YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Full Committee Markup: FY27 NDAA, Part 1 (10am - 7pm)

Full Committee Markup: FY27 NDAA, Part 1 (10am - 7pm) — Transcript

by U.S. House Armed Services Committee · 63,321 words · 10,278 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:40Heat. Heat.
2:11Heat. Heat.
7:18So
7:21if we do something
7:29overach
7:31Don't have more
8:39Hallelujah.
9:40Heat. Heat.
18:59Heat.
19:21Heat.
19:37Heat. Heat.
20:09Sir, we have a
20:13>> committee will come to order.
20:15I ask unanimous consent that the chair
20:17be authorized to declare recess at any
20:19time without objection. So ordered.
20:20Without objection, members have five
20:22legislative days within which to submit
20:24written statements to be made a part of
20:26the record or measure unconsideration
20:29today. So ordered. Pursuant to committee
20:31rule 17, recorded votes on any measure
20:34or matter before the committee today
20:36will be by electronic device. The
20:38overhead monitors will show the votes of
20:40members as they are cast. At the
20:43conclusion of the vote, the clerk shall
20:44secure and record the votes cast and
20:46report them to the committee. The chair
20:48reserves the right to request a roll
20:50call vote by the clerk in lie of
20:52electronic voting at his discretion. It
20:55is the chair's intention to operate
20:57under the
20:59fiveminut rule. Ask unanimous consent uh
21:01that there be no discussions on all
21:03black amendments. Without objection, so
21:05ordered. Now I also ask unanimous
21:07consent on the time for debate to be
21:10reduced to three minutes. Without
21:12objection. So ordered. Uh today the
21:15committee will mark HR8800, the National
21:18Defense Authorization Act, fiscal year
21:192027.
21:22And uh I recognize myself now for an
21:26opening statement.
21:28Throughout our budget hearings this
21:29year, we've heard a consistent theme.
21:32The Defense Industrial Base, the
21:33foundation of our military power, is in
21:36trouble. Over the last 30 years, the
21:39defense industrial base has atrophied
21:41significantly. We are no longer capable
21:43of manufacturing for our war fighters at
21:46scale and speed. In the 1990s, there
21:49were 51 prime defense contractors.
21:52Today, there are only six. Our global
21:54munition stockpiles are low and we no
21:57longer have the surge capacity to
21:58rapidly replenish them. We also have
22:01fragile supply chains that make us uh
22:04reliant on our adversaries.
22:06We have very little industrial capacity
22:08to mine, refine, or process critical
22:10minerals, making us dependent on other
22:12countries, including our adversaries for
22:15access to them. Our skilled workforce
22:17has shrunk, further reducing our
22:19production capacity. And we falling
22:22dangerously behind when it comes to ship
22:24building and maritime readiness. So,
22:26when it comes to revitalizing our
22:28industrial base, the choice is clear. We
22:31can act now or we can allow our
22:33deterrence to erode, undermining our
22:36national security and failing the men
22:37and women in uniform who so bravely
22:39serve our country. The good news is that
22:42these are not problems beyond our
22:43ability to solve, but they do require
22:46action. In the FY27 NDAA, we are taking
22:50that action. We are revitalizing the
22:52defense industrial base and rebuilding
22:54our capacity to produce the capabilities
22:56our military needs. We're breaking down
22:59the barriers that prevent small and
23:00agile businesses from working with the
23:02Pentagon. We're creating new jobs and
23:05helping Americans build advanced
23:07technical skills. And we're giving
23:09industry the certainty it needs to
23:11invest, expand, and produced faster. In
23:15addition to revitalizing the defense
23:17industrial-based, the NDA meets our
23:18other crit critical needs. We are
23:21raising pay for service members and
23:23improving housing, education, and child
23:26care for our military families. We're
23:28strengthening our nuclear deterrence and
23:30missile defense while maintaining a
23:32strong posture to deter adversaries. And
23:35we're prioritizing the development of
23:37innovative technologies that will give
23:39our war fighters the edge today and in
23:42future conflicts. To support these pro
23:44policies, we're authorizing 1.15
23:47trillion in discretionary funds to match
23:49President Trump's historic budget
23:51request. For the first time in 40 years,
23:53we've been presented with a budget that
23:55accounts for the true cost of American
23:57deterrence. This top line begins to
24:00reverse the damage caused by decades of
24:02underinvestment in our military. With
24:04this historic investment comes an even
24:06more urgent need to guard against waste,
24:09fraud, and abuse. This bill does so by
24:12standing up a new audit task force and
24:14providing the resources necessary for
24:16the Pentagon to achieve a full and clean
24:18audit in the next two years. Peace
24:21through strength doesn't begin on the
24:24battlefield. It begins in our factories,
24:27our depots, and our shipyards. And this
24:30bill reflects our commitment to that
24:31cause. I want to commend the ranking
24:33member and his staff for consulting for
24:36continuing our tradition of putting this
24:38bill together in a very strong
24:40bipartisan manner. I also want to thank
24:42the me all the members for their input
24:44and assistance in this process. There
24:46are more than 900 amendments for us to
24:48work through today. So I urge my
24:50colleagues to do to work together to get
24:52through this process in a timely manner.
24:54There will be disagreements but with all
24:57but we all have the same goal and that's
24:59to support our men and women in uniform.
25:01If we can keep that goal in mind, I'm
25:03optimistic that this bill report today
25:04that we will report today will enjoy
25:06strong bipartisan support. Chair and I
25:08recognizes the ranking member for any
25:10opening statement he may have.
25:12>> Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, at the
25:13outset, I want to recognize all the
25:15members of the committee, but also
25:16crucially our staff and all the work
25:18they've already done and the work they
25:19will do going forward. There were, I
25:22think, over a thousand different
25:24amendments submitted at one time or
25:25another over the course of the last week
25:27or two. the staff had to sift through
25:29all of that, try to make sense of it and
25:31move us forward. We we just have the
25:33most unbelievable staff on this
25:35committee and and their ability to do
25:36that and meet all the members needs is
25:39something we we should always recognize.
25:41I thank them for that.
25:47They they have put us in a position to
25:49have what I think will be a really good
25:50debate today on a lot of different
25:52incredibly important issues. That was
25:54not easy to do and I thank them for
25:55that. And I also thank the chairman for
25:57his work. And I think the basics of the
25:59bill, it's it's a good solid bill
26:01because it reflects certain key
26:02priorities. Number one, as the chairman
26:04said, it takes care of our troops. It
26:07has payraises, variety of different
26:08other support mechanisms. Thinking of
26:10our service members and their family.
26:12What support do they need? This builds
26:14off of the task force from a couple
26:15years ago. Uh they're looking at the
26:17quality of life issues. Absolutely
26:19crucial. Our military is the best in the
26:21world because of the men and women who
26:23serve in it. We need to continue to
26:24support them. And I'm very satisfied
26:26that this bill reflects that priority.
26:28It also continues our effort on
26:30acquisition reform. I can't say it much
26:33better than the chairman said it in
26:34terms of how important it is. You know,
26:36we need to innovate faster at scale and
26:40in a more affordable way in order to
26:42meet our defense needs. And this
26:43committee under Chairman Rogers
26:44leadership has really taken on this
26:46issue in the last two or three years and
26:48I think made significant improvements.
26:50There's a long way to go, but it's
26:51absolutely crucial to what we need.
26:53Also, this bill reflects support for
26:57partners and allies. Support that has
27:00been dangerously lacking from the
27:01administration. But at least in this
27:03committee, there is a bipartisan
27:05recognition that we cannot meet our
27:07national security needs if we don't have
27:09partners and allies. It's one of the
27:10greatest strengths that we had coming
27:12out of World War II and have had for the
27:14last 80 years. We have more partners
27:16alliance than we've ever had before than
27:18any great power has ever had before. And
27:20that has served our interest. We
27:21continue to support Ukraine. We continue
27:23to support the Baltics. We continue to
27:25support Taiwan. We continue to support
27:27our partners and allies in this bill.
27:29And I think that priority um is very
27:31well reflected. And I very much
27:32appreciate that. The the problem starts
27:35with the money. And there's a lot of
27:37different ways to explain this, but a $
27:381.15 trillion base budget, what we're
27:41coming out of here, uh depending on how
27:43you calculate it, is a 30% increase over
27:46what this committee did last year. That
27:48is a lot of money at a time when we have
27:52a nearly $4 trillion debt and we have no
27:56intention whatsoever of making this
27:58money up elsewhere. We continue to cut
28:00taxes. We continue to the access to
28:03revenue that we need and then the
28:05spending cuts, many of which I'm I'm
28:07troubled by, but there's nothing to meet
28:09that $40 trillion debt. If you were
28:11really serious about continuing to have
28:13the level of revenue that we have and
28:16wanting to spend a massive amount on
28:18defense, the cuts that you would have to
28:20do with everything else are way beyond
28:23what what the majority is even
28:25calculating. We're not willing to do
28:26that. I'm not willing to do that. I'll
28:29be honest. I don't think we should make
28:30those cuts. But since we're not willing
28:31to make those cuts, continuing to drive
28:33up the amount of money spent on defense,
28:35and if you throw in the $350 billion
28:38that is planned in the next
28:39reconciliation package, you're looking
28:41at a nearly 50% increase in the defense
28:44budget at a time when without question,
28:47the greatest threat to our long-term
28:49national security is our fiscal
28:50instability. So that amount of money is
28:53very, very difficult to swallow. And
28:56then there's the lack of transparency
28:58contained in it. We're now finding the
29:00money in a whole bunch of different
29:01places. The $156 billion that was in the
29:04reconciliation bill last year, we still
29:06are not 100% clear on how the Pentagon
29:08spent that money. We are giving them
29:10this broad amount of money and saying do
29:13what you want with it. If we want a $1.5
29:16trillion defense budget, I don't. This
29:18should be a $ 1.5 trillion defense
29:20budget. Okay? We should have that
29:22debate. We should put it out forward.
29:23you shouldn't try to stick it in some
29:24corner place where people won't pay
29:26attention to it and where this committee
29:27and the appropriators don't have
29:29adequate oversight of how that money is
29:31being spent. So, I continue to be very
29:33concerned about that money. And the
29:35solution to this, to my mind, is to come
29:38up with a national security strategy
29:40that doesn't require you to think you
29:43have to have a 1.6 trillion defense
29:45budget that you can't afford. And we
29:47could do that. We could rely more on
29:49diplomacy on our partners and allies. We
29:52could stop starting wars all over the
29:54world in Latin America, in Iran, in
29:57Nigeria, in Yemen. We could find a way
30:00to meet our national security needs
30:01without having to fire off an endless
30:03array of munitions. I think we need to
30:06focus on that. I will come back now to
30:08one point of agreement. The one thing we
30:10need to do is to figure out how to meet
30:11our needs in a more cost-effective way.
30:13That's what acquisition reform can do.
30:15Acquisition reform could get the
30:17chairman and I closer to the same page.
30:19If we can meet our national security
30:21needs for an affordable amount of money,
30:23I just met with a company yesterday
30:25that's building a a uh hypersonic
30:28missile. Um $400,000 a copy. They
30:32figured out how to do that. That that is
30:34like 10% of what we would normally spend
30:37on that. That is what acquisition reform
30:39can do for us. And if we can find a
30:41solution that meets our needs for 10% of
30:44the cost, we can get a hell of a lot
30:46closer to having a realistic fiscal
30:48approach to our defense budget. That is
30:50the big overarching concern that we will
30:52talk about today. We also will have a
30:54bunch of amendments. We are concerned.
30:55The lack of transparency, the lack of
30:57accountability in the Pentagon, military
30:59action that is not legally justified
31:02like the boat strikes that continue to
31:03happen in Latin America. We need to go
31:05after the politicization of the
31:07military, pulling names from promotion
31:11lists by the Secretary of Defense based
31:14on ideological beliefs. We have a lot of
31:18concerns as we look at this, but we're
31:20going to have amendments. We're going to
31:21have an opportunity to to have that
31:22debate, and we'll get to our product at
31:24the end of this. And again, I thank the
31:26chairman and everyone involved in
31:27getting us started today. Um, and I
31:29thank him for the threeminute thing,
31:31too.
31:32>> That's leadership.
31:35without a
31:36>> I thank my friend uh and he is I I I
31:40always looked at he's right. We have a
31:42stellar staff and we are very blessed to
31:44have people of this caliber that are
31:45willing to serve this country in this
31:47capacity and and I'm very proud to have
31:48them with us. All right. Before
31:50proceeding any further, I have a few
31:52announcements. If a member has uh an
31:55amendment that involves the jurisdiction
31:57of another committee, we request a
31:59member before he or she offers the
32:01amendment have a letter from the
32:03respective committee chair of
32:05jurisdiction indicating their waiver or
32:08referral. Um I note uh that no I note
32:13that I impose the same requirement
32:15before including language uh in the
32:17underlying mark. Uh I remind members
32:19that this approach has been the practice
32:21of the committee for many years. It has
32:22done so u so that we can proceed direct
32:25to the floor without our bill being
32:26sequentially referred to another
32:27committee. Amendments that do result in
32:29a point of order against HR8800's
32:32consideration in the on the house floor
32:33will not be in order such as those that
32:35would violate the statutory PGO u act or
32:38the congressional budget act. Uh before
32:41beginning with subcommittee prints and
32:43following consultation with Smith, I ask
32:45unanimous consent that the provisions
32:47contained in the subcommittee prints and
32:48the chairman's mark which includes full
32:51committee provisions will be considered
32:53for the purposes of this markup uh as
32:55original text of the HR8800 and that
32:58these provisions uh be considered as
33:00having been read and that the bill be
33:03open to amendment at any point without
33:05objection. So ordered. The order of
33:08consideration of for today's mark of
33:10HR8800 will follow our subcommittee
33:12structure. We will begin with uh the
33:14first subject uh matter that falls under
33:17the jurisdiction of uh number one
33:19subcommittee on tactical air and land
33:21forces. Then we'll go to subcommittee on
33:24strategic forces. Then the subcommittee
33:26on sea power and projection forces then
33:28the subcommittee on cyber information
33:31technologies and innovation. Then the
33:33subcommittee on readiness, then the
33:35subcommittee on intelligence and special
33:37operations, then the subcommittee on
33:38military personnel, and after that the
33:41full committee matters.
33:46The committee will now receive the print
33:48uh of the subcommittee on tactical air
33:50land forces pursuant to committee rule
33:5117. And in consultation with the ranking
33:53member, we will postpone all recorded
33:55votes on the amendments to this
33:57particular subcommittee print until
33:58consideration of all amendments to this
34:00subcommittee print have concluded. Chair
34:03recognizes the chair of the subcommittee
34:05uh the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
34:06Whitman, for any comments he would like
34:08to make.
34:09>> Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
34:10thank you and ranking member Smith for
34:12your leadership in compiling this year's
34:14National Defense Authorization Act. I
34:15also like to thank the subcommittee's
34:17ranking member and my friend Don
34:19Norcross for incredibly hard work that
34:21goes in into this and the collaboration
34:23and making sure we're doing everything
34:25we can to to reach agreement and putting
34:27together this strong and very proactive
34:29tactical air and land forces
34:30subcommittee print. Also want to thank
34:33the fantastic professional staff members
34:35who are the backbone of the TAL
34:36subcommittee. Michael Kurlin, Jay
34:38Valero, Valerio, Heath Heath Bope,
34:42Caroline Curley, Brooke Allred, Ameilia
34:44Latinsky, and Andrew Smith. This year,
34:47the subcommittee on tactical air and
34:48land forces delivers on sustainment, and
34:51specifically it guarantees a
34:52continuation of American air superiority
34:55by authorizing the Secretary of War to
34:58enter into a 5-year multi-year
34:59procurement contracts for both F-35 and
35:02F-15 EX aircraft. It further ensures
35:05mission capability by mandating that
35:07each procured aircraft comes with a full
35:09complement of initial spares, alternate
35:12mission equipment, and conformal fuel
35:15tanks. An additional 600 million is
35:17authorized for spare parts for F-35,
35:20long overdue. This year's TAW portion of
35:23the bill contains robust funding for the
35:24rotor aircraft procurement to include
35:26seven additional CH47 Chinooks, six
35:29additional Blackhawks, four more MH139A
35:33Greywolf helicopters, and full funding
35:35for the future long range assault
35:37aircraft program to continue developing
35:40the MV75 Cheyenne. Additionally, as
35:43small unmanned aircraft systems prove
35:45every day that they are the future of
35:47war fighting, this subcommittee print
35:49bolsters both our UAS capabilities and
35:52our ability to counter adversary
35:54systems. These provisions establish
35:56standards for a common operating system
35:58for SUAS as well as standards for
36:01autonomous kinetic abilities for
36:03countering SUAS. We have also
36:06prioritized the testing of these drones
36:08by requiring the establishment of test
36:10and training corridors for UAS and
36:12associated capabilities along with a
36:15strategy for sustaining our burgeoning
36:17drone fleet. On the artillery front,
36:19this print addresses 155 mm shortages by
36:23directing the Secretary of the Army to
36:24expand and upgrade facilities to reach a
36:26target production capacity of 100,000
36:29rounds per month. It also requires the
36:32army to provide briefing to the
36:33committee on its long-term goals for 155
36:36millimeter artillery production.
36:38Seemingly by the day, the capabilities
36:40of artificial intelligence continue to
36:42grow. And as such, the subcommittee
36:44focused on delivering autonomy to our
36:46war fighters both on the ground and in
36:48the air, accompanying a two million
36:52funding ad for collaborative combat
36:54aircraft propulsion technology
36:56integration. The Navy is therefore
36:58directed to provide a briefing outlining
37:00the acquisition strategy for combat
37:02collaborative aircraft and the Army is
37:04also directed to provide a briefing on
37:06its acquisition strategy for
37:08commercially available ground autonomy
37:10systems. If we've seen anything in
37:12Ukraine, we've seen for the first time
37:14ever a fully autonomous combined arms
37:19ground maneuver against human forces
37:21which not only took ground but kept
37:23ground against a human force. Our
37:25military's greatest asset is its people,
37:27and we owe it to them to set up them up
37:29for success on the battlefield. This
37:31print identifies and delivers upon
37:33modern war fighting needs, assuring that
37:35our men and women in uniform are
37:36equipped not only with the most
37:38exquisite kit, but also that the
37:40department is able to sustainabilities
37:42for generations to come. With that, Mr.
37:44Chairman, I yield back.
37:47Chair, now recognize the ranking member
37:48of the uh subcommittee on tactical air
37:50land forces, the gentleman from New
37:52Jersey, Mr. Norcross. Thank you,
37:54chairman, and to you and ranking member
37:57Smith for setting the structure and
37:59certainly the vision for directing this
38:02committee and certainly uh to the
38:04long-standing bipartisan tradition of
38:07this subcommittee of which we work very
38:10hard and which we take great pride in
38:12that relationship starts with Chairman
38:15Whitman who sets the vision for the
38:17committee and we work together
38:19incredibly well to help protect our
38:21country. The subcommittee continues our
38:23close oversight of many of the
38:25department's most expensive and complex
38:28programs, including Air Force, Navy,
38:30Marine Corps, tactical strike fighters,
38:33and all the services rotary wing
38:35aircraft programs. the department's
38:38manned and unmanned surveillance
38:40reconnaissance aircraft, the ISR, and
38:43certainly one that gained so much
38:45variety in the past couple years,
38:47starting from Ukraine, those small
38:49unmanned aerial systems and counter uh
38:52aerial systems. We also do the combat uh
38:55vehicles, ground combat vehicles and
38:57tactical mi mitions. We also are closely
39:02following the Marine Corps's force
39:04design and the Army's transformational
39:07initiative. We receive extremely helpful
39:11and informative annual reports from the
39:13Marine Corps that clearly articulates
39:16the progress they are making in the
39:18force design. This year's NDAA includes
39:21language that requires similar report
39:23from the Army on its transformation
39:26initiative. Our subcommittee continues
39:28its oversight on our most expensive
39:31program in the history of the Department
39:32of Defense, the F-35 program. This year,
39:35we authorize a multi-year procurement
39:38with a caveat that the Secretary of
39:40Defense must certify that the department
39:42will proceed with full spare packages
39:46for every aircraft in the contract. Too
39:49long, the Department has underfunded
39:51sustainment for this program. The
39:53multi-year authority in this bill will
39:55drive our cost and ensure sustainment.
39:59The bill also includes language that
40:01requires the Secretary of Defense to
40:03report on the progress made to address
40:06the historical GAO recommendations
40:09pertaining to the F-35 program. The
40:12subcommittee also continues our strong
40:15investment in our munitions industrial
40:17base both for munitions procurement and
40:21facilities modernization that we started
40:24almost 8 years ago. Finally, chairman to
40:27the condition of what makes everything
40:30possible. I want to thank our staff for
40:32their hard work and certainly what they
40:35do each and every day. Starting with Jay
40:37Valario, Michael Hurland, Heath Bo,
40:40Caroline Curley, Brooke Alred, Amalia
40:43Leinski, and our research assistant,
40:47Andrew Smith. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
40:49yield back.
40:52I thank the chairman.
40:56See,
40:57before uh entertaining amendments, uh is
41:00there any discussion on subcommittee
41:01print?
41:10I know.
41:13>> We will now consider onblock package
41:14number one. The chair recognizes Mr.
41:16Whitman for the purpose of offering the
41:17onblock amendment.
41:18>> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
41:20call up onblock package number one
41:22consisting of amendments that have been
41:23worked and approved with the minority.
41:25>> The objection so ordered. Will the clerk
41:27please distribute the onblock amendment?
41:29Without objection, the amendments are
41:30considered as read. The gentleman is
41:32recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose
41:34of explaining the onblock amendment.
41:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Onlock package
41:37number one is comprised of the
41:38following. Log 5728 by Rep. Scott. Log
41:425752R2 by Rep. Dejar.
41:45>> Log 5753 R3 by Representative Dejar. Log
41:505771R2
41:52by Rep. Holiday. Log 5782 by Rep.
41:56Carbajal. Rep. 50, excuse me, log 5823
42:00by Rep. Vas,
42:02>> log 5825R1
42:04by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 5835R2 by Rep.
42:08Vasquez. Log 5838R1
42:12by Rep. Homade. Log 5839R1 by Rep.
42:16Stefonic. Log 5847R2
42:19by Rep. Bergman. Log 5877 by Rep.
42:23Holidayiday. Log 5910 by Rep. Jackson.
42:27Log 5912R1
42:29by Rep. Jackson. Log 5918R1 by Rep.
42:33Herrian. Log 5921R2 by Rep. Scott. Log
42:385939 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 59
42:4255 R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5998R3
42:47by Rep. Holidayiday.
42:50Log 60003
42:52by Rep. Norcross.
42:54Log 611 by Rep. Wittmann. Log 6025R1
43:00by Rep. Kelly. Log 6051R1
43:04by Rep. Bergman. Log 6101 by Rep. Ryan.
43:08Log 6110R1
43:10by Rep. Vinman. Log 6142 by Rep.
43:14Kiggins. Log 6147R1
43:17by Rep. Elf. Log 6150 by Rep. Maguire.
43:22Log 6181 by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 6190R2
43:27by Rep. Fallon. Log 6214 by Rep.
43:30Herrian. Log 6220R2
43:33by Rep. Maguire. Log 6228 by Rep.
43:36Maguire. Log 6240 by Rep. Maguire. Log
43:416254 by Rep. Magguire. Log 6257R1 by
43:45Rep. Gooden. Log 6260 by Rep. Ryan. Log
43:506266 by Rep. Rogers. Log 6272R2
43:55by Rep. Hammeday. Log 6358R2 by Rep.
43:58Vinman. Log 6393R2
44:02by Rep. Maguire. Log 6442R1
44:07by Rep. Scott. Log 6502 by Rep. Elfre.
44:12Log 6530 by Rep. Scott. Log 6543 by Rep.
44:16McCormack. Log 6547 by Rep. Ryan. Log
44:216584R1
44:23by Rep. Wilson. Log 6589R1
44:27by Rep. Wittmann. Log 6630 by Rep.
44:30Crowe. Log 6666 by Rep. Herrian. Log
44:356682 by Rep. Dejar. Log 6685 by Rep.
44:39Scott. Log 6709R1 by Rep. McCormack. Log
44:446774 by Rep. Smith. Log 6797 by Rep.
44:48Smith. Log 6841 by Rep. Conaway. Log
44:536842 by Rep. Vinman. Log 6872 by Rep.
44:57Graves.
45:01And Mr. Chairman, with that I yield
45:04back.
45:05I thank the gentleman.
45:11>> The question is on on block package
45:12offered by Mr. Whitman. So those in
45:14favor will say I. I.
45:16>> Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. The
45:19amendment uh is agreed to.
45:22>> Go to please.
45:25>> If there are no further amendments, the
45:26chair recognizes a gentleman from
45:28Virginia, Mr. Whitman, for the purpose
45:29of offering a motion.
45:41>> Mr. Chairman, I'm like you. I'm I'm
45:43struggling to get get through my
45:44notebook here. I've got I've got more
45:46more
45:46>> they do have tabs
45:48>> more pages and tabs that that that know
45:50what to do with. Here we go. All right.
45:52There is a motion to adopt. Mr.
45:54Chairman, I move to adopt the
45:55subcommittee print of the subcommittee
45:56on tactical air and land forces as
45:58amended. If there are no further
46:00amendments, chair recognizes gentlemen.
46:02Let's see. Question occurs on the motion
46:04of the gentleman from Virginia.
46:06Somebody's in favor will say I.
46:07>> I. Those opposed, no. Being present, you
46:10guys have it. The motion is agreed to.
46:13>> Go to orange.
46:19Committee will now receive the print on
46:20subcommittee on strategic forces
46:22pursuant to uh committee rule 17 and in
46:24consultation with ranking member we will
46:26postpone all recorded votes on this the
46:28amendments to this particular
46:28subcommittee print for the consideration
46:30of all amendments to the subcommittee
46:32print have concluded. The chair
46:33recognizes chair of subcommittee the
46:35gentleman from Texas I mean from
46:37Tennessee Dr. Deja Lelay for any
46:39comments he would like to make.
46:41>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to start
46:43by thanking all members of the strategic
46:45forces subcommittee for their work this
46:47year. I would also like to thank my
46:49friend, ranking member Molton for his
46:51contributions and for helping to steer
46:53the subcommittee through another season
46:55of very engaging hearings and classified
46:57briefings. The issues that fall within
47:00the jurisdiction of our subcommittee are
47:02some of the most consequential to our
47:03national security and the dialogue we've
47:06had on these important topics over the
47:07past six months has been some of the
47:09best I can recall as a member of this
47:12committee. I would also like to thank
47:14the subcommittee's professional staff
47:17for their hard work to prepare the bill
47:19before us. Whitney Verrett, Peter
47:21Schinger, Maria Vasola, Austin Richards,
47:25and Lindseay Keller on my personal
47:27staff. Well, it goes without saying none
47:30of this would be possible if not for
47:31their dedication, professionalism, and
47:34guidance uh that they give me and
47:37ranking member Molton throughout the
47:39process.
47:41The subcommittee's fiscal year 2027 mark
47:44is the product of bipartisan cooperation
47:47and continues many of our long-standing
47:49efforts such such as advancing nuclear
47:51modernization, reforming the national
47:54security space enterprise and enhancing
47:56missile defense. The broader bill
47:58authorizes full funding to keep
48:00modernizing the nation's nuclear forces
48:02and is in particular it supports the
48:04budget's significant increase in funding
48:07to invest in the department of energy
48:08scientific and production capabilities
48:11upon which our nuclear deterrent
48:12depends. It also includes legislative
48:15proposals developed with executive
48:17branch to improve acquisition
48:19flexibility for the Air Force's ICBM
48:22programs and National Nuclear Security
48:24Administration. And it refocuses
48:26statutory requirements related to the
48:28plutonium pit production on the
48:30long-term needs for the nation to
48:32continue to a modern and effective
48:34nuclear deterrent. While the funding for
48:37the president's Golden Dome initiative
48:38falls within the department's request
48:40for mandatory funds, this bill
48:42authorizes significant increases in FY27
48:45for many programs across the services
48:47that will contribute to the architecture
48:49and broader missile defense efforts,
48:51including space-based sensing,
48:53development of the next generation
48:55interceptor and standard missile 3-block
48:582B procurement. The committee also added
49:01additional resources to accelerate the
49:03glidephase interceptor program which is
49:06critical to addressing hypersonic
49:07threats both to our homeland and to
49:10forward deployed forces in space. We
49:12require the department to designate a
49:14single official to provide oversight of
49:16the vital positioning, navigation and
49:18timing enterprise. Additionally, the
49:21mark removes duplicative bureaucracy
49:23that has only served to slow down
49:24development of technology and
49:26implementation of the new pnt strategy.
49:29We also allow the Space Force to
49:31streamline redundant space acquisition
49:33organizations to build on the progress
49:35made last year to reform acquisition
49:37processes and remove remove bureaucracy.
49:41Finally, I'm happy to support the
49:42historic increase in funding for the
49:44Space Force specifically. This
49:46muchneeded increase allows them to bring
49:48online the next generation of systems
49:50necessary to fight and win in space and
49:53supports the new missions we as a nation
49:56are asking of them. and I yield back.
50:00>> Chairman yields back. Chair now
50:01recognizes the ranking member of the
50:02subino strategic forces, the gentleman
50:04from Massachusetts, Mr. Molton, for any
50:06comments he'd like to make.
50:08>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I
50:10would like to extend my gratitude to
50:11Chairman Dejar and the members on both
50:13sides of the aisle for continuing the
50:15long tradition of keeping this
50:16subcommittee marked bipartisan and
50:18addressing areas that we have discussed
50:19in the past five months of of hearings
50:21and briefings. I want to specifically
50:24thank the chair for continuing to foster
50:27the tough debate that these issues
50:29demand and that the American people
50:31deserve. The jurisdiction of this sub
50:34subcommittee continues to be one of the
50:35most consequential in all of Congress.
50:37Whether it be on the continued criminal
50:39war being waged by war criminal Vladimir
50:42Putin in Ukraine, the incredible
50:44demonstration of regional missile
50:45defense capability in the Middle East,
50:47the increased long-range ballistic
50:49missile testing being conducted by North
50:50Korea, or the continued expansion of
50:52strategic capabilities by the ch Chinese
50:55Communist Party across the air ac.
51:01Regarding space, in the past several
51:02months, we have seen unprecedented
51:04demonstrations of both Russian and PRC
51:06capabilities that are specifically
51:08designed to degrade and destroy US space
51:11assets. To ensure the department is best
51:13posturing our forces to respond and if
51:16necessary, prevail in a conflict in
51:18space. This mark addresses areas the
51:21Trump administration continues to not
51:23take seriously enough. namely the
51:25position navigation and timing
51:26enterprise of which the global
51:28positioning system is at the heart and
51:29center continues to be disjointed and
51:31underprioritized. Further, despite what
51:34Pentagon officials have said regarding
51:35the importance of commercial space, the
51:37administration continues to cut the
51:38office's funding. And this mark reverses
51:40that decision by increasing needed
51:42funding to address areas such as
51:44commercial satellite communication and
51:45tactical surveillance, reconnaissance,
51:47and tracking services. As we have heard
51:50in open testimony in closed classified
51:52sessions this year, we cannot ignore the
51:54advancements our adversaries are making
51:55in various weapon systems as we make
51:57decisions regarding the strategic
51:58posture of the United States. While I
52:00firmly believe this world would be a
52:02better place without nuclear weapons,
52:04the reality is that they are a key
52:05component of strategic stability in
52:07today's environment. We are also now
52:09dealing with two nearper nuclear armed
52:12competitors. we have never before and
52:14that is why I'm supportive of the fact
52:16that this mark continues modernization
52:17efforts across our nuclear triad.
52:19However, I will continue to question if
52:22we have the right balance and if we are
52:23investing in capabilities that will
52:25contribute to the strategic stability
52:29or do the opposite because we owe it to
52:31our children's future that we have these
52:33tough conversations and ensure that we
52:35aren't blindly pushing forward towards a
52:36nuclear arms race. Lastly, with regards
52:39to missile defense, this mark address
52:41key areas where there is broad
52:43bipartisan support. It provides
52:44multi-year authorization for critical
52:46munitions on improving the missile
52:48warning and track architecture. It
52:50requires the space force to continue
52:52development of the next generation polar
52:53satellites, a critical capability that
52:55has historically been a priority for
52:56both Northcom and Stratcom. However, I
52:59continue to have serious concerns about
53:01the strategy behind the Golden Dome for
53:03America initiative or frankly whether
53:05there is a strategy at all and what
53:07exactly the program is developing. If it
53:09is what the president has pushed, it is
53:11an impossible task even if money was
53:12infinite and you could manipulate time.
53:15If they are really looking at a more
53:17limited capability to defend certain
53:18areas against certain types of threats,
53:20then we can have a discussion. But the
53:22fact that they're hiding behind
53:24classification for an effort that is
53:25going to potentially cost over a
53:27trillion US taxpayer dollars means we
53:30can't even have that honest debate
53:31today. And more troubling, it makes it
53:34seem like they're hiding something for
53:35the American public. This mark is the
53:37result of a month-long bipartisan
53:39process to keep our long-standing
53:40tradition of producing an annual defense
53:42authorization bill, and it largely
53:44represents consistency and continuity.
53:46While there are areas where we disagree,
53:48I'm proud of the work the subcommittee
53:50has done and the ways we have come
53:52together. Finally, I want to take this
53:54opportunity to give a sincere thanks to
53:55our subcommittee staff, Whitney Verrett,
53:57Maria Visla, Peter Seringer, and Austin
54:00Richards. And to my personal staff,
54:02Caroline Jones, Candace Esavl, and our
54:05Navy fellow, Ray Lazot. Thank you, Mr.
54:07Chairman. I yield back.
54:10Gentleman yields back.
54:14Before entertaining amendments, is there
54:16any discussion on the subcommittee
54:17print?
54:20>> Seeing none,
54:21>> yeah,
54:22>> we will now consider onblock package uh
54:27we on block package number one. The
54:28chair recognizes Dr. Deja Lelay for the
54:30purpose of offering an onblock
54:30amendment.
54:31>> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
54:33call up onblock package number one
54:35consisting of amendments that have been
54:37worked and approved with the minority.
54:38>> Without objection, so ordered. Will the
54:40clerk please distribute the onblock
54:42amendment? Without objection, the
54:43amendments are considered as read. The
54:45gentleman's recognized for three minutes
54:46for the purpose of explaining his
54:48onblock amendment.
54:51>> Onblock package number one is comprised
54:53of the following. Log 5858R1
54:56by Rep. Hammeda. Log 5878R3
54:59by Rep. Kiggins. Log 5904R1 by Rep.
55:03Crank. Log 5924R2
55:05by Rep. Harrian. Log 5968R1 by Rep.
55:09Crank. Log 6047R2
55:11by Rep. Carbajal. Log 6084R1 by Rep.
55:14Crank. Log 6164R2
55:17by Rep. Elf. Log 6184R1 by Rep. Mesmer.
55:22Log 6216R2
55:24by Rep. Magguire. Log 6241R1
55:27by Rep. Maguire. Log 6248 by Rep.
55:30Whitesides. Log 6385R1
55:33by Rep. Stfonic. Log 6698 by Rep.
55:37Moltton. Log 6706 by Rep. Dejar. Log
55:416749 by Rep. Sorenson, log 6818 by Rep.
55:45Dejier, log 6860R1
55:49by Rep. Carbajal, and log 6863 R1 by
55:52Rep. Dejour.
55:56Is there further discussion on the
55:57onblock package? Oh no,
56:04there no further amendments. Chair
56:05recognizes a gentleman from Tennessee
56:06for the purpose of offering a motion.
56:11Mr. Chairman, I move that to adopt a
56:14subcommittee print of the subcommittee
56:15on strategic forces as amended.
56:18>> Question occurs on the motion of a
56:19gentleman from Tennessee. Somebody's in
56:20favor will say I.
56:21>> I.
56:22>> Those opposed, no. Cor being present,
56:24the eyes have it. The motion is agreed
56:25to.
56:26>> Go to the next
56:28>> orange.
56:31Subcommittee will now receive the print
56:33on subcommittee of um the committee will
56:36now receive the print on subcommittee on
56:37sea power projection forces pursuant to
56:39committee rule 17 and in consultation
56:41with the ranking member. We will
56:43postpone all recorded votes on the
56:44amendments to this particular
56:45subcommittee print until consideration
56:47all amendments to the subcommittee print
56:49has concluded. Chair recognizes the
56:51subcommittee chairman the gentleman from
56:53Mississippi Mr. Kelly for any comments
56:55he'd like to make.
56:56>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to start
56:58by expressing my appreciation to the
57:00members of the subcommittee. Their
57:02dedication and engagement shaped a
57:04strong bipartisan sea power and
57:06projection forces mark before us. With
57:09global tensions growing more complex and
57:11nuanced every day, projecting peace
57:13through strength at sea and in the skies
57:15is more important than ever. We we have
57:17more work needed to protect national
57:19security, international order, and
57:21freedom of navigation. As our
57:23adversaries test American power with
57:25increasing scale and frequency, we must
57:27be able to respond forcefully and
57:29without hesitation. This overarching
57:32goal shaped the sea power and protection
57:34forces mark we have here today. To that
57:36end, we are committing to putting more
57:38holes in the water this year and for the
57:39years ahead. We're procuring one
57:42Colombia class submarine this year as
57:44well as investing in advanced
57:46procurement for future Colombia
57:48deliveries. I'm excited that we're
57:49producing two Virginia class submarines,
57:52procuring two Virginia class submarines,
57:54putting us at the target pace to support
57:56and strengthen our subC advantage and
57:59back up our commitments. The sea power
58:01mark also invests in our surface fleet
58:04with authority for procuring two guided
58:06missile destroyers and multi-year
58:08procurement authority for future
58:10destroyers. With more than 60 billion
58:12authorized for ship building and
58:14conversion, this mark supports strong
58:16investment in our surface fleet by
58:17supporting future carrier procurement as
58:20well as procurement of two amphibious
58:22warships, one frigot, two oilers, two
58:25submarine tenders, and one anti-ubmarine
58:27warfare ship in 20 FY27.
58:31The tensions of the last year have
58:32reinforced to all of us the crucial and
58:35versatile role our Marine Corps as a tip
58:37of the spear in a wide variety of
58:39missions. And we need to keep it that
58:41way. Which is why our subcommittee mark
58:43invests in faster and more agile
58:45production and procurement of amphibious
58:47ships with authority for advanced
58:49procurement and advanced construction of
58:51systems and parts as well as multi-ship
58:53procurement contract authority. This
58:55mark supports the end goal of a
58:57continuous 3.0 arguence.
59:00The sea power forces mark also
59:02strengthens our ability to project to
59:06project American power in the skies by
59:08keeping an elevated inventory of C130
59:11aircraft, supporting V22 safety
59:13investment, procuring more P8s, and
59:16allowing multi-year procurement of E2D
59:18aircraft. We are forcing an analysis of
59:21alternatives for next generation
59:22aircraft, and renewing our commitment to
59:25our airborne force projection
59:27capabilities. As I wrap up, I want to
59:29reiterate my thanks to the members of
59:30the SEP Power Subcommittee. And I
59:32especially want to highlight the
59:34contributions of my good friend and our
59:35ranking member, Joe Courtourtney, whose
59:37dedication and leadership have been
59:39indispensable. I also want to thank the
59:41committee staff, Cal, Kelly, Janine, and
59:44Abby, and my personal staff, Samaj
59:47Shields, and our fellow Mark. The sea
59:49power and projection forces marked
59:51before us represents essential
59:53investments in our ability to project
59:55peace through strength at sea and in the
59:57air now and into the future. And I urge
1:00:00all members of this committee to support
1:00:01this mark. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
1:00:03yield back.
1:00:03>> Gentlemen yields back. Chair, I
1:00:04recognizes the ranking member of the
1:00:06subcommittee on sea power and projection
1:00:07forces. The gentleman from Connecticut,
1:00:09Mr. Courtourtney.
1:00:09>> Thank you, uh, Chairman Rogers. And I'm
1:00:12pleased to join my good friend, Chairman
1:00:13Kelly, to present our subcommittee mark
1:00:15for FY2027. And the subcommittee stayed
1:00:18true to its bipartisan tradition,
1:00:19incorporating input from members on both
1:00:21sides of the aisle to ensure that we
1:00:23positioned our sea services and air
1:00:25force to achieve success. Building off a
1:00:27strong ship building budget request of
1:00:2960 billion in the discretionary account,
1:00:31our mark authorizes 21 new vessels with
1:00:34authorities that will foster efficiency
1:00:36and cost effectiveness, specifically
1:00:38adopting multi-year procurement with
1:00:39fixed price contracts that will deliver
1:00:41savings for the government and the
1:00:43taxpayer and certainty to our industrial
1:00:45base and workforce. This year's mark
1:00:47provides multi-year procurement for up
1:00:49to 15 Arley Burke destroyers and for
1:00:52multiple John Lewis class oilers and for
1:00:54the E2D advanced Hawkeye aircraft. The
1:00:57subcommittee also provided authority to
1:00:59use incremental funding for long lead
1:01:01items for the Virginia class program
1:01:03which will provide stability to the
1:01:05supply chain to offset the everpresent
1:01:07threat of CRS and shutdowns. The bill
1:01:09initiates serial production of the
1:01:12Colombia class ballistic submarine
1:01:13program, the number one priority of the
1:01:15Navy. authorizing 10 billion for
1:01:17procurement and five for advanced
1:01:19purchase of long lead items. The bill
1:01:22also allocates 8 billion for procurement
1:01:25and four billion for advanced
1:01:26procurement of two Virginia class
1:01:28submarines, including full funding for
1:01:30shipyard wage improvement that over the
1:01:31last three years have had a massive
1:01:33positive impact on labor contract,
1:01:35shipyard recruitment and retention.
1:01:37Since last year's markup, the department
1:01:39released its AUS review fully endorsing
1:01:42the agreement and AUS got boost coming
1:01:44out of last weekend's Shanganger
1:01:46dialogue where the three defense
1:01:47ministers of the three countries
1:01:50announced joint development of payloads
1:01:51for undersea
1:01:54unmanned uh vessels. They also confirmed
1:01:56operation of UK and US sub rotations in
1:01:59Western Australia remaining on track for
1:02:012027, which will provide all three
1:02:03navies with persistent enhanced presence
1:02:06in the South Pacific. The agreement's
1:02:08progress in 2025 and 2026 reinforces the
1:02:11need to support the Mark's investment in
1:02:13the Virginia program in order to deliver
1:02:15on our Pillar One commitments. I would
1:02:18note there's not perfect unanimity in
1:02:20this in this mark as we will hear later
1:02:22today concerning the administration's
1:02:23unvetted premature request for funding
1:02:25of a new class of battleships which is a
1:02:27vessel that our nation stopped building
1:02:29in 1944. As retired fourstar Admiral
1:02:32John James
1:02:34recently wrote in today's battle space
1:02:36of longrange missiles and advanced
1:02:38drones in the air and at sea investing
1:02:40tens of billions of dollars in
1:02:41vulnerable large surface combatants with
1:02:43thousands of sailors on board makes no
1:02:45sense. These funds would be far better
1:02:47spent on other agile Navy and Marine
1:02:49Corps platforms, both manned and
1:02:51unmanned, that disperse and distribute
1:02:53lethality, a much more effective fleet
1:02:55in today's contested maritime arena. I
1:02:58would also note the base text does not
1:02:59include the Marine Corps's request for
1:03:01six medium landing ships because of OM's
1:03:04disruptive and ridiculous insistence on
1:03:06stranding this program to a
1:03:08reconciliation bill that may or may not
1:03:09ever materialize. The Marine Corps has
1:03:12testified time and time again to the
1:03:14need to build up our amphibious fleet.
1:03:16Yet, OM made the decision to split DoD's
1:03:18budget for the second year in a row,
1:03:20which usurps Congress's constitutional
1:03:22role over spending and creates chaos and
1:03:24uncertainty for the service branches and
1:03:26the industrial base who have been
1:03:28screaming out for procurement stability.
1:03:30Mr. Chairman, I'm thankful for the
1:03:32diligent work of Chairman Kelly and the
1:03:34subcommittee members to reach this
1:03:35broadly bipartisan product. I want to
1:03:38give special thanks to our talented
1:03:39subcommittee staff, Janine Womble, Kyle
1:03:42Noise, Kelly Gagan, and Abby Snyder for
1:03:44their work in crafting this product that
1:03:46achieves the mission of the SE power
1:03:47subcommittee. Thank you, and I yield
1:03:49back. Gentlemen yields back before
1:03:51entertaining amendments or any
1:03:52discussion on subcommittee print.
1:03:56Seeing none,
1:03:57>> yellow,
1:03:59we will now consider onblock package
1:04:01number one. The chair recognizes Mr.
1:04:03Kelly for the purpose of offering the
1:04:05onblock amendment.
1:04:06>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
1:04:08consent to call up onblock package
1:04:10number one consisting of amendments that
1:04:12have been worked and approved with a
1:04:14minority.
1:04:14>> Without objections are ordered, will the
1:04:16clerk please distribute the unblock
1:04:17amendment? Without objection, the
1:04:19amendments are considered as read. The
1:04:20gentleman is recognized for three
1:04:22minutes for the purpose of explaining
1:04:23the unblock amendment.
1:04:25Unblock package number one is comprised
1:04:27of the following. Log 5718 by Rep.
1:04:30Scott. Log 5719R1
1:04:33by Rep. Scott. Log 5720 by Rep. Scott.
1:04:37Log 5722R1
1:04:40by Rep. Scott. Log 5745 by Rep. Rep.
1:04:44Hulahan. Rep. 5761 by Rep. Bale. Log
1:04:485783R2
1:04:50by Rep. Kiggins. Log 5787 by Rep. Scott.
1:04:55Log 5788 by Rep. Scott. Log 5790 by Rep.
1:05:00Scott. Log 5819 by Rep. Scott. Log
1:05:045864R1
1:05:06by Rep. Jackson. Log 5869R1
1:05:09by Rep. Jackson. Log 5875R1
1:05:13by Rep. Herrian. Log 5883 by Rep.
1:05:17Holidayiday. Log 5933R2
1:05:20by Rep. Finad. Log 5950R1
1:05:24by Rep. Jackson. Log 616 by Rep. Kelly.
1:05:28Log 6021 by Rep. Kelly. Log 627 by Rep.
1:05:34Kelly. Log 629R2
1:05:37by Rep. Kelly. Log 6044R1
1:05:41by Rep. Kelly. Log 6063 by Rep.
1:05:44Stefanic. Log 6193 by Rep. Mesmer. Log
1:05:486196R1
1:05:50by Rep. McCormack. Log 6209 by Rep.
1:05:53Scott. Log 6295R3
1:05:57by Delegate Mouland. Log 6311R1
1:06:01by Rep. Courtney log 6313 by Rep.
1:06:04Courtourtney. Log 6371 by Rep. Kiggins.
1:06:07Log 6372 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 6377 by
1:06:12Rep. Bergman. Log 6467 by Rep. Elfre.
1:06:16Log 6483 by Rep. Higgins. Log 6607R3
1:06:21by Rep. Higgins. Log 6641 by Rep. Scott.
1:06:25Log 6675 by Rep. Courtourtney. Log 6738
1:06:29by Rep. Rep. Delusio. Rep. 68000 by Rep.
1:06:33Elfred. Log 6812R1
1:06:37by Rep. Finstad. Log 6835 by Rep.
1:06:40Delusio. Log 6836 by Rep. Delusio. Log
1:06:446838 by Rep. Delusio. And log 6839 by
1:06:49Rep. Delusio.
1:06:51And I yield back. Mr. Chair. Questions
1:06:53on the onlock package offered by Mr.
1:06:55Kelly. So me in favor will say I. I.
1:06:58>> Miss Pose. No, the eyes have it. The
1:07:01amendment is agreed to.
1:07:07>> There are no further amendments. Chair
1:07:08recognizes the gentleman from
1:07:10Mississippi for the purpose of a motion.
1:07:12>> Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the
1:07:14subcommittee print of the subcommittee
1:07:16on sea power and projection forces as
1:07:18amended.
1:07:19>> Question occurs on the motion from the
1:07:20gentleman from Mississippi. So many in
1:07:22favor will say I. I.
1:07:23>> Those opposed, no. Gor being present,
1:07:25the eyes have it, the motion is agreed
1:07:27to.
1:07:31Committee will now receive the print on
1:07:33the committee uh subcommittee on cyber
1:07:35information technologies and innovation
1:07:37pursuant to committee rule 17 and in
1:07:39consultation with ranking member we will
1:07:40postpone all recorded votes on the
1:07:42amendments to this particular
1:07:43subcommittee print until the
1:07:45consideration of all amendments to this
1:07:47subcommittee print have concluded. The
1:07:49chair recognizes the chair of the
1:07:50subcommittee. The gentleman from Mr.
1:07:52Bacon for any comments he would like to
1:07:54make.
1:07:54>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd like to
1:07:56thank the members of the subcommittee
1:07:57for their collaborating collaboration
1:07:59and putting together a strong cyber IT
1:08:01and innovation subcommittee print for
1:08:03the FY27 NDAA. I'd also like to thank my
1:08:06friend and ranking member of Congressman
1:08:08Roana for his partnership in this
1:08:10effort. We have a bipartisan mark. This
1:08:12mark affects several crucial areas of
1:08:14our national defense and takes ambitious
1:08:17strides to maintain our dominance in
1:08:19cyber, IT, and science and technology.
1:08:22The print supports the DoD's incredible
1:08:24innovation enterprise, leverages the
1:08:26boundless potential of artificial
1:08:28intelligence, and strengthens and
1:08:30secures our IT networks. Most
1:08:32importantly, it focuses on rapidly
1:08:34delivering these improvements to the war
1:08:36fighter. Taking meaningful steps to
1:08:38bridge the valley of death. This print
1:08:40amends defense innovation unit
1:08:41authorities to require more formal
1:08:43collaboration between the DIU and
1:08:46military services, speeding up the
1:08:48timeline by which cutting edge
1:08:50technology gets in the hands of the war
1:08:51fighter. In addition, the print expands
1:08:54the geographical footprint of our
1:08:55nation's test and evaluation enterprise
1:08:58and promotes a better coordination
1:09:00between the department and the T&
1:09:02community. Moreover, this portion of the
1:09:04NDA sets the course for quantum
1:09:06computing by acquiring the lessons
1:09:08learned from DARPA's quantum
1:09:10benchmarking initiative to inform
1:09:12development and acquisition of future
1:09:14DoD quantum computing systems. The city
1:09:17also streamlines adoption of new AI
1:09:20tools by directing the chief data and
1:09:22artificial intelligence officer to
1:09:24establish a framework to enable rapid
1:09:26adoption and governance of AI systems
1:09:28across the DoD. It also directs the
1:09:30department to update its policies
1:09:32governing autonomous weapon systems,
1:09:34creating riskinformed requirements for
1:09:36approval, oversight testing, and human
1:09:39involvement, and eventual operational
1:09:42use of such of such systems.
1:09:44Additionally, in a time where cyber
1:09:46warfare is more prevalent than ever,
1:09:48this print takes steps to unencumber our
1:09:50cyber defense forces from bureaucracy by
1:09:53requiring a review of DoD cyber
1:09:54security, IT, and network defense and
1:09:57defense of cyber operations in order to
1:09:59reduce redundancy and create direct
1:10:01accountability in this crucial area of
1:10:03national security. Once again, the FY27
1:10:06NDA the great work of the quality of
1:10:09life panel to deliver quality of life
1:10:11improvements to our service members and
1:10:12their families. I want to thank our our
1:10:14wonderful professional staff, Carolyn
1:10:16Curley, Maria Herado, Brook Alred,
1:10:20Andrew Smith, Michael Herman, and
1:10:22Wendell White. They've done great job.
1:10:25Thank you everyone to who contributed to
1:10:26the compilation of the subcommittee
1:10:27print. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I
1:10:29yield back.
1:10:29>> Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
1:10:31the cyber uh from the subcommittee on
1:10:33cyber information technologies, the
1:10:35ranking member, Mr. Connor, for any
1:10:36statements he'd like to make.
