▶ 0:07:50Good afternoon. Committee will come to order. Without objection, the comm chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Today the rules committee is convening to consider a single measure HR 3838 the streamlining procurement for effective execution and delivery and national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2026. You guys couldn't come up with a shorter name for it.
▶ 0:08:24Um, we'll certainly hear a lot of robust discussion on the legislations before us today, so I'll keep my opening comments brief. Congress's first duty is to provide for the common defense of the nation. It's a constitutional mandate we're charged with upholding. The NDAA undergurs America's national defense policy. It works to ensure that America's armed forces remain the best equipped and prepared in the entire world.
▶ 0:08:52It has always been a bipartisan effort, one that helps the men and women who defend our nation achieve their mission, whether by land, sea, or air. The FY26 NDAA furthers the strong commitments of Congress and President Trump to build a ready, capable, and lethal fighting force that will effectively deter our nation's adversaries.
▶ 0:09:18It codifies all or parts of 15 separate executive orders issued by President Trump that relate to fortifying our nation's national security and defense postures. Further, this legislation yields $20 billion in savings, including 15 billion from reforms spearheaded by Doge.
▶ 0:09:42works to improve the quality of life for the nation's service members with a 3.8% pay raise and improve benefits for military families. Cuts bureaucratic red tape that threatens our nation's competitive advantage on the world stage and equipss the nation's war fighters with the capabilities they need in the most cost effective manner possible.
▶ 0:10:08The FY26 NDAA also makes commitments to deter aggression from rogue regimes such as China, Russia, Iran, and foreign terrorist organizations that pose a serious threat to America's national security and our way of life. This legislation would not be possible without the bipartisan collaborative efforts of the members and staff of the Armed Services Committee.
▶ 0:10:38As this process now moves to the rules committee and soon to the floor for full consideration, I expect the same level of bipartisanship and collaboration will be present. With many Republicans and Democrats coming to testify here today, we'll be presented with a wide range of ideas that will receive fair With that, I look forward to today's discussion, and I now yield to the ranking member, Mr.
▶ 0:11:06McGovern, for any comments that he wishes to make.
▶ 0:11:08Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so before us this week is the National Defense Authorization Act. Last year, Republicans turned what what's supposed to be a national security funding bill into a right-wing wish list. They loaded it up with attacks on reproductive rights. They targeted LGBTQ service members. They went after diversity programs in the military. It wasn't about defense. It wasn't about protecting this country. It was all about playing politics with our national defense.
▶ 0:11:38And I fear it will be the exact same thing this year. The same extremist playbook. pass it out of committee with bipartisan support, then blow it up on the House floor with a pile of culture war garbage that has nothing to do with keeping America safe. So, let's be clear. This isn't about national defense. It's about political theater. It's about turning the Department of Defense, excuse me, the Department of War since Donald Trump apparently changed the name into a campaign prop.
▶ 0:12:06kind of interesting that the president who says he wants a Nobel Prize uh Nobel Peace Prize is fantasizing about war. Uh but I guess that makes sense coming from the guy who's never actually been in a war because he had bone spurs. And just this weekend he posted and I quote, war." Let that sink in. The sitting president threatening to use the US military to wage war on an on an American city against American citizens. That's not leadership.
▶ 0:12:36That's nuts. Imagine if President Obama tweeted out that he was going to war with Republican le cities. You guys would be having a meltdown. And putting all that aside, I'll tell you this. Um I don't vote for the NDAA. I think I might have voted yes on the NDA once in my entire career. And the reason why is quite simple. I refuse to send nearly a trillion dollars to an agency that can't even pass an audit.
▶ 0:13:01The Pentagon loses track of an insane amount of taxpayer money year after year, and we reward them with more. No, that's not defense. That's insanity. This the stuff they overpay for is insane. The Air Force paid a $150,000 markup on soap dispensers, $1,500 for a single coffee cup. Those aren't just numbers I made up. They came from the very Conservative Heritage Foundation.
▶ 0:13:28Imagine if we invested all those billions of wasted dollars here at home on ending hunger on housing on or education or making people's lives better. But instead, we're stuck uh in this circus. And speaking of circuses, let's talk about the Epstein files. Despite the best efforts of my friends on the other side, this issue is not going to go away. Republicans are doing everything they can to stall, distract, and cover up.
▶ 0:13:53Republicans on oversight touted releasing new records, but vast majority the vast majority of the documents they released were already public. Up in Massachusetts, we called that a scam. And while survivors stood outside the capital begging for justice, sharing their painful stories, Donald Trump sat in the oval office calling the whole thing quote irrelevant. I still can't believe he said that. The victims are begging for transparency, begging for us to pass the Massie kind of bill, begging for this administration to release the files.
▶ 0:14:23And the president of the United States, the most powerful person in the world, says that they are irrelevant, says it's all a hoax. It wasn't a hoax when Trump promised to release all the files. It wasn't a hoax when his own allies said that they had the client list sitting on the on the on their desk and were ready to make it public. And now, get this. Speaker Mike Johnson said Donald Trump was an FBI informant on this case. I'm not surprised the speaker walked it back because usually an informant knows something about what's going on.
