:52] The contemplation is what will be this massive power center and you'll be able to move energy around [33:57] and have this massive battleship with all kinds of munitions on it. [34:00] Kind of like the Death Star in Star Wars? [34:03] Yeah. [34:04] Well, I'll go there. [34:06] But yeah, kind of in a similar way. [34:09] And I can understand that. [34:12] But when you look at what's going on in the battlefield right now, [34:15] and I mentioned Ukraine and the way they've been able to make Russia vulnerable with drones, [34:21] with very low cost drones, Hezbollah regrettably is starting to have success with similar low cost drones. [34:26] This is what gives you an asymmetric advantage. [34:29] And because those weapons are cheap and effective. [34:33] So that's the way the whole world is going. [34:36] And we decide we want to build the world's largest ship ever. [34:40] That seems to be polar opposite of actually what we worked on in terms of acquisition reform. [34:45] A lot of the acquisition reform is focused on, as I said, on innovative new technologies. [34:49] How can you get a more cost effective missile, a more cost effective missile defense system or drone defense system or drones? [34:55] So to put all of that money into one place is extraordinarily risky. [35:01] And that assumes that we'll be capable of building it. [35:05] We have major shipbuilding challenges right now, just meeting our traditional needs, which this bill helps address. [35:12] And, you know, there's an amendment I know, the Ships Act, which would take it a little bit further, which I am supportive of. [35:20] 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. [35:28] Well, I mean, it feels like there's a little bit of an analogy as we're approaching at the end of the week, [35:33] our 250th anniversary of the country, where the Brits in part were routed by asymmetric warfare. [35:40] They came in with their large, massive troop movements, and the U.S. nibbled around the edges, [35:48] and they lost a 13-state advantage in that war. [35:52] So it feels like hewing to outmoded ways isn't so great. [35:58] And then there's the cost aspect of it. [36:03] Some of our experts are saying that this is going to cannibalize our defense budget with just directing so much funding to this boondoggle of a battleship. [36:15] We're already seeing some of these vanity projects cannibalize other budgets, like the National Park Service, et cetera. [36:21] So I do think we should be very concerned about that. [36:24] But I appreciate all the work you've put into this, and I'll yield back. [36:27] Thank you very much. [36:31] I'm going to keep deferring my comments and recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez for her comments and questions. [36:38] Thank you, Madam Chair. [36:40] And I will refrain from singing to you because we want to make it nice and short. [36:45] Maybe short and sweet or short and sorry. [36:47] But Feliz Cumpleaños. [36:50] Chairman Rogers, what was the NDAA budget when you first came into office? [36:58] I don't remember. [36:59] It was 24 years ago. [37:00] Yeah, but do you have an estimate? [37:03] I have no idea. [37:04] I actually looked it up because, all told, the idea of $1.6 trillion, right, when we add everything up, it was $400 trillion. [37:15] $400 billion. [37:17] So you are now asking us to approve an NDA that is four times higher than what it was back then. [37:26] I am. [37:28] You are. [37:29] I am proudly asking for it. [37:30] And you're really happy about that. [37:32] I'm very happy about it. [37:33] I just hate that it's not more. [37:35] Yeah. [37:36] We are spending less than any of our four adversaries as a percentage of GDP on defense. [37:41] And if we don't stop this madness, we're going to wind up in a war. [37:46] Right. [37:47] And, well, we are in a war. [37:48] You said we're going to end up in a war. [37:49] We are in a war. [37:51] But there is a war that is ongoing. [37:53] Do you deny that there's a war ongoing? [37:55] I'm not denying it. [37:56] Okay. [37:57] So there is a war ongoing, started by Trump, who said he was going to make sure we didn't get involved in foreign wars. [38:04] And I take it you are against deficit spending. [38:07] I am for strong defense spending. [38:10] Oh, but you're fine with increasing the country's deficit. [38:13] If we have to spend in deficit to do strong defense spending, then that's what we have to do. [38:17] Right. [38:18] And in fact, since you've come into office, every Republican president has increased the deficit through deficit spending. [38:29] A lot of that on war. [38:31] I think every president has done that since I've been in office. [38:35] Actually, every Republican president has increased the deficit. [38:39] I don't doubt that. [38:40] And every Democrat president has decreased the deficit. [38:43] It's actually true. [38:44] And I can hand you this chart if you'd like. [38:47] I have no doubt for telling it just like it is. [38:49] Okay. [38:50] We're telling it just like it is. [38:51] Every Republican president has increased the deficit. [38:53] Now, I think it's interesting, this idea that you mentioned earlier about how we won World War II. [38:59] The reality is I just finished reading, and I'm not, you know, I just finished reading a wonderful book, Doris Prince Goodwin book about the presidency under, during World War II. [39:16] And what was key there was President, during World War II, got the support of the American people. [39:25] Do you know what the support is of the American people for the Iran war? [39:29] I do not. [39:30] It is the majority of Americans, about 60%, oppose that war that Trump started, that we are spending one to two billion dollars a day on. [39:39] Do you know, have you ever, what's fascinating to me is this battleship that can cost billions. [39:49] Has there ever been an instance where we've had a president choose to name a class of battleships after himself? [39:58] Are you ever aware of that? [39:59] I'm not aware of one. [40:01] Ranking member Smith, what do you make of a president who wants to spend taxpayer dollars, [40:10] that our children and grandchildren, and we will, have to pay for in the future because it's deficit spending, [40:20] where he's naming it after himself. [40:22] There is something kind of cringy and corrupt about that in my mind. [40:26] Yeah, well there's two separate points which I want to make here. [40:30] One, President Trump's focus on, you know, basically his name, his likeness, his power, [40:37] is authoritarian in a way that is deeply troubling to me. [40:41] I think it undermines our representative democracy and I think there's no question he is governing much more like an authoritarian dictator [40:48] than like a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic. [40:52] And we could walk down a thousand different roads on that one, which aren't directly related to the defense bill. [40:57] I do want to get back to the spending issue because I think it's important for people to understand the context here. [41:02] The chairman is right. As a percentage of GDP, we are actually spending less now on defense than we have at any point since the end of World War II. [41:12] I think it is important to remember that. [41:14] Now, what has changed? Well, in the 50s, 40s, 50s, 60s, there was no Medicare. There was no Medicaid. [41:21] We have massively increased spending in other areas and as well we should. [41:26] OK, I don't think the chairman or anyone wants to get rid of Medicare or Medicaid. [41:30] I certainly don't or a lot of the programs that we expanded. [41:33] It's more a matter of recognizing where we are. It is not the 1960s anymore. OK, we are not the sole dominant power in the world economically and militarily. [41:43] 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. [41:49] And, you know, look, I mean, I don't know what the total budget is like seven trillion, something like that. [41:54] You know, defense would be 12, 15 percent of that. So there's certainly other aspects to this. [42:00] I keep harping on revenue. We're all very happy about cutting taxes, cutting taxes, cutting taxes. [42:05] And we keep spending the money. OK, to me, those two things have to add up. [42:09] If you love tax cuts, then you shouldn't love a one point one six, one point one five trillion dollar defense budget. [42:15] OK, the two things shouldn't go together. [42:17] But we've all decided that we're going to suspend reality and truth and facts and just live in a fantasy world of basically being able to just, I guess, make the money. [42:24] Well, we do make the money appear. It's just that we wind up owing on that. [42:28] So it's a matter of having a fiscal picture that makes sense for today, not for 1950 or 1960 or 1970, but for the needs that we have today. [42:36] And I think we are missing the mark by relying so much on having a massive defense budget to meet our national security needs. [42:43] Thank you very much. And I will point out that Democrats support the increases in pay and what we're doing with regards to our service members. [42:53] As the representative for Cannon Air Force Base, I'm very appreciative of many aspects in this bill, but not the concept of one point six trillion dollar defense budget. [43:04] That's deficit spending that doesn't have the same because we've been keeping par right where we have discretionary spending on other matters as well as on defense. [43:15] And this is not the case. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. [43:18] I want to stay for the record that when I was chair of this committee, I never cut anybody off who testified. [43:24] So they're different, but just so you know. So, you know, the idea that we're going to have a resolution, you know, to celebrate the big ugly bill is beyond me. [43:41] And I don't know, Ms. Van Dyne, I mean, I mean, if you go to a grocery store, prices are up. Go to a gas station, prices are still too high. [43:51] You go everywhere, the price of everything is too high. But I just want to read to you a couple of testimonies from people in this country who basically can't afford their health care anymore because of this administration and because of this Congress. [44:04] Sharon Dunham from Grand Rapids, Michigan, a two time cancer survivor, she went without insurance this year after her premium would have risen to about $980 a month from $614 and is paying out of pocket for tests and visits until she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare. [44:21] Quote, it is definitely terrifying, she said. Arona East from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [44:26] Arona and her partner and her 20 year old son no longer have health insurance because it's too expensive. [44:33] Through her work, a family plan would cost her $800 per pay period and a state marketplace plan with a high deductible will cost about $650 a month, he said. [44:46] Right now, I'm not able to pay for the marketplace insurance because it's just astronomical, she said. [44:51] Adding to the cost has kept her from getting care for pre-menopause symptoms. [44:56] Eric and Lisa Frankenfeld from Point Pleasant, New Jersey, a chiropractor and his wife is an office manager. [45:04] Their premium was set to skyrocket to $1,928 a month, or $340, so they decided to go without coverage for 2026. [45:13] Quote, we are health care providers who cannot afford benefits. [45:17] Oh, the irony, she said. [45:19] I go on and on and on. [45:20] I ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record, Mr. Chairman. [45:25] Yeah, these are testimonies of people who can't afford their health care anymore because of the policies of this. [45:35] You know, this is collected by Protect Our Care Organization. [45:43] They did. [45:46] It's current. [45:49] It's current. [45:50] Okay. [45:51] All right. [45:52] I'm happy to keep reading it. [45:53] Well, I mean, I'd be here all day reading it for you. [45:56] Right. [45:57] Right. [45:58] Yeah. [45:59] Yeah. [46:00] It's real-life stories. [46:01] Real-life stories, which we should care about. [46:03] Look, we all support helping disabled Americans who want to return to work, but as we've seen [46:09] time and time again, when you give the Trump administration an inch, they take a mile. [46:13] The Trump administration has provided zero information on how it would use this authority. [46:18] In fact, when asked in markup if the administration has shared any details of his plans, Republican [46:24] counsel stated he was, quote, not aware, end quote. [46:29] Mr. Van Dyne, if you want the Social Security Administration to do these demos, why don't you authorize any specific demos in statute? [46:40] Why leave it open-ended? [46:41] Well, I think, I mean, you're talking about the potential to be able to cut disability benefits. [46:46] The bill specifically stipulates that the demonstration project may not reduce beneficiaries' total income. [46:51] And this is a new beneficiary protection that was not included, by the way, in the previous authorization, the SSA's Disability Insurance Demonstration Authority. [46:58] But why not authorize specific demos in the statute? [47:01] You can, this is basically a reauthorization, but with stronger effects. [47:06] But I do want, I mean, you hit on gas prices. [47:09] So gas prices just, by the way, have fallen for the last six weeks. [47:12] Average gas price right now under Trump, under President Trump, is 16 cents lower than it was under President Biden. [47:17] So if you want lower gas prices, be thankful that Trump is in office and we don't have a Democrat in there. [47:22] The last time we did something similar. [47:23] You talked about affordability, you talked about health care. [47:25] I'm happy to answer the questions, as opposed to just kind of just staring at you. [47:30] The fact of the matter is, the last time we reauthorized something similar, we actually included demo projects. [47:35] But in addition to the bill that we're considering today, my colleague, and I don't know, and he may not want me to say this, [47:41] but I actually, Representative Austin Scott actually has a bipartisan bill, H.R. 7120, [47:46] that would make several specific SSDI program