1:10:39>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first like to
1:10:42thank you and chairman Bacon for the
1:10:44bipartisan way in which this mark has
1:10:46been put together. Uh the uh chairman
1:10:50has led in a transparent bipartisan
1:10:53collaborative manner and deserves a lot
1:10:55of praise. I'd like to thank the
1:10:56majority staff Carolyn Curley, Dr. Mirea
1:11:01Herardo, Brooke Alred, Andrew Smith. I'd
1:11:04like to thank minorities my minority
1:11:07staff Michael Herman and Wendel White
1:11:10and of course my personal office staff
1:11:12Kevin Zame and Dustin and the rest of
1:11:15the committee staff for their hard work
1:11:17and support. On a personal note,
1:11:19Chairman Bacon, I especially want to
1:11:21thank you. This is your final NDAA
1:11:24markup and while we still have many
1:11:26months to work together, the
1:11:27bipartisanship evident in this package
1:11:30is a testament to how you have conducted
1:11:32yourself as chairman of the
1:11:33subcommittee. It has been a pleasure to
1:11:35work with you and appreciate your
1:11:37service. This mark reflects the hard
1:11:39work of members of the subcommittee in
1:11:41challenging emerging emerging technology
1:11:43ideas of particular relevance to the
1:11:46issues of the day. The bill requires a
1:11:48comprehensive re-examination and update
1:11:50of the policy framework that underpins
1:11:52the deployment of autonomy and
1:11:54artificial intelligence systems across
1:11:56the DoD. As part of this update, the
1:11:59department is required to establish risk
1:12:01informed requirements for approval,
1:12:03oversight, testing, human involvement
1:12:05and rapid revalidation. The mark also
1:12:08creates a framework to enable rapid
1:12:10assessment, deployment and governance of
1:12:12AI systems and requires the department
1:12:14to establish a program to report, track,
1:12:17analyze and remediate artificial
1:12:19intelligence incidents. I want to
1:12:22highlight as well that later today we
1:12:24will consider several amendments to
1:12:26strengthen the package further including
1:12:28amendments by Miss Jacobs, Mr. Cisneros,
1:12:31Mr. for whitesides, which the majority
1:12:33has worked with us in good faith to get
1:12:35to place on bipartisan agreement. The
1:12:38president's budget requests continue to
1:12:40slash some of the applied research
1:12:42investment. I find that s shortsighted.
1:12:44I'm therefore proud that the mark
1:12:46responds to this underfunding of science
1:12:48and technology by pro providing budget
1:12:51certification and review authority to
1:12:53the under secretary of defense and
1:12:55research and of research and engineering
1:12:57allowing him or her to put forward and
1:12:59enforce minimum levels of science and
1:13:02technology funding. I'm grateful to the
1:13:04members who have worked to restore that
1:13:06funding both in the mark and in today's
1:13:09investments in cyber. The mark
1:13:11streamlines the defense department's
1:13:13cyber security information technology
1:13:15network defense. Mr. Chairman, these are
1:13:18just a few highlights. I thank the
1:13:20members of the committee for their in
1:13:21inputs and enthusiasm to get to this
1:13:24point. I know today's mark will give us
1:13:26a number of opportunities to highlight
1:13:28areas where we may not agree, but I also
1:13:30wanted to say that this subcommittee
1:13:32mark is an example of the positive
1:13:34bypartisan work in this committee. Thank
1:13:37you. I yield back.
1:13:38>> I thank the gentleman. Before
1:13:39entertaining uh amendments, is there any
1:13:41discussion on the subcommittee print?
1:13:44Seeing none, we will now consider
1:13:46onblock package number one. The chair
1:13:48recognizes Mr. Bacon for the purpose of
1:13:50offering an onblock amendment.
1:13:51>> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
1:13:54call up onblock package number one
1:13:56consisting of amendments have been
1:13:57worked and approved with the minority.
1:13:59>> Without objection, so ordered. Will the
1:14:01clerk please distribute the onblock
1:14:02amendment? Without objection, the
1:14:03onblock amendments are considered as
1:14:05read. The gentleman uh is recognized for
1:14:07three minutes for the purpose of
1:14:08explaining the onblock. Onblock package
1:14:11number one comp is comprised of the
1:14:12following. Log 5748R1 by rep. DEJ jar.
1:14:17Log 5755R1 by Rep. Crank. Log 5769R1 by
1:14:22Rep. Finstead. Log 5776 R1 by Rep.
1:14:25Scott. Log 5786 R1 by Rep. McCormack.
1:14:28Log 5804 R1 by Rep. Gooden. Log 5817R2
1:14:33by Rep. Carbajal. Log 5906 R1 by Rep.
1:14:36Kiggins. Log 5911R1 by Rep. Turner. Log
1:14:395958 R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5965 by
1:14:43Rep. Takuda. Log 5973 R1 by Rep.
1:14:46Jackson. Log 5980 R1 by Rep. Crank. Log
1:14:506022R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 6028 R1 by
1:14:54Rep. Kelly. Log 6031 R1 by Rep. Whitman.
1:14:58Log 6062R2
1:15:00by Rep. Gooden. Log 6070R1 by Rep.
1:15:03Hulahan log 6094 R2 by Rep. Stefonic log
1:15:086099 R2 by Rep. Gooden log 60 6104 R1 by
1:15:13Rep. Davis log 616R3 by Rep. Kiggins.
1:15:17Log 6118 by Rep. McCormack. Lock 6135 R2
1:15:21by Rep. Vinman. Lock 6158R1 by Rep.
1:15:23Kiggins. Lock 6176R2 by Rep. Bacon. Lock
1:15:276179 by Rep. Fallon. Lock 6187 by Rep.
1:15:31Mesmer. Log 6223 R1 by Rep. Magcguire.
1:15:35Rep 6238R1 by Rep. Magcguire. Log 6243
1:15:39by Rep. Magguire. Log 6264 by Rep.
1:15:42Jackson. Lock 6267R1 by Rep. Vasquez.
1:15:45Lock 6292 R1 by Rep. Connor. Lock 6322
1:15:49by Rep. Swornson. Lock 6374 by Rep.
1:15:52Whitesides. Lock 6379 by Rep. Whitman.
1:15:55Lock 6439 R1 by Rep. Alfrath. Lock 6443
1:15:59by Rep. Jackson. Block 6449R2 by Rep.
1:16:02Vinman. Lock 642 by Rep. Bacon. Block
1:16:066470 R1 by Rep. Jackson. Lock 6473 by
1:16:09Rep. Whitman. Lock 6496 R1 by Rep.
1:16:12Fallon. R 6498 R2 by Rep. Vinman. Log
1:16:166503 R1 by Rep. Bacon. Log 6520 R1 by
1:16:19Rep. Fallon. Log 6541R5
1:16:23by Rep. Vinman. Log 655 R2 by Rep.
1:16:26Bergman. Log 6561 R1 by Rep. Wilson.
1:16:30Lock 6595 R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6600 R1
1:16:35by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6602 R1 by Rep.
1:16:38Whitman. Lock 6657R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log
1:16:426663 R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6665R2 by
1:16:47Rep Kana. Log 6696R1 by Rep. Alfred. Log
1:16:51673 R1 by Rep Kana. Lock 6742 by Repor
1:16:556755 R1 by Rep. Jarle. Log 673 R1 by
1:16:59Rep. Conaway, log 6782 by Rep. Bacon,
1:17:02log 621 by Rep. Whitesides,
1:17:06and log 6850 by Rep. Fallon. And
1:17:08finally, log 6851 by Rep. Kelly. All
1:17:11right. The question is on the onblock
1:17:13package offered by Mr. Bacon. So in
1:17:15favor, we'll say I.
1:17:17>> Those opposed, no.
1:17:18>> The eyes have it. The amendment is
1:17:20agreed to.
1:17:24>> If there are no further amendments,
1:17:25chair recognizes a gentleman from
1:17:26Nebraska, Mr. Bacon for the purpose of
1:17:27offering a motion.
1:17:28>> Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the
1:17:29subcommittee print of the subcommittee
1:17:31on cyber information technologies and
1:17:33innovation as amended.
1:17:35>> The question occurs on the motion of the
1:17:36gentleman from Nebraska. Somebody's in
1:17:38favor will say I.
1:17:39>> I.
1:17:39>> Those opposed, no. Qu being present, the
1:17:42eyes have it. The motion is agreed to.
1:17:46>> Committee will now receive the print on
1:17:47the subcommittee on readiness. Pursuant
1:17:49to committee rule 17 and in consultation
1:17:51with ranking member, we will postpone
1:17:53all recorded votes on the amendments to
1:17:55this particular subcommittee print until
1:17:57consideration of all amendments to the
1:17:59subcommittee print have concluded. Chair
1:18:01recognizes the chair of the subcommittee
1:18:03on uh the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
1:18:05Bergman, for any opening comments he'd
1:18:07like to make.
1:18:08>> I thank the chairman for yielding. This
1:18:10mark is an unprecedented acceleration of
1:18:13the readiness of our armed forces by
1:18:15expanding funding by almost 10% to
1:18:18support the sustainment of our ground
1:18:19forces, our naval forces, our aviation
1:18:22forces, and our space forces. This
1:18:24readiness mark fully endorses the idea
1:18:26that the quickest way to expand our
1:18:29force structure is by having our
1:18:30military units ready in terms of both
1:18:33training and maintenance. Specifically,
1:18:35this mark supports critical investments
1:18:37to increase mobile and lethal combat
1:18:40formations. It strengthens our
1:18:42military's commitment to service
1:18:44members, civilians, and their families
1:18:46by resourcing major quality of life
1:18:48initiatives, including significant
1:18:50funding for facilities. Again,
1:18:54in keeping with the chairman's focus on
1:18:56the industrial base, this mark resources
1:18:58the organic industrial base to deliver
1:19:00the maintenance sustainment that our
1:19:02forces need to support our combatant
1:19:05commander requirements. This mark
1:19:07endorses an Army initiative that
1:19:09mandates annual sustainment reviews to
1:19:11identify and fix major weapon systems
1:19:14that do not meet material readiness
1:19:16objectives. Finally, these generational
1:19:19investments in the readiness of our
1:19:20forces are accompanied by a framework to
1:19:23measure success. For example, cost
1:19:26controls are placed on the largest ever
1:19:28military construction project to limit
1:19:31cost overruns and an expansion of the
1:19:33accounting on construction overhead
1:19:35costs is mandated to ensure additional
1:19:39governmental transparency. In closing, I
1:19:42want to specifically thank my ranking
1:19:44member John Garami for his support in
1:19:47delivering this mark. Our nation is
1:19:49better off when we work together in a
1:19:50collaborative manner to deliver
1:19:52worldclass products to our service
1:19:55members to ensure their safety combined
1:19:59with a heavy dose of warrior lethality.
1:20:02And finally to the staff of the
1:20:05readiness subcommittee, Dave Sinki, Drew
1:20:08Kennedy, Ethan Pelisir, Abby Schneider,
1:20:11Super Chararma, Michaela Rearen, Wendel
1:20:13White, and my personal staff, Alex
1:20:15Zender Zender, and David Cybert. And
1:20:19with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
1:20:23Chair recognizes the U.
1:20:26Now recognizes the subcommittee on
1:20:28readiness, the ranking member, the
1:20:30gentleman from California, Mr. Gear Mini
1:20:32for opening comments he'd like to have.
1:20:34>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bergman.
1:20:36Thank you so very much and
1:20:38congratulations on another successful
1:20:40readiness mark. It's been a genuine
1:20:42pleasure working with you on some of the
1:20:44most important issues facing our service
1:20:46members. Not just this mark, but
1:20:49throughout the entire year. It's been a
1:20:51pleasure and I thank you for that. I
1:20:53also want to thank our staff for all the
1:20:55work they have done to help get us to
1:20:57this point. Sapna Sharmmer, Wendel
1:21:00White, Mccela Rein, Dave Siniki, Drew
1:21:03Kennedy, Ethan Pilster, Abby Snyder, and
1:21:07on my personal staff, Robert Herd,
1:21:09Sophia, and Eli Diaz. Also have all
1:21:13provided significant support to the work
1:21:15of this subcommittee. I'm proud of this
1:21:18year's mark. This subcommittee has a
1:21:20long-standing tradition of setting aside
1:21:22partisan differences for the needs of
1:21:24our service members and their families.
1:21:27And this year is no different. This
1:21:29year's readiness subcommittee mark is
1:21:32focused on sustaining our weapon systems
1:21:34and our infrastructure and increasing
1:21:37the readiness rates for aircraft, ships,
1:21:40and ground vehicles. Let me highlight a
1:21:43few areas that I'm particularly pleased.
1:21:45First, the organic industrial base. Much
1:21:48discussion from other subcommittees
1:21:50about the necessity of this particular
1:21:52activity. This mark invests in the
1:21:55people, the infrastructure and the
1:21:58workload of the organic industrial base.
1:22:01We have included multiple reforms at
1:22:04these critical facilities so our organic
1:22:07industrial base can maintain and repair
1:22:10the equipment our war fighters depend
1:22:12upon. This mark also focuses on
1:22:15sustaining our services in contested
1:22:18environments, including by supporting
1:22:20advanced manufacturing to ensure that
1:22:23our forces can sustain themselves in the
1:22:26field. It also ensures investments in
1:22:29the prepositioned stocks which has
1:22:32proven to be critical in responding to
1:22:34threats around the world. Lastly is the
1:22:38right to repair. This mark takes
1:22:40important steps to ensure our service
1:22:43secretaries are identifying the
1:22:45readiness deficiencies, tracing them to
1:22:49specific parts, software, and
1:22:51intellectual property causing those
1:22:54problems and then developing corrective
1:22:57action plans. That is real
1:23:00accountability and we intend to continue
1:23:02to pursue pursue this. I know that many
1:23:05of my colleagues are interested in going
1:23:07even further on the right to repair. I
1:23:10find myself in league with them.
1:23:12However,
1:23:13it's not presently in the mark, but I do
1:23:16look forward to that debate in the hours
1:23:18ahead. This mark is a critical piece of
1:23:21legislation and I encourage members of
1:23:24this committee to support it. Again,
1:23:27Chairman Bergman and the members of this
1:23:29subcommittee, I want to thank you for
1:23:31your collaboration and partnership. And
1:23:33with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
1:23:36>> I thank the gentleman. Uh before
1:23:37entertaining uh amendments, is there any
1:23:39discussion on the subcommittee print?
1:23:43>> Yellow.
1:23:46>> We will now consider onblock package
1:23:47number one. The chair recognized Mr.
1:23:48Bergman for the purpose of offering an
1:23:50onblock amendment.
1:23:52>> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
1:23:54call up onblock package number one
1:23:56consisting of amendments that have been
1:23:58worked and approved with the minority.
1:24:00>> Without objection, so ordered. Will the
1:24:02clerk please distribute the onblock
1:24:03amendment? Without objection, the
1:24:05amendments are considered as read. The
1:24:07gentleman is recognized for three
1:24:09minutes for the purpose of explaining
1:24:10the onblock amendment.
1:24:13>> Onblock package number one is comprised
1:24:15of the following. Log 5724
1:24:19by Rep. Scott. Log 5762R2
1:24:22by Rep. Finstead. Log 5770R1
1:24:27by Rep. Latrell. Log 5774 by Rep.
1:24:31Finstead. Log 5775 by Rep. Kelly. Log 57
1:24:36niner1 by Rep. Molton. Log 579er 6R2 by
1:24:41Rep. Gooden. Log 5798 by Rep.
1:24:44Strickland. Log 5801R1
1:24:48by Rep. Strickland. Log 5813R1
1:24:51by Rep. Vasquez. Log 5818R1
1:24:55by Rep. Strickland. Log 5820R2
1:24:59by Rep. Jackson. Log 5822R1
1:25:03by Rep. Jackson. Log 5831R3
1:25:06by Rep. Vasquez. Log 5847 by Rep.
1:25:10Holidayiday. Log 5855R1
1:25:13by Rep. Bergman. Log 5867 by Rep. Scott.
1:25:18Log 5871 by Rep. Scott. Log 5881 by Rep.
1:25:23Harrigon. Log 58 niner zero by Rep.
1:25:26Bergman. Log 58 niner 3 by Rep. Bergman.
1:25:30Log 58 niner7 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5
1:25:34niner 07 by Rep. Scott. Log 5 niner 08
1:25:38by Rep. Takuda. Log 5 niner16R2 by Rep.
1:25:41Vasquez. Log 5 niner 1 niner by Rep.
1:25:44Takuda.
1:25:46Log 5 niner 37R2 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5
1:25:50niner 52R1 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5 niner
1:25:5456 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5 niner niner
1:25:57niner R1 by Rep. Wittman. Log 6034 by
1:26:02Rep. Wittmann. Log 604 niner by Rep.
1:26:05Bergman. Log 6057 by Rep. Hulahand. Log
1:26:106064R1
1:26:12by Rep. Harrian. Log 606 niner by Rep.
1:26:15Bergman. Log 6136 by Rep. Molton. Log
1:26:206157R
1:26:22run by Rep. One by Rep. Fallon. Log 6165
1:26:26by Rep. Crowe. Log 6174R1
1:26:29by Rep. Mesmer. Log 6175 by Rep. Fallon.
1:26:34Log 6177 by Rep. Fallon. Log 61 niner8
1:26:39by Rep. Mesmer. And log 61 niner niner
1:26:42by Rep. Magguire.
1:26:45Question
1:26:46>> question is on the onblock package
1:26:47offered by Mr. Bergman. So me in favor
1:26:49will say I.
1:26:50>> I.
1:26:51>> Those opposed, no.
1:26:52>> The eyes have it and the uh amendment
1:26:55onblock is agreed to. We will now
1:26:58consider onblock package
1:27:01says number one.
1:27:03>> Number two. The chair recognizes Mr.
1:27:05Bergman for the purpose of offering the
1:27:06onblock amendment.
1:27:08>> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
1:27:10call up onblock package 2 consisting of
1:27:12amendments that have been worked and
1:27:14approved with the minority.
1:27:15>> Without objection, so ordered. Will the
1:27:16clerk please distribute the onblock
1:27:18amendment? Without objection, the
1:27:19amendments are considered as read. The
1:27:20gentleman uh is recognized for three
1:27:22minutes for the purpose of explaining
1:27:23his onblock amendment.
1:27:26>> Onblock package number two is comprised
1:27:28of the following. Log 62000R1
1:27:32by Rep. Elfreth. Log 6213 by Rep. Mu
1:27:36Maguire. Log 6222R1
1:27:40by Rep. Harrian. Log 6236R1
1:27:43by Rep. Harrian. Log 6261 by Rep.
1:27:47Magcguire. Log 629er1 by Rep. Scott. Log
1:27:516308R3
1:27:53by Delegate Molen. Log 6317 by Rep.
1:27:57Sason. Log 632 niner R1 by Rep.
1:28:01Courtney. Log 6361R2
1:28:04by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 6364R1
1:28:08by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 6370 by Rep.
1:28:12Holidayiday. Log 6380R1
1:28:15by Rep. Bergman. Log 6381R1
1:28:19by Rep. Gooden. Log 6405R4
1:28:23by Rep. Kiggins. Log 6. Log 6407R1
1:28:28by Rep. Amade. Log 648 niner by Rep.
1:28:31Jackson. Log 64 niner2 R1 run one by
1:28:35Rep. Scott. Log 64 niner4 by Rep.
1:28:39Jackson. Log 6538R1
1:28:42by Rep. Fallon. Log 6544 by Rep.
1:28:45Bergman. Log 6546R1
1:28:48by Rep. Jacobs. Log 655
1:28:52niner R2 by Rep. Bergman. Log 6580R1
1:28:56by Rep. Van Orton. Log 6583R3
1:29:00by Rep. Bacon. Log 65 niner7R1 by Rep.
1:29:05Wilson. Log 6604
1:29:08by Rep. Crank. Log 6605 by Rep. Ryan.
1:29:13Log 6610 by Rep. Connor. Log 6686 by
1:29:18Rep. Scott. Log 669er
1:29:21R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 669er2
1:29:25by Rep. Bergman. Log 66 niner4 R1 by
1:29:29Rep. Elfreth. Log 66 niner five by Rep.
1:29:33Scott. Log 6737R2
1:29:36by Rep. Delusio. Log 6743
1:29:41by Rep. Sorenson. Log 6786 by Rep.
1:29:44Garande. Log 679er 3 by Rep. DJ. Log
1:29:496804R1
1:29:51by Rep. Cisneros. Log 6806R1
1:29:55by Rep. Bergman. Log 6807 by Rep.
1:29:59Bergman. Log 684 niner by Rep Tran. Log
1:30:036870 by Rep. Rogers.
1:30:10>> Is there further discussion on the
1:30:11onblock package?
1:30:13>> Question is now on the onblock package
1:30:14offered by Mr. Bergman. So many are in
1:30:16favor will say I.
1:30:17>> I.
1:30:18>> Those opposed? No. The eyes have it and
1:30:20the amendments on block are agreed to.
1:30:27If there are no further amendments, the
1:30:28chair recognizes a gentleman from
1:30:29Michigan, Mr. Bergman, for the purpose
1:30:31of offering a motion.
1:30:34>> Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the
1:30:36subcommittee print of the subcommittee
1:30:38on readiness as amended.
1:30:40>> Question occurs on the motion of the
1:30:42gentleman from Michigan. So many in
1:30:44favor will say I.
1:30:45>> I.
1:30:46>> Those opposed, no. Quorum being present,
1:30:48the eyes have it. The motion is agreed
1:30:50to.
1:30:54Committee will now receive the print of
1:30:55the subcommittee on military personnel.
1:30:57Pursuant to committee rule 17 and in
1:31:00consultation with the ranking member, we
1:31:02will postpone all recorded votes on the
1:31:04amendments to this particular
1:31:05subcommittee print until consideration
1:31:06of all amendments to this subcommittee
1:31:08print have concluded. Uh the chair
1:31:10recognizes the chair of the
1:31:12subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas,
1:31:14Mr. Fallon, for any comments he would
1:31:16like to make.
1:31:17>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The
1:31:19military personnel print was developed
1:31:21in a bipartisan manner and includes
1:31:24member priorities focused on taking care
1:31:27of service members and their families to
1:31:29ensure we have the most capable and
1:31:31ready fighting force in the world.
1:31:34Really in history. To double down on
1:31:36historic recruiting numbers, we
1:31:39increased the end strengths for all
1:31:40military services, providing the
1:31:43services space to add needed warfighters
1:31:46and enablers to address rising threats,
1:31:49which we've all seen around the world.
1:31:51We pay particular attention to military
1:31:53medicine this year to improve quality
1:31:55and access of our service members and
1:31:58their families by increasing the pool of
1:32:00eligible nurses who can now start their
1:32:03careers at military treatment
1:32:05facilities. by requiring DHA to hire
1:32:08needed personnel at the proper wage to
1:32:10fill our hospitals and clinics and
1:32:12authorizing hospital commanders at
1:32:14remote installations to hire medical
1:32:16personnel directly without going through
1:32:19the layers of bureaucracy to get to the
1:32:22doctors and nurses where they need to be
1:32:24and where we really uh have to have
1:32:26them. We also increased access to dental
1:32:29care for junior enlisted national guard
1:32:31and children under 12 at onpost dental
1:32:34clinics. And continuing our focus on
1:32:36military health care, we continue our
1:32:39support to research into cutting edge
1:32:41medical technology to care for our
1:32:43service members and their families with
1:32:45particular focus on combat medicine and
1:32:47trauma. Also, we continue the effort to
1:32:50reform civilian hiring, focusing on a
1:32:54skillsbased workforce rather than
1:32:56credentialism and making a concentrated
1:32:59effort to get young tech talent into the
1:33:02DOT, which is an absolute must. I want
1:33:04to uh thank my ranking member Christy
1:33:06Hulahan from uh Pennsylvania. We worked
1:33:08very well together in the last couple of
1:33:10years and we really appreciate that. And
1:33:12our off and my personal office staff,
1:33:14Andrew Bond, James Knuckle, and Hannah
1:33:16Crossman. And lastly, I want to
1:33:18acknowledge our superstars on the
1:33:20committee staff level. They are gold
1:33:22coins for our republic. Uh I want to
1:33:26especially mention Dave Giaetti, Hannah
1:33:28Kaufman, Ellie Bender, and Alexandria
1:33:32Evers. And also um Ila Reino and Mckela
1:33:36Rear. They've all worked tirelessly and
1:33:39always in a bipartisan manner to develop
1:33:40the subcommittee print. Thank you, Mr.
1:33:43Chairman.
1:33:45chair now recognizes the uh member of
1:33:47submobile military personnel, the
1:33:48gentleoman from Pennsylvania, the
1:33:50ranking member for any opening comments
1:33:51she'd like to have.
1:33:53>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh the military
1:33:55personnel mark is a very strong and
1:33:57bipartisan package that addresses many
1:33:59of the day-to-day concerns of service
1:34:01members and their families. Thank you as
1:34:03well to chairman rep and representative
1:34:05Fallon for his partnership in making
1:34:07sure that we always have kept our
1:34:08northstar as the lives and livelihoods
1:34:11of our servicemen and women and their
1:34:12families. The mark includes a targeted
1:34:15pay raise in which more junior service
1:34:17members will get higher rate raises and
1:34:19increases. These improvements to service
1:34:22members paychecks should provide a very
1:34:23welcome relief to military families who
1:34:26are struggling with everinccreasing gas
1:34:27and food prices. In addition to the pay
1:34:30raise and to address issues related to
1:34:32food insecurity, the mark includes a
1:34:34provision excludes the BH BAH or basic
1:34:37housing alliance allowance from a
1:34:39service member's household income. so a
1:34:41greater number of service members can be
1:34:43eligible for the basic needs allowance.
1:34:45I'm optimistic that this effort will
1:34:47positively impact service members
1:34:49pocketbooks and their ability to put
1:34:51food on the table. To address growing
1:34:53concerns over the future and the future
1:34:55viability of the military health system,
1:34:57the mark also includes a series of
1:34:59provisions aimed at an increased
1:35:01oversight. The military health system is
1:35:03a no-fale mission and we need to make
1:35:05sure that there is a system that can
1:35:06provide our nation's military a
1:35:09medically ready force to deploy. Just as
1:35:11importantly is ensuring that the medical
1:35:13providers themselves have the requisite
1:35:15skills to address whatever injuries come
1:35:17their way. In addition, beneficiary
1:35:20beneficiary access to health care has
1:35:22been a challenge for several years and
1:35:24as a result, this mark includes some
1:35:25innovative ways to improve civilian
1:35:27hiring and to preserve the network of
1:35:29care as it currently exists until a
1:35:31further analysis is completed. The mark
1:35:34expands ongoing efforts to improve
1:35:36access to safe and quality child care by
1:35:39including an OPAIR in the CHI in the
1:35:41childare in your home pilot program and
1:35:43establishing a student internship
1:35:45program to improve recruitment and
1:35:47staffing of military child development
1:35:49centers. The bill also ensures that
1:35:51military families executing a permanent
1:35:53change of station receive timely and
1:35:56relevant relocation assistance
1:35:58information about available child care
1:36:00and food access services in advance of
1:36:02their military duty station move. And
1:36:04finally, the mark requires the
1:36:06department to issue regulations banning
1:36:08the department of defense personnel from
1:36:10insider trading on prediction markets.
1:36:12this necessary and crucial step in
1:36:15safeguarding our national security and
1:36:17in maintaining the public trust in our
1:36:18military. I'd like to acknowledge all of
1:36:21the personnel's uh committee staff
1:36:23efforts, especially Elco, Michaela,
1:36:24Hannah, and Dave and those who are uh
1:36:26back in our office working diligently.
1:36:29Hello to you and thank you uh very
1:36:31grateful for the opportunity to work
1:36:33together on this bipartisan markup today
1:36:34and I yield back.
1:36:36>> Jenny yields back. Uh before
1:36:38entertaining amendments, is there any
1:36:39discussion on the subcommittee print?
1:36:45We we will now uh consider onblock
1:36:48package number one. The chair recognizes
1:36:50Mr. Fallon for the purpose of offering
1:36:52the onblock amendment.
1:36:55>> Mr. Chairman, thank you. I ask unanimous
1:36:57consent to call up onblock package
1:36:58number one consisting of amendments that
1:37:00have been worked and approved with the
1:37:02minority.
1:37:03>> Without objection, so ordered. Will the
1:37:04clerk please distribute the onblock uh
1:37:07amendment? Without objection, the
1:37:08amendments are considered as read. The
1:37:10gentleman is recognized for three
1:37:11minutes for the purpose of explaining
1:37:13the onblock amendment.
1:37:14>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Onblock package
1:37:16number one is comprised of the
1:37:17following. Log716
1:37:19R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5717R1 by Rep.
1:37:23Bergman. Log 5725 by Rep. Scott. Log
1:37:265726 by Rep. Scott. Log 5727 by Rep.
1:37:30Scott. Log 5730 by Rep. Pulahan. Log
1:37:335731R1
1:37:34by Rep. Pulahan. Log 5733 by Repulahan.
1:37:37Log 5734 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 5736R2
1:37:42by Rep. H P H P H P H P H P H P H P H P
1:37:42H P H P H P Huland log 5737 by Rep.
1:37:44Jacobs. Log 5746 by Rep H P H P H P H P
1:37:46H P H P H P H P H P H Puland log 5757 by
1:37:48Rep. Dakota log 5758 R1 by Rep Bergman.
1:37:52Log 5759 by Rep. Dakota log 5760R1 by
1:37:57Rep. Dakota log 5772 by Rep. Latrell.
1:38:00Log 5778 by Rep. Hammedash. Log 5779
1:38:06by Rep. Hammed. Log 5780 by Rep.
1:38:09Kiggins. Log 5799 by Rep. Strickland.
1:38:12Log 5805R1 by Rep. Jimenez. Log 5811 by
1:38:16Rep. Hamemed. Log 5827 by Rep. Latrell.
1:38:20Log 5834R1 by Delegate Mouland. Log 5837
1:38:25by Rep. Scott. 5857 by Rep. Bergman. Log
1:38:295859R2 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5861R1 by
1:38:33Rep. Bergman. Log 5873 by Rep. Dakota.
1:38:37Log 5884 by Rep. Dakota. Log 5891 by
1:38:40Rep. Dakota. Log 5892 by Rep. Turner.
1:38:44Log 5898R1 by Rep. Davis. Log 58.99R1 by
1:38:48Rep. Kiggins. Lo 5902 by Rep. Kiggins.
1:38:50Log 5903 by Rep. Dakota. Log 5915 by
1:38:54Rep. Jackson. Log 5925R1
1:38:56by Rep. Scott. Log 5927R2
1:38:59by Rep. Scott. Log 5941R1 by Rep.
1:39:02Finstead. Log 5942R2
1:39:05by Rep. Herrigan. Log 5946 by Rep.
1:39:08Dakota. Log 5948 by Rep. Jackson. Log
1:39:115951 by Rep. Dakota. Log 5953 R2 by Rep.
1:39:15Jackson. Log 5960 by Rep. Dakota. Log
1:39:185967 by Rep. Crank. Log 5971 by Rep.
1:39:22Jackson. And log 5976R1
1:39:25by Rep. Jackson.
1:39:32Is there further discussion on the oblot
1:39:33package?
1:39:35Question is on the onblock package
1:39:37offered by Mr. Fallon. So many in favor
1:39:39will say I.
1:39:39>> I.
1:39:40>> Those opposed, no.
1:39:42And the chair, the eyes have it and the
1:39:44amendments are agreed to.
1:39:50We will now consider onblock package
1:39:51number two. The chair recognized Mr.
1:39:53Fallon for the purpose of offering the
1:39:54onblock amendment.
1:39:55>> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
1:39:56call up onblock package number two
1:39:58consisting of amendments that have been
1:40:00worked with and approved with the
1:40:01minority.
1:40:01>> With objection so ordered. Will the
1:40:03clerk please distribute the onblock
1:40:04amendment? Without objection, the
1:40:06amendments are considered as read. The
1:40:08uh gentleman is now recognized for three
1:40:10minutes for the purpose of explaining
1:40:11onlock amendment number two.
1:40:13>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Onlock package
1:40:15number two is comprised of the
1:40:16following. Log 5983 by Rep. Cisneros.
1:40:19Log 5986 R1 by Rep. Cineros Cisneros.
1:40:22Log 594 R2 by Rep. Cisneros. Log 6013 R1
1:40:27by Rep. Kelly. Log 6014 R1 by Rep. Crow.
1:40:29Log 6023 by Rep. Kelly. Log 6035 by Rep.
1:40:33Whitman. Lock 6058 by Rep. Dakota. Log
1:40:356072 by Rep. Keading. Log 6089 by Rep.
1:40:38Huland. Lock. 6090 by Rep. Ryan. Log
1:40:416103 by Rep. Good. Lock. 63 I'm sorry,
1:40:4361 09 R1 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 611 R1 by
1:40:48Rep. Mesmer. Log 6119 by Rep. Bacon. Log
1:40:526125 by Rep. Vinman. Log 6129R2 by Rep.
1:40:56Bacon. Log 6130 R1 by Rep. Fallon. Log
1:41:016133 R2 by Rep. Bacon. Log 61 53 R1 by
1:41:05Rep. Mesmer. Log 6156R1
1:41:09by Rep. Mesmer. Log 6168R1 by Rep.
1:41:11Fallon. Log 6172 R1 by Rep Bacon. Log
1:41:1461821 by Rep. Fallon. Log 6185 by Rep.
1:41:17Connor. Log 6188R1 by Rep. Fallon. Log
1:41:216218 R1 by Rep. Kicks. Log 6219R3
1:41:24by Rep. Kiggins. Log 6221 by Rep. Scott.
1:41:27Log 6234 R2 by Rep. Kiggins. Lock 6235
1:41:30by Rep. Kiggins. Lock 6239 by Rep Bell
1:41:33L. Lock 6242R2 by Rep Bell Bell. Lock
1:41:356252 by Rep. Kiggins. Lock 6256 by Rep.
1:41:39Crow. Lock. 6263 by Rep. Ryan. Lock 6273
1:41:42R1 by Rep. Scott. Lock. 6275 R1 by Rep.
1:41:44Scott. Lock. 6281 by Rep Bacon. Lock.
1:41:466293 by Rep. Connell. Lock. 6296 R2 by
1:41:49Rep. Connor. Lock. 6304 by Rep.
1:41:51Whitesides. Lock. 6305 by Rep.
1:41:53Whitesides. Lock. 6316R1 by Rep.
1:41:55Sorenson. Lock. 6318 by Rep. Courtney.
1:41:58Lock. 6319 R1 by repor. Lock 6350R1
1:42:01by delegate Mand 6351R1 by Rep. Amade.
1:42:06Lock 6356 R1 by Rep Bman. Lock 6373 by
1:42:09Rep. Kiggins. Okay, that's it. Question
1:42:12is on the question. You're good, man.
1:42:16The question is on block package offered
1:42:18by Mr. Fallon. Now, somebody's in favor
1:42:19will say I. I.
1:42:21>> Those opposed? No. Chair, the eyes
1:42:23haven't. The amendment is agreed to.
1:42:28We will now consider onblock package
1:42:30number three. The chair recognizes Mr.
1:42:31Fallon for the purpose of speed reading
1:42:33onblock package number three. I was
1:42:36telling Mr. Jackson I got a little
1:42:37lightheaded.
1:42:39I got the doctor right here though
1:42:40thankfully. Uh Mr. Chairman, I ask
1:42:42unanimous consent to call up on block
1:42:44package number three consisting of
1:42:45amendments that have been worked and
1:42:46approved with the minority.
1:42:47>> Without objection, so ordered. Will the
1:42:49clerk uh please distribute the onblock
1:42:51amendment? Without objection, the
1:42:52amendments are considered as read. The
1:42:53gentleman's recognized for three minutes
1:42:54for the purpose of explaining the
1:42:56onblock amendment.
1:42:57>> Onblock package number three is
1:42:58comprised of the following. Log 6382R2
1:43:00by Rep. Hulan. Log 6389 R3 by Rep.
1:43:03Hulan. Lock 6390 R1 by Rep. Hulan. Lock
1:43:066395 by Rep. Herrian. Lock 6396R1 by
1:43:09Rep. Vivman. Lock 6401
1:43:11R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 6406 by Rep. uh
1:43:15Elfraith. Log 6411 by Rep. Elfrafe. Log
1:43:196420 by Rep. Wilson. Log 6323 by Rep.
1:43:22Rep. Dakota. Log 64 25R1 by Delegate
1:43:26Mouan. Log 6433 by Rep. Dakota. Log 6434
1:43:30by Rep. Alfred. Log 6445 by Rep. Fallon.
1:43:33Log 6472R1 by Rep. Goodlander. Log
1:43:366471R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 6478 R2 by
1:43:40Rep. Goodlander. Log 6481 R1 by Rep.
1:43:43Goodlander. Log 6485 by Rep. Higgins.
1:43:46Log 6504R1 by Rep. Gooden. Log 6513 R4
1:43:50by Rep. Pinman. Lock 6519 by Rep.
1:43:52Goodland. Lock 6523 by Rep. Fall Found.
1:43:54Lock 6550R2 by Rep. Amade. Lock 6568R1
1:44:00by Rep. Bidman. Lock 6570 R1 by Rep.
1:44:03Holidayiday. Log 6576R1 by Rep Bacon.
1:44:06Lock 6587 by Rep. Crow. Log 6593 R1 by
1:44:09Rep. Bacon. Log 661 by Rep. Jacobs. Log
1:44:13663 R2 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6606R1 by
1:44:16Rep. Ryan. Lo 6608 by Rep. Ryan. Log
1:44:206613R2
1:44:22by Rep. Carroll. Log 6632 by Rep. Scott.
1:44:25Log 6643R1
1:44:27by Rep. McCormack. Log 66 uh 67R1 by
1:44:31Rep. Swornson. Log 6769 by Rep. Vinman.
1:44:34Log 6684R2 by Rep. Gooden. Log 6693 R1
1:44:39by Rep. Whitman. Log 6702 by Rep. Davis.
1:44:43Log 6711 by Rep. Strickland. Log 6731 by
1:44:46Rep. McCormack. Log 6758 by Rep. Jacobs.
1:44:49Log 6770R1
1:44:51by Delegate Mland. Log 6771 by Rep.
1:44:54Ryan. Log 6794 by Rep. Fallon. Log 6867
1:44:58by Rep. Strickland.
1:44:59>> Question is on the onblock package
1:45:01offered by Mr. Fallon. So many in favor
1:45:03will say I.
1:45:04>> Those opposed? No. Can the chair the
1:45:06eyes have it? The onblock package is
1:45:08agreed to.
1:45:11>> If there are no further amendments,
1:45:13chair recognizes the gentleman from
1:45:14Texas, Mr. Valon, for the purpose of
1:45:16offering a motion.
1:45:39Mr. Chairman, I
1:45:41>> Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the
1:45:42subcommittee print of the subcommittee
1:45:44on military personnel.
1:45:47As amended.
1:45:48>> As amended.
1:45:50>> Okay. If there are no further
1:45:51amendments, chair say question occurs on
1:45:53the motion from the gentleman from
1:45:55Texas. Somebody's in favor will say I.
1:45:57>> I.
1:45:57>> Those opposed? No. Quorum being present.
1:46:00The eyes have it and the motion is
1:46:02agreed to.
1:46:06Committee will now receive the print of
1:46:08the subcommittee on intelligence and
1:46:09special operations. Pursuant to
1:46:11committee rule 17 and in consultation
1:46:13with the ranking member, we will
1:46:14postpone all recorded votes on the
1:46:15amendments to this particular
1:46:16subcommittee print until consideration
1:46:18of the amendments to this subcommittee
1:46:20print have concluded. Chair recognizes
1:46:21the chair of the subcommittee. The
1:46:23gentleman from Texas, Dr. Jackson, for
1:46:25any opening comments he'd like to make.
1:46:27Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
1:46:29begin by thanking ranking member Crowe
1:46:30for his support and contribution, as
1:46:33well as members of the subcommittee for
1:46:34their efforts as we developed this
1:46:35bipartisan subcommittee print. This ISO
1:46:38print continues to focus on providing
1:46:40our special operations forces and our
1:46:42defense intelligence enterprise and the
1:46:44security cooperation enterprise with the
1:46:46tools and resources required to ensure
1:46:48their capabilities can support the
1:46:50department's national defense strategy
1:46:52and counter an everchanging threat
1:46:53environment. The subcommittee print
1:46:55drives the department forward in several
1:46:57key areas to enable our war fighters,
1:46:59intelligence professionals, and security
1:47:01cooperation community to execute their
1:47:03mission at speed and scale. First we re
1:47:05first we require the secretary of war to
1:47:07designate the head of an organization
1:47:08within the department of war to be
1:47:10responsible for ubiquitous technical
1:47:12surveillance surveillance known as UTS
1:47:14UTS functions and and to develop a
1:47:17strategy for research development and
1:47:19procurement of secure communications
1:47:21obsuscation
1:47:23technologies sorry uh the UTS threat is
1:47:26well known and we need a streamlined
1:47:28focused effort within the department to
1:47:29get solutions to our war fighters. Next,
1:47:31the subcommittee print invest in a wide
1:47:33range of intelligence capabilities and
1:47:35disciplines to better enable leaders to
1:47:37make threat informed decisions in an
1:47:39increasingly complex world.
1:47:41We we direct new periodic intelligence
1:47:44and intelligence surveillance and
1:47:45reconnaissance or ISR strategy across
1:47:48all domains to evaluate whether current
1:47:50capabilities can meet intelligence
1:47:51collection requirements and drive the
1:47:53department to ensure collection postures
1:47:55going forward better meet future
1:47:56intelligence collection requirements. We
1:47:58deliver to the security cooperation
1:48:00enterprise additional authority needed
1:48:02to broaden the capacity to work with
1:48:03partners and allies. This ISO print
1:48:06provides the secretary the secretary of
1:48:08war the ability to establish a joint
1:48:10education and training program on
1:48:11military trauma research and care and to
1:48:14enhance that capability. Finally, the
1:48:16subcommittee recommends an additional
1:48:181.3 billion for US Special Operations
1:48:21Command to cover approximately half of
1:48:23the items on SOCOM's unfunded priority
1:48:25list, such as the Sky Raider 2. The US
1:48:29Special Operations Command budget has
1:48:31remained relatively flat over the last
1:48:32decade despite the growing global demand
1:48:35for our special operations forces. Our
1:48:37ISO print recommends this additional
1:48:39funding so you the US special operations
1:48:41command can continue to meet the
1:48:43critical needs within its programs and
1:48:45deliver the capabilities required to
1:48:47keep our special operations forces in
1:48:48the fight today and prepared for future
1:48:51b prepared for the future battlefield no
1:48:52matter where or when that threat arises.
1:48:55It is our article one responsibility to
1:48:57ensure we provide the men and women, the
1:48:58service members and civilians who
1:49:00volunteer to serve in these roles and
1:49:02and with these cap uh capabilities the
1:49:05the capabilities and tools to protect
1:49:07our special operators, intelligence
1:49:09professionals and security cooperation
1:49:11professionals and keep them in the
1:49:13fight. I also want to take this
1:49:14opportunity to thank the tremendous
1:49:16professional staff of Craig Green, Alex
1:49:19Igelhart, Mark Mohouse, Will Johnson,
1:49:21Katie Quinn, Austin Richards, and my
1:49:24personal office staff, Asher Thompson,
1:49:26and Crystal Young. Without this team,
1:49:28the mark would not be possible. Finally,
1:49:30I want to recognize and extend my
1:49:32appreciation for our ISO subcommittee
1:49:33staff director, Craig Green. As many of
1:49:36you know, Craig will be retiring at the
1:49:38end of this year, making this his final
1:49:40House Armed Services Committee NDAA
1:49:42markup. He has helped Shepherd through
1:49:4417 NDAAS over the course of his
1:49:46remarkable 18-year tenure on this
1:49:48committee and I wish him all the best in
1:49:50his upcoming retirement. With that, Mr.
1:49:52Chair, I yield back.
1:49:54>> Chair, now recognizes the ranking member
1:49:56of the subcommittee on intelligence and
1:49:58special operations, the gentleman from
1:49:59Colorado, Mr. Crow, for any opening
1:50:00statements.
1:50:02>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would
1:50:03also like to thank Chairman Jackson for
1:50:05his leadership uh and all of our
1:50:08subcommittee members for developing a
1:50:10high quality mark in a bipartisan
1:50:12fashion. Security around the world is
1:50:15increasingly volatile and the need for
1:50:17agile, capable, and synchronized special
1:50:19operators and intelligence professionals
1:50:21cannot be overstated.
1:50:24This mark ensures that our special
1:50:25operations forces in the defense
1:50:27intelligence enterprise have the
1:50:28authorities, force structure, and people
1:50:31they need to accomplish their mission.
1:50:33Our special operators are called upon to
1:50:35respond to the most challenging global
1:50:37crisis. This mark enhances the
1:50:39operational capabilities of special
1:50:41operations forces by accelerating the
1:50:43research, development, and procurement
1:50:45of innovative technologies, ensuring
1:50:48they are able to meet emerging mission
1:50:50requirements.
1:50:52And it ensures the department will have
1:50:53the authorities to properly conduct
1:50:55counter intelligence investigations
1:50:57providing needed protections at home and
1:50:59abroad. Uh and it also makes progress on
1:51:02an effort that I have been leading on
1:51:03for many years. One believe is critical
1:51:05to our security and that's understanding
1:51:08our partners' will to fight. uh this
1:51:11country and this committee invest
1:51:13substantial sums of money, billions of
1:51:15taxpayer dollars on our partners and
1:51:18allies and foreign military sales on
1:51:20assistance programs and we don't always
1:51:22have the best track record and assessing
1:51:24whether or not those folks will fight
1:51:26when and how they need to. So we must do
1:51:28a better job at that and we continue to
1:51:30make progress.
1:51:33uh we we also have to make sure that we
1:51:34have the tools to examine this issue at
1:51:36the national and strategic level and
1:51:37this mark allows us to understand it at
1:51:39the operational and tactical level. I
1:51:41believe it's critical to having a
1:51:43comprehensive understanding of how we
1:51:44invest our money. Lastly, I would like
1:51:47to highlight our efforts to make sure
1:51:48our operators have the best
1:51:50intelligence, surveillance, and
1:51:51reconnaissance capability as the
1:51:53Department of Defense looks to leverage
1:51:55technologies.
1:51:56Then I will close just on the process of
1:51:59this committee. I I want to thank
1:52:01especially Chairman uh Jackson uh my
1:52:04friend Chairman Jackson uh who uh has
1:52:07done a wonderful job of setting a tone
1:52:09for this committee to make sure we keep
1:52:11it bipartisan to make sure we have
1:52:14rigorous debates because we don't always
1:52:15agree but we do so uh respectfully uh
1:52:18and we have put out a quality product
1:52:21that I think is befitting the service
1:52:24and the sacrifice of our military uh and
1:52:26for that I'm extremely grateful uh for
1:52:29your service. Both chairman Jackson and
1:52:31I have military backgrounds. Uh military
1:52:34service is important to our families.
1:52:35So, this is a personal endeavor for both
1:52:38of us as well. Uh and I think we can say
1:52:40that this committee, we have endeavored
1:52:42to have this committee be high-speed,
1:52:44low drag, just like the special
1:52:46operators that we endeavor to serve. I
1:52:49will reiterate the chairman's thanks to
1:52:51our incredible staff, Will Johnson,
1:52:53Craig Green, Alex Agelhart, Austin
1:52:56Richards, Mark Mohouse, Katie Quinn, who
1:52:59do all the hard work here to make sure
1:53:01that we land the plane. Thank you for uh
1:53:04your support and and the work that you
1:53:06do for our country and for our special
1:53:07operators and my personal staff, Rachel
1:53:10Everett and Mackenzie Fault for making
1:53:12sure that I arrive on time most of the
1:53:14time where I need to be uh prepared uh
1:53:17and they do incredible work to uh
1:53:19prepare the product that you see before
1:53:21us today. So with that, thank you again
1:53:22and I yield back.
1:53:25>> Before entertaining amendments, is there
1:53:27any discussion on the subcommittee's
1:53:28print?
1:53:32We will now consider onblock package
1:53:34number one. The chair recognizes Dr.
1:53:36Jackson for the purpose of offering uh
1:53:38the onblock amendment.
1:53:40>> Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
1:53:42call up inblock package number one
1:53:43consisting of amendments that have been
1:53:45worked and approved with the minority.
1:53:46>> Without objection, so ordered. Will the
1:53:48clerk please distribute the onblock
1:53:49amendment? Without objection, the
1:53:51amendments are considered as read. The
1:53:52gentleman's recognized for three minutes
1:53:53for the purpose of explaining the
1:53:55onblock amendment.
1:53:57Inblock a inblock package number one is
1:53:59comprised of the following. Log 5739 by
1:54:02Rep. Scott. Log 5744 R1 by Rep. Jackson.
1:54:06Log 5747 by Rep. Hulahan. Log 5792 by
1:54:09Rep. Amade. Log 5821R1 by Rep. Scott.
1:54:13Log 58.889R1
1:54:15Rep. Hammeday. Log 5913 by Rep. Herrian.
1:54:18Log 5943 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5945 by
1:54:22Rep. Jackson. Log 5972 R1 by Rep.
1:54:25Jackson. Log 6162R1
1:54:28by Rep. Fallon. Log 6194 by Rep. Scott.
1:54:31Log 62022 by Rep. Fallon. Log 6259 by
1:54:34Rep. Jackson. Log 6268R1
1:54:37by Rep. Jackson. Log 6276 by Rep.
1:54:40Jackson. Log 6289R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log
1:54:446412R3
1:54:46by Rep. Dejar. Log 6424 by Rep. Jackson.
1:54:49Log 6455 by Rep. Wilson. Log 6474 by
1:54:53Rep. Kelly. Log 6490R2
1:54:56by Rep. Wilson. Log 6521 R1 by Rep.
1:54:59Wilson. Log 6525R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log
1:55:036612R1 by Rep. Herrian. Log 6708 by Rep.
1:55:08Dejar.
1:55:10>> Question is on the onlock package by
1:55:12offered by Dr. Jackson. So many in favor
1:55:14will say I. I.
1:55:16>> Those opposed? No. The eyes haven't
1:55:18amendments on block are agreed to.
1:55:25If there's no further amendments, the
1:55:27chair recognizes the gentleman from
1:55:28Texas, Dr. Jackson, for the purpose of a
1:55:31motion.
1:55:32>> Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the
1:55:33subcommittee print of the subcommittee
1:55:34on intelligence and special operations
1:55:36as amended.
1:55:37>> Question occurs on the motion of the
1:55:39gentleman from Texas. So many in favor
1:55:40will say I.
1:55:41>> I.
1:55:42>> Those opposed, no. Quorum being present,
1:55:44the eyes have it and the motion is
1:55:46agreed to.
1:55:50Committee will now consider the
1:55:52chairman's mark. Pursuant to committee
1:55:54rule 17 and in consultation with the
1:55:56ranking member, we will postpone
1:55:57recorded votes on the amendments until
1:55:59mutually a mutually agreed upon time.
1:56:03Before entertaining amendments, is there
1:56:05any discussion on the chairman's mark?
1:56:11>> We will now consider onblock package
1:56:12number one. I ask unanimous consent to
1:56:15call up onblock package number one
1:56:17consisting of amendments that have been
1:56:18worked and approved with the minority
1:56:20without objection so ordered. Will the
1:56:22clerk please distribute the onblock
1:56:23amendment? Without objection, the
1:56:25amendments are considered as read.
1:56:28Onblock package number one is comprised
1:56:30of the following. Log 5741R1
1:56:34by representative Bell. Log 5795 by
1:56:38Representative Finstead. Log 5849 by
1:56:41Representative Stefonic. Log 5863 by
1:56:44Representative Finstead. Log 5894R1
1:56:47by Representative Bell. Log 590 95901R1
1:56:52by Representative Bergman. Log 5954R2
1:56:56by Representative Finstead. Log 6015 by
1:56:58Representative Kelly. Log 6037R2
1:57:02by Representative Carbajal. Log 6088 by
1:57:05Representative Ryan. Log 6113 by
1:57:08Representative Herrian. Log 6154 by
1:57:10Representative Mesmer. Log 6160R3
1:57:14by Representative Mesmer. Log 6161 by
1:57:17Representative Herrian. Log 6178R1
1:57:20by Representative Mesmer. Log 6298
1:57:23by Representative Crank. Log 6312R2
1:57:27by Representative Gooden. Log 6323 by
1:57:30Representative Courtney. Log 6391R1 by
1:57:33Representative Vinman. Log 6491R1
1:57:36by Representative Whitesides. Log 6506R1
1:57:40by Representative Whitman. Log 6536R1 by
1:57:44Representative Whitman. Log 6566R3
1:57:47by Representative Whitman. Log 577, I'm
1:57:50sorry, log 6573 R1 by Representative
1:57:53Whitman. Log 6599R1
1:57:56by Representative Goodman Gooden. Log
1:57:596680 by Representative Rogers. Log
1:58:026687R2
1:58:03by Representative Scott. Log 6697R4
1:58:07by Representative Elfreth. Log 6699R2 by
1:58:10Representative Elfreth. Log 6720 by
1:58:13Representative Duzio. Log 6728 by
1:58:17Representative Duzio. Log 6730 by
1:58:19Representative Duzio. Log 6779
1:58:23by Representative Kelly. Log 6788 by
1:58:26Representative Scott. Log 6789 by
1:58:29Representative Scott. Log 6864R1
1:58:32by Representative Connor. Log 66. Log
1:58:356866 by Representative Mindy. Log 5806R4
1:58:41by Representative Jimenez. Log 5929R2
1:58:45by Representative Turner. Log 6097R1
1:58:49by Representative Davis. Log 6169R2
1:58:53by Representative Harrison. Log 6186 by
1:58:56Representative Molton. Log 6193R2
1:59:00by Representative Mesmer. Log 6250R1
1:59:04by Representative Gooden. Log 6286 by
1:59:08Representative McCormack. Log 6340 by
1:59:11Representative Norcross. Log 6456R1
1:59:14by Representative Kelly. Log 6480 R1 by
1:59:18Representative Elfreth.