▶ 0:14:52Being an informant implies being in on the crime. So again, we really, really, really need to know what the hell is in those files. And we need Republicans to stop shielding the powerful and start standing with the survivors. It's simple. Republicans can either sign the bipartisan Massie counter discharge petition, or better yet, put the bill on the floor this week, which will finally give the public the full truth, or they can keep burying it. No more stalling, no more excuses, no more cover-ups. Release the files. I yield back.
▶ 0:15:24Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Um, without objection, any prepared statements statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith from the Committee on Armed Services. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. We ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Rogers, I welcome your testimony.
▶ 0:15:51Thank you, Chairman Fox and Ranking Member McGovern for having uh having us here today. I want to thank your staff as well as you for helping us get this NDA to the floor this year. Uh, I also want to thank my friend and colleague, Adam Smith, who's been a great partner in running this u this armed services committee and getting us this product. I'm very proud of the work we did to put this bill together in a bipartisan fashion. And in our committee, that's not just a term that we use loosely. We actually work in a bipartisan fashion.
▶ 0:16:21The bill before you today is called the Streamlining Procurement and Effective Execution and Delivery Act or Speed Act. Um, and we did that to underscore the very significant reforms this bill makes to the defense acquisition process. The Pentagon's current acquisition process is failing our war fighters. It can take up to 10 years between identifying a battlefield needing a solution to the war fighter.
▶ 0:16:48By the time by that time the thread has changed, the cost of balloon and the solution is outdated. The speed act includes a series of reforms to eliminate regulatory burdens in bureaucratic inertia and put in place a system that will deliver capability to the war fighter at the speed of scale. Fixing acquisitions will go a long way toward ensuring our war fighters are the most capable fighting force on the planet.
▶ 0:17:12I also want to highlight our continued effort to improve the quality of life of our service members and their families that we initiated last year. Uh among other improvements, we provide a 3.8% pay raise for all service members. Authorized nearly $3 billion in construction for new housing, dining facilities, and medical facilities, childcare centers, and schools. Improve service member access to medical and mental health services. We also remain laser focused on deterring adversaries like China.
▶ 0:17:40The bill invests in the capabilities we need to stay ahead of our adversaries, the maintenance and logistic systems we need to conduct operations, and the cap capa capacity of our allies so they can assist on the battlefield. Uh, this is a strong bipartisan bill that puts our war fighters first. It builds the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter our adversaries and ensure peace through strength. I urge all members to support it, and I yield back. very much.
▶ 0:18:12Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to echo the chairman's comments thanking the the rules committee. They've always been a great partner in this process. I don't know exactly how many amendments have been submitted, but I think it's north of 1,200 at this point. Um really appreciate you're working so closely with our staff on that process. And I also want to thank the the chairman for his leadership of the committee. He's absolutely right. Uh we work in a very bipartisan fashion. We produce a bipartisan product out of committee.
▶ 0:18:38uh by vote I think 57-2 56-2 something like that um and it is a really good product that we should be proud of and the chairman highlighted the number one most important thing in it this year and that is acquisition reform now we have made sort of incremental progress on some aspects of acquisition reform before uh but chairman Rogers and the committee really committed this cycle to doing a deep dive on what's wrong and how to fix it we had a hearing out in Silicon Valley we had hearings down in Austin Texas.
▶ 0:19:08We met with industry reps and a whole lot of other people to figure out how can we make this work better. And the result is the speed act that the chairman has put together that I think is going to make a huge difference. And just to understand why it's important. Innovation is absolutely crucial to national security right now. We have to be able to acquire the most innovative up-to-date systems quickly.
▶ 0:19:29uh the Pentagon moves too slowly and when you're looking at technologies like drones and AI uh and all manner of different other systems, we need to buy those more quickly. This bill I think really gives us a good chance to get there and I appreciate that effort. Also, as the chairman referenced, we continue the efforts from the previous cycle when we focused on quality of life issues. We did a quality of life task force that gave us a series of recommendations which we can all be proud were implemented in last year's bill and then we build on that in the way the chairman said.
▶ 0:19:58The other area that I want to emphasize is there is strong support for Ukraine in this bill and strong support for Eastern Europe. Uh we have 400 million dollars in USAI for Ukraine specifically and also we reinforce the support for the Baltic nations with the Baltic defense initiative by putting money in there specifically for that.
▶ 0:20:18I think it is an enormous mistake by the Trump administration to signal that they are going to cut those funds and to have raised so many questions about our continuing support to Ukraine. Showing weakness to Vladimir Putin is not the way to end this war. We need to support Ukraine. That is what will force Putin to the bargaining table and end this war. And I think this bill reflects those priorities. two broad areas of concern um that I think this bill should do a better job of on oversight.