changes to help combat disabled Purple Heart veterans who want to return to work. [47:58] Would you support allowing the House of Representatives to also have an up or down vote on the floor for Rep. Austin Scott's bill [48:05] to help Purple Heart veterans on SSDI who want to return to work? [48:10] I think what this is, you're seeing all this put into one bill. [48:12] I think it's important because it also allows a lot more flexibility. [48:15] I didn't see that in the bill. [48:17] No, what I'm saying is we're wrapping this up and we are working with Congressman Scott. [48:23] But it's not in the bill. [48:24] Right. [48:25] So I'm just simply saying- [48:26] This would allow an opportunity. [48:27] This gives a lot more flexibility if they wanted to have that in there. [48:30] You know, for some of us, quite frankly, and I have my political differences with this White House, [48:36] but I get the flexibility part. [48:40] I just want to be assured that this stuff is going to happen. [48:45] So saying that they have the flexibility to do this is different than saying they have to do this. [48:50] That's all I'm saying. [48:52] Well, and I think the bill includes the guardrails that prevent any of the beneficiaries from being worse off, [48:57] which I think is one of your concerns in our demonstration. [49:00] No beneficiary will see a decrease, as we mentioned before, in income because they participate in a project. [49:05] It also includes more congressional oversight, which I think is what you're asking, than any other prior authorization. [49:11] So it requires Social Security Administration to notify Congress of their plans 120 days, which we didn't have before. [49:16] Right. [49:17] But no guarantee that Austin Scott's bill will be done. [49:19] And I can't believe I'm agreeing with him on something he's done. [49:22] But we actually agree on this. [49:25] I don't know. [49:26] I just feel a hell of a lot better if, in fact, it were in this legislation or that we had an up or down vote on it, [49:33] and that I could be assured that it would be happening so that we'd have to wait another year and then come back and say, [49:38] well, it didn't happen. [49:39] Why not? [49:40] I think that's part of the congressional appropriations efforts, as you know. [49:45] Well, in any event, I would…it is not in this bill. [49:50] I would feel a lot better if it was. [49:52] Maybe we can address that, you know. [49:54] So I understand you would then, you would vote for this if that was this bill? [49:58] No, I would vote for Austin Scott's bill. [50:00] Okay. [50:01] You know, and again, I, you know, and again, people's health care prices are going through the roof. [50:06] And I could go, I could read for hours and hours and hours about people. [50:10] And I would love to be able to go hours and hours and hours toe-to-toe on what the One [50:14] Big Beautiful Bill did for people's affordability for prices and for allowing people to get [50:18] more of their taxpayer dollars back. [50:21] That's why so many people in this country referred to it as the big ugly bill, because [50:23] for the majority of people in this country, it didn't help. [50:27] It hurt them. [50:28] And again, losing your health care is nothing worse than not being able to afford your health [50:32] care. [50:33] And I gave you an example of a health care provider that couldn't afford their health [50:36] care. [50:37] But anyway, we have to get back to focusing in on, you know, regular people and their [50:42] inability to afford, you know, the cost of living. [50:45] I don't know, Ms. Moore, do you want to add anything or? [50:47] You know, it really is really, it's really interesting to see how people say the same thing [50:56] is. [51:05] We haven't even faced it. [51:09] Four million people, I think about $7 billion. [51:14] When I think about the increased inflation on groceries, it's very difficult to see how [51:27] people measuring the K-shaped economy, when the stocks were doing well and everybody was [51:43] really. [51:45] Oh, I'm sorry. [51:46] And so it is reminiscent of a K-shaped economy. [51:51] And I think that's why people see it very differently. [51:54] And I appreciate that. [51:55] I guess we just have a different interpretation of, you know, where our priorities ought to [51:59] be. [52:00] It's the richest country in the history of the world right now, and we've got 48 million [52:04] Americans who are food insecure. [52:06] We should be ashamed of that, and we should be doing something about it. [52:08] But having said that, I thank you for being here. [52:10] I yield back. [52:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [52:13] I want to speak first to the removing barriers to work for Disabled Americans Act. [52:20] Congress has repeatedly given the Social Security Administration limited authority to test new [52:26] approaches that help beneficiaries transition back to work. [52:30] And some of those demonstrations have improved health outcomes, increased employment, and raised [52:35] earnings for participants. [52:36] But as the ranking member suggested, times have changed. [52:40] And those demonstration projects have always come with careful oversight. [52:44] This bill is a sharp departure from that. [52:47] This legislation would give the Trump administration open-ended authority to shape programs impacting [52:53] Americans with disabilities, even though this administration has repeatedly proposed slashing disability [53:01] programs and benefits, including special education programs for children with disabilities. [53:07] Since this month, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion which completely undermines [53:13] the right to live in community for people with disabilities. [53:18] It's an open attempt to overturn decades of disability rights laws, including the Olmsted decision [53:24] from the Supreme Court. [53:26] I don't think this is a point in time when we can give unlimited discretion to shape disability [53:32] policy to an administration that's openly advocating for a return to institutionalization for our [53:38] disabled family members and neighbors. [53:41] Now, the second bill is just as hard to justify. [53:44] This is the second time this year that Republicans have wasted time and tax dollars to pass a bill [53:51] that does nothing more than congratulate themselves for passing their reconciliation bill last July. [53:58] This is a bill that was so deeply unpopular with the American public that they had to change [54:03] the name of their one big beautiful bill. [54:06] But changing the name of that travesty of a bill doesn't change what it did or make it any [54:12] more popular. [54:13] It cut one trillion dollars from Medicaid and Medicare, and that has already led four million [54:20] Americans to lose their health coverage. [54:22] It enacted the largest SNAP cut in our nation's history, causing 770,000 children to lose SNAP [54:32] benefits. [54:33] And it rescinded community investments in renewable energy. [54:37] And it delivered enormous tax breaks to corporations and billionaires, adding over four trillion with [54:44] a T to our national debt. [54:47] So when I talk to my constituents, they don't say, gosh, I wish you could go to Congress and [54:52] say, attaboy, guys, thanks for passing that one big ugly bill. [54:59] They're asking us to lower costs, strengthen Social Security, and make government work better [55:05] for the people, not for the billionaires. [55:07] And unfortunately, neither of the bills before us here do that. [55:12] Ranking Member Moore, during your committee markup, Democrats offered amendments to require [55:16] public notice and comment, preserve existing beneficiary protections, and give Congress greater oversight [55:24] on these Social Security demonstration projects. [55:28] Republicans rejected this amendment unanimously. [55:31] Why are these kind of guardrails important? [55:33] And to work. [55:47] But we do know that they're very vulnerable. [55:51] And we don't want them. [55:54] We need guardrails so that there will be ways for them to back out of unsustainable events. [56:02] We have typically, as a caucus, the Democrats have always appreciated efforts to get people [56:09] back into the workforce. [56:10] Why not? [56:12] But we have seen from the past behavior of this administration that they have tried to cut [56:18] 50 billion dollars over 10 years out of programs for disabled people. [56:25] And one of our senior members, Danny Davis, Dr. Danny Davis, quoted Maya Angelou, who said [56:37] that when people, when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. [56:43] And so we have seen this administration time and again trying to cut disability benefits. [56:49] And so we are unwilling and unready to do that at this moment. [56:53] Yeah, it is a matter of context. [56:56] And I know I worked with, primarily with children with disabilities in the special ed context. [57:01] But we, I'm hearing a lot from our community with really grave concern about the cuts that [57:06] are happening to those programs, particularly the removal of guardrails. [57:10] Things like the OSERS and Office of Civil Rights programs, which have been gutted so there [57:16] aren't the guardrails that we would have had in the past. [57:19] And I think that's raising even more concern. [57:20] It is that they're taking the, this out of the jurisdiction of the Office of Civil Rights, [57:28] educational departments there, are disaggregating these protections. [57:33] And it's a very frightening thing for disability rights across the board for children and adults. [57:39] Thank you. [57:40] And for veterans. [57:41] I know there's been concern among veterans that the veterans with disabilities have not [57:46] been treated with the same respect that they deserve. [57:48] So, thank you. [57:49] Thank you so very much. [57:51] You know, Representative Van Dyne, you lauded the fact that the One Big Beautiful Bill, [57:59] and you referred to it that. [58:00] I mean, I think it is hilarious that you have to change the name of your bill because it is [58:04] so unpopular. [58:05] But let's not spend too much time on that. [58:09] We changed the Affordable Care Act to Unaffordable Care Act several times. [58:13] I understand. [58:14] You changed the name of the bill because it was, it's so unpopular. [58:19] It was two to one, two to one. [58:22] People opposed this bill, right, when you were enacting it. [58:27] And now they still don't like it. [58:29] You said there was this great thing that you had a $2,500 child tax credit. [58:33] What was the Democrats, when Democrats were in control, what was the child tax credit back [58:38] then? [58:40] You don't know? [58:41] It was $3,600 a month refundable, paid out. [58:46] So what the Republicans did was enact a child tax credit which was worse than the Democrats. [58:53] So I wouldn't brag about that one too much. [58:56] Now, do you know what Amazon's, Ms. Van Dyne, do you know what Amazon's, how their taxes [59:03] went up or down after your one big beautiful bill? [59:07] We're looking at small businesses. [59:08] I'm sorry. [59:09] You're asking me about Amazon's tax. [59:11] I don't work for Amazon. [59:12] I'm sorry. [59:13] Okay. [59:14] Well, you would just say- [59:15] And I'm not a tax attorney for Amazon. [59:16] So I don't have their books in front of me. [59:18] Well, it's general knowledge that this big beautiful bill benefited the wealthiest corporations. [59:24] We can also prove that it benefited small businesses over across the country. [59:29] Amazon's tax bill went down by $9 billion. [59:34] By $9 billion. [59:37] So the wealthiest corporations in America, their tax bill went down because of your one [59:42] big beautiful bill. [59:44] Now I want to go back to this issue- [59:45] And yet they're paying more in taxes now than they ever have before. [59:48] I didn't ask you a question. [59:50] I'm going to go back to the question of whether, you know, the middle income, the working families, [59:57] the tax cuts could have been extended. [1:00:00] Now, Representative Moore, were there amendments proposed in ways and means that would have [1:00:07] extended those tax cuts, but not given all of this giveaway to the biggest corporations? [1:00:14] Now, were those amendments made in ways and means? [1:00:17] Absolutely. [1:00:18] There were amendments to try to extend the Affordable Care Act. [1:00:23] There were amendments to try to make the child tax credit refundable, to try to extend some [1:00:28] of the expiring tax cuts that would benefit lower income people. [1:00:33] We've heard Representative Van Dyne wax on about the efforts and help that we gave small businesses [1:00:41] taxes through the 199A, but as you've pointed out, that benefit was not to people who were [1:00:49] buying a printer for their office, but they were getting millions of dollars in tax benefits [1:00:57] through this giant loophole. [1:01:00] We had amendment after amendment that would have focused on providing tax breaks for lower [1:01:08] income families. I think Ms. Van Dyne is sort of conflating the tax benefits that went to [1:01:15] lower income people, as I've indicated before. You make $50,000 a year, your tax break was [1:01:22] $247 a month. [1:01:23] Right. And Americans have had to spend $3,100 more on everyday items, thank you. [1:01:29] On healthcare, we have people now in the Medicaid program, I know of one constituent, who makes [1:01:37] 125, Social Security benefit is $125 a month over the poverty level, so they're going to have to pay [1:01:44] $1,500 a year to qualify for Medicaid. And so this is where we have placed people. They are, the $1.2 trillion [1:01:56] cut in Medicaid, the $187, the billions of dollars in cuts in SNAP. All of these things have not been [1:02:06] compensatory for the $247 tax break that they may have gotten through the one big beautiful bill. [1:02:12] What's amazing is that usually, you know, you show up in your community, you have town halls. I take it, [1:02:19] Representative Moore, you have in-person town halls? [1:02:21] Absolutely. [1:02:22] Right. And Representative Van Doren, do you have in-person town halls? [1:02:26] What we found is that we actually have thousands of people who come to our town halls online. [1:02:31] So people who have children, people who have aged parents, people who don't want to actually have [1:02:37] to get out, we reach them more. [1:02:38] I have marvelous in-person as well as online town halls. Do you have in-person town halls? [1:02:43] We have online town halls. [1:02:45] You have online? [1:02:45] And we have found that that is actually, that is much more responsive to the needs of our constituents. [1:02:50] I can't speak to the needs of your constituents. [1:02:51] But what happens when you have in-person town halls and anybody can come and anybody can ask questions [1:02:57] is you hear from people. It's unfiltered. You don't filter. [1:03:02] We have people who ask questions in our town halls all the time that everyone can hear. [1:03:06] Well, what is interesting is that, you know, Republicans don't seem to want to have in-person town halls. [1:03:14] And I think they don't have in-person town halls because when they do, people show up and express [1:03:20] their opinion about their bills and their policies and these tax cuts and whether the economy is doing [1:03:27] well. And it is not for working families, for farmers. We have an increase in bankruptcies, [1:03:36] a 45% increase in bankruptcies. 