Business meeting to markup H.R.3944, making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026.

Appropriations Committee

2025-07-17

Source: Congress.gov

Summary

The committee reconvened to continue consideration of the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) bill, which had been previously complicated by an amendment concerning the FBI headquarters funding [ 00:21:50-00:22:42 ] . A primary focus of the session was a motion to strike a controversial amendment that had led to a partisan split in the initial vote on the bill . Discussions also touched upon the broader importance of bipartisanship in the legislative process and a proposed amendment regarding National Science Foundation grants .

Themes

FBI Headquarters Funding Debate

Senator Moran moved to strike an amendment by Senator Van Hollen that addressed funding for the FBI headquarters, arguing that Van Hollen's amendment made bipartisan passage of the CJS bill impossible . Moran emphasized his goal of creating legislation that garners broad support rather than just making a statement, suggesting the original bill would have passed unanimously without the controversial amendment . Senator Van Hollen strongly opposed striking his amendment, asserting that it protected a long-standing, bipartisan process for site selection by the GSA and FBI, which was being undermined by new proposals for the Ronald Reagan building without proper security or cost analysis . He cited Inspector General reports from the DOJ and GSA that previously found issues with alternative FBI housing proposals regarding security requirements . Senator Murkowski, who had initially supported Van Hollen's amendment, announced she would now support striking it to allow the CJS bill to advance, despite her lingering reservations about the FBI's move to the Ronald Reagan building . She explained her change of vote came after conversations with the FBI director, which addressed some of her questions, and a desire to avoid further delaying the bill and the entire appropriations process . The motion to strike Senator Van Hollen's amendment ultimately passed with 15 ayes and 14 nays .

Bipartisanship and Legislative Process

Several senators expressed deep concern over the increasing partisanship and its impact on the appropriations process . Senator Moran highlighted the importance of oversight and ensuring appropriated funds are used correctly, while also striving for legislative solutions that can garner broad support rather than merely making political statements . Senator Van Hollen characterized the vote to strike his amendment as a "microcosm" of the committee's struggle to uphold bipartisan decisions . Both Senator Murkowski and Senator Murray voiced a strong desire to preserve the committee's bipartisan nature and advance bills, fearing that increased partisanship would diminish the committee's effectiveness and power [ 01:19:56-01:20:06 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Senator Murray specifically criticized the OMB director for allegedly seeking to make the appropriations process less bipartisan and called for the committee to assert its authority as a co-equal branch of government [ 01:19:56-01:20:06 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. Chair Collins emphasized the importance of continuing bipartisan work to counter external pressures and ensure timely funding of the government .

National Science Foundation (NSF) Grants

Senator Baldwin introduced a modified amendment to restore over 1,500 NSF grants that had been terminated by the administration . The amendment included exceptions for cancellations due to financial mismanagement, research fraud, or malfeasance . She noted that these terminated grants affected universities across many states, including significant funding in Wisconsin for STEM education and research . Senator Murray strongly supported the amendment, calling the cancellations a "massive own goal for our country" and essential to reverse . While Senator Moran acknowledged failing to discuss the amendment with Baldwin, he stated he was not yet prepared to support it, but committed to working with her . Chair Collins also shared concerns about arbitrary cancellations and expressed willingness to work with Senator Baldwin to expand the grounds for acceptable cancellations . Despite support from some members, the amendment was not agreed to, with 14 ayes and 15 nays .

Tone of the Meeting

The tone of the meeting was largely serious and at times contentious, reflecting deep divisions on certain issues . While there was an overarching expressed commitment to bipartisanship and advancing legislation, particularly from Chair Collins and Senator Moran, the debate surrounding the FBI headquarters amendment underscored significant partisan disagreement . Disappointment was palpable among some members, notably Senator Van Hollen and Senator Murray, regarding the outcome of key votes and the perceived erosion of bipartisan cooperation [ 01:19:49-01:19:56 ]

Citation requires full transcript

Sign in to continue

Sign in
. However, the meeting concluded with calls for continued collaboration and efforts to ensure appropriations bills are passed and brought to the Senate floor .