1:59:21Log 6734 by Representative Graves. Log
1:59:246043R1
1:59:25by Representative Kelly. Log 6126R2
1:59:29by Representative Higgins. Log 6215
1:59:32by Representative Higgins. Log 6581R1
1:59:36by Representative Higgins. Log 6594
1:59:39by Representative Norcross. Log 6637R4
1:59:44by Representative Gooden. Log 6046R2
1:59:47by Representative Herrian. Log 66R14,
1:59:52I mean log 6614 R2 by Representative
1:59:54Herrian. Log 6083 by Representative
1:59:58Bergman. Log 6549R2
2:00:01by Representative Latril. Logs 5816R1
2:00:05by Representative Carbajal. Log 5853 R1
2:00:09by Representative Stefonic. Log 5923 R2
2:00:12by Representative Turner. Log 5934 R1 by
2:00:16Representative Turner. Log 6042 R3 by
2:00:19Representative Herrian.
2:00:22Question is on on block package number
2:00:24one. So many in favor will say I.
2:00:26>> I.
2:00:27>> Those opposed? No. The eyes have it and
2:00:29the onblock uh package is agreed to.
2:00:45>> Okay. We will now consider onblock
2:00:46package number two. I ask cons unanimous
2:00:50consent that onblock package number two
2:00:52consisting of amendments that have been
2:00:53worked and approved with the minority is
2:00:55called up without objection. So order.
2:00:58Uh will the clerk please distribute the
2:01:00onblock amendment? Without objection,
2:01:02the amendments are considered as read.
2:01:05Onblock package number two is comprised
2:01:07of the following. Log 60 53 R2 by
2:01:11Representative Bergman. Log 60 56 R2 by
2:01:14Representative Herrian. Log 60 59R3 by
2:01:18Representative Herrian. Log 60 61 R2 by
2:01:21Representative Herrian. Log 60 73 R1 by
2:01:24Representative Hulahan. Log 6115R4 by
2:01:28Representative Gooden. Log 6146R3 by
2:01:31Representative Mesmer. Log 6195R2 by
2:01:34Representative Mesmer. Log 6205R2
2:01:38by Representative Takuda. Log 6624R1 by
2:01:41Representative Gooden. Log 6232R1 by
2:01:44Representative Higgins. Log 6325 R2 by
2:01:47Representative Holidayiday. Log 6512R2
2:01:51by Representative Holidayiday. Log
2:01:526735R2 by Representative Graves. Log
2:01:566775 by Representative Whitesides. Log 6
2:02:005935R4
2:02:02by Representative Finstead. Log 6078R1
2:02:06by Representative Vindamman. Log 6290 by
2:02:09Representative Gooden. Log 6307 by
2:02:12Representative Courtney. Log 6392R2
2:02:16by Representative Kelly. Log 6561R1 by
2:02:20Representative Crank. Log 6574R1 by
2:02:23Representative Higgins. Log 6740 by
2:02:25Representative Rogers. Log 6750R1 by
2:02:28Representative Rogers. Log 5742
2:02:32Rep. Scott. Log 5750
2:02:35R2 by Representative Hulahan. Log 50
2:02:38800 R1 by Representative Basquez. Log
2:02:425830R3
2:02:44by Representative Scott. Log 58
2:02:4770R2 by Representative Scott. Log 5872R1
2:02:52by Representative Scott. Log 5936R1 by
2:02:54Representative Bergman. Log 5957R1
2:02:58by Representative Cuda. Log 5961R3
2:03:01by Representative Bell. Log 5996R1
2:03:05by Representative Cisneros. Log 6076R2
2:03:09by Representative Keading. Log 6121R2 by
2:03:12Representative Wilson. Log 6151R1
2:03:15by Representative Crowe. Log 6192R1 by
2:03:19Representative Holidayiday. Log 626 46R4
2:03:23by Representative Crow. Log 6249R4
2:03:26by Representative Crow. Log 6251R1
2:03:30by Representative Keading.
2:03:32Log 6274R1 by Representative Hammeday.
2:03:35Log 6278R3
2:03:38by Representative Keading. Log 6366R3
2:03:42by Representative Vinman. Log 6422R2 by
2:03:45Representative Wilson. Log 6447R2
2:03:48by Representative Wilson. Log 6542 by
2:03:51Representative Jacobs. Log 6548R3
2:03:56Wilson.
2:03:58Log 6590R2
2:04:00by Representative Wilson. Log 6615R4
2:04:04by Representative Amade. Log 6660R1
2:04:07by Representative Vasquez. Log 6677 by
2:04:10Representative Rogers. Log 6683R2 by
2:04:13Representative Jacobs. Log 6688 by
2:04:16Representative Scott. Log 6732R2 by
2:04:18Representative Scott. Log 6733R3 by
2:04:21Representative Crow. Log 6760 by
2:04:24Representative Jacobs. Log 6772 by
2:04:27Representative Scott. Log 6680, I'm
2:04:30sorry. Log 6809 R2 by Representative
2:04:34Vasquez. Question is on on black package
2:04:36number two. Some in favor will say I.
2:04:38>> I.
2:04:39>> Those opposed, no. Pend chair the eyes
2:04:41have it and the onblock package number
2:04:42two is agreed to.
2:04:50>> Okay. We will now consider
2:04:53log number 6834
2:04:56by Mr. Smith. For what purposes the
2:04:58gentleman seek recognition?
2:05:00>> I have an amendment at the desk. Mr.
2:05:02Chairman,
2:05:04>> without objection, the reading of the
2:05:06Will the clerk please distribute the
2:05:08amendment. Without objection, will the
2:05:09reading of amendment be dispensed with?
2:05:13I reserve a point of order against the
2:05:14amendment. The chair thanks the
2:05:15gentleman. Uh the chair recognizes
2:05:18gentleman from uh Washington for uh his
2:05:21amendment. Uh thank you very Mr. Chair.
2:05:23This will be an offer and withdrawal.
2:05:25This has a sequential referral to it. Um
2:05:27and I understand that. It's really just
2:05:29to make the point I made in my opening
2:05:31which I know very very few people seem
2:05:33terribly interested in. Uh but this
2:05:34amendment would raise taxes by a lot
2:05:37over the course of 10 years. Um
2:05:39basically $200 billion dollars a year
2:05:41would get us up close to a trillion
2:05:43dollars in more revenue by the end of
2:05:44the year. Now I feel very strongly that
2:05:46our tax code is inadequate. For those of
2:05:49you who haven't read it, Ezra Klein did
2:05:51a great piece about a month ago about
2:05:53how it is that billionaires don't pay
2:05:55any taxes in America, which I didn't
2:05:57fully understand. So first of all, they
2:06:00don't accept salaries, so they don't get
2:06:02taxed on taxed on income. So they they
2:06:04get stock options, but you would think,
2:06:06well, you cash out a stock option, you
2:06:07at least pay capital gains on it, but
2:06:09they don't cash out the stock options.
2:06:11They borrow money from banks against the
2:06:14value of those stock options. That
2:06:16basically they have they have no income.
2:06:18And because the banks want to do
2:06:19business with these people, they give
2:06:21them unbelievable rates. So it is
2:06:22literally true that Jeff Bezos pays less
2:06:26taxes than anybody sitting at this
2:06:28table. Okay? And that is absurd. Okay?
2:06:32And I'm not, you know, I don't want to
2:06:34soak the rich and, you know, tax
2:06:36billionaires and do all this and
2:06:37everything, but we have allowed our tax
2:06:39code to create a situation where people
2:06:41simply are not paying their fair share
2:06:45just to begin with. So that needs to be
2:06:48fixed. But second, the amount we want to
2:06:51spend versus the amount that we're
2:06:53willing to raise, I would say basically
2:06:56in America, we want $2 in goods and
2:06:58services for every dollar in taxes that
2:07:01we're willing to pay. because I go
2:07:02beyond the billionaire stuff. The
2:07:04billionaire stuff is relatively well I
2:07:05said it's relatively easy except we
2:07:07haven't done anything about it to date.
2:07:08Um but we we should be able to address
2:07:11that issue but but everyone has to pay
2:07:13taxes. Even the no taxes on overtime, no
2:07:15taxes on tips. You get rid of nobody
2:07:18wants to pay taxes, but if you're going
2:07:19to want a $1.5 trillion defense budget,
2:07:23somebody's going to have to pay for it.
2:07:25Decided just not to do that. And I think
2:07:28this is insane. And I think we need to
2:07:30fundamentally change this debate. If you
2:07:33want to make a passionate case, as the
2:07:35chairman often does, for why we need to
2:07:37spend more money on defense, I still
2:07:39have this weird notion that if you
2:07:41really feel that way, you ought to be
2:07:43willing to pay for it. And we've just
2:07:45decided, nope, we're going to take it,
2:07:47put it all in a credit card, and hope
2:07:48for the best. So, I do have to withdraw
2:07:51this amendment. U But look at it. this
2:07:54is what we would realistically need to
2:07:57do if we wanted to spend this money. And
2:07:59if you don't want to raise these taxes,
2:08:01fine. Okay? Then get the hell out of
2:08:04here with the $ 1.66 trillion defense
2:08:07budget. You know, don't keep putting it
2:08:08on a credit card and imagining that
2:08:10somehow we can get something for
2:08:12nothing. So, I withdraw this amendment.
2:08:14I I have one other one here. Um but I
2:08:17have to withdraw the amendment because
2:08:18of sequential referral. I yield back.
2:08:20>> Cheer. Thanks a gentleman for
2:08:21withdrawing the amendment. And I would
2:08:23draw my point of order.
2:08:26Uh before we go to the next item, I did
2:08:27want to let people know that lunch is
2:08:29available in the anti- room courtesy of
2:08:31the Whip Emmer. Anybody wants to eat? We
2:08:35will now consider log number 6843 by Mr.
2:08:38Smith. For what purposes the gentleman
2:08:40seek recognition?
2:08:41>> I have an amendment at the desk. Mr.
2:08:42Chair,
2:08:42>> the clerk, please distribute the
2:08:43amendment. Without objection, the
2:08:45amendments uh reading of the amendments
2:08:47dispens with. I reserve point of order
2:08:49against the amendment. uh chair
2:08:51recognizes the ranking member.
2:08:52>> Uh this is the same thing only smaller.
2:08:55Um this is what would take to raise I
2:08:57think 250 billion over 10 um instead of
2:09:00every year. Um and the thing think about
2:09:03this. This I think a lot of people would
2:09:05consider painful as well. Um it's got
2:09:07increases in marginal rates and a bunch
2:09:09of different other issues. But this is
2:09:11nothing. I mean this is 200 20 $250
2:09:14billion over 10 years. We're increasing
2:09:17the defense budget or trying to increase
2:09:18the defense budget by $500 billion this
2:09:21year. This year alone, this this is how
2:09:23the numbers are just completely out of
2:09:26whack in terms of how we're trying
2:09:28trying to make all of this work. So
2:09:30again, I just want folks to think in
2:09:32terms of if you want this stuff, we
2:09:35ought to be willing to pay for it. And I
2:09:37also do want to remind people that and
2:09:40the chairman makes the point quite well
2:09:41that as a percentage of GDP, we spend
2:09:44less money on defense now than we have
2:09:47at any point since the end of World War
2:09:49II. And that's absolutely true. But the
2:09:51two things about that, one, at the end
2:09:53of World War II, there was no Medicare
2:09:54and there was no Medicaid. Okay? We have
2:09:57significantly increased our social
2:09:58welfare state. And I don't see hardly
2:10:00anyone standing up and saying we want to
2:10:02get rid of that stuff. I certainly
2:10:04don't. All right? So that circumstance
2:10:05has fundamentally changed. But the other
2:10:07circumstance that I want to remind
2:10:09people of the top tax rate at that time
2:10:12time period was over 90%.
2:10:1690. So we want to go back to spending as
2:10:19much money on defense as we did at the
2:10:21end of World War II, but we want a top
2:10:23tax rate that's roughly a third. I mean,
2:10:26again, that the math just doesn't add
2:10:28up. It's insane. The capital gains rate
2:10:30was 2/3, 66%. I get in this argument all
2:10:34the time with conservative friends of
2:10:35mines who say, you know, John F. Kennedy
2:10:37knew what he was doing. He cut the
2:10:39capital gains rate. You know what he cut
2:10:41it to? He cut it to 50%.
2:10:4550-0. Cut it from 66 to 50. All right.
2:10:50And now I I forget. I think it's like
2:10:5118% now. So I realize this is a losing
2:10:56argument. Nobody wants to hear it, but
2:10:58we have to start hearing it. We we we
2:11:01know enough to basically say that we're
2:11:03concerned about fiscal responsibility in
2:11:05the debt. Um but I love the fact that
2:11:08right after we passed a $4 something
2:11:11trillion dollar increase um in the debt
2:11:14and the deficit and the purposes of the
2:11:16reconciliation bill last year, the same
2:11:18Congress that voted for that voted for a
2:11:20balanced budget amendment, which is I
2:11:23mean that's hysterical when you stop and
2:11:25think about it. But that but but that's
2:11:27the way we've decided to do it is it's
2:11:28like oh no facts reality they don't
2:11:31matter. You you you say I'm not fiscally
2:11:33conservative. I voted for a balance
2:11:35budget amendment. Okay. The hell does
2:11:37that mean you when you vote to increase
2:11:39the debt by $4 trillion? You know,
2:11:42believe me, reality is a pain in the
2:11:44ass. I am very much aware of that in a
2:11:45whole series of levels. I don't like to
2:11:47have the truth shoved in my face. But
2:11:50here it is. We're driving ourselves into
2:11:53the ground. And I just wanted to make
2:11:55the point that we should stop. Uh and
2:11:57with that I withdraw this amendment.
2:12:00>> Chair, thanks the gentleman for
2:12:01withdrawing the amendment. I withdraw my
2:12:03point of order.
2:12:08>> We will now consider uh log number
2:12:116123R1
2:12:14by Mr. Molton. For what purposes the
2:12:16gentleman seek recognition?
2:12:17>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
2:12:18desk.
2:12:19>> Will the clerk please distribute the
2:12:20amendment without objection? The reading
2:12:21of the amendments dispensed with. The
2:12:23chair recognizes a gentleman for the
2:12:24purpose of explaining his amendment.
2:12:26>> Mr. Chairman, my amendment would cut the
2:12:29$1.15 trillion top line by 150 billion
2:12:33to strengthen our country and our
2:12:34national defense. The world is passing
2:12:37us and our troops by when when Secretary
2:12:39Hegth says that we should invest without
2:12:42divesting. We didn't all our cavalry
2:12:45when we bought tanks. We didn't keep our
2:12:47balloons when we invented airplanes. The
2:12:50Pentagon should be following the lead of
2:12:51the Marine Corps in cutting old
2:12:53technology. Not only because it wastes
2:12:54American taxpayers money, but also
2:12:56because it wastes our troops training
2:12:58time. And when they find themselves
2:13:00caught in an obsolete platform that's a
2:13:03huge target, it wastes their lives. This
2:13:07amendment preserves pay, readiness, and
2:13:09the modernization of our deterrence that
2:13:11matters. The battlefields of Ukraine of
2:13:13Ukraine have proven that a $500 drone
2:13:15can incinerate a $5 million tank. The
2:13:18Iranians have effectively shuttered
2:13:19global shipping lanes with in
2:13:21inexpensive missiles, drones, and mines.
2:13:23Today, a nimble force equipped with the
2:13:25right technology can deny territory to
2:13:28massive armies and block sea lanes at a
2:13:30fraction of the cost of the legacy
2:13:32systems we continue to stockpile.
2:13:36Secretary Hegsth and this administration
2:13:38refuse to make the hard choices that
2:13:40modernizing our national security
2:13:42demand. And why are they doing this?
2:13:45Because wars cost money, plain and
2:13:47simple, the president has unilaterally
2:13:48decided for all of us that the United
2:13:51States should be fighting in more places
2:13:52more often. American forces invaded
2:13:54Venezuela in January. We are mired in a
2:13:57war in Iran that is lasting far longer
2:13:59than the president envisioned when he
2:14:01chose to enter it. The administration
2:14:03has threatened Cuba, Greenland, and even
2:14:05Canada. Americans are clearly against
2:14:08this expansion, but Trump doesn't seem
2:14:10to care, and I just don't trust this
2:14:12administration to use this historic
2:14:14budget appropriately. I'm not going to
2:14:16hand them a blank check to fund reckless
2:14:18unilateral wars of choice. The $600
2:14:21billion defense expansion in this bill
2:14:24would pay for six years of the expanded
2:14:26child tax credit. The policy that drove
2:14:28child poverty to its lowest lowest level
2:14:30on record and lifted nearly 3 million
2:14:33children out of poverty in a single
2:14:35year. Imagine what $600 billion would do
2:14:39for innovation. After World War II, we
2:14:41made a conscious choice to invest in
2:14:44graduate school education, putting money
2:14:46into the best universities in the world
2:14:48to develop the next generation
2:14:50technologies that would keep us
2:14:51prosperous and our troops safe. We're
2:14:54doing the opposite by continuing to
2:14:56invest in the obsolete systems that put
2:14:59our troops at risk. This is a choice.
2:15:03This the week before he sent this
2:15:05request, the president told a White
2:15:06House gathering, "We're fighting wars.
2:15:08We can't take care of daycare. It's not
2:15:10possible for us to take care of
2:15:12Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual
2:15:15things. Well, it is possible, Mr.
2:15:17President. We just need to make wiser
2:15:19choices. Wiser choices for American
2:15:21taxpayer dollars and wiser choices for
2:15:24our national defense. Mr. Chairman, I
2:15:26yield back.
2:15:27>> Jenner recognizes himself. Fully funding
2:15:30the FY27 president's budget is
2:15:32absolutely critical given the
2:15:33unprecedented global threat environment
2:15:35we face. Our adversaries are growing
2:15:38stronger. The PLA has modernized their
2:15:40military force uh and are capable of
2:15:43significant power projection. They
2:15:45continue to invest heavily and we cannot
2:15:47afford to fall behind. But this
2:15:49amendment will cause us to fall behind.
2:15:51This amendment would inflict serious
2:15:53damage to our military readiness
2:15:54impacting our ability to fight tonight.
2:15:57It would gut funding uh we've included
2:16:00in this bill to modernize our fleets of
2:16:02ships, aircraft, and ground combat
2:16:04systems. It will slash investments we
2:16:06are making in the bill to restore our
2:16:08depleted arsenal of critical munitions.
2:16:10Finally, it will undermine the
2:16:11significant progress we are making in
2:16:13the bill to revitalize the defense
2:16:15industrial base. This is the first
2:16:17budget in nearly 40 years that fully
2:16:18funds the cost of American deterrence
2:16:20and American deterrence is expensive. Uh
2:16:23but I don't want to live in a world
2:16:25where deterrence fails. I members to
2:16:28oppose the amendment. Is anybody else
2:16:29seeking uh recognition? Mr. Carbajal
2:16:33first. I'm sorry, Mr. Crow.
2:16:35>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This year,
2:16:39we are considering a $1.5 trillion as
2:16:43part of the proposed defense budget.
2:16:45Today, we are considering $1.1 trillion
2:16:48for the NDAA. Our national security is
2:16:52paramount, and there are critical
2:16:53investments we must make and keep our
2:16:57country safe and to take care of our war
2:16:59fighters. But this administration is
2:17:02also focused on vanity projects for the
2:17:04president. Golden Dome and a Trump class
2:17:07battleship. These are distractions from
2:17:10more important, more vital programs. And
2:17:12this budget comes at a time when
2:17:14Americans are struggling to make ends
2:17:16meet. The cost of living is too high.
2:17:19Groceries, health care, housing, and gas
2:17:22are all necessities that are hard to
2:17:24afford by the American people. Yet the
2:17:27administration is not offering relief on
2:17:29these. Instead, they have cut funding
2:17:32for Medicare, housing assistance, and
2:17:35SNAP. I also take issue with the fact
2:17:38that we are increasing spending by so
2:17:40much with no plan to increase revenue.
2:17:43This is just inflating the deficit more.
2:17:47This is also a Department of Defense
2:17:50that has failed failed to pass an audit.
2:17:55We can't continue to give Trump and
2:17:57Hexath a blank check. I yield back.
2:18:01>> Gentleman yields back. Chair and I
2:18:02recognize the ranking member.
2:18:07>> Thank you. Uh in building off of my
2:18:08previous comments about the let's raise
2:18:10taxes to pay for it. We're not going to
2:18:12raise taxes to pay for it. Um since we
2:18:15don't want to make massive cuts in other
2:18:17aspects of the government, at least the
2:18:19majority of us do not want to do that.
2:18:22We're going to have to live with a
2:18:23realistic amount of money. Um, and this
2:18:25$150 billion cut reflects that realistic
2:18:28amount of money. I think that we can
2:18:30meet our national security needs much
2:18:33more cost-effectively than we are. And
2:18:35that's the whole purpose of acquisition
2:18:36reform is to be able to do things, as I
2:18:39said, faster, more efficiently, innovate
2:18:41at scale. I think we can do that. There
2:18:43are ways to make missiles and counter
2:18:45drone capabilities and all kinds of
2:18:46other capabilities to meet our national
2:18:48security needs in a more cost-effective
2:18:51manner. But there sort of two steps to
2:18:53the argument. One, I think we have to
2:18:56for all the reasons that I said earlier
2:18:58about the state of our fiscal picture in
2:19:00this country, uh, we have to figure out
2:19:02how to do this in a more cost-effective
2:19:04way because the state of the debt and
2:19:06the impact that is having on our country
2:19:08is I again I think the greatest threat
2:19:10to our national security. Now, I'm
2:19:12optimistic. I think we can figure it
2:19:14out. I've seen things in terms of
2:19:15technologies that have been developed
2:19:17that are going to enable us to meet our
2:19:18munitions need in a much more
2:19:20cost-effective manner. I also think to
2:19:22Mr. Molton's point, we don't have to
2:19:25actually violently defeat all of our
2:19:27adversaries. We don't have to start wars
2:19:30everywhere and let them run forever like
2:19:32we're doing now in Latin America with
2:19:34all of the boat strikes like we're doing
2:19:35with Iran. Um, we can form partnerships
2:19:39and alliances. We can engage in
2:19:41diplomacy to to find a way to peacefully
2:19:44coexist with adversaries. Um, we can do
2:19:47that. We're going to have to shift our
2:19:49national security strategy to reflect
2:19:51that. This idea that somehow we are
2:19:53going to dominate the entire world and
2:19:55if we have someone who disagrees with
2:19:57us, we're going to bend them to our will
2:19:59through the sheer size of our military
2:20:01is dangerous as hell as a starting
2:20:04point. And second, we can't afford it.
2:20:06And I think that's what we've run into
2:20:07in Iran. The president honestly thought
2:20:10that he could bomb Iran for four to six
2:20:12weeks and that would bend them to our
2:20:14will. He didn't understand the
2:20:16asymmetric advantage that Iran had,
2:20:18which is all they have to do is survive
2:20:19and inflict pain. and it's really cheap
2:20:22to survive and inflict pain. He put us
2:20:24on this path of conflict that didn't
2:20:27need to be done. Not only was it costly,
2:20:30not only was it dangerous and deadly, we
2:20:32were in a worse position in terms of
2:20:34achieving our national security needs.
2:20:36The straight of Hormuz is shut down and
2:20:38the hardliners are more in power in Iran
2:20:40than they were when the war started.
2:20:42There is a more costeffective way to
2:20:44meet our national security needs. I
2:20:46believe that. But frankly, even if I
2:20:48didn't believe that, I wouldn't be
2:20:50willing to bankrupt us from, you know,
2:20:52with fiscally irresponsible spending
2:20:54just to find out whether or not we
2:20:56could. So, I I support the gentleman's
2:20:58motion. I support the amendment. Let's
2:21:00get a realistic defense budget.
2:21:02>> I yield back.
2:21:03>> Gentleman yields back. Chair, I
2:21:04recognize gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
2:21:05Crow.
2:21:07>> Thank you, Chairman. I want to reiterate
2:21:08what uh ranking member Smith said about
2:21:12Congressman Molton's amendment, which I
2:21:15support.
2:21:16I I just can't in good conscience
2:21:20vote for an over trillion dollar defense
2:21:23budget when we have 20 million Americans
2:21:26at risk of losing health care. When I'm
2:21:28back home in Colorado and I'm talking to
2:21:30my constituents who are deciding today
2:21:34whether or not they're going to either
2:21:36buy prescription drugs for sick children
2:21:41or pay their mortgage,
2:21:44right? We can't do everything and we
2:21:46don't have an endless pot of money
2:21:47despite what some of the people in this
2:21:49Congress think, right? We we we have to
2:21:51make tough decisions and we have
2:21:54Americans dying, losing their homes,
2:21:56farms going under,
2:21:59and I just cannot in good conscious turn
2:22:01a blind eye all of that suffering of
2:22:03Americans. At the same time, I am also
2:22:07pro-defense. I have spent much of my
2:22:09life in service to this country. I
2:22:11believe in a strong national defense. So
2:22:14I also don't buy the argument that
2:22:16somehow just throwing money at the
2:22:19problem somehow results in better a
2:22:22better and more stronger defense. In
2:22:25fact, I think that the opposite is in
2:22:28case is in fact true. Right? We're
2:22:30dealing with a massive bureaucracy with
2:22:32the Department of Defense. Bureaucracies
2:22:35respond to incentives and disincentives.
2:22:38And why would they possibly make tough
2:22:40decisions to divest things, to remove
2:22:43programs, to make major reforms if all
2:22:47we're doing is throwing good money after
2:22:49bad to the extent where they don't even
2:22:51have to make those tough decisions
2:22:53anymore.
2:22:54I know for a fact that we can be more
2:22:57efficient, that we can spend less money
2:23:00and have better results for the American
2:23:02taxpayer and the war fighters than we
2:23:03are currently delivering them. And I
2:23:05know that's true because Ukraine is
2:23:07doing it right now. They are for pennies
2:23:10on the dollar reinventing modern
2:23:12warfare, going toe-to-toe with a
2:23:15military multiple times their size and
2:23:18winning.
2:23:20And am I to believe that America can't
2:23:22do that? Am I to to believe that we're
2:23:25past the point of innovation, of
2:23:27creativity, o of tapping into the best
2:23:30and the brightest in this country, that
2:23:31we are unable to do what Ukraine is
2:23:34doing right now? I don't believe it. I
2:23:36won't believe it. And I support
2:23:38Congressman Molton's amendment that will
2:23:40do the right thing by Americans, the
2:23:42right thing by my constituents, and will
2:23:44actually create an incentive for reform
2:23:46and change to make America stronger, to
2:23:49make America more agile, and to do right
2:23:52by our men and women in uniform. I yield
2:23:54back.
2:23:54>> Gentlemen yields back. Chair and I
2:23:55recognize M. Dr. Conaway.
2:24:00>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I um rise
2:24:04or rather not rise. Well, I I am rising.
2:24:06I'll rise uh to speak in support of this
2:24:09amendment. Uh I support a strong
2:24:11national defense as one who served in
2:24:12our military. But I understand that
2:24:14strength is not measured by how many
2:24:17billions and trillions of dollars we
2:24:18spend. It is measured by the
2:24:20capabilities that we uh bring to the
2:24:23field, our mil military res uh readiness
2:24:26and our and the deterrence that we
2:24:28create. And as uh the ranking member has
2:24:31mentioned time and time again, you know,
2:24:33our our strength uh is in our economic
2:24:37security and the budgets we are the
2:24:38deficits we are running uh uh mitigate
2:24:42or rather uh that strength and uh and
2:24:45hurts our national defense.
2:24:48An increase in funding at the amount
2:24:50suggested by the president's budget
2:24:52raises questions, serious questions that
2:24:54Congress must carefully scrutinize.
2:24:57First, while this administration is
2:25:00asking for a 30% increase in defense
2:25:02spending to the tune of hundreds of
2:25:03billions of dollars, their actions have
2:25:05driven up costs across the board. They
2:25:08are disregarding the plight of
2:25:09hardworking Americans who cannot afford
2:25:11an extra $50 to fill up their tank at
2:25:13the gas station as a result of the
2:25:16president's war with Iran. Farmers are
2:25:18suffering. They can't afford the fuel to
2:25:20run the machinery. They can't afford the
2:25:21fertilizer to plant crops in the fields.
2:25:23We're seeing uh bankrupt uh bankruptcies
2:25:26across the farming community, increased
2:25:27suicides as well because of the economic
2:25:30dislocations that have caused to that uh
2:25:33that are bring that we're bringing to
2:25:34that sector. Instead, the administration
2:25:36is asking members of this very committee
2:25:38and hardworking Americans to write a
2:25:39blank check to the department and hope
2:25:41that they'll spend it wisely. We need
2:25:44transparency them from the department,
2:25:45but we have not gotten that. Myself and
2:25:48my colleagues have repeatedly asked for
2:25:50the cost of the war in Iran, and we have
2:25:52not received a sufficient answer or cost
2:25:55breakdown. Not only is this president
2:25:57starting wars all over the place, he's
2:25:58asking for billions more without knowing
2:26:00how much the war will cost. Secondly, if
2:26:02we are to increase funding at these
2:26:04levels, there should be a sound
2:26:06strategy. Uh we should know where the
2:26:08money is going. And so I urge my
2:26:09colleagues to support this amendment.
2:26:12>> Gentleman yields back and recognize
2:26:13gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan.
2:26:16>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, I want to join my
2:26:19colleagues in uh uh supporting this
2:26:22amendment and thanking Mr. Molton for
2:26:23introducing this important amendment.
2:26:2537%
2:26:27year-over-year in the base budget,
2:26:29almost 50%
2:26:32from last year overall, $1.5 trillion.
2:26:381.5 trillion taxpayer dollars. At the
2:26:42same time that this year we gave this
2:26:46administration certainly not me gave a
2:26:48trillion dollar tax cut to the top 1%
2:26:50most of which went to the top.1%
2:26:53of the American people. This just does
2:26:55not pass the common sense test. And it I
2:26:59I think it also doesn't pass the test
2:27:01that the whole point of our defense and
2:27:02our national security is to keep the
2:27:04American people free. And in my district
2:27:07this last year, we've got, as as
2:27:09colleagues said, sick kids who've lost
2:27:11health insurance, families that can't
2:27:14make rent, churches in my district that
2:27:16we've been working with this week that
2:27:18literally can't keep the lights on, food
2:27:20banks that don't have enough to feed our
2:27:22communities, and then the rising gas
2:27:24prices have made it even harder for them
2:27:26to deliver food when they already don't
2:27:27have enough funding to do it. And now
2:27:29Trump and Hegsth want $1.5 trillion more
2:27:34of my constituents hard-earned taxpayer
2:27:36dollars to raise gas prices even more.
2:27:40Are you kidding me?
2:27:42And that that doesn't even mention the
2:27:44dumpster fire that is HEGS management
2:27:48and lack of leadership at the Pentagon.
2:27:51firing generals, spending billions of
2:27:53dollars a day on a war that they never
2:27:56authorized. That finally yesterday, this
2:27:58the House voted with the American people
2:28:01and said we should uh pull back from
2:28:05what our my constituents want, what the
2:28:06American people want. Invest in housing,
2:28:09invest in utilities, invest in
2:28:11groceries, invest in healthcare. That's
2:28:13where they want us to invest. The
2:28:15Pentagon needs an audit. It needs a
2:28:18serious adult leader. It does not need a
2:28:20$ 1.5 trillion dollar blank check. I
2:28:23yield back, Mr. Chair.
2:28:27>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recently
2:28:29recognizes the gentle lady from
2:28:30California, Miss Jacobs.
2:28:32>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2:28:35$1.142
2:28:37trillion is a staggering amount of money
2:28:41and this committee has a duty to debate
2:28:43it before just authorizing it without a
2:28:45second thought. The United States
2:28:47already spends more than a third of all
2:28:50the military spending on the entire
2:28:53planet. And this bill pushes it even
2:28:55higher to the largest defense budget in
2:28:58American history. That is crazy. And it
2:29:03doesn't actually make us safer. And no
2:29:07one ever asks how we're going to pay for
2:29:08it. Last year, congressional Republicans
2:29:11cut close to a trillion dollars from
2:29:13Medicaid, more than a quarter trillion
2:29:15from SNAP through reconciliation.
2:29:18They were fine telling hungry kids that
2:29:20we couldn't afford it. They didn't care
2:29:22about telling a mother on Medicaid that
2:29:24the math just didn't work. And to be
2:29:27clear, this was a direct attack on our
2:29:29military families. About 850,000 people
2:29:34enrolled in Medicaid have Triricare as
2:29:36their primary coverage. So military
2:29:39families rely on Medicaid too, not just
2:29:41Triricare. And I think we all know that
2:29:44we have too many families who rely on
2:29:46SNAP to put food on the table. In fact,
2:29:48the San Diego Food Bank alone serves
2:29:50nearly 40,000 active duty military and
2:29:53veteran veteran family members every
2:29:55single month.
2:29:57And to make it all even worse, the
2:30:00Pentagon is still sitting on most of the
2:30:02$150 billion it got in last year's
2:30:05reconciliation bill, the same bill that
2:30:07gutted Medicaid and SNAP and left
2:30:08families without the support they need.
2:30:11And yet, the Pentagon is asking for even
2:30:14more money, even though we don't really
2:30:17know where all that money goes. They
2:30:19failed their audit eight years in a row.
2:30:22Eight. They are the only major agency in
2:30:25the entire federal government that has
2:30:27never once passed an audit and we are
2:30:29about to reward that with almost $1.2
2:30:31trillion dollars more. Truthfully, I
2:30:34think we should be cutting even more
2:30:36than the $150 billion. But this is an
2:30:39important first step. Republicans love
2:30:42to talk about how it's not how much
2:30:43money we spend that should be the metric
2:30:45we use to measure our commitment to a
2:30:47particular cause. It should be the
2:30:48results that matter. But they never seem
2:30:50to extend that logic to the defense
2:30:52budget. Can anyone actually defend the
2:30:54results of our recent defense
2:30:56investments? And yet here we are
2:30:58attempting to build a whole new class of
2:30:59warships just because Trump watched one
2:31:01too many old World War II movies. The
2:31:04American people. That is what makes
2:31:07America the greatest country in the
2:31:08world. That's what makes us competitive.
2:31:10That's what keeps us safe and that's
2:31:11what we should be investing in. Our
2:31:14conscience should tell every single one
2:31:15of us to vote yes on this amendment. I
2:31:18yield back.
2:31:18>> Gentle lady yields back. here and I
2:31:20recognize gentle lady from Hawaii, Mr.
2:31:22Cuda.
2:31:24>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in
2:31:26strong support of this amendment to
2:31:27reduce the defense topline by $150
2:31:29billion. Last year, Congress
2:31:32appropriated 839 billion for defense.
2:31:35Today, we are considering a bill with
2:31:361.15 trillion in discretionary defense
2:31:39spending alone, a 37% increase in a
2:31:42single year. And that's before you add
2:31:44the administration's request for another
2:31:46$350 billion in mandatory spending.
2:31:49Taken together, we're on a path to
2:31:51nearly double defense spending in just
2:31:53two years. Now, I wish we had been able
2:31:56to take a different approach and
2:31:57considered the ranking members
2:31:58amendment. We need to make sure that the
2:32:00wealthiest Americans and the largest
2:32:02corporations pay their fair share.
2:32:05Because when we refuse to do that, every
2:32:08new dollar for defense comes from
2:32:10somewhere else. We've already seen this
2:32:13happen. It comes from the programs that
2:32:15makes life affordable for everyday
2:32:17Americans. It adds to our overall debt,
2:32:20which will be born in the backs of our
2:32:21children. We've seen them take nearly
2:32:24$200 billion in cuts from SNAP, cuts to
2:32:27healthcare, cuts to child care, cuts to
2:32:29the very investments that help families
2:32:31put food on the table and keep a roof
2:32:33over their head. National security is
2:32:36not just strength of our military. It's
2:32:38about the strength of our country. A
2:32:40nation that prioritizes bullets and
2:32:42bombs over food and healthcare is not
2:32:44making itself stronger. A weak homeront
2:32:47weakens our national security posture.
2:32:50What's even more troubling is that
2:32:51despite this record-breaking request,
2:32:53the administration proposes cutting
2:32:55military hospitals and clinics by
2:32:57roughly a hundred billion dollars. That
2:33:00tells us that this isn't a question of
2:33:02resources. It's a question of
2:33:03priorities. We can fund critical defense
2:33:07needs. We can support our service
2:33:09members. We can deter our adversaries,
2:33:12but we can do it responsibly and do it
2:33:15the right way. Even with this amendment,
2:33:17defense spending would still receive a
2:33:19substantial increase over last year.
2:33:22This is more than a reasonable
2:33:24compromise, and I would rather cut it
2:33:26more, but mentioned previously, this is
2:33:28a good start. This amendment recognizes
2:33:31that real security requires both a
2:33:33strong military and a strong America. I
2:33:37urge my colleagues to support it and I
2:33:38yield back.
2:33:39>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I
2:33:40recognize a gentleman from California,
2:33:41Mr. Connor.
2:33:42>> Mr. Chairman, I support Congressman
2:33:45Molton's amendment so we do not have a
2:33:48nearly $1.2 trillion
2:33:52budget. You know, that's 65%
2:33:56of the entire discretionary federal
2:33:58budget. twothirds of the money of
2:34:00taxpayers is going to what they call the
2:34:04department of war instead of going for
2:34:06jobs here in America, instead of going
2:34:08for child care here in America, instead
2:34:10of going for healthcare in America. You
2:34:13know, someone greater than everyone
2:34:15collectively on this committee warned
2:34:17about that. Dwight Eisenhower who won
2:34:20World War II gave the cross of iron
2:34:23speech and he said every bomb built,
2:34:27every missile built was a school not
2:34:30built, a hospital not built, a homeless
2:34:33shelter not built. The American people
2:34:36are begging us in election after
2:34:38election saying don't send our money
2:34:40overseas. Don't get into these wars.
2:34:43Listen to George Washington. How about
2:34:45having a Marshall plan not for Europe,
2:34:47but a Marshall plan for America? How
2:34:49about rebuilding the de-industrialized
2:34:51towns? How about creating jobs here?
2:34:53Instead, we build out this budget and
2:34:56then we force our presidents into wars
2:34:59in Iran and the American people feel
2:35:01betrayed. Now, I know I've been casting
2:35:03lonely votes on this committee. No, no,
2:35:05no, no, no. They boo me on the committee
2:35:08sometimes. Kana, Kana, there's another
2:35:10no. And I warned they would raise this
2:35:14budget to over a trillion dollars. And
2:35:16they said, "Ro, you're crazy. They would
2:35:18never do that." Well, here we are. Here
2:35:20we are. If we don't draw the line in the
2:35:23sand now, we're going to be consumed by
2:35:26a military-industrial complex that cares
2:35:28more about Thran than Toledo. I strongly
2:35:32support Congressman Molton's budget to
2:35:34actually put team America first instead
2:35:37of foreign interests.
2:35:41Gentleman yields back. Chair and I
2:35:42recognize a gentleman from California,
2:35:43Mr. Gar Mindy.
2:35:47>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I suspect
2:35:49anybody watching this hearing that has
2:35:51some recollection of the way in which
2:35:53the Democratic Party and the Republican
2:35:55party have positioned themselves in the
2:35:58past. Their heads are spinning. What's
2:36:00going on here? Republicans are spending
2:36:03wildly and Democrats are saying, "Wait a
2:36:06minute. We can't afford that. Think
2:36:08about fiscal responsibility. Think about
2:36:10the debt. Think about how we're going to
2:36:12pay for it. Whoa. What's going on?
2:36:15What's going on is that finally the
2:36:17members of this committee, at least on
2:36:19the Democratic side, are saying, "Whoa,
2:36:21whoa, wait a minute. Oh, and by the way,
2:36:23your one and a half billion dollar cut
2:36:27is not the total amount of money that is
2:36:30added to the military. It's 1 trill500
2:36:34billion dollars. Three to 400 billion of
2:36:38that is over in the reconciliation which
2:36:40we are not even beginning to deal with.
2:36:42So let's talk about fiscal
2:36:45responsibility. Let's talk about the
2:36:46role that this committee really must do
2:36:48and listen to my Democratic colleagues
2:36:51all of whom are saying we want to be
2:36:53fiscally responsible. We want to make
2:36:55sure that every single dollar that is
2:36:58spent in the Department of Defense is
2:37:00spent wisely, spent on useful materials,
2:37:04useful weapons, and the support of our
2:37:06troops.
2:37:08And that means we don't do yesterday, we
2:37:10don't do today what we've done
2:37:12yesterday. We take a look at the world
2:37:15situation, take a look at Ukraine and
2:37:17say, "Wait a minute, maybe we don't need
2:37:20new Abrams tanks, and surely we don't
2:37:23need a battleship, even if it's painted
2:37:25gold." Come on, let's talk about what is
2:37:28actually necessary. And as my colleagues
2:37:30have said here, let's be very, very
2:37:32clear that in order to do this and not
2:37:36drastically increase the deficit even
2:37:38more, there are massive cuts in programs
2:37:40that everyday Americans depend upon.
2:37:43Transportation, education, health care,
2:37:45you name it, across the board. All of
2:37:48that infrastructure that we need to
2:37:49build tomorrow society slashed and cut
2:37:52in the president's budget. So, let's
2:37:54listen very, very carefully. my
2:37:56Republican colleagues, would you please
2:37:58go back to where you once were, fiscal
2:38:01responsibility,
2:38:02and do the hard work in this bill of
2:38:06making sure that every single dollar
2:38:08that spent is necessary not on
2:38:10yesterday, but on tomorrow. So, let's
2:38:13stop all of this. And I want to yield uh
2:38:16some time to my colleague, the author of
2:38:18the amendment, Mr. Molton.
2:38:21>> I want to thank my friend from
2:38:22California. I agree with his points and
2:38:24the coin points of my colleagues. I also
2:38:26want to just bring this home for
2:38:28Americans because we throw around these
2:38:30big numbers in Washington. One trillion,
2:38:33trillions, billions, 1.5 doesn't even
2:38:36sound like that much.
2:38:39This defense bill equates to about
2:38:41$7,500
2:38:43per taxpayer. That's the cost. You
2:38:46$7,500 lying around your kitchen
2:38:48counter? I don't think so.
2:38:51>> Jim's time expired here. I recognize a
2:38:53gentleman from um Virginia, Mr. Benman.
2:38:56>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, today marks
2:38:58the 500th day of the second Trump
2:39:01administration. And I think at this
2:39:04point we can see clearly what the
2:39:06president's priorities are. So, um, Mr.
2:39:09Chairman, I'd like to enter into the
2:39:10record an article from April 3rd from
2:39:14the New York Times titled, "War with
2:39:16Iran clarifies Trump's spending
2:39:18priorities. The military, not childare."
2:39:20>> Without objection, so ordered. And a
2:39:22quote here from the president. It's not
2:39:24possible for us to take care of daycare,
2:39:27Medicaid, Medicare,
2:39:30all of these individual things
2:39:33because this country is fighting wars.
2:39:35The priorities are crystal clear here.
2:39:38So last year, very in the early days of
2:39:41this administration, a group of us were
2:39:43in front of US aid headquarters and
2:39:46we're talking about the fact that
2:39:47they're shuttering an agency
2:39:49um that the budget was about $40
2:39:52billion. And my point there was that if
2:39:55we're going to cut a $40 billion budget,
2:39:58then we need to massively increase the
2:40:00defense budget because, you know, the
2:40:03elements of of national power are not
2:40:05only military, but they're diplomatic
2:40:07information and um economic and here we
2:40:11are now at 500 days. And that's exactly
2:40:13what we have in this $ 1.5 trillion
2:40:15budget. It's a massive increase. It
2:40:18comes at the expense of providing health
2:40:20care, child care, and even even social
2:40:25security benefits for struggling
2:40:26families. So that is why I am in support
2:40:29of this amendment. We can spend more
2:40:32wisely. We need to increase our national
2:40:34budget. I recognize fully the dangers of
2:40:38the world today. But it can't come at
2:40:40the expense of child care and and
2:40:43healthcare. And by the way, we could
2:40:46also slash spending on on boondoggles
2:40:49like slush funds for a Golden Dome,
2:40:52which still nobody fully full fully
2:40:54understands, or Trump class battles
2:40:56battleship. So, um,
2:41:00our children and our grandchildren will
2:41:02be shouldering the burden of these of
2:41:05these massive increases in the budget
2:41:07long after this administration is done.
2:41:10And we need to restore some sanity. And
2:41:12so I support this amendment. Thank you.
2:41:15>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further
2:41:16debate on the amendment?
2:41:19Seeing none, um the question occurs on
2:41:21the amendment offered by Mr. Molton. So
2:41:24in favor will say I.
2:41:25>> I.
2:41:26>> Those opposed will say no. No.
2:41:28>> Opinion chair. The nos have it. The
2:41:30amendment is not agreed to.
2:41:31>> We like the record.
2:41:32>> Recorded vote is requested and will be
2:41:34postponed until a later time.
2:41:39We will now consider log number 6087 by
2:41:43Mr. Smith of Washington. For what
2:41:45purpose does gentleman seek recognition?
2:41:47>> I have an amendment at the desk.
2:41:48>> Will the clerk please distribute the
2:41:50amendment? With objection to reading of
2:41:52the amendments dispensed with the chair
2:41:53recognizes gentleman for the purpose of
2:41:54explaining his amendment.
2:41:56>> Thank you. And just so you know, this
2:41:57may appear to be a dangerous trend that
2:41:59I have three of the first four
2:42:00amendments. I believe this is my last
2:42:01amendments for the day. I will not be
2:42:02taking up everybody's time for the whole
2:42:03rest of the evening. U but this is about
2:42:05the battleship. Mr. Courtney alluded to
2:42:07that in his opening remarks in the sea
2:42:09power subcommittee. You know, going back
2:42:11to the whole speech about how we need to
2:42:13do we need to meet our national security
2:42:14needs in a more affordable way. This is
2:42:17the exact opposite of that. U this I
2:42:20believe is currently estimated to cost
2:42:22north of $20 billion. Whatever the
2:42:25number is, I'm going to give you right
2:42:28one of the shest buyer couch bets you
2:42:30will ever have. Take the over.
2:42:33whatever they come up with the number,
2:42:35it's going to wind up higher. We cannot
2:42:39afford to be trying to build a 20 plus
2:42:41billion dollar solution in the midst of
2:42:43our fiscal reality. Now, Mr.
2:42:45Courtourtney is going to talk here in a
2:42:47moment. He knows a heck of a lot more
2:42:48about what a battleship is in terms of
2:42:50how effective it is in the field. Where
2:42:52we need to be going is smaller, more
2:42:56attritable autonomous systems. And we're
2:42:59actually making a ton of progress on
2:43:00this. The capabilities of these systems
2:43:03are growing by leaps and bounds from one
2:43:05iteration to the next. And they cost
2:43:08pennies compared to what something like
2:43:11this battleship would cost. We can meet
2:43:13our firepower needs. We can meet our
2:43:15shipping needs by moving in a different
2:43:17direction. We don't need to go walking
2:43:19down a 20 plus billion dollar hole on a
2:43:22battleship that also doesn't make any
2:43:24defense needs. But I I will leave that
2:43:26to my sea power colleagues who are more
2:43:28knowledgeable on that subject to make
2:43:29that argument. But this amendment is
2:43:31simple. It takes out the I think it's $2
2:43:33billion um that would go towards the
2:43:35battleship. Now that's not going to get
2:43:37us the $150 billion in savings that we
2:43:39were shooting for before, but $2 billion
2:43:42is I think a good place to start and
2:43:43this is something we should not be
2:43:45doing. And with that, I yield back.
2:43:46>> General Yields back chair recognizes
2:43:48himself. Uh the battleship is not a new
2:43:50concept. There has been a requirement
2:43:52for a large service combatant for
2:43:54decades. The battleship was born out of
2:43:57the studies conducted with the DGX
2:44:00uh during the Biden administration. We
2:44:02currently lack a ship with enough space
2:44:03or power to support the combat systems
2:44:06we need for future conflicts like
2:44:07hypersonics and high beam high energy
2:44:10lasers. Uh we all agree that the Navy
2:44:13needs a large surface combatant for
2:44:15distributed marine operations, maritime
2:44:17operations. This amendment would
2:44:19compromise the delivery of future large
2:44:21service combatant by preventing
2:44:23procurement of long lead time materials
2:44:26and stalling critical advancements in
2:44:27the Navy Navy's ship design process. I
2:44:30oppose the amendment. Urge my colleagues
2:44:31to do the same. Chair now recognizes Mr.
2:44:34Courtourtney of Connecticut.
2:44:36>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. And um uh it
2:44:39is true this is a a concept that's been
2:44:41around for quite a while. The last time
2:44:43uh we built a battleship was in 1944 in
2:44:46the Iowa class battleships. It was the
2:44:49USS Missouri. Um the uh concept of the
2:44:53battleship was uh announced last
2:44:56December uh down in Marago. Uh where
2:44:59again we didn't have any designs, we
2:45:01didn't have any studies in terms of
2:45:03analysis that normally go into starting
2:45:05a new class of any ship. Uh what we did
2:45:08have was an AI generated um picture on a
2:45:10poster board that showed lots of kind of
2:45:13bombs going off and and you know lots of
2:45:16u you know pretty images that uh really
2:45:18almost look like a cartoon. So we have
2:45:20now in this uh mark uh before us a
2:45:24billion dollars which uh again if you
2:45:26read the the language it's uh 390
2:45:29million to go to detailed design. Again,
2:45:31I I want to emphasize the point. There
2:45:33is no design that exists and that's what
2:45:35uh some of this money was allocated for
2:45:37and 610 million that actually goes long
2:45:40lead items. So, they're ordering
2:45:42actually uh you know fabricated uh parts
2:45:45and steel uh for a ship that does not
2:45:47even exist in terms of a design concept.
2:45:50It is the exact opposite of what um
2:45:53every lesson that we've learned in terms
2:45:55of failures of ship building and ship
2:45:57construction whether it's the Zumalt
2:45:59class which again was construction
2:46:02started before design was complete
2:46:03latoral combat ship same thing um and
2:46:06the and the um cruiser uh CGX uh program
2:46:10which also uh collapsed so again from a
2:46:12just purely ship building sequential you
2:46:16know intelligent approach um this
2:46:18proposal before uh again is way
2:46:20premature and unvetted. And if you look
2:46:22at the future year defense plan, the
2:46:24FIDup in year two, which would be in
2:46:262028, they're requesting 16.8
2:46:30billion. So it's going from 1 billion
2:46:33to$16 billion really in about 18 months
2:46:37period of time for a a a platform that
2:46:40has no design. I want to quickly just
2:46:42end by saying last uh in April of 2022,
2:46:45the Russian uh flagship, the Mosva, was
2:46:48uh sunk by uh two missiles fired by the
2:46:52Ukraine's Neptune system. It has a 200
2:46:55mile range. Uh and again, that was the
2:46:56flagship of the Russian Navy in in in
2:46:59the Black Sea. Uh that demonstrates
2:47:01really what kind of contested maritime
2:47:03environment we have. The Neptunes are
2:47:05like peashooters compared to what China
2:47:07has in terms of DF missiles, DF21
2:47:10missiles that can cover thousands of
2:47:13miles. The advances that are taking
2:47:15place in drones, anything on the surface
2:47:17of the sea right now, again, is in a
2:47:20much different world than certainly it
2:47:22was in 1944 and even in 194 in 2014. The
2:47:27world is changing fast. We need that
2:47:28distributed lethality that Mr. uh Smith,
2:47:31we don't need a a lumbering, vulnerable
2:47:33battleship. Mr. uh chair, I'd asked to
2:47:36enter into the record Trump's big
2:47:37battleship as a sitting duck from
2:47:39Admiral James Stites, a four-star Navy
2:47:42officer who was the head of European
2:47:43Command.
2:47:43>> Without objection, so order.
2:47:45>> I yield back. Gentlemen yields back.
2:47:47Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
2:47:49California, Mr. Gundy.
