Hoyer Remarks at Rules Committee Hearing in Support of an Amendment Prohibiting the Use of Federal Funds to Invade a NATO Member State

WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05), Ranking Member of the Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations Subcommittee, delivered remarks at a House Committee on Rules hearing in support of an amendment by Rep. Bill Keating (MA-09) to H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, that would prohibit the use of federal funds to invade a NATO member country or territory. Below are a video and transcript of his remarks:

Click here to watch a video of his remarks.

"Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Ranking Member McGovern and distinguished Members of the committee. I'm sorry to say this ought not to be a controversial amendment. Mr. McGovern made the point that we ought to have amendments, we ought to have an open debate. Mr. Roy made the same comment. Happily, I think this amendment ought not to be too controversial. I may be wrong on that, but I thank you all for coming, and I thank Mr. Keating for his leadership on this, which bars any fund in this bill from being used for the invasion of a NATO member country. Frankly, Madam Chair, I think that proposition has broad support in the Congress of the United States. It's sad that we need an amendment to ensure that doesn't happen.

"Last weekend, I laid a wreath at the monument dedicated to young men and women who fought and died to defend liberty and democracy. Engraved on that memorial are the names of familiar theaters of war: Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others. Madam Chair, that memorial is not in Washington, D.C., it is in Copenhagen, Denmark. Danes have fought side by side with Americans around the world. Indeed, Denmark lost more troops per capita in Afghanistan than we did. Denmark has been a model ally. This Administration's threat to annex Greenland - an autonomous Danish territory - makes our nation less secure by alienating our allies and emboldening our adversaries. All for the strategic - no strategic gain whatsoever. We presently do whatever we deem necessary in Greenland. Whatever we want to do, we can do in Greenland. Our 1951 bilateral agreement with Denmark grants us virtually complete latitude to do whatever we need, whenever we need, and wherever we need on the island to counter our adversaries. President Trump hasn't articulated a single national security or economic objective that America has in Greenland that we cannot already achieve through our current agreement.

"Taking Greenland is [as] unpopular as it is unnecessary. This amendment would be supported by at least 75% of the American people, and a majority of the Republicans who were polled. They oppose annexing Greenland. They are wary for good reason. America has nothing to gain from taking Greenland, but we stand to lose more than anyone else. The ensuing turmoil would severely weaken NATO. NATO has overwhelming support. The thought that America would even consider taking military action this way fills our allies with dread, and our adversaries with glee. That's not good for America. Putin has made clear his intention to restore the old Soviet empire. Without NATO, there is nothing to stop him from venturing into the Baltic and beyond. President Trump's - I know everybody's using their phone, but I really do believe this is an important issue for America, and I believe it is nonpartisan. President Trump's comment in Davos today, that he does not intend to use military force to seize Greenland, was a welcome assurance. This amendment is consistent with the President's comments today.

"Madam Chair, we owe it to the vast majority of Americans who oppose annexing Greenland to give this amendment a vote on the House Floor. Let the Congress speak. It will speak in a bipartisan fashion. Don't shut them out. We've talked about this process being essentially the big four. I will tell you, as [the FSGG] Subcommittee Ranking Member, we had no meeting of the subcommittee on a conference. We owe this assurance to our allies who have never betrayed our trust. We owe it to the countless Americans, Danes, and others who laid down their lives to maintain a world order that does not allow for wars of conquest. If there was ever a time for Congress to exercise its constitutional power of the purse in America's foreign affairs, now is the time. All this amendment says - and Mr. Keating will be speaking to this specific [amendment] - all it says is that we will not invade a NATO nation. Not one of you does not understand the angst that exists in NATO right now, and this would be coupled with the President's assurance today that there would not be an invasion. This would support that assertion and give greater confidence to our allies, and that confidence is critically important for our own security. I urge you, make an exception to what appears to be your rule of 'no democratic amendments.'

"[When] I was House Majority Leader, Madam Chair, I offered a number of open rules when we considered appropriation bills, and we passed all 12 through the House of Representatives in my first term as Majority Leader, by July 30th. All 12, open amendments. At the end, we had so much time, and our friend Patrick McHenry became a good friend of mine, but he was a pain in the neck in his first term, and he had one zillion amendments. So, we had to have some rules cut off. The last two bills we did that but we had open rules. Why? We gave people - and then Madam Chair, when we had a rule, Mr. Boehner - who was your leader at that point in time - and I talked and I said, 'John, I will give you ten amendments. Whatever amendments you choose to make in order, we'll do that.' He turned down that offer because I don't think he wanted to make that choice, Madam Chair, but the point I'm making is this is the representative body of the people. Please let them speak on this issue. Win, lose or draw, let them speak. Thank you."