▶ 0:20:49President has used the United States military to an unprecedented level both for domestic law enforcement and for border security. Now, both of those things are very important. Do not get me wrong. But the United States military has a very specific mission to defend ourselves against our foreign adversaries. the billions and billions of dollars that are being spent on the border. A border that I must emphasize that the president says is secure right now. And I happen to agree with him on that point.
▶ 0:21:19So why are we spending billions and billions of more dollars both on military construction and on the use of our troops time in that mission while undermining our mission to deter ourselves against adversaries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea and competitors like China. I think that is misplaced. I think we need to place more emphasis on that. And also the president's use of the military for domestic law enforcement is shocking and alarming. It should be shocking and alarming to everybody in Congress.
▶ 0:21:48The posi commitatus law is there for a reason. This is being vi violated. And then when it comes to expanding the authority of DoD, the president has apparently unilaterally declared war on every drug cartel in the world. What is that going to drag us into? What is the justification for the attack that happened in the Caribbean just last week? We have not heard it yet. I think this is a dangerous expansion that undermines Congress but also places the country at jeopardy.
▶ 0:22:17Other area of concern is on the culture war issue. We have fought through this with with culture wars on the left that I didn't agree with and a culture war on the right now that I don't agree with. efforts to rename um the bases back to the names for Confederate generals.
▶ 0:22:34Um the purging of some 24,000 images uh that showed diversity, equity, and inclusion, which I love the example that they actually purged briefly pictures of the Anola gay because they were trying to ban the word gay. First of all, that's kind of stupid because, you know, it's the Anola gay. It means something different. But second of all, why are we wasting time trying to get rid of the word gay in the first place?
▶ 0:22:58even based on the other meaning that does not advance the interests of the war fighter or get us to the point where we're going to meet our national security needs. I also think we need to exercise oversight over the the Doge process and the reform efforts. Too much of that seemed to be focused primarily on breaking the government, making it not work, and also on making sure that personal loyalty to President Trump was the only thing that mattered.
▶ 0:23:24We fired all of the inspector generals, all of the judge advocate generals, all of the people who are supposed to exercise independent oversight, not to mention the dozen or so generals who were fired based on apparently the whims of Laura Loomer. That does not build a strong national security defense. And one item that I hope people will consider, you if you want to consider everything I just said as being unduly partisan, when Doge came in and gave everyone the offer to take early retirement and leave, a lot of them did.
▶ 0:23:54And we lost some 75% of our cyber experts in DoD because we spent all this money training them. They had this highly marketable expertise and then they came along and said, "Hey, we'll pay you to leave." And they said, "Okay, we'll take your money. We'll go make more money on the outside." And now we don't have the cyber intelligence we need just because the focus was on purging the federal workforce, not on making it more efficient and more effective. And the last thing that I hope this committee will consider, uh, Mr.
▶ 0:24:22McGovern referenced this in the rules process last year. The committee wound up ruling in order all manner of different extreme right-wing amendments that fundamentally broke the bipartisan nature of the bill. And I hope we don't do that again. And just again not to bipartisanship. I remember the first year when I was chairman 2019, we kind of did the same thing. It was complicated. We took a big swing. It was our first time in charge in eight years. Um and we made a bill that ultimately Republicans didn't vote for. So that's one year.
▶ 0:24:50The next year we put together a very bipartisan bill that got a bipartisan vote on the committee. I'm very hopeful that the rules committee will look at that as well. Put aside the culture war, put aside the partisan issues, rule and order the amendments that are going to put us in a position to maintain a bipartisan bill and hopefully get the vote that this bill deserves. Again, because of all of the bipartisan work that Mr. Rogers has done, the committee has done, and crucially our h staff has done, we got a great product.
▶ 0:25:17um let's keep it great uh and get it passed out of the committee and off the floor. Thank you. I yield
▶ 0:25:25Thank you, Mr. Smith. I appreciate it. Um I want to make just one quick comment about what you've said about incremental reform on procurement. Uh I've been here several years and have worked on this issue of procurement and trying to do something about it.
▶ 0:25:46And I hope and pray that what you're doing in this bill is really going to make a big change in procurement because we're wasting billions of dollars every year in this area. I don't want to cut defense. I want the way we spend money for defense to be spent well.
▶ 0:26:06And I really am going to be watching this issue closely because I think it's it's really critical to our overall um u national security issue. Uh Chairman Rogers, I want to we expect a robust amendment panel. So I'm going to keep my comments very brief.
▶ 0:26:28You you've both talked about the um 65th consecutive year that Congress has advanced the NDAA through to enactment if we're successful to what do you attribute this year's successful bipartisanship on your
▶ 0:26:46We keep the focus on the war fighter and making sure we give them what they need to be successful and safe and uh and that is our focus. It always has been. We still have our uh robust debates around uh some small measure of issues, but generally the focus is where it should be and that's our national
▶ 0:27:06Right. And you've alluded to the fact there's an array of national security threats spread across an unprecedented global landscape. Nobody can pick up a newspaper where they don't read about China, Russia, u Iran, North Korea, uh threatening this country.