2:47:52>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following on
2:47:54the took place earlier with Mr. Molton's
2:47:59uh amendment to cut 150. Uh it does get
2:48:03down to the hard work. It gets down to u
2:48:05arms, a ship or an airplane and
2:48:09decisions have to be made. This is the
2:48:12followup on the discussion that we just
2:48:14had with Molton's amendment about
2:48:17cutting $150 billion dollars out. How do
2:48:19you do it? You do it piece piece. You do
2:48:22it Wait a minute. What are we doing with
2:48:24a 1940 battleship or maybe a 194 2014
2:48:28battleship? Doesn't make any sense
2:48:30today. And what we are what we must do
2:48:34as members of this committee is
2:48:35precisely what uh chairman ranking
2:48:38member Smith has put on and followed up
2:48:40with Mr. Kney and that is platform by
2:48:44platform,
2:48:45military installation by military
2:48:47installation. look to the present and
2:48:50then to the future and say, "Does this
2:48:52make any sense? This battleship makes
2:48:54absolutely no sense yesterday makes no
2:48:58sense today and tomorrow,
2:49:00as the admiral said, it's a sitting
2:49:02duck. Thousands of sailors on it, soon
2:49:06to be at the bottom of the sea, taken
2:49:07out by I don't know, couple hundred,000
2:49:10missile. So, we need to be very
2:49:14responsible here. This is step one
2:49:16following up on the earlier discussions
2:49:18that we had about fiscal responsibility,
2:49:21about cutting unnecessary expenditures,
2:49:24about making sure that we are doing
2:49:25those things that are necessary for
2:49:27today and tomorrow, but certainly not
2:49:29necessary for the days out ahead. And I
2:49:32would remind every member of this
2:49:34committee, it is not
2:49:36150 billion dollars. It's actually$500
2:49:39billion dollars of new spending for the
2:49:42military of which three to 400 billion
2:49:45of that will not be reviewed by this
2:49:48committee because it is in the
2:49:50reconciliation program that will soon be
2:49:52before us. So let's take this step by
2:49:56step. Let's look to the future. Let's do
2:49:58things that are absolutely essential.
2:50:00Let's do things that are wise, that are
2:50:02actually lessons that can be learned
2:50:05from Ukraine and other parts of the
2:50:07world. So, I would uh ask that this uh
2:50:09amendment be adopted and that we begin
2:50:12the process of fiscal responsibility and
2:50:16programmatic responsibility.
2:50:18And so, with that, uh I would yield
2:50:21back. And for those who have their heads
2:50:24still spinning, think about what is
2:50:26being cut out in the president's budget.
2:50:29health care, food, education, hospital,
2:50:32all of those things, transportation, all
2:50:34of those are being cut to build a
2:50:37battleship. Give me a break. With that,
2:50:40I yield back.
2:50:40>> Gentleman yields back. Chair and I
2:50:42recognize a gentleman from
2:50:42Massachusetts, Mr. Molton.
2:50:46>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I really
2:50:48appreciate the the work that you do and
2:50:50the difficult job that you have and so I
2:50:51like to quote the chairman when I can.
2:50:54And uh, he said earlier that this is not
2:50:56a new concept. Well, indeed it is not.
2:51:00The last time we built a B battleship
2:51:02was in 1944. And why have we not been
2:51:05building battleships? Because they're
2:51:06obsolete.
2:51:08Admiral Davidus called it a sitting
2:51:11duck.
2:51:12Well, let me tell you, this is the most
2:51:14expensive sitting duck in world history.
2:51:18That's what we're talking about
2:51:21building. This battleship is a
2:51:23boondoggle. And while I'm against the
2:51:26corrupt prediction markets, I'm going to
2:51:28make a prediction.
2:51:30This vanity project is going to vanish.
2:51:33It's going to vanish in a few years when
2:51:36Trump is gone, Republicans come to their
2:51:38senses and stop defending the vanity
2:51:42projects of Donald Trump because it
2:51:45doesn't make any sense. And that's
2:51:47probably why there's not a single
2:51:49Republican defending this
2:51:53on the committee right now. In fact,
2:51:55I've noticed several Republicans just
2:51:57depart
2:51:58over the last few minutes of this
2:52:00debate, not want to be c wanting to be
2:52:02caught here
2:52:04while this amendment is debated.
2:52:07It's also notable that when I proposed
2:52:09cutting $150 billion from the top line
2:52:12of the defense budget, not a single
2:52:14Republican colleague debated that
2:52:15either. It tells you something. It tells
2:52:18you something about this
2:52:19administration's priorities.
2:52:21>> This Republican did.
2:52:25>> That's right, Mr. Chairman, which is why
2:52:26I quoted you.
2:52:31>> With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for
2:52:33your charity.
2:52:34>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
2:52:36a gentleman from California, Mr.
2:52:37Cisneros.
2:52:39>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the
2:52:41Navy has not had a good track record of
2:52:44building ships recently, and if they
2:52:46attempt to build this Trump battleship,
2:52:48it's it's not going to fix that at all.
2:52:50Uh program after program has been shot
2:52:52down, turned down, stopped. Uh mil
2:52:55billions spent on the LCS program, which
2:52:57is ships were starting to be
2:52:58decommissioned
2:53:00uh just as soon as the program was
2:53:02started. Um, when I was at the Pentagon
2:53:04in charge of readiness, never did the
2:53:06Navy ever come to me and talk to me
2:53:08about how we need a battleship. We need
2:53:11more battleships. It always was about
2:53:14more autonomous, you know, manless ships
2:53:16that they could put out there, right?
2:53:18Frigots, things that were more agile to
2:53:20put out there on the sea. That was what
2:53:21they were looking for. That's what they
2:53:23need. Um,
2:53:25you know, the Marine Corps could say
2:53:27like, you know, the argument could be
2:53:28made, well, the Marine Corps wants
2:53:29firepower, right? They want firepower.
2:53:31What the Marine Corps wants is for shore
2:53:33bombardment is large guns. Uh and this
2:53:35Trump battleship has none of those.
2:53:38There's no 16inch gun on there. There's
2:53:39not even 5 in gun, I think, that they're
2:53:41planning to put on there. So, it does
2:53:43not meet any of those needs at all. This
2:53:46is nothing more than what Mr. Molton
2:53:48just said, a vanity project for the
2:53:49president to stroke his ego because he
2:53:52has to have everything, you know, bigger
2:53:56and and larger than anything else that
2:53:58was ever built. And so, you know, he's
2:54:00going to build the biggest, best
2:54:01battleship that was ever out there. And
2:54:03the damn things are probably going to be
2:54:05painted gold, too. But this is not what
2:54:07the Navy's asking for. It's not what
2:54:09they need. As soon as this
2:54:11administration is gone, they will scrap
2:54:12the program. And anything that is put
2:54:15into this now is just going to be a
2:54:17waste of money that we'll never ever get
2:54:19back. And with that, I yield back.
2:54:21>> Gentleman yields back. Chair now
2:54:22recognizes the gentleman from Virginia,
2:54:24Mr. Vinman.
2:54:26>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, this
2:54:29$17 billion project is, um, being
2:54:34included as a matter of military
2:54:36necessity. So, I have a a simple test
2:54:38here. Let's rename the class of
2:54:40battleship to the Obama class. Or better
2:54:44yet, um maybe the Washington class given
2:54:47that we are now approaching the 250th
2:54:49anniversary
2:54:50uh of um this great nation. And let's
2:54:53see if this project proceeds on that
2:54:56point. And so I suspect it won't. The
2:55:00necessity of this Trump class battleship
2:55:02is purely the necessity comes from the
2:55:04name and name alone. It is questionable
2:55:07at best when the real need on the modern
2:55:10battlefield is cheaper, smaller,
2:55:14distributed, and in in some cases
2:55:16unmanned systems. China can field dozens
2:55:19of DF26 ballistic missiles for under a
2:55:22billion dollars. These missiles are at
2:55:24most $20 million each and a single
2:55:28Triumph class battleship estimated at
2:55:30$17 billion on the low end. You can you
2:55:34can uh sink that a vessel at that uh
2:55:38expense a thousand times
2:55:42based on the missiles that are available
2:55:44to the Chinese. That does not represent
2:55:47a sound in investment
2:55:50and it is a waste of finite ship
2:55:52building dollars.
2:55:54When survivability rests on lasers, rail
2:55:57guns, and interceptors that don't exist
2:55:59yet,
2:56:00>> this makes this project even more
2:56:01questionable. So, as a big proponent of
2:56:04small drones, the $17 billion would
2:56:07enable us to buy $3.5 million of $5,000
2:56:12drones. that seems like a much better
2:56:14investment of the funds frankly. So I
2:56:17don't see what the specific capability
2:56:19gap is for a project like this u when
2:56:22smaller distributed unmanned uh
2:56:25platforms that are cheaper faster and
2:56:28already exist can be produced at a much
2:56:32lower rate. So again, if we do strongly
2:56:36believe that this is a necessary
2:56:40platform, let's just rename it the
2:56:42Washington class and see where it goes.
2:56:44Then with that, I yield back.
2:56:50>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further
2:56:51discussion on the amendment?
2:56:54If there's no further debate, the
2:56:55question occurs on the amendment offered
2:56:56by Mr. Smith. So many in favor will say
2:56:59I.
2:56:59>> I.
2:57:00>> Those opposed will say no.
2:57:01>> No. opinion chair the nose have it. Uh
2:57:04recorded votes requested. A recorded
2:57:06vote will be postponed to a later time.
2:57:10We now consider log number 6681
2:57:14by Miss Jacobs of California. For what
2:57:16purposes the gentle lady seek
2:57:18recognition?
2:57:19>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
2:57:20desk.
2:57:20>> Will the clerk uh please distribute the
2:57:22amendment without objection reading of
2:57:24amendments dispensed with? The chair
2:57:25recognizes gentle lady for the purpose
2:57:26of explaining her amendment.
2:57:28>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would
2:57:31like to thank my colleague, Congressman
2:57:32Latrell, for his partnership on this
2:57:34amendment. We're going to miss him next
2:57:36year. Um, my amendment would ban the
2:57:39transfer of cluster munitions. In 2021,
2:57:42the landmine and cluster munitions
2:57:43monitor found that over 97% of
2:57:45casualties from cluster bomb remnants
2:57:47were civilians. And twothirds of those
2:57:49were children. Not combatants, not
2:57:52military targets, children.
2:57:55And that's because these deadly weapons
2:57:57don't look like weapons. But they do
2:57:59look interesting to kids. So when kids
2:58:02find these weapons in trees, in the
2:58:04water, or simply on the ground, they try
2:58:06and pick them up and can end up losing a
2:58:08limb or their life. And here's the hard
2:58:11truth. We know our cluster munition dud
2:58:14rates are consistently higher than
2:58:16expected when they are actually used in
2:58:18war zones instead of testing sites.
2:58:20These weapons don't all explode on
2:58:22impact. They scatter. They wait. They
2:58:25outlast the war by decades. We are still
2:58:28paying to clean up clutch munitions that
2:58:30we've placed. Since 1993, the United
2:58:33States has spent nearly $5 billion on
2:58:36cleaning up these weapons. As of last
2:58:38year, last year, we were still paying to
2:58:42clean up the cluster munitions the
2:58:43United States dropped in Laos because
2:58:45they were still killing civilians.
2:58:48That's billions of dollars that we are
2:58:50not spending on priorities here at home.
2:58:53These weapons are banned by more than a
2:58:54hundred other countries, including most
2:58:56of our NATO allies. Transferring these
2:58:58weapons risks damaging our alliances,
2:59:00which have been critical in projecting
2:59:02our power and maximizing what we could
2:59:03ever do on our own. So, this isn't only
2:59:06a moral stain. It's a financial burden,
2:59:08a tactical misstep, and a strategic
2:59:10liability.
2:59:12Now, I've heard the deterrence argument
2:59:14that we need cluster munitions to deter
2:59:17the use of cluster munitions by our
2:59:20adversaries. But imagine applying the
2:59:23same argument to chemical weapons. We
2:59:26rejected that argument decades ago
2:59:28because we understood that some weapons
2:59:30are so indiscriminate that no military
2:59:32objective can justify their use. No
2:59:35amount of assurances, guardrails, or
2:59:37promises for cluster munitions is
2:59:38enough. We need to ban the transfer of
2:59:40these weapons entirely. And now is our
2:59:43opportunity to do that. To do the right
2:59:45thing, to protect civilians, especially
2:59:47kids. to restore our reputation and to
2:59:50live up to our values. So I urge my
2:59:52colleagues to support this amendment.
2:59:54Mr. Chairman, I owe back.
2:59:56>> Gentlely yields back. Chair, I recognize
2:59:57a gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman.
3:00:00>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I uh stand in
3:00:02opposition to the amendment. Uh I know
3:00:05there are a lot of arguments to be made
3:00:06about the morality of these munitions.
3:00:09That being said, where we are today is
3:00:11at a very challenging point in our
3:00:13weapons inventories. And when you look
3:00:15at the 2008 convention for cluster
3:00:17munitions and you see that our nearpeer
3:00:20adversaries like China and Russia are
3:00:21not signitories to that. And when we
3:00:24look at the challenges that we face
3:00:26around the world, uh our adversaries,
3:00:29you know, are producing weapons that
3:00:31have a much higher dud rate than our
3:00:33weapons do. our weapons are are much
3:00:35much more reliable and therefore the the
3:00:39assertions that Miss Jacobs makes about
3:00:42the harm potentially for uh civilians
3:00:46through unintended exposure there is
3:00:48something that is less likely to happen
3:00:51with our weapons than it is for our
3:00:53opponent's weapons. So I think the US
3:00:57should be able to have this in its
3:00:59inventory. The US should get other
3:01:02nations like China and Russia to agree
3:01:06to ban cluster munitions. But until our
3:01:10adversaries agree to give up these
3:01:12weapons too, we cannot afford to take
3:01:15them off the table, especially at times
3:01:16where we are very challenged with our
3:01:18weapons inventories and the ability to
3:01:20defend our interests in the face of
3:01:23growing threats from our nearpeer
3:01:24adversaries. So, Mr. Chairman,
3:01:26therefore, with that, I must oppose this
3:01:28amendment. Jio's back. Chair and I
3:01:30recognize gentleman from South Carolina,
3:01:32Mr. Wilson.
3:01:33>> Thank you, Chairman Mike Rogers for your
3:01:35really positive leadership. I strongly
3:01:37oppose this amendment. We're in a
3:01:39conflict we did not choose of dictators
3:01:41with rule of gun invading democracies
3:01:43with rule of law. Our military must be
3:01:46able to defend themselves for peace
3:01:48through strength. Prohibiting the
3:01:50transfer of cluster munitions would have
3:01:51a disastrous effect in the event America
3:01:55needs to transfer them to our allies
3:01:57such as Ukraine and Taiwan. As stated
3:01:59before with Congress Whitman in previous
3:02:02debates, the munitions the US possesses
3:02:05has only a 2.35% failure rate, while
3:02:08those developed after 2018 have a dud
3:02:12rate of 1%. Currently, we're seeing the
3:02:14aggression from adversaries around the
3:02:16world. War criminal Putin has invaded
3:02:19Ukraine to resurrect the failed Soviet
3:02:22Union. The Chinese Communist Party
3:02:24continues hostile actions worldwide
3:02:26along with Iranian attacks on our
3:02:28partners in the Gulf. We must not forget
3:02:32the mass murder of October 7, 2023 by
3:02:35Iranian puppets into is Israel. We
3:02:38should be promoting peace through
3:02:39strength standing with Israel, Ukraine,
3:02:43and Taiwan.
3:02:45If this amendment were to pass, we would
3:02:48not be able to send these weapons to
3:02:50countries like Taiwan or Ukraine who are
3:02:53defending their sovereignty. Ukrainian
3:02:55parents, in fact, provide whistles to
3:02:57their children at night for them to use
3:03:00if they survive a war criminal Putin
3:03:02attack on civilian homes and churches. I
3:03:06urge my colleagues to oppose this
3:03:07amendment. As a 31-year Army veteran
3:03:10myself with four sons who've served in
3:03:12Iraq, Egypt, and Afghanistan, our
3:03:14military and allies must be fully
3:03:16equipped for safety of service members
3:03:18in stopping mass murderers such as Hamas
3:03:20who declare death to Israel, death to
3:03:23America. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
3:03:25Gentleman yields back. Is there further
3:03:26debate? Seeing none, we now will
3:03:29consider uh
3:03:38uh amendment the offered off.
3:03:42That's what I'm saying. We need if
3:03:43there's no further debate, we're going
3:03:45to
3:03:47vote on the amendment offered by Miss
3:03:48Jacobs. All in favor will say I.
3:03:50>> I.
3:03:51>> Those opposed? No.
3:03:52>> No.
3:03:53>> And pending chair have it.
3:03:55>> I request a record. Then lady request a
3:03:57recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered.
3:03:59It will be postponed to a later date.
3:04:04We will now consider log number 6537R1
3:04:09uh by Miss Jacobs of California. For
3:04:11what purposes gentle lady seek
3:04:13recognition?
3:04:13>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
3:04:15desk.
3:04:15>> Will the clerk please distribute the
3:04:16amendment without objection? The reading
3:04:17of amendments. Dispense with the chair
3:04:19recognizes gentle lady for the purposes
3:04:20of recogni of explaining her amendment.
3:04:23>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment
3:04:25would establish human rights offices
3:04:26modeled after the one at Southcom at
3:04:28every combatant command. Before I came
3:04:31to Congress, I spent years working in
3:04:32fragile states and conflict zones and
3:04:34years studying violent extremism. And
3:04:36what I learned over and over again is
3:04:38that how a military conducts itself
3:04:40matters. You can win every battle and
3:04:43still lose the war if the population
3:04:45stops trusting you. If civilians stop
3:04:47believing you're any better than the
3:04:48people you came to fight. And the data
3:04:50reflect this, too. One of the strongest
3:04:53indicators for recruitment and
3:04:54radicalization of violent extremism is
3:04:56state sponsored violence against you or
3:04:58someone you know. So this isn't a values
3:05:01feel-good argument. This is a national
3:05:03security argument. And if the US or our
3:05:06partners are committing human rights
3:05:08violations, the consequences can cause
3:05:10ripple effects that can last
3:05:11generations. They can harm US national
3:05:14security for generations.
3:05:1630 years ago, Southcom became the first
3:05:19combatant command to establish a
3:05:21dedicated human rights office.
3:05:23Over the years, Southcom's human rights
3:05:26offices have worked with regional
3:05:28militaries to help them develop guidance
3:05:29that encompasses human rights
3:05:31principles, strengthens their internal
3:05:33control systems, and increases
3:05:34cooperation with civilian authorities.
3:05:37Respecting human rights in all of our
3:05:38military operations is crucial to their
3:05:41legitimacy, effectiveness, and long-term
3:05:43objectives. In 2024, Southcom commander
3:05:46General Laura Richardson called this
3:05:48office a huge enabler for Southcom that
3:05:50has helped them build deeper relations
3:05:52with partner countries over the years.
3:05:55That's why we should have these offices
3:05:57in all of our combatant commands. These
3:05:59offices would have dedicated teams that
3:06:01focus on human rights, engage with civil
3:06:03society and partner nations, implement
3:06:05bipartisan laws and policies that
3:06:07Congress has already passed like the
3:06:09combating trafficking in persons policy.
3:06:12This should be a basic capacity that all
3:06:14of our combatants commands have. I urge
3:06:17my colleagues to vote yes. I yield back.
3:06:19>> Kenny yields back. Chair recognizes
3:06:21himself. I agree that human rights are
3:06:24important. However, the combatant
3:06:25commands
3:06:27are already staffed by military lawyers
3:06:29whose jobs are to advise our combatant
3:06:31commanders on the law and procedure
3:06:34governing human rights uh and civilian
3:06:36harm. Creating an office uh in each
3:06:39combatant command is entirely
3:06:41unnecessary. Furthermore, this amendment
3:06:43creates an unfunded mandate by not
3:06:45providing any additional resources to
3:06:47stand up and staff these offices.
3:06:48Therefore, I cannot support the
3:06:50amendment. Does anybody else seek
3:06:51recognition on the gentle lady's
3:06:52amendment? Gentle lady, Miss
3:06:54Strickland's recognized.
3:06:55>> Thank you very much. I'd like to yield
3:06:57the balance of my time to Congresswoman
3:06:58Jacobs.
3:06:59>> Uh thank you. So this amendment actually
3:07:02used to have a provision that allowed it
3:07:04to use existing funds that actually made
3:07:07it not an unfunded mandate, but you all
3:07:10Republicans opposed that last year even
3:07:12though you asked for that language in
3:07:14the first place. So um we can have the
3:07:16debate on how this should be funded, but
3:07:18I think it's an important competency
3:07:20that our COCOM commanders have said
3:07:22would be useful for them and I think
3:07:24it's something that this committee
3:07:25should support. Thank you.
3:07:27>> Is there further debate on the
3:07:29amendment?
3:07:32Seeing none. Um, so many in favor. Oh,
3:07:36there in favor of the bill will say I.
3:07:38>> I.
3:07:39>> Those opposed, no. No. Opinion. The
3:07:41chair. The nose have it.
3:07:42>> Chairman recorded vote.
3:07:43>> Gentle lady request a recorded vote.
3:07:44Recorded vote is ordered. Be postponed
3:07:46to a later time. We will now consider
3:07:48amendment number 6453
3:07:51R1 by Dr. Jackson. Did let's see. Uh
3:08:04Will the clerk please distribute the
3:08:05amendment? Uh without objection and
3:08:07reading amendments dispensed with the
3:08:08chair recognizes the gentleman now for
3:08:10the purpose of explaining his amendment.
3:08:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3:08:22Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to represent the
3:08:23number one fed cattle district in the
3:08:25entire nation. Every day, my ranchers
3:08:27and cattle producers work tirelessly to
3:08:28produce the safest, most nutritious beef
3:08:30in the world. For over 250 years,
3:08:33American cattle producers have supplied
3:08:34our military with beef to sustain our
3:08:37war fighters. Unfortunately, under the
3:08:38Biden administration, the Department of
3:08:40War attempted to use taxpayer dollars
3:08:42for the research and development of lab
3:08:43grown meat using our men and women in
3:08:46uniform as test subjects for
3:08:47experimental meat products that aren't
3:08:48even approved to be sold in grocery
3:08:50stores. The military does not represent
3:08:52a group of guinea pigs or lab rats that
3:08:54can be made available for every
3:08:56progressive good idea that comes down
3:08:58the pike. There are plenty of other
3:08:59government entities, academic
3:09:01institutions, private sector companies
3:09:03that can do this R&D. This amendment is
3:09:06straightforward. It would ensure that no
3:09:07funds authorized in this bill are being
3:09:09used to procure or further the research
3:09:11or development of cell cultured meat
3:09:13products for consumption by members of
3:09:16our armed forces. There is no crisis in
3:09:18our conventional protein supply. For
3:09:20generations, American cattlemen have
3:09:21provided a reliable, affordable, and
3:09:23healthy protein source for our military.
3:09:26We should not be experimenting with lab
3:09:28grown meat products on those that have
3:09:29volunteered to defend us. I strongly
3:09:31urge my colleagues to support my
3:09:32amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I
3:09:33yield back.
3:09:35>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further?
3:09:37Gentle lady from California, Miss
3:09:38Jacobs, is recognized.
3:09:39>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I know
3:09:42we're all trying to protein max these
3:09:44days, and I really don't think it's the
3:09:46job of the United States Congress to
3:09:47tell the military what kind of protein
3:09:49it's allowed to research or to tell
3:09:51service members what kind of protein
3:09:53they are allowed to eat. We are not the
3:09:56food police. And frankly, if a deployed
3:09:58service member wants an Impossible
3:10:00Burger, who am I to say no? Who are you
3:10:02to say no? I think we have bigger things
3:10:04to worry about than that. This amendment
3:10:07came out of a claim by the National
3:10:08Cattleman's Beef Association that
3:10:10funding for Biomade equated to funding
3:10:12for development of lab grown meat
3:10:13products for military rations. But
3:10:15Biomade isn't a meat program. It's a
3:10:18half billion dollar bioindustrial
3:10:20manufacturing institute. A blanket ban
3:10:23on research takes a hatchet to a whole
3:10:25strategic portfolio over one $2 million
3:10:28grant call.
3:10:30Lab grown meats are currently not Costco
3:10:32competitive. And the idea of alternative
3:10:34proteins replacing the livestock
3:10:36industry is laughable. Fear-mongering
3:10:39about research efforts could push
3:10:40potentially valuable technology,
3:10:42including to China. And think about why
3:10:45DoD actually wants this. In a Pacific
3:10:48fight, the supply line is the target.
3:10:51Being able to produce protein forward
3:10:54when you can't truck a refrigerator
3:10:56container across a contested ocean is a
3:10:58readiness question, not a culture war
3:11:01question. This amendment doesn't improve
3:11:04our readiness or national security. It's
3:11:06just the latest example of my colleagues
3:11:08pushing a culture war issue now into the
3:11:10cafeteria instead of the bathroom. And
3:11:13it's a strange amendment from the party
3:11:14that claims they want government out of
3:11:16the market. You can't vote to deregulate
3:11:18everything else and then ban a line of
3:11:20research because one lobby asked you to
3:11:22pick a lane. I think we owe it to the
3:11:25American people to focus on substance
3:11:26and serious consequential decisions
3:11:28instead of beyond burgers or research
3:11:30cellivated meat alternatives. I urge my
3:11:33colleagues to vote no.
3:11:35>> Gentlemen yields back. Anybody else seek
3:11:37recognition on this amendment?
3:11:42>> There's no further debate. The question
3:11:43occurs on amendment offered by Dr.
3:11:45Jackson. So some means in approval say I
3:11:47>> I those opposed no
3:11:49>> no
3:11:49>> no opinion chair the eyes have it and
3:11:51the amendment is agreed to
3:11:52>> record vote please
3:11:53>> gentle lady seeks to record a vote
3:11:54recorded votes ordered it'll be
3:11:55postponed to a later time
3:11:58uh we will now consider log number 681R1
3:12:02by Miss Mace of South Carolina for what
3:12:05purp what purposes gentle seek
3:12:07gentleoman seek recognition
3:12:08>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
3:12:09the desk.
3:12:10>> Uh, will the clerk please distribute the
3:12:11amendment without objection to reading
3:12:12of the amendments dispensed with? The
3:12:13chair recognizes gentle lady for the
3:12:15purpose of explaining her amendment.
3:12:16>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the
3:12:18Biden administration, the Department of
3:12:19Defense went down a poisonous path
3:12:21judging service members not by their
3:12:23ability, but by the color of their skin
3:12:25and other demographic checkboxes. It was
3:12:27discrimination in disguise. leadership
3:12:29training slots, promotion boards,
3:12:31command assignments, all of it
3:12:32increasingly filtered through the lens
3:12:34of demographic outcomes rather than
3:12:36demonstrated ability and merit. We had a
3:12:38Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin more
3:12:40focused on diversity metrics and on
3:12:42division readiness. And the recruiting
3:12:44numbers, the retention numbers, and the
3:12:46readiness assessments all told the same
3:12:48story. Those priorities were costing us
3:12:50in the Department of War. The stakes are
3:12:52life and death. There is no room for
3:12:54social engineering or woke nonsense
3:12:56which serves only to harm unit cohesion,
3:12:58readiness, and lethality. President
3:13:00Trump and Secretary Haggath have begun
3:13:02the hard work of rooting out poisonous
3:13:04DEI initiatives and steering the
3:13:05Department of War back toward excellence
3:13:08and meritocracy and that is in the right
3:13:10direction. But executive priorities
3:13:12change with administrations. What one
3:13:14president builds another one can
3:13:16dismantle. If we want to guarantee that
3:13:18merit, not politics, not identity, not
3:13:21ideology, is the permanent foundation of
3:13:23our military personnel system, we need
3:13:26to enshrine it into law. This is exactly
3:13:28what we're seeking to do with this
3:13:29amendment. This amendment would ensure
3:13:31any personnel actions, promotions, and
3:13:33assignments are based exclusively on
3:13:35individual merit, fitness, capability,
3:13:38and performance. No identity based
3:13:40favoritism, no race-based promotions or
3:13:43equity mandates which put politics ahead
3:13:46of performance. The person who can make
3:13:48the military the most lethal and
3:13:50effective gets the job. When you come
3:13:52face to face with the enemy, merit is
3:13:54the only thing that matters. The people
3:13:56beside you in the foxhole don't care
3:13:57what you look like or what pronouns you
3:14:00have or use. They don't care. They only
3:14:02care about if you can get the job done.
3:14:05This amendment would permanently rid the
3:14:07Department of War of DEI and personnel
3:14:09decisions, which is nothing more than a
3:14:11dangerous distraction. This amendment
3:14:13would restore a culture of excellence
3:14:14and merit in our military and ensure
3:14:16we're not playing politics with
3:14:17personnel policy. This amendment would
3:14:19ensure our military can focus on what it
3:14:21does best, fighting and winning the
3:14:22battlefield. I urge all members to
3:14:24support this amendment and I yield back.
3:14:25>> Gentle lady yields back. Does anybody
3:14:26seek recognition? Uh, gentle lady miss
3:14:29from Washington, Miss Strickland's
3:14:30recognized.
3:14:32>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition
3:14:34to this amendment. Um, I've been in
3:14:36Congress for six years and I have
3:14:38consistently heard that the United
3:14:40States military is the most lethal
3:14:42fighting force in the world. It was true
3:14:44a decade ago. It's true today. I oppose
3:14:46this amendment because it creates
3:14:48statutory restrictions on military
3:14:50personnel management without identifying
3:14:52a readiness problem that requires
3:14:54congressional intervention. Our military
3:14:57already selects, promotes, and assigns
3:15:00service members based on merit,
3:15:02qualifications, performance, and
3:15:04leadership potential. Nothing in current
3:15:07law allows an unqualified individual to
3:15:09be promoted or selected over a qualified
3:15:11one. This amendment, therefore, creates
3:15:14a solution in desperate need of a
3:15:16problem.
3:15:17No one on this committee is arguing
3:15:19against merit. The question before us is
3:15:22this. Should Congress impose new
3:15:24statutory restrictions on personnel
3:15:27systems that are already merit-based and
3:15:30already designed to support military
3:15:32readiness, the amendment's requirement
3:15:34that personnel actions be based
3:15:36exclusively on certain factors creates
3:15:39unnecessary ambiguity and could generate
3:15:41confusion regarding on how the services
3:15:43manage assignments, professional
3:15:45military education, specialized training
3:15:48opportunities, and career development.
3:15:50Military personnel decisions often
3:15:52require consideration of operational
3:15:54experience, language capabilities,
3:15:57regional expertise, and other mission
3:16:00related qualifications that are
3:16:02essential to force readiness and mission
3:16:04success.
3:16:06This amendment includes an exception for
3:16:08certain overseas missions, but then
3:16:10imposes combatant commander approval and
3:16:12congressional reporting requirements
3:16:14that add bureaucracy to activities that
3:16:16military leaders are already capable of
3:16:19managing responsibly. Congress should be
3:16:21cautious about imposing rigid statutory
3:16:23requirements on military personnel
3:16:25systems that have evolved over decades
3:16:28to support readiness and mission
3:16:29accomplishment. This amendment
3:16:31substitutes congressional direction for
3:16:34professional military judgment and
3:16:36unnecessarily limits the flexibility
3:16:38that commanders need to manage the
3:16:39force. At a time when the department is
3:16:42focused on deterrence in the Indoacific,
3:16:44fighting a war in the Middle East,
3:16:46supporting allies and partners, and
3:16:48maintaining global readiness, Congress
3:16:50must avoid inserting itself into routine
3:16:53personnel management decisions that are
3:16:54best left to military leaders. This
3:16:57amendment does not improve readiness. It
3:16:59does not strengthen deterrence. It does
3:17:02not increase military capability and it
3:17:04does not improve the quality of life for
3:17:06service members and their families.
3:17:08Instead, it creates a new statutory
3:17:09restriction and reporting requirement
3:17:12while offering no measurable benefit to
3:17:14the war fighter. For these reasons, I
3:17:16strongly urge my colleagues to oppose
3:17:18the amendment. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
3:17:21>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I
3:17:23recognize gentleman uh Mr. Cisneros.
3:17:25>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3:17:29Military promotions have always been
3:17:31based on merit and they will always
3:17:33continue to be based on merit. And
3:17:34everything the author of this amendment
3:17:36has said is untrue and it's based on
3:17:39political rhetoric.
3:17:42When I was at the Pentagon as the under
3:17:43secretary of personnel readiness, every
3:17:45promotion for every general and flag
3:17:47officer in the United States military
3:17:49came across my desk. Never did we ever
3:17:52talk about quotas. Whenever ever we talk
3:17:54about we need to pro this many women or
3:17:56this many blacks or this many people of
3:17:58color that is completely untrue and
3:18:01false.
3:18:03Everything that the military does has
3:18:05been based on merit. The promotions the
3:18:07selection boards in fact pictures were
3:18:09even removed from the selection boards
3:18:12of of junior off so that they couldn't
3:18:15see who they were and what they looked
3:18:17like.
3:18:18It is it is this basically is just one
3:18:21big lie to build political points on her
3:18:24election for governor in her state and
3:18:26is not based on anything on fact. And so
3:18:30that I oppose this amendment. In fact,
3:18:32the army had a great program, the CAP
3:18:35program that was recently taken away
3:18:37that helped and ensure that the most
3:18:40selected people the the top of the the
3:18:42the top people were selected for
3:18:45promotion. They came in for the physical
3:18:47fitness test. They actually interviewed
3:18:49for their job. I mean, who would ever
3:18:52hear you're giving somebody thousands of
3:18:54people to work for you, putting you in
3:18:55charge of a battalion or a brigade, and
3:18:58you never ever interviewed for the job.
3:19:01This was a process that was done in
3:19:03order to improve the leaders that were
3:19:05selected uh not only for command, but
3:19:08also for senior enlisted uh selection as
3:19:11as well positions as well. Um and
3:19:14unfortunately the army scrapped that
3:19:17program because you know it actually did
3:19:19have a benefit of getting more women
3:19:21selected more people of color for
3:19:23command because they had the merit and
3:19:26they had done the job performance in
3:19:28order to earn that and that's what needs
3:19:30to be done. We need to ensure that we
3:19:32are selecting the top people and that's
3:19:34what the military has always done and it
3:19:36programs that it has done and inserted
3:19:38in there to make is ensured to make
3:19:40there is a better process in order to do
3:19:42that and this amendment is just again
3:19:45based on political rhetoric and has
3:19:47nothing to do with truth and for that
3:19:48far I encourage my colleagues to uh vote
3:19:52no on it. With that I yield back.
3:19:55>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further
3:19:57debate?
3:19:59Um
3:20:01there's no further debate. The question
3:20:02occurs on the amendment offered by
3:20:08Miss Mace. Uh some is in favor will say
3:20:11I.
3:20:11>> I. Those opposed? No.
3:20:13>> No. Chair. The eyes have it. The
3:20:16amendments agreed to.
3:20:17>> I would like a recorded vote.
3:20:18>> Gentle lady Mr. Trick asked for recorded
3:20:20vote. Record vote is ordered and will be
3:20:22postponed to a later time. Um,
3:20:26we will now consider log number 5997R1
3:20:31by Mr. Cisneros.
3:20:34Um, will the clerk please distribute the
3:20:36amendment?
3:20:43Goodness gracious.
3:20:46Without objection reading amendments
3:20:47dispense with chair recognizes the uh
3:20:49gentleman for the purpose of explaining
3:20:51his amendment.
3:20:52>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Military
3:20:54service academyy's
3:20:56identity based clubs provide support as
3:20:59cadets and midshipman build communities
3:21:01on campus. These are places where cadets
3:21:03and midshipman can come together, learn
3:21:05from one another, and support each other
3:21:08as they navigate their military journey.
3:21:11Removing these clubs limits professional
3:21:13development opportunities for
3:21:14individuals further service. Further,
3:21:17the administration has failed to bide
3:21:18actual evidence that having a cultural
3:21:20club hurts readiness or makes them less
3:21:23merit-based.
3:21:25Regardless, some identity clubs are
3:21:26being allowed while others aren't. How
3:21:28is that fair? I don't think any club
3:21:31should be cut, especially when they are
3:21:32required to be approved by military
3:21:34leadership. My amendment would prohibit
3:21:36DoD from directing military servicemies
3:21:39from disbanding any identity based club
3:21:41that does not use or require federal
3:21:43funding. I would hope this is an easy
3:21:45amendment for my colleagues to support.
3:21:48There is no physical consequence to
3:21:50passing this amendment. And in reality,
3:21:53if when we have 15% of the engineers in
3:21:56this country are only women and
3:21:593% of the engineers in this country are
3:22:01only black, what is wrong with a group
3:22:03of them coming together to support one
3:22:05another and achieving a goal that few
3:22:07have? It would allow indivi individuals
3:22:10at all service countiesmies to continue
3:22:12networking and building community. I
3:22:14urge my colleagues to support this
3:22:16amendment. I yield back.
3:22:21>> Gentleman yields back. Uh gentle lady
3:22:23from Maryland, Miss Elf is recognized.
3:22:25>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to
3:22:26thank Congressman Cisneros for offering
3:22:28this amendment to allow the continuation
3:22:30of cultural, religious, academic, and
3:22:32identity based student organizations at
3:22:34our military servicemies. At the United
3:22:36States Naval Academy in Annapolis,
3:22:38dozens of student organizations have
3:22:40been removed, including clubs,
3:22:42professional societies, and cultural
3:22:43organizations that have long served
3:22:45midshipmen who come from every corner
3:22:48and all of our districts of these United
3:22:50States. I've represented the academy and
3:22:53Annapolis for eight years now, and I've
3:22:55seen firsthand how these organizations
3:22:57have developed well-rounded leaders
3:22:59prepared to serve around the world and
3:23:01lead sailors and marines from every
3:23:03background. Supporters of these removals
3:23:06argue that militarymies should focus on
3:23:08warf fighting and readiness. But there
3:23:10is no conflict between military
3:23:12readiness and ming together, learning
3:23:14about other cultures, and participating
3:23:16in professional organizations. In fact,
3:23:18these experiences help prepare future
3:23:20officers for the complex missions they
3:23:23will serve in and the diverse teams they
3:23:24will lead around the globe. We should be
3:23:26expanding opportunities for leadership
3:23:28and learning at thesemies, not
3:23:30eliminating them. I urge my colleagues
3:23:32to support this common sense amendment,
3:23:34support our midshipman, and support the
3:23:35mission of our servicemies. Thank you,
3:23:37and I yield back.
3:23:38>> Gentlemen yields back. Chair recognizes
3:23:40himself. Um, I oppose the amendment.
3:23:43Let's set the record straight. The
3:23:44servicemies already permit establishment
3:23:46of these clubs and organizations if they
3:23:48are done at no cost to the government.
3:23:50As is the case at other universities,
3:23:52these clubs are appropriately organized
3:23:54by cadetses and led by cadets for
3:23:57cadetses. Forcing the military and by
3:23:59extension the taxpayer to fund and
3:24:01support DEI clubs at our servicemies is
3:24:03wrong. I urge members to oppose the
3:24:05amendment. Does anybody seek
3:24:06recognition?
3:24:14If there's no further debate, question
3:24:15occurs on the amendment offered
3:24:19by Mr. Cisneros.
3:24:21Uh, so many in favor will say I. I.
3:24:24>> Those opposed, no. No.
3:24:26>> Opinion. Chair. The nose have it. The
3:24:28amendment is not agreed to. Gentleman
3:24:31askked for a recorded vote.
3:24:33>> Yes, sir.
3:24:33>> Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
3:24:35is ordered and will be postponed to a
3:24:37later date later time. Uh,
3:24:42>> maybe a later day, too.
3:24:43>> Maybe a later day, too. That's true.
3:24:48>> All right.
3:25:00>> We will now consider log number 6668R1
3:25:05by Mr. Bale. For what purposes,
3:25:06gentlemen, seek recognition.
3:25:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3:25:12The uh the Department of Defense.
3:25:15>> For what purposes you seek recognition?
3:25:17Do you have an amendment at the desk?
3:25:18>> I have an amendment at the desk. Mr.
3:25:19Chair,
3:25:19>> will the clerk please uh distribute the
3:25:20amendment without objection to reading
3:25:22of the amendment with the chair? And
3:25:23I'll recognize the gentleman for the
3:25:25purpose of explaining his amendment.
3:25:27>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department
3:25:29of Defense currently relies on a
3:25:31patchwork of service specific policies
3:25:34governing tattoos, symbols, and
3:25:36workplace displays. As a result,
3:25:39standards vary across the military,
3:25:42creating inconsistencies and how hate
3:25:44symbols are identified, addressed, and
3:25:47enforced. That lack of uniformity
3:25:50creates unnecessary gaps and uncertainty
3:25:53where there should be clarity. My
3:25:55amendment directs the Department of
3:25:57Defense to establish a single
3:26:00departmentwide hate symbol policy
3:26:02applicable to all service members and
3:26:05civilian employees, ensuring consistent
3:26:08definitions, enforcement, and
3:26:10accountability across components. Within
3:26:14the past year, we have seen efforts
3:26:15across the armed services to revise its
3:26:18harassment and workplace conduct
3:26:20policies, which included removing
3:26:22language that explicitly identified
3:26:24swastikas, nuces, and similar imagery as
3:26:28hate symbols. The updated language
3:26:31described them as quote potentially
3:26:33divisive end quote symbols. Let's be
3:26:37clear here, the swastika is not
3:26:39politically divisive. It is one of the
3:26:42most universally recognized symbols of
3:26:45hatred in human history. It represents
3:26:48racial supremacy. It represents
3:26:50anti-semitism,
3:26:52violent extremism, and the s and the
3:26:54systematic persecution and murder of
3:26:57millions. The noose is not politically
3:27:00divisive. It is a symbol of racial
3:27:03terror. It carries the legacy of
3:27:05lynching, intimidation, and violence
3:27:08used for generations to threaten black
3:27:11Americans and deny them their
3:27:12fundamental rights and humanity. These
3:27:15are not symbols of political
3:27:17disagreement. They are symbols of hatred
3:27:19and intimidation. When symbols
3:27:22associated with violent extremism,
3:27:24racial supremacy or targeted
3:27:26intimidation appear military workplaces,
3:27:29they undermine unit cohesion, erode
3:27:32morale, and threaten the good order and
3:27:35discipline upon which military readiness
3:27:38depends. This amendment provides a
3:27:41practical path forward. It requires the
3:27:43department to establish clear
3:27:45contextbased standards, update guidance
3:27:48for commanders, investigators, provide
3:27:50training to the force, and brief
3:27:52Congress on implementation. We ask
3:27:55service members to defend the
3:27:56Constitution, and represent the very
3:27:58best of our country. They deserve a
3:28:00workplace of free from symbols of
3:28:03intimidation, extremist affiliation, and
3:28:06racial or ethnic hostility. This
3:28:08amendment helps ensure that contextbased
3:28:11uniform standard is clear and
3:28:13consistently enforced across the
3:28:15Department of Defenses. This is not
3:28:17controversial and I urge my colleagues
3:28:19to vote for this amendment.
3:28:21>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
3:28:23himself. Uh I fully support Mr. Bell's
3:28:26amendment. This amendment would require
3:28:28Secretary Hicks to define what
3:28:29constitutes a hate symbol and issue
3:28:31regulations to proh prohibit their use.
3:28:34I too f have full faith and confidence
3:28:36that the Trump administration can write
3:28:38a fair and just policy on this important
3:28:40topic. I urge all members to support Mr.
3:28:42Bell's amendment.
3:28:44Gentle lady, Miss Ellsworth is
3:28:46recognized.
3:28:47>> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for
3:28:49your support of this amendment. There's
3:28:50going to be a lot of nuanced and complex
3:28:52policy questions before this committee
3:28:54today, but this amendment is is not one
3:28:56of them. Um, I was shocked. I would hope
3:28:59everybody on this committee was shocked
3:29:00when we all read the news last year that
3:29:03one of uh the services had downgraded
3:29:06swastikas, nooses, and other very clear
3:29:08hate symbols from hate symbols to
3:29:11potentially divisive imagery and it
3:29:14underscored the need for us to clarify
3:29:16laws on the books regarding symbols of
3:29:18hate. So, as members of this committee,
3:29:20I I agree, Mr. Chair, and want to thank
3:29:22the sponsor of the amendment. Um, this
3:29:24is a moment for all of us to come
3:29:25together. Uh it's an opportunity to do
3:29:27the right thing to unequivocally
3:29:29denounce these symbols of hate and I
3:29:31urge uh I urge a favorable vote and I
3:29:33yield back. Thank you.
3:29:34>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I
3:29:35recognize Dr. Conway from New Jersey.
3:29:39>> Uh thank you Mr. Chairman and thank you
3:29:41for your support of Mr. Bell's uh
3:29:43amendment. Uh in New Jersey, uh the
3:29:47Anti-Defam Anti-Defamation League
3:29:50recorded 100 I'm sorry, 719 anti-Semitic
3:29:54incidents in New Jersey, the second
3:29:56highest annual total ever documented in
3:29:59my state. Nearly one quarter of these
3:30:02incidents involve swastikas. Nationally,
3:30:05uh anti-semitic incidents have reached
3:30:07uh record heights. The swastika is not
3:30:10graffiti. It represents extreme
3:30:12anti-semitism and is a symbol that over
3:30:16uh that hundreds of thousands of
3:30:17American service members have uh uh have
3:30:21died to defeat. However, this
3:30:23administration has weakened the policy
3:30:24on swastikas and other anti-semitic
3:30:27imagery. Uh a few few um a few mere
3:30:31months after this policy change, I was
3:30:33absolutely horrified that in my home
3:30:34state of New Jersey, a swast sticker was
3:30:36drawn on the bathroom wall at the Coast
3:30:38Guard training center in Cape May. While
3:30:41I was happy to see the Coast Guard
3:30:42reverse uh this policy change, we need
3:30:45to see such change across the services.
3:30:48We must reject anti-semitism. We must
3:30:51reject all forms of hate. It is
3:30:54absolutely critical that brave
3:30:55individuals who raise their hands and
3:30:57put on the uniform of our country are
3:30:59bound by a shared purpose. These
3:31:02Americans stand shoulder-to-shoulder
3:31:03regardless of faith, race or background.
3:31:06Uh I strongly once again urge support
3:31:09for this amendment and I yield back.
3:31:10>> Gentleman yields back. Chair now
3:31:12recognize gentle lady from California,
3:31:13Miss Jacobs.
3:31:14>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all know
3:31:17what happened last year. The Coast Guard
3:31:19quietly updated its harassment policy,
3:31:21reclassifying swastikas and nuces from
3:31:23hate symbols to potentially symbols. So,
3:31:26let me be clear. I'm Jewish. Unless I'm
3:31:30mistaken, I'm the only Jewish member of
3:31:32this committee. A swastika is not a
3:31:35potentially divisive symbol to me. It is
3:31:39a clear and direct reference to the Nazi
3:31:42regime and the Holocaust. It's a threat
3:31:44to millions of Jews. Not potentially,
3:31:48not maybe, but 100%.
3:31:52I'm glad the to this was loud and
3:31:54immediate and the policy was reversed.
3:31:56But the fact that this happened at all
3:31:58means we need to make sure it never
3:31:59happens again. And this hasn't happened
3:32:02in a vacuum. 2025 ranked as the fifth
3:32:05highest year for hate crimes in the
3:32:0634year history of FBI collected police
3:32:09data. We know anti-semitism is on the
3:32:12rise here and around the world. Now is
3:32:15the time to be vigilant and intentional
3:32:17with our words and our policies. So I
3:32:19hope we get unanimous support for this
3:32:21amendment to require the Pentagon to
3:32:24establish a policy banning the display
3:32:26of hate symbols. Thank you, Mr.
3:32:28Chairman. I yield back.
3:32:30>> Gentle yields back. Anybody else seek
3:32:32recognition to speak on this amendment?
3:32:36There's no further debate. The question
3:32:38occurs on the amendment by Mr. Bell. So
3:32:40many in favor will say I. I
3:32:43>> those opposed. No. Be the chair. The
3:32:45eyes have it. The amendments adopted.
3:32:47>> Mr. Chair asked for a recorded vote.
3:32:49>> The amendments adopted, but we'll have a
3:32:51recorded vote.
3:32:54>> Yes.
3:32:55>> Okay.
3:32:56>> Sorry, Mr. Chair. My staff member
3:32:58informed me incorrectly.
3:33:00>> Yeah.
3:33:00>> Okay. So, we are not going to have a
3:33:02recorded vote. You want to stay in the
3:33:03bill?
3:33:04>> Yes.
3:33:05>> Okay.
3:33:06>> Yes. There was only one thing bad that
3:33:08could happen if we had a recorded vote.
3:33:10It might not pass.
3:33:13>> All right. So, the amendments agreed to
3:33:14and no recorded vote. Um,
3:33:18>> now I've lost my track my train of
3:33:20thought and I didn't expect that. All
3:33:23right. We will now consider log number
3:33:266757 by Miss Mace of South Car South
3:33:29Carolina. For what purposes a gentle
3:33:30lady seek recognition?
3:33:31>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
3:33:33desk.
3:33:33>> Will the clerk please distribute the
3:33:35amendment? Without objection, the
3:33:36reading of the amendments dispensed
3:33:37with. The chair uh now recognizes gentle
3:33:39lady for the purpose of explaining her
3:33:40amendment.
3:33:41>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Lloyd
3:33:43Austin baked DEI criteria into nearly
3:33:45every aspect of our military mandatory
3:33:48equity and bias trainings, racial
3:33:50quotas, race-based appointments, and
3:33:51promotions to achieve quote equitable
3:33:54outcomes. DEI is not about unity. It's
3:33:56about division, not about mission
3:33:57readiness, but about indoctrination and
3:33:59racism. It was force-fed to war
3:34:01fighters, encouraging them to divide
3:34:03into camps of racial grievance and view
3:34:05each other with distrust and hostility.
3:34:08Anyone who spoke up or opposed this woke
3:34:10nonsense was branded as a dangerous
3:34:12extremist. One of the most damaging and
3:34:14prejudiced applications of DEI through
3:34:16the lens of who gets recommended and
3:34:19selected for promotions. The US military
3:34:21is supposed to be the ultimate
3:34:22meritocracy. Race-based preferences and
3:34:25racial quotas for the sake of diversity
3:34:27have no place in our armed forces.
3:34:29President Trump and Secretary Hexath
3:34:30have made dismantling the DEI
3:34:32bureaucracy and restoring meritocracy in
3:34:34the military a top priority. But after
3:34:36four long years with Lloyd Austin in
3:34:38charge, the roots of DEI run deep. This
3:34:41racist ideology was entrenched into
3:34:43nearly every aspect of the department,
3:34:45and we're still trying to identify it
3:34:47and tear it out root and branch. This
3:34:50amendment directs the Secretary of
3:34:51Defense to report on the impacts of DEI
3:34:54criteria, metrics, and racial promotion
3:34:57selection board recommendations over the
3:34:58past decade. This would tell us what, if
3:35:00any, DEI metrics and racial quotas were
3:35:02used by promotion selection boards, any
3:35:04direction they've received from leaders,
3:35:06senior leadership, and how many more
3:35:08qualified candidates were passed over
3:35:10for the sake of diversity. Quota systems
3:35:12have consequences. When a promotion
3:35:14board is working toward a demographic
3:35:15target, the question is no longer simply
3:35:17who is the most capable officer for this
3:35:19role. The question becomes who is the
3:35:21most capable officer for this role who
3:35:24also moves us toward our demographic
3:35:26targets and those are not the same
3:35:27question. The men and women under these
3:35:29leaders command deserve better than
3:35:31that. They deserve to know that the
3:35:32officer responsible for their lives got
3:35:36there because they were not because they
3:35:38were the best person for the job. This
3:35:40amendment is about accountability and
3:35:42transparency. Congress has a
3:35:43constitutional responsibility to oversee
3:35:45the department. We authorize its
3:35:47funding. We set its policy parameters
3:35:49and we have an obligation to understand
3:35:50what has been happening inside our
3:35:52promotion system and why and if its
3:35:54integrity was in comp was compromised by
3:35:56DEI initiatives and I urge my colleagues
3:35:58to support the amendment.
3:36:00>> Gentle lady yields back. Does any
3:36:01further? Gentle lady from Washington.
3:36:03Mr. Strickland is recognized.
3:36:04>> Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
3:36:06this directive report language. To
3:36:09reiterate, the United States military is
3:36:11the most lethal fighting force in the
3:36:13world, has been for a long time, still
3:36:15is today. This directive begins with a
3:36:18premise that has not been established
3:36:20and directs the department to spend time
3:36:22and resources attempting to validate it.