45% increase in bankruptcies. I think that's the correct number, [1:03:43] right? So people are suffering. And it takes showing up and listening to people to know where [1:03:50] they're feeling. But instead of doing that, what we have is we have resolutions, the second resolution, [1:03:56] this is the second resolution that Republicans are bringing to pat themselves on the back. [1:04:02] Representative Moore, is there anything else you want to add to this? Oh, we didn't really get to talk [1:04:07] about the disabilities, but one of the issues that concerns me is that we have a president who's [1:04:11] made fun. He's mocked people with disabilities. He has issued opinions to strip people of disabilities [1:04:23] of their civil rights. He has taken action that is negative to families with disabilities from Medicaid [1:04:31] funding, to his mocking, to his stripping of their rights. And that's why something like this [1:04:38] reauthorization is so concerning. But I wanted to just give you the last word, Representative. [1:04:42] Yeah, I thank you so much for that, Representative. And one of the things I'm concerned about is not just [1:04:49] that people might lose their disability benefits, but they lose access to health care as well. [1:04:54] You know, in an administration where the thrust seems to be to cut people's health care benefits, [1:05:03] as well as cut an amount of money that they receive, I think it is very risky to give the [1:05:09] administrations the authority to do both of those things, and give them a two-edged sword to be able [1:05:16] to do that. And so Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee have been very empathetic to the idea of creating [1:05:23] more employment opportunities for everybody. But we don't want to do it at the expense of people [1:05:29] being able to have a decent standard of living. Right. Thank you very much. And I did ask whether [1:05:36] it was a 45 percent increase in foreign bankruptcy. It's a 46 percent, so a little higher. But basically, [1:05:44] this one big beautiful bill did not make the kind of difference for rural America. It's hurting it. [1:05:51] We have rural health centers, rural hospitals closing because of this big, beautiful bill. [1:05:59] And suicide rates. I'm from Wisconsin, and we have seen a really uptick in suicide rates among [1:06:06] farmers. Very, very concerning about the rural America. Even though I represent Milwaukee, [1:06:15] Wisconsin is a rural state, and so I'm very mindful of what happens. [1:06:19] Thank you very much, and I yield back. Set the record straight about this rule. [1:06:24] In this rule, House Republicans blocked over 1,000 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. [1:06:31] This rule blocks over three quarters of amendments. Over 90 percent of Democratic amendments were blocked. [1:06:39] More than 8 in 10 bipartisan amendments were blocked. Even members of the majority have a bad deal here. [1:06:45] Nearly 60 percent of Republican amendments are being blocked. So that's what this rule is about. [1:06:52] But I do have an amendment, Madam Chair. I move that the committee strikes section 14 of the rule, [1:06:59] which provides that in the engrossment of H.R. 8800, the clerk shall add the text of the Save [1:07:06] America Act, as passed by the House. Madam Chair, it looks like the reason we had a recess and come back [1:07:12] here is this section, which connects the Save Act to the NDAA before sending it to the Senate. [1:07:19] Let's be clear. Let's be honest here. I think that the Save Act is an awful, awful, terrible bill. [1:07:26] It's not about election security. It's about relitigating Donald Trump's loss in 2020. [1:07:32] His feelings were hurt, so we had a meltdown. You guys keep saying we need this bill because our [1:07:38] elections are not secure. Trump says the 2020 election was rigged. Many of you in this room [1:07:44] won your elections in 2020. You were elected in that election. Was your election rigged? [1:07:53] The Save Act is just insane, and you know it. Enough already. Trump won in 2024. Was that election [1:08:00] rigged? I couldn't believe that people voted for him, so maybe it was rigged under his mindset. [1:08:07] I also want to speak directly to Congresswoman Luna. And anyone who thinks that this scheme has [1:08:13] accomplished anything, it has not. It's just been a big waste of time. So let me be clear, [1:08:20] the Senate will just strip the Save Act out. They've already said that. Merving it with the NDAA [1:08:27] bill doesn't prevent that. Nothing in this rule will prevent that. Hell, Leader Thune, four days ago, [1:08:34] already filed cloture on the Senate's own version of the NDAA, and their version does not include [1:08:40] the Save Act. There is a zero percent chance Save ends up in the NDAA because of this rule today. [1:08:47] You know, so this is a cover your behind maneuver, if you will. And to my Republican colleagues who want [1:08:53] this NDAA to advance, you should also reject this rule because all you're doing by supporting this shell [1:09:00] game is giving false hope to those, like Representative Luna, who think that this will [1:09:04] do something down the line. It will not make a difference at all. And with that, I yield back. [1:09:12] Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Is there any further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? [1:09:20] Hearing none of the questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. [1:09:26] Aye. Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion, Chair, the noes have it. The amendments. [1:09:32] A roll call, Madam Chair. Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. [1:09:37] Mrs. Fishbach. No. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Houchen. Mr. Langworthy. [1:09:44] Mr. Langworthy, no. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott, no. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack. [1:09:49] No. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern. Aye. Mr. McGovern, aye. Ms. Scanlon, aye. Ms. Scanlon, aye. Mr. Ngoose, [1:09:55] Mr. Ngoose, aye. Ms. Ledger, Fernandez. Ms. Ledger, Fernandez, aye. Madam Chair. [1:09:59] No. Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the total. Four yays, seven nays. The noes have it. [1:10:05] The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion? [1:10:09] Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee to make an order an amendment to HR 8800 [1:10:15] consisting of the text of Chairwoman Fox's amendment 512 to the FY 2023 NDAA as adopted on the floor with [1:10:23] appropriate conforming changes to create an inspector general for the Office of Management [1:10:28] and Budget to bring transparency and accountability to the agency. Last week, I asked my Republican [1:10:34] colleagues what they would do to stop the Trump administration and his Office of Management [1:10:38] and Budget from illegally transferring taxpayer funds that Congress appropriated for the Secret [1:10:44] Service into a separate account in order to make security upgrades as part of the ballroom [1:10:50] construction project. Republicans cannot give me an answer. Well, I have an idea, and I would expect [1:10:56] that my Republican colleagues would support this idea. In 2022, Chairwoman Fox submitted an amendment [1:11:04] to the NDAA to create an inspector general at the Office of Management and Budget. Her amendment was made in [1:11:11] order and subsequently passed on the House floor with both myself and Chairwoman Fox voting for it. [1:11:17] Unfortunately, her thoughtful proposal never became law. But let's not give up hope on her birthday. [1:11:25] Let's help her. You know, let's give her a gift. And I believe that a strong majority in the House would [1:11:30] support this amendment. It was a good idea then. It's a good idea now. And I urge a yes vote on my [1:11:36] motion to ensure that Chairwoman Fox's proposal gets an up or down vote on the floor, and I yield back. [1:11:44] The amendment proposed is completely outside the jurisdiction of the House Armed Services [1:11:49] Committee and lacks an appropriate nexus to the Department of War. This amendment process is [1:11:54] consistent with those of the last three defense authorizations. Any amendment made in order should [1:12:00] be tightly wound to our national security and the appropriate jurisdiction in the House. Clever try. [1:12:06] Well, but didn't you offer it to the NDAA in the past and it was made in order? [1:12:10] Under Democrat. Under Democrat control. Well, I mean, look at how nice we are. I think it's a good idea. [1:12:26] Nice try, McGovern. So I urge a yes vote. Is there a further discussion on the amendment? All those in [1:12:36] favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say no. No. No. In the opinion the Chair knows, have it. I ask for a roll call. [1:12:42] Mr. McGovern requests the roll call vote. The clerk will call the roll. Mrs. Fishbach. No, Mrs. Fishbach. [1:12:49] No. No. Chris Fishbach. No, Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Howton. Mr. Langworthy? No. [1:12:56] Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. No. [1:13:03] Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern. Aye. Mr. McGovern. Aye. Ms. Scanlon. [1:13:08] Ms. Scanlon. Aye. Mr. Ngoose. Mr. Ngoose. Aye. Ms. Leader Fernandes. Ms. Ledger Fernandes. Aye. Madam Chair. No. [1:13:15] Madam Chair, no. [1:13:16] Clerk will report the total. [1:13:18] Four yeas, seven ace. [1:13:20] The noes have it. [1:13:20] The amendment is not agreed to. [1:13:22] I have another amendment to the rule. [1:13:24] I move the committee out a new section to the rule [1:13:26] providing immediate consideration of H.R. 7120, [1:13:29] the bipartisan Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act [1:13:33] introduced by Representatives Scott and Panetta [1:13:36] under a closed rule, debatable for one hour, [1:13:39] equally divided between the chair and ranking member [1:13:42] of the committee on Ways and Means. [1:13:43] This bill would modify certain rules [1:13:45] under the Social Security Disability Insurance Program [1:13:48] to help combat disabled Purple Heart veterans [1:13:50] who want to return to work. [1:13:53] My Republican colleagues have pointed [1:13:55] to the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act [1:13:56] as an example of what could be tested [1:13:58] if we reauthorize the Social Security Disability [1:14:02] Insurance Demonstration Authority. [1:14:05] But if both Democrats and Republicans [1:14:06] support this specific proposal [1:14:07] to help Purple Heart veterans, [1:14:10] why aren't my Republican colleagues [1:14:12] putting it in their bill [1:14:13] or putting it on the floor for a vote? [1:14:15] And I urge a yes vote on this motion [1:14:18] to ensure that Rep. Scott's proposal [1:14:20] to help veterans and SSDI [1:14:22] get the up or down vote it deserves. [1:14:25] I appreciate his leadership, [1:14:26] and I yield back. [1:14:29] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [1:14:32] Yes, ma'am. [1:14:32] Madam Chair, I appreciate the newfound support [1:14:35] of the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act [1:14:37] now that we have language [1:14:39] that would actually accomplish this [1:14:41] that is a little different [1:14:42] from the language that's written in my language. [1:14:47] I'm happy to have you co-sponsor it, [1:14:49] and perhaps we can pass it too. [1:14:50] But this language is what we were able to get [1:14:53] through the Ways and Means Committee. [1:14:56] And as I said before, [1:14:57] when the Democrats were in charge [1:14:58] of the Ways and Means Committee, [1:14:59] I was unable to move the legislation. [1:15:01] When the Republicans have been in charge, [1:15:03] I was able to move some legislation. [1:15:05] And I feel very good [1:15:07] about the language that we have today. [1:15:09] But I'm happy to come back again [1:15:11] with the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. [1:15:14] As I said, it's been a passion of mine [1:15:15] for many, many years. [1:15:17] And I'm glad that we're having [1:15:20] the discussion about it [1:15:21] and hope maybe it can move [1:15:23] through Ways and Means as well. [1:15:25] Well, I'm happy to work with it, [1:15:26] but there's nothing in the bill [1:15:27] that mentions Purple Heart veterans. [1:15:32] And again, we're not Ways and Means. [1:15:33] We're the Rules Committee. [1:15:34] That's right. [1:15:35] So we can amend things and add things. [1:15:36] And I think this would be a nice thing to add. [1:15:38] And, you know, I'm trying to have your back. [1:15:41] I'm trying to have Chair Foxx's back. [1:15:43] I'm trying to have your back, too. [1:15:45] Yeah. [1:15:45] I mean. [1:15:46] With a knife or an axe or what? [1:15:49] Friendly support. [1:15:51] I mean, I know you don't like guns, Jim. [1:15:54] So