▶ 0:27:27So, um I'll I'll come back to my concern about um changing the procurement system and say um how how are we going to quickly and calibrate our weapons systems, platforms, and other assets to win on the battlefields of the future. And what's embedded in the Speed Act that's going to help us do that?
▶ 0:27:54Yeah. the uh you'll you'll remember last year we made the focus of the bill the primary focus quality of life and this year it was the acquisition procurement process and that's because I'm a big believer that if if no if everything's your priority nothing's your priority last year it was trying to improve the quality of life of our service members this year we have got to get after this problem with procurement and acquisition it is far too cumbersome and which makes it expensive and antiquated by the time it happens So
▶ 0:28:25uh as you heard the ranking member we went into great detail on trying to abbreviate that and in and in a nutshell what we've done is we're trying to make the department function in a more commercial fashion. Let me give you an example. Right now it can take years for us to put together a set of requirements that we expect vendors to try and meet. And by making them so detailed and and cumbersome and broad, only the primes can participate.
▶ 0:28:54There are a world of midsize and small companies that cannot hit that target. We're getting away from that. One of the things that we do is instead of giving this uh detailed requirements, we're giving a problem saying this is the problem we need a solution for and inviting the private sector to give us solutions to that problem. that is going to abbreviate that dilemma of several years down to a matter of weeks.
▶ 0:29:20Uh but then from that point forward a decision has to be made on which of those solutions that are offered will be made in a matter of 90 days and and and we do we go on through the process by expediting empowering acquisition professionals and expecting to make a difference. The way I like to characterize it is you know you heard the ranking member say we have worked on this for years. We've given them all kind of authorities to go faster. They won't use them.
▶ 0:29:47This year, we're telling them what they have to do and we're giving them time limits to force the function of going faster. And it goes to the point that that the ranking member made. We are going to be using high-tech weapon systems in the future. We have got to have the technology world involved. they will never be a willing to function at this glacial pace and this cumbersome process we've had in the past. We're trying to fix the system so it accommodates this fastmoving
▶ 0:30:16Can I emphasize just one point on that? The requirements process. Simplifying the requirements process is the key. I remember I was visiting a um uh shipyard where they were refurbishing a latoral combat ship, which could get us into a whole another conversation, but um they were talking about and I talked to one of the workers there and they were repainting the portion of the ship that's under the water and he told me that there were 1,200 pages of requirements for how to and I don't doubt that it's more complicated than I don't know repainting your bathroom.
▶ 0:30:46Um but it shouldn't have that many pages of requirements. The requirements process has become a thing in and of itself where they just sit around and come up with requirements, which if that's what you do, that's what you can do. But it has tied the hands of our ability to make the changes we need rapidly. It's going to be focused, as the chairman said, on outcomes. Here's what we want. Get there as quickly as and intelligently as possible.
▶ 0:31:10And that and that makes sense because by putting out all the requirements and telling people how to do it, it assumes that people in the military or doing the procurement have all the answers. That's
▶ 0:31:23When you have millions of other people out there who are working on this, maybe in a much more up-to-date way, able to provide a much more efficient way to do it. So I applaud you on that. Thank you very much, Mr. McGovern. You're
▶ 0:31:39Well, thank you very much. I thank you both for being here today. Um, and I'll I'll be fairly brief here. Um, uh, you both talked about how this was a bipartisan, uh, vote to get it out of committee. What was the vote?
▶ 0:31:53Uh, 56-2.
▶ 0:31:55It was pretty pretty bipartisan. And but but it wasn't I'm trying to turn the clock back a year when you came here and I think I think that was a
▶ 0:32:05Yeah. I think it was 57 to or 58 to1 that time.
▶ 0:32:10we lost a little ground this year.
▶ 0:32:11So is it is it is it Nobody's perfect.
▶ 0:32:13Is it fair to say that um that if if the bill is largely like it is right now, Mr. Smith, that you would vote for it on the House floor?
▶ 0:32:21Absolutely. And I suspect we would get votes probably. And so really the danger is whether this gets loaded up with a bunch of culture war amendments that uh then divide the
▶ 0:32:36That is the principal risk. Yes.
▶ 0:32:38So we'll see we'll see how uh how the rules process goes. Um you know you you you raised an issue that concerns me as well and that is um you know the president's domestic use of the military which I think is a dangerous um precedent. Um, and I worry about the impact that it has on military readiness to perform their core missions.
▶ 0:32:59But I'm also worried about um, you know, what just recently happened uh, you know, with the reports about the military strike on a vessel in the Caribbean. Um, you know, um, and I get it. I mean, we we all want to crack down on narot traffickers, but this strike against alleged narot traffickers sure seems like a a dangerous escalation and potentially an illegal use of military force.
