Elijah Crane

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, which prohibits funds in this act from covering expenses for foreign militaries participating in exercises with our Armed Forces. If adopted, my amendment would require foreign participants in joint military exercises to cover their own travel, lodging, per diem, and other costs.

As a former servicemember, I understand these operations strengthen military readiness and serve as a powerful deterrent to our adversaries, but that doesn't mean American taxpayers should be picking up every incidental cost for a foreign participant joining these drills.

Our national debt is closing in on $40 trillion, and for several years running, the interest we pay on it alone has surpassed our entire national defense budget. No line item is too small to review, including all of the miscellaneous costs we currently absorb for foreign partners.

According to the House Armed Services Committee staff, we spent $8.1 million on partner expenses in Q2 of this fiscal year. Extrapolated over a full year, these costs run us $32 million, money that belongs in American pockets, not on someone else's expense report.

This debate isn't confined to the Halls of Congress. Two weeks ago, our NATO allies met in Ankara, largely to discuss their own path toward spending 5 percent of GDP on defense. If our allies can move closer to that benchmark, they can cover their own dinner when they train alongside the most elite fighting force the world has ever known.

We also support our partners with personnel, munitions, intelligence, and most of the weaponry and aircraft used in these exercises. Since we are already doing the heavy lifting, it is responsible to expect our partners to cover their own incidentals.

Some of my colleagues may argue this amendment sends the wrong signal to our partners. I firmly disagree. Every serious cost-sharing arrangement between nations works the same way: We cover our personnel. They cover theirs. Asking our allies to pay their own hotel bill doesn't weaken an alliance. Carrying their tab indefinitely is what erodes the case for continued burden sharing on our end.

My amendment also preserves flexibility for legitimate national security needs as the Secretary of War may waive this prohibition when necessary. Prior to issuing the waiver, the Secretary must submit a detailed justification to committees of jurisdiction in the House and Senate at least 30 days in advance.

In plain terms, my amendment keeps Congress' oversight role intact without tying the Secretary's hands. Moreover, my approach doesn't pull back from our commitments to undermine what these exercises are meant to accomplish. Our allies aren't going to walk away from the partnership because we stop paying for their lodging and meals. These drills will continue, just without the unnecessary taxpayer subsidy attached to them.

As Members of this body, we cannot be derelict in our responsibility. The American people sent us here in large part to confront this debt, and that means reviewing every line item, no matter how small and how small the savings look in isolation.

It is time to relieve taxpayers of an expense that was never theirs to carry and shift it back to our allies, where it belongs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this sensible amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, my colleague said that our partners are struggling. I want to remind my colleague that we are pushing $40 trillion in debt. If that is not struggling, then I don't know what is.

My colleague also said that we need to be showing them that we value the partnership. As I laid out in my opening testimony, we also support our partners with personnel, munitions, intelligence, and most of the weaponry and aircraft used in these exercises. I think that is showing them that we value the partnership.

As a servicemember myself, I acknowledge we do receive value from these partnerships, but we shouldn't ask the American people sitting in the gallery right now and all over the country to foot the entire bill. Let's be honest. Our allies also get value from these partnerships, so asking them to pay for the incidentals like their lodging, their hotels, and their food, that is not asking a lot when you look at everything that we provide, Mr. Chair, in addition to world-class training.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the comments from my colleague in bringing up the Department of War and the Secretary of War. It is for that reason that in this amendment we actually preserve the flexibility for legitimate national security needs, and we offer the Secretary of War the option to waive this provision when necessary.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment which ends the Department of War's security assistance to Ukraine for the coming fiscal year apart from funding to protect our Embassy.

For decades, the American people have made clear their opposition to using taxpayer dollars to position the United States as the world's police force.

We have spent blood and resources overseas yet have achieved few tangible wins for hardworking citizens while our Nation has deteriorated from within. Today, Congress appropriated approximately $187 billion for Ukraine and the broader response to this war, funding that could instead go toward problems here at home. We don't have a clear picture of where all of it has ended up.

The Government Accountability Office has already found that the Department of War has misvalued billions of dollars in weapons handed over to Ukraine. Furthermore, the Department's own inspector general has flagged gaps in tracking equipment that went missing or was destroyed. Despite the inspector general and independent auditors flagging corruption, risks, and gaps in oversight, Congress keeps appropriating anyway.

It is sensible to pause and audit our prior funding before continuing to deliver substantial resources.

We also must weigh our own bandwidth given the unrest in the Middle East and rising tensions in the Pacific. Every dollar asset we commit to Ukraine is a dollar or asset unavailable to deter threats more directly relevant to America's national security.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, our stockpiles of key munitions, such as Patriot interceptors are already stretched thin by simultaneous demands from the Middle East, the Pacific, and Ukraine. We can't simply flip a switch to restock these weapons as rebuilding depleted inventories requires years of effort and significant cost. Rather than bringing us closer to a lasting resolution, our involvement has prolonged this conflict and drained our stockpiles to shield another nation.

