United States with more than $90 million annually.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is shortsighted, with all due respect. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I have said my piece. I yield back the
balance of my time.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I rise in respectful opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado. I share, by the way, and understand her
desire to reduce spending. As a matter of fact, since 2023, as I
mentioned before, I have cut spending under the purview of this
subcommittee by $12 billion.
  The bill that we are considering right now puts forward an additional
$2.7 billion in reductions. In this bill, the education and cultural
exchange programs account is also reduced. It is actually $94 million
below the fiscal year 2024 enacted level.
  We did cut back funding, but we left in place sufficient funds to
support exchange programs that we can show make America safer,
stronger, and more prosperous.
  The Fulbright Program is the crown jewel of our exchange programs. It
allows the U.S. to develop key relationships with senior leaders of
national security, technology, business, and entrepreneurship. Also, it
strengthens U.S. relationships in fields that advance U.S. interests.
  In a recent official trip to South America, I heard directly from
President Trump's ambassadors about how the Fulbright Program is a
valuable tool to combat Confucius centers from Communist China and
other CCP malign influence efforts in this hemisphere.
  This is a program that gives us the opportunity to, again, create
those long alliances that have been so helpful. It cultivates future
leaders who champion our values, not Chinese values, and also, again,
combats Chinese surveillance, data breaches, et cetera.
  This bill makes large reductions in wasteful programs, but Fulbright
is not one of those programs. It is an important facilitator to our
national security goals.
  Mr. Chair, I very respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
  Ms. BOEBERT. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado
will be postponed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not
be offered.

                  Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Crane

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4
printed in part A of House Report 119-749.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
     available by this Act may be used to furnish military
     education and training absent reimbursement pursuant to 22
     U.S.C. 2347(b).
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1423, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Crane) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. CRANE. 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.

                              {time}  1320

  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.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I claim the time to oppose
this prohibition for funding for military education and training unless
reimbursed.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, our International Military
Education and Training programs provide significant national security
benefits at a very low cost.
  They strengthen the ability of nations to partner with our Armed
Forces in joint and coordinated operations. They help senior and rising
military leaders from countries around the world build ties with the
United States. They build the professionalism of foreign militaries,
increasing respect for human rights, the rule of law, and democratic
civilian control of military.
  Yet, many of our partners most in need of U.S. military training do
not have the resources to pay for it themselves.
  Mr. Chair, I saw my son, a United States marine, go to two wars, and
I know many of his fellow, I will call them colleagues, brave patriots,
they didn't come home to their families, and

I just want to say for those families, why would we want to undermine
one of the most cost-effective tools we have for building our
collective security? Why would we want to do anything that would keep
our men and women going to war?
  General Donovan, commander of the United States Southern Command,
said just this year: The return on investment in the International
Military Education Training program is clear, with multiple program
graduates going on to serve as ministers of defense and chiefs of
defense. The trust and relationships built through these programs
extend far beyond the engagements themselves and pay lasting dividends
for our shared security and will save the lives of our brave men and
women who serve our country.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
  Mr. CRANE. 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.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my
time.
  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Chair, I just want to say, when it
comes to our security, our prosperity, the lives of our patriots who
put on our uniform, it is, as my mom would say, penny-wise and pound-
foolish to pass this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 5 will not
be offered.