▶ 0:33:28I mean, should we be concerned about last week's military strike as as well as the president's threat to broaden the use of of military force? and and I the one thing I've I've I've kind of come to appreciate after being here for a while and that is it's easy to get into a war. It's hard as hell to get out of one. Uh but anyway, I I know you mentioned I just
▶ 0:33:53Yeah. No, I think it's worth worth focusing on this. Um to begin with, to date, we have not received any sort of detailed explanation from the White House as to who the target was, what the intelligence was behind it, why the strike was taken, the details. Now, we're supposed to on a staff level get a brief tomorrow. We were supposed to get that brief last Friday, didn't happen. We'll see if it happens tomorrow. So, there's no clarity.
▶ 0:34:18So, there's no and there was no notification ahead of the strike, which frequently does happen certainly to the gang of eight, uh but to others as well. So, it's a very unilateral action. And then what's the justification for it? Well, typically you use the US military in one of two instances. Either one, you have an authorization for the use of military force, which we've got the 2001 AUF, the 2003 enough on the books. And as strikes have happened in the Middle East, those have been used as authority.
▶ 0:34:46Twisted a little bit, but at least there was a legal justification for it. If you don't have any of that, all you got left is article two, which is the inherent right of self-defense. Um, which is something that the courts have recognized. If you know someone's lining up to shoot a whole bunch of missiles at US ships somewhere in the world, you shouldn't have to get congressional approval before you take those missiles out before they're fired.
▶ 0:35:09There is no way on God's green earth you can say that whatever was in this boat presented any sort of imminent threat to the United States in a military sense of the word. Yes, human trafficking and drug trafficking, they threaten us in a variety of different ways, but if you want to broaden article two to that, we can be bombing everybody anywhere, anytime for a thousand different reasons, which goes way beyond the true meaning of it. So, it's it's it's unlawful in that regard.
▶ 0:35:35And then second, to your other point, are we going to use the United States military to get into a war with drug traffickers? And what are the consequences of that? Typically, we use the Coast Guard, the DEA, the ATF. We have a whole bunch of different the Justice Department. We have a whole bunch of organizations whose job it is to protect us from those things. And that delineation between them and the military is important.
▶ 0:36:00Once we walk into that, once the cartels know that the United States military is a direct threat to us, we got troops all over Latin America. All right. Now, they're targets. Um, how does that play out? And that's the, you know, getting into a war is easy. Getting out is hard. I love these people always say, "Well, you get into a war, you always have to have an exit strategy." Well, one of my favorite sayings from the military is the enemy gets a vote. You can have an exit strategy all day long, but the circumstances are going to change.
▶ 0:36:29Nobody has an exit strategy when they start a war because you don't know where it's going to go. That's why you need to be so careful about actually starting
▶ 0:36:37No. No, I I appreciate that and I hope that uh the leaders in this Congress um rather than just kind of rally around the the leader um instinctively might actually take some time to um to do hearings and to uh and to actually make sure that we do have a policy and we don't get sucked into a a needless work. Just the final thing, you know, I you know, and you touched on this a little bit as well.
▶ 0:37:01Well, I mean, we've seen the Trump administration take unprecedented action by firing scores of senior military officers, apparently for being perceived as disloyal to the uh current administration rather than uh for actual performance issues. Um, Representative Horford has an amendment requiring notifications to Congress, including the underlying rationale and process for making the decisions to remove a general or flag officer.
▶ 0:37:29Um, you know, for an administration that has touted the importance of merit in the military, uh, can you just talk a little bit about the impact of these firings, uh, and what and the impact they've had on the military, um, and the signal it sends to the force? I mean, I I want to make sure that our our generals are are telling the truth, um, and not telling people what they think they want to hear. Uh, but I give you a
▶ 0:37:54Well, I think you you've hit upon I mean, there's two big things. One, you lose a lot of talent. I mean, General CQ Brown was prior to, you know, Trump firing him apparently for something he said four or five years ago about the experience of being a black man in the military, was bipartisan, universally respected as one of the best generals we had. So, we lost that talent. We lost the guy who um was the head of the NSA cyber security, also incredibly talented general.
▶ 0:38:18Across the board, you lost all of that talent to my reference point of when we, you know, gave walking papers to 75% of our cyber force. um you know, you're losing a lot of talent. But second, it's the point you just made. It has a chilling effect. You know, what is it that you're expected to do? Are you supposed to expect to do the thing that's going to make your do your job the best, best protect America? Are you supposed to do what Donald Trump wants?
▶ 0:38:41I mean, it seems like a remarkably petty example, but pulling back that award from Tom Hanks yesterday, an award, which by the way has been given to actors before, Garrisonise, because of the work that they did to support the military and support veterans. But since Tom Hanks had attended a Joe Biden fundraiser, you know, we're we're going to pull that award and undermine the authority of the group that gave it to him and make it all about Trump. You got to be loyal to Trump 247.
▶ 0:39:06You're not doing your job if you're focused on being loyal to one, shall we say, somewhat unpredictable and petty human being. Um that's not the way the military should be structured. No,
▶ 0:39:17I agree. I agree with you. And I um again, I I um thank you for your responses. I want to thank you both again for bringing a a bipartisan bill to the uh to the rules committee and let's see whether it can survive uh uh the amendment process. But anyway, thank you. I yield back.
