▶ 0:28:10is not is simply not meeting the needs of our war fighters. The bipartisan speed act that the ranking member and I introduced will fundamentally reform defense acquisition. It streamlines the process and significantly reduces the time it takes to field new military capabilities. Reforming our acquisition system and investing in enhanced capabilities is critical to deter deterring our adversaries. This bill is the product of hundreds of hours of oversight done by all members and staff over the past few months.
▶ 0:28:41It is a strong bill that will help reform acquisition systems, revitalize the defense industrial base, and build the ready, capable, and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and other adversaries. I want to commend the ranking member uh and his staff for conduct continuing our tradition of putting uh this bill together in a strong bipartisan manner. I also want to thank all members for their input and assistance. There are more than 700 amendments for us to work through today.
▶ 0:29:09I urge all members to work together to get us through this process in a timely manner. There will be disagreements, but we have the same goal to support the men and women who serve our nation. If we can keep that goal in mind, I'm very optimistic that the bill we'll report out today will be a strong uh bipartisan bill. Chair now re yields to the ranking uh member for any uh opening statement he may have.
▶ 0:29:32Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that and thank you very much uh for your leadership. I agree this has been a very bipartisan uh effort uh between uh the chair ranking um all of the members and the staffs to to produce an excellent product that we have as the base bill and as the starting point. Uh I think the chairman's emphasis has been right on point uh emphasizing acquisition reform. I sort of think of like you know three big challenges we have. One is to make sure that we support uh the servicemen and women and their families.
▶ 0:30:02We took a big swing at that last year again in a very bipartisan way. Put together a bill that I think is making a real difference. This bill enhances that. Second, uh, get after the innovation problem, the acquisition problem, how slow the Pentagon moves to acquire the critical new technologies that we need. Um, we've done some good work on that over the years. This bill represents the most comprehensive and effective swing and acquisition reform that I've seen in my almost 29 years here on the committee.
▶ 0:30:32The chairman did an outstanding job of bringing people together, having conversations over the course of the last year to prepare us, um, to get the text right. And I think this bill is incredibly important because of acquisition reform. The third big challenge is to get to capacity in terms of critical munitions, critical technologies that we need to make. We we don't make as much as we should. Whether you're talking about drones, basic artillery, different pieces of equipment. Obviously, the ship problems have been well documented.
▶ 0:31:01Uh we still have a lot of work to go to get to the numbers that we need and to get to the manufacturing efficiency that we need. I think this bill does a decent job of that as well. Um the problems that I have are unrelated to what this committee has done. But when you look at the needs within national security, the other budget decisions that have been made uh by this administration and by this Congress really put us in incredibly deep hole.
▶ 0:31:29You know, we just passed a budget bill that added another $3.5 trillion to the debt, cut a massive number of taxes, many of which are sunseted, by the way. So, we're going to come back and we're going to have the same argument about, oh my gosh, you can't increase taxes uh in two or three years. So, we're going to lift those sunsets, drive ourselves even deeper in debt, put ourselves in a position where we cannot pay for the very national security needs that I know pretty much every member of this committee supports.
▶ 0:31:58I've used this line a number of times and I'm going to keep using it. Uh if you believe in the importance of funding national security, of funding our troops, then you ought to be willing to pay for it. We can't just keep putting it on a credit card, uh which is what we're doing. And then we also had in that bill $170 billion for border security.
▶ 0:32:21$170 billion to secure a border that according to the president, the same president who was asking for that $170 billion is already secure. Um, which by the way, I kind of agree with him. Um, you know, I think he was the one who said we don't need to change, you know, change the law. We just need to change presidents. But apparently we need to change the law too if we're going to throw another $170 billion at it.
▶ 0:32:45And that undercuts our ability to meet our national security needs, particularly because they're also grabbing a lot of Department of Defense assets to use in that effort and undermining our ability to meet our national security needs. And the last complaint I have, I'll go back to the Secretary Gates made the comment, if you're going to cut the State Department, you better give me more ammunition. Well, we are absolutely gutting the State Department. We've shut down USAID. We've effectively shut down foreign aid.
▶ 0:33:15Now we're firing and sorry I lose track of the numbers and they change from day to day. So it's in the thousands that we're firing from the State Department. So we're gutting diplomacy. We're gutting development. We're spending all of this money to secure a border that is already secure. And then throughout this hearing next year, well sorry, next month, next year, two years, we're going to hear from everyone. Oh my god, we need more money for defense. We need more money for defense. How are we possibly going to meet our national security needs?
▶ 0:33:41You got to set priorities and the priorities set in the overall budget do not reflect the priorities that should be set uh despite the best efforts of the leadership of this committee um in the majority and elsewhere. So I appreciate the bipartisan effort uh look forward to the debate and discussion as always and I yield back.
▶ 0:33:59Thank the ranking member. Before proceeding uh any further I have a few announcements. If a member has an amendment that involves the jurisdiction of another committee, we request that the member before he or she offers the amendment have a letter from the respective committee chair indicating their waiver of the right of referral. I note that um I imposed the same requirement before including language and underlying mark. I remind members that uh this approach has been the practice of the committee for many years.
▶ 0:34:26It is done so uh that we can proceed directly to the house floor without our bill being sequentially referred to other committees. Amendments uh that could result in a point of order against HR 3838's consideration on the House floor will not be in order such as those that would violate the statutory PGO act and the Congressional Budget Act.
▶ 0:34:47Uh before beginning with the subcommittee prints and the following consultation with uh ranking member Smith, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions contained in the subcommittee prints and the chairman's mark which include full committee provisions will be considered for the purposes of this markup as original text of HR 3838 and that uh these provisions will be considered having been read and that uh bill will be open to amendment at that point without objection.
▶ 0:35:13So ordered uh the order of consideration for today's markup of HR 3838 will follow our subcommittee structure. We will begin first with the sub uh subject matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces. Then the subcommittee on strategic forces then the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces. Then the subcommittee on cyber information technologies and innovation then the subcommittee on readiness. Then the subcommittee on intelligence and special operations.
▶ 0:35:41Then the subcommittee on military personnel and finally the full committee matters. The committee will now receive the print of the subcommittee on tactical air land forces pursuant to sub to committee rule 17 and in consultation with rank member we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments uh to this subcommittee print have concluded. The chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee the gentleman from Virginia Mr.
▶ 0:36:10Whitman for any comments he would like to make.
▶ 0:36:14Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to uh thank the members and the staff of the subcommittee. The staff including Michael Kurlin, Heath Bope, Caroline Curley, Brooke Allred, Jay Valario, and Andrew Smith all have done an incredible job. What we have before you today in the TA subcommittee, Mark, is a uh 100% outcome of their incredible work. want to thank them uh and knowing that this is really a a great bipartisan mark.
▶ 0:36:39Tactical air and land forces have done done a great job uh across the spectrum with our members to make sure we put out a product that ensures that our war fighters possess the relevant and lethal equipment, weapons, and resources needed to remain the world's premier fighting force. The goal of this subcommittee is to ensure that American war fighters have the tactical advantages they need on a day-to-day basis to be prepared for any conflict that they may face.
▶ 0:37:03It's paramount that every necessary piece of equipment be in be it next generation fighter jets, counter drone technologies, ground combat vehicles or ammunition is made available to our service members at the speed of relevance so that they dominate the battlefield. This Republican administration is laser focused on delivering cutting edge capabilities to America's war fighters and this subcommittee focused on the same.
▶ 0:37:28The fiscal year 2026 tactical air and landmark addresses the growing threat of small unmanned aircraft systems by elevating the joint counter unmanned aircraft systems office better known as the JCO within the department of defense. This office must be a jointly manned office with the responsibility of leading, advocating, and coordinating all DoD efforts to counter drones as a weapon of strategic influence.
▶ 0:37:55Drones are the IED of our generation and we must act today with the same urgency that we did 20 years ago. Modeled after the joint counter IED office from the global war on terror, the JCO will finally be in power with the necessary authorities in force structure to make a real impact in protecting our service members, installations and the homeland.
▶ 0:38:18This mark also takes steps to enable rapid procurement of US manufactured drones across the joint force leveraging and accelerating American innovation. This subcommittee mark also promotes the improvement of air superiority and strike capabilities by supporting an increase of 21 F-15 EX tactical fighter aircraft.
▶ 0:38:40It is also forward-looking to our future combat aviation challenges as it authorizes the funding for the Air Force's F-47 and the Navy's FAXX 6th generation aircraft programs. The mark also supports a requested quantity of F-35 aircraft in the president's budget and increases the amount of funding for F-35 spare parts and the equipment uh necessary for those aircraft by $500 million.
▶ 0:39:08This will increase aircraft availability and mission capability rates which are today unacceptably low. Additionally, the mark continues critical oversight of the F-35 program. It improves the transparency of the munitions supply chains in manufacturing.
▶ 0:39:25We direct reports on the status of the army's efforts to modernize and expand the munitions industrial base and on the CL20 energetics pilot program which keeps us at least up to date with where the Chinese are going in modern weapons technology in modern weapons chemistry. This is about range and lethality. This makes sure that we close the gap.
▶ 0:39:48I'd like to thank my valued partner and good friend on the subcommittee, ranking member Don Norcross, for his thoughtful and bipartisan cooperation in developing this mark. Through this collective effort, we are sure that this mark will deliver the tactical equipment and advanced technology needed to maintain the United States title as the most capable and lethal military the world has ever seen. Mr.
▶ 0:40:13Chairman, I thank you and ranking member Smith for your thoughtful leadership and I encourage a yes vote on the town mark and I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 0:40:21Gentlemen yields back. Chair now recognizes a ranking member of the subcommittee on tactical air land forces. The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.
▶ 0:40:28Thank you, chairman. As the chairman just mentioned, this is a bipartisan tradition of this subcommittee for which we work very hard and should take great pride. The subcommittee print today before us captures a shared commitment to national security.
▶ 0:40:44We also continued close oversight in department's most expensive and complex programs including Air Force, Navy, Marines, Tactical Strike Fighters, and all the services rotary wing programs to improve program management, reduce operational risk, and remedy performance deficiency to support a sufficient capability and capacity to meet current and future requirements.
▶ 0:41:10the department's manned and unmanned intelligence, its ISR, and how we are meeting the combatant commanders requirements for all these systems, small unmanned aerial systems and counter unmanned aerial systems. We're also closely following force design efforts, including the Marine Corps force design, the Army Transformation Initiative or ATI.
▶ 0:41:33Speaking of ATI, and this is extremely concerning to us, we understand conceptually what the army is trying to accomplish in many ways supporting that, but Congress has not received from the army any detail analysis or strategy for the changes that the force structure addresses. This makes it very hard for us to do our job in an informed decisions in the best way to proceed. We must have more information from the army.
▶ 0:42:03so Congress can do its job and have the oversight. Additionally, there are two critical and important topics our subcommittee addressed this year. First, the F-35 program, the most expensive weapons program in the history of Department of Defense. This year, the subcommittees include language to extend our annual reviewing requirement by the Government Accounting Office, the GAO, for this F-35 program.
▶ 0:42:28The annual reports we received from the past GAOs were invaluable in contemplating how we must or would legislate on this key program. We'll keep these reports coming until the program demonstrates that it can field capability on time and at the projected cost. Second issue is we address this year is a strong investment in our munitions industrial base. The days of using our munition accounts for bill payers for other programs is over.
▶ 0:42:58I'm proud of the work that we started over five years ago and that we've done to revitalize our munition industry base irrespective of which party is in the majority and I applaud Chairman Whitman for continuing and making this a priority. Finally, chairman, I want to thank those who made so much of our work possible. Our professional staff members, Jay Valerio, Mike Kurlin, Heath Bo, Caroline Carly, Brooke Alred, and our research assistant, Andrew Smith.
▶ 0:43:28And just a moment to say thank you to my staff, Robin Brent. And to that chairman, I yield back.
▶ 0:43:35I thank the gentleman. Before entering amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? Gentle lady from Virginia is recognized.
▶ 0:43:46Mr. Chair, I just wanted to take a minute to thank the chairman and uh ranking member of tactical air and land and this committee and this congress for continuing to prioritize naval aviation as the person who represents the east coast master jet base. I think it's well-known fact to all of us in this room the importance of of mobile air superiority and continuing to prioritize not just F-35s but the FAXX program is essential to continuing that mobile air dominance that is going to be an important part of our national security and peacekeeping.
▶ 0:44:15So I just want to take a brief moment to again thank the chair of TA and the ranking member and this committee for continuing to prioritize and provide decisive leadership for naval aviation. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 0:44:25Gentleman yields back. Is there any further comments? All right. We will now consider onblock package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Whitman for the purposes of offering the onblock amendment.
▶ 0:44:38Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority.
▶ 0:44:45Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the onblock Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. Uh the me the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining his onblock amendment.
▶ 0:45:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Onblock package number one is comprised of the following. Log 4750R1 by Rep. Finstad. Log 4761 by Rep. Wittman. Log 4763 R1 by Rep. Wittmann. Log 4766 by Rep. Bergman. Log 4780 by Rep. Rogers. Log 4781 by Rep. Wittman. Log 4792R1 by Rep. Scott. Log 4838 by Rep. Bacon.
▶ 0:45:30Log 4866 by Rep. Courtourtney. Log by Rep. Herrian. Log 4874 by R1 by Rep. Herrian. Log 4903 R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 4906R1 by Rep. Scott. Log 4936R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 4980 R1 by Rep. Ryan, log 50002R2 by Rep. Schmidt.
▶ 0:45:58F Log8R2 by Rep. Turner. Log 5036R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5046 by Rep. Gooden. Log 5047 by Rep. Herrian. Log 5052R1 by Rep. Cheryl. Log 5062R2 by Rep. Gooden. Log 5076 by Rep. Scott. Log 5077R2 by Rep. Schmidt. Log 5105R1 by Rep. Strickland.
▶ 0:46:29Log 5109 by Rep. Rep. Holidayiday. Log 5111 R1 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5127 by Rep. Stefonic. Log 5140 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5153 by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 5157R1 by Rep. Meesner. Log 5158 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5215 by Rep. Norcross.
▶ 0:46:57Log 5217R1 by Rep. Binman. Log 5232R1 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5239R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 5257R1 by Rep. Norcross. Log 5313R2 by Rep. Maguire. Log 5314R1 by Rep. Gooden. Log 5326 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5349R1 by Rep. Wilson.
▶ 0:47:24Log by Rep. Davis. Log 5372R2 by Rep. Turner. Log 5378R5 by Rep. Davis. Log 5391 by Rep. Davis. Log 5417R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5419 by Rep. Wittman. Log 5429R3 by Rep. Ulfrith. Log 5476R2 by Rep. Wittman. Log 5528 by Rep. Fallon.
▶ 0:47:55Log 5541 by Rep. Bergman. Log by Rep. Scott and log 5621 by Rep.
▶ 0:48:09Questions on the onlot package offers by Mr. Whitman. Somebody in favor will say
▶ 0:48:13I. Those opposed? No. The eyes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
▶ 0:48:24There's no further amendments. The chair recognizes gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman, for the purpose of offering a Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces as amended.
▶ 0:48:50Question occurs on the motion of gentleman from Virginia. So in favor will say I. I. I.
▶ 0:48:54Those opposed, no.
▶ 0:48:56Opinion chair, the eyes have it.
▶ 0:49:04Sorry, ripped out my page for Committee will now receive the print of subcommittee on strategic forces. Pursuant to committee rule 17 in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to this subcommittee print have concluded.
▶ 0:49:32The chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee uh the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Dejar Lelay for any comments he'd like to make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I want to start by thanking all the members of the strategic forces subcommittee for their work this year. I would also like to thank my friend, Ranking Member Molton, for his help and partnership in my first year as chairman. As we both often say, the issues within our jurisdiction are some of the most important topics before us as members.
▶ 0:49:59So, I appreciate the focus, participation, and contribution uh that we get from all of our subcommittee members. U I would like to also especially like to thank the subcommittee's exceptional professional staff for their hard work to produce a successful bill.
▶ 0:50:14Whitney Verrett, Peter Maria Vasola, and Austin Richards uh have worked tirelessly and put in countless hours and we could not do this without their guidance and hard work and I I can't overstate how much I appreciate their help. Uh, finally, I'd like to thank uh Lindseay Keller of my professional staff who does a great job day in and day out and took over for the long-erving Tony Ayoro who left my staff last month to pursue a law career.
▶ 0:50:43Uh, I'm proud of the mark before us today. It supports the ongoing efforts to modernize the nation's nuclear triad. In addition to the scientific capabilities and nuclear command, control and communications architecture that supports our nuclear deterrent, we also establish a new rapid capabilities program within the national uh nuclear security administrator to enhance our ability to respond to the growing threats from China and Russia.
▶ 0:51:08The mark also supports the development of Golden Dome to achieve the president's goals outlined in the executive order. Our mark also provides legislative authority for the missile defense agency to work with the maritime administration to recapitalize aging missile range instrumentation vessels that will be vital to this effort. In space, we established the tactical surveillance, reconnaissance, and tracking programs as a formal program of record to provide badly needed space products from commercial providers to combatant commands.
▶ 0:51:39We also pushed the department to use a private sector payment model for commercial satellite communication services, giving flexibility to the military users and using scarce funds more efficiently. Finally, I'm happy to support the work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith in their efforts to sustain the growth and development of Space Force Guardians to ensure we have the highly skilled and technically professional acquisition cadre capable of bringing online the next generations of uh systems necessary to fight and win in
▶ 0:52:10space. I urge a yes vote and yield Chair now recognizes a gentleman from Massachusetts sub the ranking member of the subcommittee on strategic forces, Mr. Molton, for any comments he'd like to make. Thank you, Chairman Rogers. First, I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman Dejarlay and members on both sides of the aisle for continuing the long tradition of keeping this subcommittee mark largely bipartisan.
▶ 0:52:37Every day, the jurisdiction of this subcommittee is in the headlines. From the nuclear threats of war criminal Putin's criminal war in Ukraine to echo my eloquent friend from South Carolina to the ballistic missile testing by the hermit kingdom North Korea from the satellite images the world has seen of damage to Iranian nuclear sites to the most stressful tests yet of our integrated era and missile defense capabilities in the defense of Israel.
▶ 0:53:04And of course, we see it in the rapid expansion of nuclear capabilities by the People's Republic of China. The world sadly continues to prove what I have long said that this subcommittee's work, despite being wonky and esoteric, is the most existentially important in Congress. In space, we have seen unprecedented demonstrations of both Russian and Chinese capabilities that are specifically designed to degrade and destroy US space assets.
▶ 0:53:35This mark pushes the department to adopt and integrate commercial capabilities, our most asymmetric advantage in the space domain, into government systems, despite several decisions by the Trump administration to cut those areas, including resilient GPS and commercial imagery. While I firmly believe our world would be a better place without nuclear weapons, I also recognize present- day reality, they are a key component of strategic stability in today's environment.
▶ 0:54:04We must be smart and thoughtful about anything our adversaries do or we do to upset that strategic stability because our children's lives literally depend upon That means not suddenly changing 70 years of policy to adopt whims of the president because some members are literally just afraid to disagree with him.
▶ 0:54:26It also means being willing to disagree with the doves or isolationists in our own parties who would undermine our modernization efforts, especially when those efforts make us safer and in the long run save taxpayer dollars. We have never faced two nearpeer nuclear armed competitors and we need to develop a serious cogent strategy to effectively deter them that can withstand the intellectual pressures of debate not sweep those debates under the table.
▶ 0:54:57Every previous administration, Democratic and Republican, to include the first Trump administration, has understood that nuclear deterrence is essential to preventing nuclear war. This should be obvious, but now this president is trying to rewrite US policy to imply that we would try to defeat, not deter, a large-scale nuclear attack.
▶ 0:55:21I am more than happy to entertain this debate and have even thrown my colleagues a few bones that they have not generated themselves to support this potential argument. Yet, we still have yet to hear why we were apparently all of us all wrong the day before Trump and he uh Trump said that he liked Israel's idea and wanted the golden version of it. We have not heard that rationale. We do not have a plan to implement it, any plan.
▶ 0:55:48And yet, we are throwing upwards of $25 billion in taxpayer money to the wind or more accurately into space. that is dangerous and I dare say dumb. With this one significant and obviously political, not logical or scientific exception, this mark is the result of the monthsl long bipartisan process to keep our long-standing tradition of producing an annual defense authorization bill.
▶ 0:56:18Then it largely represents consistency and continuity. Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to give a sincere thanks to our subcommittee staff, Whitney Verrett, Maria Vtola, Peter Seringer, Austin Richards, and to my personal staff, Caroline Jones, and our Navy fellow, Commander Josh Saunders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
▶ 0:56:40Gentleman yields back. Before entertaining amendments, uh, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's
▶ 0:56:48We will now consider block package number one. The chair recognizes Dr. Dr. Dejar Lee for the purposes of offering the onblock amendment.
▶ 0:56:55Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked out and approved with the
▶ 0:57:02Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the onblock amendment without objection? The amendments are considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes for the purpose of explaining the onblock amendment. I offer onblock package number one and it's comprised of the following. Log 4803R1 by Rep. Jackson, log 4816R3 by Rep. Bacon, log 4837R2 by Rep. Ryan, log 509 by Rep.
▶ 0:57:32Turner, log 5 016R1 by Rep. Kelly, log 5022R1 by Rep. Wilson, log 5066R2 by Rep. Bacon. Log 5079 by Rep. Crank. Log 5136 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5137R4 by Rep. Dejarlay. Log 5185 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5197R2 by Rep. Vasquez.
▶ 0:58:01Log 5209R1 by Rep. Smith. Log 5233R2 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5235R1 by Rep. Sorenson. Log 5249R1 by Rep. Crank. Log 5282R1 by Rep. Carbajal. Log 5293R1 by Rep. Crank. Log 5304R3 by Rep. Turner. Log 5350R1 by Rep. Kiggins.
▶ 0:58:29Log 5353 by Rep. Moltton. Log 5362R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5368R1 by Rep. Molton. Log 5380R1 by Rep. Turner. Log 5415R2 by Rep. Wittmann. Log 5431R3 by Rep. Whitesides. Log 5433 R1 by Rep. Whitesides. Log 5454R1 by Rep. Whitman. Log 5530 by Rep.