I'm assuming it's a knife or an axe. [1:15:56] That's probably correct. [1:15:58] It's a, look, I mean, [1:16:00] what I would ask that you do [1:16:02] is that you support, [1:16:04] you know, when, [1:16:05] you support 88-84 when it comes across. [1:16:10] Help me get the Dems and the Senate to support it. [1:16:12] And we'll get Purple Heart Freedom to work. [1:16:16] You know, the concept of it signed by the President. [1:16:20] Purple Heart Day is August 7th or 8th. [1:16:24] 7th, I believe. [1:16:25] That'd be a wonderful day for the President and Senate. [1:16:26] Hopefully you can join us at the White House [1:16:28] with President Trump. [1:16:29] You're President of the United States. [1:16:31] If you vote with me, [1:16:33] I will co-sponsor your bill. [1:16:35] I urge you to vote. [1:16:35] You already agreed to co-sponsor my bill, [1:16:38] but look, [1:16:40] I appreciate your support for my legislation. [1:16:43] I do, you know, [1:16:45] this 88-84 is going to accomplish [1:16:47] what we're trying to accomplish [1:16:50] with the Purple Heart Freedom to Work Act. [1:16:51] And with that, Madam Chair, you'll. [1:16:52] And we respectfully disagree on that, [1:16:55] but I urge you, [1:16:55] yes, welcome. [1:16:57] Is there further discussion [1:16:59] on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? [1:17:02] Hearing none, [1:17:03] the question is on the amendment. [1:17:04] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [1:17:07] Aye. [1:17:07] Those opposed say no. [1:17:09] No. [1:17:10] In the opinion, Chair, [1:17:11] the no's have it. [1:17:11] Mr. McGovern request a roll call. [1:17:14] The clerk will call the roll. [1:17:15] Mrs. Fishbach. [1:17:16] No. [1:17:16] Mrs. Fishbach, no. [1:17:17] Mr. Norman. [1:17:18] No. [1:17:18] Mr. Norman, no. [1:17:19] Mr. Roy. [1:17:20] Mrs. Houchen. [1:17:21] Mr. Langworthy. [1:17:22] No. [1:17:22] Mr. Langworthy, no. [1:17:23] Mr. Scott. [1:17:24] Mr. Scott, no. [1:17:25] Mr. Griffith. [1:17:25] Mr. Griffith, no. [1:17:27] Mr. Jack. [1:17:28] No. [1:17:28] Mr. Jack, no. [1:17:29] Mr. McGovern. [1:17:30] Aye. [1:17:30] Mr. McGovern, aye. [1:17:31] Ms. Scanlon. [1:17:32] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [1:17:33] Mr. Neguse. [1:17:34] Mr. Neguse, aye. [1:17:35] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [1:17:36] Aye. [1:17:37] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [1:17:38] Madam Chair. [1:17:39] No. [1:17:39] Madam Chair, no. [1:17:41] The clerk will report the total. [1:17:42] Four yays, seven nays. [1:17:44] The no's have it. [1:17:46] The amendment's not agreeing to. [1:17:48] Further discussion on the motion [1:17:50] from the gentleman from Georgia. [1:17:54] I have another amendment. [1:17:56] No. [1:17:56] Yeah, okay. [1:17:57] I have an amendment to the rule. [1:18:00] I move the committee make an order [1:18:01] of amendment number 1351 to H.R. 8800 [1:18:04] offered by Representative Garamendi, [1:18:06] which prohibits the use of funds [1:18:08] for the East Wing Modernization Project. [1:18:11] Madam Chair, [1:18:12] for months, the President swore [1:18:14] his grand ballroom was going to be built [1:18:15] with only private money, [1:18:17] no taxpayer dollars. [1:18:19] Well, then he tried to sneak a billion dollars [1:18:22] into the most recent reconciliation bill. [1:18:24] Reports are that he's still trying to use taxpayer dollars [1:18:27] for his gaudy ballroom vanity project, [1:18:30] all while Americans struggle to afford gas and groceries. [1:18:33] The Congress has the power of the purse. [1:18:35] We decide how taxpayer money is spent. [1:18:37] We should vote to ensure that taxpayer money [1:18:39] does not go to this project, [1:18:41] and the President funds it with private money [1:18:43] like he said he would do so from the very beginning. [1:18:46] I urge a yes vote, and I yield back. [1:18:50] Thank you, Mr. McGovern. [1:18:51] Is there further discussion on the amendment [1:18:53] from Mr. McGovern? [1:18:55] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [1:18:57] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [1:19:00] Aye. [1:19:01] Those opposed say no. [1:19:02] No. [1:19:03] No. [1:19:03] In the opinion, Chair, the no's have it. [1:19:05] The amendment's not agreed to. [1:19:06] As for roll. [1:19:07] Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. [1:19:09] The clerk will call the roll. [1:19:11] Mrs. Fischbach. [1:19:12] No. [1:19:12] Mrs. Fischbach, no, Mr. Norman. [1:19:14] No. [1:19:14] Mr. Norman, no. [1:19:15] Mr. Roy. [1:19:16] Mrs. Houchin. [1:19:16] Mr. Langworthy. [1:19:17] Mr. Langworthy, no. [1:19:19] Mr. Scott. [1:19:20] Mr. Scott, no. [1:19:21] Mr. Griffith. [1:19:22] No. [1:19:22] Mr. Griffith, no. [1:19:23] Mr. Jack, no. [1:19:24] Mr. Jack, no. [1:19:25] Mr. McGovern. [1:19:25] Aye. [1:19:26] Mr. McGovern, aye. [1:19:27] Ms. Scanlon. [1:19:28] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [1:19:29] Mr. Neguse. [1:19:31] Mr. Neguse, aye. [1:19:32] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [1:19:33] Aye. [1:19:33] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [1:19:34] Madam Chair. [1:19:35] No. [1:19:35] Madam Chair, no. [1:19:36] Clerk, report the total. [1:19:38] Four yays, seven nays. [1:19:40] The amendment is not agreed. [1:19:42] The no's have it. [1:19:43] The amendment is not agreed to. [1:19:44] Madam Chair. [1:19:45] Mr. McGovern. [1:19:46] I have an amendment to the rule. [1:19:47] I move the committee to make an order of amendment number 961 to H.R. 8800, offered by myself, [1:19:52] which restricts certain security assistance to Pakistan unless the Secretary of State, [1:19:57] in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, certifies that the government of Pakistan [1:20:01] has taken measures to prevent human rights violations. [1:20:04] Madam Chair, in Pakistan, the military has always loomed over the shoulder of civilian institutions. [1:20:09] As the Trump administration pursues closer ties to the Pakistani government and its military [1:20:15] leadership, we cannot ignore continuing concerns about human rights violations, not least because [1:20:20] U.S. funds can be used to train Pakistani military officers. [1:20:24] Last week, a court sentenced Dr. Marang Balak to life imprisonment. [1:20:30] Dr. Balak is a 33-year-old physician and the leader of a peaceful civil rights movement [1:20:35] demanding an end to enforce disappearances and extrajudicial killings. [1:20:40] Her trial was held inside a prison. [1:20:42] Her lawyers didn't know who the judge was, who the witnesses were, and where the proceedings [1:20:47] were taking place. [1:20:49] This is not an isolated case. [1:20:51] In January of this year, human rights lawyer Iman Mazari and her husband Hadi Ali Chata were [1:20:58] violently dragged from their car by police and sentenced to 17 years in prison for tweets [1:21:03] criticizing the military's role in the forced disappearances. [1:21:07] And behind these names are thousands more. [1:21:09] Balak activists, opposition party workers, journalists, lawyers, the former prime minister [1:21:14] of Pakistan, Imran Khan, and his wife, Bhushra Bibi, all rotting in Pakistani jails without [1:21:21] any due process. [1:21:23] U.S. assistance should not be given unconditionally. [1:21:25] We uphold American values and credibility when we insist that security cooperation aligns [1:21:31] with the rights for fundamental freedoms and human rights. [1:21:35] Amendment 691 would require the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of [1:21:40] Defense, to certify that Pakistan is actively taking steps to prevent human rights abuses before [1:21:47] its military may receive U.S. security assistance. [1:21:50] Accountability strengthens, not undermines, our partnerships. [1:21:56] And again, I don't understand why we can't even have a vote on this, but I urge a yes [1:22:00] vote and I yield back my time. [1:22:03] Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? [1:22:10] Hearing none, the questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. [1:22:15] Aye. [1:22:15] All those opposed say no. [1:22:17] No. [1:22:17] So, in the opinion of the chair, the no's have it, the amendment's not agreed to. [1:22:21] Yes, we're a roll call. [1:22:21] Mr. McGovern request a roll call. [1:22:23] The clerk will call the roll. [1:22:24] Mrs. Fishbach. [1:22:25] No. [1:22:26] Mrs. Fishbach, no. [1:22:27] Mr. Norman. [1:22:27] No. [1:22:28] Mr. Norman, no. [1:22:28] Mr. Roy. [1:22:29] Mrs. Houchen. [1:22:30] Mr. Langworthy. [1:22:31] No. [1:22:32] Mr. Langworthy, no. [1:22:32] Mr. Scott. [1:22:34] Mr. Scott, no. [1:22:35] Mr. Griffith. [1:22:35] No. [1:22:36] Mr. Griffith, no. [1:22:36] Mr. Jack. [1:22:37] No. [1:22:38] Mr. Jack, no. [1:22:38] Mr. McGovern. [1:22:39] Aye. [1:22:39] Mr. McGovern, aye. [1:22:40] Ms. Scanlon. [1:22:41] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [1:22:42] Mr. Ngoose. [1:22:43] Mr. Ngoose, aye. [1:22:44] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [1:22:45] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [1:22:47] Madam Chair. [1:22:47] No. [1:22:48] Madam Chair, no. [1:22:50] The clerk will report the total. [1:22:51] Four yays, seven nays. [1:22:52] The amendment is not agreed to. [1:22:55] Is there further discussion? [1:22:56] Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. [1:22:57] I move the committee to make an order of amendment number 511 to H.R. 8800, [1:23:01] offered by Representative Moulton, which reduces the total amount authorized to be [1:23:05] appropriated for the FY27 NDAA by $150 billion. [1:23:10] No reductions may be made to military personnel accounts, milk-con, or the defense health program. [1:23:18] Madam Chair, the Department of Defense needs to become more innovative and efficient in terms [1:23:21] of developing capabilities to meet our national security needs in a more cost-effective manner. [1:23:27] That's what this amendment is about. [1:23:29] I urge a yes vote. [1:23:29] I yield back. [1:23:32] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [1:23:38] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [1:23:40] All those in favor, signify by saying aye. [1:23:43] Aye. [1:23:43] All those opposed, say no. [1:23:46] No. [1:23:47] In the opinion, Chair, the no's have it. [1:23:48] The amendment's not agreed to. [1:23:49] It's for a roll call, ma'am. [1:23:50] Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. [1:23:52] Clerk will call the roll. [1:23:53] Mrs. Fishbach. [1:23:54] No. [1:23:55] Mrs. Fishbach, no. [1:23:55] Mr. Norman. [1:23:56] Mr. Norman, no. [1:23:57] Mr. Roy. [1:23:58] Mrs. Elgin. [1:23:59] Mr. Langworthy. [1:24:00] Mr. Langworthy, no. [1:24:01] Mr. Scott. [1:24:02] Mr. Scott, no. [1:24:03] Mr. Griffith. [1:24:04] Mr. Griffith, no. [1:24:05] Mr. Jack. [1:24:06] No. [1:24:06] Mr. Jack, no. [1:24:07] Mr. McGovern. [1:24:08] Aye. [1:24:08] Mr. McGovern, aye. [1:24:09] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [1:24:11] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [1:24:11] Mr. Neguse. [1:24:12] Mr. Neguse, aye. [1:24:13] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [1:24:15] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [1:24:16] Madam Chair. [1:24:17] No. [1:24:18] Madam Chair, no. [1:24:19] Clerk will court the total. [1:24:20] Four yays, seven nays. [1:24:22] The amendment is not agreed to. [1:24:25] Is there further discussion? [1:24:26] Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. [1:24:28] I move the committee make an order of amendment number 1006 to H.R. 8800, [1:24:32] offered by Representative Ryan, which prohibits the use of FY 2027 DOD funds [1:24:37] for military action in or against Iran unless explicitly authorized by Congress. [1:24:44] Madam Chair, both chambers of Congress have now voted to end President Trump's illegal [1:24:48] war in Iran. [1:24:49] It's cost billions of dollars in 13 American lives. [1:24:53] Another dollar should not go to this illegal war unless and until it is explicitly authorized [1:24:57] by Congress. [1:24:59] We ought to bring this to the floor and debate it. [1:25:01] And I urge you yes, welcome. [1:25:02] Is there any further discussion on the amendment by Mr. McGovern? [1:25:08] Hearing none, the questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye. [1:25:13] Aye. [1:25:14] Those opposed say no. [1:25:15] No. [1:25:16] In the opinion of the Chair, the no's have it. [1:25:17] The amendment is not agreed to. [1:25:18] Yes, for roll call. [1:25:20] Mr. McGovern requests a roll call. [1:25:21] The clerk will call the rolls. [1:25:22] Mrs. Fishbuck. [1:25:23] Mrs. Fishbuck, no. [1:25:25] Mr. Norman. [1:25:25] Mr. Norman, no. [1:25:26] Mr. Roy. [1:25:28] Mrs. Houchen. [1:25:29] Mr. Langworthy. [1:25:29] Mr. Langworthy, no. [1:25:30] Mr. Scott. [1:25:31] Mr. Scott, no. [1:25:32] Mr. Griffith. [1:25:33] Mr. Griffith, no. [1:25:34] Mr. Jack. [1:25:35] No. [1:25:35] Mr. Jack, no. [1:25:37] Mr. McGovern. [1:25:37] Aye. [1:25:38] Mr. McGovern, aye. [1:25:38] Mr. McGovern. [1:25:39] Aye. [1:25:40] Mr. McGovern, aye. [1:25:40] Mr. Ngoose. [1:25:41] Mr. Ngoose, aye. [1:25:42] Mr. Ngoose, aye. [1:25:42] Mr. Leder, Fernandez. [1:25:44] Mr. Leder, Fernandez, aye. [1:25:45] Madam Chair. [1:25:46] No. [1:25:46] Madam Chair, no. [1:25:48] Clerk, report the total. [1:25:49] Four yays, seven yays. [1:25:51] The amendment is not agreed to. [1:25:53] Is there further discussion? [1:25:54] Madam Chair, I know that there's a few other amendments here, but I just have one final one that I want [1:25:59] to offer, and that's an amendment to the rule. [1:26:01] I move the committee make an order to amendment number 974 to HR 8800, offered by myself, which prohibits [1:26:09] the use of Department of Defense funds to transport individuals to countries in which they would [1:26:16] be at risk of being subjected to torture. [1:26:19] Madam Chair, in February of 2025, Secretary of State Rubio condemned Thailand's forced return [1:26:24] of at least 40 Uyghurs to China, where they could face persecution, forced labor, and torture and death. [1:26:32] And he was right to do so. [1:26:34] Secretary Rubio cited Thailand's obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture, which [1:26:39] prohibits the deportation or extradition of a person to a country where there are substantial [1:26:44] grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. [1:26:49] The United States is also a party to the Torture Convention, which, along with Section 241 of [1:26:56] the Immigration and Nationality Act, prohibits the U.S. from deporting people to a country [1:27:01] where they might be tortured. [1:27:03] We have deported individuals to China, Russia, Iran, and other places with a record of torture. [1:27:10] It's shameful. [1:27:11] It is illegal under our law. [1:27:13] My amendment is simple. [1:27:14] It simply reaffirms this law of the land. [1:27:17] Let us not be like China. [1:27:19] Let us be better than China. [1:27:21] Let us abide by the law. [1:27:23] Let us not abet torture. [1:27:25] I urge a yes vote, and I yield back. [1:27:29] Is there further discussion on the amendment? [1:27:31] Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. [1:27:34] All those in favor signify by saying aye. [1:27:36] Aye. [1:27:37] Those opposed to say no. [1:27:38] No. [1:27:39] In the opinion, Chair, the noes have it. [1:27:41] The amendment is not agreed to. [1:27:42] I ask for a roll call. [1:27:43] The clerk will call the roll. [1:27:46] Mrs. Fischbach. [1:27:47] No. [1:27:47] Mrs. Fischbach, no. [1:27:48] Mr. Norman. [1:27:48] No. [1:27:49] Mr. Norman, no. [1:27:49] Mr. Roy. [1:27:50] Mrs. Salchin. [1:27:51] Mr. Langworthy. [1:27:52] No. [1:27:52] Mr. Langworthy, no. [1:27:53] Mr. Scott. [1:27:54] No. [1:27:54] Mr. Scott, no. [1:27:55] Mr. Griffith. [1:27:56] Mr. Griffith, no. [1:27:57] Mr. Jack. [1:27:58] No. [1:27:58] Mr. Jack, no. [1:27:59] Mr. McGovern. [1:28:00] Aye. [1:28:00] Mr. McGovern, aye. [1:28:01] Ms. Scanlon. [1:28:02] Aye. [1:28:02] Ms. Scanlon, aye. [1:28:03] Mr. Neguse. [1:28:04] Mr. Neguse, aye. [1:28:05] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez. [1:28:06] Aye. [1:28:06] Ms. Ledger-Fernandez, aye. [1:28:07] Madam Chair. [1:28:08] No. [1:28:08] Madam Chair, no. [1:28:10] Clerk will report the total. [1:28:11] Four yays, seven nays. [1:28:13] And the amendment is not agreed to. [1:28:15] Further discussion or amendments? [1:28:21] Amendment 1196 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative Brownlee, which ensures access to abortion [1:28:28] care, abortion counseling, and related services and medication for veterans. Our veterans rely [1:28:34] on the VA for the health care they earn through their service to our country, but the Trump [1:28:38] administration has reversed longstanding policy and eliminated access to abortion care, [1:28:44] counseling, and related medications through the VA, even in cases of rape or incest. Women [1:28:49] are the fastest-growing population of veterans, and hundreds of thousands of women rely on [1:28:55] the VA for their health care. Veterans answered our nation's call to service. They shouldn't [1:29:00] have to fight their own government for access to medically necessary legal care when they [1:29:05] return home. This amendment would restore access to abortion services, abortion counseling, [1:29:11] and related medications through the VA, ensuring that veterans can receive the comprehensive, [1:29:17] medically appropriate care they've earned, free from partisan political interference. Our [1:29:22] obligation to veterans does not end when they complete their service. I urge a yes vote [1:29:27] on this amendment, and I yield back. [1:29:31] Is there further discussion on the amendment from Ms. Scanlon? Hearing none, the question is [1:29:40] on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. [1:29:43] Aye. [1:29:44] Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion, Chair, [1:29:47] Madam Chair, I request the recorded vote. The Clerk will call the roll. [1:29:52] Mrs. Fishbuck. No. Mrs. Fishbuck. No. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. [1:29:57] Mrs. Ouchin. Mrs. pilot. Mr Lamagher. No. Mr. Wayne, Mr. Landwith. No, Mr Scott. [1:30:02] Mr Scott. No. Mr. Gerriff. No. Mr Griffith. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr Jack. No. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGuvern. [1:30:07] Aye. Mr. McGuvern. Aye.So Mr. scantlin Acquitet. Ms. Scanlon. Aye. [1:30:11] Mr. Neguzes. Aye. Mr. Neguzes. Aye. Mr. Neguzes. Aye. Mr. Negoes. Aye. Mr.드�ger Fernandez. Aye. [1:30:14] Mr. Stories Protection. Aye. Miss Bishop. Aye. I Madam Chair. [1:30:15] Madam Chair. [1:30:17] Madam Chair. No. [1:30:17] Clerk will report the.... [1:30:19] Pardon. Clerk will report [1:30:20] the total. [1:30:22] Four yes?Eis. [1:30:22] Eight noes. [1:30:23] And the amendment is not agreed to. [1:30:27] The no's have it. [1:30:29] Further discussion? [1:30:30] Mrs. Scanlon. [1:30:31] Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. [1:30:32] I have another amendment to the rule involving veteran benefits. [1:30:35] I move the committee make in order amendment number 947 to H.R. 8800, offered by Representative [1:30:42] Bill Arrakas, which would add the Major Richard Starr Act to the bill. [1:30:47] As we know from last week's debate, this bill is a priority for our veterans groups and [1:30:53] it has 330 co-sponsors, so it should be an easy passage here. [1:31:01] This bill would allow combat injured veterans with fewer than 20 years of service to receive [1:31:05] their full DOD retirement and disability pay so that combat injured veterans are not penalized [1:31:14] for being seriously injured while in combat. [1:31:17] So I think this is something we owe to our veterans. [1:31:19] It's very popular with the veteran community, and I would urge a yes vote. [1:31:23] I yield back. [1:31:24] First of all, wishing you a happy birthday. [1:31:26] Thank you, sir. [1:31:27] And I would sing, but if you've ever heard me sing, it would clear this room in a nanosecond. [1:31:33] So I'll spare you that. [1:31:34] So you're going to be much nicer today. [1:31:36] I am, I will be, I promise you I want to be as succinct as I possibly can so that you [1:31:41] can go out and celebrate tonight. [1:31:42] That is, that is the goal for us to get you out of here at a, at a decent hour. [1:31:46] But, uh, but having said that, I don't envy you today, uh, because cleaning up the mess [1:31:52] Republicans left last week cannot be easy. [1:31:54] You know, we had a bipartisan housing bill ready to be signed. [1:31:57] A rare, overwhelmingly popular bill that might actually help people afford a place to live. [1:32:04] Republican leaders were publicly taking a victory lap on TV just as Donald Trump blew the [1:32:09] whole thing up saying he would refuse to sign the bill unless Congress also changes the rules [1:32:14] on voting so that Republicans can legally kick registered voters off the rolls. [1:32:21] I mean, they are holding affordability hostage so they can try to rig the next election. [1:32:26] Are you kidding me? [1:32:27] Imagine explaining that back home. [1:32:29] Sorry, your rent is too high. [1:32:31] You can't afford a mortgage. [1:32:33] Congress did pass something that might help. [1:32:35] But Donald Trump feels his power matters more than your housing costs. [1:32:39] I mean, you can't make this BS up. [1:32:41] Business stalled in the House. [1:32:43] The rule got pulled. [1:32:45] The floor shut down. [1:32:46] Members were sent home early. [1:32:47] And once again, the American people got a front row seat to Republican dysfunction. [1:32:52] You guys control the House. [1:32:54] You control the Senate and the White House and the Supreme Court. [1:32:58] And you still can't govern, which brings us to today. [1:33:02] We are meeting on a defense bill with a trillion dollar price tag. [1:33:06] A bad social security disability bill. [1:33:09] And yet, another resolution celebrating Republicans for their big ugly bill. [1:33:13] Not bills to lower costs or raise wages or make life easier. [1:33:17] But a trillion dollar defense bill. [1:33:20] A dangerous social security bill. [1:33:22] And a Republican self-esteem exercise. [1:33:25] On NDAA, I will say that better pay for service members matters. [1:33:30] Better housing matters. [1:33:31] Better support for military families matters. [1:33:34] 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. [1:33:47] I think giving that much money to Pete Hegseth is nuts. [1:33:51] Then there is H.R. 8884. [1:33:53] This bill has brought authority over Social Security disability insurance to an administration that [1:33:59] has already shown us exactly how it treats programs working people rely on. [1:34:05] Speaker Johnson has said Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid need to be adjusted and fixed. [1:34:12] We all know what that means. [1:34:13] It means cuts. [1:34:14] And we see that in the big ugly bill. [1:34:17] If anything, we ought to be expanding Social Security disability insurance so that the millions of Americans that depend on it can survive the high cost of the Trump economy. [1:34:27] And then we have the second resolution this year that celebrates Republicans' big ugly bill. [1:34:33] Who's for this? [1:34:35] Nobody in America is sitting at their kitchen table now saying, you know what would really help? [1:34:40] If Republicans in Congress spent more time congratulating themselves. [1:34:45] Republicans want applause for a bill that cut food assistance. [1:34:48] It cut food assistance. [1:34:50] It kicked people off of health care. [1:34:52] It exploded the debt and handed more tax breaks to rich people and big corporations. [1:34:58] Meanwhile, the American people are getting screwed. [1:35:01] And all Republicans offer them is a lousy resolution congratulating themselves and more Trump drama. [1:35:08] People need this place to get serious. [1:35:11] Instead, Republicans have us here again cleaning up after another meltdown and pretending that this is business as usual. [1:35:19] It is not. [1:35:20] It is embarrassing. [1:35:21] And the American people deserve a hell of a lot better. [1:35:24] And again, I will end, as I began, promising the gentlelady that we will be as succinct and to the point as possible because it is your birthday. [1:35:34] And we I think you deserve a nice night six trillion dollars trillion with a T. [1:35:40] I mean, if you add it all up. [1:35:42] Yeah, that's the one point one five. [1:35:43] That's in the base. [1:35:44] The three point or the three hundred and fifty billion that they want in reconciliation in the 80 billion dollar supplement. [1:35:50] But one point six trillion dollars. [1:35:52] Even Dr. Strangelove is impressed with that figure. [1:35:56] That is huge, unprecedented. [1:35:59] And, you know, when we talk about national security, by the way, it's more than the number of bombs we have. [1:36:05] I mean, people right now in this country are worried about whether they can afford groceries at the supermarket. [1:36:11] You know, they're worried about whether they can afford to fill their gas tank up. [1:36:16] They're worried about, you know, you know, whether they can afford to send their kids to school or whether they can retire. [1:36:22] And, you know, and they're worried about the cost of housing. [1:36:25] You know, I want to read you a direct quote from President Trump. [1:36:28] A reporter asked asked him, what are your plans for the housing bill? [1:36:32] Because, as you know, we were supposed to take that up. [1:36:34] And Trump's response was, I don't know. [1:36:37] I think it's so unimportant compared to the Save America Act. [1:36:42] So just to be clear, he thinks that a housing affordability bill is, quote, unimportant compared to his election rigging bill. [1:36:52] I mean, I mean, I mean, what am I missing here? [1:36:55] I mean, well, that's a separate subject outside of the national defense area. [1:37:00] But I will certainly say that it shows a sense of misplaced priorities. [1:37:05] And when you look at what Americans are dealing with, the high cost of living, housing, education, food, energy, all of these things are major problems. [1:37:13] Every single policy the Trump administration has put in place has been to drive the costs up. [1:37:18] The tariffs, the war in Iran certainly has driven costs up, canceling energy projects all over the country so that we have less energy because he doesn't like wind turbines, apparently. [1:37:29] So there is a lack of a focus on affordability without question. [1:37:33] And I think we all agree, I think there's unanimity that if it, you know, when it comes to making sure that those who serve in our military, those who work for our military get a good, decent pay, they could, you know, raise a family. [1:37:46] We're all for that. [1:37:47] Yeah, and let me be clear on this. Spending money helps people, you know, which is not terribly surprising. [1:37:53] But if you're going to spend this much money, you better be prepared to raise the revenue so you're not just sending us massive money. [1:37:59] 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, [1:38:09] doesn't necessarily make their life more affordable and allow them to address some of the challenges that our constituents face. [1:38:18] I mean, I am, you know, ranking member Smith, what is the deal with this proposed Trump class battleship? [1:38:27] I mean, I mean, he wants a ballroom, he wants an arch, now he wants a battleship. [1:38:31] I mean, is this a good use of resources or is this another vanity project? [1:38:35] Well, I think it's another vanity. [1:38:38] Well, it's partially a vanity project and also then it's just a mistake. [1:38:42] We're talking about building the largest battleship ever constructed. [1:38:46] Now, we stopped building battleships near the end of World War II because they proved ineffective in World War II, [1:38:53] which was some 80 years ago now. [1:38:56] They're big targets, relatively slow moving. [1:38:59] You know, they bring firepower but at great risk. [1:39:02] And now Trump wants to build a battleship that is the largest ever. [1:39:07] It's going to cost over $20 billion to build. [1:39:11] And that's if we can build it. [1:39:13] Let's keep in mind that, you know, we have struggled to build a frigate on two occasions. [1:39:19] We struggled to build the littoral combat ship. [1:39:21] Now