▶ 0:39:35Thank you, Mr. McGover. Mr. Brock, you're recognized.
▶ 0:39:38Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you both for being here and I appreciate the fact that this is a bipartisan bill. Um, I just have one kind of question about I don't know if you mentioned it, but the right to repair language that's in there. Um, and is that DoD only or DOW I should be calling it DOW only? Um, and is there protection for the proprietary
▶ 0:40:01It's still a work in progress. The Senate has different language than we have and we passed a provision in our bill with the understanding we're going to continue to work with the Senate. is limited to DoD, but uh trying to work out the differences that we are not close to a final project product yet.
▶ 0:40:19Well, I would stick with the House
▶ 0:40:21I always like the House language better. The senators have a say so.
▶ 0:40:26Well, thank you on that. And I know that there was a lot of talk uh a lot of discussion about the um about the speed act and so I just I I will pass on that but I really do appreciate that because I think it's so important that we get it things like that and um in the accountability provisions in there but um really wanted to just kind of comment on um how it really does address the quality of life.
▶ 0:40:49I know you kind of said you dealt with a lot of that uh last time, but you know for the service member with the health care provisions, the pay provisions, the schooling for our service members kids um and and I think the housing is really critical because you've really made some strides in that to make it more efficient and more affordable, you know, because uh and so some of those requirements that we're getting at um and uh really really using our money more wisely and making it better for our service members.
▶ 0:41:19Um, and I know because they've seen some of the housing and we really need to improve that for them. So, I with that, I'll just say thank you both. I really appreciate I appreciate a um a bipartisan bill like this and I know that you both worked hard to make sure that happens. So, thank you very much and I yield back.
▶ 0:41:36Thank you, Miss Fishbach. U Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
▶ 0:41:42Thank you, Madam Chair. And um I want to commend both of the gentlemen here today. I have the privilege of serving on that committee. It is one of the most bipartisan efforts that I've worked on in in these National Defense Authorization Acts over the many years and uh it was a very bipartisan bill. Um I did have an amendment. I'm not going to be able to get in it. So I want to take just a moment of privilege to and I've talked with you Mr.
▶ 0:42:08Rogers about this but you know we we obviously know that India purchasing the oil from Russia is one of the reasons that the Ukrainian war has continued to go on and u I do hope that as time pushes on that we will be able to get sanctions put on the board members of uh Reliance Industries. They are the largest purchaser of Russian oil in India.
▶ 0:42:31uh the Amani family controls that company and I think that if we could put the same sanctions on uh the board members of Reliance Industries as we have put on the Russian oligarchs that it would come a long way towards stop stopping the uh purchases of the Russian oil that's going into India and therefore hopefully stop the Ukrainian war.
▶ 0:42:56With that, Madam Chair, thank you for uh allowing me just a few minutes to make that statement and I look forward to continuing to pursue those sanctions against the board members of that company that are supporting Vladimir Putin and his aggression in Ukraine.
▶ 0:43:11And uh I appreciate both the gentlemen here and the bipartisan manner in which they have worked to make this uh not just our country but uh those who partner with us in the pursuit of freedom and economic uh a more successful endeavor.
▶ 0:43:28Thank you Mr. Scott. Mr. Griffith you're
▶ 0:43:31Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm going to ask each of the witnesses about 140 or 141. It looks like 140. That would be a Griffith amendment. Uh, and it's an amendment that I have carried, I think, 14 years or a copy thereof. Mr. Rosenale and I both had the same issue. We came at it different ways.
▶ 0:43:54The committee has indicated they prefer the Rosenale language, but just so the committee here can be reminded and then I'll ask the two gentlemen if they have any instinctive disagreements. I understand you may not be able to answer because there's 300 and some amendments completely, but if they're if their instincts are, they'd be okay with it.
▶ 0:44:11And it just simply says with the Rosenale language because that's what the committee preferred over the Griffith language that in the provisions of the uh prior NDAAS which include reauthorization of Patriot Act and and authorization of the use of military force that you don't detain a US citizen without some right to come to trial.
▶ 0:44:35uh because in particular the war that that they originally underlined is has been allegedly going on now for some 20 years. And I just want to make sure that we're trying to protect American citizens and the constitutional rights of American citizens. And we did approve the House did approve it I think the last two years. I know they did last year. The Senate unfortunately took it out. I'm offering it again and and would hope that you all would at least be open to considering it.
▶ 0:45:01Gentlemen, I I've supported it in the past again. I think maybe both of you
▶ 0:45:06no actually we haven't. Um, there there's a tiny little problem with it and that is that it changes the constitution because the constitution protects all US persons. This that you offer only protects citizens. So the first amendment, second amendment, third, they they don't say US citizens. It says
▶ 0:45:23So next year I need to get you the Griffith language because mine deals with Center.
▶ 0:45:28Yeah. Okay.