▶ 0:58:59Fallon. Log 5571R1 by Rep. Molton. Log 5581 by Rep. Goodton. And finally, log 5613 by Rep.
▶ 0:59:11Is there further discussion on the onblock package? The question is then on the onblock package offered by Dr. Deja. So many are in favor say I.
▶ 0:59:20Those opposed? No.
▶ 0:59:22The eyes have it and the amendments on block are agreed to. If there's no further amendments, the chair recognizes the no
▶ 0:59:39chair recognized gentleman from uh Tennessee, Dr. Dejar Lelay for the purpose of offering a motion.
▶ 0:59:44Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on strategic forces as amended.
▶ 0:59:50Question occurs on the motion from the gentleman from Tennessee. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 0:59:54Those opposed, no.
▶ 0:59:56Uh qu being present, the eyes have it, the motion is agreed to. Go to red
▶ 1:00:03committee will now receive the print from the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces. Uh pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print has concluded. Chair recognizes the the subcommittee u the gentleman from Mississippi the chairman Mr. Kelly for any comments he would like to make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Woo.
▶ 1:00:31I'll start by thanking the members of the subcommittee whose dedicated effort and committed engagement made possible the strong bipartisan sea power and projection forces mark that we have today. This tense global moment presents us with a stark reminder of how critical our naval forces are to national security, international order, and freedom of navigation. From the Red Sea to the Arctic and to the expanses of the Indo-acific, our adversaries are increasingly brazen.
▶ 1:00:57In the face of this test, to our global might, America's ability to project power and to do so forcefully and without hesitation is more important than ever. This mark continues the important work begun with the investments from reconciliation to asssure that America's Navy and projection forces remain the strongest, best equipped, and most formidable on the planet. This is the aim of the sea power mark.
▶ 1:01:20In addition to the Virginia class submarine, two destroyers, TAO oilers, and transformational unmanned vessels provided for by reconciliation. This sea power mark procures the third Colombia class submarine, an additional Virginia class submarine and one anti-ubmarine warfare ship. Additionally, we are making sure that the long overdue new seal lift vessels will be made in the USA to support continued procurement of critical programs.
▶ 1:01:47The mark supports advanced procurement for future Colombia class submarines, Virginia class submarines as well as completion of prior year ships including CVN's SSN 774 and TAGOS. The mark also invests in the ability of the carrier wing to project power in the skies, funding four E2Ds and three MQ25s and supporting future unmanned carrier aviation control systems.
▶ 1:02:13We also provide for additional procurement of sonabooies beyond the funds and reconciliation to meet our anti-ubmarine warfare requirements around the globe. Further, we are raising the air refueling aircraft floor to 504 aircraft by 2027 to reflect demands for air refueling and maintaining the inventory requirement of 271 C130 aircraft needed for intrathet airlift.
▶ 1:02:38Together with the B-21 and C130J aircraft in reconciliation, the committee is sending a signal of strong support for airborne force projection. And speaking of strong signals, this year's CE power mark advances the work from the speed act. It includes critical reforms to Navy's senior technical authority that will help to prevent the original sins in ship design and limit design changes during the ship construction.
▶ 1:03:02As I wrap up, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the members of my subcommittee and especially my good friend, ranking member Joe Courtney, whose leadership has been key throughout the process. I also want to thank the committee staff, Kyle, Kelly, Phil, and Abby, and my personal staff, Samaj Shields, and our fellow Bobby.
▶ 1:03:21This sea power and projection forces mark is an opportunity to finish the important work we started in reconciliation to reiterate our commitment to a strong and capable Navy and to deliver on promises to the brave service men and women who wear the uniform. I urge all members on the committee to support this mark. Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, for any comments he'd like to make.
▶ 1:03:47Thank you, uh, Chairman Rogers, and thank you, Chairman Kelly. uh for both of your work in getting the committee to today's unveiling of the SE power and projection forces subcommittee mark for fiscal year 2026. This year NDA faced unique challenges because of the bifurcation of the base defense budget with a parallel budget reconciliation bill.
▶ 1:04:07To chairman Kelly's credit and to the subcommittee members credit, we shouldered on uh through that challenge and continued the bipartisan tradition to ensure that success for our Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and MRAD. As in past years, the mark does not simply rubber stamp the executive branch requests and in particular strengthen US ship building efforts with improvements in the base texts and amendments.
▶ 1:04:29Notably, the mark includes authorities for incremental funding of the Colombia class submarine and the Ford class aircraft carrier, longlead items for the Virginia class program, a vessel construction manager structure for the Marine Corps LSM amphibious program, and continued support for tanker seal lift and MERAD programs. In every instances, these changes correct and backfill deficiencies and shortfalls that the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense overlooked. Mr.
▶ 1:04:56Chairman, these deficiencies were the result of the unprecedented lateness of a coherent unified budget that was fragmented into two legislative vehicles, the base budget and the reconciliation bill. Over the past five months, both vehicles were constantly changing and were riddled with lack of detail. With less than four months until the start of the next fiscal year, the confounding gaps have continued in this fragmented process. Just last week, the Navy communicated that additional funding will be needed for both Virginia and Colombia class programs for FY2026.
▶ 1:05:27A bipartisan table change amendment addresses partially the Virginia shortfall and our Mark's inclusion of incre in incremental funding authority for Columbia class will ensure that the program's accelerating production will not seize up because of this funding gap. These fixes are not the final word and will require additional work through conference in the future. The final fix will require a long but the final fix for both of those programs requires a long-term block contract.
▶ 1:05:54And that is ultimately the path to procurement stability and a larger fleet. And to date, we have still not gotten a signal from OM or Navy leadership that a block six contract is finally going to be executed, which is already two years late. This mark comes at a critical time for our submarine industrial base with persistent demand signal for the undersea fleet from combatant commanders across the globe as well as the need to execute the AUS pillar one requirements reaching the 2.3 Virginia's per year by 2028.
▶ 1:06:22Our subcommittee's north that is our subcommittee's north star. This subcommittee continues the effort to invest in workforce infrastructure and shipyards in places like Alabama, Philadelphia, South Carolina and Florida. All of which our AUS ally Australia is contributed billions of dollars at the same time under authority that we granted two years ago in the 2024 NDAA. Mr.
▶ 1:06:46Chairman, the authorization to produ purchase an additional eight LSM vessels for the Marine Corps is a long time coming and based on the successful experience with a national security multi-m missission vessel use of a private sector construction manager, we are optimistic that this approach will create this fleet with high quality, speed and affordability. This provision is completely in aligned with the goal of the speed act which is to build platforms fast and smart.
▶ 1:07:13Further, the the full subcommittee mark also contains strong authorization for airlift, seal lift, and B-21 long range bomber programs that like the undersea fleet are in high demand. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank uh the diligence of the uh subcommittee's members and staff to overcome this year's challenges.
▶ 1:07:32I want to give special thanks to our talented subcommittee staff, Phil Mcnotton, Kyle Noise, Kelly Gogggins, and Abby Snyder for their work in crafting this product that achieves the bipartisan mission of the SE power subcommittee. And I urge all the members of the subcommittee to vote in support of the market. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 1:07:48Gentlemen yields back before entertaining amendments. Uh, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's
▶ 1:07:58We will now consider onblock package number one. And the chair uh recognizes Mr. Kelly for the purpose of offering the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:08:06Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with a minority.
▶ 1:08:14Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the onblock amendment and without objection, the amendments are considered as read. Uh gentleman uh from Mississippi is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining the onblock amendment. Unblock package number one is comprised of the following. Log 4738R1 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4762R1 by Rep. Scott. Log 4767R1 by Rep. Whitman. Log 4775R1 by Rep. Kiggins.
▶ 1:08:44Log 4776 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4825R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 4888 by Rep. Kourtney. Log 4910 by Rep. Magguire. Log 4916 by Rep. Scott. Log 4955R2 by Rep. Kelly. Log 503 0 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5099R3 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5129R1 by Rep. Jackson.
▶ 1:09:14Log 5144 R2 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5147 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5163 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5167 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5181R2 by Rep Mesner. Log 5230R2 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5270R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 5309 by Rep. Bergman.
▶ 1:09:43Log 5320 by Rep. Dejarlay. Log 5331R1 by Rep. Gar Mindy. Log 5338 R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5430 by Rep. Gar Mindy. Log 5458R1 by Rep. McCormack. And log 5486R1 by Rep. Vinman. Question is uh on the onblock package offered by Mr. Kelly.
▶ 1:10:12So many are in favor will say I.
▶ 1:10:15Those opposed? No. Uh the eyes haven't. The amendments on block are agreed to go to a new book.
▶ 1:10:31You're right. You're right there.
▶ 1:10:34If there are no further amendments, chair recognizes gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly, for the purpose of offering a motion.
▶ 1:10:41Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces as amended. Question occurs on the motion of gentleman from Mississippi. Some in favor will say I.
▶ 1:10:52Those opposed, no. Cor being present, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to.
▶ 1:11:07Committee will now receive the print on the subcommittee uh on cyber information technologies and innovation. Pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to this subcommittee print has concluded. The chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee on the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, for the any comments he would like to make. Thank you, Chairman Rogers.
▶ 1:11:32I want to begin by thanking all the members of the subcommittee for their dedication and thoughtful work at creating a strong bipartisan cyber IT and innovative subcommittee print. The subcommittee is packaged, advances departments cyber and innovation ecosystems and conducts critical oversight. I also want to thank our great subcommittee staff led by Sarah Moxley. Every member of the staff are professional experts on both sides of the aisle. The subcommittee's mission is to ensure that warf fighters are armed with the most innovative technologies that improve lethality and increase US capabilities.
▶ 1:12:02Modern technology is fast-paced, so ensuring the Department of Defense is at the leading edge of technology is imperative to deterring adversaries. War fighters must have the tools to fight across all domains on the battlefield in cyerspace now and in the future. I'm looking forward to continuing to optimize these efforts as the committee considers the FY26 NDAA.
▶ 1:12:23The F the FY26 CITI subcommittee print prioritizes the continued improvement of testing and evaluation through digital processes, supports the research and development of novel technologies, and improves the department's cyber practices. This package brings flexibility for research and development across the department to ensure rapid innovation.
▶ 1:12:44The print achieves this through the empowering of the under secretary of defense for research and engineering and improving the ability to do developmental prototyping creating a bridge over the valley of death. It also directs the use of digital engineering and modern software practices to create a more agile and accurate testing evaluation process. Additionally, the subcommittee print directs the department to use modern technology to improve processes and cyber practices.
▶ 1:13:09Provisions leverage AI to bolster cyber security skills, create new lines of efforts for using generative AI, and continue to lay out the framework for the department's adoption of AI. The subcommittee print supports the continued research and development of hypersonic programs and modernization and expansion of hypersonic testing and evaluation. Finally, the print includes several recommendations from the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology.
▶ 1:13:35These provisions give the department tools to optimize the military use of biotechnology to guarantee that the US remains the world's leader in biotechnology innovation. Overall, the subcommittee print ensures the US remains the status remains status as the most lethal warfighting force in the world. Lastly, I want to thank ranking member Kana for his bipartisanship and dedication to producing the subcommittee print.
▶ 1:13:58We believe this package will continue to give the department the flexibility and tools needed to deliver the most modern technology to the hand of the war fighters. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 1:14:07Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes ranking member of the comm subcommittee on cyber information technologies and innovation. The gentleman from California, Mr. Connor, for any comments he'd like to make.
▶ 1:14:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your fairness, even to the guy who always votes no on the bill. And uh thank you to uh ranking member Smith for uh his leadership. I'm very proud of the work this subcommittee has done this year and I'd like to thank my good friend Chairman Bacon for leading the subcommittee in an open, collaborative, and bipartisan manner. He has been a tremendous partner throughout this process.
▶ 1:14:42I'd also like to thank the subcommittee's professional staff, Michael Herman, Wendell White, Sarah Moxley, Moxley, Carolyn Curley, Brooke Aldrid, and Andrew Smith, as well as Kevin Fox and Darren Nestler in my office for their hard work and collaboration. The MAR contains a number of worthy provisions across a wide range of topics, including advancing digital engineering capabilities, software tests and evaluation, the authority to operate process, and the expanding use of artificial intelligence.
▶ 1:15:12With the hard work done by Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith on acquisition reform in this year's NDAA, it's even more critical that we work to fully support the engines of innovation that reside within the department's science and techn technology ecosystem and to tackle important issues like ATL reform to ensure that cyber and IT enablers have the required agility.
▶ 1:15:35But I particularly want to highlight the numerous provisions related to biotechnology including both provisions in the uh city mark and several amendments that we will consider as part of onblock on onblock packages later today.
▶ 1:15:48It is my honor to serve as a commissioner on the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology was which has was established by this committee as part of the 2022 NDAA under the chairmanship of Senator Todd Young and with Senator Padilla and our colleagues and former HS rep uh Stephanie Vice. This commission has examined the intersection of emerging biotech and national security.
▶ 1:16:13The comprehensive report included recommendations that responded to that mandate, many of which are included in the base text uh or amendments before us today. And I want to thank the committee for that. Finally, I want to thank not just ranking member Smith and chairmans Rogers and Bacon for their support for these items, but also the many members who have engaged in support of the commission's recommendations, including and in no order, Mr. Wilson, Miss Hulahan, Mr. Garendi, Miss Kaggin, Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:16:42Davis, Miss Takuda, Mr. Wittmann, Mr. Carbajoural, Mr. Finstead, Mr. Higgins, Miss Goodlander, and Miss Jacobs. We have much more work to do, particularly in matters that fall under the jurisdiction of other committees, but what we have here before us represents an important and meaningful first step. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee We will now consider onblock package number one. The chair recognizes Mr.
▶ 1:17:12Bacon for the purpose of offering the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:17:15Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked on and approved with the
▶ 1:17:22Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the onblock amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:17:33Onblock package number one is comprised of the following. Log 4751 by representative Finstead. Log 4754R1 by Representative Whitman. Log 4755R1 by Representative Finstead. Log 4759R1 by Representative Finstead. Log 4788 R2 by Representative Fallon. Log 4842R1 by Representative Bacon. Log 4873 R1 by Representative Ryan. Log 4922R1 by Representative Maguire. 40 Log 4925R1 by Representative Maguire.
▶ 1:18:04Log 4921R1 by Representative Maguire. Log 4930 by Representative Dejarlay. Log 4961R1 by Representative Bacon. Log 4970 by Representative Whittmann. Log 4972 R1 by Representative Schwarzen. Log 4985 R1 by Representative Bergman. Log 5065 by Representative Herrian. Log 5081 R4 by represent Jacobs. Log 5084 R1 by represent Crank. Log 5096R2 by represent Jackson.
▶ 1:18:34Log 5107 R1 by representative Jackson. Log 5123 R1 by represent Mesmer. Log 5166R1 by represent Jackson. Log 5207 by represent Fallon. Log 5244 by represent Hulahan. Log 5240 54 R2 by represent Kelly. Log 5273R2 by represent Jacobs. Log 5299 R1 by represent Bergman. Log 5324 R1 by represent Jerendy. Log 5327R2 by represent Kiggins. Log 5364 R1 by represent Hulahan.
▶ 1:19:05Log 5384 R1 by represent Fallon. Log 5392 by represent Bacon. Log 5427R2 by represent Kelly. Log 5440R1 by represent Kana. Log 5441 by repres 5447 R1 by represent Jeremi. Log 5448 R1 by represent Kana. Log 5450 by represent Kana. Log 5452R1 by represent of Kana. Log 5471R1 by Representative Mace.
▶ 1:19:33Log 5479 R1 by Representative Mace. Log 5520 R1 by Representative Alfreth. Log 5539 by represent Rogers. And log 5608 by Representative Bacon. Question is on the onblock package offered by Mr. Bacon. So many is in favor will say I.
▶ 1:19:52Those opposed? No. The eyes have it. The amendments on block are agreed to. Thank you.
▶ 1:20:04If there's no further amendments, the chair recognizes a gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, for the purpose of offering a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on cyber information technologies and innovation as amended.
▶ 1:20:16Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 1:20:20I. I.
▶ 1:20:21Those opposed, no. Cor being present, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed Okay. Good to go to red. Committee will now receive the print on the subcommittee on readiness. Pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print has concluded. Chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
▶ 1:20:50Bergman, for any comments he would like to make.
▶ 1:20:53I thank the chairman for yielding. I arrived in Congress with the intent to place our military services in a position to win in any conflict chosen by our nation and to restore faith to our service members and their families. I am particularly excited to see the Trump administration has a similar focus. This readiness mark clearly accentuates the goals of this administration and breaks down the bureaucratic tendencies that slowly seep in and sap our warf fighting capabilities.
▶ 1:21:22For example, this mark reinforces current readiness as the central tenant in preparing for conflict with provisions that focus on joint strike fighter maintenance reform, clarifying amphibious ship readiness goals, and ensuring our forces have the right enablers to persevere in a lengthy conflict. These reforms are laser focused on ensuring our service members have the right tools and capabilities. This mark also seeks to reestablish safety as a culture.
▶ 1:21:53I was particularly troubled by the Army Blackhawk collision with a commercial airliner earlier this year that took the lives of 67 We mandated command attention at all levels of Army aviation training, including a safety mandate to insert collision alerts in Army training missions and to reform Army aviation training at the very basic level.
▶ 1:22:15This mark fundamentally reforms the military construction process that was reported to deliver construction at a price that cost taxpayers an additional over similar commercial facilities.
▶ 1:22:29This mark tears up this bureaucracy, provides the best commercial sector practices, and when coupled with the reforms incorporated in the one big beautiful bill, will completely revolutionize our ability to provide cutting edge privatization practices to the war fighters. Finally, this mark seeks to keep trust with the junior service members and their families.
▶ 1:22:53I understand that our service members cannot operate effectively when they are concerned about how their families are responding to the quirks of military life. This mark places an emphasis on the military family housing and continues a focus on environmental stewardship of forever chemicals. We must keep the faith.
▶ 1:23:14I could not have arrived with this mark at this mark without the support of my colleague and friend John Garmendy. He is a dedicated member that seeks military reform and keeps our service members and their families as a laser focus. Thank you, John, for all your support.
▶ 1:23:34I am reminded of a quote from General George Patton who is attributed to saying quote the more you sweat in peace the less you bleed in war end quote I'm doing a lot of sweating today and will never stop in ensuring our service members are unequaled in the capability and capacity if ever called to bleed in conflict for our country. Mr.
▶ 1:23:59Chairman, this is a strong mark that sends a forceful signal for change and places our military on a secure footing to persevere in conflict. I thank the chairman for yielding and urge all our members to support this strong, thoughtful readiness mark.
▶ 1:24:16Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on readiness, the gentleman from California, Mr. Gar Mindy, for any comments he would like to make. Uh,
▶ 1:24:25thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman Bergman. Thank you for the kind comments and let me throw them right back at you. It's been a great pleasure to work with you. Uh and I'm really pleased with the amount of good substantive provisions uh that you have put into this year's mark. Uh it is really been a pleasure. Uh this mark continues our tradition of putting aside partisan differences for the needs of our service members and their families.
▶ 1:24:53I also want to be sure that the staff who work tirelessly on both the readiness sections of the bill and on the committee events we've had throughout this year are fully recognized and thank uh David Seniki, Jeannie Wall, David Kennedy Sampa Samara, who by the way is not here today. She had a son a week ago and we send congratulations to her indeed.
▶ 1:25:26she will eventually return and when she does I expect that we'll have the opportunity to see the uh the baby. Uh Ethan Peler and Abby Snder. Also uh my personal staff u led by Robert Herd, Ry Justin Smith and Sydney Hillbush also contributed mightily to the work of the committee.
▶ 1:25:49I'm pleased this year we continue to build on readiness and subcommittee's body of work related to improving the sustainment of our weapon systems. As we know for numerous hearings and briefings there is much more work to be done in achieving the higher readiness rates for our aircraft, our ships and for our ground vehicles. I am certain this subcommittee will continue to focus on that in the uh days, months, and years ahead trying to drive up those readiness uh statistics.
▶ 1:26:20I'm also pleased by the committee's work to continue to ensure that our service members and their families live in highquality, safe, and well-maintained barracks and housing. I do know with some dismay that a billion dollars of barrack improvements for a couple of our bases was removed and sent over for a border wall. Uh that requires the attention of all of us who care about the quality of life for our members.
▶ 1:26:47Uh this mark also ensures our continued ability to conduct informed oversight of the department through the fine work of the staff of the general accounting I cannot condemn commend the general accounting office enough for the work they have done to keep the department honest on sustainment issues and I thank them in advance for the work that they continue to do pursuant to the mandates in this bill.
▶ 1:27:13I will note with considerable unhappiness that our appropriation committee has made a drastic reduction in the GAO's budget and it will definitely affect all of us who often rely upon the GAO for information for insight and review of what's going on at the Department of Defense.
▶ 1:27:36It is a 50% reduction in the GAO funding and that'll have a dramatic effect on our ability to know and understand what is happening at the Department of Defense. Now, maybe we can stop that. Maybe we can turn that around. Maybe it's just a hangover from the uh from the work of the Doge boys and girls out there who uh seem to think that the best thing to do with government is to eliminate it.
▶ 1:28:06But the elimination of the GAO and the 50% reduction will have profound effect on our ability to get information that we need to do our job. Well, we'll think about that in the days ahead. Once again, I want to thank Chairman Burkeman. Uh it has been a pleasure working with you and for the members of the committee uh for their collaboration and their partnership. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 1:28:31Gentleman yields back. Before entertaining amendments, uh, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's We will now consider onblock package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Bergman for the purposes for the purpose of offering the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:28:49Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman uh from Michigan is recognized for five minutes for the purpose for the purpose of explaining the unblock amendment.
▶ 1:29:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Onblock package number one is comprised of the Log 4745R1 by Rep. Kagans. Log 4753R2 by Rep. Ke is log 4757 by Rep. Bergman. Log 4786R2 by Rep. Schmidt. Log 4790R2 by Rep. Schmidt.
▶ 1:29:41Log 4805 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4836R1 by Rep. Wittmann. Log 4840 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4844 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4845 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4846 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4850 by Rep. Rogers. Log 4851 by Rep. Bergman.