3:36:25The language assumes that diversity,
3:36:27equity, and inclusion policies cause
3:36:29less qualified candidates to be promoted
3:36:32over more qualified candidates, yet
3:36:34provides no evidence whatsoever that
3:36:36this occurred. If there is evidence that
3:36:39promotion boards were directed to
3:36:40disregard merit, Congress should examine
3:36:43that evidence directly. But Congress
3:36:45should not ask the department to conduct
3:36:47a decadel long investigation searching
3:36:50for support for a predetermined
3:36:52conclusion. The directive further asked
3:36:54the department to identify instances in
3:36:57which a less qualified candidate was
3:36:59selected over a more qualified candidate
3:37:01because of DEI criteria, metrics or
3:37:04quotas. If that's the case, I think we
3:37:06have a secretary of defense who fits
3:37:08that bill. Such an analysis would
3:37:10require department to reconstruct and
3:37:12re-evaluate thousands of promotion
3:37:13decisions made over the last 10 years.
3:37:16It would require officials to speculate
3:37:18about alternative outcomes and
3:37:20hypothetical decisions that were never
3:37:22made. The result will be an exercise
3:37:25that is highly subjective, resource
3:37:27intensive, and unlikely to produce any
3:37:29definitive findings. This directive will
3:37:32risk casting doubt on the legitimacy of
3:37:34promotions rightfully earned by
3:37:37thousands of service members who advance
3:37:39through a merit-based promotion system.
3:37:42The men and women who earned these
3:37:43promotions did so through years of
3:37:45performance, leadership, sacrifice, and
3:37:48service to our nation. They should not
3:37:50have their accomplishments questioned
3:37:52absent evidence that promotion boards
3:37:54violated law, policy, or established
3:37:56standards. The department already
3:37:58rescended the policies that supporters
3:38:00of this language claim to be so
3:38:02concerned about. Rather than
3:38:03relitigating personnel decisions from
3:38:06previous administrations for political
3:38:07points, this committee should focus on
3:38:10oversight efforts on the challenges
3:38:12facing our force today. There's so many
3:38:14challenges we are facing today. I urge
3:38:16opposition to this directive report
3:38:18language and I yield back, Mr. Chair.
3:38:20>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair now
3:38:22recognizes a gentleman from California,
3:38:23Mr. Cisneros.
3:38:25>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
3:38:28Again, this is just another amendment
3:38:29that's based on political rhetoric and
3:38:31and nothing around fact. There was never
3:38:34no quotas or anything. And I would would
3:38:36welcome any evidence that my colleague
3:38:39uh could provide suggesting that there
3:38:41was evidence of quotas or or any other
3:38:44thing that said certain people should be
3:38:45selected while those who have the merit
3:38:48to get promoted should not because
3:38:50simply based on their sex or their
3:38:51color. No such policy existed. You look,
3:38:56as the former chief diversity and
3:38:58inclusion officer of the Department of
3:39:00Defense, I know firsthand that diverse
3:39:02teams perform better,
3:39:05especially in combat situations. And
3:39:07that's shown time and time again. The
3:39:08Marine Corps has done research projects
3:39:10on this. Diverse officers are an
3:39:13important asset for our military, not
3:39:14only for their leadership, but also
3:39:16figures as as figures to enlisted people
3:39:19of color who can they can look up to and
3:39:21aspire to be. It's unfortunate that
3:39:23Secretary Hexath does not see it that
3:39:25way. Diversity is about creating
3:39:28opportunity where none exists, finding
3:39:30that diamond in the rough and giving
3:39:32them a chance to shine. No one advances
3:39:35through the ranks because of their
3:39:37gender identity or skin color. Military
3:39:40advancements has always been about
3:39:42merit. The outrageous belief that
3:39:44military leaders belong only leadership
3:39:46should only belong to white men. that
3:39:49women, people of color who rise through
3:39:51the ranks are some just mere DEI hire uh
3:39:55is repugnant and ignorance. And I refuse
3:39:58to sit idly and remain quiet while good
3:40:00leaders get tossed aside simply because
3:40:03they do not fit the narrow acquitted
3:40:05vision of what some of my colleagues
3:40:07here believe America should look like.
3:40:10To my colleague to my colleague who
3:40:12continued to say that recruitment and
3:40:14retention were down because of DEI, they
3:40:16are mistaken. In Trump's president's
3:40:19first term, he cut recruitment funding.
3:40:22Representation matters. If there if
3:40:26there were no white men in service would
3:40:28have been inconceived of you to serve.
3:40:34This is just a topic that again, this is
3:40:38something that is just based purely on
3:40:41lies and political rhetoric. And the
3:40:45fact that this is even being asked to to
3:40:48be investigated is just simply wrong. Um
3:40:52because it has never been a policy,
3:40:53right? And again, I would u I would ask
3:40:56my colleague if she has any proof of
3:40:58quotas or anything that there was policy
3:41:00that that there should be quotas. I
3:41:02would ask her to provide that and give
3:41:04us that proof and show it to us because
3:41:05the fact is it simply does not exist.
3:41:08And with that, I yield back.
3:41:10>> Gentleman yields back. Is there any
3:41:12further discussion on the amendment?
3:41:14Seeing none, um the question occurs on
3:41:16the amendment offered by Miss Mace. All
3:41:18those in favor will say I. I. Those
3:41:20opposed, no.
3:41:22>> Chair, the eyes have it.
3:41:23>> I like your recorded vote, Mr. Chair.
3:41:25>> Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
3:41:27is ordered. We will be postponed until a
3:41:29later time. Uh we will now consider log
3:41:32number 6656R1 by Mr. Crow. For what
3:41:35purpose does the gentleman seek
3:41:37recognition?
3:41:40>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
3:41:41the desk.
3:41:42>> Will the clerk please distribute the
3:41:43amendment without objection? The reading
3:41:45of the amendments dispensed with. The
3:41:46chair recognizes gentleman for purpose
3:41:47of explaining his amendment.
3:41:50>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this
3:41:52amendment uh is pretty straightforward.
3:41:54It provides that judge, advocate,
3:41:56general serving in the Army, Navy, Air
3:41:58Force, and the Marine Corps may only be
3:41:59assigned or detailed to perform the
3:42:02functions of a civil office in another
3:42:04agency if there is a legitimate military
3:42:06nexus. Our JGS advise commanders on some
3:42:09of the most consequential decisions our
3:42:10military makes. From combat operations
3:42:12to targeting authorities to rules of
3:42:14engagement, military justice, personnel
3:42:16matters, and international law. They are
3:42:19a limited and specialized resource.
3:42:20Their time should be focused on matters
3:42:22that directly affect military
3:42:24operations, unit cohesion, command
3:42:26authority, and mission effectiveness.
3:42:29Assigning them elsewhere takes them away
3:42:31from this critical military work,
3:42:32especially in a time as as much conflict
3:42:35as we are seeing right now. Congress has
3:42:37a responsibility to ensure military
3:42:39legal resources are aligned with their
3:42:40core purpose, which is maintaining an
3:42:43effective fighting force and protecting
3:42:44national security. This amendment is
3:42:46consistent with that responsibility.
3:42:48Now, the department uh recently
3:42:50authorized up to 600 JAGs to be detailed
3:42:53to the Department of Justice to serve as
3:42:55temporary immigration judges.
3:42:57Immigration judges make final, binding,
3:42:59and life-changing decisions on an
3:43:01immigrant's status, including
3:43:02adjudication of asylum applications and
3:43:04final orders of removal. The effect of
3:43:07these orders involves detention and
3:43:08limitations of personal liberty,
3:43:10sometimes immediately after an order is
3:43:12issued. Actions taken by military law
3:43:15lawyers acting as interim immigration
3:43:16judges would cross the line into
3:43:19civilian law enforcement, which cannot
3:43:21be performed by members of the armed
3:43:22forces. So, this amendment would do a
3:43:25couple of things. First, it would make
3:43:27sure that our military resources and our
3:43:29men and women who step up to serve our
3:43:31armed forces and American citizens for
3:43:34our national security remain focused on
3:43:36that. Second, it would protect the
3:43:38sanctity of our military civilian divide
3:43:41and prevent the use uh and prevent uh
3:43:44the abuse of of our men and women of
3:43:47sending them into positions of
3:43:48conducting civilian law enforcement
3:43:50operations and politically contentious
3:43:52immigration enforcement proceedings. And
3:43:55the third is it would make sure that
3:43:57immigration judges actually remain the
3:44:00the highly skilled specialized folks
3:44:03that they are who have the background,
3:44:04who have the training, who have the
3:44:06history on immigration enforcement, not
3:44:08temporarily assigned JEG officers. So
3:44:10with all of that, I would encourage my
3:44:13colleagues to support this amendment and
3:44:15join me uh in doing so. Thank you, Mr.
3:44:18Chairman. I yield back.
3:44:19>> Gentleman yields yields back. Chair not
3:44:21recognizes himself. Uh this is a direct
3:44:23attack on the administration uh which
3:44:25has used judge advocates in multiple
3:44:27ways to protect national security
3:44:28priorities for the president. Judge
3:44:30advocates have served as special
3:44:32assistance to US attorneys for years. Uh
3:44:35that role has been expanded in the
3:44:37current administration to assist other
3:44:38agencies in defense of the homeland uh
3:44:41national security priority and great
3:44:42experience and training for uh uniformed
3:44:45officers. Uh, I trust that Secretary of
3:44:48Defense with the help of the joint staff
3:44:49may deploy judge advocates across the
3:44:52United States and the world to ensure
3:44:54the rule of law is followed. Therefore,
3:44:56I oppose the amendment that would limit
3:44:57the Secretary's authority to aid
3:44:59agencies in need for national security
3:45:01purposes and prevent our judge advocates
3:45:03from getting invaluable training as
3:45:05judges and assistant US attorneys. Any
3:45:09seek recognition? Gentleman from South
3:45:10Carolina is recognized.
3:45:11>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
3:45:13Indeed, I'm very grateful that I've had
3:45:1430 years experience as a staff judge
3:45:17advocate. Uh it was one of the
3:45:18highlights of my life in the National
3:45:20Guard. Uh our services were so important
3:45:23uh for hurricane recovery and relief.
3:45:25And now the National Guard gets to serve
3:45:27all around the world. And by having uh
3:45:30jags uh capable of uh handling different
3:45:33issues whether it be at MK air base in
3:45:35Romania and Novo Cello base in Bulgaria
3:45:38or on Pristina Kosovo that I visited
3:45:41with our guard personnel and also we
3:45:43have guard personnel. Thank goodness 400
3:45:46have just been uh assigned here to
3:45:48provide for security uh in Washington
3:45:50DC. So over and over again I know the
3:45:53capabilities of JAG. Additionally I'm a
3:45:55JAG dad. Uh my oldest son Allan is has
3:45:59been the staff judge advocate for the
3:46:00state of South Carolina, currently the
3:46:02attorney general of South Carolina. And
3:46:04so I I deal with them almost every day
3:46:07on different issues that uh indeed uh
3:46:10our JAG officers are independent. They
3:46:12follow the law. They're dedicated to the
3:46:14constitution. Uh and we do not need uh
3:46:17the uh this amendment at all. uh it's uh
3:46:21interference with the capabilities of
3:46:23the very talented people who are judge
3:46:25advocate general with that I yield back
3:46:30yields back chair and I recognize a
3:46:32gentleman from Texas Mr. Fallon
3:46:34>> Mr. Chairman, I do respectfully and very
3:46:36respectfully oppose this amendment as
3:46:37well because we're talking about
3:46:38limiting and preventing and I I trust
3:46:41our uh our fine judge advocates and uh
3:46:44preventing military judic
3:46:49uh that don't have a military nexus is
3:46:51very limiting. We want ability to serve
3:46:54to have them serve the republic and
3:46:56they're going to gain invaluable
3:46:57experience. Not everybody that enters
3:46:59the military is going to go career. some
3:47:00that's great when they do, but if they
3:47:02choose to go in and surface, say a
3:47:04six-year tour and then have even a
3:47:06breath of experience, it's going to help
3:47:08them when they go into the civilian
3:47:10sector into the private sector. And it's
3:47:12also going to help on recruiting as well
3:47:13because they're going to know that
3:47:15listen, get a a lot of invaluable
3:47:17experience and training and hone uh you
3:47:20know, my skill set. And the national
3:47:22security strategy places a great deal of
3:47:24emphasis on homeland defense. And in
3:47:26order to meet these needs, an increase
3:47:28in attorneys has been needed to litigate
3:47:30in US courts and aid in the
3:47:32administrative hearings across the
3:47:33Department of Justice and Homeland. So
3:47:35our uniformed attorneys are well
3:47:37trained, the reliable attorneys that we
3:47:39can trust who uphold the greatest
3:47:41professionalism. I think we all agree on
3:47:42that. The secretary uh has determined
3:47:45that homeland mission is essential to
3:47:47the Department of War and that our
3:47:49uniformed attorneys have the ability to
3:47:51surge into positions when the country
3:47:53needs them. And I understand the concern
3:47:54that we don't want to overextend our
3:47:56attorneys and place them in jobs outside
3:47:58the department if we can't fill our
3:47:59legal billets in the military service.
3:48:01But nonetheless, we can and and the Jags
3:48:03uh advocate generals are going to know
3:48:05that their assignments are closely
3:48:06watched and managed and our attorneys
3:48:08are doing the important mission and
3:48:09they're gaining, as I mentioned earlier,
3:48:11the invaluable experience and closely
3:48:13managed by the uniform judges.
3:48:15Therefore, I have to oppose this
3:48:17amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
3:48:18yield back.
3:48:19>> Gentlemen yields back. Does anybody else
3:48:20seek recognition on this amendment?
3:48:23I'm sorry.
3:48:25>> Certainly.
3:48:31>> Jacobs. I'm sorry, Mr. Crow. Miss Jacobs
3:48:33just bumped you.
3:48:34>> No, I'm I'm yielding to him.
3:48:36>> Okay.
3:48:36>> Okay.
3:48:37>> I was
3:48:38>> Okay. Thank you to you both.
3:48:41>> Okay. I was trying to get to you. I I
3:48:44just wanted to clarify one thing that
3:48:45that the language of this amendment does
3:48:48not prevent JEGS from serving as special
3:48:50assistant US attorneys
3:48:52or or any other assignment for that
3:48:54matter. All it does is it it clarifies
3:48:57that they can only prosecute cases and
3:49:00serve in functions that have a
3:49:02legitimate military nexus, right? They
3:49:05can't just do civilian law enforcement.
3:49:09So, it's a very defined very defined
3:49:12amendment here uh that's meant to
3:49:14actually honor their service in uniform.
3:49:18These folks sign up to be military
3:49:20officers. They sign up to be military
3:49:24prosecutors.
3:49:25Uh and this amendment is consistent with
3:49:27honoring that service and not assigning
3:49:30them to do uh purely civilian law
3:49:33enforcement functions that don't have a
3:49:35military nexus. If there's a military
3:49:37nexus, fine, they can do it. So, I just
3:49:41wanted to clarify what this does and and
3:49:43does not do.
3:49:45>> Okay. The uh gentleman yields back to
3:49:47Miss Jacobs, who now yields back to the
3:49:50chair. So, does anybody seek further
3:49:52recognition uh to debate this issue?
3:49:54Seeing none, the the um question now
3:49:57occurs on the amendment offered by Mr.
3:49:58Crow. Uh so, many in favor will say I.
3:50:02>> Those opposed, no. No. opinion chair the
3:50:05nose have it.
3:50:08Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
3:50:10is ordered. It will be postponed to a
3:50:12later time. Uh for everybody's
3:50:14situational awareness, uh we are going
3:50:16to uh pause for a series of recorded
3:50:19votes for everything that's in the queue
3:50:22at 2:00 p.m. which is 20 25 minutes from
3:50:26now. So for all the member offices out
3:50:28there, find your member and let them
3:50:31know we need them to be present uh to
3:50:33make the recorded votes u at 2:00. All
3:50:37right. Now we will consider log number
3:50:4068:15
3:50:42uh by Mr. Gar Mindy. For what purpose
3:50:44does the gentleman seek recognition?
3:50:47>> Will the clerk please distribute the
3:50:49amendment?
3:50:51Without objection, the reading of
3:50:52amendments dispenseed with the chair now
3:50:54recognizes gentleman from California for
3:50:55the purpose of explaining his amendment.
3:50:58>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
3:51:00requires the Department of Defense to
3:51:02submit written readiness assessments
3:51:05when military units are to provide
3:51:08civilian support to civilian law
3:51:10enforcement agencies for more than 30
3:51:13days. including in that report the
3:51:17mission's description, the personnel and
3:51:19equipment to be used, combat readiness
3:51:23to be lost, delayed or canceled
3:51:26training, and the total cost broken down
3:51:29by reimburseable and nonreimburseable
3:51:32funding. We've seen the uh US military
3:51:35being deployed domestically for many
3:51:37reasons, basically since the very
3:51:39beginning of this country. However, in
3:51:42recent times, these deployments have
3:51:43lasted for a very very lengthy period of
3:51:46time and in many cases very
3:51:48controversial uh deployments. Uh earlier
3:51:52this year, the Congressional Budget
3:51:53Office showed that the administration's
3:51:56domestic deployments of the National
3:51:58Guard and the Marines and other units
3:52:01have cost at least $589
3:52:05million,
3:52:06more than doubled what was initially
3:52:08anticipated uh in the earlier reports.
3:52:12There is considerable evidence that
3:52:14these deployments have delayed the
3:52:17military's readiness programs, training
3:52:20programs and others and also
3:52:23significantly disrupted their equipment.
3:52:26Uh
3:52:28so what are we doing here?
3:52:30We simply want to be aware of what all
3:52:33of this has uh in caused the military to
3:52:37lose its readiness in the various units
3:52:40that have been deployed. Uh so the
3:52:43department would have to report to us
3:52:45Congress
3:52:47which units are involved, personnel and
3:52:50equipment being used and whether combat
3:52:52training has been delayed and what the
3:52:55mission cost. Also in some cases it is
3:52:58the uh command structure that has been
3:53:01deployed and the rest of the operation
3:53:04is left back at the base and the
3:53:06disruption would be obvious there. So
3:53:09let's find out what all of this is
3:53:11about. It's not to stop it. uh it does
3:53:14not it does allow a 30-day deployment
3:53:16and then if it goes beyond that it would
3:53:19require that we would have the necessary
3:53:21information to understand the effects of
3:53:24the deployment on readiness. Pretty
3:53:26simple but rather important for us at
3:53:29least on the readiness committee to
3:53:30understand what it what the deployment
3:53:33means for a particular unit and its
3:53:36ability to perform the normal military
3:53:38functions. With that I yield back.
3:53:41>> Gentleman yields back. chair recognizes
3:53:44himself. Um, the reality of this
3:53:46deployment is that it supports training
3:53:48and small unit maneuver for missions
3:53:49they might encounter in the future. This
3:53:52report is redundant to what we already
3:53:54included in last year's NDAA section
3:53:561053, which requires the department to
3:53:59provide us notice of a request for
3:54:01assistance for support of operations
3:54:04within 30 days of initiating an
3:54:05operation and every 90 days thereafter.
3:54:07I support our National Guard and
3:54:08President Trump's attempt to reduce
3:54:10lawlessness. And does anybody else seek
3:54:12recognition? Uh, General Burke
3:54:15recognized.
3:54:17>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And and I I
3:54:19appreciate so much being able to work
3:54:21with uh Mr. Gari on on the readiness
3:54:24subcommittee because we we cover a wide
3:54:28variety of topics every year from a full
3:54:31spectrum viewpoint. And that and that's
3:54:33good news. It helps to be the two oldest
3:54:35guys on the committee because we've been
3:54:36around a long time and seen a lot in the
3:54:39world. But in this particular case, I
3:54:41have to uh oppose the amendment as uh
3:54:44the chairman already stated. I'm not
3:54:46going to restate what he said because
3:54:48that wastes time and we don't want to
3:54:50waste time. But you know, contrary to
3:54:54the presumption that National Guard
3:54:56deployments to urban cities enhance unit
3:54:59training, particularly small unit
3:55:01maneuver in complex urban environment.
3:55:03We have unique
3:55:05training opportunities
3:55:08in this environment to to enable our
3:55:11National Guard units to be more ready
3:55:14from a command and control perspective
3:55:16when they deploy somewhere else as
3:55:20needed under cases whether it's you know
3:55:22title 38 title title 10 whatever it
3:55:27happens to be in there. Where's it title
3:55:3032?
3:55:3132. You know, it's, you know, numbers,
3:55:34but the point is they're either under
3:55:35the commander-in-chief's control or
3:55:38they're under the control of the
3:55:40governor of the state under which
3:55:41they're authorized. But we have
3:55:44spectacular national guard and reserve
3:55:47component here in our country that does
3:55:50its mission every chance it gets, which
3:55:55is not meaning every day. And what we
3:55:57don't want to do is unnecessarily
3:56:01increase reporting paperwork that
3:56:04doesn't add value to their readiness and
3:56:07to our understanding here on the
3:56:10committee about how ready our National
3:56:14Guard troops are. So it just we don't
3:56:16need to add any more paperwork than
3:56:18this. The last NDAA we took care of that
3:56:21and I with that I yield back. I oppose.
3:56:24>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further
3:56:26debate on the amendment?
3:56:28Seeing none, the question occurs on the
3:56:29amendment offered by Mr. Garmeny. So
3:56:31many in favor will say I.
3:56:33>> Those opposed will say no.
3:56:35>> No. Chair the nose have it. Recorded
3:56:39recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
3:56:41is ordered to be postponed to a later
3:56:42time.
3:56:44Um chair uh we will now consider log
3:56:47number 6808R1
3:56:50by Mr. Carbajal. For what purposes a
3:56:52gentleman seek recognition?
3:56:53>> I have an amendment at the desk. Mr.
3:56:55Chair,
3:56:55>> will the clerk please distribute the
3:56:57amendment without objection to reading
3:56:58of amendments dispensed with the chair
3:56:59and I recognize this gentleman for
3:57:01purpose of explaining his amendment.
3:57:04>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
3:57:06administration wants to expand offshore
3:57:09offshore gas and oil drilling off the
3:57:11coast of both California and Florida. My
3:57:14amendment is simple. It requires that
3:57:16the Secretary of Defense certify new
3:57:18offshore oil drilling will not have
3:57:21adverse effects on military training,
3:57:23testing, or operations. And until the
3:57:26Secretary makes this determination, the
3:57:29department cannot use funds in this act
3:57:31to enter an agreement or issue a
3:57:33decision in connection with oil and gas
3:57:36on the outer continental.
3:57:38We should be positive that these
3:57:40offshore leases will not harm national
3:57:42security. This is all this amendment
3:57:45does. Both states are home to sign
3:57:47significant offshore military ranges and
3:57:49testing sites. Florida and California
3:57:52have the first and second most active
3:57:54space ports in the world, respectively.
3:57:57California and Florida also have high
3:57:59altitude and supersonic
3:58:01air combat training, air-to-air and
3:58:04airtos surface weapons testing,
3:58:06electronic warfare testing, unmanned
3:58:09systems operations, naval surface and
3:58:12subsurface activities, including
3:58:14undersea and anti-ubmarine warfare
3:58:16testing with acoustic systems and
3:58:19torpedo evaluation. Additionally,
3:58:21California has hypersonics and strategic
3:58:24weapons testing. These ranges are
3:58:27hundreds of square miles to ensure these
3:58:30systems can be tested safely. The
3:58:32proposed leasing areas significantly
3:58:34overlap with military test ranges. Mr.
3:58:37Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to
3:58:40enter this Washington Post article
3:58:42titled, "Military officials are worried
3:58:44about Trump's oil drilling plan. Here's
3:58:47why." from May 22nd, 2026. Okay.
3:58:51>> Without objection, so ordered.
3:58:53>> Thank you. Um,
3:58:56in the article, Rick Miller, a retired
3:58:59Navy captain and vice chair of Florida's
3:59:01Defense Alliance, is quoted quoted
3:59:03saying, "For a modest potential increase
3:59:05in oil production capacity, we'd be
3:59:08giving up a tremendous amount of
3:59:09national defense capability." The
3:59:12article also highlights a December 2025
3:59:15letter led by Senators Scott, Rick
3:59:18Scott, and Ashley Moody of Florida that
3:59:21was signed by the entire Florida
3:59:23congressional delegation, including my
3:59:26colleagues on this committee. The letter
3:59:28to the president expresses their strong
3:59:30opposition to any attempts to expand
3:59:33offshore oil and gas drilling off of the
3:59:36Florida coasts. Mr. Chairman, I ask
3:59:38unanimous consent to also enter this
3:59:40letter into the record.
3:59:42>> Without objection, so ordered.
3:59:44>> Thank you. I urge my colleagues to vote
3:59:46yes on my amendment. Thank you.
3:59:48>> Chair now recognizes himself. U
3:59:51regrettably, I have to oppose my good
3:59:53friend's amendment. This amendment would
3:59:55do nothing to prevent offshore oil and
3:59:57gas drilling or improve military
3:59:59readiness. Instead, it would do the
4:00:00opposite. The amendment does not limit
4:00:02funding for the Department of the
4:00:03Interior as the permitting authority.
4:00:05The interior is the agency that enters
4:00:08into offshore oil and gas agreements.
4:00:10All this language does is to prohibit
4:00:11the Department of Defense from
4:00:13participating in the inter agency
4:00:14process and determining whether these
4:00:16agreements negatively impact military
4:00:19readiness. This would cut the department
4:00:21of out of discussions on projects off
4:00:23the coast of Florida or California. The
4:00:25department opposes it. So, uh I will
4:00:28oppose it as well. Does anybody seek
4:00:31recognition on Mr. Carbajal's amendment?
4:00:35Seeing none, um,
4:00:40question occurs on the amendment offered
4:00:41by Mr. Carbajal. So many in favor will
4:00:43say I oppose. No. No. P. The nose have
4:00:48it.
4:00:48>> Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.
4:00:50>> Gentleman asked for a recorded vote. A
4:00:52recorded vote is ordered and will be
4:00:53postponed to a later time.
4:00:57Now we will get back to the one that we
4:00:59should have called up uh the amendment
4:01:02uh number 6769 by Mr. Ryan of New York.
4:01:06For what purposes did Mr. Ryan seek
4:01:08recognition?
4:01:08>> Uh Mr. Chair have an amendment at the
4:01:10desk.
4:01:10>> Will the clerk please distribute Mr.
4:01:12Ryan's amendment? Without objection, the
4:01:14reading of the amendments dispensed
4:01:16with. The chair recognizes Mr. Ryan for
4:01:17the purpose of explaining his amendment.
4:01:20>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. On March 28th
4:01:23of this year, two H64 Apaches from the
4:01:27101st Combat Aviation Brigade out of
4:01:29Fort Campbell made an unauthorized
4:01:31flight to the private home of Kidrock.
4:01:35Uh, a person I never thought I'd be
4:01:36frankly talking about on the House Armed
4:01:38Services Committee, but yet here we are.
4:01:40Uh, understandably, this raised a lot of
4:01:42questions about how something like this
4:01:44could happen. Even President Trump said
4:01:46the crew quote probably shouldn't have
4:01:48been doing it because quote, "You're not
4:01:50supposed to be playing games." I agree.
4:01:53Rightfully so. The Army leadership
4:01:55immediately announced the pilots were
4:01:56suspended and that there would be an
4:01:58investigation. So why, Mr. Chair, are we
4:02:02here discussing this?
4:02:05Because Secretary Hegsth, who continues
4:02:07to on a near daily basis exceed his SNL
4:02:12character's
4:02:13ridiculousness, made a deeply
4:02:15problematic and I think a pathetic
4:02:17decision to tweet out two days later,
4:02:20quote, "Thank you, Kid Rock. US Army
4:02:23pilot suspension lifted, all caps, no
4:02:26punishment, no investigation."
4:02:28So this amendment, Mr. Mr. Chair, is
4:02:30really just about doing the right thing,
4:02:32which is getting answers both on what
4:02:34happened on that incident, which I think
4:02:36we can all agree is problematic, but
4:02:38also understanding why the secretary
4:02:40killed this investigation, what more uh
4:02:43is there something deeper that he might
4:02:44be hiding or covering up. I I think it
4:02:47goes without saying uh the army should
4:02:50not be in the business of doing what the
4:02:52president in the president's own words
4:02:54playing games essentially party tricks
4:02:56for any president's personal and
4:02:59political allies. It's not not only
4:03:01inappropriate, it's a massive waste of
4:03:04money, it's dangerous and not to mention
4:03:07it's in the middle of a war. So, this
4:03:10amendment simply requires a briefing on
4:03:13why the Army investigation into this
4:03:15incident was cancelled. I would welcome
4:03:17debate or discussion with any of my
4:03:19colleagues who who disagree with just an
4:03:23investigation to this committee to
4:03:25explain to us what happened. Um, and I
4:03:28yield back, Mr. Chair.
4:03:29>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
4:03:31himself. Um, I'm not sure what we gain
4:03:34from a congressional investigation. I'm
4:03:35going to have to oppose this amendment.
4:03:37There's been extensive public reporting
4:03:38on the matter and the secretary very
4:03:40publicly announced he was ending the
4:03:42army's review and clearing the air um
4:03:44clearing the air crews. Uh the secretary
4:03:47has the clear legal authority to take
4:03:48these actions and he did so in a
4:03:50transparent manner. I urge all members
4:03:51to oppose the amendment. Does anybody
4:03:53seek recognition? Gentlemen deloo m Mr.
4:03:56I'm sorry Mr. Whitesides was first. We
4:03:58recognize him. Go ahead Mr. Whitesides.
4:04:01>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I echo my
4:04:02colleague Congressman W Ryan. This is
4:04:04common sense. On March 28th, two Army
4:04:07Apache helicopters made an unauthorized
4:04:09flight to the home of Kid Rock in
4:04:12Tennessee. The Army's 101st Combat
4:04:14Aviation Brigade leadership did what
4:04:16commanders are supposed to do. They
4:04:18initiated a review to gather the facts
4:04:20and determine whether any standards had
4:04:23been violated. But before the review
4:04:25could be completed, Secretary Hegsath
4:04:27terminated the investigation via social
4:04:29media post. I asked Secretary Hegsath
4:04:31about his decision directly when he
4:04:33appeared before this committee a month
4:04:34ago and he doubled down saying that it
4:04:36was his call to cancel the
4:04:38investigation. We're not asking for much
4:04:40here, just a briefing on why Secretary
4:04:42Hegsth canled the Army's investigation.
4:04:45To my knowledge, he has never actually
4:04:46explained it. This is a basic issue of
4:04:49accountability. If the decision to
4:04:51terminate the review was the correct
4:04:52one, then there should be no objection
4:04:53to explaining it before Congress. I urge
4:04:57my colleagues to join me in supporting
4:04:58this amendment and I yield back.
4:05:00>> Yields back. Chair now recognizes Mr.
4:05:02Duzio.
4:05:03>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield my
4:05:04time to Mr. R of New York.
4:05:07>> Thank you, Mr. Duzio. Mr. Chair, I just
4:05:10wanted to address something you said um
4:05:12with with great respect. This does not
4:05:14require some big congressional
4:05:16investigation. It it is a very simple,
4:05:19lightweight briefing to the committee on
4:05:21on what happened. It has 11 very
4:05:24straightforward components to it.
4:05:26Understand there's a lot going on. We're
4:05:28not trying to add more burden. Um but so
4:05:30I just wanted to address that point. I
4:05:32yield back to Mr. Duzio.
4:05:33>> And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
4:05:45>> Those opposed say no. No.
4:05:46>> No.
4:05:47>> Pin your chair. The nose have it.
4:05:50A recorded votes requested. The recorded
4:05:52vote is ordered be postponed to a later
4:05:53time.
4:05:57Goodness gracious.
4:06:02We will now consider log number 6429 by
4:06:05Miss Duda. For what purposes the gentle
4:06:07lady seek recognition?
4:06:08>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
4:06:10desk.
4:06:11>> Uh will the clerk please distribute the
4:06:13amendment without objection? The reading
4:06:14of the amendments dispensed with. The
4:06:15chair recognizes the gentle lady for the
4:06:16purpose of explaining her amendment.
4:06:18>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
4:06:20is based on a very simple principle. We
4:06:22do not want to outsource our moral
4:06:24responsibility to a machine. When the
4:06:26United States military uses forces, a
4:06:29human being, not an algorithm, not an AI
4:06:31model, not an autonomous system, must
4:06:33make that decision. The question before
4:06:36us is not whether AI can help
4:06:38commanders. It can. The question is who
4:06:41is accountable when lives are on the
4:06:43line. Because accountability requires a
4:06:45decision maker. Machines cannot be held
4:06:48accountable. Software cannot testify
4:06:50before Congress. Algorithms cannot
4:06:52answer for mistakes. Human beings can.
4:06:56That is why strong testing, validation,
4:06:58and oversight matters. They are not
4:07:01bureaucratic hurdles. They are how we
4:07:03will ensure that humans remain
4:07:05responsible for the consequences of
4:07:07military action. Today, Department of
4:07:09Defense policy calls for appropriate
4:07:11human oversight. But that's not a bright
4:07:14line. It's an open interpretation. It
4:07:16could mean little to no human oversight
4:07:17at all. My amendment establishes a clear
4:07:20standard. A human must approve the use
4:07:22of force. And if the department feels
4:07:25and believes that there is a compelling
4:07:27reason to depart from that standard,
4:07:28this amendment provides a waiver process
4:07:31requiring them to explain that rationale
4:07:33to Congress so that we can do our job of
4:07:35holding them accountable and conducting
4:07:37appropriate oversight. For example,
4:07:39right now in Ukraine, drones are getting
4:07:42into their no man land zone and lose
4:07:44contact due to electronic warfare. No
4:07:47civilians are around, so they use AI for
4:07:49targeting and firing. These may be the
4:07:52potential kinds of situations, but
4:07:54Congress, again, should be the one to be
4:07:56both notified and conduct appropriate
4:07:59oversight.
4:08:00We should be especially mindful of what
4:08:02our adversaries are doing. China is
4:08:04racing to field increasingly autonomous
4:08:07military systems with fewer ethical
4:08:09constraints, less transparency, and
4:08:11little meaningful accountability. But
4:08:13our goal should not be to win the race
4:08:15to the bottom. If we abandon human
4:08:18judgment, human responsibility, and
4:08:20human accountability in the use of
4:08:21force, then we haven't beaten China.
4:08:24We've become China. America's military
4:08:26advantage has never been that we can
4:08:28build powerful weapons. is that we pair
4:08:31that power with values, responsibility,
4:08:34oversight, validation, the rule of law.
4:08:37This amendment protects and establishes
4:08:39these principles. I urge my colleagues
4:08:41to please support this. Again, it's a
4:08:45very straightforward and simple
4:08:46amendments. Human should be approving
4:08:48the use of force, not machines, not
4:08:51artificial intelligence models, not
4:08:53autonomous systems, not softwares.
4:08:55Humans make the decision. Thank you, Mr.
4:08:57Chair, and I yield back. Gentle lady
4:08:59yields back. She recognizes himself. I
4:09:01oppose this amendment because it would
4:09:03impose a rigid one-sizefits-all
4:09:05requirement that would limit the utility
4:09:07of autonomous systems and create
4:09:08unnecessary bureaucracy. The department
4:09:10already maintains clear chains of
4:09:12command and policies governing
4:09:13autonomous weapon systems. In addition,
4:09:16this committee has already included
4:09:18language in the chairman's mark
4:09:19addressing these issues and has worked
4:09:21with the Democrats to include several
4:09:22amendments here in the markup to provide
4:09:24the department with more risk informed
4:09:26framework for updating these policies.
4:09:29This amendment is duplicative of those
4:09:31efforts. Uh therefore, I oppose the
4:09:32amendment. Does anybody seek
4:09:34recognition? Uh Mr. General Bacon is
4:09:37recognized.
4:09:37>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple
4:09:39concerns with with the amendment. First,
4:09:41I think it may be premature. Once we see
4:09:43how technology develops, there may be a
4:09:45utility for this down the road, but I
4:09:47think as it stands now, it may be early.
4:09:49Secondly, autonomous weapons present
4:09:51different levels of risk. This amendment
4:09:53applies to the same requirement to
4:09:54fundamentally different systems. Some
4:09:56autonomous systems are specifically
4:09:58designed to operate after communications
4:10:00are lost. This amendment could undermine
4:10:02those capabilities because a lot of they
4:10:04go into automation mode when they lose
4:10:06contact. Secondly, the amendment does
4:10:08not define what constitutes an operation
4:10:10weapon system. Approving a missile
4:10:12launch, deploying an unmanned vessel,
4:10:14selecting a target, and authorizing the
4:10:16use force are all different types of
4:10:18decisions. Uh, this amendment treats
4:10:21them as if they're the same. The
4:10:23department already has policies that
4:10:24recognize that different systems require
4:10:26different level levels of human judgment
4:10:28and oversight. The chairman's mark
4:10:30already includes provisions that support
4:10:32a riskinformed approach to updating
4:10:34those policies. Uh therefore I I
4:10:37recommend uh opposing the amendment.
4:10:39>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
4:10:41a gentleman from California, Mr. Gar
4:10:42Mindy.
4:10:47Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Cuda has
4:10:50put before this committee a very very
4:10:52important piece of legislation. There is
4:10:55discussion all over this nation in
4:10:59communities
4:11:01as well as in legislatures and also here
4:11:03in Congress about how to deal with AI.
4:11:08Uh it is true that in the base texts
4:11:11there is a discussion of AI and it tends
4:11:14to encircle and provide some direction.
4:11:18However, a review of that language would
4:11:20indicate that it is very broad and
4:11:23certainly incomplete.
4:11:25Mr. Cuda has put forth a much stronger
4:11:30and more relevant piece of legislation
4:11:32to address the AI situation as it is now
4:11:36being worked out into the military.
4:11:40other parts of the base text and
4:11:42undoubtedly some of the amendments that
4:11:44are going to be coming forward will
4:11:46further expand the role of AI in
4:11:51military operations some of which are
4:11:54perfectly benign and very very useful
4:11:57however in some cases it can be
4:12:00extremely dangerous Mr. CUDA's amendment
4:12:04is necessary to provide guard rails
4:12:08around the use of AI in those situations
4:12:12where a human should be making actually
4:12:16multiple humans I would hope making a
4:12:18decision that is a life or death
4:12:20situation even a life or death situation
4:12:22about the continuation of life on this
4:12:25earth. So I would support the amendment
4:12:27and suggest that it is a important step
4:12:30forward in understanding the use of AI
4:12:35in the military. With that I yield back.
4:12:37>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further
4:12:39uh debate?
4:12:42Seeing no further calls for debate. The
4:12:46question occurs on the amendment offered
4:12:47by Mr. Takuda. Uh so many in favor will
4:12:50say I.
4:12:51>> Those opposed say no.
4:12:53>> No no opinion chair the nos have it.
4:12:55Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
4:12:57is ordered to be postponed for a few
4:12:58minutes. All right. We are going to take
4:13:02uh one more amendment with Mr. Molton's
4:13:04is it Mr. Molton's amendment. After
4:13:07that, we'll stop and do a series of
4:13:09recorded votes. So, any member that's
4:13:12not in the chamber, I'm telling your
4:13:14office staff, find them and get them in
4:13:16here. We're going to be voting soon. So,
4:13:19find your member. We have a lot of empty
4:13:22seats that need to be filled by the time
4:13:24we conclude with Mr. Mi Mr. Molton's uh
4:13:27bill. Okay. So, uh we will now consider
4:13:31log number 6127 by Mr. Molton. For what
4:13:34purpose is a gentleman from
4:13:35Massachusetts seek recognition?
4:13:37>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
4:13:38desk.
4:13:38>> B please distribute the amendment.
4:13:40Without objection, the reading
4:13:41amendments dispensed with the chair
4:13:42recognizes gentleman for purpose of
4:13:44explaining his amendment.
4:13:45>> Mr. Chairman, democracies require
4:13:47transparency. Since February 28th, 2026,
4:13:51the United States has been engaged in an
4:13:53unauthorized unilateral war of choice
4:13:56with Iran. We've seen our troops placed
4:13:59in the crosshairs of drone and missile
4:14:01attacks, and 14 of them have been
4:14:04killed. Because the administration has
4:14:07had no strategy, our navy has failed to
4:14:10keep the straight of Hormuz open.
4:14:13In fact, they've been now forced to
4:14:15blockade a blockade essentially in
4:14:18trying to force the Iranians to
4:14:21surrender. We've also seen a
4:14:23humanitarian catastrophe un catastrophe
4:14:26unfold, including the tragic bombing of
4:14:28a girl school in Iran and an untold
4:14:31number of civilians killed throughout
4:14:33the Middle East. But beyond the immense
4:14:35human cost, there's also a hidden bill
4:14:37for this conflict that has been
4:14:40systematically obscured from the
4:14:41American taxpayer.
4:14:44The administration's initial request for
4:14:46$200 billion to cover this war was
4:14:48buried within a $ 1.5 trillion defense
4:14:52budget, making it nearly impossible for
4:14:54the average family to understand exactly
4:14:56what they're even paying for. So, this
4:14:58amendment is very simple. It simply
4:15:00requires the Department of Defense to
4:15:02provide a total financial accounting for
4:15:05our military operations against Iran. We
4:15:08can't have an honest debate about
4:15:10winning when we don't even know the
4:15:12price of the fight.
4:15:14There have been numerous reports of
4:15:17extensive damage to US infrastructure in
4:15:20the region that has not been adequately
4:15:23reported by the administration. How are
4:15:25we to even do our job on this committee
4:15:29if we don't understand what
4:15:31infrastructure to be replaced?
4:15:34We cannot properly exercise our
4:15:38constitutional rep responsibility to
4:15:41supervise this war if we don't even
4:15:43understand what it costs. And the
4:15:46American people deserve to know what
4:15:50this war costs in taxpayer dollars as
4:15:53they see the daily cost of the war rise
4:15:57at the pump. American people deserve to
4:16:00know if this war is worth the about
4:16:05$1,200
4:16:07per taxpayer it is costing if it comes
4:16:10out to be what the administration's
4:16:13initial request was for $200 billion. I
4:16:16wouldn't be surprised if it's more. This
4:16:19amendment is simple. Whether you're for
4:16:22or against this war of choice, it's just
4:16:25about transparency so that we and the
4:16:28American taxpayer knows what it costs.
4:16:31Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
4:16:32>> Gentleman yields back. Cherry recognizes
4:16:34himself. Let's be clear. Operation Epic
4:16:36Fury is not a unilateral war of choice.
4:16:38For 47 years, the Iranian regime and its
4:16:40proxies murdered Americans, attacked our
4:16:43allies, and terrorized the Middle East.
4:16:45President Trump was clear. Iran must
4:16:47obtain a nuclear weapon. Despite every
4:16:50opportunity to negotiate, Iran refused
4:16:52to change course and continued building
4:16:54the military capabilities required to
4:16:56shield its nuclear ambitions. Operation
4:16:59Epic Fury delivered a devastating blow
4:17:01to those conventional military
4:17:02capabilities. Thanks to that success, uh
4:17:05thanks to the success of that operation,
4:17:07the president is extremely close to a
4:17:09deal that will end the threat from Iran
4:17:11once and for all. I urge members to
4:17:12oppose the amendment. Does anybody seek
4:17:14recognition?
4:17:16>> Gentlemen, Mr. Mr. Sorenson from
4:17:18Illinois and then Mr. Crow after that
4:17:19and then Mr. Smith.
4:17:21>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief
4:17:22so we can move along to votes. Um, I
4:17:24strongly support Congressman Molton's
4:17:25amendment. Um, Americans cannot afford
4:17:28this war uh with Iran. Gas back home in
4:17:31Illinois is $5 a gallon. Grocery prices
4:17:33are now going up because diesel is at $6
4:17:36a gallon. And for what? Iran doesn't
4:17:38seem to be any further from a nuclear
4:17:40weapon. And the Straight of Hormuz
4:17:41remains closed. It's a strategic
4:17:43failure. As this amendment lays out, our
4:17:46armed forces are exceeding the levels of
4:17:49capability and expertise that are
4:17:51required of them. There is no doubt
4:17:54about it. But we cannot in good faith
4:17:56put our service members in danger when
4:17:58we should be pursuing a diplomatic
4:18:00solution. That's the most effective plan
4:18:04forward. And not to mention, this is a
4:18:06war of choice by President Trump.
4:18:07Congress did not authorize this war. And
4:18:10the House of Representatives voted uh to
4:18:13end Donald Trump's war. So I urge my
4:18:15colleagues to reject this reckless war,
4:18:17stand up for the checks and balances
4:18:19laid out by our Constitution, and
4:18:21support the Molton amendment. And I
4:18:23yield back.
4:18:24>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
4:18:25a gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crow.
4:18:27>> Thank you, Chairman. I'm speaking in
4:18:29support of Mr. Molton's very sensible
4:18:31amendment because as Mr. Molden artfully
4:18:35and eloquently stated, "This actually
4:18:36isn't about whether or not you agree
4:18:39with the war or not. It's not about
4:18:41whether or not Iran should have a
4:18:42nuclear weapon or not. It's not about
4:18:45the operations. It's not about any of
4:18:47the other elements that we must debate
4:18:50and will debate. It's simply about
4:18:52whether or not we want to know how much
4:18:54it costs. That's it. How much are
4:18:57Americans paying for this?" Because that
4:19:00knowledge is an essential element of
4:19:04this conflict and that knowledge is not
4:19:07just a right of this committee but it is
4:19:10a duty of this committee to know and
4:19:13voting against this amendment is
4:19:14basically tantamount to saying I don't
4:19:17want to know. I I actually am going to
4:19:19selflind. I don't want to know how much
4:19:22this war costs. Which raises the
4:19:24question, if you don't want to know how
4:19:26much the war costs, why are you afraid
4:19:28of that number? Are you afraid of what
4:19:31it's going to show uh and having to go
4:19:33back to your constituents and stand in a
4:19:36town hall, go to a high school
4:19:38gymnasium, go to a Rotary club and be
4:19:41held accountable for that number. Ladies
4:19:45and gentlemen, this is a simple
4:19:46amendment. Congressman Molton has done a
4:19:48phenomenal job of bringing this to this
4:19:52committee. It is the right thing to do.
4:19:54It is the duty of this committee to seek
4:19:56this information to have this
4:19:58information so we can actually then have
4:20:00the debate about whether or not this war
4:20:02is the right thing for the American
4:20:03people. I yield back.
4:20:04>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
4:20:06the ranking member. Uh
4:20:07>> thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had two
4:20:09points to make. One was on the
4:20:12accountability piece of this, the fact
4:20:13that this committee should know. I can't
4:20:15put it any better than Mr. Crow just put
4:20:16it. That that that is exactly what this
4:20:18amendment is about. Um, should we at
4:20:21least know what we're getting into? I am
4:20:23reminded of an argument on this and
4:20:25someone you know was pushing back on
4:20:27that notion and said, "Well, did Dwight
4:20:29Eisenhower asked what D-Day was going to
4:20:31cost?" Yes, actually he did. Okay.
4:20:34Because that's the job and the duty of
4:20:36our military and of our committee. And
4:20:38it's of the many problems with this war,
4:20:41the complete unwillingness to be
4:20:42transparent about it um is a major
4:20:45problem. Major problem for this
4:20:46committee. Forget Congress in general.
4:20:48um this committee is responsible for
4:20:49oversight and if we don't know the
4:20:51details, we don't know the facts are
4:20:52coming at us, we can't do our job. So
4:20:54whether you support the war or not, you
4:20:55you ought to support this amendment and
4:20:57require more transparency in what's
4:20:59happening in the war and what it is
4:21:01costing. But the second point is the war
4:21:04itself and this is not I will grant you
4:21:05directly pertinent to this amendment.
4:21:07You can vote for this amendment even if
4:21:08you disagree with what I'm about to say
4:21:10here. But this committee shouldn't go
4:21:12through this this markup without talking
4:21:14about the Iran war and the colossal
4:21:17mistake that it was. We've heard a lot
4:21:18about the cost and then we talk about we
4:21:20blew up their navy, we blew up their air
4:21:22force, we blew up their missiles. Well,
4:21:24well, what is it that Iran cannot do now
4:21:28that they could do before? Well, I guess
4:21:30the plausible thing is they they can't
4:21:31do a full-scale invasion of their
4:21:33adversaries in the Middle East as I
4:21:35don't think they could have done that
4:21:36before, but it's certainly harder for
4:21:37them to do it now. But that's not what
4:21:39this was supposed to be about. This was
4:21:41supposed to be about breaking the
4:21:42hardline regime so they wouldn't be as
4:21:44hardline, ending their nuclear program,
4:21:46ending their capacity to build a
4:21:49ballistic missile and drone program, and
4:21:51ending their support for terrorist
4:21:53proxies. Accomplished none of those
4:21:55goals and Iran is no further weakened in
4:21:58their ability to do that than they were
4:22:00at the start, arguably strengthened. And
4:22:03now the straight of Hormuz is on the
4:22:05table, and that's what has strengthened
4:22:06them. We've given them another point of
4:22:08leverage in the region. So, we need more
4:22:11transparency on this. If we'd had more
4:22:13transparency upfront, I don't think it
4:22:15would have happened. So, now we need
4:22:17really to know what the cost is and
4:22:19where it's going. So, I support Mr.
4:22:21Bolton's amendment. I urge the committee
4:22:23to do the same. Gentleman yields back.
4:22:25Does anybody seeks recognition on Mr.
4:22:26Molton's amendment? Seeing none, uh
4:22:29there's no further debate. Question
4:22:31occurs on Mr. Molton's amendment. So,
4:22:33many are in favor favor will say I.
4:22:35>> I.
4:22:35>> Those opposed? No. No. opinion chair the
4:22:38nose have the recorded votes requested
4:22:40recorded vote uh is ordered and we will
4:22:44take that up in just a moment u
4:22:48so where's the
4:23:06right
4:23:11Okay, we are now going to proceed uh to
4:23:14vote on those amendments where recorded
4:23:16vote was ordered. The committee
4:23:20postponed further proceedings on
4:23:22amendment log number 6123R1
4:23:26by Mr. Molton and shall now resume those
4:23:28proceedings. Question occurs on the
4:23:30amendment. Members will record their
4:23:32vote uh using their assigned electronic
4:23:35device. The chairman will be voting no.
4:23:39>> Ranking member will be voting yes.
4:23:42>> Okay. The clerk will open the machine
4:23:44and the members will vote.
4:24:00>> We're going to leave it open for
4:24:12Mr. Jimenez is not here.
4:24:15Have all members voted? Does any member
4:24:18wish to change his or her vote?
4:24:21Seeing none, the clerk will lock the
4:24:23machine and record the vote.
4:24:28>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 25, the nose
4:24:31are 31.
4:24:32The nos
4:24:34prevail and the amendment is not agreed
4:24:36to.
4:24:39Uh we are now going to proceed to a vote
4:24:41on
4:24:43Mr. Smith's amendment number 6087.
4:24:47Question occurs on the amendment. Uh the
4:24:49members will record their vote using
4:24:51electronic device. The chairman will be
4:24:53voting no. Uh
4:24:54>> ranking member will be voting I.
4:24:56>> The clerk will now open the machine and
4:24:58the members will vote.
4:25:11Have all members voted? Does any member
4:25:14wish to change his or her vote? Not the
4:25:17clerk will lock the machine and record
4:25:18the votes.
4:25:23>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26, the
4:25:25naysay are 30.
4:25:26>> The nays prevail. The amendments not
4:25:28agreed to. We will now to proceed to
4:25:31amendment log number 6681 by Miss
4:25:35Jacobs. Um question occurs on the
4:25:38amendment. Members will record their
4:25:39vote by electronic device. The chairman
4:25:42uh will be voting no.
4:25:44>> Uh ranking member will be voting no as
4:25:46well.
4:25:47>> Will open the machine and the members
4:25:49will vote.
4:26:10Have all members voted? Does any member
4:26:12wish to change his or her vote? Seeing
4:26:14none, the clerk will lock the machine
4:26:15and record the vote.
4:26:19>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 14, the nays
4:26:21are 42. The amendment is not agreed to.
4:26:24We will now move to amendment log number
4:26:286537R1
4:26:29by Miss Jacobs of California. The
4:26:32question occurs on the amendment. Member
4:26:34will record members will record their
4:26:35vote by electronic device. The chairman
4:26:37will be voting no.
4:26:38>> Ranking member will be voting I.
4:26:41>> The clerk will open machine and the
4:26:43members will vote.
4:26:56Have all members voted? Does any member
4:26:59wish to change his or her vote?
4:27:05>> Are you ready? All right. All members
4:27:07voted. Clerk will lock the machine and
4:27:09the members and and record the vote.
4:27:13>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays
4:27:15are 29. The amendment is not agreed to.
4:27:20We will now uh move to uh amendment
4:27:24number 6453R1
4:27:26by Mr. Jackson. Uh question occurs on
4:27:29that amendment. Members will record
4:27:30their vote by electronic device. The
4:27:32chairman will be voting yes.
4:27:34>> Ranking member will be voting no.
4:27:36>> Clerk will open the machine and the
4:27:38members will vote.
