Discussion · House of Representatives
Elijah Crane Republican
“I want the House to pass my amendment. The law already says foreign countries must pay us back when our military trains them, but the government has not been collecting that money. My amendment stops funds for this training until those countries actually pay what they owe.”
“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, 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.