▶ 1:30:11Log 4852R1 by Rep. Bacon. Log 4854 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4859 by Rep. Bergman. Log 4861R2 by Rep. Bell. Log 4883 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4884R2 by Rep. Fallon. Log 4887R3 by Rep. Cheryl.
▶ 1:30:42Log 48 niner R1 by Rep. Sorenson. Log 48 niner 6 by Rep. Finstead. Log 48 niner7R2 by Rep. Harrian. Log 4 niner 04 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4 niner 1 niner by Rep. DJ Charlotte. Log 4 niner 31 R1 by Delegate Mand. Log 4 niner 34 by Rep. DJ Jarlay.
▶ 1:31:11Log 4 niner 3 niner by Rep. DJ. Log 4 niner 47R2 by Delegate Mand. Log 4 niner74 R1 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4 niner niner 0 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4 niner niner1 by Rep. Mills. Log 4 niner niner4 by Delegate Moly. Log 4 niner niner five by Rep. Bergman.
▶ 1:31:40Log 505 by Rep. Courtourtney. Log 5021 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5025 by Rep. Jackson. Log 504 R2 by Rep. J H J H J H J H J H J H J H J H J H J Himenez. Log 5042R1 by Rep. Herrian. Log 504 niner by Rep. Herrian. Log 5050 by Rep. Keading.
▶ 1:32:07Log by Rep. Gooden. Log 5082R1 by Rep. Strickland. Log 508 niner by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 509iner1 by Rep. Log 5095R1 by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 5103R2 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 5104 by Rep.
▶ 1:32:35Strickland and log 5142R2 by Delegate Miland.
▶ 1:32:41The question is on the onlot package offered by Mr. Bergman. So many as are in favor will say I.
▶ 1:32:47I. Those opposed? No. The eyes have it. The amendment amendments on block are agreed to. We will now consider onblock package number two. The chair recognizes Mr. Bergman for the purpose of offering the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:33:06Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number two consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. Without objections ordered, will the clerk please distribute the onblock amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. Uh the gentleman uh from Michigan is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining the onblock Mr. Chairman, on block package 2 is comprised of the following.
▶ 1:33:33Log 5165R one by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5180 by Rep. Takuda. Log 51 niner3 by Rep. Vasquez. log 51 niner4 R2 by Rep. Vasquez. Log 5202 by Rep. Vazquez. Log by Rep. Scott. Log 5220 by Rep. Vendman.
▶ 1:34:01Log 522 R1 by Rep. Hammed. Log 5241 R3 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5277R1 by Repneros. Log 5283R3 by Delegate Moland. Log 52 niner2 R3 by Rep. Hammed. Log 5306 by Rep. Delusio.
▶ 1:34:29Log 5321 by Rep. Heran. Log 5330R1 by Delegate Moland. Log 5335 by Rep. Scott. Log 5336 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5340 by Rep. Vazquez. Log 5346 by Rep. Davis. Log 5357R4 by Rep. Heran. Log 5371R1 by Rep.
▶ 1:34:59Graves. Log 5373R2 by Rep. Hulahan. Log 5375 by Rep. Davis. Log 53 niner4 R1 by Rep. Davis. Log by Rep. Hulahan. Log 5404R1 by Rep. Davis. Log 5408R3 by Rep. Davis. Log 5411R1 by Rep. Mace.
▶ 1:35:29Log 5418R2 by Rep. Mills. Log 544 niner by Rep. Garmend log 5467R1 by Rep. Kana log 5484 by Rep. Vindamman log 549er6 by Rep. Takuda. Log 549er7 by Rep. Scott. Log 5500 by Rep. Bergman. Log 552R1 by Rep. Bergman.
▶ 1:35:59Log 5547 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5548 by Rep. Rep. Bergman. Log 5549 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5553R1 by Rep. Norcross. Log 5570R1 by Rep. Mace. Log 559er3 by Rep. Wittmann. Log 5622R1 by Delegate Mand. Log 5623 by Rep. Fallon.
▶ 1:36:29Log 5631 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5632 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5635 by Rep. Whitesides. Log 5641R1 by Rep. Sorenson. Log 5643 by Rep. Bergman.
▶ 1:36:49The question is on the onblock package offered by Mr. Bergman. So many as in favor will say I. I.
▶ 1:36:54I. Those opposed, no.
▶ 1:36:57The eyes have it. The amendments on block are agreed to. If there are no further amendment, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bergman, for the purpose of offering a motion.
▶ 1:37:14Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on readiness as amended.
▶ 1:37:20Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Michigan. So many are in favor will say I. I.
▶ 1:37:25Those opposed, no. Corin being present, the eyes have it and the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print of the subcommittee on intelligence special operations. Pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print.
▶ 1:37:49Until consideration of all amendments to this subcommittee print has concluded, chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Jackson, for any comments he would like to make. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I would like to begin by thanking Ranking Member Crowe for his support and contribution, as well as the members of the subcommittee for their efforts as we develop this bipartisan subcommittee print.
▶ 1:38:11The ISO print in conjunction with approximately $2.2 2 billion dollars in reconciliation funding continues to focus on providing support for our special operations forces, the defense intelligence enterprise and the security cooperation enterprise with the tools required to ensure their capabilities can support the department's efforts in strategic competition and in countering malign Chinese actions. This main effort to counter China must be accomplished in every geographical combatant command because China's attempt to influence through malign activities is worldwide.
▶ 1:38:42The subcommittee print provides the US special operations command the ability to accelerate research, development, testing, and procurement at speeds and scale to affect outcomes against adversaries through the urgent innovation technologies and capabilities pilot program. This authority will allow SOCOM to continue to be our strategic hedge against an increasingly contested and denied battle space by peer adversary capabilities and malign influence.
▶ 1:39:09The subcommittee print supports the president's budget request for the defense intelligence enterprise. Continued efforts to develop capabilities needed to ensure we maintain the strategic edge against our competitors. These resources and capabilities will ensure our intelligent prof intelligence professionals can enable leaders to make informed decisions in an increasingly complex world, enhancing the US military lethality.
▶ 1:39:33The subcommittee print supports the president's budget requests for the Defense Security Cooperation Agency to ensure our security cooperation activities support our strategic objectives. Finally, this subcommittee print coupled with the reconciliation is just the beginning of increased resourcing needed to ensure our special operations forces, the defense intelligence enterprise, and the security cooperation enterprise can support the department's efforts in strategic competition in countering malign influences, especially as mentioned by China.
▶ 1:40:03It is it is our article one responsibility to ensure that we provide the men and women who volunteer to serve in these roles with the capabilities and tools to protect our special operations intelligence professionals and security cooperation professionals and keep them in the fight. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our tremendous professional staff, Craig Green, Alex Igelhart, Mark Mhouse, Will Johnson, Katie Quinn, Austin Richards, and my personal office staff, Evan Hansen, and Asher Thompson.
▶ 1:40:33Without this team, this mark would not be possible. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 1:40:45Gentlemen, yield.
▶ 1:40:46Gentleman yield. Yes, sir.
▶ 1:40:48Okay. Chair now recognizes the uh ranking member uh of the subcommittee, Mr. Crow, for any comments he'd like to
▶ 1:40:56Thank you, Chairman. Uh I wanted to begin by extending my thanks to um Chairman Jackson for being just an incredible partner in this process. uh in a challenging time in this Congress where folks see a lot of dysfunction and things not working well, I can tell you that it was smooth and inefficient and we worked handin glove throughout this process and were completely committed to making sure that we did right by our special operators and that's no small part to the other members of this subcommittee as well who
▶ 1:41:26many of whom have personal experience have served in special operations forces like I have or have family uh serving. This is a very personal mission to us, one that we are committed to. You know, as the chairman said, this this mark is a impressive piece of work. Uh it accelerates research, development, and procurement of innovative technologies for our special operations forces.
▶ 1:41:49It ensures the department will have the authorities to properly conduct counter intelligence investigations uh to to protect us at home and abroad. Uh it it improves security cooperation efforts by including language that would that would ensure the department can use security cooperation funds over multiple years which are essential for more complex cases. So it does a lot of very impressive things but the bottom line is it's centered on the people. Uh intelligence special operations is all about the people.
▶ 1:42:18Uh and this mark does that uh very well. Uh, so I do want to reiterate the chairman's thanks to the incredible staff, Will Johnson, Katie Quinn, Mark Mohouse, Alex Eglehart, Craig Green, Austin Richards, and my personal national security adviser, Rachel Everett, for working very hard to create a great product. They they really are uh the magicians behind the curtain that make all of this happen.
▶ 1:42:43Uh, and we're grateful for your professionalism, your hard work, and in helping put together what is a really incredible mark. So with that, I I yield back.
▶ 1:42:51Gentleman yields back. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's print?
▶ 1:43:00We will now consider onblock package number one. The chair recognizes Dr. Jackson for the purpose of offering the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:43:06Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up inblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority.
▶ 1:43:13Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the onblock amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining the onblock amendment. Thank
▶ 1:43:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In block package number one is comprised of the following. Log 4784R4 by Rep. Fallon, log 4796R2 by Rep. McCormick, log 4808 by Rep. Jackson, log 4966 by Rep. Scott, log 4989 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5135R2 by Rep. Amade. Log 5195R1 by Rep. Stefonic.
▶ 1:43:53Log 5228R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 5318 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 5406R2 by Rep. Davis. Log 5436R1 by Rep. Elf. Log 5438 by Rep. Connor. Log 5461 by Rep. Magguire.
▶ 1:44:17the question is on the onblock package offered by Dr. Jackson. So members in favor will say I. I.
▶ 1:44:23Those opposed, no.
▶ 1:44:25The eyes have it. The amendments on block are agreed to. If there's no further amendments, the chair recognizes a gentleman from Texas, Dr. Jackson, for the purpose of offering an amendment.
▶ 1:44:41Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on intelligence and special operations as amended.
▶ 1:44:46Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Texas. So many in favor will say I. I.
▶ 1:44:50Those opposed, no. Cor being present, the eyes have it, the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print on the subcommittee of military personnel. Pursuant to committee rule 17 and on in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print has concluded. Chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
▶ 1:45:20Fallon comments he'd like to make. Uh Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I want to thank you and the ranking members leadership last year for the quality of life issues. I do think that has accounted for the uptick in recruiting that we've seen. So, thank you very much for your leadership on that, sir. This year's military personnel print builds on an outstanding year for our military and ensures our service members members are lethal and a ready force capable of confronting threats from Indopekcom to the Middle East.
▶ 1:45:49As our men and women in uniform are of course our priority and it has to be our number one priority, this print supports a 3.8% pay increase for service members. It also extends special pay authorities in particular for the growing space force to attract and retain the best talent in some of the most critical career fields.
▶ 1:46:09In the uh last year, recruitment and retention fortunately as I mentioned it soared and as a result we are able to give services the end strength increases they desperately need. But not to rest on a great year for recruiting, we are expanding access for military recruiters at secondary schools and we really have to do that and other institutes of higher learning.
▶ 1:46:29Additionally, we are enhancing the subcommittee's oversight of the military health system and remain committed to addressing the persistent shortage of child care for our service members through expansions of child care pilot programs. Finally, this print continues to deliver on our long-term goals of increasing service members quality of life.
▶ 1:46:48And for that, I'd like to acknowledge uh not only ranking member Hulahan, but our committee, our subcommittee members and the committee staff who've worked relentlessly and in a bipartisan manner to develop the military personnel print. I'd like to personally thank the staff of the military personnel subcommittee, Dave Getty, Hannah Kaufman, Alexandria Evers, Ellie Bender, Ela Reino, and Michaela Rearen, Anna Brooks Reed, and our staff in our office.
▶ 1:47:16Um, Luis Quinierz and Grace Looney and my man Caric the KV. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
▶ 1:47:29Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee of military personnel, the gentleoman from Pennsylvania, Miss Hulahan, for any comments she would like to make.
▶ 1:47:38Thank you, Mr. chair and I also want to echo my appreciation to the ranking member Smith and to you uh chairman for the work that we were able to accomplish last cycle in terms of quality of life and the opportunity that we have to continue to build on that. I also want to make sure that we thank uh that we collectively thank Chairman Fallon and all of the members of this subcommittee on both sides of the aisle for largely keeping this process not just bipartisan but frankly apartisan.
▶ 1:48:03the American people and those who serve and sacrifice for us in uniform should really demand this of us and deserve this very much from us. So this mark as Mr. Fallon mentioned includes many quality of life priorities for our service members and their families and these issues have an immeasurable in impact on our recruitment and our retention efforts as well as on our readiness.
▶ 1:48:25This bill includes a 3.8% 8% pay raise for service members and it increases the family separation allowance for service members to $400 per month. It also excludes the basic housing allowance from service members household incomes. So a greater number of them should become eligible for basic needs allowance. These and several other provisions in the military personnel subcommittee mark should very much positively impact service members pocketbooks and their ability to put food on the table as well.
▶ 1:48:55The military personnel subcommittee mark expands ongoing access to provide safe and quality child care by extending the child care in your home pilot project through 2029. This project provides inhome child care options tailored to the unique needs of military families, many of whom work very much non-traditional work hours. Additionally, the bill requires the department to conduct an annual review of child care fee assistance rates.
▶ 1:49:21These regular reviews will ensure that the fee assistance program remains aligned with the ever evolving needs of our military families and is responsive to changes in child care costs. The Department of Defense recognizes the very critical role that child care plays in the overall mission and in readiness, which is why the largest operator of employer sponsored child care uh in the country is here.
▶ 1:49:44Although recruitment efforts across the services have improved, this bill also increases access for military recruiters at high schools and at other institutions of higher learning to make sure that we have access to the greatest number of eligible individuals as are possible. And finally, the bill addresses the ongoing health care needs of our servicemen and women and their families. It requires the establishment of an occupational resilience program for cyber personnel to meet their unique mental health challenges.
▶ 1:50:12The bill waves fees and co-pays for the Triricare dental program for all member members of the selected reserve. And it also increases health care costs and access uh I'm sorry, a healthcare access by improving the reimbursement of travel expenses for specialty care and by ensuring that the department doesn't further reduce the current number of military medical personnel. This is particularly important at a time when there are medical professional shortages across this country.
▶ 1:50:39Our service members and their families make considerable sacrifices for this nation and we must fulfill our commitments to them and to their families. Finally, I'd like to acknowledge our staff and the committee's staff efforts. Ila Reino and Michaela Rearen in particular for their fantastic work and Mr. Guatei as well as Miss Kaufman and Sapna Sharma who is welcoming welcoming a little one into the family as well.
▶ 1:51:04They have worked tirelessly and diligently to develop this subcommittee package that is before us today and for that I'm appreciative. I'm also deeply appreciative to team Hulahan who are both here in this room as well as back in the office uh watching and helping. I yield back.
▶ 1:51:19Gentle lady yields back before entertaining amendments. Uh is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? Seeing none, we will now consider onblock package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Fallon for the purpose of offering an onblock amendment.
▶ 1:51:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the
▶ 1:51:42Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the onblock amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. Uh the gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:51:54Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Onblock package number one is comprised of the following. Log 4736R1 by Rep. Schmidt. Log 4744R1 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4746 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4748R1 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4749R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 4756R1 by Rep. Schmidt. Log 4772 by Rep. McCormack. Log 4782R1 by Rep. Schmidt.
▶ 1:52:23Log 4791 by Rep. Bergman. Log 4800 by Rep. Van Orton. Log 4812 by Rep. Rogers. Log 4819 by Rep. Mace. Log 4824 by Rep. Mace. Log 4827R1 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4830 by Rep. Mace. Log 4831 by Rep. McCormack. Log 4833 by Rep. Ryan. Log 4841R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4862R1 by Rep. Kelly.
▶ 1:52:52Log 4863R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4876 by Rep. Cheryl. Log 4880 by Rep. Cheryl. Log 4893 by Rep. Goodlander. Log 4894 by Rep. Courtney. Log 4900 by Rep. Goodlander. Log 4913 by Rep. Goodlander. Log 4914 by Rep. Magcguire. Log 4915 by Rep. Bell. Log 4932R2 by Rep. Mills. Log 4945 by Rep. Mills. Log 4950 by Rep. Mills.
▶ 1:53:21Log 4981 by Rep. Mace. Log 496R1 by Delegate Moland. Log 503 by Rep. Mace. Log 5014 by Rep. Mace. Log 5017R1 by Rep. Mace. Log 5018 by Rep. Mace. Log 5020 by Rep. Mace. Log 5027 by Rep. Bacon. Log 5048R1 by Rep. Keading. Log 5046R2 by Rep. Herrian. Log 5057 by Rep. Keading.
▶ 1:53:51Log 5059 by Rep. Goodton. Log 5071R1 by Rep. Mace. Log 5080 R2 by Rep. Amade. Log 5083 by Rep. Strickland. Log 5085R2 by Rep. Cisneros. Log 5087R1 by Rep. Amade. Log 5088R2 by Rep. Cisneros. Log 5090R1 by Rep. Cisneros. Log 5092R1 by Rep. Cisneros. Log 5098R1 by Rep. McCormack. Log 5114 by Rep. Messmer.
▶ 1:54:20Log 5121 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5124 by Rep. Connor. Uh, gentleman yields back. If is there no further amendments? Uh, the chair recognizes. Oh, the question is on the onblock package offered by Mr. Pal. Some in favor will say I. I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. The amendments on block are agreed to. If there's no further amendments.
▶ 1:54:49Oh, there's another on block.
▶ 1:54:51Yes, sir. Where? We will now consider onblock package number two. The chair recognizes Mr. Fallon for the purpose of offering the the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:55:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous to call up unblock package number two amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority.
▶ 1:55:11Without objection. So order. The clerk will please distribute the onblock amendment. Without objection, the amendment are considered as read. The gentleman uh is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining the onblock amendment.
▶ 1:55:20Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Onblock package number two is comprised of the following. Log 5128 R1 by Rep. Connor. Log 5130 by Rep. Connor. Log 5131R1 by Rep. Connor. Log 5139 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 5152 R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5159 R1 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5169 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5171 by Rep. Dakota. Log 5172 by Rep. Dakota. Log 5173 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5174 by Rep. Dakota.
▶ 1:55:51Log 5174 by Rep. Dakota log 5177 by Rep. Whitman log 5179 by Rep. Dakota log 5182 by Rep. log 5183 R1 by Rep. Whitman. Log 5201 by Rep. Norcross. Log 5205 R2 by Rep. Turner. Log 5251 by Rep. Churro. Log 5253 by Rep. Churro. Log 5267R5 by Rep. Amade. Log 5295 by Rep. Vinman. Log 5296 by Rep. Mace.
▶ 1:56:20Log 5301 by Rep. Hulahan. Log 5323R1 by Rep. Davis. Log 5332R2 by Rep. Davis. Log 5334R1 by Rep. McCormack. Log 5376R2 by Rep. Keading. Log 5397R1 by Rep. McCormack. Log 5400 R4 by Rep. Bacon. Log 5410 by Rep. Bacon. Log 5412R1 by Rep. Bacon. Log 5439 R1 by Rep. Garandi.
▶ 1:56:49Log 5451 by Rep. Connor log 5453 R4 by Rep. Alfred log 5473 by Rep. Mace. Log 5474 by Rep. Whitman. Log 5487 R1 by Rep. Hulahan. Log 5491R1 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5495 by Rep. Tran. Log 5508 by Rep. Carbonal. Log 5526 by Rep. B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M B M. Log 5540 by Rep. Rogers. Log 5551R3 by Rep. Bill. Log 5556 by Rep. Mace.
▶ 1:57:19Log 5558 by Rep. Dakota. Log 55651 by Rep. Mace. Log 5572 by Rep. Mace. Log 5578R4 by Rep. Stfonic. Log 5583 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5594 by Rep. Vinman. Log 5648 by Rep. Elfreth.
▶ 1:57:40Question is on the onblock package offered by Mr. Fallon. Some in favor will say I. I.
▶ 1:57:45Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. The amendments on block are agreed to.
▶ 1:57:57There's no further amendments. The chair recognizes gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, for the purpose of offering a
▶ 1:58:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to adopt the subcommittee print on the subcommittee on military personnel as
▶ 1:58:07Question occurs on the motion. A gentleman from Texas. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 1:58:11Those opposed, no. Quorum being present, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed The committee will now consider the chairman's mark. Pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone recorded votes on the amendments until m mutually agreed time before entertaining amendments. Uh is there any discussion on the chairman's
▶ 1:58:42Go to arch. We will now consider onblock package number one. I ask unanimous consent to call uponblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. Without objection so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment the onblock amendments. Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. Onblock package number one is comprised of the following. Log 4733 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4760 by Rep. Finstead.
▶ 1:59:12Log 47 log 4773R1 by Rep. Rogers. Log 4832R1 by Rep. Whitman. Log 4853 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4858 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4864 by Rep. Bell. Log 4870R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4872R1 by Rep. Heran. Log 48.85 by Rep. Log 4899 by Rep.
▶ 1:59:41Finstead log 4897 by Rep. Ryan log 49808R1 by Rep. Maguire. Log 4918 by Rep. Log 4929R1 by Rep. Scott. Log 4943 R3 by Rep. Mills. Log 4944 by Rep. Courtourtney. Log 4983 by Rep. Courtney. Log 4992 by Rep. Ryan.
▶ 2:00:11Log 506R2 by Rep. Norcross. Log 5034 by Rep. Norcross. Log 5093 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5119 by Rep Cisneros. Log 5122 by Rep. Dejarlay. Log 5126 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5133 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5199R1 by Rep. Golden. Log 5223 by Rep. Goodlander.
▶ 2:00:40Log 5256R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 5298R2 by Rep. Crow. Log 5302 by Rep. Duzio. Log 533R1 by Rep. Duzio. Log 5344R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 5347 by Rep. Vinman. Log 5348R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 5377R3 by Rep. Molton.
▶ 2:01:10Log 5395R1 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 5399 by Rep. Tran. Log 54 21R2 by Rep. Crank. Log by Rep. Elfreth. Log 5444 by Rep. Garindi. Log 5457 by Rep. Scott. Log 5460 by Rep. Schmidt. Log 5475 by Rep. Garam Mindy. Log 5478 by Rep. Takuda.