4:28:00Mr. Fallon, does Mr. Fallon wish to
4:28:02vote? Okay. If all members voted, any
4:28:05member wish to change his or her vote.
4:28:07If not, the clerk will lock the machine
4:28:09and record the vote.
4:28:13>> Mr. Chairman, the I20, the Naser 35.
4:28:16>> The amendment is not agreed to.
4:28:20Um we will now turn to amendment number
4:28:236081R1 by Miss Mace of South Carolina. U
4:28:29members will record their vote by
4:28:31electronic device. The chairman will be
4:28:32voting yes.
4:28:33>> Uh ranking member will be voting no.
4:28:35>> Clerk will open the machine and members
4:28:36will vote.
4:28:55Have all members voted? Does any member
4:28:57wish to change his or her vote? Clerk
4:29:00will lock the machine and record the
4:29:01vote.
4:29:05>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 29, the NAS
4:29:08are 26.
4:29:08>> The amendment is agreed to. We will now
4:29:11be moving to amendment log number 5997R1
4:29:14by Mr. Cisneros.
4:29:16Uh members will record their vote by
4:29:19electronic device. The chairman will be
4:29:21voting no. Ranking member will be voting
4:29:24I. Clerk will open the machine and
4:29:27members will vote.
4:29:32>> You recorded incorrectly.
4:29:34>> Huh?
4:29:34>> You need to be a no.
4:29:50Have all members voted? Does any member
4:29:52wish to change his or her vote?
4:29:54>> If not, the clerk will lock the machine
4:29:55and record the vote.
4:29:59>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the
4:30:01naysay are 30.
4:30:02>> The amendment is not agreed to. We will
4:30:04now be moving to log number 6757 by Miss
4:30:09Mace of South Carolina. Um members will
4:30:12record their vote by electronic device.
4:30:14Chairman will be voting yes.
4:30:16>> Ranking member will be voting no.
4:30:19>> Clerk will open the machine and members
4:30:21will vote.
4:30:37Have all members voted?
4:30:40Does any member wish to change his or
4:30:42her vote?
4:30:44Not the clerk will lock the machine and
4:30:45record the vote.
4:30:49>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 29, the nays
4:30:52are 28.
4:30:52>> The amendment is agreed to. We will now
4:30:55be moving to log number 6656R1 by Mr.
4:30:58Crow of Colorado. Members will record
4:31:02their vote by electronic device. The
4:31:04chairman will be voting no.
4:31:06>> A ranking member will be voting I.
4:31:08>> Clerk will open the machine and members
4:31:10will vote.
4:31:28Have all members voted? Does any member
4:31:30wish to change his or her vote? Not the
4:31:32clerk will lock the machine and record
4:31:34the vote.
4:31:37>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26, the nays
4:31:39are 31.
4:31:40>> The amendment is not agreed to. We now
4:31:42move to uh log number 68:15 by Mr.
4:31:46Garindy of California. Members will
4:31:48record their vote by electronic device.
4:31:50The chairman will be voting no. A
4:31:53ranking member will be voting yes. The U
4:31:56clerk will open the machine and members
4:31:57will vote.
4:32:09Have all members voted? Does any member
4:32:11wish to change his or her vote? If not,
4:32:14the clerk will lock the machine and
4:32:15record the vote.
4:32:18>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the Naz
4:32:21are 30.
4:32:21>> The amendment's not agreed to. The uh we
4:32:24will now move to log number 6808R1
4:32:27by Mr. Carbajal of California. Members
4:32:30will record their vote by electronic
4:32:31device. The chairman will be voting no.
4:32:33>> Ranking member will be voting yes.
4:32:36>> Clerk will open the machine and members
4:32:37will vote.
4:32:50Have all members voted? Does any member
4:32:53wish to change his or her vote? If not,
4:32:55the clerk will lock the machine and
4:32:57record the vote.
4:33:00>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays
4:33:02are 30.
4:33:03>> The amendments not agreed to. We will
4:33:05now move to log number 6769 by Mr. Ryan
4:33:08of New York. Uh we will record our votes
4:33:12by electronic device. The chairman will
4:33:14be voting no.
4:33:15>> Ranking member will be voting I.
4:33:16>> Clerk will open the machine. The members
4:33:17will vote.
4:33:33All members voted. Does any member wish
4:33:35to change his or her vote? If not, the
4:33:37clerk will lock the machine and record
4:33:39the vote.
4:33:41>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 25, the NAS
4:33:44are 32.
4:33:44>> Amendments not agreed to. Now move to
4:33:46log number 6429 by Mr. Cuda of Hawaii.
4:33:51Uh we will record our votes by
4:33:52electronic device. The chairman will be
4:33:54voting no.
4:33:55>> Ranking member will be voting I.
4:33:57>> The clerk will open the machine and
4:33:59members will vote.
4:34:22Have all members voted?
4:34:28>> Any member wish to change his or her
4:34:30vote? Dr. Clerk will lock the machine
4:34:32and record the vote.
4:34:36>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26, the nose
4:34:39are 31.
4:34:41>> I'm the amendment's not agreed to.
4:34:44We now have our last recorded vote. It
4:34:46is log number 6127
4:34:49for well for this series
4:34:52by Molton.
4:34:53Uh we will record our votes by
4:34:56electronic device. The chairman will be
4:34:57voting no.
4:34:58>> Ranking member will be voting yes.
4:35:00>> Clerk will open the machine and members
4:35:01will vote.
4:35:22Have all me.
4:35:24>> Okay, take your time. There you go.
4:35:28>> Have all members voted? Does any member
4:35:31wish to change his or her vote? If not,
4:35:33the clerk will lock the machine and
4:35:34record the vote.
4:35:37>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27. The n are
4:35:4030.
4:35:40>> The amendment's not agreed to. All
4:35:43right. We will now return to regular
4:35:45order. Before we do, I want to take a
4:35:46minute and just tell you I've been doing
4:35:47this 24 years. I've never seen debate be
4:35:50more direct and concise on both sides of
4:35:52the aisle than it has been so far today.
4:35:54Y'all deserve an attab boy.
4:35:57>> It's it's it's early.
4:36:00>> As only Adam would say, it's early.
4:36:03>> That's awkward on that one, but yes.
4:36:05>> So far. All right. Where are we now? On
4:36:14>> where's my
4:36:15>> back to red?
4:36:18>> All right. We'll now consider log number
4:36:206827
4:36:22by Mr. Connor of California. For what
4:36:24purposes gentleman from California seek
4:36:26recognition?
4:36:27>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
4:36:29desk. Will clerk uh distribute the
4:36:31amendment without objection reading
4:36:32amendments dispensed with? The chair
4:36:34recognizes the gentleman for the purpose
4:36:35of explaining his amendment. Thank you,
4:36:37Mr. Chairman.
4:36:39Mr. Chairman, the American people are
4:36:43tired of the arrogance and insolence of
4:36:48Prime Minister Netanyahu
4:36:50telling America what we should do.
4:36:54The entire country of Israel has a GDP
4:36:57that is less than a single town in my
4:37:00district. Yet somehow Netanyahu thinks
4:37:03he could tell the American people what
4:37:05we should do. The person who's most
4:37:06upset with him right now is President
4:37:08Donald Trump.
4:37:11And everyone in America, whether you're
4:37:13a Republican, an independent, or a
4:37:15Democrat, says that we need to tell
4:37:19Netanyahu that America calls the shots,
4:37:21not the prime minister of any other
4:37:23country. They want less cooperation and
4:37:27blank checks to Israel, not more. Only
4:37:31the United States Congress would dream
4:37:33up at this moment. Let's actually do
4:37:35more for Israel, not less. And that's
4:37:38what section 2024 does. It's a pretty
4:37:40simple thing. Should we do more for
4:37:42Israel than we already do or should we
4:37:45do less? If you think we should do more
4:37:47for Israel, you should be against my
4:37:49amendment. If you think we should do
4:37:51less for Israel at the time that he's
4:37:53arrogantly telling Donald Trump what to
4:37:55do, then you should be for my amendment.
4:37:57Now, let me just be clear. Mr. Netanyahu
4:38:00actually wrote to a member of Congress
4:38:03to put this section 224 into the bill.
4:38:06He says, "I know that aid is unpopular
4:38:09in America. I know that even Republicans
4:38:11don't want aid. So, here's what you got
4:38:13to do." Quote, "Let's create a new
4:38:16framework." This is Netanyahu telling us
4:38:18what we should do. a new framework of
4:38:20joint defense cooperation,
4:38:21co-development, co-production, and
4:38:23mutual investment in areas including
4:38:25advanced missile defense, artificial
4:38:27intelligence, cyber security, and next
4:38:29generation military platforms. Why?
4:38:31Because he doesn't want Congress to vote
4:38:33on the aid. He just wants it fused in
4:38:35the bill. Last I checked, Netanyahu
4:38:38doesn't have a seat on this committee.
4:38:40Mr. Chairman, we need to reject an
4:38:42amendment which his language is coming
4:38:44directly from the Israeli prime minister
4:38:47and we ought to have any aid have a vote
4:38:50of the American people. I am for team
4:38:52America. I am for the interests of this
4:38:54country and I believe that when Donald
4:38:56Trump ran, he ran America first. That
4:38:59includes American interests against any
4:39:02foreign country. We should have American
4:39:04sovereignty and make it clear that we
4:39:07strike 224. If we want to give aid to
4:39:09Israel, if we want to sell them weapons,
4:39:11that should be a vote for the entire
4:39:13Congress.
4:39:14Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
4:39:16himself. Uh Israel is our closest ally
4:39:19in the Middle East and our cooperative
4:39:21programs enhance US national security by
4:39:23giving our war fighters access to
4:39:24cutting edge technologies. Section 20 uh
4:39:27224 doesn't create any new programs
4:39:29within the Department of Defense. It
4:39:31simply designates a single senior office
4:39:33off official to coordinate existing
4:39:36initiatives. Section 224 actually
4:39:38improves oversight and accountability of
4:39:40these programs by designating a single
4:39:42official responsible for them. Claims
4:39:45that this provision somehow sees
4:39:47authority to a foreign government are
4:39:49simply ridiculous. I urge all members to
4:39:51oppose the amendment. And Zimbo seek Mr.
4:39:54Smith the ranking members recognized.
4:39:57>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm actually
4:39:59very sympathetic with some aspects of
4:40:01the remarks of Mr. Khana about the
4:40:02frustration we have with Netanyahu's
4:40:05leadership in Israel. We have endless
4:40:07wars now uh in Gaza, in the West Bank
4:40:10for that matter, in Lebanon. No effort
4:40:12to negotiate, no effort to find partners
4:40:15for peace amongst the Palestinians or
4:40:17the Lebanese even where there are
4:40:18opportunities to do that. Mr. Netanyahu
4:40:21insisted on this war with Iran that has
4:40:24strengthened Iran and weakened our
4:40:25position. I do not like his leadership
4:40:28of Israel or where he is going. But the
4:40:31way this amendment was described is
4:40:33simply not accurate to begin with and
4:40:36let's be very clear on that. This is not
4:40:38a new framework. It's not a new
4:40:40framework at all. We have three existing
4:40:42programs right now where we do military
4:40:44cooperation with Israel to develop
4:40:46technologies. Those programs already
4:40:48exist. This amendment doesn't create a
4:40:52single other program other than those
4:40:54three. It suggests some other areas
4:40:56where maybe we should look at
4:40:57opportunities and as the chairman noted
4:41:00we had somebody now appointed to
4:41:01coordinate those programs. Amendment
4:41:04comes at a very bad time because of
4:41:06everything I just said about Israel. But
4:41:07let's not forget about what the
4:41:09amendment actually does. And the other
4:41:11part of this and I agree with the
4:41:12chairman to say that this is us bowing
4:41:15to the bidding of Israel on this is
4:41:18completely inaccurate. The reason we're
4:41:20doing this is because we benefit from
4:41:23that technology development. We develop
4:41:25the weapon systems and the reason that
4:41:28we have these partnerships with Israel
4:41:30where we not may not have as many
4:41:31developed partnerships with other NATO
4:41:33countries is because Israel's actually
4:41:35been having to fight. They have faced
4:41:37drone attacks and missile attacks. They
4:41:39have had to develop new technologies,
4:41:41technologies that we've benefited from.
4:41:43So I I agree with the sentiments and the
4:41:45frustrations with the Netanyahu
4:41:47government. I strongly disagree with the
4:41:49notion that this is Congress just bowing
4:41:52to what Netanyahu wants. This is to our
4:41:55benefit. Now, I would suggest, and this
4:41:56just occurred to me this morning, we
4:41:58ought to be doing the same thing with
4:41:59Ukraine because Ukraine is another
4:42:01partner that is having to fight and
4:42:03learning. We we should develop drone
4:42:05technology, counter drone technology,
4:42:07countermissile technology. This is a
4:42:09partnership that benefits America. A
4:42:11whole host of other issues. You know,
4:42:13I'm a prime sponsor of the West Bank
4:42:15Accountability Act to sanction the
4:42:18actions that are going on there, things
4:42:19we need to hold accountable. But taking
4:42:21a step back from using technology that
4:42:23is available to us just because we
4:42:25strongly disagree with where Israel is
4:42:27at right now, I think would be a
4:42:28mistake. So, I think this is a program
4:42:31that helps us develop these
4:42:33technologies. It's not an expansion. And
4:42:35again, I want to make it very clear,
4:42:37this is not a new framework. This
4:42:38framework has existed for quite some
4:42:40time. So, I hope we will not miserize
4:42:42this and we'll vote on this amendment
4:42:44that is in front of us, not on the
4:42:46larger issue of how we deal with
4:42:48Netanyahu's government in Israel. I urge
4:42:50a no vote and I yield back.
4:42:52>> Gentleman yields back and he makes an
4:42:53excellent point about Ukraine. I I think
4:42:55he's right. Um, we should re go to Mr.
4:42:58Bacon of Nebraska right now.
4:43:00>> I'll keep it brief. You know, this is a
4:43:02win-win relationship. We have Silicon
4:43:04Valley, Israel has Tel Aviv, and it's
4:43:06like Silicon Valley number two. We have
4:43:08gained so much technology advantages
4:43:11from our partnership with Israel and
4:43:12vice versa they gain as well and this is
4:43:14what we're trying to do is create that
4:43:15synergy. They support our foreign
4:43:17policy. They've been the most supportive
4:43:19of us in the UN. They're the only
4:43:21democracy in the Middle East. And so I
4:43:23I'll oppose the amendment. I'll yield
4:43:25back and yields back. Chair recognizes
4:43:27Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
4:43:29>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I agree
4:43:31with the ranking member and that is that
4:43:33we benefit from our association with the
4:43:36people of Israel. They have been
4:43:38instrumental because they're in a real
4:43:39war, a real war of enemies who are
4:43:43trying existentially to murder all the
4:43:45people of Israel. And with that, we've
4:43:48learned so much about anti-missile
4:43:51capability and to protect the American
4:43:53people, to protect the people, all of
4:43:55our allies from Turkey to Saudi Arabia,
4:43:58back to Azeran. And so also it should be
4:44:01known uh that it should be not a
4:44:03surprise that uh this is beneficial to
4:44:05the American people and that we have a a
4:44:08regime that is chanting death to Israel,
4:44:11death to America, death to the great
4:44:14Satan which is the United States with
4:44:16the little Satan which is Israel. This
4:44:18is not uh not interconnected. And then
4:44:21we should also remember the Hamas
4:44:23covenant of August 1988 and article 7
4:44:26provides to chase down every Jew behind
4:44:29a rock or tree until you find the last
4:44:31Jew behind Iraq and kill him. That's
4:44:34their plan. But after that they come
4:44:36after us. We already see that with the
4:44:38nuclear capability that Iran is trying
4:44:40to develop with missile capability one
4:44:42day might even reach California. I yield
4:44:45back.
4:44:46>> Gentleman yields back. Chair and I
4:44:47recognize Mr. Golden.
4:44:49>> Thank you Mr. chair. Bottom line is
4:44:52section 224 is a practical common sense
4:44:55effort to improve defense technology
4:44:57cooperation with one of America's
4:44:59closest allies in an area that will
4:45:01directly affect US military readiness.
4:45:05I think to get to the heart of the
4:45:07matter in some ways opponents of section
4:45:10224 are really allowing a broader
4:45:12broader political disagreement
4:45:15concerns about Israel. Some of which you
4:45:18can debate could be legitimate. but
4:45:20they're allowing a much broader
4:45:21political disagreement to override a
4:45:24program that fundamentally advances US
4:45:26national security.
4:45:28What section 224 does not do is reduce
4:45:32oversight of US mil military uh sales to
4:45:35foreign governments. It doesn't reduce
4:45:38oversight of cooperation with Israel. It
4:45:40does not provide Israel with access to
4:45:42US military data. Section 224 does not
4:45:45give Israel control over US defense
4:45:47programs or supply chains. does not
4:45:49provide any kind of backdoor way to hide
4:45:52military aid to Israel and it does not
4:45:54merge or fuse the US military in any way
4:45:58with the Israeli Defense Forces. That is
4:46:01all false. What it will do is increase
4:46:04congressional oversight and transparency
4:46:06over an existing partnership with
4:46:08Israel. What it will do is build on an
4:46:11existing cooperative program that has
4:46:13been in place for years. And what it
4:46:16will ultimately do is help save American
4:46:18lives, American service members lives in
4:46:21particular, and strengthen US national
4:46:24security. I yield back my time.
4:46:25>> Gentleman yields back. Chair and I
4:46:26recognize a gentle lady from California,
4:46:28Miss Jacobs.
4:46:29>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United
4:46:32States should have the same standards
4:46:34for Israel as we do for everyone else.
4:46:37If any other country in the world had
4:46:39been credibly accused of violating US
4:46:41and international law again and again,
4:46:43of killing tens of thousands of
4:46:45civilians, of blocking food and medicine
4:46:47from reaching a starving population, we
4:46:49would not be moving to deepen and
4:46:50permanently expand our military ties
4:46:52with them. And yet, that is exactly what
4:46:55section 224 of this bill proposes. Since
4:46:58October of 2023, the Gaza Health has
4:47:01counted more than 70,000 Palestinians
4:47:03killed in Gaza, a number that the
4:47:05Israeli military itself has now
4:47:07reportedly accepted. Another 1,079
4:47:11Palestinians, at least 235 of them
4:47:13children, have been killed in the West
4:47:15Bank. Settler violence has reached
4:47:18unprecedented levels and the Israeli
4:47:20security cabinet has approved 34
4:47:22settlements in the West Bank, another
4:47:23violation of international law.
4:47:26But even against that backdrop, section
4:47:29224 would institutionalize and expand US
4:47:33military integration beyond anything in
4:47:35the history of the relationship, fusing
4:47:37our defense industries across research,
4:47:39production, and emerging technologies.
4:47:42And for my colleagues who say that this
4:47:44vote is actually not about the actual
4:47:46pro provision, it is. Emerging
4:47:49technology is not an abstraction. It
4:47:52means cyber. And that is one field where
4:47:55we have already had to act against an
4:47:57Israeli firm for turning its tools on
4:47:59us. In 2021, the Commerce Department
4:48:01blacklisted NSL Group, the maker of
4:48:04Pegasus spywear for malicious cyber
4:48:06activity against US interest after its
4:48:08software was used to target government
4:48:10officials and journalists. Two
4:48:12administrations from both parties left
4:48:14it on that list. And that same company
4:48:17is right now trying to buy its way into
4:48:20the American market. Fusing our defense
4:48:22and technology sectors together
4:48:24permanently with no conditions in the
4:48:26exact area where we have already been
4:48:28burned is reckless on its own terms. And
4:48:32it would do it through a mustpass bill
4:48:34with almost no oversight and with none
4:48:37of the human rights conditions that
4:48:38govern the rest of our security
4:48:40assistance. We already have laws on the
4:48:42books that tell us what to do in this
4:48:44situation. The Ley Law prohibits
4:48:46assistance to foreign militaries that
4:48:47have committed gross violations of human
4:48:49rights. The Foreign Assistance Act
4:48:51prohibits arms transfers to countries
4:48:53that are restricting US humanitarian
4:48:54aid. And Israel has been consistently
4:48:57blocking and restricting humanitarian
4:48:58assistance. These laws exist and they're
4:49:01not being followed or enforced. And
4:49:04instead of demanding enforcement, this
4:49:06committee is proposing we reward that
4:49:08cont that conduct. This committee should
4:49:11enforce the laws we've already passed
4:49:13and condition offensive weapons as those
4:49:15laws require, not permanently entrench
4:49:17our militaries together with no strings
4:49:19attached. A clear majority of Americans,
4:49:2160% already oppose sending more military
4:49:24aid to Israel. They will not support
4:49:26this and neither should we. I urge my
4:49:28colleagues to support this amendment to
4:49:30strike section 224. I yield back.
4:49:33>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair
4:49:34recognizes Dr. Jackson.
4:49:36>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I actually
4:49:38am the author of this. to my knowledge
4:49:39the best of my knowledge along with my
4:49:40colleague Mr. Davis and I don't know
4:49:42what Mr. Khan is talking about but I
4:49:44never received a letter from the from
4:49:45the uh from the prime minister. So
4:49:47that's complete misinformation. Uh Mr.
4:49:49Chairman, this amendment is nothing more
4:49:50than a political stunt to remove a
4:49:52critical bipartisan provision that I was
4:49:54proud to craft with multiple members
4:49:56across both sides of this committee to
4:49:58get included in this year's bill. Plain
4:50:00and simple, section 224 will allow the
4:50:02US to leverage advanced technologies
4:50:03that ensure our service members are
4:50:05prepared to fight and win against
4:50:06America's adversaries by designating a
4:50:09Department of War executive agent to
4:50:11synchronize defense cooperation efforts
4:50:13between the US and our strongest ally in
4:50:15the Middle East, Israel. This provision
4:50:17the provision will allow us to expand
4:50:19and and accelerate bilateral defense
4:50:21technology research, development,
4:50:23testing, and evaluation, fielding, and
4:50:25industrial cooperation. a relationship
4:50:27this committee has supported and
4:50:28reinforced over many NDAAs, but also
4:50:31ensures that we are turning our previous
4:50:33and current investments into real
4:50:35technological military advantages for US
4:50:37systems and war fighters. For example,
4:50:40last year's NDA fully funded USIsrael
4:50:43cooperative missile defense programs
4:50:44including Iron Dome, Arrow, and David
4:50:46Sling, as well as authorized funding to
4:50:48expand cooperation with Israel on
4:50:50counter UAS initiatives. uh counter UAS
4:50:54funding to expand cooperation with
4:50:56Israel, continue US Israel anti-tunnel
4:50:59cooperation program, and establish a
4:51:01USIsrael defense industrial-based
4:51:03working group to evaluate opportunities
4:51:04for greater collaboration on defense
4:51:06production. This initiative builds on
4:51:08that momentum by facilitating the
4:51:10transition of cutting edge technologies
4:51:12from research and development into
4:51:14procurement and acquisition pathways as
4:51:16well as directing the US-based
4:51:18co-production and manufacturing
4:51:20partnerships. Over the last week, we've
4:51:22seen an incorrect, uninformed narrative
4:51:25shared by many members of this of the
4:51:27House on this committee that section 224
4:51:30would merge US and Israel militaries
4:51:32together. The provision clearly outlines
4:51:34that integration here means integrating
4:51:36useful technologies into US systems,
4:51:39programs of record, and acquisition
4:51:41pipelines. The bill in no way places US
4:51:43forces under Israeli command, nor places
4:51:46Israeli troops under US command. We even
4:51:48require the Department of War to make
4:51:50available on a public website
4:51:51detailedation on any cooperative efforts
4:51:54including a description of how these
4:51:56efforts contribute to US technological
4:51:58and military supremacy. Additionally, we
4:52:01have included a section that requires
4:52:02the protection of sensitive technology
4:52:04and US national security interests. Th
4:52:06those stating that section 224 is a
4:52:08military merger by uh merger removing US
4:52:12sovereign command simply have not read
4:52:14or do not want to understand this
4:52:15provision. By supporting section 224, we
4:52:18can leverage combat tested innovations
4:52:19to close our own capability gaps in
4:52:21stockpiles and ensure the US and Israel
4:52:23remain in the technologically advanced
4:52:25fighting force on the earth. I strongly
4:52:27urge my colleagues to vote yes or to
4:52:29vote no on this amendment and vote for
4:52:30224. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
4:52:33back.
4:52:33>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
4:52:34a gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
4:52:36Davis.
4:52:37>> Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the
4:52:39ranking member, Representative Jackson.
4:52:41We've worked on this for some time and I
4:52:44must admit too I haven't received a
4:52:46letter from the prime minister. But
4:52:48let's be clear, currently the US and
4:52:50Israel cooperate. Um, this amendment
4:52:53would not stop the collaboration.
4:52:56However, what it would do is hinder our
4:52:58ability to cooperate more efficiently.
4:53:02The spirit of section 224 is to help us
4:53:05better organize our efforts. Here it is.
4:53:08against bad actors around the world.
4:53:12These bad actors are coordinating.
4:53:14They're working together in an
4:53:17unyielding way to effectively and
4:53:21efficiently inflict harm upon Americans.
4:53:25If we don't coordinate and have the
4:53:28necessary defense systems in place, the
4:53:31bad actors would then exercise their
4:53:33free will against us. In April of 2024,
4:53:37Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, they
4:53:40sent a team of F-15 East. They went over
4:53:44within a 22-hour window, and they began
4:53:47to knock about 80 missiles and drones
4:53:51out of the sky coming from Iran.
4:53:55Here's where I'm heading. Modern warfare
4:53:58is quickly changing quickly.
4:54:02Is it best practice to use resources
4:54:05such as a ham ram against a $20,000
4:54:07drone?
4:54:09We have learned so many lessons from
4:54:12Putin's war. And yet there's so many
4:54:14lessons for us to learn the cost of war,
4:54:17research, development. If we're really
4:54:19concerned about cost, why not explore
4:54:21and collaborate in a real way to look at
4:54:23research and employing advanced
4:54:26technology?
4:54:28If peace is our goal, section 224 serves
4:54:31as a deterrent. It does. Lastly,
4:54:36this is not just about the United States
4:54:38and Israel. It's about how we advance
4:54:41technology,
4:54:43how we innovate to protect the American
4:54:46people and our allies.
4:54:50I was deeply honored to attend the
4:54:52decorating ceremony recognizing those
4:54:54exceptional airmen at Seymour Johnson
4:54:56Air Force Base, those brave heroes that
4:54:59performed their mission. And I will say
4:55:02in the same spirit of their dedication
4:55:04to the mission and this country, I ask
4:55:08to reject this amendment. Thank you and
4:55:10I yel back.
4:55:11>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
4:55:13a gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
4:55:15>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um,
4:55:18I support Mr. Jackson and what um, he
4:55:22has put into the base of the bill. And I
4:55:25just want to remind my colleagues that
4:55:27there are over 50 Muslim majority
4:55:29countries in this world. There is one
4:55:32Jewish majority country in this world.
4:55:34If you want to stop the war with Israel,
4:55:37stop starting wars with Israel. That
4:55:39would be my suggestion to the rest of
4:55:41the world. I think that the alliance
4:55:43between the United States and Israel is
4:55:45extremely important and I for one hope
4:55:48that we continue that alliance and that
4:55:49that alliance becomes stronger as time
4:55:52pushes forward. With that I yield.
4:55:54Gentleman yields back. Is there further
4:55:55debate on this amendment? Seeing none,
4:55:58uh question occurs on the amendment
4:56:00offered by Mr. Connor. So many in favor
4:56:02of his amendment will say I.
4:56:04>> Those opposed say no.
4:56:06>> No. Chair the nose have it.
4:56:11fails. We now move to uh log number 6378
4:56:16by Miss Hulahan.
4:56:18Um what purposes J does the lady gentle
4:56:22lady seek recognition?
4:56:23>> Hi Mr. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at
4:56:25the desk.
4:56:26>> Will the clerk please distribute the
4:56:27amendment?
4:56:31>> Yeah, I asked the clerk to distribute
4:56:33the just trying to get seated.
4:56:35>> No problem, Mr. Chair. This amendment is
4:56:38called the prohibition.
4:56:39>> Wait a minute. We need to let them
4:56:40distribute it first.
4:56:44>> Okay. Chair rec uh chair without
4:56:46objection uh the reading of the
4:56:47amendments dispensed with the chair
4:56:49recognizes gentle lady for purposes of
4:56:50explaining her amendment.
4:56:52>> Mr. Chair, this amendment is called the
4:56:54prohibition of funds for partisan
4:56:56political merchandise on installations.
4:56:59Taxpayer funds should never be used in
4:57:01ways that compromise the security or the
4:57:03nonpartisan character of our military.
4:57:05And this amendment ensures that they are
4:57:07not. This is not a political issue. It's
4:57:10a base security and a force protection
4:57:11issue. Military installations are
4:57:14federal property with strict access
4:57:16controls and for a good reason.
4:57:18Unauthorized third-party vendors should
4:57:20not be able to come to a base and setup
4:57:22shop. When event logistics firms can
4:57:25override internal military objections
4:57:27and usher unauthorized outside vendors
4:57:29to an installation, it is clear that
4:57:31this accountability has broken down.
4:57:33Congress has a constitutional
4:57:35responsibility for the regulation of the
4:57:37armed forces. Using the power of the
4:57:39purse to enforce access controls and
4:57:41military neutrality is squarely within
4:57:44our authority and consistent with our
4:57:45long-standing bipartisan commitment to
4:57:48keep our military above all politics.
4:57:51We're not telling anybody what to think
4:57:53or what to wear or buy off base. We're
4:57:55saying that federal dollars come with
4:57:57straightforward conditions that outside
4:57:59vendors must be properly vetted and
4:58:01authorized. And that's not overreach.
4:58:04That's basic accountability. The
4:58:06standard here is simple, and it doesn't
4:58:08matter whose name is on the merchandise.
4:58:10No federal dollars for events where
4:58:12outside vendors haven't gone through
4:58:14proper authorization to access the
4:58:16installation should be allowed. So I
4:58:18urge you to vote yes on this very
4:58:20straightforward amendment and I yield.
4:58:22>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair
4:58:23recognizes himself. Uh the political
4:58:26nature of our military, the apolitical
4:58:28nature of our military is essential for
4:58:30men and women in uniform to fight u and
4:58:32win our nation's wars. Existing law and
4:58:35DoD policy already limits political
4:58:37speech activity and participation in
4:58:39partisan political activities on
4:58:41military installation. This amendment is
4:58:43not necessary. I oppose the amendment
4:58:44and urge others to do so. Does anybody
4:58:46seek recognition? Miss Mr. Whitesides of
4:58:48California is recognized. Then we'll get
4:58:50to Mr. Ryan.
4:58:51>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh last June at
4:58:53Fort Bragg during the Army's 250th
4:58:55birthday celebration, vendors sold
4:58:57political merchandise on base, including
4:58:59MAGA hats and swag to soldiers in
4:59:01uniform. The army itself called the
4:59:04vendor's presence under review and
4:59:05stated plainly, "The army does not
4:59:07endorse political merchandise or the
4:59:09views it represents." Our troops swear
4:59:11an oath to the Constitution, not to any
4:59:13party, not to any candidate. Using a
4:59:16military installation as a venue to sell
4:59:18partisan merchandise before a partisan
4:59:20speech undermines that oath and erodess
4:59:22public trust in the armed forces. While
4:59:25this amendment seems like a small thing,
4:59:27it's really not. A non-political
4:59:29military is one of the core pillars of
4:59:32American democracy and a foundation of
4:59:34our continued strength. We're at a
4:59:36crucial moment in our nation's history.
4:59:40Political rallies in front of
4:59:41pre-selected troops. The Secretary of
4:59:44Defense actively campaigning against
4:59:46congressmen while in office. Biased
4:59:48selection of general officers, firing
4:59:51intelligence leaders who did not per the
4:59:53party line. All of these actions erode
4:59:56at the independence of our armed forces
4:59:58and ultimately will make our military,
5:00:01our democracy, and our country weaker.
5:00:05This amendment is an important step to
5:00:07begin correcting these repeated attacks
5:00:08on the independence of our military and
5:00:10ensures the taxpayer dollars cannot be
5:00:13used for events that threaten that
5:00:15independence. I urge support and I yield
5:00:17back.
5:00:19>> Mr. Right of New York's recognized.
5:00:21>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to
5:00:22thank my colleague Miss Hulhan for
5:00:24leading this important amendment and I
5:00:26agree with her her comments and Mr.
5:00:27Whitesides. I just wanted to um address
5:00:31your point, Mr. chair with respect if if
5:00:33this the existing law and policy were
5:00:36working we wouldn't need to introduce
5:00:39this amendment but it's not working you
5:00:40heard what the examples Miss Hulahan and
5:00:43Mr. Whit side shared and again this has
5:00:46to be as you said sacred and sacrosen
5:00:49that our military is above politics that
5:00:51is not working and I'm not saying that
5:00:53there's responsibility for both parties
5:00:54on this certainly this administration
5:00:56but administrations prior so I would
5:00:58hope we could come together and we we
5:01:01agree on the spirit of this but we can
5:01:03all see with our own eyes that it's not
5:01:05actually working right now so this uh is
5:01:07an important step and I urge uh all my
5:01:10colleagues to support this and again
5:01:11thank yield back. Mr. Chair,
5:01:13>> gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
5:01:15the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.
5:01:16>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, let's
5:01:18just chat real quickly about this. This
5:01:20uh amendment prohibits the use of funds
5:01:22to be used for partisan events at Miller
5:01:24installations, which includes the sale
5:01:26or distribution of political
5:01:27merchandise. So, that sounds on its face
5:01:29fine, but here's the issue. The law and
5:01:31policy already prohibits this conduct,
5:01:34and the list is very long. You can go to
5:01:36two USC
5:01:3840 uh 441A federal elections campaign
5:01:42limitations on contributions and
5:01:43expenditures. 5 USC 7321 7326 prohibits
5:01:48it. 10 USC 888 USMJ or article 88
5:01:54prevents it. And I can go on and on. And
5:01:56there's 15 more laws and policies that I
5:01:59won't list.
5:02:01So this is merely a messaging amendment
5:02:03that is overly broad and really doesn't
5:02:05do anything. And by the way, ladies and
5:02:07gentlemen, military installations are
5:02:09communities and there are civilians that
5:02:11live on those communities as well. And I
5:02:13can recall because in a different life,
5:02:14I saw this very often when Barack Obama
5:02:17was president. There were plenty of
5:02:18folks that were uh in the exchanges that
5:02:21were selling merchandise that supported
5:02:23him. And that's that individual uh
5:02:26individual's right to purchase those
5:02:28items just like is today. uh whether
5:02:30they're a civilian or a military, they
5:02:33can't wear it uh in uniform obviously or
5:02:35on duty, but they certainly purchase it
5:02:37at their leisure. So for those very
5:02:40reasons and the US Constitution, I have
5:02:43to oppose this amendment and I yield
5:02:44back. Thank you.
5:02:47>> Gentleman yields back. Is there further
5:02:49debate? Seeing none,
5:02:52question occurs on the amendment offered
5:02:54by Miss Hulahan. Uh so in favor will say
5:02:57I.
5:02:57>> I.
5:02:58>> Those opposed will say no. No opinion
5:03:00chair. The nos have it.
5:03:02>> Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.
5:03:03>> Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
5:03:05is ordered and postponed to a later
5:03:07time.
5:03:08We now consider log number 6882 R3 by
5:03:12Miss Hulahan.
5:03:156382 R3 by Miss Hulahan. For what
5:03:17purposes the gentle lady seek
5:03:19recognition?
5:03:19>> Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
5:03:21desk.
5:03:21>> Will the clerk please distribute the
5:03:23amendment? Without objection, the
5:03:24reading of the amendments dispensed
5:03:26with. The chair now recognizes the
5:03:27gentle lady for the purpose of
5:03:28explaining her amendment.
5:03:29>> Sure, Mr. Chair. This amendment is cond
5:03:32uh is titled mandate sect defaf to
5:03:34update policy prohibiting the sale and
5:03:36distribution of partisan political
5:03:38merchandise on military installations
5:03:40where the last amendment prior was about
5:03:43money. This is about the actual policy.
5:03:45And clearly we have a problem here
5:03:47because clearly there is no there are no
5:03:50bright lines. We can list off all of the
5:03:52policies that exist, but they are being
5:03:54broken all the time on military
5:03:56relations. The US military deres its
5:03:59credibility from being nonpartisan and
5:04:01from being subordinate to the civilian
5:04:03leadership, regardless of your party.
5:04:05Those of us who have served or who have
5:04:07grown up in military families or on
5:04:09military bases, we know this. We know
5:04:11this. It was how we were raised and it
5:04:13was how we served. When service members
5:04:15are publicly associated with partisan
5:04:17symbols or with campaign messaging, even
5:04:20the appearance or the hint of that
5:04:22association erodess public confidence.
5:04:24It weakens civil military norms and it
5:04:27risks discouraging recruits who may view
5:04:29the air armed forces as being
5:04:31politically biased. As I just said,
5:04:33militi military installations are
5:04:35federal property with strict access
5:04:37controls. Unauthorized third-party
5:04:39vendors should not be able to come on
5:04:41base and set up shop. It's not a
5:04:43political question. It's a security and
5:04:45force protection issue. Last June, an
5:04:47outside vendor sold partisan campaign
5:04:49merchandise at Fort Bragg without
5:04:51authorization. Army officers were
5:04:53reportedly shocked that the vendor was
5:04:55even able to operate on the base at all.
5:04:57So clearly, our policies are not working
5:04:59and they need to be updated. Current DoD
5:05:02policy has no explicit prohibition on
5:05:04thirdparty vendors selling campaign
5:05:06merchandise on base. And that gap needs
5:05:08to be closed through a clear
5:05:10departmentwide directive, not ad hoc
5:05:12installation by installation decisions.
5:05:15There was a report 2024 DODIG that found
5:05:18that the existing framework has
5:05:20documented structural weaknesses and is
5:05:22inconsistently enforced. And that's why
5:05:24Congress and Congress alone needs to
5:05:25mandate this update. This update and
5:05:28amendment is narrow. It does not touch
5:05:29service members first amendment rights
5:05:31as private citizen. It targets one thing
5:05:34which is the unauthorized commercial
5:05:36activity by outside vendors on federal
5:05:38military property. This applies equally
5:05:40to merchandise from any party, any
5:05:42candidate, any political movement. If
5:05:45you don't have authorization to be on a
5:05:46military installation, you shouldn't be
5:05:48there. Full stop. I urge you to vote yes
5:05:51on this amendment. I hope it addresses
5:05:52many of the issues of Mr. Falland. And I
5:05:55yield back.
5:05:56>> Chair uh gentle lady yields back. here
5:05:58recognizes himself. Unfortunately, this
5:06:00amendment is misguided. Military
5:06:01installations are not just training
5:06:03areas with uniform members. They are
5:06:05communities with family homes, schools,
5:06:07hospitals, cafes, and parks. The idea of
5:06:09banning partisan political speech across
5:06:11an entire community doesn't make sense.
5:06:13Civilians and military dependents living
5:06:15on military installations have first
5:06:16amendment rights, even if active duty
5:06:18uniform members have some restrictions.
5:06:20This amendment would restrict those
5:06:22rights. I urge members to oppose the
5:06:24amendment. Does anybody seek
5:06:25recognition?
5:06:28uh gentleman from Texas, Mr. F.
5:06:30>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Really just
5:06:31want to echo what you just said and for
5:06:33the the sake of time, this is opposition
5:06:352.0. It's very similar to the other
5:06:37amendment that the the member put forth
5:06:40and this are are there are already a
5:06:42myriad of laws on the books that prevent
5:06:45this. And again, this is merely
5:06:47messaging and it's unneeded. And as you
5:06:50pointed out, there are other people than
5:06:51military members that live on theations
5:06:54and therefore I have to oppose the
5:06:55amendment for to protect their
5:06:56constitutional rights. And I yield back.
5:07:00Gentlemen yields back. Does anybody seek
5:07:02recognition on this amendment? Seeing
5:07:04none, a question occurs on the
5:07:06amendment. All in favor will say I.
5:07:08>> Those opposed? No. No. Opinions here.
5:07:11The nose have it.
5:07:13The recorded votes requested. Recorded
5:07:16vote will is ordered and be postponed to
5:07:18a later time. We now consider log number
5:07:216649 by Mr. Ryan of New York. For what
5:07:24purposes the gentleman from New York
5:07:25seek recognition?
5:07:26>> Uh Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
5:07:27desk.
5:07:28>> Will the clerk distribute the amendment
5:07:29and without objection the reading of the
5:07:30amendments dispensed with the chair now
5:07:32recognizes gentleman from New York to
5:07:33explain his amendment.
5:07:35>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is
5:07:37one that I introduced last year. It's
5:07:39along the same uh sort of topic of
5:07:42politicization of our military um but
5:07:44takes a slightly different approach and
5:07:46one that I hope will appeal to my
5:07:49colleagues uh across the political
5:07:51spectrum on this committee given the
5:07:52conversations we've been having. It
5:07:55specifically takes what has been
5:07:57longstanding decadesl long DoD policy
5:08:00which is DoD directive 134410
5:08:03and it just makes that policy law. It
5:08:06just makes sure that um the intent of
5:08:10the Congress matches what is already the
5:08:12intent of the department and puts that
5:08:14into law and ensures the apolitical
5:08:16nature of our military. This is the
5:08:18policy we all who served grew up in that
5:08:21we agree is necessary. It does not
5:08:23change or expand anything. It just makes
5:08:25sure it holds through the what we
5:08:28acknowledge is an increasingly divisive
5:08:30and politicized moment. It reaffirms the
5:08:34wise vision of our founders and framers
5:08:37that the military is an institution of
5:08:39patriots and not partisans.
5:08:42And again, I want to actually I
5:08:45appreciate Mr. Fallon engaging in this.
5:08:47You said something this year actually,
5:08:48Mr. Fallon, that made me hope you might
5:08:50vote for my amendment. You said, uh, I
5:08:53don't want Democratic generals, and for
5:08:55that matter, I don't want Republican
5:08:57generals either. I want American
5:08:59generals. And I'm sure that extends to
5:09:01to all the ranks. And I excuse me, I
5:09:03agree with you. The problem is I
5:09:05introduced this a year ago in response
5:09:07to all the things we heard in the
5:09:09previous discussions. And since then,
5:09:11it's gotten worse. Uh President Trump
5:09:13went to brag this February, literally
5:09:16brought the Republican candidate for
5:09:18Senate for Senate on the stage, endorsed
5:09:21him, and told the troops, quote, "You
5:09:23have to vote for us."
5:09:25Then a few weeks ago, the Secretary of
5:09:27Defense in the middle of a war spoke at
5:09:29a campaign rally for the president's
5:09:31pick to primary our own colleague. Uh
5:09:33and then in September uh of 2025, the
5:09:36president gave a speech at the Navy's
5:09:38250th anniversary
5:09:41saying, quote, "Let's face it, this is a
5:09:44rally." Quote, "We have to take care of
5:09:46this little gnat that sits on our
5:09:48shoulder called the Democrats. This is
5:09:50putting our military uh officers and
5:09:55soldiers of all ranks in an incredibly
5:09:57impossible position. My amendment would
5:09:59would just make clear what has already
5:10:01been policy. Um and again, I I welcome
5:10:03the debate. We should have the debate
5:10:05here. Um and we're happy to go as many
5:10:07rounds as it takes. We've all said this
5:10:09is a problem. Let's fix it this year so
5:10:12it doesn't continue to get worse. I I
5:10:14yield back, Mr. Chair.
5:10:16>> Gentleman yields back. Anybody seek
5:10:17recognition? Mr. Vinman of Virginia.
5:10:21>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I speak in
5:10:24favor of uh this amendment as well. It's
5:10:26a a simple common sense solution to a
5:10:29problem. What it does is um enshrine
5:10:32into law what is currently policy. And
5:10:36you know, a military installation is not
5:10:38a location for for partisan political
5:10:41speech. It's a military community. that
5:10:45the interests of a military community
5:10:48and commanders is to maintain good order
5:10:50and discipline on installation. And so,
5:10:54as we all know, even members of the
5:10:56military, their first amendment rights
5:10:58are curtailed because they're serving in
5:11:00uniform. That political military divide
5:11:02is absolutely critical. And when you
5:11:05live on an installation, do you frankly
5:11:07sign up to certain uh to to abide by
5:11:10certain rules? uh military installations
5:11:13are not the places to have partisan
5:11:16political activities. Uh those
5:11:18constraints already exist and this is
5:11:20just a common sense way to enshrine what
5:11:23has been policy for decades. Without a
5:11:26yield back
5:11:28gentleman yields back. Does anybody seek
5:11:29recognition on Mr. Ryan's amendment?
5:11:32Seeing none, the question occurs on Mr.
5:11:33Ryan's amendment. So many is there in
5:11:35favor will say I.
5:11:37>> Those opposed, no. No. Opinion chair the
5:11:40nose have it.
5:11:42Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
5:11:43is o ordered and postponed to a later
5:11:46time. We will now consider log number
5:11:496386R6
5:11:51by Miss Hulahan uh of Pennsylvania. For
5:11:54what purposes the gentle lady seek
5:11:55recognition?
5:11:56>> Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
5:11:57desk.
5:11:58>> Clerk will please distribute the
5:11:59amendment without objection. The reading
5:12:01of the amendment is dispensed with the
5:12:02chair and I recognize this gentle lady
5:12:04for the purpose of explaining her
5:12:05amendment.
5:12:06>> Mr. chair. This amendment is titled
5:12:08Ensure Religious Neutrality and Equal
5:12:11Access in DoD. When I was a teenage
5:12:14girl, I worked a part-time job at our
5:12:16base chapel. Saturdays and Sundays, I
5:12:18set up weddings for our men and women in
5:12:20uniform. The chapel had a rotating
5:12:22altar, a huge lazy Susan that I pushed
5:12:25from each wedding, from a Jewish altar
5:12:27to a plain non-denominational altar to a
5:12:30Catholic altar. And in this very tiny
5:12:32space, in this environment, it was
5:12:34reinforced to me as a young girl and to
5:12:36everyone who came that all religions and
5:12:39no religion were respected on that base
5:12:41and in our military. This amendment
5:12:43reinforces a simple principle that the
5:12:45Department of Defense should remain
5:12:47neutral on matters of religion while
5:12:49fully protecting the religious liberty
5:12:50of every single service member. Our
5:12:53military includes Americans of many
5:12:55faith and those with no religious
5:12:57affiliation. Every service member should
5:12:59know that they are judged on their
5:13:00performance and their commitment to
5:13:02mission alone, not on their religious
5:13:04beliefs. Religious neutrality is not
5:13:07anti- relligion. The military should
5:13:09continue to accommodate and to protect
5:13:11individual religious exercise, including
5:13:13access to chaplain and faith-based
5:13:15accommodations, as it always has.
5:13:18Because military leaders exercise
5:13:20significant authority over subordinates,
5:13:22government neutrality helps to prevent
5:13:24real or perceived religious favoritism,
5:13:27coercion. Good order and discipline
5:13:29depends on trust. Service members should
5:13:32never feel that their religious beliefs
5:13:34affect their opportunities, their
5:13:35assignments, their promotions, or their
5:13:37evaluations. This amendment reflects the
5:13:39long-standing constitutional principles
5:13:42by protecting both the free exercise of
5:13:44religion and the government's obligation
5:13:46not to favor one over the other.
5:13:49Religious neutrality everyone, majority
5:13:52faiths, minority faiths, and those with
5:13:54no faith at all by assuring equal
5:13:57treatment under the law. This amendment
5:13:59is about fairness. It's about
5:14:01professionalism and military readiness.
5:14:04Please do read this amendment. This
5:14:06amendment protects the rights of all
5:14:08service members while preserving a
5:14:10military culture that by its by its very
5:14:13nature is united by mission and service
5:14:15to the nation. Thank you for your
5:14:17consideration and I yield.
5:14:19>> Gentle yields back. Chair recognizes
5:14:21himself. It's already against the law in
5:14:23the constitution to discriminate against
5:14:25people based on their religion. To my
5:14:26knowledge, there are no complaints filed
5:14:28against the secretary or anyone in the
5:14:29department alleging religious
5:14:30discrimination. I'm also concerned that
5:14:32this may undermine the ability of our
5:14:34military chaplain to counsel service
5:14:36members and carry out the tenants of
5:14:38their fa who carry out the tenants of
5:14:39their fate. Uh I am very concerned about
5:14:42the unintended effects of the of
5:14:43legislating on faith issues. I urge
5:14:45members to oppose the amendment. Does
5:14:47anybody seek re gentle lady from
5:14:48California, Miss Jacobs, and then we'll
5:14:50get to Mr. Fallon.
5:14:52>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first
5:14:54amendment prohibits the government from
5:14:56establishing an official religion.
5:14:59That should be something we all can
5:15:01acknowledge and agree on. But that
5:15:04principle is under direct attack at the
5:15:06Pentagon right now. Secretary Hexath has
5:15:09organized a Christian worship service
5:15:11inside the Pentagon. He's invited Doug
5:15:14Wilson, who has justified slavery and
5:15:16argued women should be denied the right
5:15:18to vote, to deliver a sermon broadcast
5:15:21live on the Pentagon's internal TV
5:15:23network. He's overhauled the chaplain
5:15:26corps and even framed the war in Iran
5:15:29through religious and referenced divine
5:15:31prophecy.
5:15:33In a public prayer delivered by
5:15:35Secretary Hexath, he said that the
5:15:37American people should pray for victory
5:15:40every day on bended knee with your
5:15:42family in your schools in your churches
5:15:45in the name of Jesus Christ.
5:15:48I pray but not in the name of Jesus
5:15:51Christ. I'm Jewish. That is not
5:15:54separation of church and state and
5:15:55that's not religious neutrality. I'm
5:15:58Jewish. Chairman Rogers is Christian.
5:16:01There are many different religions
5:16:02represented on our committee and the
5:16:04same is true of our military. Our 1.3
5:16:08million troops come from diverse
5:16:09religious backgrounds and everyone
5:16:12should feel included and welcome. But
5:16:14these policies amount to a de facto
5:16:16religious test for our military.
5:16:19This amendment requires the Pentagon to
5:16:20maintain religious neutrality, which is
5:16:23so important for our recruitment and
5:16:24readiness, but also for our military's
5:16:27legitimacy.
5:16:28So, if it's already codified, why not
5:16:32codify it again, Mr. Chairman, and if
5:16:34it's not, that's why it's more important
5:16:36than ever for this committee to put this
5:16:37into the National Defense Authorization
5:16:39Act. I urge my colleagues to support
5:16:41this amendment. I yield back.
5:16:43>> Gentle yields back. Chair now recognize
5:16:44Mr. Fallon.
5:16:45>> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this
5:16:47seems respectfully to be a solution in
5:16:49search of a problem and it also appears
5:16:52to be a direct attack on Secretary of
5:16:55War's faith. He has a strong faith and
5:16:58that permeates his life and his work and
5:17:00this is merely really uh an attack on
5:17:03the man and his beliefs. The military
5:17:06isn't religiously neutral. We have a
5:17:08chaplain corps full of pastors and
5:17:11priests and rabbis who minister to all
5:17:14service members. and I'm concerned that
5:17:16this would impact our chaplain's free
5:17:18exercise of their religion and therefore
5:17:21I have to uh vehemently oppose this
5:17:23amendment. Thank you very much. I yield
5:17:25back
5:17:28>> chair and I recognize Mr. of New York.
5:17:30>> Uh thank you Mr. Chair just to briefly
5:17:32address your points and Mr. Fallon I
5:17:34think that this is important. The
5:17:36Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a
5:17:39long-established nonprofit literally
5:17:41committed to the free exercise of uh
5:17:44religion by our military service
5:17:46members, has reported receiving hundreds
5:17:50complaints and allegations from active
5:17:51duty service members and their families
5:17:53about Secretary Hegth's escalation of
5:17:57his imposition of his particular faith.
5:18:00There's also an active lawsuit being
5:18:02filed uh by another uh advocacy group uh
5:18:06against this behavior. So in fact there
5:18:09this has risen to a level of of
5:18:10unprecedented concern at least in modern
5:18:13times which again on as we've seen in
5:18:15other topics. We're not making this up.
5:18:18We we are needing to legislate on things
5:18:20that had previously been held as
5:18:22long-standing norms and and enshrined on
5:18:25our constitution, but the secretary and
5:18:27others are not following those things.
5:18:29That's where we're coming from here and
5:18:31and I yield back.
5:18:34>> Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else
5:18:36seek recognition on this amendment?
5:18:38Seeing none, the question occurs on this
5:18:41amendment offered uh by Miss Hulahan.
5:18:43All in favor will say I.
5:18:45>> Those opposed, no.
5:18:46>> No. Penn the nose have it.
5:18:48>> Mr. Chairman, I ask a recorded vote.
5:18:50>> Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
5:18:52is ordered. We will postpone to a later
5:18:55time.