We have also far outpaced our European partners in both financial and security support despite this conflict bearing more directly on their own livelihoods than ours.

Our allies across the Atlantic should take the initiative instead of banking on American taxpayers to underwrite their security. I will also note the current Ukrainian leadership has suspended national elections under martial law, banned rival political parties, and moved against domestic media outlets it considers a security threat. This is worth remembering the next time someone frames this as a fight for democratic values.

It is also risky to keep escalating tensions with a nuclear-armed rival as this conflict grows more destructive on both sides.

Although my amendment halts financial assistance for the coming year, it does not abandon the region or restrict outside assistance to Ukraine. Our Embassy retains full funding to maintain a secure diplomatic presence, and nothing in this amendment stops our European partners from stepping up if they decide it is worth the investment. However, it is not our responsibility to defend the borders of a nation thousands of miles away while failing to address the challenges we face at home.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in refocusing our priorities on the American people by supporting this sensible amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will comment really quickly on something that my colleague said. He made the typical ``we are fighting for diplomatic values'' argument. I want to reiterate that the Ukrainian leadership has suspended national elections under martial law, banned rival political parties, and moved against domestic media outlets it considers a security threat. Those are hardly democratic values. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, my colleague brings up that the Ukrainians were a Democrat sovereign state prior to the war to justify their President Zelenskyy canceling elections. I doubt my Democrat colleagues on the other side, Madam Chair, would feel the same way if President Trump were to cancel elections while we are at war. I don't think that justifies at all canceling elections.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which prohibits funds in this act from furnishing international military education and training without the reimbursement required under 22 U.S.C. 2347(b).

My provision does not create new policy. It simply enforces a reimbursement requirement that has been on the books for nearly 50 years and strengthens accountability for how we spend taxpayer dollars.

Under current law, nations using Foreign Military Financing to purchase military training must pay a rate comparable to what grant recipients receive.

This training was never intended to be free. However, because the 1976 law lacked a real reinforcement mechanism, American taxpayers have quietly absorbed these costs instead. My amendment fixes that longstanding problem.

It applies to Foreign Military Financing-purchased training and similar title 22 programs, and it requires that reimbursement actually be collected before this act's funds can be used to provide that training. Importantly, it does not affect international military education and training grants, nor does it affect training for U.S. personnel.

I offered this amendment because Congress' original 1976 language left the door open for lax enforcement. The law says that foreign nations should pay for instruction from the strongest fighting force in the world, but it never included a means to ensure that reimbursement actually occurs.

This can result in training that ends up free for foreign partners at the expense of American taxpayers. The original policy is not flawed. There is currently a gap in collection, and this amendment closes it.

Our national debt is approaching $40 trillion, and much of that strain comes from years of weak enforcement and lost accountability across government. It is our responsibility to review every line item, even the small ones, because these costs add up.

Given that we already provide substantial protection, personnel, and intelligence support to our partners, we should not absorb the cost of training that Congress has long required foreign nations to reimburse.

Our partners are also welcome to use Foreign Military Financing or their own national funds to cover this training rather than defaulting to taxpayer-funded grants. Some of my colleagues may argue this will strain relationship with our partners. That is not the case.

This amendment only applies where reimbursement is already required by law. It does not touch International Military Education and Training grants or our core training relationships.

Others may suggest this is a minor technical fix unworthy of floor time. I disagree. A gap in reimbursement law is precisely the kind of overlooked taxpayer exposure Congress should address regardless of size.

To my colleagues, the status quo is clearly broken. We face unsustainable debt, and too many programs lack real accountability. It is our duty to reinforce existing laws and ensure we are collecting what taxpayers are owed.

I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment and relieve hardworking Americans of expenses that they were never meant to bear.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, like I said, this is already law. We are clearly just not enforcing it. I will reiterate that we are close to $40 trillion in debt. We are spending $2 trillion annually that we don't have.

As a servicemember myself, I am not trying to say that we don't receive anything from cooperation and training with our foreign partners. The point is this is already law. This is already the law. We are just not enforcing it, and we are not collecting these reimbursements which we are entitled to.

For far too long, the United States has borne the brunt of global defense, and I know it doesn't mean a lot to many people in this Chamber that we are $40 trillion in debt, but we continue to spend money that we don't have.

Again, this is already the law. There is just no enforcement. That is what my amendment would take care of. Again, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I unintentionally voted against the Bentz Amendment No. 2 to H.R. 7567, Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. I want to reflect that I support this amendment and intended to vote YES.