▶ 2:01:39Log 5481R2 by Rep. Connor. Log 5529 by Rep. Bill Bell. Log 5533R2 by Rep. Kelly. Log 5545 by Rep. Garam Mindy. Log 5559 by Rep. Stefonic. Log 4771R1 by Rep. McCormick. Log 4924 R2 by Rep. Mills. Log 5012R1 by Rep. Wilson.
▶ 2:02:08Log 5013R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 5029R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 5054 R1 by Rep. Graves. Log 5351R3 by Rep. Davis. Log 5403 by Rep. Norcross. Log 5416 by Rep. Norcross. Log by Rep. Ben Vinman. Log 5567 by Rep. Scott.
▶ 2:02:38Log 5094 by Rep. Kelly, log 5192 by Rep. Higgins, log 5401 by Rep. Molton. Is there further discussion on the onblock package? Question on onblock package number one. So many are in favor will say I.
▶ 2:03:00I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. The onblock amendment uh on is agreed We will now consider onblock package number two. I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number two consisting of amendments that have been worked with the worked with and approved with the minority. Without objection, so ordered. The clerk will please distribute the onblock amendment. Without objection, amendments are considered as read.
▶ 2:03:28Onblock package number two is comprised of the following. Log 5426 by Rep. Kelly, log 5200 R2 by Rep. Basquez. Log 5287R1 by Rep. Schmidt. Log 5531 by Rep. Scott. Log 5614 by Rep. Smith. Log 5078 by Delegate Mouland. Log 5214R2 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5383R2 by Rep. Davis.
▶ 2:03:58Log 5413R2 by Rep. Graves. Log 507 R2 by Rep. Herrian. Log 5245R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 5261R1 by Rep. Hulahan. Log 5281R1 by Rep. Cisneros. Log 5358R3 by Rep. Davis. Log 5591R1 by Rep. Davis. Log 546R1 by Rep. Garam Mindy.
▶ 2:04:28Log 5815R1 by Rep. McCormick. Log 5083 R1 by Rep. Crank. Logif 4794 by Rep. Scott. Log 4807 by Rep. Scott. Log 4813R1 by Rep. Rogers. Log 4877R3 by Rep. Herrian. Log 4895R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 4920R1 by Rep. Jackson.
▶ 2:04:56Log 4923 R1 by Rep Bail. Log 4960 by Rep. Bale. Log 501 R4 by Rep. Bale. Log 5044 R2 by Rep. Gooden. Log 5141R3 by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 5203 R2 by Rep. Stfonic. Log 5229R1 by Rep. Goodlander. Log 5252R2 by Rep. Jacobs.
▶ 2:05:25Log 5261R1 by Rep. Holidayiday. Log 5262R1 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5266R1 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5290 by Rep. Crowe. Log 5294 by Rep. Crow. Log 5307R2 by Rep. Crow. Log 538 R2 by Rep by Delegate Moly. Log 5352R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 5356R1 by Rep.
▶ 2:05:57Log 5365R2 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5579R2 by Rep. Wilson. Log 5389R1 by Rep. Tun Turner. Log 5337R1 by Rep. Schmidt. Log 545 by Rep. Garam Mindy. Log 5506R3 by Rep. Cheryl. Log 5542 by Rep. Rogers. Log 5544 by Rep. Rogers.
▶ 2:06:24Log 40, I'm sorry, log 5562R2 by Rep. Herrian. Log by Rep. Cole Crow. Log 5595R1 by Rep. Crow. Is there further discussion on the onblock package? The question on block is on on block package number two. So many is there in favor will say I.
▶ 2:06:47I. Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. The onblock pack uh package is agreed to.
▶ 2:07:01We will now consider uh log number 5225 R1 by Miss Jacobs. For what purpose does a gentleoman seek recognition?
▶ 2:07:11Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 2:07:12Clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleoman for the purpose of explaining her
▶ 2:07:22Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would establish a human rights office modeled after the one at SOCOM at every combatant command. It would use only existing resources. Respecting human rights in all of our military operations is crucial to their legitimacy, effectiveness, and long-term objectives. That's why Southcom was the first combatant command to create a human rights office 30 years ago. And since then, Southcom has found this office to be hugely helpful in accomplishing its mission.
▶ 2:07:51Last year, Southcom commander General Laura Richardson called this office a huge enabler for Southcom that has helped them build deeper relations with partner countries over the years. That's why we should have these offices in all of our combatant commands. Human rights offices would help ensure that US forces and partner militaries do not engage in or enable human rights violations that can damage our credibility and undermine the trust that we've built.
▶ 2:08:14They would also help enforce and implement important bipartisan laws and policies like the combating trafficking trafficking in persons policy at the department. And they help embody what American values should be abroad. A human rights office in every combatant command wouldn't just be symbolic. It would be an important step to protect and defend human rights while reinforcing global norms and US soft power.
▶ 2:08:37These are the types of policy decisions that can have powerful long- lasting results, helping us strengthen partnerships around the world, earn trust with local populations, and uphold our values. And let's be clear, this is not just about doing the morally right thing, although that's important. Reducing civilian harm and protecting human rights helps protect our troops and reduces the threat of violent extremism, making all of us safer.
▶ 2:09:00So, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment that would model Southcom's existing human rights office in every combatant command and require a dedicated team to focus on human rights, engage with relevant stakeholders, implement relevant laws, and promote human rights with our partners. I yield
▶ 2:09:15Gentle lady yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Um, I agree that human rights are important. The missions of the combatant commands already include the protection of civilians and human rights. Uh the gentle lady has not established that our military has failed in these missions. Furthermore, she is creating an unfunded mandate by not providing any additional resources to stand up uh and staff these offices. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. Is there further uh debate on the amendment? Gentleman from uh Colorado, Mr. Crows, recognized.
▶ 2:09:45Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I'm speaking in support of Representative Jacobs amendment. I think this is uh a tremendous piece of legislation that actually would bring a lot of value to our military, to our ability to conduct missions, uh and to make sure that our servicemen and women have the resources, the expertise, uh and the capabilities they need to do to perform their their core functions of protecting our nation and conducting their missions effectively.
▶ 2:10:12My support for this amendment is born out of my own personal combat experience as a paratrooper and an army ranger having served three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that lethality goes handinand with making sure that we pay attention to civilian considerations whether we're doing um uh stability and support operations, counterinsurgency operations or conventional military operations.
▶ 2:10:36making sure that we are mindful of international law, that we are working closely with civilian populations, and that we are earning the support of those populations, and we are working effectively with our enabling partners and forces. There is pretty much no place in the world where our men and women are deployed where we aren't working handinand with local military forces.
▶ 2:10:58uh this office as is proven by the history of of the similar office in Southcom uh is very effective in doing all of those things and the value of this amendment is that this isn't hypothetical. This isn't something that we have to guess about. We it is proven. Southcom initiated this program. Uh it has been effective. It's been praised by our partners. It's been praised by our military commanders.
▶ 2:11:22has been praised by our service members uh who are downrange in multiple places in Southcom who have used this effectively. Uh this again is not a hypothetical thing nor is it a distraction from our mission. Uh again my experience shows that when we're working down range deployed in contingency operations our ability to work effectively to be mindful of the impact of our operations with local forces is essential to it.
▶ 2:11:50So, I I am very proud again to support Representative Jacob's work on this. She has uh done her due diligence. She's done her research. Uh this is something that through my own personal experience I think would great would add great value to our military and I would urge my colleagues to support it. I yield
▶ 2:12:06Gentleman from Colorado yields back. Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Virginia, Mr. McGuire.
▶ 2:12:11Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment from the gentle woman from California. This amendment redirects existing resources and personnel to focus solely on a narrow scope of issues that are already covered by existing resources policies and law. To quote the amendment as subsection C, the secretary may carry out the requirements of this section using an existing bulletin and resources.
▶ 2:12:35If this amendment becomes law, it will divert existing resources and personnel from the missions they are already obligated to and assigned to. I'm not convinced that there is a need for these offices as the Department of Defense is heavily involved in protecting both human and preventing civilian harm. There are many wellestablished protections for these concerns already in place.
▶ 2:12:56For example, the Lehi law enacted in 1961 prohibits the US from assisting foreign security forces if they've committed gross violations of human rights. Additionally, DoD requires that all personnel receive human rights and civilian harm awareness, education, and training.
▶ 2:13:17The gentle lady has an amendment included in an end block to codify the presence of judge advocates at all combatant commands in numbers sufficient to provide legal advice to all commanders responsible for planning and organizing military operations. That amendment will ensure these protections and the oversight of them will continue. This amendment would only duplicate those existing obligations.
▶ 2:13:41Furthermore, our military is appropriately focused on working with their military counterparts and should should remain as such. For example, a retired colonel tells of his experience when he was deployed for over two years to Colombia and Ecuador on training and advising missions. He states that on one deployment they were held up for 6 months while they waited for the vetin of the Colombian Counter Narcotics Brigade they were there to train.
▶ 2:14:08The brigade had officers who had been implicated in human rights violations. Ultimately those officers were removed from the units the US military was there to train. In his words from 2016 once the military is deployed it must provide human rights training to counterparts in the host nation. We had to allocate time on our training schedule to go through a block of instructions on human rights with Colombian soldiers and law enforcement officers.
▶ 2:14:37All kinds of interesting debates arose during those sessions. And I got to tell you, my most of my time serving as a Navy Seal. I served in Southcom and dealt with the same issues myself. Missions like colonels happen every day all over the world. Our combatant commands collaborate regularly with embassies and departments of state chiefs um of mission on where to focus their efforts.
▶ 2:15:01The department of state and its chiefs of mission have a presence throughout the area of responsibility of each combatant command and are better equipped and positioned in many ways to promote human rights and coordinate US government activities.
▶ 2:15:14that to that end I am also concerned that concerned that this amendment requires that the human rights offices liaison with human rights organization there is no clarity on what type of organization these may be as we saw with the Biden administration a lot of these organizations they chose to work with were using US funds to push for policies opposed by the local culture to include expansive abortion access and radical transgender pro-LGBTQ These
▶ 2:15:44are not organizations that the military should be working with. The military is appropriately focused on protecting and defending human rights through their missions of providing security and training their local counterparts. Our military abides by the highest standards for the human rights protection in the world and trains their counterparts on the same standards. This amendment suggests that isn't the case.
▶ 2:16:07I will oppose this amendment as it imposes an unfunded mandate on our combatant commands to address a problem that does not exist. So I urge my colleagues to vote no. And with that I yel back.
▶ 2:16:21Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle lady from Washington, Miss Strickland.
▶ 2:16:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to express my strong support for this amendment by my colleague, Congresswoman Jacobs. Um, the gentleman who just spoke made a very strong case for why we need this and other combatant commands. But I want to point something out. We are pulling major staff away from the State Department. We are defunding USAD. When we talk about the need for soft power, this can help fill the gap and make sure that we're doing what we must do. I yield back.
▶ 2:16:52J gentle lady yields back. Is there any further debate on the question?
▶ 2:16:56Mr. Chair,
▶ 2:17:00gentleman, Mr. Vinman's recognized.
▶ 2:17:02Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I want to speak in favor of this amendment and, uh, my, uh, support is grounded in my 25 years of military service um, as a paratrooper, infantry officer, and also as a judge advocate at a time when we're stepping away from um, our sort foundational values.
▶ 2:17:24um when we're cutting staff at the at Department of State and closing the Office of Global Criminal Justice, this capability needs to reside somewhere and the Department of Defense is is a perfect place. judge advocates uh also senior judge advocates have been uh relieved of their duties. And so it to me it seems obvious that we're drifting away from our values.
▶ 2:17:47And uh this is a way to restore those values, reduce civilian harm, and ensure that we're complying with our obligations under international law, including international criminal law and the Geneva Convention. So in order to make sure that we abide by our values, uh this I support this amendment. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Is there any other Mr. Whitesides is recognized?
▶ 2:18:11Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield my time to Congressman uh Jacobs.
▶ 2:18:15Thank you. Um first of all, we're talking about a $1 trillion authorization almost between this and the budget reconciliation bill. So, the idea of an unfunded mandate is completely ridiculous. Not to mention the fact that it was actually majority staff who were the ones to advise in the language that said it had to use existing resources.
▶ 2:18:34Also to my colleague on the other side of the aisle's point about this being duplicative or something, it seems like he doesn't actually trust the co-comos to know who to work with. But DoD is who decides which organizations to engage with. And this is about executing DoD's existing policies, not duplicating or doing new things. So to me, all of the arguments against this are completely bogus.
▶ 2:18:59It's clearly in our interest as we heard from the Southcom CO who said this was important to enable her COCOM to do what they need to do. Uh and with that I yield back. Thank you Mr. Whitesides.
▶ 2:19:12Uh gentleman from California yield back the balance of his time. Is anybody else seeking recognition on Miss Jacobs There's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Jacobs. Some in favor will say I.
▶ 2:19:27I. Those opposed? No.
▶ 2:19:29Opinion to chairs. Then the amendments not agreed to.
▶ 2:19:37A recorded vote uh is requested. Uh the recorded vote shall be postponed until a later time. We will now consider uh log number 4933 by Mr. Courtourtney. For what purposes, gentleman from Connecticut seek
▶ 2:20:02Thank you. Uh Mr. Chairman, the uh clerk has an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:20:07Uh will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman from Connecticut for the purpose of of explaining his
▶ 2:20:15Thank you, uh Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds being made available by this act from being used for the purpose of modifying an aircraft acquired from a foreign source for use as an executive lift aircraft or for transferring such aircraft to a non-governmental entity. This provision is in response to the President Trump's unilateral decision to accept a Boeing 747 from Qatar to serve as a replacement for the current Air Force One aircraft, the VC 25A.
▶ 2:20:46And again, I just uh want to preface my remarks by um reminding uh my colleagues on the committee that we have direct jurisdiction over the Air Force One uh program. It's actually falls under the uh CE power and projection forces subcommittee, which is maybe a surprise to some, but the projection forces uh jurisdiction includes all airlift including executive airlift.
▶ 2:21:08And back in 2018, this committee during uh President Trump's first term uh authorized the purchase of two Boeing 747 aircraft that the uh company originally built as comm commercial passenger planes for an airline that went bankrupt. The cost of the upgrades and retrofitting for these two planes to replace the Air Force One fleet, which admittedly is is definitely um old at this point, um was totaled $3.9 billion.
▶ 2:21:38The work included stripping the plane's interior down to the studs, hardening the plane's defenses, installing encrypted communications technology, and building out space for what is essentially a flying command and control center, not just for our nation's military and intelligence agency, but the entire federal government.
▶ 2:21:56So since then um that $3.9 billion uh figure has already um been exceeded uh because again of a number of um you know change orders and uh the one of the subcontractors that was doing the interior work uh went bankrupt and and Boeing which is the general contractor had to come up with a a plan to replace um that work um and do it uh in-house.
▶ 2:22:22So again, when the administration has been trying to explain this um proposal to to have a third 747, which again is pre-owned, uh it already has um an interior that was built out for uh one of the members of the uh Qatari Kingdom. Um basically the same process that uh we just saw uh or is underway right now with the two planes that were uh acquired back in 2018 has to happen again.
▶ 2:22:51that uh will involve stripping the interior down to the studs, hardening the plane's defenses, installing encrypted communications technology, and building out space for what is essentially a flying command and control center. When the Secretary of the Air Force uh testified before our committee recently, he again gave an astounding um comment that that work will only cost $400 million even though we already have real life um experience with the same process of retrofitting
▶ 2:23:21a plane that's been pre-built for another purpose uh as an Air Force One plane which has cost basically two billion uh per unit. So um again according to Secretary Mink, the money is going to be transferred uh from the Sentinel program uh one of the Triad um programs um to and and that diversion is going to be apparently enough to cover the cost uh of this $400 million price tag which magically um is
▶ 2:23:52somehow going to um accomplish the same uh work that the $2 billion figure that is still underway and happening. um today. So, back in um May, the acting assistant secretary of the Air Force, Darlene Costello, testified before our subcommittee um and she uh basically has um given an estimate of delivery of 2028 and they are working with Boeing according to her to actually move that schedule to the left uh and have the plane uh achieve a delivery
▶ 2:24:22date in So again, we're being asked by the administration to overlook uh a unilateral decision without Congress's approval with no appropriation uh that has been lawfully uh given to the administration to approve a third Air Force One aircraft which according which supposedly is going to be delivered um before the two planes that are again have been underway for retrofit since the first Trump administration.
▶ 2:24:51Um and again with no indication about what how that's going to be safe for a president and is going to be capable of really taking on all the different missions and um counter measures and protection that it that of course the Air Force One plane has to be for the president of the United States.
▶ 2:25:09Now there's a whole host of other reasons why this acquisition um I think is troubling uh members of Congress and and people uh again who have been commenting on this uh the constitutional pro prohibition in article 1 section 9 clause 8 that bans any official from accepting gifts or amaluments from another government without approval of congress. So again congress hasn't even come close to approving this gift. Um and again, Congress has not come even close to authorizing or appropriating the funds for this gift.
▶ 2:25:40This is all happening uh with no transparency and again in complete contradiction to the real life experience that we've seen play out with the two 747s that uh were purchased back in 2018. Again, I would u urge my members to support this amendment.
▶ 2:25:55Gentleman's time's expired. Trina recognizes himself. Maintenance of the current Air Force One is increasingly difficult, which challenges the readiness and availability of these aircraft. Modification and delivery of the future Air Force One is delayed until at least 2028. We need a capable aircraft for the president to support his responsibilities as commanderin-chief. The proposed 747 can provide that capability well before the current Air Force One replacement. I urge all members to oppose the unnecessary political amendment. Does any other members seek recognition?
▶ 2:26:25Gentlemen, Mr. Bale from Missouri is Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, notwithstanding the among the amongments clause prohibiting any person holding office from accepting gifts, um, titles or other benefits from foreign states. Um, as an attorney, there's this concept of the appearance of impropriety.
▶ 2:26:50And what I would suggest is that um there is a clear impance of impropriy when the president of the United States accepts a gift and uses taxpayer dollars um to retrofit or um or what have you with this particular gift. Uh Qatar is not just any nation.
▶ 2:27:12is a strategic player in a volatile region and allowing any president um to accept gifts for personal benefits undermines our national security and the credibility of US foreign policy. But also the um it it undermines the confidence that the American people have in their leaders to act independently and not be influenced by foreign powers.
▶ 2:27:41um accepting any rep and repairing luxury assets from foreign actors without proper oversight raises these e these serious ethical questions. Um and and I think that that should be beneath this body.
▶ 2:27:56We should um in whoever the president is, we're going down a slippery slope and we do not and and and and I would challenge my colleagues that if this president was a Democrat, President Biden, how would they feel about the president accepting and using taxpayer dollars uh for gifts of this magnitude? Um I would allocate the remainder of my time to Rep. Courtney.
▶ 2:28:26Um, I I'll yield back.
▶ 2:28:29Does gentleman yield back?
▶ 2:28:32Yes. Yes, Mr. Chair.
▶ 2:28:34Chair, I recognize gentle from Texas, Dr. Jackson.
▶ 2:28:36Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I fully oppose this amendment. I flew in Air Force One for 14 years while serving three different administrations and three different presidents. I've logged more hours than just about anyone I know on the current Air Force One, which is why I was intimately involved also in the task force that was assigned to design to design the VC25B, specifically the medical suite, but other aspects as well.
▶ 2:29:00We recognized then the desperate need to modernize Air Force One, and each year that that is delayed, it is becoming more expensive and more difficult to maintain the current fleet. Now, as depot times have increased, the much smaller, much less capable C-32s are being used as backup aircraft for Air Force One, creating major capability gaps.
▶ 2:29:23While the Secretary of the Air Force has openly testified completion of the VC25B will not be done until 2028, and that's best case scenario. Initially, it was 2029. That's still probably the case. This interim aircraft can restore essential functions for the president and serve as a critical backup for the current and future Air Force One fleets. This committee has a duty to ensure the president can safely and securely execute his duties as commander-in-chief, head of state, and chief executive.
▶ 2:29:50I strongly oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote no on its adoption. And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
▶ 2:29:56Gentleman yields back. Chair recognized a gentle lady from California, Miss
▶ 2:30:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, as a reminder for all of my colleagues, the US Constitution that both members of Congress and the president swear to uphold and defend says that the president can't accept any president of any kind whatever from a foreign government unless Congress consents. And Congress definitely did not consent to the president's accepting a $400 million private jet from Qatar. But the president accepted it anyway.
▶ 2:30:30and Secretary Hagsath has ordered the Defense Department to begin converting it into an Air Force One platform. Now, that's a massive project. The entire plane must be disassembled, scrubbed for spyware, and rebuilt with hardened communications, aerial refueling, and missile defense. The Air Force chief has said it will cost almost $400 million to do, but outside experts say it could cost far more, as much as a billion dollars, and could take years to finish.
▶ 2:30:58It's ridiculous to foot taxpayers with a potentially $1 billion bill for a jet that the president may not even use when he's in office because it will take too long to upgrade. So, we're spending nearly a billion dollars in taxpayer funds to retrofit a foreign gift for the president's private use. And to be clear, we don't even need this plane.
▶ 2:31:22We are already paying Boeing almost $4 billion to build two next-gen Air Force One jets that will be ready in just a few years. This is wrong on so many levels. It's wrong to accept this corruption and it's wrong to stick taxpayers with this bill. And don't even get me started on what we should be spending that $1 billion on instead, like making sure every military family has the housing and childare that they need.
▶ 2:31:46So, I urge my colleague to support this amendment to prohibit DoD from spending any taxpayer dollars on refurbishing Trump's Qatari private jet. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Chair now recognize a gentleman from California, Mr. Gari. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues that are opposed to this amendment, I'm wondering if you listened at all to what Mr.
▶ 2:32:12Courtney said about the process of preparing uh these airplanes for the use of the Uh he went into detail about what it takes with the two aircraft that are going to be that have been purchased from Boeing and that are now under uh construction so that they are prepared including I might point out the necessary medical facilities that were raised by our colleague.
▶ 2:32:40All of that is part of the process that Boeing is going through now to prepare those two jets. Uh is it a 2028 or is it 2029? But u Mr. Courtney pointed out that this is complex and it is absolutely necessary for security purposes and for a a mobile command post for all purposes of government, the military being but one.