5:18:57We now consider log number 6132R2 by Mr.
5:19:00Molton. And for what purposes, the
5:19:02gentleman from Massachusetts seek
5:19:03recognition.
5:19:04>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
5:19:06desk.
5:19:06>> Will the clerk please distribute the
5:19:07amendment without objection? The reading
5:19:09of the amendment is dispensed with. The
5:19:10chair now recognizes the gentleman from
5:19:11Massachusetts for the purpose of
5:19:12explaining his amendment.
5:19:13>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
5:19:15addresses a glaring hypocritical double
5:19:17standard currently trickling down from
5:19:19the top of the Department of Defense.
5:19:21Every year during this markup, we talk
5:19:23about how our people are are our
5:19:26ultimate strategic asset. We promise to
5:19:29give our service members, our soldiers,
5:19:31sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians
5:19:33every tool they need to win. But right
5:19:36now, leadership at the Pentagon is
5:19:37trying to deny them the tool of a higher
5:19:40education. Let's be completely honest
5:19:43about what's happening here. We have a
5:19:45Secretary of Defense who loves to go on
5:19:46Fox News and rail against our nation's
5:19:48top academic institutions, calling them
5:19:50woke or detached from American values.
5:19:53But let's look at the resume. The
5:19:55Secretary himself is a graduate of
5:19:57Princeton and Harvard. Count me among
5:19:59the many Americans who hear that and are
5:20:02shocked he got in. that point aside, he
5:20:04applied and he went there because he had
5:20:06the basic freedom enshrined in our
5:20:08constitution to get an education not
5:20:11curtailed by a government that doesn't
5:20:13believe in freedom of speech. Did
5:20:15Harvard make our acting secretary of the
5:20:18Navy too woke? Did Princeton and Harvard
5:20:21make Secretary Hegsth too weak? Maybe
5:20:24that's not my best argument, but he
5:20:25don't teach pull-ups at Harvard. The
5:20:27bottom line is this, Mr. Secretary. This
5:20:30administration wants to deny our troops
5:20:32the fundamental freedom to get the
5:20:34education they choose in a free country.
5:20:36And if you vote against this, you're
5:20:38denying our troops that freedom, that
5:20:41trust. Do my Republican colleagues
5:20:43believe that our troops can't be
5:20:44trusted, can't ask critical questions,
5:20:47can't go to an institution where they
5:20:49might actually disagree with some of the
5:20:51other students. If you don't believe in
5:20:53those things, don't believe that we can
5:20:55trust our troops, and instead believe
5:20:56that our government must dictate their
5:20:58education along ideological lines, then
5:21:02you should move to China and supervise
5:21:04the armed services of the Chinese
5:21:05Communist Party. Or you could choose
5:21:06Russia or North Korea or Iran because
5:21:09that's how they work. Freedom is
5:21:12America's biggest advantage. It's our
5:21:14biggest advantage over our authoritarian
5:21:17adversaries. It's fundamental to our
5:21:19country, our constitution, and to the
5:21:21innovation and leadership that we demand
5:21:24of our troops. This amendment draws a
5:21:27hard line against this administrative
5:21:29over reach. It plainly states that the
5:21:32secretary cannot arbitrarily ban service
5:21:34members or RO cadetses from attending
5:21:37accredited institutions that they choose
5:21:39to attend, nor strip away their
5:21:41hard-earned educational benefits over
5:21:43the Secretary of Defense strange
5:21:45political vendetta. As a nation, we face
5:21:48complex multi-dommain global threats. We
5:21:51need leaders who can outthink and out
5:21:53innovate our adversaries. We do not make
5:21:55our military stronger by making our
5:21:58officers less educated. This chairman, I
5:22:01yield back.
5:22:02>> Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes
5:22:04himself. This provision is directed on
5:22:06the authority of the Secretary of
5:22:08Defense to determine where his offer
5:22:10where his officers will receive the best
5:22:12education in line with the goals and
5:22:14values of the United States military.
5:22:16The secretary's policy only impacts
5:22:18professional military education for our
5:22:20most senior officers. It does not apply
5:22:23to medical school. It does not apply to
5:22:25ROTC. It does not apply to institutions
5:22:27receiving tuition assistance. This
5:22:29amendment li limits the secretary's
5:22:31inherent authority to build
5:22:32well-educated core of senior strategic
5:22:34warf fighters. I urge members to oppose
5:22:36the amendment. Does anybody else seek
5:22:38recognition?
5:22:40Seeing none, the question uh now occurs
5:22:42on the amendment offered by Mr. Molton.
5:22:44So many in favor will say I.
5:22:46>> Those opposed, no. No.
5:22:48>> Pin your chair. The nose have it.
5:23:09>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
5:23:10desk.
5:23:20This amendment is a small step towards
5:23:22correcting a 15-year error. The OMB
5:23:24circular A76 process is a tool by which
5:23:27the federal government can save
5:23:28resources and support local commercial
5:23:30development by determining which
5:23:32services that are currently performed by
5:23:33federal employees can be better
5:23:35performed by commercial contractors.
5:23:37Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the A76
5:23:39process makes a determination whether
5:23:41certain services are inherently
5:23:42commercial in nature and if they can be
5:23:44better performed by commercial
5:23:46contractors.
5:23:47Uh facilities maintenance, landscaping,
5:23:49some medical services and custodial and
5:23:51jial services. For 15 years, there's
5:23:53been a governmentwide moratorium on A76
5:23:56studies. As a result of this
5:23:57protectionist moratorium, some facility
5:23:59services have been performed poorly or
5:24:01have not been performed at all. We've
5:24:03heard in some of our military
5:24:04installations there are instances where
5:24:06services currently provided by federal
5:24:08employees are being delivered inquate
5:24:10inadequately. The result is that
5:24:12facility commanders have been forced to
5:24:14pull military personnel off their
5:24:16training schedule to do tasks like
5:24:18mowing the lawn, gardening, cleaning
5:24:20bathrooms. Essentially, we are taking
5:24:21people away from their warf fighting and
5:24:23training duties to perform perform tasks
5:24:25other federal employees are paid and
5:24:27supposed to be performing. By allowing
5:24:29this to continue, we're harming
5:24:30readiness, disrupting training
5:24:32schedules, and hurting morale and
5:24:33retention. Our brave men and women in
5:24:35the military signed up to defend our
5:24:36country, not to do facilities
5:24:38maintenance activities others are being
5:24:40paid for to perform. The amendment would
5:24:42enhance readiness, increase morale, and
5:24:44lift burdens from our service personnel.
5:24:46It will also allow the department to
5:24:48save resources and reduce budgetary
5:24:49overhead. While this amendment does not
5:24:51address the federal governmentwide
5:24:52moratorium, this amendment does take
5:24:54several steps, small steps to enable the
5:24:56Department of Defense to take seek
5:24:58alternatives to provide A76 type
5:25:01services. Specifically, this amendment
5:25:03repeals the temporary suspicion of A76
5:25:05services in the 2004 NDAA. Repeals the
5:25:09delayed implementation of A76 studies
5:25:11from the same 2004 NDAA. a repeal of the
5:25:14moratorium on A76 competitions for
5:25:16military personnel m services from the
5:25:192008 NDAA and it creates an exemption
5:25:22for A76 studies for certain facility
5:25:24services if the service has been
5:25:26delivered inadequately or not at all for
5:25:28a period of five years and I urge all
5:25:30members to support this common sense
5:25:31amendment and I yield back.
5:25:34>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair now
5:25:36recognizes a gentleman from Connecticut,
5:25:37Mr. Courtney.
5:25:38>> Thank thank you uh Mr. Chairman again I
5:25:40rise to oppose this amendment. Uh the
5:25:42moratorium on A76 which goes back to uh
5:25:462007 happened in response to really one
5:25:48of the most shocking, appalling,
5:25:51gut-wrenching scandals in terms of uh
5:25:53poor treatment of military veterans at
5:25:55Walter Reed Hospital uh that again was
5:25:58directly uh identified as uh caused by
5:26:01the A76 program. Again, in uh 2000, the
5:26:05Bush administration uh implemented the
5:26:07A76 competition in terms of uh
5:26:10alternative uh vendors for provision of
5:26:13of services for uh federal programs. Uh
5:26:16but over the course of the seven years,
5:26:18according to the CRS report that was
5:26:20done for Congress in the wake of a
5:26:22Washington Post series of stories that
5:26:25showed uh again just appalling
5:26:27conditions that uh veterans were living
5:26:29in, uh one of the stories describes a
5:26:33Army specialist who was in a in his
5:26:35bathroom in a Walter Reed facility
5:26:38standing in a shower. Looking up, he can
5:26:39see a bathtub on the floor above through
5:26:41a rotted hole. The entire building
5:26:43construction
5:26:45uh uh between world wars had uh mouse
5:26:48droppings, belly up cockroaches, stained
5:26:50carpets and cheap mattresses. Secretary
5:26:52Gates uh Secretary of Defense at the
5:26:55time conducted a full um review of the
5:26:58um uh scandal that took place there. And
5:27:01again, the findings were that the A76
5:27:04process created a destabilizing effect
5:27:07on the ability to hire and retain
5:27:08qualified staff members to uh operate
5:27:11garrison functions. There were a number
5:27:13of of whose heads rolled uh because
5:27:16again of the um A76
5:27:19operations happened on their watch. Uh
5:27:22again this committee as well as the
5:27:24oversight committee and Mr. Wilson may
5:27:26recall again when that happened over at
5:27:28Walter Reed. uh again it was just an
5:27:31appalling uh situation. The moratorum
5:27:33was put into to effect and has stayed in
5:27:36effect for good reason which is that
5:27:38again the treatment of those patients at
5:27:41Walter Reed who uh again many of them
5:27:43were uh people who' served overseas in
5:27:45the Middle East uh again were again just
5:27:48being treated at a level that again the
5:27:50entire Congress on a bipartisan basis uh
5:27:54uh rejected. So, uh, again, I think
5:27:56that, um, you know, the notion that
5:27:58somehow A76 is going to come back and
5:28:00and suddenly be different, uh, I think
5:28:03the, uh, bitter, horrible experience,
5:28:06uh, that, um, we saw, uh, play out in
5:28:09real life, uh, still, in my opinion, um,
5:28:13should make us very cautious and very
5:28:15unwilling to, uh, revert back to to
5:28:18putting A76 back into place. And again,
5:28:21Mr. Uh, chairman, I would put into the
5:28:23record the CRS report for Congress dated
5:28:26April 21st, 2007.
5:28:29>> Without objection, order,
5:28:30>> which again references Secretary Gates's
5:28:32uh, investigation again identifying A76
5:28:35as the cause of the problems that
5:28:36happened at Walter Reed. And with that,
5:28:38I yield back.
5:28:39>> Gentleman yields back. Chair now
5:28:41recognize a gentleman from New Jersey,
5:28:42Mr. Norcross.
5:28:44>> Thank you, chairman.
5:28:46in search of a problem. Almost two
5:28:48decades ago, this issue that Joe just
5:28:51spoke about was in front of everybody.
5:28:55We made that decision to change back and
5:28:57put the moratorium on. But for the last
5:29:0016 months, federal workers have seen
5:29:02unprecedented
5:29:05attacks and give them such uncertainty
5:29:07of where we are. We know how valuable
5:29:11workers in public service are to not
5:29:14only us but to the entire country.
5:29:17Repealing this moratorum would take us
5:29:20back to where we were with no changes.
5:29:23The very issues that were set up 20
5:29:26years ago would go back in place. No
5:29:29discussions, nobody running around
5:29:32asking for help. hold a hearing to find
5:29:34out what can we do different so we don't
5:29:36go back and do the same thing again and
5:29:39that's exactly what this amendment would
5:29:41do. We've had no discussions other than
5:29:44this dropping before us. So what changed
5:29:47in those 20 years? Can they do it
5:29:49differently? Should we amend what was on
5:29:52there to make this a potentially better
5:29:55program? We're not having those
5:29:57discussions. What we're seeing is let's
5:30:00do it. Let's privatize it. they'll do it
5:30:02better. Well, we've heard that story
5:30:04over and over and over again. Who ends
5:30:07up paying the cost for that? A the
5:30:10government, but b the workers who get
5:30:12treated in a very different way when
5:30:15they historically go into here. So, this
5:30:18is unsustainable that we want to go back
5:30:21to the future
5:30:23and do exactly what we did before
5:30:25because you know what? We're going to
5:30:26get exactly what we got before. So I
5:30:29urge my colleagues to vote no on this
5:30:31amendment and I yield back the balance
5:30:33of my time.
5:30:34>> Gentleman yields back chair now recogniz
5:30:35gentleman from Texas, Mr. Palen.
5:30:37>> Thank you, Mr. You know, you're right,
5:30:38Walter Reed. What happened 20 years ago
5:30:41was atrocious and that was 20 years ago.
5:30:45And in those 20 years, I think that we
5:30:47can argue very strongly that we've
5:30:49learned from our mistakes. First of all,
5:30:51only commercial functions are subject to
5:30:54A76. inherently governmental functions
5:30:58are not allowing this process to be used
5:31:01provides a number of positives for
5:31:03readiness and potential cost savings.
5:31:07For instance, Rand determined that
5:31:08despite some problems identified with
5:31:10the A76 procedures, there may not be a
5:31:13way for com uh commensurate savings to
5:31:16be achieved without A76. and that the
5:31:19real problem problem may not have been
5:31:22budget issues but uh or may have been
5:31:25rather budget issues but not the process
5:31:26itself and the department has
5:31:28consistently urged Congress to lift the
5:31:30moratorium. we should definitely listen
5:31:32and arguing that it is necessary for
5:31:35readiness and fiscal responsibility for
5:31:37the taxpayers uh is obvious and the OM
5:31:40has consistently argued that this tool
5:31:42is important to help reduce costs at DoD
5:31:44which we should all be for and for all
5:31:46of these reasons I have to support
5:31:49vigorously and enthusiastically support
5:31:51this amendment. Thank you. I yield back.
5:31:53>> Gentleman yields back. Does anybody seek
5:31:55recognition on uh this amendment?
5:32:07Question occurs on amendment offered by
5:32:09Miss Mace. Uh all in favor will say I.
5:32:12I. Those opposed? No.
5:32:13>> No.
5:32:14>> Opinion the chair the eyes have it.
5:32:18>> Recorded votes requested. The recorded
5:32:19vote is ordered and uh recorded vote
5:32:22will be postponed to a later time.
5:32:28We will now cons consider log number
5:32:316148 by Miss Mace of California of South
5:32:34Carolina. For what purposes gentle lady
5:32:36seek recognition?
5:32:37>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
5:32:39desk.
5:32:39>> Would the clerk please distribute the
5:32:41amendment without objection and reading
5:32:42and the amendments dispensed with? The
5:32:43chair recognizes gentle lady for the
5:32:44purpose of explaining her amendment.
5:32:46>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
5:32:47would restore rigorous admission
5:32:49standards to the servicemies which train
5:32:51and educate the future leaders of our
5:32:53armed forces. Our servicemies are not
5:32:55just institution of higher education.
5:32:57They are a crucible where the leaders of
5:32:59America's military are forged. Through
5:33:01themies must remain uncompromising and
5:33:03relentless in their pursuit of
5:33:04excellence. Well, unfortunately, we've
5:33:07been seeing a disturbing trend wheremies
5:33:09have moved away from considering the
5:33:11merit and qualifications of those who've
5:33:13applied and either overtly or covertly
5:33:16begun to prioritize diversity and
5:33:18affirmative action, emitting less
5:33:20qualified minorities over more qualified
5:33:22candidates. This issue is exemplified by
5:33:25the story of a young woman. This young
5:33:26woman was determined to attend West
5:33:28Point and serve our country as an
5:33:30officer in the United States Army. She
5:33:31had a 4.0 0 GPA, a black belt in uh
5:33:35martial arts, multiple varsity letters,
5:33:37a four-year participant in JOTC, was a
5:33:40JOTC group commander, a member of
5:33:43student council, attended Girl State,
5:33:44and was elected selected for National
5:33:47Honor Society. Simply put, she was
5:33:49exactly what the servicemies are looking
5:33:51for, but she was white. Less qualified
5:33:53candidates in her category who were
5:33:55diverse, whose candidate scores were
5:33:56hundreds of points lower than this young
5:33:58woman were admitted. This young woman
5:34:00was rejected. West Point's loss was
5:34:02unfortunately my alma mada Citadel's
5:34:05gain. This young woman ended up
5:34:06attending the Citadel, the Military
5:34:08College of South Carolina, and
5:34:10excelling, rating amongst the top of her
5:34:12class and even showing exemplary
5:34:14leadership and becoming one of the five
5:34:15battalion commanders at the Citadel.
5:34:17While the Citadel is lucky to have this
5:34:19young woman, and she will surely go on
5:34:20to be a great success, she should have
5:34:23been able to attend a service academy.
5:34:25She should have been able to train to
5:34:26serve her country. She was objectively
5:34:28more qualified than many of the
5:34:30candidates who admitted in lie of her.
5:34:32The metrics show she was hundreds of
5:34:34points more qualified candidate score
5:34:36but she was rejected because she didn't
5:34:38check the right demographic check boxes
5:34:40and it's shameful. This young woman is
5:34:42on an outlier. Themies are turning away
5:34:44highly qualified candidates who are
5:34:45scoring as much as 30% higher than the
5:34:48less qualified candidates who are
5:34:49admitted. For years, themies have
5:34:51lowered standards, allowed widespread
5:34:53waiverss, and placed an unfair emphasis
5:34:54on race and other demographic criteria
5:34:57or other subjective criteria, which is
5:34:59used as a proxy for demographics. This
5:35:01amendment reduces this emphasis and
5:35:03would ensure objective measurements of
5:35:05performance, merit, and character matter
5:35:08the most. My amendment would codify
5:35:10rigorous admission standards. Emphasize
5:35:12academic achievement and test scores,
5:35:13ensuring candidates are admitted in
5:35:15order of merit, not based on race or
5:35:17subjective criteria which can be used as
5:35:19a proxy for race. Merit matters,
5:35:21leadership matters, and our war fighters
5:35:23deserve nothing less than the most
5:35:24capable and qualified leaders. And this
5:35:26starts with restoring standards and
5:35:27merit at themmies who train their
5:35:29leaders. And I urge all members to
5:35:30support this amendment. And I yield
5:35:31back.
5:35:32>> Gentle lady yields back. Does anybody uh
5:35:34seek recognition? Gentle lady from
5:35:36Hawaii, Mr. Cud is recognized.
5:35:38>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in
5:35:40opposition to this amendment. This
5:35:42amendment is 23 pages of Washington
5:35:45micromanagement built around a deeply
5:35:48flawed idea that merit can be measured
5:35:50almost entirely by grades and test
5:35:52scores. In fact, the amendment is so
5:35:54focused on numbers that it even contains
5:35:56arithmetic errors of its own, creating a
5:35:58scoring system that actually adds up to
5:36:00115% instead of 100%. But the bigger
5:36:03problem isn't the math, it's the
5:36:05mindset. This amendment would make
5:36:07academic metrics account for more than
5:36:0990% of a candidate's evaluation,
5:36:11reducing everything else to an
5:36:13afterthought. What gets lost?
5:36:16Leadership, service, character,
5:36:19resilience. The student who worked a job
5:36:21to help support their family. The young
5:36:23person who overcame poverty, hardship,
5:36:26trauma. The team captain who inspires
5:36:28others. The enlisted service member
5:36:30seeking to continue serving their
5:36:32country. The candidate who has
5:36:34demonstrated grit, integrity, and a
5:36:36commitment to something greater than
5:36:37themselves. Those qualities cannot be
5:36:40captured as standardized test score.
5:36:43Yet, they are precisely the qualities we
5:36:45ask of military officers. Our
5:36:48servicemies are not simply looking for
5:36:50students who can pass an exam or ace a
5:36:53class. They are developing the next
5:36:54generation of military leaders. That
5:36:57requires evaluating the whole person,
5:36:59not just a transcript. We should not
5:37:01replace a proven admissions policy and
5:37:04process with one that grossly
5:37:06prioritizes test taking over leadership,
5:37:09service, and character. Our military
5:37:12needs officers of intellect. Absolutely.
5:37:15But if you ask me, real warrior ethos
5:37:18should be about officers of courage,
5:37:21judgment, and grit. This un this
5:37:24amendment undermi undermines and
5:37:26undervalues these very qualities. and I
5:37:29strongly urge our colleagues to oppose
5:37:31it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield
5:37:33back.
5:37:36>> Gentle lady uh yields back. Gentleman
5:37:38from Nebraska is recognized. General
5:37:39Bacon.
5:37:40>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it was
5:37:41strictly test scor, I have concerns, but
5:37:44I may be misunderstanding Mrs. Mesa's
5:37:47amendment here. If I could ask her a
5:37:48question, would a person get extra
5:37:50points if they were Eagle Scout?
5:37:54>> I believe so. I mean, it's not just test
5:37:55scores, it's overall meritocracy. So,
5:37:58the example I put forth if this was a
5:38:00well-rounded candidate, had high test
5:38:02scores, uh, and did well in every
5:38:04category, including volunteer work,
5:38:07etc., and she was rejected,
5:38:08>> okay,
5:38:09>> based on race.
5:38:10>> But if hopefully your amendment
5:38:12explicitly allows some of that
5:38:13subjective stuff because I think Eagle
5:38:16Scout people do very well, even if they
5:38:17don't score quite as well academically
5:38:19or on the test scores, class presidents,
5:38:23presidents,
5:38:23>> National Honor Society, it was the whole
5:38:25nine yards. was encompassing more than
5:38:27just test scores.
5:38:28>> But so the so when you count the points
5:38:31that still could be included.
5:38:32>> It's okay. Thank you.
5:38:35>> See uh anybody seek recognition. M
5:38:40>> was it Miss Strickland? Miss Strickland
5:38:42of Washington is recognized.
5:38:44>> Um thank you. I would just like to make
5:38:45an observation. You don't have to have
5:38:47perfect SAT scores or a GPA to
5:38:50demonstrate your capacity to lead.
5:38:52What's curious to me, however, is the
5:38:54number of times I've heard the word race
5:38:56used whenever these amendments are
5:38:58raised. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
5:39:01>> Gentle lady yields back. Mr. Elf, I'm
5:39:04sorry, is is next.
5:39:06>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't going to
5:39:07speak on this one, but I'm I'm one of
5:39:09the few members of this committee who
5:39:10also serve on the board of visitors for
5:39:12one of thesemies we're talking about.
5:39:13And we spent a significant amount of
5:39:15time in those board meetings talking
5:39:17about acceptance standards, whole person
5:39:20model, what uh we know to be one of the
5:39:23greatest indicators of success, not just
5:39:25at the academy or in service, but also
5:39:27after service as a civilian, which is
5:39:30not test scores, it's actually grit.
5:39:32It's actually the ability to overcome
5:39:35hardship. It's the the experience you
5:39:37have as a young person. Yes. As an Eagle
5:39:39Scout or a team captain or as you know
5:39:42an older sibling with younger I mean
5:39:44it's a whole person model that is
5:39:46already being uh is already being used
5:39:48at thesemies. I think this this
5:39:50amendment is absolutely unnecessary and
5:39:52I I urge the committee to reject it. I
5:39:55yield back.
5:39:56>> Gentlemen yields back now. Chair
5:39:57recognized Mr. Biz.
5:39:59>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield the
5:40:00balance of my time to Mr. Duda.
5:40:04Thank you very much. I just wanted to
5:40:06clarify towards Representative Bacon's
5:40:08question about what else qualifies.
5:40:11Taking this straight from the amendment
5:40:13itself, the academic component of such
5:40:15composite, the total composite score
5:40:17shall be weighted at not less than 60%
5:40:20of the overall composite score and shall
5:40:21include the candidate standardized test
5:40:23scored which shall be weighted at not
5:40:25less than 45% of the overall composite
5:40:28score. The total of all subjective
5:40:30components which would be things like
5:40:32Eagle Scouts and volunteering shall be
5:40:34weighted at not more than 10% of the
5:40:37overall composite score. Um any
5:40:40subjectively base adjustment of the
5:40:42candidate composite score shall be
5:40:43limited to not more than 10% of the
5:40:46score before such an adjustment and
5:40:48candidate composite scores only shall be
5:40:51used to determine order of merit. And so
5:40:53when we talk about the whole person,
5:40:55which I think you're referring to, that
5:40:56we want to look not just at your test
5:40:58scores or your grade point average, and
5:41:00many students these days have well above
5:41:02a 4.0 because they're taking advanced
5:41:04placement classes, but we also want to
5:41:06see the Eagle Scouts, those who started
5:41:07at Cub Scouts and disciplined themselves
5:41:09to stay the whole way. those who have
5:41:11served in sports and leadership
5:41:13capacity. So many other ways that we can
5:41:15really see uh the true grit, resilience,
5:41:18competency, character, and leadership of
5:41:19an individual that's not always
5:41:21reflected in numbers on a transcript.
5:41:22And so I just want to make very clear
5:41:24what is in the direct language of the
5:41:26amendment and how this falls short of
5:41:28really truly capitalizing on those types
5:41:30of leadership opportunities like the
5:41:32ones you mentioned. Thank you very much
5:41:33and I yield back the time.
5:41:36>> General yields back. Does anybody seek
5:41:38rec?
5:41:40Okay, Mr. Pasquez yields back. Does
5:41:42anybody seek recognition on Miss Mace's
5:41:45amendment? The question incurs on the ra
5:41:48on on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace.
5:41:50So many in favor will say I. I
5:41:53>> I
5:41:53>> opposed. No.
5:41:54>> No.
5:41:55>> Opinion chair. The eyes have it.
5:41:57>> Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote
5:41:59is ordered and postponed for a later
5:42:00time.
5:42:02We will now consider log number 6635R1
5:42:08by Ms. Mace. Uh for what purposes the
5:42:10gentle lady seek recognition?
5:42:12>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
5:42:13desk.
5:42:14>> Will the clerk please distribute the
5:42:15amendment? Uh without objection, the
5:42:17reading of the amendments dispensed.
5:42:19Could the chair now recognizes gentle
5:42:20lady for the purpose of explaining her
5:42:22amendment?
5:42:23>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The college
5:42:24board who administers the SAT and ACT
5:42:27education currently have a duopoly in
5:42:29the market for standardized testing and
5:42:31have immense market power over the
5:42:32curriculum and testing standards for
5:42:34children. We've seen the College Board
5:42:35wield this market power inappropriately,
5:42:37injecting progressive ideologies,
5:42:39critical race theory and identity
5:42:41politics into their curriculum and
5:42:42testing. Content on intersectionality,
5:42:45the Black Lives Matter movement,
5:42:47validity of sexuality and gender, and
5:42:49ideologically driven revisionist
5:42:51versions of history has no business in a
5:42:54child's curriculum or dictating their
5:42:55future and ability to serve this nation.
5:42:57The classic learning test is an
5:42:59alternative standardized test to the SAT
5:43:01and ACT rooted in classical education.
5:43:04The test evaluates reading, writing, and
5:43:06math. Imagine that. using text from
5:43:08great thinkers of western and Christian
5:43:10traditions. It's a rigorous test which
5:43:12reflects the values of many families
5:43:13whose children seek to enter a military
5:43:15service academy. This amendment would
5:43:17require the servicemies to accept the
5:43:19results of the classic learning test in
5:43:21the service academy admissions process
5:43:23and consider those scores in a similar
5:43:25way to the ACT and SAT. This amendment
5:43:28doesn't say what test students have to
5:43:30take. If a student's learning and test
5:43:31taking style is better suited to the
5:43:33format of the SAT or the ACT, they would
5:43:36be free to use those results in their
5:43:37application to a service academy. This
5:43:39amendment simply provides another option
5:43:41for candidates for admission to the
5:43:43servicemies, one which may be better
5:43:45suited for those who are homeschooled or
5:43:47attend private or prochial schools. Last
5:43:49year, Secretary Hexath directed the
5:43:50military servicemies to begin accepting
5:43:52the classic learning test beginning in
5:43:54the 2027 admission cycle. This amendment
5:43:57would codify this action. More than 320
5:44:00colleges and universities nationwide now
5:44:02accept class learning test scores. It's
5:44:04time to ensure the servicemies continue
5:44:06to do the same now in the future and I
5:44:08urge all members to support this
5:44:09amendment and I yield back.
5:44:10>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I
5:44:12recognizes the ranking member. Thank you
5:44:14Mr. Chairman. I I find this amendment
5:44:15fascinating because what what DLT is is
5:44:19that it was a test that was generated
5:44:21because of the belief that the existing
5:44:22tests were biased. Okay, biased I guess
5:44:26pro woke. So they had to come up with
5:44:27something that had a better better
5:44:28measure. And that's really interesting
5:44:30because what we should keep in mind in
5:44:32all this when people say, "Oh, we should
5:44:34use merit." You have to understand the
5:44:37word merit in this context is 100%
5:44:40subjective. 100%.
5:44:43It's thrown out there like, "Well, 2
5:44:46plus 2 is four and if you're saying it's
5:44:47five, I'm right and you're wrong." But
5:44:49that's completely untrue.
5:44:51Merit is a subjective term. And what
5:44:54we've been fighting with and pushing
5:44:56back on these amendments that want to
5:44:57say no, it must be merit is the notion
5:44:59that there are implicit biases society
5:45:02that we need to take into account so
5:45:04that we don't miss out on talent. Now,
5:45:06Miss Mace is offering an amendment here
5:45:08because the bias that she sees is
5:45:10against people who aren't woke. I guess
5:45:12we needed to come up with a new test to
5:45:14make sure that people not in that
5:45:15category weren't being biased against.
5:45:17But the bias that all of her amendments
5:45:20refuses to see is the notion that in
5:45:24American society for some period of time
5:45:26we had a bias against anyone who wasn't
5:45:29basically a straight white male. Okay,
5:45:32we want to act like no such bias
5:45:33existed. We're just going with merit. So
5:45:36we we can see a bias so much so that we
5:45:39require an entirely different test to
5:45:41make sure that we're not giving into
5:45:43that bias. But our history of racism and
5:45:46bigotry and sexism, trans and sorry, you
5:45:49know, anti-gay feelings, ah, that's all
5:45:51irrelevant. We should just go ahead and
5:45:53judge it on merit. I mean, even
5:45:54something seemingly as simple as, well,
5:45:56if you're an Eagle Scout, aren't you a
5:45:58better person? Admittedly, I'm biased. I
5:45:59was a terrible boy scout. I sort of
5:46:01crapped crapped out as a star scout, so
5:46:03I would never made it by that test. But
5:46:05but by and large, you know, people with
5:46:09non-white backgrounds were less likely
5:46:11to join the Boy Scouts. Okay? le less
5:46:13likely to be promoted. So all we've been
5:46:15argue on this side is let's take into
5:46:18account just a little bit all of the
5:46:21biases that have gone against the people
5:46:23that our society discriminated against
5:46:26for decades. And that's not debatable.
5:46:29Now people want to pretend like somehow
5:46:30we woke up one day and said we're no
5:46:32longer racist. We're no longer bigot.
5:46:34Nothing bad is ever happening. That's
5:46:35more of an arguable point. I disagree
5:46:37with it. But it is not arguable that
5:46:39locked into our society for generations
5:46:42was pure bias against anyone who wasn't
5:46:45a straight white male. So we come along
5:46:47and say let's open the aperture a little
5:46:49bit. F all those traditional things that
5:46:52gave into that bias and the other side
5:46:54loses their damn mind every time we try
5:46:57to oh god that's unfair. That that's you
5:47:00know you you're not picking people based
5:47:01on merit. And yet here we are. Okay. We
5:47:04we got some anti-woke people who we
5:47:06think are being biased against. So we
5:47:08have to change the rules to make sure
5:47:10that their merit is seen. Now all of
5:47:13that said, as you've heard me before, um
5:47:15I freely admit from where I come from in
5:47:18particular out in the greater Seattle
5:47:19area that some people got a little
5:47:21overly enthusiastic with this implicit
5:47:23bias thing. Completely agree on that. We
5:47:26should have standards. We should work
5:47:27through that. But we're doing all of
5:47:29this effort to drive out any effort to
5:47:32deal with the very clear bias that
5:47:34happened for centuries in this country.
5:47:37All right. So that that people who were
5:47:39discriminated against who this situation
5:47:41would could possibly have a fair shot
5:47:44and now we're going to do this. Now I
5:47:47suppose it's possible that you know
5:47:48anti-woke people are the most
5:47:50discriminated against people in this.
5:47:51Well, no it's actually not possible.
5:47:53Sorry. Um but the belief is that they're
5:47:55the most discriminated against people in
5:47:56the world. we must protect them, you
5:47:58know. But after hundreds of years of
5:48:00slavery and Jim Crow and bias against
5:48:03Native Americans and sexism, women,
5:48:05sorry, I love throwing this stat out
5:48:06here. Prior to 1973, if you worked for
5:48:11the State Department, you were not
5:48:12allowed to keep your job if you were a
5:48:14woman and you got married. I happen to
5:48:16know this because my biological mother
5:48:18worked for the State Department. 1973,
5:48:21people, you couldn't have a freaking
5:48:23job. I mean, let alone be promoted. All
5:48:26right? and we come along and say, "Hey,
5:48:28we want to fix that for the sake of a
5:48:30little bit greater equality." Oh, that's
5:48:32woke. You're moving away from merit and
5:48:34true opportunity. You know, never mind
5:48:36the fact that so many people get into
5:48:38these places based on who their family
5:48:39was and how much money they have. So, I
5:48:42just I can't I can't believe we're
5:48:44considering this. You given all the talk
5:48:46about merit and, you know, we shouldn't
5:48:48be, you know, trying to adjust these
5:48:49things. Now we're come up with a
5:48:50specific test for a specific group of
5:48:53people that we believe have somehow been
5:48:55unfairly biased against. So reject this
5:48:59amendment and can we please get back to
5:49:00a place where we're having an honest
5:49:02conversation about how to fairly measure
5:49:05people's ability and make sure everyone
5:49:07has an opportunity so that we don't lose
5:49:10out on talent. To me, that's the biggest
5:49:12concern. We are losing out on talent
5:49:15because of historical bias and
5:49:16discrimination. We got to open the
5:49:18aperture to bring more people in, but we
5:49:20sure as hell shoulding new tasks to
5:49:21protect some of the very people who
5:49:23created that problem in the first place.
5:49:25I urge a no vote. I yield back. Uh,
5:49:27gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from
5:49:29Maryland, Miss Elf, is recognized.
5:49:31>> Thank Thank you, Mr. Chair. I second
5:49:32everything the ranking member had just
5:49:33said, and I rise in strong opposition to
5:49:35this amendment for two reasons. One's
5:49:37process, and the other one is is the
5:49:39merit of the very amendment. Pro is
5:49:42Secretary Heg says has already directed
5:49:44the servicemies to begin accepting CLT
5:49:46scores in next year's admission cycle.
5:49:48So I I'm confused as to why we're
5:49:50spending any of this committee's
5:49:51precious time discussing this amendment.
5:49:53Number two, on the merit of the
5:49:55amendment, the classic uh language test
5:50:00learning test uh is actually not widely
5:50:02accepted by other colleges or
5:50:04universities and significant questions
5:50:06remain about its reliability and
5:50:07validity as an admissions tools. Again,
5:50:10we're not talking about just any
5:50:12universities in the nation. These are
5:50:13our leading universities, our
5:50:15servicemies. Incredibly challenging to
5:50:17get into. Incredibly high standards once
5:50:20you are there, as it should be. The
5:50:22majority often speaks about the
5:50:24importance of merit-based admissions and
5:50:25objective standards, and I agree with
5:50:27that. But objective standards only work
5:50:30when we can accurately compare
5:50:31applicants against one another. Unlike
5:50:33the SAT or ACT, the CLT does not have an
5:50:36independently validated comparison table
5:50:38that shows admissions officers uh allows
5:50:41them to reliably compare scores across
5:50:43exams. In fact, the College Board and
5:50:46the Iowa Border Regions have reviewed
5:50:47the CLT and concluded that it lacks any
5:50:50sufficient evidence to predict college
5:50:52readiness and does not meet accepted
5:50:54industry standards for score
5:50:55comparisons. If we care about merit and
5:50:58fairness and maintaining rigorous
5:50:59admission standards, we should rely on
5:51:01the assessments that are thoroughly
5:51:03validated and widely accepted across
5:51:05higher education. For those reasons, I
5:51:07urge a a no vote on this amendment and I
5:51:10yield back.
5:51:11>> Gentle lady yields back. Does anybody
5:51:12else seek recognition on this amendment?
5:51:16Seeing none, uh the question occurs on
5:51:18the amendment offered by Miss May. So
5:51:20many is in favor will say I.
5:51:21>> I oppose. No. opinion chair the eyes
5:51:25have it recorded votes requested
5:51:27recorded vote is ordered and postponed
5:51:29to a later time we now consider log
5:51:32number 6476R2
5:51:35by Mr. Higgins uh for what purpose is a
5:51:38gentleman from Louisiana seek
5:51:40recognition
5:51:41>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak on
5:51:43my amendment.
5:51:44>> Gentleman has an amendment at the desk.
5:51:46Will the clerk please uh distribute the
5:51:48amendment? Without objection, the
5:51:50reading of the amendments dispenseed
5:51:51with the chair now recognizes a
5:51:53gentleman from Louisiana for the purpose
5:51:54of explaining his amendment.
5:51:56>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer my
5:51:57amendment log 6476, which would
5:52:00establish age sex neutral physical
5:52:03fitness standards for combat roles in
5:52:06the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marine
5:52:08Corps, and Space Force. As a member of
5:52:11Congress and a veteran, my highest
5:52:14priority through this committee is
5:52:16ensuring our armed forces remain the
5:52:18most lethal, ready, and capable fighting
5:52:21force in the world.
5:52:24In 2025,
5:52:26Secretary Hegsith issued a series of
5:52:29memos that instituted sexual physical
5:52:32fitness standards for combat roles
5:52:35across the armed forces. This enabled
5:52:38our fighting force to be focused solely
5:52:40on operational demands and readiness
5:52:43against adversaries. My amendment which
5:52:46codifies the secretary's guidance is not
5:52:48about politics. It's about war fighting
5:52:50reality and keeping our troops alive on
5:52:53the battlefield and winning conflicts.
5:52:56The enemy does not adjust for gender or
5:52:59identity. Our physical fitness standards
5:53:02for our service members in combat roles
5:53:06must reflect the unforgiving demands of
5:53:08war. In response to Secretary Hex's
5:53:11guidance, several of our services have
5:53:14already responded. Effective June 2025,
5:53:18the US Army rolled out its new army
5:53:20fitness test with a higher sex neutral
5:53:23standard for 21 combat specialties and a
5:53:27requirement that our combat armed
5:53:29soldiers complete a combat field test.
5:53:32The Marine Corps has aligned its
5:53:35physical fitness test for combat arms
5:53:38marines to a minimum of 70%
5:53:41using male age norm standards.
5:53:44Basically, my amendment ensures the best
5:53:47qualified Americans, male or female, are
5:53:50serving in the most strenuous, rigorous
5:53:52roles within our armed forces.
5:53:55Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
5:53:57consideration of my amendment and I hope
5:53:59my colleagues will support it. G
5:54:03gentleman yields back. Chair not
5:54:04recognizes gentle lady from
5:54:05Pennsylvania, Miss Hulahan.
5:54:07>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I I feel like
5:54:09that uh Mr. Higgins, you and I must be
5:54:11reading a different amendment. Um, and I
5:54:13and I apologize if for some reason I'm
5:54:15misunderstanding your amen amendment,
5:54:17but I too am a member of Congress and I
5:54:19too am a veteran. And I do also share
5:54:22the desire, your desire to make sure
5:54:24that we have the most ready and lethal
5:54:25force in the world. But this amendment,
5:54:28as I read it, to be clear, codifies the
5:54:30establishment of age. So based on your
5:54:33age, things will be different, but sex
5:54:35neutral physical fitness standards for
5:54:38all of the Army, Navy, Air Force,
5:54:40Marines, and Space Force in all
5:54:42positions. Not in combat positions, but
5:54:44in all positions is my understanding of
5:54:46your amendment. As it as it is proposed,
5:54:49if I'm correct about this, it's
5:54:50fundamentally flawed because it's
5:54:52inconsistent and it claims to require a
5:54:55sex neutral physical fitness standard
5:54:57while also keeping steady the age
5:55:00requirements. If sta if our stated goal
5:55:02is to make sure that we have a single
5:55:04uniform standard that's tied to our
5:55:06militaryness, then the amendment can't
5:55:08selectively decide that gender and sex
5:55:11distinctions shouldn't count while also
5:55:14allowing for agebased distinctions. To
5:55:16your point, we want to make sure that
5:55:18the enemy doesn't differentiate between
5:55:20whether you're an older person or a
5:55:22younger person, whether or not you're a
5:55:24gender of one for one kind or another.
5:55:27If I'm correct about your amendment,
5:55:29making all jobs, both combat and not
5:55:31combat related, subject to that same
5:55:33genderneutral fitness test for both men
5:55:35and women, this will certainly have a
5:55:37lot of real world consequences for
5:55:39existing service members and in future
5:55:41recruitment of service members as well.
5:55:44So consider as an example, a public
5:55:46affairs officer or a doctor or a nurse
5:55:48or a lawyer. Just a few examples. In
5:55:51this new standard, you would be required
5:55:53to have the same non-gendered uh
5:55:56physical fitness standard, but age
5:55:58related physical fitness standard. And
5:56:00personally, I would prefer a medical
5:56:02doctor by my bedside or in the
5:56:04battlefield that was highly medically
5:56:06credentialed and not one that can catch
5:56:08a medicine ball like the guy that's next
5:56:09to her. And really, in allness, this
5:56:12amendment raises serious questions about
5:56:14what the intent is. Is this uh the
5:56:16intent of this amendment to ensure that
5:56:18every service member can meet the
5:56:19demands of the job? Or is it really just
5:56:22a cynical attempt to use the language of
5:56:24standards to target women's continued
5:56:26service at all? Today, we fight with
5:56:28more than just pure muscle. We fight
5:56:30with our brains as well. And this
5:56:31amendment's singular uh single standard
5:56:33fitness requirements will prevent us
5:56:35from retaining the very best minds who
5:56:37already meet that standard today. And we
5:56:40certainly cannot requ uh forget about
5:56:42recruiting as well. The downstream
5:56:44consequences of creating age norm but
5:56:47genderneutral standards will cost our
5:56:49military and we will hemorrhage talent
5:56:50that we've worked so hard to recruit. I
5:56:52look forward very much to bringing
5:56:54forward my amendment which is instead
5:56:56only focused on genderneutral standards
5:56:58for ground combat only and I strongly
5:57:00oppose this amendment and I yield back.
5:57:02>> Gentle yields back. Does anybody Texas
5:57:05is recognized?
5:57:06>> Thank you Mr. Chairman. I yield my time
5:57:07to Mr. Higgins from Louisiana. I thank
5:57:09the gentleman and I respect my my
5:57:12colleagues concerns. I like to address
5:57:14them. Um the intention of the of the
5:57:18amendment is to recognize the
5:57:21longstanding
5:57:23successful
5:57:25implementation of age normed
5:57:28um roles within our military for
5:57:31physical fitness testing, but also to
5:57:34address in the in the the modern era of
5:57:40recognizing the capabilities of women to
5:57:44serve across Ross the board in our
5:57:46military but cottifying
5:57:50the indeed the intention of Congress is
5:57:53that the physical fitness standards
5:57:57shall be sex neutral. So if you if if
5:58:00you can pass the test to be on this
5:58:03team, one of the specialty teams was
5:58:05it's up to in the in the amendment the
5:58:08the
5:58:10department of war determines these roles
5:58:13combat roles but I have many of them
5:58:14listed if the primary purpose of that
5:58:17role of that MOS on in that unit in
5:58:21includes close engagement and close
5:58:24combat
5:58:25and it's a combat role but sex norm
5:58:28physical fitness This would be across
5:58:29the board.
5:58:32We we clarified
5:58:36by using by separating combat roles that
5:58:39we don't we it's not the intention of
5:58:42Congress for the Pentagon to choose the
5:58:45lowest standards and say, "Okay, the the
5:58:48new sex neutral standard is whatever the
5:58:51lowest standard was." The combat roles
5:58:53would have higher standards. So, if
5:58:56you're a female in the United States
5:58:58Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,
5:59:00Space Force, and you want to you want to
5:59:03be on a team, then I want you to be on
5:59:05that team if you can pass the physical
5:59:08fitness standards that the team
5:59:10establishes for everybody on the team
5:59:14aside from age norming. And I have 50
5:59:18seconds left. I'm glad to yield to the
5:59:20good lady to respond to my response if
5:59:23the gentleman. Yeah, I am my balancing
5:59:25my time to M.
5:59:27>> Thank you. I appreciate it. I think
5:59:29we're talking across each other because
5:59:31this I too agree and believe in
5:59:34standards and I too agree in combat
5:59:36roles particularly specifically that you
5:59:38need to meet the standard and the
5:59:39standard is the sta the standard to
5:59:41participate in. 5,000 women have that
5:59:44standard right now in active duty who
5:59:45are serving active duty. I think where
5:59:47we struggle is our current secretary of
5:59:49defense is is uh on the record is saying
5:59:52the highest male standard and I think
5:59:55that you are correct in saying that
5:59:56there's a history of us having um
5:59:59age-based standards that we're that
6:00:01we're comfortable with. I would argue
6:00:03that we also have a history of having
6:00:04gender- based standards for certain
6:00:06roles that are non-combat related time
6:00:08is expired. Chair now recognizes
6:00:10gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.
6:00:13>> Thank you. Uh all due respect to Mr.
6:00:15Higgins, I I I have to agree with Mr.
6:00:17Hulahan on this one. I think if there
6:00:19were certain combat rules, you narrowed
6:00:22it down that, you know, this sex neutral
6:00:24standard to certain combat roles, I
6:00:26think that would be persuadable. But to
6:00:28do it across the board, and I served 30
6:00:31years in the Air Force, I just don't
6:00:32think it would work. uh to have the same
6:00:34standard and measure
6:00:37men and women at the same physical
6:00:38fitness standards for every job in the
6:00:40Air Force. I think it would end up
6:00:42disqualifying a lot of people that would
6:00:45wouldn't you wouldn't have to do any
6:00:47that would be unnecessary. Uh so just I
6:00:50just I think if your amendment directed
6:00:52towards certain combat jobs, I think
6:00:54it's a a winning amendment, but across
6:00:57the board, I think it's goes maybe too
6:00:59far.
6:01:00>> Gentlemen, yields back. Chair now
6:01:01recognizes ranking member. Uh thank you,
6:01:03Mr. Chairman. I yield to uh Miss
6:01:05Hulahan.
6:01:07>> I appreciate that. Well, I have just the
6:01:09amendment for you, uh Mr. Bacon. Uh and
6:01:12it will be coming soon to a theater near
6:01:14you, which does exactly what we're
6:01:16talking about. I too really very much
6:01:18believe that we need to sort of stop
6:01:20this this what I believe is a slippery
6:01:22slope and uncertain future where we we
6:01:24know the answer to these questions.
6:01:26There are women who are qualified and
6:01:28can meet those standards. very very high
6:01:30standards to be in those combat related
6:01:32roles and they should be allowed to be
6:01:33there. Um there is a concern that I have
6:01:36that I think we should all have that the
6:01:38secretary has has asked for yet another
6:01:40study of something that we already know.
6:01:42Uh General Cooper when him in front of
6:01:44us I asked him about the readiness and
6:01:46lethality of the people who are fighting
6:01:48in Iran 18% of whom are women and he
6:01:50said without pause or hesitation that
6:01:52every last one of them man and woman was
6:01:55lethal and ready. And so I hope very
6:01:57much Mr. Bacon and others who are
6:01:59listening to this conversation that you
6:02:00will take under consideration uh a more
6:02:03uh surgically aimed uh amendment that is
6:02:07aimed just at our combat uh ground
6:02:09combat uh troops. Thanks and I
6:02:11appreciate the time.
6:02:14>> Gentle lady yields back. Uh does Mr.
6:02:16Smith yield the balance of his time?
6:02:19>> And now
6:02:22Mr. Mr. Vinman of Virginia is
6:02:24recognized.
6:02:25>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I want to
6:02:26talk about um this particular amendment
6:02:28because I think it's important um that
6:02:31we get this right. Um I served 25 years
6:02:34in the army, half of it as a infantry
6:02:37officer, the other half as a jag. And so
6:02:40I understand the high standards that we
6:02:42need to maintain in uh the combat arms
6:02:45and that we cannot uh let those
6:02:47standards slip. At the same time, I
6:02:50think we have to recognize that um there
6:02:52are specialties in the military and my
6:02:55wife happened to be uh army
6:02:57microbiologist, a a molecular geneticist
6:03:00by training and that those jobs are are
6:03:03not combat arms jobs and that we need
6:03:06that talent. We need that expertise uh
6:03:09in our military and we have to be very
6:03:12careful that we are not losing highly
6:03:14qualified candidates um that um we
6:03:19require for our national security. And
6:03:22um the last thing I would say is that
6:03:24you know as we look at the modern
6:03:27battlefield we have to recognize also
6:03:29that wars modern wars are being fought
6:03:32hundreds of of miles away from the front
6:03:35line. In Ukraine in particular you have
6:03:38uh you have warriors uh that are
6:03:42destroying Russian material and
6:03:44equipment from hundreds of miles away.
6:03:47Uh they're qualified drone operators. uh
6:03:50they're serving in uniform and um they
6:03:54are the most effective combat force that
6:03:58the Ukrainians have on the battlefield.
6:03:59So
6:04:01we we have to be careful. We have to
6:04:02make sure that uh we take the most
6:04:06qualified fighters that we possibly can
6:04:09to maintain our lethality and that we
6:04:12don't disqualify what is already a
6:04:14limited pool of folks um that are
6:04:16eligible to join the US military.
6:04:19>> Thank you. I yield back.
6:04:21>> Uh, gentleman yields back. Does anybody
6:04:23else seek recognition on Mr. Higgins
6:04:26amendment?
6:04:27Seeing none, the question now occurs on
6:04:29the amendment offered by Mr. Higgin. So
6:04:31many is there in favor will say I. I
6:04:34>> oppose. No.
6:04:36>> Opinion here. The eyes have it.
6:04:39The eyes have it.
6:04:42>> The aort's vote. Recorded vote is
6:04:44requested. A recorded vote is ordered
6:04:46and shall be postponed to a later time.
6:04:49We will now consider log number 6552R1
6:04:54by Miss Jacobs of California. For what
6:04:56purpose is a gentle lady seek
6:04:57recognition?
6:04:58>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment.
6:04:59>> Will the clerk please distribute the
6:05:01amendment without objection? The reading
6:05:02of the amendments dispensed with the
6:05:03chair now recognizes a gentle lady for
6:05:05the purpose of explaining her amendment.
6:05:08>> My amendment establishment establishes
6:05:10an umbsman of stars and stripes. Stars
6:05:13and Stripes has been published
6:05:15continuously since 1861 when Union
6:05:18soldiers published the first edition in
6:05:20Bloomfield, Missouri. It covered the
6:05:22Civil War, both World Wars. It was there
6:05:24at Normandy, at Fallujah, at every
6:05:27meaningful turning point in war. For 165
6:05:30years, it has been the independent voice
6:05:32of the service member. Not a Pentagon
6:05:34mouthpiece, but a real newspaper
6:05:36reporting the truth. Secretary Hexath is
6:05:39trying to end that legacy, and we should
6:05:41not let him. In January of this year,
6:05:43the Pentagon announced was refocusing
6:05:45stars and stripes. Quote, "Away from
6:05:48woke distractions that siphon morale."
6:05:51>> A new Pentagon memo imposed new content
6:05:53requirements and job applicants were
6:05:55asked to explain how they'd advance the
6:05:57president's policy priorities. And when
6:05:59the ombbudsman began reporting on these
6:06:01threats, she was fired without any
6:06:03explanation.
6:06:05This is censorship and it is a dangerous
6:06:08warning sign. The public needs
6:06:10independent reporting on how their
6:06:11dollars are spent by the military and
6:06:13the actions of military leadership, not
6:06:15propaganda. My amendment establishes a
6:06:18Stars and Stripes ombbudsman in statute.
6:06:21We've been here before. In the late
6:06:231980s, the Pentagon tried to suppress
6:06:25unfavorable coverage at the Stars and
6:06:27Stripes of the Iran Contra affair. And
6:06:30it was because of that interference that
6:06:32we created this position in 1991.
6:06:35We make this position permanent. Now,
6:06:37this amendment protects integrity. It
6:06:40protects independence and the free
6:06:41press. It reflects the principles of the
6:06:43first amendment. So, I urge my
6:06:45colleagues to vote yes to protect the
6:06:47paper and the troops who read it. I
6:06:48yield.