Participants

Transcript

The committee will come to order.  We will now resume consideration of the CJS bill.  That bill currently includes amendments adopted by roll call vote, the manager's package, and a voice vote.  Let me begin by withdrawing my own motion to vitiate the vote   on reporting the CJS bill as amended during last week's markup.  Next, I would recognize Senator Moran to offer an amendment.
Thank you Chairman Collins and my colleagues.  First of all, let me do a couple of things that I was unable to do in the past conversation.  First of all, by recognizing the contribution that Senator Merkley is intending and attempting to make   And I am one who would be interested in trying to figure out ways, maybe that's the, I worry about putting us all in the old Senate chamber and having a conversation because then once again we are separating the appropriators from the Senate, our colleagues, not always to our advantage, but I'm willing to participate in a conversation about how we retain our constitutional and fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and fulfill our obligations.   and to find ways that we can continue to be colleagues that find solutions to problems despite our differences.  And secondly, I want to indicate that in the manager's package of the MilCon VA bill, we were successful in adding an amendment, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for doing so.  This is COFA, and our ability to   continue to have solid relationships with those who served in our military and the countries in which they come from and live in.  And it's an important issue, really should be to all of us, but particularly to our colleagues from Hawaii and elsewhere.  And Senator Bozeman and Senator Ossoff allowed us to, and by us, I mean Senator Schatz and I, to add an amendment.  It follows a meeting that we had, we being members   Senator Risch, Senator Bozeman, and myself, the way the word is me, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, the chairman of Milcon VA, and the chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, because we're concerned that the Department of Veterans Affairs is not following the mandate that we have required them to follow in providing medical care and benefits to those who live in the South Pacific that served in our military.
And so I want to highlight that   Language that is important to Senator Schatz has been included and I will continue to work as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee and Senator Bozeman as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction and I would tell you that Senator Risch is fully engaged in trying to make certain that the Department of Veterans Affairs takes a different tact and a different approach to this issue in following congressional mandate.   When I complimented or indicated my interest in finding a way forward, I also would add one more thing.  This committee and our subcommittees need to, I don't know whether it's returned because it hasn't been that prevalent in the time I've been a member of the Appropriations Committee, which is my entire time in the Senate, but oversight.  When we find things that we don't like in the bill, it embarrasses me that I don't know that.   But with our schedules and just the press of business, our ability to do oversight is woefully lacking.  And we ought to figure out as committee chairman and vice chairman of our subcommittees how our subcommittees not only appropriate, but then make sure that the money that we appropriated is rightfully used according to the law.  To turn to the bill at hand.   It has been described to all of you last Thursday, a week ago today, and I thank the Madam, I thank the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member for allowing this bill to be considered, further considered today.  At the beginning of the markup of Commerce Justice Science last week, the committee voted to report this bill on a strong bipartisan vote of 21 to 6.   I would highlight and repeat what I said last week.  This is a bill that in the absence of Senator Van Hollen's amendment, I would have expected to pass unanimously.
And by saying that, I cast no criticism of Senator Van Hollen.  I had the pleasure of chairing and being the ranking member, the vice chairman of this subcommittee with Senator Shaheen.   And I can tell, and I told Senator Van Hollen, I hated the fact that Senator Shaheen was going someplace else.  But I can tell you that, in my view, Senator Van Hollen and I have worked well together.  And this bill reflects the priorities that he fought for for his constituency and for the constituency of all of us in this room and for the benefit of the Senate and the country.   And I have no objection to Senator Van Hollen's efforts and attempts to make certain that his position and reflecting the desire of his state is heard and considered.  There's a challenge that comes with that.  Because my overriding effort has been to find a path forward, which is why we drafted the bill that we drafted.   And I suppose there's a way that we could draft a bill with only Republican support in this committee.  But my goal is not to make a statement.  My goal is to make legislation.  And I want to see us report a bill to the committee that you all can be supportive of.  And that amendment makes it impossible to do.  This legislation supports   Under the allocation that we've been given, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for the allocation, but under the allocation we've been given, we have made every effort to adequately support things that are really important to the country.  This bill, Commerce Justice Science, does lots of things and is involved in lots of things that really matter.
It's about the Department of Commerce and the growth.  It's about science and NASA and NSF.  And we've made the attempt to find the highest number of resources with the most responsibility for how they're spent that we can do with the dollars that we have to spend.  In addition to that, things that stood out to us, law enforcement,

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.

Sign up