▶ 2:33:07And now we come to this new Qatari plane and we seem to be in the process of just waving aside all of those requirements, all of the work that is necessary and uh for the two Boeing jets and somehow believing that we can just wave a magic wand and voila, the Qatari jet will be ready in a couple of years, not in 2028 or 29.
▶ 2:33:369, but I don't know, maybe in 27 or 26. How can that be? How can it be? Is there something that will not be done or is there just everything that will not be done? I suppose we'll change the interior and paint it gold and call it good enough. But the security and the necessary communications and the necessary defense mechanisms and and and cannot possibly be done in a year, a year and a half.
▶ 2:34:08It makes no sense. So why are we not supporting this amendment? Why are we not saying well wait a minute here? Just what are we doing and why are we spending the money? I must say I'm somewhat conflicted because the money comes from the Sentinel program which all of you know something that I would like to see diminished and maybe this is the only way we can get it done but it's kind of a backhanded way of accomplishing a goal that I've set for myself for a long long time. I'm I'm looking at this.
▶ 2:34:36I'm going, "Oh, and by the way, the imalments clause, which has been raised by members here. It's important. There is a reason why that's in the And you just can't blow it aside and say, "Oh, not to worry. This isn't really a gift to the president." Huh? Are you kidding me?
▶ 2:34:57This is a airplane given to the president for his use and he intends to use it and after it is reconfigured and restored it'll wind up by his account in his presidential library. The imalments clause is really really important folks because it is specifically designed to prevent corruption.
▶ 2:35:25But we blow it aside here and we don't pay any attention to the emolements clause and then the issue of corruption What exactly did Qatar want as it handed over this used 17-year-old plane to the president? What did they want? They want a big beautiful building on the beach. Well, I suspect there's probably one already underway or at least the start of one.
▶ 2:35:56Corruption is part of this process here that we're trying to prevent with the embalments clause and with this amendment. I would really urge this committee to be smart. I know we all need to line up with the pre excuse me, some of you need to line up with the president and you got to be on his good side. Otherwise, he'll primary you. Primary you over this jet? Are you kidding me? If you can't go home and argue this as a bad thing, well, I can give you some hints or you can do it.
▶ 2:36:26I don't know. Some days I wonder just if any of us have the courage to stand up and say, "No, this is not a good idea." Listen carefully to what Mr. Courtney said about the process of making these planes fit for presidential use. With that, I suppose it's best to yield back and say this deserves a yes vote.
▶ 2:36:51Gentleman yields back as any further members wish. The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Molton.
▶ 2:36:56Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Constitution is very clear that the president cannot accept gifts from foreign nations without the approval of Now, that should be enough. But in an effort to be bipartisan, I'd like to quote a few people. I don't usually quote Laura Loomer, for example, whom the president has put in charge of hiring and firing at the National Security Council. When she when first told of this, she said, "I'm hoping that it's not true.
▶ 2:37:27And I know that I'm not the only person who is a diehard Trump supporter who was concerned about whether or not this report is true." Well, Laura, it's true. Ben Shapiro. Ben Shapiro blasted the president's quote shady behavior, saying it undermines his agenda and credibility. The conservative commentator said on his show, even if it's not criminal optics, the move is political poison.
▶ 2:37:57Shapiro continued that if his story were about Hunter and Joe Biden, quote, "Conservatives would be screaming." Rand Paul, Andrew McCarthy, Eric Ericson also criticized the plan. So maybe some of these MAGA faithful will help my colleagues get back to the Constitution because at the end of the day, that's the only thing that should matter here. Why are my colleagues so quick to give up our constitutional responsibility?
▶ 2:38:29I don't know. But that's what you're doing if you vote against this amendment. I support this amendment because I support the Constitution and I yield back.
▶ 2:38:40Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognize a gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Benjamin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, as a former White House ethics attorney, I have some questions about uh the Qatari Jet. First of all, I think that the president probably ought to be filing this on his financial disclosure potentially. Just a little free advice here. But look, let's not fool ourselves.
▶ 2:39:01This is um a a uh this is a pet project, a vanity project for the president and um it's an end round around the emolments clause. So um we've already heard from my colleague um Mr. Courtney that this is inefficient and ineffective use of of government resources. Um perhaps maybe even Doge should get a look at this.
▶ 2:39:24But apparently um once this jet is um is used that it's going to go to the president's uh presidential library which is also an interesting provision to be added to um to the acceptance of this foreign gift. And so let me just read an article uh from back in May because this is um this is all about ethics and there are major questions about the president's ethics and corruption.
▶ 2:39:53This is an article in the New York Times May 13th or Seattle Times. Uh tiny company with Chinese ties announces big purchase of Trump cryp cryptocurrency. So this is part of the the larger paniply of potential or significant ethics questions. Says a struggling Chinese a struggling technology company that has ties to China and relies on Tik Tok made an unusual announcement this week.
▶ 2:40:17had secured funding to buy as much as $300 million in Trump Coin, the so-called memecoin marketed by President Trump. GG Culture Group, a publicly traded firm uh with a Chinese subsidiary, only has eight employees and its public filing show and uh as its public filing show and recorded zero revenue last year from an eer e-commerce business it operates in Tik Tok, a Chinaowned video app sharing.
▶ 2:40:43But on Monday, GD Culture Group became the latest business with foreign ties to seize on Trump's crypto venture, which channels profits directly to the Trump family and has generated conflicts of interest and that that have alarmed ethics experts. Memecoins like Trump coin are a type of cryptocurrency. That's just a description. We don't need to get into all that.
▶ 2:41:06But this this cryptocurrency Trumpcoin, this issue with um the president accepting a gift from Qatar, it's all part of this idea that the American people are frankly starting to get that this uh um may have some corrupt tendencies.
▶ 2:41:30And it's it's really straightforward in this case uh while it's in our purview for us to take action on uh this jet uh and and make sure that um we support my colleagues amendment. Um it's improper. It's uh it certainly stinks. And let me read uh just another excerpt from this article.
▶ 2:41:56Make no mistake, these foreign entities and governments obviously want to curry favor with the president. That is the sole purpose to this transfer, said former representative Charles Dent, Republican Pennsylvania, who's the chair of the House ethics who was the chair of the House Ethics Committee. This is basically this is completely out of bounds and raises all sorts of ethical, legal, and constitutional issues that must be addressed. We have an opportunity to do that today. Let's not ignore obligations. Thank you.
▶ 2:42:26With that, I yield back.
▶ 2:42:28Gentleman yields back. Is there any further debate on the amendment by Mr. Seeing none, um the question occurs on the amendment by Mr. Courtourtney. Uh so many in favor will say I.
▶ 2:42:41So opposed will say no.
▶ 2:42:44Pin the chair. The nos have it. A recorded vote is requested and it will be postponed until a later time. We will now consider log number 5619 by Miss
▶ 2:43:02Oh, 5494 by Mr. Ryan of New York. For what purposes, gentleman from New York seek recognition.
▶ 2:43:08Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 2:43:10Clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman from New York for the purpose of explaining his
▶ 2:43:18Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh this amendment is fundamentally and foundationally about accountability. This is a topic many of us have had to bring up over and over uh during the first six, seven months of this administration as it relates to the the department, but specifically to the secretary.
▶ 2:43:34And to be clear to the American people who may be tuning in to this uh hearing, what we're talking about here is authorizing over $880 billion of our hard-earned taxpayer dollars, setting departmentwide policy on the largest department in the world.
▶ 2:43:52All at the same time that the person in charge of this agency is deeply incompetent and continues with chance after chance provided to take any accountability for a series of grave failures that in any other time in any other administration would be caused for immediate relief or resignation.
▶ 2:44:15what's happening factually with no spin at the multiple now confirmed leaks of classified information. starting with uh a widely understood and recognized leak on signal of information that decisively and definitively was classified and thank God did not cost lives of American service members but in many other uh situations could have followed by wave after wave of mass firings at an unprecedented level of competent
▶ 2:44:46committed patriots to make room for cronies or in many cases to leave the seat open at one of the most dangerous and vulnerable times uh for America in the world, including importantly the very inspectors general charged in a bipartisan way for decades of precedent to oversee uh the department and bring the exact accountability that we're counting on.
▶ 2:45:09And finally, and significantly, most recently, since the secretary was before this committee, a unilateral, unexplained, and incredibly misguided effort to freeze and stop aid to our allies at a at a moment where they desperately need it and in direct contradiction to the president's orders with no explanation to the national security adviser or the president Clearly the the and it gives me no pleasure to
▶ 2:45:39use this term. The mess the dumpster fire at the Pentagon continues to grow and Secretary Hexath continues to put more fuel on it. And by not taking action, we allow that to continue. And you don't have to take my word for it. I've shared these quotes before with the committee, but they haven't driven any response from my colleagues, so I'll share them again. These are the words of senior appointees from the secretary.
▶ 2:46:03quote, "Total chaos at the Pentagon." Quote, "Full-blown meltdown at the Pentagon." Quote, in short, the building is in disarray under Hegs leadership. These are not Democrats or partisans. They were political appointees of this administration that said those words after having the dignity to resign and leave, understanding the risk that they were putting the American people in and the risk to their own reputation, frankly.
▶ 2:46:32But again, in the face of this unprecedented chaos and specifically the failures around signal to take any accountability, there's been no recognition of these failures. Uh and the fact that the secretary came before this distinguished committee and had so many opportunities to just say, you know what, we got it wrong. We made a mistake.
▶ 2:46:58which is what all of us learn in our jobs as representatives, what all of us who served in uniform learned over and over that accountability has to be set by leadership. There wasn't a millimeter of accountability and that is truly pathetic.
▶ 2:47:12I've I this is something that I've thought a lot about how how to describe what is happening at this place that I love at the Department of Defense that I love that I served under that so many of us care about that so much of us invest so much of our time and energy into making better and the term that I keep coming back to is something I learned when I you first got in the army he secretary heth is fubar that that's where we're at and we We all know, especially
▶ 2:47:42in this room, what that means. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which again is about accountability. And I'll remind in closing my colleagues, what Secretary Hegsath himself said when he took uh this role on, accountability is back at the Pentagon. Those were his words. So, why don't we live by them? And if you won't live by them, this amendment will hold back American uh the American people's funds until that accountability is provided.
▶ 2:48:11Um so I thank the chair and yield back.
▶ 2:48:13Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. Let's be clear. This amendment is is not about accountability. This amendment is little more than partisan posturing. The DODIG is reviewing this matter. We will get a briefing on that when it's completed. All this amendment will do is hold funding for the sake dev hostage and undermine his ability to execute his critical responsibilities. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. And with that, I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Smith.
▶ 2:48:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think uh Mr. Ryan did a great job of explaining the amendment. Just really want to emphasize one point, and that is the lack of accountability around the mistake that was made on the signal chat to share sensitive information in advance of an attack. Yes, the IG is undergoing an investigation, but let's remember that the Trump administration fired the AG. So, it's an acting IG who has to be aware of the fact that he too can be fired as he's doing this review.
▶ 2:49:08So, what we need is we need the Secretary of Defense himself to say something about this, to issue some policy as to how he's going to make sure that it doesn't happen again. And I know at this point, I mean, we've talked about it so much, but the basic details of this are so unimaginable that if you took out the partisanship and simply put it in front of any member of this committee, there would be outrage that this information was shared in the manner that it was shared.
▶ 2:49:37It's not even debatable that this was okay, even though Secretary Hath continues to say that it was perfectly okay. So what the committee has a right to expect is that they'll tell us how they're not going to do it again because we are left with the impression that this is standard operating procedure.
▶ 2:49:56And if it is standard operating procedure, it places the lives of service members at risk, which we should not as a committee be willing to simply accept because of partisan reasons. We should in a bipartisan way say no, this is not the way we're supposed to do this. Please tell us that you understand that and you're not going to do it again.
▶ 2:50:17Now, there have been several reports about other signal chats and other information being of a classified nature being shared in a manner that was not secure that basically emphasize the point that this is a problem that needs to be fixed. So, yes, there are endless partisan arguments to be made around this, but there's one that isn't partisan. This shouldn't be happening at the Department of Defense.
▶ 2:50:42And we should all say, even if you don't want to ask for him to resign, if you want to say, "Hey, mistakes happen, whatever." Fix it and let us know how you fixed it so that we can be confident that it's not going to happen again. That's what this amendment does and it's why it should be supported. I yield back.
▶ 2:51:01Gentlemen yields back. Chair and I recognize Mr. Vinman.
▶ 2:51:05Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sure. Um, I'd just like to make one uh point pretty clear on this is that the Dog DODDIG review of uh this conduct cannot encompass all of the conduct that took place in Signalgate because uh DoD has no purview, has no jurisdiction over that. So, as we know, the National Security Adviser created that chat.
▶ 2:51:29All of that information material external to DoD cannot be reviewed by DoD. So that by its very nature that investigation is going to be incomplete. So um I still believe Secretary Hegsth must resign. He is the least qualified, most experienced, least competent SECF in our history and it shows. He came to the House Armed Services Committee hearing wolffully unprepared and did not have answers to my simple questions.
▶ 2:51:57Further, one of my constituents came up to me at a district event. She was irate at Secretary Hegsth's actions during Signal Gate and for good reason. Her son was one of the fighter pilots in the air over Yemen. Secretary Hegsth undoubtedly put her son's life in danger and certainly the mission at risk. I asked if he wanted to apologize to this mom, this service member mom, and the secretary told me point blank, not once but three times, I do not apologize.
▶ 2:52:26These events surrounding Singlegate weren't just a lapse in judgment. This is a potentially catastrophic failure. Secretary Hegsth released where and when our forces would be attacking the enemy two hours before they did so. It's simple and it's sad. His actions endangered our troops. There's no need there. There's a need to have a full-scale investigation into Signalgate. As I described, this could not happen with DODIG. It must happen in the only place possible, which is in Congress.
▶ 2:52:56I represent 72,000 vets and tens of thousands of active duty personnel in the seventh district of Virginia. They expect me to stand up for them and that's exactly what I'm going to do. We need accountability
▶ 2:53:11with class.
▶ 2:53:13Uh with uh classified leaks and breaches making headlines and foreign adversaries exploiting every digital weakness they can find, we can afford we cannot afford an outdated approach to safeguarding our nation's secrets. This amendment simply says that we need to get serious about securing securing our classified information.
▶ 2:53:30It withholds 75% of OSD's operations maintenance funding until the Secretary of Defense completes a full review of how classified information is handled across uh across guidance, policy, law, and day-to-day practice. And it requires the secretary to certify to his to this committee that DoD has a real enforceable mechanism in place to stop officials from sending classified information over unapproved apps or devices. This is basic stuff.
▶ 2:53:59A uh private with um that hasn't even made it through basic training would know this OBSAC requirement, but it's never more urgent than today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield
▶ 2:54:10Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
▶ 2:54:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with some of the sentiments being shared here today. I think we should be clear what the secretary did was wrong and he should have owned up to it. I think it was a failure. But withholding money to the Pentagon, to the OSD at a time we have a, you know, war in Ukraine. We we got to create better deterrence for Taiwan. We still have tremendous hot spots in the Middle East with Iran. And this isn't the time to cut funding to the Pentagon is my point.
▶ 2:54:42I think there's other ways that we can make our the sense of this committee uh known without hobbling the Pentagon's ability to to operate when it's needed right now to do so. So I if there's other ways to to share our concerns about what the Secretary of Defense did, I'm in. But I think this is not the appropriate way to do so. I yield.
▶ 2:55:02Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
▶ 2:55:07Thank you, Chairman. Uh I support Mr. Ryan's amendment uh for the simple reason as he so eloquently stated that military leadership is about leadership by example. You know, we learn from the first day of boot camp that it matters far less what you say and far more what you do. And it's that example that uh spreads throughout the ranks that instills a sense of accountability and professionalism.
▶ 2:55:33And it's just so wrong to me that um at the very top within the Department of Defense, the secretary himself is unwilling to take accountability for a massive security breach. Uh a security breach that if a private, if a sergeant, if a major or if a general had had done would have ultimately and immediately resulted in uh the discharge from a position uh other adverse action.
▶ 2:56:01uh and yet at the top there is no accountability. And to my colleagues concern about other options, you some of my colleagues have rightfully agreed with us that this was unacceptable and needs to be fixed and have proposed other options. We have tried other options. uh and the ability to fence off funding is a tool of last resort for this committee.
▶ 2:56:23When they're not responding, when they're not um coming forth for accountability, when we're not getting traction in other ways, as is the case here, the fencing of funds is the tool that this committee has and has used repeatedly in the past to get that traction and to get action. And you know, there are bipartisan examples of this committee and uh the people that I work with, my Republican colleagues are joining with us under the last administration to push for fixes.
▶ 2:56:51Uh may I remind my colleagues that when there was an issue when the prior Secretary of Defense was hospitalized and there was a succession of command issue uh and things weren't done the the way they were supposed to be done, that in a bipartisan way, we stood up and said, you know, that was unacceptable and it should be fixed. and we pushed back uh in the administration and the department actually fixed it. It resulted in changes of policy.
▶ 2:57:15It resulted in things being done differently now when there's a hospitalization of a cabinet official uh and there's now notification. There are now checks in place. That is the way this should work. If there are mistakes or problems, we should come together and say it's not okay. Uh and it needs to be fixed. In this case, there has been no accountability. There have been no fixes. So, I I just strongly urge my colleagues to join with us.
▶ 2:57:41Uh, and again, I would do this regardless of who's sitting in the White House, regardless of who's sitting in the the um the chair at DoD, and I in fact have uh join with us to do the right thing to make sure that accountability exists at the top so that all of our service members can see that we are serious about our work. I yield back.
▶ 2:58:01Gentleman yields back. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's somewhat laughable to talk about accountability after the last administration when we saw what happened in uh things overseas, things that are very uh applicable to my career in Afghanistan, watching the withdrawal, watching the lack of accountability, watching what a $2 trillion and 20-year investment happened. And now talk about accountability. Let's talk about accountability.
▶ 2:58:30We just had a major operation in Iran. Did anybody hear anything about what was going to happen in Iran before that? Of course not. Results matter. They talk about the the disqualifications of Mr. Hegathth as secretary. Results matter. Recruiting's up. The military's better off. We're actually mission focused instead of focused on what type of person is rec recruited.
▶ 2:58:59We're only looking for Results matter. When we have this ridiculous debate over accountability while an IG is investigating and hasn't come up with results and we're talking about cutting funds before we even know what the results of the investigation is, this is not about accountability. This is about politicization. This is about grandstanding and pretending like it has anything to do with mission execution which I would make an argument since we had this administration in place.
▶ 2:59:28We have done an exceptional job not only with the attack on the Houthis and you can say there's mistakes made of course we learn from those mistakes. We do investigations on purpose that is accountability but ultimately we're about mission accomplishment and results.
▶ 2:59:47With that said, I think this has been the most effective administration in a very long time and I think this is a attempt to embarrass the secretary and therefore I urge my colleagues to vote
▶ 3:00:01Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Cheryl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:00:23So, you know, I think um it it it's very concerning to hear from the other side of the aisle that uh there isn't a focus on accountability that that there shouldn't be any accountability. And I I will tell you, especially when it comes to national security, that can never be the case. Um I learned early how to properly handle classified information when I was a teenager at the Naval Academy. I used that knowledge again as I was a Russian policy officer in the Navy. So, I'll start with the obvious.
▶ 3:00:52If Secretary Hegsth believed a word he said about turning our military into a meritocracy, he would have sent his resignation in weeks ago. His decision to send strike plans in multiple unsecured signal chats to his wife, to his brother, to his personal attorney, and to a reporter could have killed American service members. and he did so while at least one Signal Chat member was in the Kremlin.
▶ 3:01:21Accountability matters. But I'm not surprised by his complete disregard for national security and for the safety of our men and women in uniform. Because from his views on women in combat to his willingness to bend the need of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, we knew exactly who Trump was picking. It's why I strongly opposed his nomination from the very beginning.
▶ 3:01:44But I will say that I am surprised by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this room because every single individual in this room knows that the information Hexath shared on Signal was classified. Any member of the House Armed Services Committee knows without a doubt that the timing, schedule, and composition of operations are absolutely classified.
▶ 3:02:09Every individual in this room knows that Pete Hgset's use of signal could have gotten American service members killed. So even if you haven't served in uniform, you know how to handle classified information by virtue of sitting on this very committee. We host any hearing with classified information in secure rooms without our phones and without messaging apps like Signal.
▶ 3:02:32which is why I think a derelict it's a dereliction of duty that the majority on this committee has refused to hold any sort of investigative hearing into Hegath's behavior. Nearly every Republican in this room has sat back and watched or even worse defended Pete Hegsath's behavior. So I encourage us to rectify that now as we hold the Department of Defense accountable for protecting our national security and our service members lives. which is why I urge you to support this amendment and I yield
▶ 3:03:03Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognizes a gentle lady from Washington, Miss Strickland.
▶ 3:03:08Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to reiterate what my colleague, Congressman Crow, said about this should not be a partisan issue. It should not matter who's in the White House. It should not matter who that person appointed. This was a security breach and there is a lack of transparency and lack of accountability. And to my colleagues who said that this is an attempt to embarrass Secretary Hegsth or trying to undermine his credibility, he does that on his own. I yield to my colleague, Mr. Ryan from New York.
▶ 3:03:40Thank you, Mr. Strickland, and thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, you took those last words right out of my mouth. Uh, but I constructively I want to thank and recognize my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon. Um, you're still the first person in this committee anyway that I've heard publicly say a mistake was made and I think Mr.
▶ 3:04:00Crow made an important point that when uh General Austin was here and I was on the committee and he came before us, we all said that to him and he took accountability in this room and as Mr. Crow said, he changed action. So while I understand the point you're making, Mr. Bacon about the funding. That is why this amendment was designed in in close coordination with our ranking member and I want to thank him for his leadership on this as well to not hold back 100% of funding but specifically 75%.
▶ 3:04:32to allow this supposed IG investigation, which I I don't have any confidence what the timeline is, when is it going to be done, when is it going to be due, but the amendment is designed to specifically to give some time and space for the DoD to continue to do what it needs to do to focus on war fighting, lethality, and deterrence and everything else while finishing this inquiry, which has grave national security implications with speed and urgency. And as Mr. Crow said in in closing, we have tried every other option here.