6:06:50Gentle lady yields back. Chair now
6:06:52recognizes himself. I I agree that the
6:06:54role of an arms budman is important.
6:06:57However, I cannot support restricting
6:06:58the secretary's oversight authority of
6:07:00an arms budman as the amendment pro
6:07:02proposes. Making arms budsman explicitly
6:07:05independent is not how the military
6:07:07chain of command works. I urge members
6:07:09to oppose the amendment. Does anybody
6:07:10else seek recognition? Gentleman from
6:07:13Texas, Mr. Fallon.
6:07:14>> Uh Mr. Chairman, in your very uh
6:07:16powerful and succinct uh argument, I I
6:07:19do want to echo it because it does
6:07:20restrict the SEC def's authority in the
6:07:22chain of command or his designate for
6:07:24that matter. And while the rigid
6:07:25standards were intentionally omitted
6:07:27during the creation of the Abudsman
6:07:29position to allow it to be flexible
6:07:31between, you know, be a flexible bridge
6:07:33between Congress and the DoD, the vast
6:07:35military community. Uh this inclusion of
6:07:38this new language will now create
6:07:40unnecessary obstacles and impede
6:07:42oversights uh in the ability in the
6:07:45established chain of command. So I have
6:07:46to oppose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
6:07:47Yield back.
6:07:48>> Gentleman yields back. Does anybody seek
6:07:50recognition? Seeing none, the question
6:07:52now occurs on the amendment offered by
6:07:54Miss Jacobs. So many as are in favor
6:07:55will say I. Those opposed, no. No. Pin
6:07:59your chair. The nose have it. Recorded
6:08:01votes requested and and is ordered and
6:08:03shall be postponed to a later time. We
6:08:06will now consider log number 6527R1
6:08:11by Miss Goodlander. For what purpose
6:08:13does a gentle lady from New Hampshire
6:08:14seek recognition?
6:08:16>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
6:08:17desk.
6:08:18>> Will the clerk please disc amendment?
6:08:20Without objection, the reading of the
6:08:21amendments dispensed with. The chair now
6:08:23recognizes gentle lady for the purpose
6:08:24of explaining her amendment.
6:08:26>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this
6:08:28bipartisan common sense amendment to
6:08:31strengthen the independence, the
6:08:33credibility, and the long-term stability
6:08:35of Stars and Stripes, our military's
6:08:38independent news source for
6:08:41165 years. Specifically, our bipartisan
6:08:45amendment establishes Stars and Stripes
6:08:47as an independent establishment within
6:08:50the Department of Defense. It includes
6:08:53common sense provisions that will
6:08:55safeguard its independence,
6:08:58uh create checks against political
6:09:00interference and ensure that editorial
6:09:03decisions remain where they belong and
6:09:06that's in the hands of professional
6:09:08journalists and political appointees.
6:09:11The amendment also preserves
6:09:12long-standing protections for classified
6:09:14information and operational security. Of
6:09:16course, Mr. Chairman, this this
6:09:18amendment is necessary to protect stars
6:09:21and stripes by statute. It long history.
6:09:25It has a daily circulation. It's
6:09:27reaching more than 1.4 million people
6:09:30across the world. This is we're talking
6:09:31about service members, military families
6:09:34who are hungry for independent and
6:09:37credible reporting on the issues that
6:09:40impact their daily lives. Our service
6:09:42members deserve access to independent
6:09:46journalism. Our military families need
6:09:48it and this has been a long-standing
6:09:51bipartisan commitment of this Congress.
6:09:54So, our amendment really does just
6:09:57establish these common sense safeguards
6:10:00uh to ensure that the leadership and
6:10:03staff of Stars and Stripes have the
6:10:05independence that they need to do their
6:10:06jobs. Um removal of the publisher of
6:10:10Stars and Stripes who who's got to be a
6:10:13person appointed on the basis of
6:10:15significant journalism experience. uh
6:10:18removal would require documented
6:10:21evidence of misconduct or performance
6:10:24failures and it would be subject to
6:10:25congressional oversight which I think
6:10:27makes a whole lot of sense. You know,
6:10:29this this amendment is not going to
6:10:31undermine our national security in any
6:10:32way. It doesn't authorize the disclosure
6:10:34of classified information. It wouldn't
6:10:36interfere with operational security or
6:10:39prevent the department from protecting
6:10:40service members and military operations.
6:10:43It explicitly preserves the protections
6:10:46for classified information that we've
6:10:48always relied on. Um, and it wouldn't so
6:10:51so these are important protections that
6:10:52remain clearly in place. This this
6:10:55amendment is about the basic principle
6:10:57that stars and stripes which since 1861
6:11:01has been a proud and independent source
6:11:03of news for our service members and
6:11:05military families would remain
6:11:07independent. And I urge all of you to
6:11:10support this common sense bipartisan
6:11:12amendment. With that, I yield back.
6:11:14>> Gentle lady yields back. Chair now
6:11:15recognizes himself. This amendment would
6:11:17place constraints on the operational
6:11:18functions and staff structure of the
6:11:20stars and stripes newspaper. It
6:11:22ultimately re removes the necessary
6:11:24oversight authorities from the
6:11:25secretary. Additional parts of the
6:11:27amendment seeks to shape the nature of
6:11:30materials and editorial practices that
6:11:32the stars and stripes is able to produce
6:11:34and engage in which can potentially
6:11:36oppose the overall values of our
6:11:38military. Therefore, I do not support
6:11:39this amendment that hinders the
6:11:41secretary's ongoing efforts to modernize
6:11:42and ensure accurate reporting that is
6:11:45consistent with the values of our
6:11:46military. Uh does anybody seek
6:11:48recognition? Gentle lady from Maryland
6:11:50is recognized.
6:11:51>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment
6:11:53upholds a cornerstone of the
6:11:54Constitution that a free and independent
6:11:56press is essential to the very health of
6:11:58our democracy. As we've said here a
6:12:00couple times now, Stars and Stripes was
6:12:02founded during the Civil War and has
6:12:03served as a trusted nonpartisan source
6:12:06of news for service members and their
6:12:07families for over 165 years. I want to
6:12:10share just as context for the committee
6:12:13words of General Persing who during
6:12:14World War I attested that the paper
6:12:17written by the men in the service should
6:12:19speak the thoughts of the new American
6:12:21army and the American people from whom
6:12:23the the army has been drawn. It is your
6:12:25paper. General Eisenhower expressed the
6:12:28same sentiment decades later, saying,
6:12:30quote, "Stars and stripes is the
6:12:31soldiers newspaper. We will not
6:12:33interfere." unquote after the paper
6:12:35published an unflattering cartoon of the
6:12:37general. Its credibility rests on its
6:12:40editorial independence which has been
6:12:41codified
6:12:43when this committee saw fit to step in.
6:12:45The paper does not belong to generals or
6:12:47admirals. It does not belong to
6:12:49secretaries or presidents. It belongs to
6:12:52the soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen
6:12:54and guardians of this nation. I urge all
6:12:57our members of this committee to support
6:12:58this amendment and I yield back.
6:13:00>> Gentle lady yields back. Does anybody
6:13:01seek recognition?
6:13:03Seeing none, the question now occurs on
6:13:05the amendment offered by Miss
6:13:06Goodlander. All in favor will say I.
6:13:09>> Those opposed, no. No. Opinion chair,
6:13:11the nose have it.
6:13:12>> M. Mr. Chairman, may I request a record?
6:13:14>> Reported vote is requested and ordered.
6:13:16It will be postponed to a later time. We
6:13:19will now move to log number 6482 R1 by
6:13:24Miss Goodlander of New Hampshire. For
6:13:25what purposes? Gentle lady seek
6:13:27recognition.
6:13:28>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
6:13:29desk.
6:13:30>> Will the clerk please distribute the
6:13:31amendment? Without objection, the
6:13:32reading of the amendment is dispensed
6:13:34with the chair and I recognize as a
6:13:35gentle lady for the purpose of
6:13:36explaining her amendment.
6:13:38>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer this
6:13:41common sense bipartisan amendment to
6:13:43protect the independence of the Pentagon
6:13:45press corps and ensure that the American
6:13:48people get access to accurate
6:13:51independent reporting about one of the
6:13:54most important institutions in the
6:13:56world, the United States Department of
6:13:58Defense. This straightforward amendment
6:14:02simply states that no funds authorized
6:14:06by this act can be made available uh or
6:14:10be used to restrict the free and
6:14:12independent press. I wish that this
6:14:15weren't a necessary amendment, but what
6:14:17we are seeing right now is the most
6:14:20coordinated and per pernicious attack on
6:14:23the free press that we've seen in my
6:14:24lifetime or perhaps in our history.
6:14:28Trust in the United States military and
6:14:31our Department of Defense depends upon
6:14:33transparency. And this is the least
6:14:35transparent Pentagon in American
6:14:37history. In large part because we've
6:14:39seen coordinated attack on independent
6:14:42journalists who have dedicated their
6:14:44lives to reporting on the Pentagon. Um,
6:14:48Mr. Chairman, this is a a
6:14:50straightforward amendment that will
6:14:52protect a cornerstone principle of our
6:14:55Constitution. There's a reason why the
6:14:57first amendment is first in our bill of
6:14:59rights and I urge all of our colleagues
6:15:01to support this common sense bipartisan
6:15:04amendment. With that, I yield back.
6:15:05>> Gentle lady yields back. Uh chair
6:15:07recognizes himself. Freedom of the press
6:15:10is a core tenant of our democracy and
6:15:11should be protected fiercely. However,
6:15:13in light of current and ongoing national
6:15:15security risks, the Pentagon has taken
6:15:17certain measures to limit unescorted
6:15:19access to the building by the press.
6:15:22This policy is consistent with how press
6:15:24access is managed in other federal
6:15:25agencies. I support this policy because
6:15:28protecting information on the sensitive
6:15:30military engagement and operations is
6:15:32imperative. I urge members to oppose the
6:15:33amendment. Does anybody seek Oh, Mr.
6:15:35White sides of California is recognized.
6:15:38>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last September,
6:15:40the Pentagon distributed new
6:15:41unprecedented restrictions requiring
6:15:43journalists to seek approval before
6:15:45information gathered in the building,
6:15:47even if it was unclassified, and warning
6:15:49that credentials could be revoked if a
6:15:51journalist was deemed a security risk.
6:15:53Dozens of correspondents refused to sign
6:15:55and were forced to surrender their press
6:15:57badges. A federal court ruled that those
6:15:59new policies were unconstitutional. The
6:16:02Pentagon's response was to move media
6:16:04offices out of the building entirely and
6:16:06require escorts for journalists inside
6:16:09the Pentagon. And just this week, the
6:16:10Department of Defense declared its own
6:16:12press office a classified space
6:16:15completely inaccessible to journalists.
6:16:17Let's be clear about what's at stake
6:16:19here. A free press is a constitutional
6:16:21guarantee, a necessity to hold those in
6:16:23power accountable and make sure our
6:16:25government works for the people that it
6:16:27serves. This is especially true for
6:16:29military power. The Pentagon oversees
6:16:31near nearly a trillion dollars of
6:16:33taxpayer funds, commands millions of
6:16:36American service members, and frequently
6:16:38makes life and death decisions. The
6:16:40public has a right to know how those
6:16:42decisions are being made, and that right
6:16:44depends on journalists having the
6:16:46ability to report freely without fear of
6:16:48retaliation and without having to ask
6:16:50the government's permission. This
6:16:52amendment addresses those concerns. It
6:16:54prohibits using DoD funds to impose
6:16:57prior approval requirements, mandate
6:17:00escorts, close press workspaces without
6:17:02alternatives, or revoke credentials as
6:17:04retaliation, and requires Congress to be
6:17:07notified within 10 days anytime a
6:17:09journalist's credentials are are pulled.
6:17:12This administration's repeated attacks
6:17:14on the free press should alarm every
6:17:16American, regardless of party. I urge my
6:17:20colleagues to support this amendment,
6:17:21and I yield back. Gentleman yields back
6:17:24here and I recognize a gentleman from
6:17:25Texas, Mr. Palen.
6:17:26>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In two words,
6:17:27it's overly burdensome. I mean, we have
6:17:28to define what restriction of the free
6:17:30press means. It does not say in the US
6:17:32Constitution, you have a right to go
6:17:34into the Pentagon. We're members of
6:17:36Congress. It's difficult to get to the
6:17:37Pentagon for us and we're on the D armed
6:17:39services committee. So, it's certainly
6:17:41within their purview to limit that
6:17:43access. And this amendment stands in
6:17:45direct opposition to the SEC death's
6:17:46efforts to ensure operational security
6:17:49and the protection of sensitive
6:17:51information particularly when we're in a
6:17:53time of conflict. Uh you know and um so
6:17:56it also we need to be able to protect
6:17:59sensitive spaces and information as it
6:18:01relates to national security and
6:18:02defense. So again because it is overly
6:18:04burdensome I will have to oppose and I
6:18:06yield. Thank you.
6:18:08>> Gentleman yields. Does anybody else seek
6:18:10recognition on this amendment? If not,
6:18:12the question occurs on the amendment
6:18:14offered by Miss Goodlander. So many in
6:18:15favor will say I.
6:18:17>> Those opposed, no. No. Depending chair,
6:18:19the nos have it.
6:18:20>> Mr. Chairman, may I request a recorded
6:18:22vote?
6:18:22>> Recorded vote is requested and ordered
6:18:24and postponed to a later time. Okay.
6:18:27Next, we'll go ahead. Votes have been
6:18:29called, but we're going to go ahead and
6:18:30try to get Miss Jacobs in before we head
6:18:32over there. We're going to have six
6:18:34votes, so it's going to be a while. Uh,
6:18:36we now consider amendment 677 by Miss
6:18:38Jacobs of California for what? Gentle
6:18:40lady from California seek recognition.
6:18:42>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
6:18:43desk.
6:18:44>> Uh will the clerk uh please distribute
6:18:46the without objection? The reading of
6:18:48the minutes dispense with the chair now
6:18:50recognizes gentle lady for the purpose
6:18:51of explaining her amendment.
6:18:53>> My amendment would protect press access
6:18:55at the Pentagon. This administration
6:18:58loves to talk a big game about the First
6:19:00Amendment. They preach about it
6:19:02constantly. Free speech, free press,
6:19:05cancel culture. They literally built an
6:19:07entire political identity around it. But
6:19:10here's the actual reality of what's
6:19:11happened at the Pentagon under this
6:19:13administration. First, Secretary Hexath
6:19:16kicked NBC News, NPR, the New York
6:19:18Times, and CNN out of their dedicated
6:19:20workspace in the building and replaced
6:19:22them with proTrump media that had never
6:19:24covered the Pentagon a day in their
6:19:26lives. Then he shut down the briefing
6:19:28room and banned reporters from entire
6:19:31wings of the building without a
6:19:32government escort. And on Monday, the
6:19:34Pentagon said the press office is a
6:19:36classified space, which we know is not
6:19:39true because we on this committee
6:19:41understand what is required of a space
6:19:42in order for it to be secure. Secretary
6:19:45Hexath tried to make journalists sign a
6:19:47loyalty pledge as a condition of doing
6:19:49their jobs. And when a federal judge
6:19:51said that was unconstitutional, he shut
6:19:54down the correspondence corridor
6:19:56entirely.
6:19:57And while news organizations have sued
6:20:00and won in court, this administration
6:20:02continues to fight back against press
6:20:04freedom. We need independent oversight
6:20:07of the most powerful military on the
6:20:09planet. It's how we keep the military
6:20:11accountable and it's how we know what's
6:20:13going on. It's because of CNN that we
6:20:16know about the initial US drone strikes
6:20:18on Venezuelan soil. It's because of NPR
6:20:21that about the strikes on the girls
6:20:23elementary school in Manab, Iran. It's
6:20:25because of Reuters that we know about
6:20:27the initial Pentagon inquiry that
6:20:28pointed to the United States being at
6:20:30fault for that strike. And it's because
6:20:32of CBS News that we learned that
6:20:34Secretary Hexath wanted a makeup studio
6:20:36at the Pentagon. The list goes on and
6:20:38on. If we take the press out of the
6:20:41Pentagon, you blind Congress and blind
6:20:44the American people to what's happening
6:20:45in their name and with their money.
6:20:47Replacing independent media with sick
6:20:49fans isn't about protecting national
6:20:51security. And it's actually unbelievable
6:20:54that anyone can claim that it is with a
6:20:56straight face when the Secretary of
6:20:58Defense added a journalist signal chain
6:21:00when talking about an imminent sensitive
6:21:02military operation.
6:21:04This is about eliminating scrutiny. It's
6:21:07about hiding the truth. It's about
6:21:08controlling the media. And we cannot let
6:21:10that happen. My bipartisan amendment is
6:21:13simple. It puts into law what every
6:21:15administration, Republican and
6:21:17Democratic, has upheld for 50 years.
6:21:20Credential journalists get appropriate
6:21:21access to the Pentagon. They get
6:21:23briefings. No pledges, no political
6:21:26lipmus tests, no retaliation for tough
6:21:28coverage and their security credentials
6:21:30are managed by the Pentagon Force
6:21:32Protection Agency as it should be. This
6:21:34is the absolute minimum that Democratic
6:21:37accountability requires. And I urge all
6:21:39of my colleagues to vote yes.
6:21:41>> I yield back.
6:21:43>> Gentle lady yields back. Does anybody
6:21:44Well, I recognize myself. Um, as we
6:21:47discussed in the previous amendment, the
6:21:48Pentagon established a prudent policy to
6:21:50protect sensitive information by placing
6:21:52responsible limits on press access. I
6:21:54urge members to oppose the amendment.
6:21:55Does anybody seek recognition on Miss
6:21:57Jacob's amendment? Seeing none, the
6:22:00question occurs on Miss Jacob's
6:22:01amendment. All in favor will say I.
6:22:04>> Those opposed, no. No. Pin your chair.
6:22:07The nos have it.
6:22:07>> Mr. Chairman, recorded vote.
6:22:08>> Recorded vote is requested and ordered
6:22:10and postponed to a later date. Okay. We
6:22:13are going to now uh break uh for votes.
6:22:16There's going to be a series of six
6:22:18votes. Uh I would tell members we've got
6:22:20about 13 uh votes in the queue for to be
6:22:24recorded. So as soon as this vote is
6:22:27over, 10 minutes after the close of this
6:22:29last vote, we're going to reconvene and
6:22:32start recorded votes uh so we can get
6:22:34those in. So everybody, as soon as votes
6:22:37are over, come straight back so we can
6:22:39get those recorded votes. And with that,
6:22:40we now stand in recess.
8:39:37reported outcome of log number what was
8:39:40the log number again Mr. Vinman
8:39:42>> 6769
8:39:44>> 6769
8:39:45The amendment was not adopted. Is there
8:39:47any objection to the gentleman's request
8:39:50without objection? So ordered. The
8:39:51committee records will reflect this
8:39:54request.
8:39:55>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I determined
8:39:56during the break that I was not a fan of
8:39:58Mr. Rock's music. So,
8:40:03>> all right. We still got a couple of
8:40:05members.
8:40:08See?
8:40:10So, I think we got five members. There's
8:40:13one,
8:40:18two.
8:40:21We're getting close.
8:40:30>> Where?
8:40:31>> Oh, we got some down there. Didn't even
8:40:33see those.
8:40:40There's Davis.
8:43:00This is yours.
8:43:03>> Are we?
8:43:06>> All right. Um, we are now going to
8:43:08proceed with our recorded votes. Um
8:43:13the committee postponed further
8:43:15proceedings on amendment log number 6378
8:43:18by Miss Hulahan. Um and we shall now
8:43:21resume those proceeding. The question
8:43:23occurs on the amendment. Members will
8:43:24record their vote by electronic device.
8:43:26The chairman will be voting no.
8:43:28>> A ranking member voting yes.
8:43:30>> Clerk will open the machine and the
8:43:31members will vote.
8:43:47All members voted.
8:43:59>> Has all members voted?
8:44:07Is there
8:44:10anybody wish to change his or her vote?
8:44:13Clerk will lock the machine and record
8:44:14the vote.
8:44:18>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 24, the NAS
8:44:20are 28.
8:44:21>> Amendment is not agreed to. Uh we will
8:44:24now uh proceed to log number 6328R3
8:44:28by Miss Hulahan and shall record our
8:44:32votes by electronic device. The chairman
8:44:34will be voting no.
8:44:35>> Ranking member will be voting yes.
8:44:37>> The clerk will open the machine and
8:44:39members will vote.
8:45:03Have all members voted? Does any member
8:45:06wish to change his or her vote? Clerk
8:45:09will lock the machine and record the
8:45:10vote.
8:45:14>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 24, the nays
8:45:16are 28.
8:45:17>> The amendments not agreed to. Uh we will
8:45:19now proceed to proceed to log number
8:45:216649
8:45:23by Mr. Ryan. Um we will record our votes
8:45:27by electronic device. The chairman will
8:45:29be voting no.
8:45:30>> Ranking member will be voting yes.
8:45:32>> Clerk will open the machine and members
8:45:33will vote.
8:45:48Have all members voted? Does any member
8:45:51wish to change his or her vote? Clerk
8:45:54will lock the machine and record the
8:45:55vote.
8:45:58>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 25, the NAS
8:46:00are 28.
8:46:01>> The amendments not agreed to. We now
8:46:03move to log number 6386R6
8:46:07by Miss Hulahan. We will record our vote
8:46:09by electronic device. The chairman will
8:46:10be voting no. A ranking member will be
8:46:13voting yes. Clerk will open the machine
8:46:15and members will vote.
8:46:27Have all members voted? See member wish
8:46:30to change his vote.
8:46:32Clerk will lock the machine, record the
8:46:33vote. All right. Hold on. N did not
8:46:36register. There we go.
8:46:38Go ahead. Lock the machine and record
8:46:40the vote.
8:46:42does not always work.
8:46:43>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26, the NAS
8:46:46are 28.
8:46:46>> Amendments not agreed to. We now proceed
8:46:48to log number 6132R2
8:46:51by Mr. Molton of Massachusetts. We will
8:46:53record our vote by electronic device.
8:46:55The chairman will be voting no.
8:46:57>> A ranking member will be voting yes.
8:46:58>> Clerk will open the machine. Members
8:47:00will vote.
8:47:12Have all members voted? Does any member
8:47:15wish to change his or her vote? Clerk
8:47:17will lock the machine and record the
8:47:19vote.
8:47:22>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26, the nays
8:47:24are 28.
8:47:25>> Amendments not agreed to. We now move to
8:47:27log number 6611 R2 by Miss Mace of South
8:47:30Carolina. Uh we will record our votes by
8:47:33electronic device. The chairman will be
8:47:35voting yes.
8:47:36>> Ranking member will be voting no.
8:47:38>> Clerk will open the machine and members
8:47:39will vote.
8:47:49Got in the habit of
8:47:52Have all members voted? Does any member
8:47:55wish to change his or her vote?
8:47:58Clerk will lock the machine and record
8:47:59the vote.
8:48:04Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26. The
8:48:06>> the amendment is not agreed to. Now move
8:48:09to log number 6148 by Miss Mace. We will
8:48:12record our vote uh by rec uh electronic
8:48:15device. The chairman will be voting yes.
8:48:18>> Ranking member will be voting now.
8:48:20>> Clerk will open the machine and members
8:48:22will vote.
8:48:33Have all members voted? Does any member
8:48:36wish change his or her vote? Not the
8:48:39clerk will lock the machine and record
8:48:40the vote.
8:48:43>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 25, the nose
8:48:45are 29.
8:48:46>> The amendments not agreed to. We will
8:48:49now move to log number 6635R1 by Miss
8:48:52Mesa of South Carolina. We will record
8:48:54our votes by electronic device. The
8:48:56chairman will be voting yes.
8:48:58>> Rank member will be voting no.
8:48:59>> Clerk will open the machine and members
8:49:01will vote.
8:49:12Have all members voted?
8:49:14Does any member wish to change his or
8:49:16her vote? If not, the clerk will lock
8:49:19the machine and record the vote.
8:49:24>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays
8:49:27are 27.
8:49:27>> The amendment is not agreed to. We're
8:49:29now moved to a log number 6476R2
8:49:32by Mr. Higgins. Uh, we will record our
8:49:35vote by electronic device. The chairman
8:49:37will be voting yes.
8:49:40How will the ranking member be voting?
8:49:42>> Sorry. Um, ranking member voting no.
8:49:45>> Okay. The clerk will open the machine
8:49:47and the members will vote.
8:50:02Have all members voted? Does any member
8:50:05wish to change his or her vote? If not,
8:50:08the clerk will lock the machine and
8:50:09record the vote.
8:50:12>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 25, the nays
8:50:14are 29.
8:50:15>> The amendments not agreed to. We now
8:50:17move to log number 6552R1
8:50:19by Miss Jacobs of California. Uh we will
8:50:23record our vote by electronic device.
8:50:24The chairman will be voting no.
8:50:26>> Ranking member will be voting yes.
8:50:27>> Clerk will open the machine and members
8:50:30will vote.
8:50:39All members voted.
8:50:43Have all members voted?
8:50:46The member wish to change his or her
8:50:48vote. Not the clerk will machine and
8:50:51report the vote.
8:50:54>> Mr. Chairman, the item 25, the naser 29.
8:50:56>> The amendment is not agreed to. Now go
8:50:58to amendment 6527R1
8:51:01by Miss Goodlander. We will record our
8:51:03votes by electronic device. The chairman
8:51:05will be voting no.
8:51:07>> Member will voting yes.
8:51:08>> Will open the machine and members will
8:51:10vote.
8:51:20Have all members voted? Does any member
8:51:23wish to change his or her vote?
8:51:26Not the clerk will lock the machine and
8:51:28report the vote.
8:51:31>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26, the n are
8:51:3329.
8:51:33>> The amendments not agreed to. Now move
8:51:36to log number 6428 R1 by Miss
8:51:38Goodlander. We will record our votes by
8:51:41electronic device. The chairman will be
8:51:43voting no.
8:51:44>> A ranking member will be voting yes.
8:51:46>> The uh clerk will open the machines and
8:51:48members will vote.
8:52:02>> Have all members voted? Does any member
8:52:04wish to change his or her vote? Not the
8:52:07clerk will lock the machine and record
8:52:10the vote.
8:52:12Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays
8:52:15are 28. Uh the amendment is not agreed
8:52:17to. We now move to our final vote and
8:52:21that is uh Miss Jacobs rag number 6777.
8:52:26We will record our votes by electronic
8:52:27device. The chairman will be voting no.
8:52:30Ranking member will be voting yes. Clerk
8:52:32>> will open the machine and members will
8:52:33vote.
8:52:44Have all members voted?
8:52:50Have all members voted? Does any member
8:52:52wish to change his or her vote? The
8:52:54clerk will lock the machine and report
8:52:56the vote.
8:52:58>> Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nas
8:53:00are 28.
8:53:01>> The amendment is not agreed to. All
8:53:03right. As I previously stated, uh we're
8:53:05got move on back into amendments. But
8:53:08having said that, during we're going to
8:53:09keep plowing through, but uh I have
8:53:12provided dinner for everybody in room
8:53:142212. If at your leisure you want to
8:53:16walk down there, get some great food.
8:53:18We're going to keep work working. We
8:53:20won't be voting again for a good while.
8:53:22I do want y'all to know we were kept
8:53:25over there for an unreasonably long
8:53:27amount of time. We are not going to go
8:53:30back when votes are called until we get
8:53:32caught up. So, we're going to stay here
8:53:34and keep working and chair the ranking
8:53:36member and I will let you know when
8:53:38we're going to go over there. So, we're
8:53:40going to get our business done. Y'all
8:53:41have been doing great. Keep it up.
8:53:44>> All right, let's get back to the the
8:53:45law.
8:53:45>> Mr. Chairman, I I assume that the dinner
8:53:47is vegetarian.
8:53:48>> No, the dinner
8:53:50although I will that's a great point the
8:53:52ranking member makes. The dinner is not
8:53:55vegetarian, but Miss Strickland has made
8:53:58sure that I have salads for the people
8:54:00who don't want to eat meat. So, there's
8:54:02plenty of good food down there. Uh,
8:54:07>> libations in 2024. I don't know anything
8:54:09about that.
8:54:12Uh, that's not the chairman's doings.
8:54:15All right, let's get back to our
8:54:16amendments.
8:54:19Okay, now we're going to bring up log
8:54:21number 6105 by Miss Strickland.
8:54:27Uh, for what purpose does a gentle lady
8:54:29from Washington State seek recognition?
8:54:32>> Chairman Rogers, I have an amendment at
8:54:33the desk.
8:54:34>> Clerk will report the amendment. Uh,
8:54:37without objection, we'll see. Let me
8:54:39find my
8:54:41stuff here.
8:54:43Without objection, the reading of the
8:54:45amendments dispenseed with the chair.
8:54:46And I recognize the lady for the purpose
8:54:47of explaining her amendment. Thank you.
8:54:50>> Promotion boards exist to identify the
8:54:53most qualified officers for advancement
8:54:55based on merit, performance, and the
8:54:58needs of the armed forces.
8:55:00>> Yeah. 22 established a thoroughly
8:55:03rigorous promotion system that includes
8:55:05selection boards, ser review,
8:55:08certification, and civilian oversight.
8:55:11Before an officer's name reaches a
8:55:13secretary of defense, that officer has
8:55:16already been reviewed, vetted, and
8:55:18approved by their military department.
8:55:20>> Mr. Strickland, will you pull the
8:55:21microphone a little closer? I want to
8:55:22hear every word you got to say.
8:55:24>> Okay. Is this better?
8:55:26>> That's much better.
8:55:27>> All right.
8:55:29Service secretaries certify that all
8:55:32known adverse reportable and
8:55:34disqualifying information has been
8:55:37considered long before forwarding a
8:55:39promotion recommendation. In other
8:55:41words, these officers have already
8:55:43received the endorsement of their
8:55:45military service before their names are
8:55:47submitted to the Secretary of Defense.
8:55:50If new misconduct, adverse information,
8:55:53or disqualifying facts emerge after that
8:55:55certification, removal from a promotion
8:55:58list may be entirely appropriate. But
8:56:00when that occurs, Congress deserves to
8:56:03know what changed. The affected officer
8:56:06deserves to know what changed.
8:56:08Transparency is essential to maintaining
8:56:10confidence in the officer promotion
8:56:12system. Under normal circumstances, this
8:56:15amendment would not be necessary.
8:56:17However, Secretary Hegsth has recently
8:56:20removed officers from promotion lists
8:56:22after they successfully completed the
8:56:24department's established review and
8:56:26certification process. The Wall Street
8:56:28Journal wrote an article saying that
8:56:29nine Air Force colonels were removed.
8:56:32They also wrote that eight Navy senior
8:56:34officer promotions were done. Members of
8:56:37Congress requested information regarding
8:56:39the basis of these removals, including
8:56:41whether any new adverse or disqualifying
8:56:44information had emerged after the
8:56:46service level certification. The
8:56:48department did not provide substantive
8:56:51answers to those questions. Congress
8:56:53cannot determine why fully vetted and
8:56:56qualified certified officers are being
8:56:58removed from pro promotion lists. It
8:57:00raises legitimate concerns about
8:57:02transparency, accountability, and the
8:57:05integrity of the personnel system. This
8:57:07amendment responds to those concerns. It
8:57:10ensures that if a promotion board
8:57:12recommendation is overturned after
8:57:15service review and certification has
8:57:17been completed, that decision must be
8:57:19made by the president of the United
8:57:20States. The president is a
8:57:22commander-in-chief. The president is the
8:57:25highest level of civilian authority in
8:57:26our constitutional system. The president
8:57:29is directly accountable to the American
8:57:31people. If a fully vetted and certified
8:57:33officer is going to be removed from a
8:57:35promotion list, that decision should be
8:57:37made by the official who bears ultimate
8:57:39constitutional responsibility for the
8:57:40armed forces. This amendment does not
8:57:43change standards. It does not alter the
8:57:45authority of promotion boards. It does
8:57:47not prevent the removal of officers.
8:57:49>> Gentle times expired. Chair and I
8:57:51recognize gentleman from California, Mr.
8:57:52Whitesides.
8:57:53>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In recent
8:57:55months, we've seen the Secretary of
8:57:56Defense block or delay promotions for
8:57:58more than a dozen senior officers across
8:58:00all four branches of the military.
8:58:02Officers who had already been vetted and
8:58:04selected by promotion boards. These
8:58:06officers were not under investigation
8:58:08were not facing misconduct allegations
8:58:10and no formal explanation was provided
8:58:13to military leadership. This amendment
8:58:15uh responds directly to that conduct
8:58:16with four targeted fixes. First, it
8:58:18takes the secretary and deputy secretary
8:58:20off the removal chain entirely. the
8:58:22president alone can take a name off a
8:58:24promotion list. Second, it closes the
8:58:26loophole the secretary exploited.
8:58:28Holding or redacting a name now counts
8:58:30as a removal. You can't do that
8:58:32indirectly what you're prohibited from
8:58:34doing directly. Third, it expands
8:58:36congressional notification to cover
8:58:38removals for any reason, not just
8:58:40misconduct. So Congress always knows
8:58:43when the list has been touched. And
8:58:45fourth, it tightens the notification
8:58:47deadline from 30 days to five. So
8:58:49Congress finds out fast, not a month or
8:58:52two later. When the Army Secretary
8:58:54refused to remove officers given their
8:58:56years of exemplary service, the
8:58:58secretary removed names himself, like
8:59:00likely without the legal justification
8:59:02or authority to do so. This amendment
8:59:04makes that impossible going forward. Our
8:59:07service members deserve a system that is
8:59:09transparent, lawful, and accountable. I
8:59:12urge my colleagues to support my
8:59:13colleagues amendment and I yield back.
8:59:16>> Gentleman yields back here. I now
8:59:18recognize Mr. Scott of Georgia.
8:59:20>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh I too am
8:59:23concerned about the removal of the
8:59:26officers from the list. And what I want
8:59:28the American citizens to understand is
8:59:29that of all of the colonels out there,
8:59:33approximately 3% of them are selected by
8:59:35their peers to move forward as general
8:59:37officer candidates. That list of general
8:59:40officers is is then submitted to the
8:59:41Senate and then the Senate gets to vote
8:59:44to affirm or deny uh the promotion. So
8:59:483%
8:59:503% approximately of those who have
8:59:54attained the rank of colonel um
8:59:58get promoted on the general officer's
8:59:59list. I'm not aware of
9:00:03other members being removed by the
9:00:05Secretary of Defense. Maybe it's
9:00:08happened in the past, but I'm not aware
9:00:10of it. And I will tell you, I wrote a
9:00:12letter to the secretary asking for an
9:00:13explanation of why. I'm not saying
9:00:18that his actions aren't justified.
9:00:21Maybe they are, but if they are
9:00:23justified, then he should give a public
9:00:25reason why they were removed from the
9:00:27list.
9:00:29And so I I think the language is good.
9:00:32Uh, I'm disappointed that the secretary
9:00:35has chosen to um refuse to answer any of
9:00:39the questions that the members of
9:00:41Congress have asked him on any of these
9:00:43issues. Uh, the Constitution gives us
9:00:45responsibility on these issues. And I
9:00:48would just suggest that if the Secretary
9:00:50of Defense wants to have a good
9:00:53relationship with the members of
9:00:54Congress, then perhaps he should be
9:00:56responsive to the questions that the
9:00:57members of Congress ask. But uh the
9:01:00removal of of those officers is
9:01:02unacceptable and I believe that the
9:01:04secretary owes an answer to the officers
9:01:06and to the and to this committee of why
9:01:09they were removed. With that I yield
9:01:10back.
9:01:11>> Gentleman yields back. Now chair and I
9:01:12recognize this gentleman from New York,
9:01:14Mr. Ryan.
9:01:15>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to
9:01:18yield the balance in a moment to my
9:01:19colleague, but I just want to uh
9:01:22strongly support this amendment and and
9:01:25thank colleagues on both sides of the
9:01:26aisle. The only point I wanted to add is
9:01:29that for almost all of these officers,
9:01:31this is not only a lack of a promotion,
9:01:34it's the end of their career. Often in
9:01:36many cases after decades of honorable
9:01:39service without even an explanation
9:01:42that I think we can all agree that that
9:01:44is inappropriate and disrespectful of
9:01:46their service to our great nation. And I
9:01:48yield the balance to Miss Strickland,
9:01:50Mr. Chair.
9:01:51>> Right. Thank you. This amendment does
9:01:54not change promotion standards. It does
9:01:57not alter the authority of promotion
9:01:59boards. It does not prevent the removal
9:02:02of officers for misconduct,
9:02:04disqualifying information, or any other
9:02:06legitimate reason. It simply ensures
9:02:09that when the promotion process is
9:02:11overridden, that action is taken with
9:02:13the highest level of civilian
9:02:15accountability and transparency. This
9:02:18amendment also clarifies that
9:02:19withholding or redacting an officer's
9:02:22name from a promotion report constitutes
9:02:24a removal for the purposes of the law.
9:02:27Transparency strengthens trust.
9:02:29Accountability strengthens confidence.
9:02:32And both are essential to preserving the
9:02:34integrity of the officer promotion
9:02:35system.
9:02:37I also sent a letter with Congressman
9:02:41from Georgia asking the secretary of
9:02:44defense for an explanation of what
9:02:46happened. We got a sorry little two
9:02:48paragraph curt response that said they
9:02:51promote based on merit. These people are
9:02:53being promoted based on merit. So I ask
9:02:56my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
9:02:58to urge adoption of this amendment.
9:02:59Let's have transparency. Let's respect
9:03:02the qualified people who deserve
9:03:03promotion. And I yield back, Mr. Chair.
9:03:11>> Thank you, chairman. So, I'm going to uh
9:03:14argue in favor of this amendment to
9:03:17restore regular order. I spent 25 years
9:03:20in the army and I have been um nominated
9:03:24and uh Senate confirmed by presidents of
9:03:26both parties. What this does and makes
9:03:29clear that this is a highly regimented
9:03:31process that if there is a soul that if
9:03:34there's a an officer that has derogatory
9:03:36information, there is a mechanism to
9:03:38remove that officer. All this does is
9:03:41recognize the gravity of the commission.
9:03:44Every officer in the military past the
9:03:46grade of major hat. It's a commission
9:03:49where they are charged with safeguarding
9:03:52the most valuable asset that this
9:03:54country has. It's sons and daughters.
9:03:57And so if that commission that is not
9:04:01that nomination is not confirmed by the
9:04:04president, it is the president who has
9:04:06the authority to do that, not the
9:04:08secretary of defense, not anybody else.
9:04:10And so to restore regular order, it
9:04:13should go to the president,
9:04:16then to the Senate for confirmation.
9:04:18With that, I yield back.
9:04:21>> Chair now recognize gentleman from
9:04:22Illinois, Mr. Sorenson.
9:04:24>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, like so
9:04:26many of us here, uh, I have been
9:04:27appalled by Secretary Het's moves to
9:04:30block certain officers from being
9:04:32promoted. This is not typical practice.
9:04:35These officers are so closely vetted by
9:04:38their service branch. To even be
9:04:41considered to be promoted to a senior
9:04:43position, you have to have a a track
9:04:45record of years and most time decades of
9:04:50service and leadership. Secretary Hegsth
9:04:53claims to want a meritocracy, but it is
9:04:56clear that he cares more about promoting
9:04:58people that look like him, think like
9:05:01him, love like him, than doing what's
9:05:03right by our military. Our military
9:05:06should be promoting the leaders who have
9:05:08earned the trust of the troops, and who
9:05:11will do right by their country, not just
9:05:13who Hegsth wants standing next to him in
9:05:15a photo op. I support Miss Strickland's
9:05:18amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
9:05:19support it. I yield back.
9:05:22Does any other member seek recognition?
9:05:24Mr. Fallon of Texas is recognized.
9:05:26>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know,
9:05:27this amendment further ties the hands of
9:05:28the secretary and it restricts the
9:05:30president's authority and inhibits the
9:05:33their ability really to make a
9:05:34determination and uh certain officers
9:05:38being promoted according to merit alone
9:05:40should be uh as the secretary said,
9:05:42merit alone. President Trump's only
9:05:44going to be president for two and a half
9:05:45more years by the way. So these uh
9:05:47officers that we're talking about are
9:05:48promoted and serve at the pleasure of
9:05:50the president and he should the
9:05:51authority to delegate when he so chooses
9:05:54and that's what a lot of the times he
9:05:56has the secretary of defense doing. So
9:05:58current law already charges the
9:05:59president with this authority and I
9:06:01don't want to further restrict them. Mr.
9:06:02Chairman, I yield back.
9:06:06Does any other member seek recognition
9:06:08on this amendment?
9:06:12There being no further debate, the
9:06:14question occurs on the amendment offered
9:06:15by Miss Strickland uh log number 6105.
9:06:18So many in favor will say I oppose. No.
9:06:22>> No. Opinion chair the nose have it.
9:06:26>> A recorded vote is requested and and is
9:06:28ordered and will be postponed to a later
9:06:30time.
9:06:32Uh we now will consider log number 6093
9:06:36by Miss Hulahan. For what purposes
9:06:38gentle from Pennsylvania seek
9:06:39recognition?
9:06:40>> Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
9:06:42desk.
9:06:42>> Will the clerk please distribute the
9:06:44amendment?
9:06:49>> Without objection, the reading
9:06:50amendments dispensed with. The chair
9:06:51recognizes gentle lady for the purpose
9:06:52of explaining her amendment.
9:06:54>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment
9:06:56ensures and codifies genderneutral
9:06:59standards for women just in com ground
9:07:02combat roles. And I'd like to remind
9:07:04this committee that both General Leniv
9:07:06and Secretary Driscoll supported this
9:07:08amendment here in this room on May 15th.
9:07:12Everyone on this committee has said at
9:07:13one point or another that we have the
9:07:15greatest, the strongest, and the most
9:07:17lethal military in the world. And this,
9:07:19of course, I agree with. We do. General
9:07:21Cooper said in this m room just as much
9:07:24as much as that. This amendment would
9:07:26simply help us to maintain that status
9:07:29quo and to ensure that women who meet
9:07:31our standards can continue to serve.
9:07:33Women play critical roles across the US
9:07:36military, including in combat arms, and
9:07:38are integral to our military readiness.
9:07:40More than 5,000 women across this
9:07:42military, are already serving in ground
9:07:44combat roles, including in infantry, and
9:07:47meeting and exceeding the same standards
9:07:49as men. Let me emphasize as clearly as
9:07:51possible, these women in combat roles
9:07:54already have to meet genderneutral
9:07:56standards. They already have done that.
9:07:58The amendment is not about lessening the
9:08:00standards. It's about cottifying and
9:08:02recognizing what already is. That the
9:08:04many qualified women who already serve
9:08:06in ground combat roles and already meet
9:08:08the same genderneutral occupational
9:08:10requirements as men continue to be able
9:08:12to serve. And that others who similarly
9:08:15meet these standards in the future are
9:08:17able to as well. Despite ample empirical
9:08:20evidence and despite studies that have
9:08:22that we already have conducted that we
9:08:24are that conclude that we are already in
9:08:26a fair place with regard to these
9:08:28issues, the administration and secretary
9:08:30heath has yet again asked for another
9:08:32study to add to what we already know and
9:08:35what we have already lived. He has
9:08:37demanded that something he is curiously
9:08:38naming the highest male standard be
9:08:40applied. And we have just learned just
9:08:43uh in this last couple days that the
9:08:4528th annual laying of wreaths at
9:08:47Arlington in honor of women who have
9:08:49served has been cancelled due to a
9:08:51guidance from the Department of Defense
9:08:53and an executive order not to honor
9:08:55these women. For those who believe that
9:08:58this amendment is not necessary at this
9:09:00time or is redundant to what already is
9:09:02existing in practice and that preserving
9:09:04the role that women play in our service
9:09:06is already protected. I would argue that
9:09:08it is indeed necessary that we this body
9:09:11codify what is already being done so
9:09:14that it cannot be undone. Congress has a
9:09:17very timely voice in this. Your yes vote
9:09:21here matters. I urge a yes vote on this
9:09:23amendment. Thank you and I yield.
9:09:26Gentle lady yields. Chair now recognizes
9:09:28himself. Uh for 10 years, it has been
9:09:31the official policy of the department
9:09:33that women can serve in combat roles.
9:09:36That policy is not changing. Any service
9:09:38member, regardless of sex, who can meet
9:09:40the fit high fitness standards required
9:09:42for combat are allowed to serve in those
9:09:44roles. The Secretary of Defense
9:09:46reaffirmed that in his testimony before
9:09:48this committee. Nothing is changing.
9:09:50There is no reason to codify this
9:09:51policy. I urge all members to oppose the
9:09:53amendment. Does anybody else seek
9:09:54recognition? Miss Jacobs of California
9:09:57knew Mr. Ryan after that.
9:09:59>> Thank you. Secretary Hexath clearly has
9:10:02a woman problem. Maybe he's intimidated
9:10:05by women who can outrun him, outshoot
9:10:07him, and outperform him in the field.
9:10:10Women who earn their ranger tab when he
9:10:12never did. Maybe something Freudian
9:10:14going on. I don't know. This is a man
9:10:16who shared and praised a video saying
9:10:18women shouldn't vote and who wrote that
9:10:20moms don't belong in the military. This
9:10:23is also a man who paid $50,000 to a
9:10:25woman who accused him of sexual assault.
9:10:27But whatever his issues with women, I
9:10:30know that he shouldn't be taking them
9:10:31out on the United States military.
9:10:33Secretary Hex says reviews of women's
9:10:36effectiveness and announcements to
9:10:37return combat roles to men only are
9:10:39dangerous. Anyone willing and able to
9:10:42serve should be able to in any role,
9:10:44including combat ones. Women in combat
9:10:46roles have the exact same standards as
9:10:48men. there. There are the same entrance
9:10:51requirements, the same endurance
9:10:53metrics, the same physical and
9:10:54performance standards, and the same
9:10:56tests. We can't build the most lethal
9:10:58fighting force in the world by shrinking
9:11:00the pool people who qualify. We build it
9:11:03by setting a fair and equal standard and
9:11:05holding everyone to it. That is what
9:11:07genderneutral standards mean and the
9:11:09ones women are already passing. If you
9:11:12can do the job, you should get the job.
9:11:15This amendment prohibits the Pentagon
9:11:17from barring women from any role and it
9:11:19locks genderneutral physical standards
9:11:21for combat roles into statute. I would
9:11:24hope that we can all support this and
9:11:26support all the brave, courageous and
9:11:28capable women in our military. I yield
9:11:30back.
9:11:32>> Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from
9:11:34New York, Mr. Ryan's recognized.
9:11:39>> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to
9:11:42commend and thank my colleague Miss
9:11:44Hulhan for again her leadership on this
9:11:46year after year. Um and I'm proud to
9:11:49support this along with my my
9:11:50colleagues. Um I just wanted to add add
9:11:53two points Mr. Chair. Uh the first is
9:11:58again as has been the case in several
9:12:00issues we've debated here.
9:12:03The argument that nothing is going to
9:12:05change does not hold up to the facts of
9:12:07the reality of what's happened in this
9:12:09Pentagon for the last year. And
9:12:11specifically, I would cite, which Miss
9:12:13Wulahan did as well, this absolutely
9:12:16madeup witch hunt study that the
9:12:18secretary commissioned to try to take us
9:12:20back from the proven progress that you
9:12:24yourself, you know, acknowledge and we
9:12:25all agree, uh, has worked. incredibly
9:12:29lethal, effective, proven uh women in
9:12:32combat roles that are some of our
9:12:35absolute fiercest fighters. But there is
9:12:37a deliberate effort right now under the
9:12:39guise of this study um directed by the
9:12:42secretary to roll us back. That's why we
9:12:44need this amendment. And again, for my
9:12:46colleagues that have said they're happy
9:12:47and good with the current policy, voting
9:12:50against this would take us back because
9:12:52that that is the current direction. Um
9:12:56the the second point I just want to make
9:12:57is again throughout the last year I've
9:13:01rightly heard colleagues on the other
9:13:02side of the aisle here say things along
9:13:05these lines. Uh for example uh one of
9:13:08our colleagues said um in a hearing this
9:13:10year posture hearing, I think all the
9:13:12fellow veterans in this room would agree
9:13:15that if somebody saved your life on the
9:13:16battlefield, you wouldn't care if
9:13:18they're a male or a female, black or
9:13:20white, Democrat, Republican or
9:13:22independent.
9:13:23I agree.
9:13:25That's what this is about. If you vote
9:13:28against this, that's a direct
9:13:30contradiction to that. I yield back, Mr.
9:13:32Chair. Gentleman yields back. Does any
9:13:35of the members seek recognition on the
9:13:37Hulahan amendment?
9:13:39There being no further debate, the
9:13:41question occurs on the amendment offered
9:13:42by Miss Hulahan. Those are in favor will
9:13:44say I.
9:13:46>> Those opposed say no.
9:13:47>> No.
9:13:48>> Can you share the nose have it?
9:13:50>> Chairman, I Mr. Chairman, I request a
9:13:52recorded vote. The recorded vote is
9:13:53requested and ordered and postponed to a
9:13:56later time.
9:13:58We will now uh consider log number
9:14:016638R2
9:14:02by Mr. Golden. For what purpose does Mr.
9:14:05Golden seek recognition?
9:14:10>> Uh you have a amendment at the desk.
9:14:12>> Yes, sir. Amendment.
9:14:12>> Will the clerk distribute the
9:14:14gentleman's amendment? Without
9:14:15objection, the reading of the amendments
9:14:16dispensed with the chair recognizes the
9:14:18gentleman from Maine for the purpose of
9:14:19explaining his amendment.
9:14:21>> Thank you, Mr. chair. Uh the Boots Act
9:14:23has now passed the House two times in
9:14:252024 and in 2025. Last year it passed
9:14:28the House as part of this committee's
9:14:30annual defense bill and every member of
9:14:32this committee at the time supported it
9:14:34by uni unanimous consent. Everyone's got
9:14:37a packet on their desk about this
9:14:38amendment. If you want to follow along
9:14:40for a minute, I'll explain to you on the
9:14:42front page. We've got the Global Times,
9:14:44owned by the People's Daily Press, which
9:14:47is the largest newspaper in China and
9:14:49serves as the official newspaper of the
9:14:51Chinese Communist Party, seeks to
9:14:53undermine the Boots Act by asking the
9:14:55following. Since when does a pair of
9:14:57humble combat boots pose a threat to the
9:15:00combat readiness of the US military and
9:15:02even to national security?
9:15:05What a ridiculous question, Mr. Chair.
9:15:08History is replete with examples of the
9:15:10importance of boots in combat. If you
9:15:13don't agree with me, try marching to
9:15:14battle barefoot yourself. The CCP's
9:15:17interest in boots actually tells us they
9:15:19know how important combat boots are.
9:15:24Moving on, we have uh a letter from the
9:15:28Defense Logistics Agency to Congress
9:15:30where they state that they conducted a
9:15:33war game for various goto war uh class 2
9:15:36items in October of 23 with boot
9:15:39production being one of the commodities
9:15:41commodities included in the exercise. It
9:15:44demonstrated that the United States
9:15:46would struggle to meet wartime surge
9:15:48requirements. One of the recommendations
9:15:50from the exercise was to expand
9:15:51opportunities for the de defense uh
9:15:54domestic industrial base prior to the
9:15:56next contingency to build additional
9:15:58capacity. And it stated that passage of
9:16:01boots would create additional
9:16:02opportunities for the domestic
9:16:04industrial base uh as well as
9:16:07encouraging foreign producers to bring
9:16:10their production home to the United
9:16:13States. Uh we then have six pages where
9:16:15we see 49 options of combat boots that
9:16:18would meet the standard of this
9:16:19amendment and meet the existing berry
9:16:22amendment requirement. If you don't see
9:16:23the boot of your choice, I would just
9:16:26point out that anyone who's ever served
9:16:27knows serving our country armed forces
9:16:29means surrendering choices like what to
9:16:31wear, what to fight with, what to eat.
9:16:35The list goes on. But especially
9:16:37Marines, I might say, who are raised to
9:16:39proudly proclaim, "Marines make do.
9:16:44Uh just moving on a little bit. I'll
9:16:47just close by reminding everyone the
9:16:49problem is a loophole in the Barry a uh
9:16:53results in an estimated 1 million pairs
9:16:55of foreignade boots on the feet of our
9:16:57service members. The loophole has
9:16:59produced three compounding harms.
9:17:01Domestic manufacturers are squeezed out.
9:17:03Investment in US capacity is frozen and
9:17:06national security is left at risk. the
9:17:09biggest opponents, private equity firms
9:17:11and the Chinese Communist Party. In
9:17:13closing, you supported this provision
9:17:15last year and I urge my colleagues to
9:17:17support it once again. Thank you, Mr.
9:17:19Share.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Full Committee Markup: FY27 NDAA, Part 1 (10am - 7pm) by U.S. House Armed Services Committee, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 63,321 words across 10,278 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.