we're going to build something roughly 15, 20 times larger. [1:39:25] It's highly questionable whether or not we're going to build it. [1:39:27] And when you see the cost estimates, $22 billion, as I always joke, take the over. [1:39:33] And I'm pretty sure you're going to be easy money. [1:39:35] But it gets more to the point of what I was talking about earlier. [1:39:38] How can we meet our national security needs in a more cost effective way? [1:39:42] Iran was able to create an asymmetric advantage over us by placing the Strait of Hormuz at risk. [1:39:48] And they didn't need – they don't need a lot to do that. [1:39:50] They don't need a $22 billion battleship, okay? [1:39:52] We need to be looking for those types of asymmetric advantages against our adversaries [1:39:56] so that we can cost-effectively deter them. [1:39:58] Part of that is building cheaper munitions. [1:40:00] And I'll give you some good news. [1:40:02] There's a lot of private investment right now in developing new munitions that are cheaper [1:40:07] than the ones we have right now. [1:40:09] Counter-drone measures. [1:40:10] And all of that gets us to a more cost-effective way to meet our national security needs. [1:40:15] A battleship does not. [1:40:18] Do you know how many drones we could buy? [1:40:19] How many missiles we could buy with $25 billion? [1:40:23] It's staggering. [1:40:24] So I think it's a huge mistake. [1:40:26] Just one final quick question, Mr. Rogers. [1:40:28] I mean, do you have assurances that Republicans will bring this to the floor? [1:40:33] I mean, we went through a similar exercise last week and then they get pulled at the last [1:40:39] minute because some of your members are voting against, I guess, everything until they can, [1:40:46] you know, get this election bill passed that they've been pushing. [1:40:49] Do we have assurances that after we meet here and report this rule out that this will actually [1:40:55] indeed come up tomorrow? [1:40:56] My conversation with the speaker is that he intends to put this bill on the floor this [1:41:00] week. [1:41:01] Yes, sir. [1:41:03] I thank you both and I yield back. [1:41:04] So, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith, I appreciate the bipartisan work that went into [1:41:10] this NDAA. [1:41:11] I would have to disagree with a little bit of the testimony. [1:41:14] I think some would argue that strategic intelligence and proper use of our industrial base may be just [1:41:21] as important as having that industrial base because might alone isn't going to win the conflicts [1:41:27] around the world as I think we're seeing on a daily basis. [1:41:30] There are a number of provisions in this bill that are long overdue. [1:41:34] It expands access to contraception through TRICARE. [1:41:37] It broadens coverage of assisted reproductive technologies for service members and their families. [1:41:44] It protects the collective bargaining rights of our civilian defense employees. [1:41:50] It also includes investments that are important in my district including funding for seven CH-47F [1:41:57] Block II Chinook helicopters manufactured very proudly in southeastern Pennsylvania. [1:42:03] California. [1:42:04] And these are all worthwhile investments. [1:42:05] The problem with this bill is not all of the provisions but certainly some of the misplaced [1:42:10] priorities that have been loaded into it. [1:42:14] We've already had extended discussion about the fact that this is a massive amount of money, [1:42:19] $1.15 trillion with an additional supplemental bill, possibly a reconciliation bill, adding up to [1:42:29] $1.6 trillion in spending. [1:42:32] Just a massive, massive increase in defense spending, which am I correct, Ranking Member? [1:42:38] That's discretionary spending. [1:42:40] All defense spending is discretionary spending, yes. [1:42:45] Other than Social Security and some of our mandatory spending. [1:42:49] Well, sure. [1:42:50] All defense spending is discretionary spending. [1:42:52] Right. [1:42:53] So we do have a lot of discretion about how much and how we spend it. [1:42:58] Well, not to get overly technical here, but to a certain degree, [1:43:01] it is all discretionary in the sense that if the entitlements are simply locked in. [1:43:07] If we want to change the policy, we can change the policy. [1:43:10] So it's a technical difference between discretionary and mandatory that isn't worth getting into. [1:43:15] I'm just so used to hearing about cuts to discretionary spending. [1:43:18] I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing here. [1:43:22] Yeah. [1:43:23] So that is concerning. [1:43:25] That's a lot of money towards defense. [1:43:28] And some of it, this battleship, a billion dollars I think in this bill, [1:43:33] two billion for the battleship that is supposed to cost maybe 20-ish once we get there. [1:43:39] But in the descriptions we're seeing of it, the terms I'm seeing are it's an obsolete, vulnerable kind of a proposition. [1:43:47] The military is not asking for this. [1:43:50] It requires unproven technology. [1:43:55] Can you talk a little bit about this? [1:43:58] Sure. [1:43:59] We don't 100% know what it is because it's on the drawing board right now. [1:44:03] And it's something that we've never come close, nobody's ever come close to building before. [1:44:08] The contemplation is it will be this massive power center and you'll be able to move energy around and have this massive battleship with all kinds of munitions on it. [1:44:16] Kind of like the Death Star in Star Wars? [1:44:19] Yeah. [1:44:20] Well, I won't go there, but yeah, kind of, in a similar way. [1:44:25] And I can understand that. [1:44:27] 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. [1:44:38] Hezbollah, regrettably, is starting to have success with similar low cost drones. [1:44:42] This is what gives you an asymmetric advantage and because those weapons are cheap and effective. [1:44:49] So that's the way the whole world is going. [1:44:52] And we decide we want to build the world's largest ship ever. [1:44:56] That seems to be polar opposite. [1:44:58] It's polar opposite of actually what we worked on in terms of acquisition reform. [1:45:01] A lot of the acquisition reform is focused on, as I said, on innovative new technologies. [1:45:05] How can you get a more cost effective missile, a more cost effective missile defense system or drone defense system or drones? [1:45:11] So to put all of that money into one place is extraordinarily risky. [1:45:17] And that assumes that we'll be capable of building it. [1:45:21] We have major shipbuilding challenges right now just meeting our traditional needs, which this bill helps address. [1:45:28] And, you know, there's an amendment I know, the Ships Act, which would take it a little bit further, which I am supportive of. [1:45:36] 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. [1:45:44] 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, [1:45:51] where the Brits in part were routed by asymmetric warfare. [1:45:56] They came in with their large, massive troop movements, and the U.S. nibbled around the edges, and they lost a 13-state advantage in that war. [1:46:07] So it feels like hewing to outmoded ways isn't so great. [1:46:13] And then there's the cost aspect of it. [1:46:19] Some of our experts are saying that this is going to cannibalize our defense budget with just directing so much funding to this boondoggle of a battleship. [1:46:30] We're already seeing some of these vanity projects cannibalize other budgets like the National Park Service, et cetera. [1:46:36] So I do think we should be very concerned about that. [1:46:39] But I appreciate all the work you've put into this, and I'll yield back. [1:46:45] Thank you very much. [1:46:47] I'm going to keep deferring my comments and recognize Ms. Leger Fernandez for her comments and questions. [1:46:54] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:46:56] And I will refrain from singing to you because we want to make it nice and short. [1:47:01] Maybe short and sweet or short and sorry. [1:47:04] Feliz cumpleaños. [1:47:06] Chairman Rogers, what was the NDAA budget when you first came into office? [1:47:12] I don't remember. [1:47:14] It was 24 years ago. [1:47:15] Yeah, but do you have an estimate? [1:47:18] I have no idea. [1:47:19] I actually looked it up because all told, the idea of $1.6 trillion, right, when we add everything up, it was $400 trillion, $400 billion. [1:47:33] So you are now asking us to approve an NDA that is four times higher than what it was back then. [1:47:41] I am. [1:47:43] You are. [1:47:44] I am. [1:47:45] Proudly asking for it. [1:47:46] And you're really happy about that. [1:47:47] I'm very happy about it. [1:47:49] I just hate that it's not more. [1:47:51] Yeah. [1:47:52] We are spending less than any of our four adversaries as a percentage of GDP on defense. [1:47:57] And if we don't stop this madness, we're going to wind up in a war. [1:48:02] And, well, we are in a war. [1:48:04] You said we're going to end up in a war. [1:48:05] We are in a war. [1:48:07] But there is a war that is ongoing. [1:48:09] Do you deny that there's a war ongoing? [1:48:11] I'm not denying it. [1:48:12] Okay. [1:48:13] So there is a war ongoing, started by Trump, who said he was going to make sure we didn't get involved in foreign wars. [1:48:20] And I take it you are against deficit spending. [1:48:23] I am for strong defense spending. [1:48:26] Oh, but you're fine with increasing the country's deficit. [1:48:28] If we have to spend in deficit to do strong defense spending, then that's what we have to do. [1:48:33] Right. [1:48:34] And in fact, since you've come into office, every Republican president has increased the deficit through deficit spending. [1:48:45] A lot of that on war. [1:48:47] I think every president has done that since I've been in office. [1:48:51] Every, actually, every Republican president has increased the deficit. [1:48:54] I don't doubt that. [1:48:55] And every Democrat president has decreased the deficit. [1:48:58] It's actually true. [1:48:59] And I'll, I can hand you this chart if you'd like. [1:49:02] I have no doubt for telling it just like it is. [1:49:04] Okay. [1:49:05] We're telling it just like it is. [1:49:06] Every Republican president has increased the deficit. [1:49:09] Now, I think it's interesting, this idea that you mentioned earlier about how we won World War II. [1:49:15] The reality is I just finished reading, and I'm not, you know, I just finished reading a wonderful book, Doris Prince Goodwin book, [1:49:25] about the presidency during World War II. [1:49:32] And what was key there was President, during World War II, got the support of the American people. [1:49:42] Do you know what the support is of the American people for the Iran war? [1:49:45] I do not. [1:49:46] It is the majority of Americans, about 60%, oppose that war that Trump started, that we are spending one to two billion dollars a day on. [1:49:55] Do you know, have you ever, what's fascinating to me is this battleship that can cost billions. [1:50:04] Has there ever been an instance where we've had a president choose to name a class of battleships after himself? [1:50:12] Are you ever aware of that? [1:50:15] I'm not aware of one. [1:50:16] Ranking member Smith, what do you make of a president who wants to spend taxpayer dollars that our children and grandchildren, [1:50:30] and we will, have to pay for in the future, because it's deficit spending, where he's naming it after himself? [1:50:38] There is something kind of cringy and corrupt about that in my mind. [1:50:42] Yeah, well there's two separate points which I want to make here. [1:50:45] One, President Trump's focus on, you know, basically his name, his likeness, his power, is authoritarian in a way that is deeply troubling to me. [1:50:55] I think it undermines our representative democracy and I think there's no question he is governing much more like an authoritarian dictator [1:51:03] than like a democratically elected president of a constitutional republic. [1:51:07] And we could walk down a thousand different roads on that one, which aren't directly related to the defense bill. [1:51:12] I do want to get back to the spending issue, because I think it's important for people to understand the context here. [1:51:17] The chairman is right. As a percentage of GDP, we are actually spending less now on defense than we have at any point since the end of World War II. [1:51:27] I think it is important to remember that. Now, what has changed? [1:51:30] Well, in the 50s, 40s, 50s, 60s, there was no Medicare. There was no Medicaid. [1:51:36] We have massively increased spending in other areas, and as well we should. [1:51:40] Okay, I don't think the chairman or anyone wants to get rid of Medicare or Medicaid. I certainly don't. [1:51:45] Or a lot of the programs that we expanded. It's more a matter of recognizing where we are. [1:51:50] It is not the 1960s anymore, okay? We are not the sole dominant power in the world economically and militarily. [1:51:58] 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. [1:52:05] And, you know, look, I mean, I don't know what the total budget is like $7 trillion, something like that. [1:52:10] You know, defense would be 12, 15% of that. So there are certainly other aspects to this. [1:52:16] I keep harping on revenue. We are all very happy about cutting taxes, cutting taxes, cutting taxes, and we keep spending the money. [1:52:22] Okay, to me, those two things have to add up. If you love tax cuts, then you shouldn't love a $1.15 trillion defense budget, okay? [1:52:31] The two things shouldn't go together, but we've all decided that we're going to suspend reality and truth and facts and just live in a fantasy world of basically being able to just, I guess, make the money. [1:52:40] Well, we do make the money appear. It's just that we wind up owing on that. [1:52:44] So it's a matter of having a fiscal picture that makes sense for today, not for 1950 or 1960 or 1970, but for the needs that we have today. [1:52:52] And I think we are missing the mark by relying so much on having a massive defense budget to meet our national security needs. [1:52:59] Thank you very