▶ 3:05:01This is not something we wanted to do, not something certainly I took lightly or I know my my colleagues, but given no other option, given an $880 billion budget, given the lives of service members that we all took an oath uh to protect and serve, this is the point that we're at and it gives us no pleasure to do so. But I would just ask my colleagues, would one more person on the other side of the aisle in this room right now be at least willing to say what Mr. Bacon said that a mistake was made? Anybody?
▶ 3:05:37And with that, Mr. Chair, I I yield
▶ 3:05:39Gentlemen yields back. Chair would remind the members to address their comments to the chair and not to any other member of the committee. With that, I recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Whitesides.
▶ 3:05:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and I thank Mr. Ryan for offering this important amendment which seeks to get to the facts on the potential breaches of national security information inside the office of the secretary of defense. And before I begin, I just wanted to make a note about the results that we were just hearing about. Here are the results of the uh administration's foreign policy. The prime minister of Canada said Canada's old relationship with the US is over. Japan just canled an annual defense and foreign ministers meeting with the US after it called on Tokyo to change its defense spending.
▶ 3:06:19Australia's prime minister had said has said that the US policy was not the act of a friend. I would suggest that these are not the results that we're looking for for American foreign policy. I'm deeply concerned about uh the possibility that the Secretary of Defense has used non-secure communications to discuss national security operations. If this committee is to do its job, uh it must exercise proper oversight over the Department of the Defense.
▶ 3:06:46uh if the secretary or anyone entrusted with the need to discuss sensitive ongoing operation use Signal or other encrypted apps to conduct classified defense business that raises serious legal and operational concerns. We cannot look the other way. Secure communications are not optional. They're foundational to our national security.
▶ 3:07:04The Department of Defense is tasked with safeguarding our most sensitive national security information using off-the-books channels, risks exposure of foreign int to foreign intelligence services, and violates chain of custody to protections for classified data. And this committee has the right and the responsibility to hold the secretary accountable. Imagine the reaction if this was a junior officer.
▶ 3:07:27If a young intelligent officer intelligence officer uh used signal to communicate about classified matters, they'd immediately face disciplinary action, possibly criminal charges. The standard cannot be different for the Secretary of Defense. And we all know that funding without facts invites abuse. Until we get clear, verified information about the extent of the Secretary's use of signal, Congress has no business signing off on hundreds of millions of dollars for his office's operations. That's not restraint. That's due diligence.
▶ 3:07:57Failure to hold the secretary accountable would constitute a significant failure on the part of this committee in one of our fundamental roles. If an appointed secretary can conduct sensitive communications on private apps with without oversight, we forfeit our oversight ability and risk turning the Pentagon into an unaccountable black box. This is about cyber security and chain of command.
▶ 3:08:19With this amendment, Congress would be insisting that the rules apply to everyone and that we are not funding institutional breakdowns in how classified material is managed. We owe it to our service members and to our allies. The US leads by example. If the top of the Pentagon is seen flouting basic security norms, it erodess trust from the rank and file to NATO partners. That's unacceptable. Until we get answers, this committee has to lay a marker down. We are asking for one thing, the truth.
▶ 3:08:48No spin, no delay, and that's not obstruction. It's responsible governance. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:08:55Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition on Mr. Ryan's amendment? Seeing none, uh there's no further debate question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Ryan. So, in favor, we'll say I.
▶ 3:09:06Those opposed? No.
▶ 3:09:09The nos have it and the amendments not agreed to.
▶ 3:09:12A recorded vote is requested. Recorded vote will be postponed until a later We are now calling up amendment uh log number 5619 by Miss Jacobs. Uh for what purposes a gentle lady to seek
▶ 3:09:27Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 3:09:30Clerk will report the amendment. The text without objection reading the amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleoman from uh for the purpose of explaining her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, my amendment is pretty simple. It would prohibit any funds from being used to install, maintain, or support any communications infrastructure in DoD facilities that don't follow security protocols.
▶ 3:09:59And it prohibits the Secretary of Defense from communicating about classified military operational plans using insecure methods. I'm proud to represent San Diego, the biggest military community in the country. And when I go home, it's my job to look those military family members in the eye and tell them I am doing everything in my power to keep their loved ones safe.
▶ 3:10:20That's why I find it so disgraceful that Secretary Hexath was so cavalier and reckless with sensitive information about an imminent military strike jeopardizing operational integrity and potentially putting our service members lives at risk. I would expect our top military adviser in this country to have the utmost care and caution and reverence for our service members safety. But as we all know, that is not the type of secretary of defense that we have.
▶ 3:10:47In April, the Associated Press reported that Secretary Hexath used Signal to discuss classified military operations and had an internet connection that bypassed the Pentagon security protocols set up in his office to use signal on his personal computer. That shows a blatant disregard for our security protocols that shouldn't be repeated. I know every person on this committee cares deeply about the safety of our service members.
▶ 3:11:14So, I hope that there will be unanimous support for my amendment to protect classified information and the safety of our service members. I yield back.
▶ 3:11:24Chair recognizes himself. Much like the previous amendment, this is just another political attack on the Secretary of Defense. Everyone with a clearance is briefed on proper handling of classified information and must sign an appropriate oath. We should let the owngoing review play out. Any action before that process is complete would be premature. I oppose the amendment and now recognize gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss
▶ 3:11:51Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am rising in support of Miss Jacob's amendment, which is a more narrow uh version of Mr. Ryan's 5494 as she mentioned it prohibits the sectdef from communicating about classified material using personal devices and insecure methods and it states that no funds can be used to install or to maintain or support any communications infrastructure in DoD facilities that are not in compliance with relevant standards.
▶ 3:12:18Rules for thee and not for me seems to be the law of the land right now when it comes to the Secretary of Defense. When I held a top secret clearance in the Air Force, how to manage sensitive information was practically drilled into me as it is into all of our service members. And if I had done what Secretary Hegsth did as a junior officer, I would have resigned and likely expected to be prosecuted and perhaps jailed. Secretary Hegsth seems to have forgotten his training or perhaps has no regard for how it applies to him.
▶ 3:12:48All while he talks relentlessly about leaks and accuses people of being untrustworthy and disloyal to the administration and to this nation. More than once he's used a publicly available and non-secure and non-approved messaging app to share details about forthcoming military action despite having every tool at his own disposal to have these classified conversations in secure networks. His negligence could have put our service members at risk and it could have killed them.
▶ 3:13:15But he and other members of the administration have continued to downplay the situation, including in front of this committee. If members of this committee were really true to themselves, I very much believe that they know that we shouldn't even have to have this amendment codified. But sadly, with this particular Secretary of Defense, here we are. This is where we are, and we should collectively, bipartisanly be supportive of it. What Secretary Hegs did has had no repercussions for him.
▶ 3:13:43So I guess we genuinely legitimately need a law. I believe that if Secretary Hegsth had any decency, he would have long ago resigned over this conduct or had some sort of announcement of reformed. But until then, I guess we need a very specific law. So I ask the committee to be supportive of this amendment. And as Mr.
▶ 3:14:04Bacon said if there are other ways other than the previous amendment to perhaps be supportive without restricting the funding at a 75% level, he perhaps would be supportive of that. I would ask the uh committee members to really think within themselves, dig deep and understand that we only need a couple of us to step forward in addition to the ones who already have to decry this particular behavior and to support this particular amend amendment. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 3:14:32Gentle yields back. chair and I recognize general do gentleman from Georgia, Dr. McCormack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is an investigation. There has been change. There will be I've seen mishaps and mistakes made in the military where we had top- down reviews. We have a voluntary review process ongoing right now, and we do not make permanent changes until the formal review process is complete.
▶ 3:15:03Now, unlike a review process when I believe Secretary Hillary Clinton was in charge and evidence was destroyed, I think this will be a much more transparent and open Legislating this issue is inflammatory and could interfere with an ongoing DoD Inspector General's investigation is not appropriate until the investigation is complete. I urge a no vote on this
▶ 3:15:30Gentleman yields back. Chair not recognized. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
▶ 3:15:35Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've already commented uh at least for now on sign uh signal gate sufficiently, but I do want to point out one more time, now this is based on my experience as both a White House lawyer and a Department of Defense lawyer that the investigation by the Department of Defense IG is is not capable of getting down to the drilling down to all the the details what that we need.
▶ 3:16:00They have no purview to be able to investigate other departments or agencies or the White House National Security Council. So the only way to go about this, the only way to get a complete and full investigation is to have Congress investigate. And one more point on on the what aboutism on on previous administrations. I think we need to deal with with the here and now. Let's talk about accountability for the current failings. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
▶ 3:16:30Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.
▶ 3:16:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like everybody on this committee knows that whenever we go into a classified briefing, whenever we go to read classified materials, we are walking into a skiff in order to do that. That means removing your cell phone, removing any uh phone, anything with a Bluetooth connection. You have to take it off your your personal self before you enter the room. At the Pentagon, when I was there, my office was a skiff.
▶ 3:17:04I couldn't walk into any of I couldn't walk in with my personal cell phone. I had to take my my Fitbit off. I had to take my headphones out of my pocket. The secretary's office is a skiff. He cannot take any of his personal devices into his office. when he walks into his office, or at least when I was there, Secretary Austin would take everything off his mouth, hand it to his person, and he would put it outside the office where it would stay until he left. Um, same thing with the deputy secretary.
▶ 3:17:34The fact that the the current secretary of defense would put a dirty line in his office in order so that he could communicate uh inside a skiff is just unimaginable. and without any comprehension for for the law at all. Um, and so, you know, this is very simple. Take it out of your office. Admit that you were wrong.
▶ 3:18:01Live by the standards that the E1s and the O1's and everybody else in the military has to live by. You are supposed to be there leading by example. Get it together and do this. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 3:18:15Gentleman yields back here. I recognize a gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
▶ 3:18:19Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to uh respond to some of my uh some of the concerns from across the aisle. Yes, it's true that there's an investigation ongoing. The investigation has been going on for quite some time. It's hard to see that it's not been dragged out. But what we're asking with this amendment is not a change in policy, as Mr. McCormack has suggested. The policy is very clear.
▶ 3:18:48There's no one in this room who would imagine sitting in a skiff and having unclassified internet piped into that room. I'm sure General Bergman had a skiff in his command. I'm sure he didn't request unclassified in uh internet piped into that room. I'm sure that Mr.
▶ 3:19:07McCormack didn't suggest having unclassified internet piped into his ready room so that classified mission data could easily be shared with friends, wives, supporters, whoever it So there's no change in policy, but the reason the amendment is necessary is because this secretary has in fact done these things.
▶ 3:19:31He's done something that as long as it exists is a national security threat to the United States. We know on this committee because we get the classified briefings just how sophisticated our adversaries are. Some people on the other side of the aisle feel confident that the secretary has learned his lesson and yet there is no accountability. So it's hard to understand that he has.
▶ 3:19:59If though in fact they're true, that he has learned his lesson, then there's no consequence to this amendment because it simply says that the secretary is going to follow the procedures that everyone else in the military, including my colleagues who have served, have had to follow for their entire careers. So, it's just hard for me to understand what the objections to this are unless they are purely political.
▶ 3:20:24Unless you're just afraid of crossing Trump or HEGs, this should be something that the secretary, the president would take in if indeed changes have been made, if indeed accountability is accepted, and if indeed we on this committee care about the chance that this does happen in the future, the classified mission details are
▶ 3:20:55We're lucky that those missions were just over Yemen for a message for a mission that uh my colleague said was very successful even though there has not been a single US flag ship that has transited the Red Sea since expending hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ammunition that we really need to deter China. But putting that aside, imagine if this mission had been over China or Those pilots would be dead.
▶ 3:21:25And yet, I still wonder if the secretary would have apologized to the mother of those pilots of that pilot. This is about accountability, yes, but it's about just basic common sense. So, let's take the politics out of it and just do the right thing, not for the secretary, but for every young man and woman who serves under him.
▶ 3:21:57I think that's our responsibility on this committee. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 3:22:02Gentleman yields back. Any other members seeking recognition on the Jacob's amendment? Seeing none, uh the question occurs on the amendment by Miss Jacobs. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 3:22:14Those opposed? No.
▶ 3:22:16Opinion to chairs. The amendments not agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. The recorded vote will be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 5659 by Mr. Molton. For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?
▶ 3:22:30Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 3:22:33Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection to reading and amendments dispensed with? The chair recognizes gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 3:22:40Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is simply a sense of Congress that says what we all know is true if you take the politics out of it. And I'm grateful to Representative Bacon for working with me to ensure that we have taken the politics out of it. First, details of an active military operation shouldn't be sent to anyone on signal, much less your wife, your brother, or a personal lawyer. And two, leaders worth following take accountability for their actions. So, here are the facts. Just the facts.
▶ 3:23:10We know the Secretary of Defense shared information that he should not have in a manner in which he should not have with people he should not have. We all know this information was classified and in our hearing with us, the secretary made clear by confirming that it came from SenCom. Now, that would make Secretary Heg's actions likely a crime.
▶ 3:23:34Even if in some fantasy world it was in unclassified information, it was still wrong, dangerous, and in fact still illegal. Sharing the time on target and the weapons platforms associated with an air strike over an unsecured platform put the success of the mission and the pilots of those aircraft at additional risk.
▶ 3:23:54And pretty much any junior service member, the most junior private in the National Guard where Secretary Hegs served knows that the Houthis in fact have extensive anti-aircraft capabilities and have shot down seven US aircraft. Think about that. Seven US aircraft shot down over Yemen to date. Thankfully, no piloted ones yet. And that leads me to point two.
▶ 3:24:19Secretary Se Hegsth leads the largest organization in this country with close to three million people. An organization in which the single most important skill is leadership. It's the first lesson we learned at OCS. You can fail a test, you can drop out of a run, you'll probably get a chance to retake that test or do the run another day. But you lie about anything, you're gone. You go home. You learn it again when you get your job.
▶ 3:24:47My job description as a platoon commander was very simple. You're responsible for everything your platoon does or fails to do. Leadership alone is 40% of your grade in Marine officer training. The leadership skills of our NCO corps is what makes our military second to none. Well, there's no quicker way to lose the respect of your team than holding yourself to a lower standard than you expect of them.
▶ 3:25:11Passing the buck, refusing to admit your mistakes, dodging Secretary Hegsth of course promised that quote accountability is back at the But I struggle to understand whether he believes that accountability applies to him. In fact, I asked him that simple question myself a little over a month ago when he was sitting in this room and he refused to answer eight times.
▶ 3:25:41Our troops deserve good leadership. leadership that respects them enough not to needlessly increase the risks that they face in doing their jobs keeping us all safe and doing their jobs serving our Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. This amendment like the other two before it uh is simply political posturing. There are policies and procedures already in place that govern this. Everyone with a clearance is briefed on proper handling of classified information.
▶ 3:26:11and therefore I oppose the amendment. And with that, I now re uh recognize a gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
▶ 3:26:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I respect your opinion here. I I do support this amendment, though. I've worked with my friend from Massachusetts on this. It strips out what I think is consequences that would hobble uh the OSD, but yet it lets us state the truth that what was done by the secretary was not right. And by the way, I was a five-time commander. None of us are perfect. I we're flawed individuals. We make mistakes.
▶ 3:26:44But when you're you're when you're in responsibility, you take responsibility when you make a mistake and you own up to it. And I think that's the real issue here uh with this incident. I think the secretary knows he did wrong but but he doesn't acknowledge it and therefore it doesn't go away. If he would just apologize upfront, taken responsibility, we would not be having this discussion today. And I think this has hurt his credibility and I share the sentiments.
▶ 3:27:08If I would have done this as a junior officer or as a brigger general, I would have been disciplined for doing what was done by the secretary. So I think this gives us an opportunity in this committee to put something on record that saying this is wrong, but yet we're do it in a way that's responsible and it doesn't hobble operations out of the Secretary of Defense or the Pentagon. And I think acknowledging the truth is very important. With that, I yield.
▶ 3:27:34Gentleman yields back. Any additional members seek recognition? Mr. Mr. Vinman of Virginia.
▶ 3:27:40Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I rise in support of Mr. Molton's amendment that affirms a basic truth. The unauthorized sharing of national defense information, especially over unsecured, non-governmental platforms, endangers missions and puts American lives at risk. This is not a hypothetical. One of my constituents came up to me at a district event, furious because her son was one of the fighter pilots in the air over Yemen during the breach known now as Signalgate.
▶ 3:28:07Secretary Heg says careless use of unsecured apps may have compromised their entire operation. When I asked the secretary if he'd like to apologize to this mother whose son's life he put in danger, he looked me in the eye and said, "I do not apologize." I think we all remember that moment. This amendment rightly reminds us that distributing classified information to unauthorized individuals is a crime under the Espionage Act.
▶ 3:28:34It also reminds us that core principles of military leadership, including setting the example and taking responsibility, must be uniform from private to general to secretary of defense. That standard must apply at every level, especially at the top. I urge my colleagues to stand up with our troops and national security community by adopting Mr. Molton's common sense amendment.
▶ 3:29:00I do want to acknowledge and thank my colleague from Nebraska for speaking the truth today. Thank you. With that, I yield back.
▶ 3:29:08Gentleman yields back. Does any additional members seek recognition to speak on Mr. Molton's amendment? Seeing none, uh oh, there is Dr. McCormack of George is recognized. I just want to address the fact that they say they want to take the politics out of this. We have three amendments on the same issue knowing it will not pass. That's politicization. Uh it will politicize and delay this process of the people's business. No lives were lost.
▶ 3:29:37The mission was accomplished. Follow missions have not had the same problems. Mar military recruiting is surging. The contracting process is being reformed. And we were back in the business of winning battles and wars. Unlike the previous administration where lives were lost and we had abysmal withdrawal, we are doing things right. Again, this is a self-directed review of what went wrong and how to address this. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
▶ 3:30:08Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan's recognized.
▶ 3:30:13Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yield the yield the balance of my time to Mr. You know, the definition of political courage is standing up to your own Politicizing things is not a bipartisan It's doing what's right by the troops. And I would challenge my my colleague from Georgia to just go give that explanation to the Marines who served on your helicopters to say, "Yeah, it's okay. Go ahead and do this.
▶ 3:30:43There's no consequences. I don't think that would happen. And I do want to just once again praise the the political courage and the leadership of my colleague from Nebraska because I know he gets a lot of grief for doing things that go against this administration or perceived to go against this administration. But that's what we got to do.
▶ 3:31:13And when Secretary Austin made his we did demand accountability. And you didn't see me trying to defend it just in the name of a mission accomplishment or not hobbling the Secretary of Defense or making things I was a Marine officer, not afraid to criticize the Secretary.
▶ 3:31:37And I think that's exactly the kind of leadership that we need from this So, thank you again, Congressman and General Bacon, for your leadership, your political courage. Uh, and I hope that we can get more bipartisan support for this for this common sense amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 3:31:56Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on Mr. Molton's amendment? Seeing none, uh, there's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Molton. So many as are in favor will say I.
▶ 3:32:08I. Those opposed? No.
▶ 3:32:12Nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Recorded votes requested. Uh the recorded vote is postponed until a later time. Uh we will now consider log number 4839R1 by Dr. McCormick. For what purpose is a gentleman from Georgia seek recognition? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 3:32:41Uh the clerk will distribute the amendment. Uh without objection, the reading of the amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for the purpose of explaining his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My amendment eliminates the sunset clause of section 1555 of the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act, which pushes back against the censorship of political speech by news outlets in the relation to the Department of Defense.
▶ 3:33:07This section requires that DoD when contracting with organizations that place military recruitment advertisements must certify the organization does not place advertisements based on a political bias or the determination that media outlet spreads so-called misinformation.
▶ 3:33:23This language is necessary because the DoD has previously contracted with organizations like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index in the past and we must ensure that they do not do so for politically discriminatory purposes in the future. According to the media research center, the average newsguard score for the left and left lean outlets was a green shield rating of 91 out of 100, while the average rating of a right or lean right outlets was around 66 of 100.
▶ 3:33:53A global disinformation index reports on online news lists the 10 riskiest online news outlets as the New York Post, The Federalist, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, Newsmax, One America News Network, The American Spectator, The American Conservative, Reason Magazine, and Real Clear Politics, all conservative.
▶ 3:34:15While left-leaning sites like ProPublica.com, npr.org, org, New York Times.com, Washington Post.com, buzzfeednews.com, and Huffington Post were among the 10 lowest risk online news sites. We're talking about misinformation here. We should not be excluding large swats of Americans simply because they watch or read conservative news. A matter of fact, I make say a case that that's where you recruit from.
▶ 3:34:40This language was the product of the fiscal year 2024 conference agreement and the fiscal year 225 2025 conference agreement extended the sunset by one year. This language is in common sense and will maximize the impact of our recruiting advertisement and hopes you'll agree that it should be made permanent and I ask for my colleague support on amendment number 4839. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 3:35:05Gentleman yields back. Chair and recognize the ranking member. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. I I oppose this amendment. We've had this debate the last couple of years. I mean, it's really pretty simple. This amendment says that news organization should not fact check. Um, that's troubling. I think most would agree that there has been a significant increase in disinformation in recent years, primarily because the ability to spread it is out there in a variety of different ways. That this is a problem.
▶ 3:35:33Trying to figure out what's true and what's not true is a challenge. Um, and so the number one biggest reason I oppose this amendment is it simply dismisses that challenge and says, "Let's just stop fact-checking. Let's just assume that whatever is printed is true and get rid of any effort to figure out whether it is or it is not." That is incredibly dangerous in this environment. We have seen misinformation spread in a thousand different ways.
▶ 3:35:59But as we well know, as I think we know, um, as I know, at any rate, uh, China and Russia engage in this activity very aggressively. Um, they use, you know, cyber sources and other sources to spread disinformation throughout the country. So an effort to try and determine whether or not something is is important. If in fact, as Dr. McCormick asserts, they don't do that well. Well, there are different solutions to that. Um, and we can figure that out.
▶ 3:36:27but to have in policy and I didn't like the last two years of allowing this in for one year. You got to make compromises to get the bill done. Um but to simply say that factchecking is by definition biased is a policy that I don't think anyone should support. And then finally the statistics that Dr.