▶ 0:45:29All right. And that's that that's the one issue on it is I'm with you, but it should be all US persons, not
▶ 0:45:35I can appreciate that. Uh but we'll see if we can't get the the requirement in there because I just think that
▶ 0:45:42if you're going to be locked away forever, you ought to have your constitutional rights. Uh and if you're an American citizen on American soil or even an American person, they ought to at least establish that you had knowledge that you were assisting a terrorist organization as opposed to just somehow you inadvertently assisted a terrorist organization. and I'm happy to switch the amendments out if y'all can reach an agreement in the hallway, but I'm just trying to make the committee happy. I yel back, Madam
▶ 0:46:05Thank you, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Roy, you're
▶ 0:46:09Thank you, chairwoman. I thank the gentleman for um coming up here and testifying and for the work on the bill. Um I just want to clarify that if that I'm correct that we are um in the NDA that we are authorizing levels that are keeping spending flat uh at current level spending.
▶ 0:46:28Um and uh that that's reflective of the work that was done um on the uh reconciliation package that there was some money in there for defense uh and reflective of the overall agreement to try to keep keep spending um at that at that level. U but I just wanted to confirm that's that's the case my understanding of the bill. Is that is that right Mr. Chairman? Okay.
▶ 0:46:50With the one yeah sure 15 I think it's 100 ultimately wound up being 156 billion was added through the reconciliation. Yeah. No, I know that's what I was noting is that inconsistent with what we had done previously with the reconciliation package.
▶ 0:47:03Um and uh and that that was important and that was a part of the overall
▶ 0:47:07um to ensure defense um is where it needs to be. And then the second thing I would note is just a a point that it is I I know there's still some deliberations going on but with respect to amendments and whether they're going to be um tied to HS jurisdiction versus something broader um and if it's sticking to H jurisdiction and that's consistent then then then I I'll accept that.
▶ 0:47:32uh but that I do feel strongly for getting beyond that that uh the language that I've had now for a while on uh terminating the AMFs that have been lingering for far too long um that uh that we need to address those issues. But but on obviously if we're sticking to a rule that's consistent
▶ 0:47:48we're not sticking to that consistent rule and I'm with you. I think your amendment should be included. And personally, I think if we have issues that are agreed and the committees of jurisdiction are agreed, I think we should use the NDAA vehicle to pass what we can pass as a legislative body. And I and also we make exceptions to that. And just to to fuel your argument a little bit in this rule already is the amendment on cryptocurrency which has nothing to do with our jurisdiction which has been included.
▶ 0:48:17So the rule gets violated when leadership wants to violate the rule. And I think they ought to be inclusive of all of us. If we can get something done through this process, we should we should get it done. Now, you can't override the the committee of jurisdiction, but working with them, I think it ought to be included.
▶ 0:48:32Well, we'll see how the debate goes through the day on that, but I did want to make sure just for the record that it's clear. I think there's significant bipartisan agreement that uh look we can agree on the need to have clarity on the authorizations of the use of military force and there's bipartisan agreement in the need for the authorizations of the use of military force where it's appropriate around the globe but that we do not need to be operating under 23-year-old authorizations of force. So uh I'd certainly like to be able to address that issue if if we're and as long as it's consistent with rules that we're going to apply how we operate and we'll have those conversations today and I appreciate the gentleman.
▶ 0:49:02I yield Thank you very much um gentlemen. Um there's no one else to ask any questions. So we appreciate very much your coming, you're being so succinct and so direct uh with your comments and with your uh answers to the questions and um you're excused. I' I'd like to call Mr. Wilson, Mr. Fine, and Mr.
▶ 0:49:32under to the table. I think Mr. Wilson uh you were you came in first and so I would um like to recognize you.
▶ 0:49:58I um make the same uh statement that I always make. Your any written comments that you have will be included in the record. We'll ask that you uh keep your uh statements short and to the point. And uh I recognize you, Mr. Wilson.
▶ 0:50:18Thank you very much
▶ 0:50:25and colleagues. And indeed, I'm grateful for the leadership of Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member Adam Smith, the bipartisanship we've seen. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of amendment number 535 to repeal the Caesar Act to support President Trump and special envoy to for Syria, Ambassador Tom Bareric, who is here in Washington today. I'm also grateful to have Ambassador Barrick's support for the amendment.
▶ 0:50:50The Caesar law undermines the president's policy and makes it almost impossible to quote give Syria a chance as proposed by President Trump. The Caesar Act was passed in 2019 and the NDAA was intended to protect civilians from the brutal ba'ist socialist dictatorship of Basar al-Assad and it's was imposed only years into Assad's war crimes where nearly half a million people were killed.
▶ 0:51:19Additionally, the Caesar Act has succeeded. By the time Assad's regime collapsed last December, the Assad resources were depleted and soldiers were only earning $17.50 a month and refusing to fight. I was closely involved in efforts to extend the act as it approached expiration last year, and I'm grateful with so much leadership here that it did pass the House in February of last year.
▶ 0:51:48and we worked to extend the Caesar Act in the NDAA conference committee. The result is the Assad dictatorship abdicated on December the 8th and fled to Moscow. Two weeks ago today, I was humbled to accompany Ambassador Barrick and Senator Jean Shaheen, bipartisan bicamel to encourage the new government which wants to work with the west as we stood actually in Assad's former office.