much. And I will point out that Democrats support the increases in pay and what we're doing with regards to our service members. [1:53:08] As the representative for Cannon Air Force Base, I'm very appreciative of many aspects in this bill, but not the concept of a $1.6 trillion defense budget that's deficit spending that doesn't have the same... [1:53:22] Because we've been keeping par, right, where we have discretionary spending on other matters as well as on defense, and this is not the case. [1:53:31] And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. [1:53:33] I want to state for the record that when I was chair of this committee, I never cut anybody off. [1:53:38] who testified. So things are different, but just so you know. [1:53:44] So, you know, the idea that we're going to have a resolution, you know, to celebrate the big ugly bill is beyond me. [1:53:56] And I don't know, Ms. Van Dyne, I mean, if you go to a grocery store, prices are up. [1:54:02] Go to a gas station, prices are still too high. You go everywhere, the price of everything is too high. [1:54:08] 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. [1:54:19] Sharon Dunham from Grand Rapids, Michigan, a two-time cancer survivor. [1:54:23] She went without insurance this year after her premium would have risen to about $980 a month from $614 and is paying out of pocket for tests and visits until she turns 65 and qualifies for Medicare. [1:54:36] Quote, it is definitely terrifying, she said. Arona East from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [1:54:42] Arona and her partner and her 20-year-old son no longer have health insurance because it's too expensive. [1:54:48] Through her work, a family plan would cost her $800 per pay period and a state marketplace plan with a high deductible will cost about $650 a month, he said. [1:55:01] Right now, I'm not able to pay for the marketplace insurance because it's just astronomical, she said. [1:55:08] Adding that the cost has kept her from getting care for pre-menopause symptoms. [1:55:13] Eric and Lisa Frankenfeld from Point Pleasant, New Jersey, a chiropractor and his wife, who is an office manager, [1:55:20] their premium was set to skyrocket to $1,928 a month, or $340, so they decided to go without coverage for 2026. [1:55:30] Quote, we are health care providers who cannot afford benefits. Oh, the irony, she said. [1:55:36] I go on and on and on. I ask unanimous consent to insert this into the record, Mr. Chairman. [1:55:41] Yeah, these are testimonies of people who can't afford their health care anymore because of the policies of this. [1:55:51] You know, this is, this is collected by Protect Our Care Organization. [1:55:59] They did. [1:56:02] It's current. [1:56:04] It's current. [1:56:05] Okay, all right. [1:56:06] Read it. [1:56:07] What? [1:56:08] I'm happy to keep reading it. [1:56:09] I mean, I'd be here all day reading it for you. [1:56:12] Right. [1:56:13] Right, yeah. [1:56:14] It's real life stories, real life stories which we should be, we should care about. [1:56:19] Look, we all support helping disabled Americans who want to return to work, but as we've seen time and time again, [1:56:25] when you give the Trump administration an inch, they take a mile. [1:56:28] The Trump administration has provided zero information on how it would use this authority. [1:56:34] In fact, when asked in markup if the administration has shared any details of his plans, Republican counsel stated he was, quote, not aware, end quote. [1:56:44] Mr. Van Dyne, if you want the Social Security Administration to do these demos, why don't you authorize any specific demos in statute? [1:56:55] Why leave it open-ended? [1:56:57] Well, I think, I mean, you're talking about the potential to be able to cut disability benefits. [1:57:02] The bill specifically stipulates that demonstration project may not reduce beneficiaries total income. [1:57:07] And this is a new beneficiary protection that was not included, by the way, in the previous authorization, the SSA's Disability Insurance Demonstration Authority. [1:57:14] But why not authorize specific demos in the statute? [1:57:17] You can, this is basically a reauthorization, but with stronger effects. [1:57:21] But I do want, I mean, you hit on gas prices. [1:57:24] So gas prices just, by the way, have fallen for the last six weeks. [1:57:27] Average gas price right now under Trump, under President Trump, is 16 cents lower than it was under President Biden. [1:57:32] So if you want lower gas prices, thankful, be thankful if Trump is in office and we don't have a Democrat in there. [1:57:37] I'm not, I'm not. [1:57:38] You talked about affordability, you talked about health care. [1:57:40] I'm happy to answer the questions as opposed to just kind of just staring at you. [1:57:44] The fact of the matter is, the last time we reauthorized something similar, we actually included demo projects. [1:57:49] But in addition to the bill that we're considering today, my colleague, and I don't know, [1:57:53] and he may not want me to say this, but I actually, Representative Austin Scott actually has a bipartisan bill, [1:58:00] HR 7120, that would make several specific SSDI program changes to help combat disabled Purple Heart veterans, [1:58:08] to help combat disabled Purple Heart veterans who want to return to work. [1:58:14] Would you support allowing the House of Representatives to also have an up or down vote on the floor for Rep. Austin Scott's bill [1:58:21] to help Purple Heart veterans on SSDI who want to return to work? [1:58:26] I think what this is, you're seeing all this put into one bill. [1:58:28] I think it's important. [1:58:29] This also allows a lot more flexibility. [1:58:31] I didn't see that in the bill. [1:58:33] No, what I'm saying is we're wrapping this up and we are working with Congressman Scott. [1:58:38] But it's not in the bill, right. [1:58:39] So I'm just simply saying... [1:58:40] This would allow an opportunity. [1:58:42] This gives a lot more flexibility if they wanted to have that in there. [1:58:45] You know, for some of us, quite frankly, and, you know, I have my political differences with this White House, [1:58:51] but, you know, I get the flexibility part. [1:58:56] I just want to be assured that this stuff is going to happen. [1:59:00] So saying that they have the flexibility to do this is different than saying they have to do this. [1:59:06] That's all I'm saying. [1:59:07] Well, and I think the bill includes the guardrails that prevent any of the beneficiaries from being worse off, [1:59:13] which I think is one of your concerns in our demonstration. [1:59:15] No beneficiary will see a decrease, as we mentioned before, in income because they participate in a project. [1:59:20] It also includes more congressional oversight, which I think is what you're asking, than any other prior authorization. [1:59:26] So it requires Social Security Administration to notify Congress of their plans 120 days, which we didn't have before. [1:59:32] But no guarantee that Austin Scott's bill will be done. [1:59:35] And I can't believe I'm agreeing with him on something he's done. [1:59:38] But we actually agree on this. [1:59:41] I don't know. [1:59:42] I just feel a hell of a lot better if, in fact, it were in, you know, in this legislation, [1:59:47] or that we had an up or down vote on it, and that I could be assured that it would be happening, [1:59:51] so that we'd have to wait another year and then come back and say, well, it didn't happen, why not? [1:59:55] All of that is part of the congressional appropriations efforts, as you know. [1:59:59] Well, in any event, I would, it is not in this bill. [2:00:05] I would feel a lot better if it was. [2:00:07] Maybe we can address that, you know. [2:00:10] So I understand that you would then, you would vote for this if that was his bill? [2:00:13] No, I would vote for Austin Scott's bill. [2:00:15] Okay. [2:00:16] You know? [2:00:17] And again, I, you know, and again, people's health care prices are going through the roof, [2:00:22] and I could go, I could read for hours and hours and hours about people. [2:00:25] 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 prices, [2:00:32] and for allowing people to get more of their taxpayer dollars back. [2:00:35] That's why so many people in this country referred to it as the big, ugly bill, because for the majority of people in this country, it didn't help. [2:00:41] It hurt them. [2:00:42] And again, losing your health care is nothing worse than not being able to afford your health care. [2:00:47] And I gave you an example of a health care provider that couldn't afford their health care. [2:00:52] 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. [2:01:00] I don't know, Ms. Moore, do you want to add anything or? [2:01:04] You know, it really is really, it's really interesting thing. [2:01:12] When I think about, about the increased inflation on groceries, see how people are measuring this case, when the stocks are doing well and everybody . . . . [2:02:00] Oh, I'm sorry. [2:02:01] And so, it is reminiscent of a case-shaped economy. [2:02:06] And I think that's why people see it very differently. [2:02:09] And I appreciate that. [2:02:11] I guess we just have a different interpretation of, you know, where our priorities ought to be. [2:02:15] We live in the richest country in the history of the world right now. [2:02:18] We've got 48 million Americans who are food insecure. [2:02:21] We should be ashamed of that and we should be doing something about it. [2:02:24] But having said that, I thank you for being here. [2:02:26] I yield back. [2:02:27] The gentleman yields back. [2:02:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [2:02:29] I want to speak first to the Removing Barriers to Work for Disabled Americans Act. [2:02:34] Congress has repeatedly given the Social Security Administration limited authority to test new approaches that help beneficiaries transition back to work. [2:02:45] And some of those demonstrations have improved health outcomes, increased employment, and raised earnings for participants. [2:02:52] But as the ranking member suggested, times have changed. [2:02:55] And those demonstration projects have always come with careful oversight. [2:02:59] This bill is a sharp departure from that. [2:03:02] This legislation would give the Trump administration open-ended authority to shape programs impacting Americans with disabilities. [2:03:10] Even though this administration has repeatedly proposed slashing disability programs and benefits, including special education programs for children with disabilities. [2:03:21] Just this month, the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion which completely undermines the right to live in community for people with disabilities. [2:03:33] It's an open attempt to overturn decades of disability rights laws, including the Olmstead decision from the Supreme Court. [2:03:40] I don't think this is a point in time when we can give unlimited discretion to shape disability policy to an administration that's openly advocating for a return to institutionalization for our disabled family members and neighbors. [2:03:56] Now, the second bill is just as hard to justify. [2:04:00] This is the second time this year that Republicans have wasted time and tax dollars to pass a bill that does nothing more than congratulate themselves for passing their reconciliation bill last July. [2:04:13] Now, 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. [2:04:21] But changing the name of that travesty of a bill doesn't change what it did or make it any more popular. [2:04:28] It cut $1 trillion from Medicaid and Medicare, and that has already led 4 million Americans to lose their health coverage. [2:04:37] It enacted the largest SNAP cut in our nation's history, causing 770,000 children to lose SNAP benefits. [2:04:47] And it rescinded community investments in renewable energy. [2:04:52] And it delivered enormous tax breaks to corporations and billionaires, adding over $4 trillion, with a T, to our national debt. [2:05:02] So when I talk to my constituents, they don't say, gosh, I wish you could go to Congress and say, attaboy, guys, thanks for passing that one big, ugly bill. [2:05:13] They're asking us to lower costs, strengthen Social Security, and make government work better for the people, not for the billionaires. [2:05:23] And unfortunately, neither of the bills before us here do that. [2:05:27] Ranking Member Moore, during your committee markup, Democrats offered amendments to require public notice and comment, [2:05:34] preserve existing beneficiary protections, and give Congress greater oversight on these Social Security demonstration projects. [2:05:42] Republicans rejected this amendment unanimously. Why are these kind of guardrails important? [2:05:49] We have seen people who are not able to learn to work, but we do know that they're very vulnerable. [2:06:08] And we don't want them, we need guardrails so that there will be ways for them to back out of unsustainable events. [2:06:17] We have typically, as a caucus, the Democrats have always appreciated efforts to get people back into the workforce. Why not? [2:06:28] seen from the past behavior of this administration that they have tried to cut 50 billion dollars [2:06:37] over 10 years out of programs for disabled people. [2:06:41] And one of our senior members, Dr. Danny Davis, quoted Maya Angelou who said that when someone [2:06:55] shows you who they are, believe them the first time. And so we have seen this administration time [2:07:01] and again trying to cut disability benefits and so we are unwilling and unready to do that at this moment. [2:07:09] It is a matter of context and I know I worked with primarily with children with disabilities [2:07:15] in the special ed context but I'm hearing a lot from our community with really grave concern about [2:07:21] the cuts that are happening to those programs particularly the removal of guardrails things [2:07:26] like the OSERS and Office of Civil Rights programs which have been gutted so there aren't the guard [2:07:32] rails that we would have had in the past and and I think that's raising even more concern. [2:07:36] It is that they're taking the this out of