▶ 3:36:49McCormick excites about how basically how however whatever definition you come up with for left-leaning news versus rightle leaning news I I will accept your definition although that is a flawed process in the first place that says that 91% of the left-leaning news was deemed accurate and 66% of the right-leaning news was deemed inaccurate. There are two possible explanations for that. Uh one is bias.
▶ 3:37:16The other is that these right-leaning websites were not accurate and there's ample evidence that the latter is the more likely outcome. We're all walking through the Jeffrey Epstein thing right now where all of a sudden now that the Trump administration is in charge, turns out that a lot of those conspiracy theories may not actually have facts to back them up. Where did that come from? That came from the New York Post and a lot of those other places that you cited.
▶ 3:37:42So please let us not give up on truth. That is what this amendment does. It gives up on truth and says whatever people say is going to be just fine. I will even admit that this is sometimes a challenge and sometimes we get it wrong. Sometimes fact-checking organizations are wrong. They say something's not true that turns out to be true. That does happen. It will always happen no matter how hard you try. We should work to try to make that more accurate.
▶ 3:38:12But we shouldn't just have it in the policy of the defense bill that we don't care. Facts don't matter. Say what you want. We're not going to check it. Make the checking better. Don't get rid of it. So again, I will try uh to get us to defeat this amendment and not put this back into the defense bill. This one, of course, is worse than the others because it makes the lack of factchecking permanent. Um but even doing it for one year would be a mistake. I oppose the amendment. I yield back.
▶ 3:38:42Gentleman yields back. Chair, I recognize gentle Pennsylvania, Mr. Duzio.
▶ 3:38:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I I won't repeat many of the same arguments the ranking member made. I I voiced objections in prior markups of this bill about this provision. I I think it's drafted in a sloppy way. I think the language that's in it uh now would essentially allow uh or would prohibit advertising in any kind of news platform that engages in factecking. And last I checked, uh, I get fact checked by Fox News.
▶ 3:39:12I get fact checked by Breitbart and every other right-wing news outlet, as my Republican colleagues are fact checked by more left-leaning news outlets. That's okay. That's American democracy in our press. Uh, I think let our Pentagon have the freedom to advertise where potential recruits are. I don't know why we're going down this path. So, I won't repeat the arguments uh that the ranking member made, but I'll just share my objection to this amendment. With that, I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:39:36Gentleman yields back. here now recognize a gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
▶ 3:39:40Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I urge my colleagues to oppose Dr. um McCormack's amendment that seeks to limit any DoD engagement with fact-checking agencies. This is a matter of of responsible journalism. Uh, before my election to this Congress, I spent 22 years in local broadcast journalism. Um, you don't earn the trust of the people by seeking fame or wanting to go viral or certainly um, not by being a jerk on cable TV.
▶ 3:40:07Earning the trust of the people comes from repeated and due diligence of investigating data and information, creating a conduit of communication, making sure that what we do is based in fact and anchored in strong ethics. But if you're stuck watching Fox News or Newsmax all day, you've never seen an independent fact checker. Why? Because what they're giving you is not the news. It's conjecture. It's opinion.
▶ 3:40:35It's propaganda with the sole purpose of fear-mongering and driving a right-wing political agenda. And in my life, as Mr. Duzio had said, "I'm also not afraid of fact checkers, but I have also been careful to make sure that what I speak is accurate, but I'm also willing to admit when my mistakes do occur." So, I ask, why are my colleagues across the aisle so afraid of this accountability?
▶ 3:41:06Speaking truth is not Republican. Speaking truth is not Democrat. In this day and age of rumor and myth spreading on the internet like the world's biggest wildfire, we must hold ourselves to the highest standards. Let's make sure our nation is never led astray. I strongly oppose this ad amendment and I hope my colleagues will do the same. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 3:41:31Gentleman yields back. Uh chair, I recognize a gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orton.
▶ 3:41:36Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to yield my time to Dr. McCormack.
▶ 3:41:41Thank you, Mr. Here I just want to talk about the just briefly the factchecking. The factchecking is more biased than the news agencies they are evaluating. That's the whole problem. Recruiting and I happen to know a little bit about Marine Corps recruiting. Recruiting is about recruiting. Ironically, the last administration during this fact-checking uh witch hunt did horrible in recruiting. We say it was far publicized how bad we were doing in recruiting the people we need to accomplish a mission.
▶ 3:42:10Recruiters are based, they're evaluated on one thing. Can you recruit or can't you? Where are you going to find your trigger pullers, your aviators, the next generation of military people? Wherever they're watching media, if it's subjectively said, "I don't like what you're saying because of your opinion. Therefore, you're not allowed to advertise there." That is a problem with recruiting. I'm trying to solve a problem. You can see this administration is doing far better in recruiting. One of the reasons is because we're not biased on where we advertise.
▶ 3:42:39We're using recruiting dollars where it makes the most sense to get our military plus back up to where it needs to be. And that, my friends, is the most important mission of all. God bless you. And with that, I yield.
▶ 3:42:50Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on Mr. Dr. McCormick's recognition? The ranking members recognized.
▶ 3:42:58This is something that's going to come up repeatedly. Just one quick comment. The the recruiting actually was really good last year, too. Um, every little bit as good as it is this year. Uh, we're going to have that argument in greater detail later, I suspect, but I just want to throw that out there and I yield back.
▶ 3:43:12Does any other members seek recognition on Dr. McCormack's rec amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Dr. McCormack. So, many in favor, we'll say I.
▶ 3:43:23Those opposed, no.
▶ 3:43:25Uh, the eyes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
▶ 3:43:29Mr. Chair,
▶ 3:43:30a recorded votes requested. The recorded vote will be postponed until a later we will now consider log number 4820 by Miss Mace. For what purposes, the gentleoman from South Carolina seek
▶ 3:43:45Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 3:43:47Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading and amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.
▶ 3:43:53Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is simple and frankly long overdue. It mandates promotions and personnel decisions are based on one thing and one thing only, merit. Not skin color, not gender, not woke ideology, just merit, performance, and capability as it should be in the world's greatest fighting force. This amendment is uncontroversial. At least it should be. The American people expect and our national security demands the capabilities of our armed forces.
▶ 3:44:21This amendment puts an end to the poison seeping into the Department of Defense, identity based favoritism, racebased promotions, and equity mandates which put politics ahead of performance. Our service members must rise through the ranks on the basis of their skills and their performance, not what they look like. Under the Biden administration, we saw an increasing focus on equitable outcomes and personnel policy. We've seen promotions and leadership training slots doled out based on who earned them.
▶ 3:44:50Not on who earned them, but on who checked the right demographic boxes. These policies were discrimination in disguise. It's social engineering on the taxpayer dime and made our military weaker. In the military, the stakes are literally life and death. When you're flying an aircraft, operating a naval vessel, or leading a platoon, merit matters. Skills matter. In combat, no one cares about what you look like or what your pronouns are.
▶ 3:45:19All that matters is if you can get the job done. President Trump and Secretary Hegsth have ushered the department back to a culture of excellence, not entitlement. Under their leadership, the Department of Defense is reorienting reorienting itself back to its core mission. But let's be honest, under another administration, all this nonsense can come roaring back.
▶ 3:45:42If we don't lock mecracy into law, we're one election away from going back to racial quotas and genderbending nonsense. This amendment is a recommmitment to a principle which should be used and should not be taken for granted. The most competent person gets the job. Let's stop playing politics with personnel policy. Let's stop telling our troops you have to look a certain way to get ahead. Let's stop pretending DEI is anything un other than a dangerous distraction.
▶ 3:46:11Let's restore merit, restore sanity, and get our military back to doing what it does best, winning on the battlefield. And I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, and I yield
▶ 3:46:21Gentle lady yields back. Does any member seek recognition? Uh, gentle lady from Washington, Miss Strickland.
▶ 3:46:29Thank you, Chairman. Some of my colleagues seem to believe that merit and diversity are mutually exclusive. And the reality is that the diversity of the US armed forces is one of its greatest strengths. And then there's criticism about previous administrations. This is my fifth year in Congress and my fifth year on this committee. And on both sides of the aisle, I consistently hear people say that the US military is the most lethal fighting force in the world.
▶ 3:46:59Period. Before this president took the White House and before many others have. So what's changed? This attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion is really an attempt to suppress, erase, and make some people invisible while elevating others. And remember, it was not that long ago when we desegregated the military. My own father served in a segregated army.
▶ 3:47:25And of course, what's ironic here is that we're talking about being anti-dei when the secretary of defense is the poster child for DEI. If things are based on merit and qualification, why in God's name is Pete Hegstep the Secretary of Defense? Is it merit that black men in the Air Force's junior enlisted ranks are 86% more likely than their white counterparts to face non-judicial punishment in court marshal?
▶ 3:47:52Is it merit that black and Latino service members remain vastly underrepresented in the officer corps compared to their numbers in the force as a whole? But again, this is part of a strategic effort by this administration to roll back civil and human rights in this My colleagues want to handwave away discrimination in the military and in society as if 80 years of effort makes up for hundreds years of lawful When you look at the enlisted ranks
▶ 3:48:23in the US military, over 40% are represented by people of color and And I know that someone some of my colleagues think that supporting service members from underrepresented groups somehow takes away from what they view as merit but is completely misguided. Our diversity is what makes us strong. Our diversity is what gives us the ability to fight and to do things around the world.
▶ 3:48:47There is a reason that when the Supreme Court ruled against DEI for college admissions, they exempted the US militarymies because they knew that DEI was essential for them to do well. Efforts to take us backwards are not just misguided, they're harmful to our readiness. Let's include people. Let's include anyone who is qualified and willing to serve. It's a foundation of who we are as a country.
▶ 3:49:16It's the most patriotic thing we can do and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
▶ 3:49:22Gentle lady yields back. The chairman would like to state that he supports this amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition on the gentle lady's
▶ 3:49:35If there's no further debate, question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. So many in favor will say I. I. Those opposed, no.
▶ 3:49:43No. opinion. The chair, the eyes have it. The amendments agreed to. Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote will be postponed to a later time. We will now bring up uh Ms. Mace's amendment number 550.
▶ 3:50:00Log number 4821. For what purposes gentle lady seek
▶ 3:50:05Uh Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 3:50:07Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection reading amendments dispensed with? The chair recognizes gentle lady for purpose of explaining her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would reinstate the rigorous standards which have long defined our nation's prestigious militarymies. The ongoing decline in those standards is a serious crisis, one which undermines our strength, erodess our credibility, and jeopardizes the future leadership of our armed forces. Our servicemies are not just colleges. They are a crucible where America's future military leaders are forged.
▶ 3:50:37These institutions must remain elite, uncompromising, and relentless in their pursuit of excellence. This amendment restores those high standards. It ensures ourmies admit only the most qualified candidates judge primarily on merit, academic performance, and objective testing, not on social engineering experiments or identity politics. This is not about eliminating opportunity.
▶ 3:51:00It's about restoring fairness, restoring transparency, and restoring excellence in one of the most important pipelines for military leadership. This amendment codifies a rigorous, transparent scoring system with at least 60% of a candidate score based on academic achievement and standardized tests. This is how you maintain excellence. This is how you build leaders who can think critically, perform under pressure, and make splitsecond decisions to save lives. Our war fighters need and deserve the best qualified leaders.
▶ 3:51:29and it's critical Congress ensures they get them. For years, we've lowered standards, allowed widespread use of waiverss, and placed an unfair emphasis on subjective criteria. My amendment reduces if this emphasis and would ensure objective measurements of performance, merit, and character matter most. Themies are currently turning away highly qualified candidates who are scoring as much as 30% higher than marginally qualified candidates who quote earn admission.
▶ 3:51:57We're talking about the future leadership of our armed forces. In the military, leadership literally saves lives. Even small differences in leadership quality can determine mission success or failure and life or death on the battlefield, at sea, or in the air. The men and women wearing the uniform deserve the best leadership this country can produce. If we want a military capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must start by restoring standards at our servicemies. and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
▶ 3:52:29Chair does acknowledge that he does support this amendment. Does anybody seek recognition? Gentle lady from Washington, Mr. Strickland.
▶ 3:52:35Thank you, chairman. I'm going to repeat what I said in a previous remark. At least for 5 years since I've been here, the US military has been described as the most lethal fighting force in the world. When the US Supreme Court came out against college admissions in DEI, they intentionally exempted the US Now, one of the cool things that we get to do as members of Congress every year is that we actually have military academy night and we recruit students.
▶ 3:53:05We have open houses, we work with school counselors, and we talk about what an honor it is to serve in these And make no mistake, as someone who represents the 10th congressional district of Washington state, I am incredibly proud of the diversity of the candidates that we recommend for themies. And I guarantee you that every one of these students can stand up to anyone who is serving in the militarymies and go on to have great careers.
▶ 3:53:32One of the reasons that the Supreme Court said that the militarymies were exempt from the rule about anti-Dei is that you have to have leaders around the world with very different life and lived experiences, experiences in language, experiences in their parents' lived experience. All those different things matter. And so this whole idea that we are somehow compromising qualifications to our US militarymies is absurd. These are the most prestigious colleges in the entire world.
▶ 3:54:02The kids who deply to go there have to have their act together and they're smart and they're capable and they're good to defend us at home and around the world. So again, as we talk about what's important and how we build a fighting force that continues to build them on how good they are, we must be inclusive. We are grossly up under reppresented when it comes to seeing people of color in upper ranks and military. Allowing folks to come to the military academy following the ruling of the US Supreme Court that says that they are exempt from this makes sense.
▶ 3:54:31It's good for us at home. It's good for our defense and it's good for us to keep the world safe. I yield back.
▶ 3:54:37Gentle lady yields back. Chair recognizes a ranking member.
▶ 3:54:40Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. I think there's a very simple question to ask on this and that is do you believe that bigotry and bias exist slash have existed in America? If you do uh then that is a problem and I think most people would acknowledge that it certainly does exist.
▶ 3:55:01Now I will also acknowledge that the way the manner in which some people across this country have tried to address that bigotry and bias uh think of it as the bad DEI has been problematic. I've never personally witnessed that at the Department of Defense. I've certainly witnessed it uh back in my home state and in some other places. So bad DEI DEI is bad. But if you then come out and say we're just not going to think about it. We're not going to consider bigotry and bias whatsoever.
▶ 3:55:29I think that is equally wrong in its approach. And if you admit that bigotry and bias do exist, particularly against people of color, women, the LGBTQ community, then you have to acknowledge that that bigotry and bias leads to one very bad outcome. Bad outcome that everyone would agree on. You're missing talent.
▶ 3:55:52because of bigotry and bias in many, many different aspects of our society, talent goes unrecognized because we've set up a set of standards that just naturally skew in one direction. So, the reason to oppose this amendment, and I I agree with the maker of the amendment about how important who serves at our servicemies is, the incredibly important role they play, and how important it is to make sure that we have the best and the brightest.
▶ 3:56:20If you agree with that, then you should want to try to address the bigotry and bias to make sure that we are not missing out on an unbelievable amount of talent in this country as we have discovered. Bottom line, that's the reason to oppose the blanket opposition to any effort whatsoever to try to address bigotry and bias.
▶ 3:56:41Now, if you want to argue that bigotry and bias don't exist, somehow we've magically wiped them out from the human psyche and from America, I guess we can have that discussion. I think it's a tough argument for the other side to win. But if you acknowledge that, to then say, "Nope, we're going to wipe it all out. We're not going to pay any attention to it.
▶ 3:57:00we're not going to try to make sure the talent that has been buried beneath that bigotry and bias is worth our time to try to bring out and give a chance, then I think you're really missing something. Um, and as M Strickland pointed out, you see in the people who are at the servicemies, the people who have served for the last decade, an unbelievable amount of talent, diversity of a talent, um, all across the board.
▶ 3:57:26So this notion that our military has been weakened by these people who are serving in it, I think is slanderous and wrong. And again, let's not miss out on talent because of bigotry and bias. That's why the Supreme Court made the decision it made um certainly for the servicemies and we should oppose this amendment. I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 3:57:48Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes gentleman, Mr. Crank.
▶ 3:57:52Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I'm proud to co-sponsor this amendment to protect the United States Air Force Academy in my district. Our servicemies exist to turn the best and brightest 18-year-olds into exceptional officers leading the most lethal fighting force the world has ever seen. And I'm proud to co-sponsor the amendment to ensure that our servicemies aren't straying from that mission in their admission strategies.
▶ 3:58:19And this amendment ensures that appointments to our nation's militarymies are based on objective academic achievement and aptitude. And the composite scoring method applies a clear uniform formula across applicants creating a level playing field for all candidates regardless of their background. Our military's not served by selecting candidates who cannot meet the academic rigors required of them.
▶ 3:58:46And under this amendment, the service secretaries must report annually to Congress with details on admission standards, waiverss, and student outcomes. And this gives Congress and our constituents insight into whether the system is working and whether exceptions are being misused. No one is made safer by needlessly relaxing standards in our military or at our servicemies. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield
▶ 3:59:16Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle lady from Hawaii, Mr. Duda. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is 23 pages long. 23 pages of unnecessary micromanagement of the admissions process of the servicemies that we are all talking about today. But for being so long, it is very narrow and myopic in defining merit.
▶ 3:59:42Under the Mace Amendment, grades and test scores will now be 90% of the decision of who goes to the service academy. And oddly enough, as speaking out against this, I'm speaking against kids like my son, quite frankly, who rates number one in his class and scores very well on his tests. Um, and yet having interviewed many service academy nominees, I can say that there is much more our students are offering their country than just their grades.
▶ 4:00:10Let's think about what gets crammed into 10% of what is to be considered and is virtually ignored. important factors like leadership ability, accomplishment in the community or on the athletic field, their record of prior military service, work experience, overcoming challenges like poverty, childhood trauma, unstable home life, not to mention evidence of moral courage and character.
▶ 4:00:38Success in life and career has a lot more to do with those things. And a successful military career demands people who have more than a single dimension on their resume. Our servicemies already have a merit-based admission process that considers all aspects of what a young person brings to a potential military career. Ourmies are meant to produce warriors and leaders. Last I checked, not academic scholars.
▶ 4:01:06And let's also be clear, a computer or AI generated program can ace a test, can get great grades. That 10% of what we are arguing needs to be recognized today. That this amendment discounts, that's actually what makes us human and what is foundational and fundamental for a good and just leader. You don't build the next generation of military leaders by looking only at their test scores.
▶ 4:01:37You build it by identifying character, courage, and commitment. And a test can't measure any of that. This amendment would jeopardize everything we are seeking to build as a country and as a department of defense. And I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield
▶ 4:01:57Gentle lady yields back. chair and I recognize a gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.
▶ 4:02:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I've had the pleasure of serving with uh a number of individuals both as in the military and as an under secretary of defense um that had tremendous careers and those careers started out as enlisted uh personnel rising through the ranks. Now, somewhere along the way, somebody saw something in them and said, "I think you can do more, and I think you should become an Now, they may not have been the best students.
▶ 4:02:31And maybe for some of them, I I know too, the the the academic light bulb didn't come on until later on in their life after high school where they said, "Okay, this is probably something I should focus on and and and and put my attention on academics." But this bill would have kept so many individuals out from moving from enlisted to the officer rank to attending themies.
▶ 4:02:57Uh and these individuals that I've known and met have gone through and they've been successful and they've been able to navigate the academy. they achieved and they graduated and they've g gone on to have great military careers uh rising through the officer ranks and some of them even becoming uh putting on uh you know going into the um the flag and general officer corps.
▶ 4:03:22You know there is so much more that goes into who we want as officers and who should be attending the service academy than just grades. uh the we want well-rounded individuals. We want individuals who are physically fit.
▶ 4:03:38We want individuals who are are leaders and have shown leadership throughout their high school career or their military career as the enlisted if they're going to go on uh and transfer to the academy after going from the enlisted ranks into the officer ranks. We want these well-rounded individuals who have gone and proven themselves. Uh and it's not all academics. Now academics is a big part of it but it should not be the sole criteria or 90% of the criteria that we look at when we are selecting these individuals.
▶ 4:04:10We want well-rounded individuals. Now when you ever you have somebody now I remember meeting the dean of the University of California Irvine. He had told me he had a 5.0 0 students and a person who scored perfectly on the SAT score who did not get into that because they did not have anything else that they were bringing to, you know, to them with them.
▶ 4:04:38We want to make sure we have individuals that are well-rounded, that can lead, that are going to be physically fit, that are able to go and meet the criteria and the demandings of what being an officer is. And we need to make sure that we have them who are well-rounded. Uh like John Paul Jones said, and it's inscribed at the Naval Academy, right? Uh we want officers uh you know who are gentlemen and have a background of a liberal education.
▶ 4:05:09We want these individuals to be well-rounded and well read and we need to make sure that we continue to put the focus on there and not just have it solely about what the academic criteria is. So I will not be supporting this bill and with that I yield back.
▶ 4:05:23Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition? Seeing none there's no further debate. Question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. Those are in favor say I. I. Those opposed, no.
▶ 4:05:36Chair, the eyes have it. Recorded votes requested. The recorded votes postponed until a later date. Would make a note that we uh are going to recess now until 2:30 p.m. to go to the floor to vote. We will return at 2:30 p.m.
▶ 5:16:33committee will come back to order. Uh we will now uh proceed with amendment log number 5501 uh by Representative Mace. For what purposes a gentleoman from South Carolina seek recognition?
▶ 5:16:46Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk. Clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of amendments dispensed with. The chair now recognizes a gentle lady from South Carolina for the purpose of explaining her amendment.
▶ 5:16:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm offering this amendment because our service members deserve a Department of Defense, which prioritizes mission readiness, not divisive ideology. Under the Biden administration, the DoD shifted its focus towards so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion or DEI practices. These initiatives are rooted in racism, identity politics, and social engineering.
▶ 5:17:19They inject race, gender, and other personal characteristics into processes which should be driven exclusively by merit, by competence, and by capability. DEI isn't about unity, it's about division. It's not about readiness. It's about re-education. Our war fighters were being force-fed identity politics and being indoctrinated by woke policy. They are being taught to hate each other and also be divided along racial lines rather than united against an enemy.
▶ 5:17:48Proponents of DEI claim our constitution is inherently racist. White war fighters are oppressors by default and merit is a tool of marginalization and not being quote inclusive. Under Lloyd Austin, these policies rotted the soul of our military and atrophied our readiness and capabilities. DEI encourages service members to divide into racial grievance camps rather than view each other with and and also view each other with hostility and distrust.