▶ 0:52:18Since then, the President Trump has taken many historic steps to lift sanctions on Syria, meeting with President Alshara in Riad and issuing executive orders, giving him new and expanded authorities to sanction malign actors in Syria, keeping sanctions on war criminals. Additionally, President Trump is working with Saudi Arabia and NATO ally Turkey while negotiating with Israel for stability.
▶ 0:52:46The problem is the Caesar Act sanctions remain mandatory with only temporary waiverss. As the Treasury officials have said, this discourages investments creating jobs. The result is a climate of risk aversion handicapping recovery. Ambassador Tom Bareric supports full repeal to promote a sovereign Syria. The law was meant for specific ends to protect civilians from Assad, Russia, and Iran and dismantling the chemical weapons and holding war criminals accountable.
▶ 0:53:16These conditions no longer applicable. The Lord has served his purpose and should be repealed to give Syria a chance. With support of amendment number 535, I respectfully yield back my time.
▶ 0:53:31Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Mr. Fine. You're recognized.
▶ 0:53:37Thank you, Madam Chair. It's an honor to be here for the first time before all of you. I will try to be brief. I'm sure there's many things you'd like to do other than listen to me talk. So, I'm here to speak about amend amendment 779, which deals with PTSD. The Department of Veterans Affairs believes that 29% of veterans who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom have PTSD, which causes all sorts of problems at home as families struggle to help their loved ones adjust to normal life.
▶ 0:54:05A better understanding of the disorder as well as how to deal with it can help us better recognize, diagnose, and treat those suffering from PTSD. No other country in the world is dealing with as much PTSD other than us as Israel is, which has been fighting a terrible war for the past two years on seven fronts. And we even saw signs of that today. Um because so much of their population is involved in war fighting.
▶ 0:54:29Several leading Israeli hospitals, universities, and nonprofits have actually dedicated their efforts to researching and treating PTSD. What my amendment would do is authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a grant which would be awarded to US academic institutions or nonprofits who conduct joint research on PTSD with their Israeli counterparts. The amendment does not appropriate any money for the grant. It lays the framework for the grant.
▶ 0:54:54Money would have to be requested by the DoD and appropriated in next year's defense appropriations for the grant to be funded. Um, this has been included in the NDAA the last two years. So hopefully the third time is the charm. And with that um I'll yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 0:55:11Thank you very much. Mr. Ander, you're
▶ 0:55:15Thank you, Madam Chair, ranking member. Uh I'm here to speak on amendment 1146. It was recently brought to my attention that uh the fisc year 26 National Defense Authorization Bill includes language in section 1110 that would prevent the def department of defense from implementing President Trump's executive order 14251.
▶ 0:55:40This executive order ensures that certain agencies can deliver on their missions without being hamstrung by negotiations with labor bosses. This is especially important for the Department of Defense whose work is directly related to national security. Uh that is why I'm offering amendment 1146 to preserve the Department of Defense's ability to implement the president's EO. Staffing policies at the Department of Defense should be determined by elected officials who have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.
▶ 0:56:10Instead, federal agency operations are often held hostage by union bosses whose number one priority is not our national defense. Under the Biden administration, union bosses representing federal workers used their leverage to promote policies that increase inefficiency. They made it difficult to fire problematic workers and prolonged work from home policies despite what was in the best interest of the American people.
▶ 0:56:35President Trump is delivering on his promise to improve how federal agencies operate so they can truly serve the common good. But section 1110 of the NDA directly attacks President Trump's government efficiency and national security agenda. I urge the committee to repeal this section and to oppose future riders in must pass legislation that would undermine the president's agenda. Thank you. I yield
▶ 0:57:00Thank you, Mr. Ander. Um I thank all of you for coming today and um I have no questions. Mr. in support of his amendments numbers 716, 722, 726, 893, 895, 896, 898, and And I want to ask unanimous consent to assert the record amendment
▶ 0:57:30testimony from Rep. Shulton in support of her amendments 955 and 956.
▶ 0:57:36Without objection. So ordered. I go
▶ 0:57:39Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Mr. B.
▶ 0:57:41Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I just want to say thank you all for being here. And Mr. Fine, you're welcome back anytime. You were you were short and to the point, and I appreciate that, and I think the members,
▶ 0:57:52be careful what you wish for.
▶ 0:57:54Well, you know, you could screw it up next time if you go on too long. So, but thank you all for being here.
▶ 0:58:01Mr. Scott,
▶ 0:58:04Mr. Griffith,
▶ 0:58:09you're um you did a wonderful job. Obviously, you answered the questions from all the members of the committee. So, we thank you very much. And you're
▶ 0:58:17Thank you, Madam.
▶ 0:58:18Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 0:58:22Is is there anyone else seeking to testify on HR 3838? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. Without objection, the committee stands in recess uh subject to the call of the chair and we will be in touch with um staff and members on reconvening.