the jurisdiction of the Office of Civil Rights [2:07:43] and educational departments there are disaggregating these protections and it's a it's a very frightening [2:07:50] thing for disability rights across the board for children and adults. [2:07:55] Thank you and for veterans I know there's been and veterans that the um veterans with disabilities [2:08:01] have not been treated with the same respect that they deserve so thank you. [2:08:05] Thank you so very much um you know uh Representative Van Dyne you uh lauded the fact that the uh one big [2:08:13] beautiful bill and you refer to it that I mean I think it is hilarious that you have to change the name [2:08:18] of your bill because it is so unpopular but let's not uh spend too much time on that. [2:08:24] We changed that we changed the Affordable Care Act several times yeah yeah you had to change [2:08:28] I understand you changed the name of the bill because it was it's because it's so unpopular it was [2:08:34] two to one uh two to one people opposed this bill right uh when you were enacting it and now they still [2:08:43] don't like it you said there was this great thing that you had a two thousand five hundred dollar child tax [2:08:48] credit what was the uh democrats when democrats were in control what was the child tax credit back then [2:08:54] you don't know it was three thousand six hundred dollars a month refundable paid out [2:09:01] so what the republicans did was enact a child tax credit which was worse than the democrats so [2:09:09] I wouldn't brag about that one too much um now do you know what amazon's uh uh uh miss van dyne do [2:09:16] you know what amazon's uh how their taxes went up or down after your one big beautiful bill we're [2:09:23] looking at small businesses I'm sorry you're asking me about amazon's tax I I don't work for amazon I'm [2:09:27] sorry okay well you would just say and I'm not a tax attorney for amazon so I don't have their books in [2:09:33] front of me well it's general knowledge that this big beautiful bill benefited the wealthiest corporations [2:09:40] we can also prove that it benefited small businesses over across the country amazon's tax bill went down [2:09:46] by nine billion dollars by nine billion dollars so the wealthiest corporations in america their tax bill [2:09:56] went down because of your one big beautiful bill now I want to go back and yet they're paying more in [2:10:02] taxes now than they ever have before I didn't ask you a question I'm going to go back to the question of [2:10:08] whether you know the middle income the working families uh the tax cuts could have been extended [2:10:16] now uh representative Moore were there amendments proposed in ways and means that would have [2:10:23] extended those tax credits but not given all of this giveaway to the biggest corporations now [2:10:30] were there were those amendments made in ways and means absolutely there were amendments [2:10:35] to try to extend the affordable care act there were amendments to try to make the child tax credit [2:10:41] refundable to try to extend some of the expiring tax cuts that would benefit lower income people we've heard [2:10:49] uh representative van duyn wax on about the efforts and help that we gave small businesses through the 199a [2:10:59] but as you've pointed out uh that benefit uh that benefit was not to people who were buying a [2:11:07] a printer for their office uh but they were getting millions of dollars in tax benefits through this [2:11:14] giant loophole we had amendment after amendment that would have focused on providing tax breaks uh for [2:11:22] lower uh lower uh income families i think miss van duyn is uh sort of conflating uh the tax benefits that [2:11:30] went to lower income people as i've indicated before you make fifty thousand dollars a year your tax break [2:11:37] was two hundred and forty seven dollars a month right and americans have had to spend three thousand one [2:11:42] hundred dollars more on everyday items on every on health care uh we have people now in the medicaid [2:11:49] program i know of one constituent who makes 125 social security benefit is 125 a month over the [2:11:58] poverty level so they're going to have to pay fifteen hundred dollars a year to qualify for medicaid [2:12:04] and so this is this is this is uh where we have placed people they they are uh the 1.2 trillion dollar [2:12:11] cut in medicaid uh the 187 the 87 the billions of dollars in cuts and snap all of these things have [2:12:21] not been compensatory for the 247 dollar tax break that they may have gotten through the one big beautiful [2:12:28] bill now what's amazing is that um usually you know you show up in your community you have town halls i [2:12:34] take it representative moore you have in-person town halls absolutely right and where representative van [2:12:39] during do you have in-person town halls what we found is we actually have thousands of people who [2:12:44] come to our our town halls online but so people who who have children people who who have aged parents [2:12:51] people who don't want to actually have to get out we reach them more i have i have marvelous in-person [2:12:56] as well as online town halls do you have uh in-person town halls we have online town halls and we have [2:13:01] found that that is actually but that is much more responsive to the needs of our constituents i can't speak to [2:13:06] the needs of your constituents what what what happens when you have in-person town halls and anybody can [2:13:11] come and anybody can ask questions is you you hear from people it's unfiltered you you don't we have [2:13:18] people who ask questions on our town halls all the time that everyone can hear what what is what is [2:13:23] interesting is that you know republicans don't seem to want to have in-person town halls and i think [2:13:30] they don't have in-person town halls because when they do people show up and express their opinion [2:13:36] about their bills and their policies and the these tax cuts and whether the economy is doing well [2:13:43] and uh it is not for working families for for farmers we have an increase in bankruptcies a 45 [2:13:53] increase in bankruptcies 45 increase in bankruptcies i think that's the correct number right so people [2:14:00] are suffering and it takes showing up and listening to people to know where they're feeling but instead [2:14:06] of doing that what we have is we have resolutions the second resolution this is the second resolution [2:14:13] that republicans are bringing to pat themselves on the back uh representative moore is there anything [2:14:20] else you want to add to this oh we didn't really get to talk about the disabilities but one of the [2:14:25] issues that concerns me is that we have a president who's made fun he's mocked people with disabilities he [2:14:33] has issued uh opinions to strip people of disabilities of their civil rights he has taken action that is [2:14:43] negative to families with disabilities from medicaid funding uh to his mocking to his stripping of their [2:14:50] rights and that's why something like this reauthorization is so concerning but i wanted to just give you the [2:14:57] last word represent yeah i i thank you so much for that representative and and one of the things i'm [2:15:02] concerned about is not just that people might lose their disability benefits but they lose access to [2:15:09] health care as well you know in an administration where the thrust seems to be to cut people's health [2:15:18] care benefits as well as cutting the amount of monies that they receive i think it is very risky [2:15:24] to give the administration the authority to do both of those things that give them a two-edged sword [2:15:31] to be able to do that and so democrats in the ways and means committee have been very empathetic [2:15:37] to the idea of creating more employment opportunities for everybody but we don't want to [2:15:43] to do it at the expense of people being able to have a decent standard of living right thank you very [2:15:50] much and i've uh i did ask whether it was a 45 percent increase in uh uh foreign bankruptcy it's a 46 [2:15:57] percent so a little higher but basically uh this one big beautiful bill uh did not make the kind of [2:16:04] difference uh for rural america it's hurting it we have rural health centers rural hospitals closing [2:16:12] because of this big beautiful bill and suicides rates i'm from wisconsin and we have seen [2:16:18] a really uptick in suicide rates among farmers very very concerning um uh about the rural america [2:16:29] even though i represent milwaukee wisconsin is a rural state and so i'm very mindful of what happens [2:16:34] thank you thank you very much and i yield back set the record straight about this rule um in this rule [2:16:41] host republicans blocked over 1 000 amendments submitted to the rules committee this rule blocks over [2:16:48] three quarters of amendments over 90 percent of democratic amendments were blocked more than 8 [2:16:55] in 10 bipartisan amendments were blocked even members of the majority have a bad deal here nearly 60 [2:17:02] percent of republican amendments are being blocked so that's what that's what this rule is about but i [2:17:07] do have an amendment uh madam chair i i i i moved that the committee strikes section 14 of the rule which [2:17:14] provides that uh in the engrossment of hr 8800 the clerk shall add the text of the save america act [2:17:23] as passed by the house madam chair it looks like the reason we had a recess and come back here uh is [2:17:29] this section which connects the save act to the ndaa before sending it to the senate let's be clear let's be [2:17:36] honest here i think that the save act is an awful awful terrible bill it's not about election security it's [2:17:44] about relitigating donald trump's loss in 2020. his feelings were hurt so we had a meltdown you guys [2:17:52] keep saying we need this bill because our elections are not secure trump says the 2020 election was rigged [2:17:58] many of you in this room won your elections in 2020. you were elected in that election was your election [2:18:04] rigged um you know uh i mean the save act is just insane and you know it enough already i mean trump won in [2:18:13] 2024. was that election rigged i mean i couldn't believe that people voted for him so maybe it was [2:18:20] rigged under under his uh under his mindset i also want to speak directly to congresswoman luna and [2:18:26] anyone who thinks that this scheme has accomplished anything it has not it's just been a big waste of [2:18:34] time so let me be clear the senate will just strip the save act out they've already said that merving it [2:18:41] with the ndaa bill doesn't prevent that nothing in this rule will prevent that hell leader thune [2:18:49] four days ago already filed cloture on the senate's own version of the ndaa and their version does not [2:18:55] include the save act there is a zero percent chance save ends up in the ndaa because of this rule today [2:19:03] you know so this is a a cover your behind maneuver if you will and to my republican colleagues who want [2:19:09] this ndaa to advance you should also reject this rule because all you're doing by supporting this [2:19:15] shell game is giving false hope to those like representative luna who think that this will do [2:19:20] something down the line it will not make a difference at all and with that i yield back [2:19:28] thank you mr mcgovern um is there any further discussion on the amendment from mr mcgovern hearing [2:19:38] none the questions on the amendment all those in favor signify by saying aye aye aye those opposed say no [2:19:44] no in the opinion chair of the nose have it the amendments the mr mcgovern request a roll call [2:19:51] the clerk will call the roll mrs fishbach mrs fishbach no mr mcgovern mr norman mr norman no mr roy [2:19:58] mrs houchend mr langworthy mr langworthy no mr scott mr scott now mr griffith mr griffith no mr jack [2:20:05] no mr jack no mr mcgovern aye mr mcgovern aye mr mcgovern aye ms gallin miss gallin aye mr negus mr negus [2:20:11] I am Ms. Ledger Fernandez. Ms. Ledger Fernandez, I am Madam Chair. [2:20:15] No. Madam Chair, no. The Clerk will report the total. Four yays, seven nays. [2:20:20] The no's have it. The amendment's not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion? [2:20:25] Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule. I move the Committee to make an order [2:20:28] an amendment to H.R. 8800, consisting of the text of Chairwoman Fox's Amendment 512 to the FY2023 [2:20:36] NDAA has adopted on the floor with appropriate conforming changes to create an Inspector General [2:20:42] for the Office of Management and Budget to bring transparency and accountability to the agency. [2:20:48] Last week, I asked my Republican colleagues what they would do to stop the Trump administration [2:20:52] and his Office of Management and Budget from illegally transferring taxpayer funds that [2:20:57] Congress appropriated for the Secret Service into a separate account in order to make security [2:21:03] upgrades as part of the ballroom construction project. Republicans cannot give me an answer. [2:21:09] Well, I have an idea, and I would expect that my Republican colleagues would support this idea. [2:21:16] In 2022, Chairwoman Fox submitted an amendment to the NDAA to create an Inspector General [2:21:23] at the Office of Management and Budget. Her amendment was made in order and subsequently passed on the [2:21:28] House floor with both myself and Chairwoman Fox voting for it. Unfortunately, [2:21:34] her thoughtful proposal never became law, but let's not give up hope on her birthday. Let's give, [2:21:41] let's help her, you know, let's give her a gift, and I believe that a strong majority in the House would [2:21:45] support this amendment. It was a good idea then, it's a good idea now, and I urge a yes vote on my [2:21:52] motion to ensure that Chairwoman Fox's proposal gets an up or down vote on the floor, and I yield back. [2:21:57] So, I hope you might look what we're going to obtain on the floor. [2:21:59] It's all I have to give a position to say here today. [2:22:04] Welcome back to the [2:22:15] remove the Speaker ver.