▶ 5:18:14While we focus on imaginary evils, our adversaries are racing towards supplanting us. They're not wasting time and resources on DEI seminars or hiring consultants to lecture their soldiers about privilege. Communist China is not doing that. The Iranian regime is not doing that. Putin is not doing that. While they were building hypersonic weapons, we were building PowerPoint slides on microaggressions. They were modernizing their forces and working to outpace us on every front.
▶ 5:18:44Meanwhile, we were training our service members to obsess over race, gender, and pronouns instead of tactics, strategy, and firepower. My amendment would gut the DEI bureaucracy and prohibit it from ever taking root in the DoD ever again. No more DEI offices. No more DEI action plans. No more DEI training. The military's mission is to deter and defeat, not serve as a social experiment for woke ideology. Nothing in this amendment prohibits any American from serving.
▶ 5:19:13If you can meet the standard, you can wear the uniform. But the standard must be based on merit, not on identity politics, not on quotas. Rank and promotion must be earned, not awarded based on demographic checkboxes. It must not be based on what you look like. We are in a dangerous global environment. This amendment is about restoring sanity, restoring focus, and restoring discipline to the most lethal military on Earth. The American people are tired of watching their taxpayer dollars wasted on woke nonsense.
▶ 5:19:43I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's stop this insanity and get back to the mission. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 5:19:50Gentle yields back. Uh does any member gentle lady from Washington? Miss Strickland's recognized.
▶ 5:19:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I will repeat the thing that I have been saying every time I've responded to this. The most lethal fighting force in the world. I have heard this repeatedly before I got here and I've heard it repeatedly while I've been here. As we look at what this attempts to do by completely eliminating offices of diversity, equity, inclusion, it actually ignores the fact that we are trying to recruit more people to come into the service. And let's talk about the demographics of the future.
▶ 5:20:25More than 40% of service members identify as minorities and the most recruitable adults by 2027 will be people of color. For those not tracking that is two years from now. The fact is that a milit the military is an employer. When the economy is strong, the military has to compete for talent like every other employer. And telling young people they do not belong will only worsen that recruiting crisis.
▶ 5:20:50I come back to the definition of diversity, equity, and inclusion that my colleagues across the aisle are using. The implication is that if it's someone who's a DEI candidate, that they are not qualified and they are being put there in that leadership position for different reasons. By that definition alone, as I repeated earlier, Pete Hegth, the Secretary of Defense, is the ultimate DEI appointee.
▶ 5:21:16But as we talk about what the next generation wants, Generation Z represents the leading edge of the country's changing racial and ethnic makeup. A bare majority, 52% are non-Hispanic white. This generation is projected to become majority non-white by 2026 according to Census Bureau produ projections. Why we are saying things and making people feel like they are not welcome makes no sense.
▶ 5:21:43And I'm going to come back to something too, especially regarding our militarymies and people who want to serve our country. When you're a minority, you actually have to be twice as good to get half as much. And the idea that you are somehow unqualified or less qualified to be there makes no sense. In addition to that, we look at test scores and we look at tests that are taken.
▶ 5:22:04And at the same time, you need well-rounded people who know how to navigate the world in a diverse space to create strong fighting teams. We are telling service members that they don't care that minority service members face worse treatment in the military justice system. that black and Hispanic service members were more likely than white counterparts to face criminal investigation in court.
▶ 5:22:29Marshall, we're saying that the 15 families in the Air Force that had to be relocated in the last two years because of racism or anti-LGBTQ harassment don't matters don't matter and that my colleagues believe that they don't belong in the service. So, let's be honest here. When I hear something like this, especially given my family's history, my father, an African-American man who served in a segregated military, President Truman desegregated it, I hear antilackness loud and clear.
▶ 5:23:00There's a bizarre obsession, in fact, about racism as the first item that is always brought up when we're talking about DEI. We don't talk about the myriad of other things like gender, like LGBTQ, like life experience. It always seems to be about race. And let's be honest here. When you all are talking about race, you're talking about black people. So, let's just call it out for what it is. When we look at the military and what we need to be strong and to stay strong, we will continue as Democrats to fight for DEI policies.
▶ 5:23:29Not because they give anyone preferential treatment, but because we are hiring the best and the brightest and the people who are qualified and want to serve. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
▶ 5:23:39Gentle lady yields back. Chair not recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the uh former chief diversity and inclusion officer at the Pentagon, um I can confirm that everything my colleague from North Carolina stated is 100% completely false. Uh we did not indoctrinate people. Uh people were not promoted because of their color or their sex. Uh that just did not happen.
▶ 5:24:07Uh to me, diversity has always been about creating opportunity. Now, I had a uh a colonel that worked for me. Uh this is a an individual who rose through the ranks as an enlisted man. Had two great careers. I mean, all the way to E8 as an enlisted uh individual and then decided to become an officer that people encouraged him to go this route to become an officer. That's about creating an opportunity, seeing a leader that you have and knowing that he can do more.
▶ 5:24:38That's what diversity inclusion is about and that's what we promoted. Uh we tried to recruit more individuals uh into the Pentagon so that it would represent the demographics of our country. But nobody was ever hired due to the fact that based solely on their color or their sex. You still have to perform.
▶ 5:24:58And as my colleague stated over here from Washington, more or less, you know, as a person of color or as a woman, you have to perform twice as good as, you know, your counterparts. Look, we have individuals in the military, uh, women, uh, outperform their counterpart, their male counterparts in the junior ranks, but do not rise up to the more senior ranks. uh people of color, especially Latinos and Asians, uh in the officer ranks.
▶ 5:25:27As the promotions go up, their group becomes less and less and less. While it goes up for white officers, you know, n 95% of our flag and general officer core is still 95% white men. You know, these are things that we should be looking into as to find the reason why. Why aren't women staying in the military longer if they're outperforming their counterparts? Why is the is our office is our senior uh officer ranks not representative of our nation as our junior enlisted ranks are?
▶ 5:25:57We need to create opportunity and that's what diversity inclusion is and that's why we need to continue to support these programs and that's why I don't support this amendment. Our military should be it is it is lethal and it's more lethal. And the Marine Corps even did a study that said diverse diverse groups, diverse platoon perform better than when they're not diverse. So why would we not want to be more lethal and have our a diverse team and make it more diverse that represents our nation?
▶ 5:26:27And for that reason, I cannot repres I cannot support this amendment. And I will be voting no. And I encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
▶ 5:26:36Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on gentle lady from South Carolina's amendment? Chair would state that he supports the amendment. No further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Mace. So me in favor will say I.
▶ 5:26:50Those opposed? No.
▶ 5:26:52No. The eyes have it. The amendments agreed to. No recorded votes not requested.
▶ 5:27:01A recorded vote is requested. It will be postponed till later. We will now consider log number 5278 by Mr. Cisneros. For what purposes, gentleman from California seek
▶ 5:27:18Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 5:27:21Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman from California for purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 5:27:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and uh the ranking member as well um for everything you do for this committee and for our country. Military identity based clubs provide support to cadets and midshipman. They build community on campus. These are places where cadets and midshipman can come together, learn from one another, and support each other as they navigate their military journey.
▶ 5:27:55This amendment would prohibit DoD from banning any military service academy from disbanding an identity based club that do not use DoD funds. The Army has disbanded the following clubs. The Corbin Form, a group to promote female leadership, founded in 1976 when women were first admitted to West Point. the Latin Cultural Club, the National Society of Black Engineer Club, the Vietnamese American Cadet Association, a Society of Women Engineer Clubs, all while maintaining 12 religious clubs.
▶ 5:28:25The administration argues these clubs don't contribute directly to me military lethality. But by that logic, religious groups and athletic clubs and the cheer squad don't either. But yet we continue to support those and those clubs should face if we're going to require this of our of our cultural based clubs, we should require it that same scrutiny of of all the clubs.
▶ 5:28:48Religious clubs exist to provide spiritual support, moral grounding, per personal reflection, not combat effectiveness. Cultural competency is a strategic military advantage and officers who understand their own identity and appreciate others are more effective leaders especially in diversity and global operations.
▶ 5:29:10Now when you have clubs like the black engineer, black engineers and the women engineer clubs, you know, these clubs are there to not only help them academically, but also provide a support infrastructure as they're going through this process of becoming engineers uh both academically and emotionally. And if you were a student like I was when you took physics and calculus, it was an emotional experience and you need that support.
▶ 5:29:41Cultural clubs give cadets early exposure to different perspectives, helping them develop empathy, cross-cultural communication skills, and understanding traits that are essential for building strong cohesive units. And they also act as a conduit to the other members to the other cadetses to allow to allow them to kind of share their culture with the overall student body which is an important aspect I think of of our
▶ 5:30:11nation right in this melting pot that we live in. If we are focused on war fighting and lethality, military academy should disband any club that do not directly correlate to that objective such as religious sports and hobby clubs. But I don't think we need to do that. And I think diversity clubs should be included as well. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you very much and I yield back.
▶ 5:30:34Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. Chair opposes this amendment. Servicemies already permit establishment of clubs and organizations if they are created with no cost to the government and without government sponsorship or faculty. These uh are appropriately organized by cadetses led by cadets for cadetses. Let's call this what it is. It's a way to attack the president and the secretary on transgender service. To be clear, this amendment does not talk about clubs for men and women or single sex clubs.
▶ 5:31:04Rather, it deliberately calls out clubs based on gender. Using the servicemies to launch another attack on the president's decision to de-emphasize race and gender for readiness and lethality only serves to alienate future cadets and recruits. Uh any other members seek recognition? Gentleman from Ry uh New York, Mr. Ryan. And after that, we'll get to the gentleman from Wisconsin Center. Gentleman from New York is recognized.
▶ 5:31:26Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak in support of my colleague, Mr. Cno's amendment. Um, I have a unique view on this representing West Point, um, which is both my alma mater and also now located in my district.
▶ 5:31:39I was there twice last week and unprompted multiple cadetses, men, women, plebes, firsties from all across the country, all unprompted said they're really trying to wrap their head around this. These are smart, young, patriotic Americans who are being told clubs that have been in place.
▶ 5:32:06Most, if not all of them have been there, certainly when I was a cadet 20 plus years ago, are now being wiped away. And they're they're such earnest, great young people that I had a multiple conversations with them trying to really apply good faith in their minds to what is going on here. And it's such a disservice to them. That is a distraction to them.
▶ 5:32:31The fact that this is now being debated in in their classrooms when these are longstanding, never before politicized clubs to just provide camaraderie, cohesion, and a place at a very intense four-year experience to bond with folks you might not otherwise interact with among a 4,000 plus person core of cadetses.
▶ 5:32:52So with respect to my colleagues, to say that this amendment is politicizing is just incredibly disingenuous and hypocritical when the decision to issue such a broad, unprecedented, overreaching executive order by the president then led well-intentioned senior military leaders like the great superintendent at West Point and our other servicemies to have to scramble and grapple with this.
▶ 5:33:16And and most importantly, and I'll end with this again, bringing it back to our cadetses, the fact that this is now another thing that they have to grapple with in the politicization of our military when we're all taught and we all say we need to remove uh the politics. So again, I think the spirit of Mr. Cisnero's amendment is right here. If you want to go this direction and willy-nilly disband these clubs, then let's let's do it. I I certainly don't support that.
▶ 5:33:46I know this amendment doesn't do that. None of us are arguing for that. What we're saying is let's go back to what has been proven and tried and true for decades under multiple administrations from both parties and multiple congresses. This has never come up before. If this was such a burning issue, why wasn't this introduced in previous NDAAS over the last decades while these clubs have been in place? Uh so it's just a really it's a disgrace and I I yield back, Mr.
▶ 5:34:12Gentleman yields back. chair and I recognize a gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Ban Nordon.
▶ 5:34:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am the longest serving enlisted member of the United States military to ever get elected to Congress in the history of this nation. And I'm one of two enlisted people in the history of the Naval Academy to sit on the board of visitors. Uh throughout my military career, I managed thousands and thousands of members of the military, men and women, from every branch of service except for Space Force.
▶ 5:34:37And I'm telling you right now, there's a reason that you get your haircut in boot camp and they put you in a uniform and they try to remove all of the all of the differences between us so that the only thing we see is a uniform. And by definition, when we're splitting ourselves up into these small groups, we are not being uniform. It's it's it's literally the definition of the word.
▶ 5:35:04So the Supreme Court case that's been quoted over and over and over again um didn't address the servicemies specifically did not address them because there's distinct national security issues of that. They put it aside. So even that is disingenuous by saying that Chief Justice John Roberts was very clear when he wrote that he also this is the guy that wrote this the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of And we
▶ 5:35:34need to to take that on board. And and in fact, my colleague pointed out that uh some of these people feel like minorities. Well, we are. We're less than 1% of Americans that decide to raise our right hand and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We're less than 1%. So, we are a minority, but we're also a homogeneous minority. It doesn't matter what the color of our skin is.
▶ 5:36:03I never asked anybody their political perspective. I never asked them what they did in the privacy of their own home ever. And we never cared. And there were instances when people brought this up in the SEAL teams. And we crushed them because the only thing we care about in the United States military and the only thing we should be caring about is whether or not you can shoot, move, and communicate. That's what we're concerned about. We don't care about your race, your gender, your sexual orientation. We don't care about any of that.
▶ 5:36:31And the second that we do, we become less of a military. So, I'm not sure how I can be more clear about this. I strenuously oppose this amendment. I do respect my fellow sailor um who submitted this and I believe that his intent was good, but I believe that the outcome of this amendment passing would further erode the ability of our military to perform their functions. And by the way, the United States Marine Corps focuses on three things. mind, body, and spirit.
▶ 5:37:01And to say that religious clubs do not have a a place in servicemies are foolish. And this is why because they deal with the byproduct of I've had 21 of my friends with the passing of Senior Chief Mike Day, 21 of my friends that I know personally commit suicide because they were not able to deal with the consequences of lethality.
▶ 5:37:25So these religious uh clubs are incredibly important to ground our servicemen and women in something that is whole and real and eternal and that's their faith. So again, Mr. Chairman, I strongly uh do not support this amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. And with that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
▶ 5:37:47Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle lady from Hawaii, Miss
▶ 5:37:51Thank you, Mr. Chair. I um speak in very strong support of this amendment. As was just mentioned, our military service population is 1% of this country's population. Well, imagine being less than 10% of 1%. Less than 10% of 1% is what most communities of color are in the United States military. I'll share a story. did not have the privilege of going to a service academy.
▶ 5:38:19But when I came to college for the first time on the mainland, my very first time away from home on the continent, the first thing I did was start a Hawaii club that had literally maybe a handful, one handful of people. And you know why? Not because I was about to indoctrinate them into some criminal ideology. Not for any political purposes, but oftentimes when you are a mere percentage point in the single digits. It's about a way to belong.
▶ 5:38:48It's about a way to understand as we all wear the same uniform, go to the same schools, do all of these different things, how we can connect and find each What do you fear in the Japanese forum club, the Korean-American Relations Seminar, the Native American Heritage Forum, the Vietnamese American Cadet Association, the National Society of Black Engineers, the Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers, the list goes on and on.
▶ 5:39:14We are not talking about some divisive indoctrination or ideology here. We're talking about people that are mere percentage points within the servicemies and less than a percentage point in the American trying to find a way as was just mentioned like religion to help cope and deal with what is a very stressful, rigorous, arduous endeavor.
▶ 5:39:45Going through a service academy is no easy feat. No, not every American can step up to this challenge and complete it. As humans, what we do is we lean on each And believe me, there's more than just religion to be leaned on when it comes to dealing with what are very difficult pathways forward as they deal with lethality, as they deal with the the stress of war fighting and stepping into these roles.
▶ 5:40:15Believe it or not, we look at each other, at our common connections and culture, ethnicity, how we were raised, our values, our language, the way we look. You and I can put on the same uniforms, my friend, and I promise you I will stand out more than many of you.
▶ 5:40:34And so to damn our cadetses to not having the ability to sit together at common tables, not feed off a DoD trough, and tell them they cannot lean on each other to find a way forward to continue to serve our country in this way. Well, that's a damn shame. And that's why I strongly support this amendment.
▶ 5:40:55And I oppose those amendments that seek to somehow say that folks that look like me coming together in defense of this country is an insult is an indoctrination. I oppose those amendments as well. So my colleagues, I strongly urge you to support this amendment and I thank Mr. Cisneros for introducing it.
▶ 5:41:14Gentle lady yields back here. I recognize gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
▶ 5:41:17Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is wrong to hire, fire or promote based on skin color. Our military has a job, as a common of the Marine Corps said, is to close with the enemy and stick a bayonet in his heart. If somebody saved your life on the battlefield, you wouldn't care if they were pink or blue, male or female, Democrat, Republican, or independent, or whatever. We are Americans, and we need to focus on doing the job.
▶ 5:41:42And when you don't hire or promote in the military based on merit, you get people killed. With that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Derek Van Nordon. Thank you. Um, hey, listen. I was a member of the United States Navy Seal Teams, which is less than 1%
▶ 5:42:01of the Navy,
▶ 5:42:03which is part of the military, which is less than 1% of our population.
▶ 5:42:08And I cannot stress enough to my colleagues that the more separation we put between us by identifying ourselves as individuals, the less we can be and how you function as a team. It's got to be seamless. And I'm saying this from experience. I've lived and worked on five different continents and managed thousands and thousands of sailors.
▶ 5:42:38And you have to understand that when we separate ourselves intentionally, by definition, we cannot be as united as possible. And when we stop looking at each other because of our gender or our skin color, the more effective we are in the battle space. And that's been proven over and over and over again through time.
▶ 5:43:01So it is time to get rid of these clubs and organizations and all these things that separate service members from each other. Put on the uniform, pick up a gun, defend your country, learn how to shoot, move, and communicate. and then the world will be a safer place. And with that, I yield back the remainder of my time.
▶ 5:43:20Gentleman yields back to recognize a gentle lady from Washington, Miss
▶ 5:43:25Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I am in full support of this amendment, but I do have a question. Why did male, straight, and white become the default for being a war One of my colleagues talked about faith as something that helps the whole When those of us who belong to minority groups or women walk into the room, you see exactly who we are and it does not diminish our
▶ 5:43:55ability to serve our country and to do it well and to learn the basics of what needs to be done. This is top tier gaslighting that I'm hearing right now. Acting as though belonging to an affinity group is somehow divisive and makes the most lethal military in the world less As we look at the needs of a changing world, all the places we have conflict, you need more people with different perspectives and life experience.
▶ 5:44:25And to say that having these clubs at a military academy is divisive is So I will ask the question again. We talk about Asian-American clubs. We talk about black engineers. We talk about LGBTQ clubs. We talk about clubs that serve women. You know what's conspicuously not on that list?
▶ 5:44:47So I ask the question again, why is white, male, and straight the default position for being qualified to do this work? I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Chairman, I recognize gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Hulahan.
▶ 5:45:06Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also very strongly support Mr. Snarrow's amendment uh regarding the affinity clubs at our servicemies. Every one of us who is here who has served our country can attest to the very critical importance of leadership and of camaraderie and of a shared skill development. And I agree very much with Mr. Vanard and my my colleague about the commonalities that we have as men and women uh of service and in uniform.
▶ 5:45:32Everyone who's been a student or a teacher or on a team or who's coached a team knows how important affinity groups are in developing and shaping us. The language and culture affinity groups for the Vietnamese American cadet association, the AsianPacific Foreign Club, the Japanese forum club, the Korean-American Relations Seminar, the Society for Women Engineers, and the National Society of Black Engineers were disbanded at themmies.
▶ 5:46:00But the Polish club, the German club, the West Point French Forum was not. I'm a Polish American person, but I'm also a woman engineer. And I can imagine that had I been fortunate enough to be at an academy, I might have benefited from both of them. And I very much appreciate that many people find strength through their spirituality. And for those who do, God bless them literally.
▶ 5:46:22But you cannot allow the German club and a a faith club to be the only things that you are expected to provide to find to provide solace or belonging with when you're in academy. Stripping service academy students of opportunities to simply build cohesion through these directorate of uh of candidate activities or DCA clubs is super shortsighted and it will ultimately harm overall readiness and I dare say it will ultimately hurt lethality as well.
▶ 5:46:50These organizations also provide academy students with the invaluable opportunities for careerbuilding mentorships and activities that expose our future officers to critical thinking in the case of the society for women engineers as an example or to uphold the intellectual tradition of ourmies. And so targeting select minority groups that have long enriched the American military sends a chilling message not just to prospective students but to allies and to our fo foes worldwide alike. and it undermines our lethality as well.
▶ 5:47:20Uh with that, I yield back and I very much appreciate the opportunity to viferously defend and support this particular
▶ 5:47:28General yields back. Any does any other members seek recognition on uh the Cisneros amendment? Seeing none, um the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Cisneros. So many is in favor will say I.
▶ 5:47:43Those opposed, no.
▶ 5:47:44No. And chair the eyes have it.
▶ 5:47:48Recorded votes requested. Recorded votes until a later time.
▶ 5:47:56We are we'll now consider log number 5434 by Mr. Gar Mindy. For what purposes a gentleman from California seek
▶ 5:48:07I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 5:48:09Without objection. Reading of amendments dispenseed with. I reserve report of order against the amendment. Chair. Thank uh the chair recognizes gentleman from California.
▶ 5:48:18Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this is yet another year when I'm attempting to bring this bill to the attention of the committee and hopefully pass it this year. Now, if you happen to be a member of the military or a civilian working in the military and you're injured at a uh somewhere uh in the United States or Germany or wherever by a medical incident, one in which
▶ 5:48:48it may be life-threatening or in fact that individual might die or some other serious injury, that individual has a right to seek compensation through a medical malpractice tort.
▶ 5:49:05However, if you happen to be on a ship, that would be the US naval ship somewhere around the world and the exact same medical malpractice event that you could have sued for if you were at a base in the United States. You can't you can't sue. You cannot seek compensation.
▶ 5:49:33You in fact have no recourse whatsoever. No recourse to discipline those uh medical service personnel that uh committed the potential malpractice. Uh you have no uh beyond the normal death um benefits available to any naval member. You're out of luck.
▶ 5:49:57So this dichotomy has driven me to introduce this bill for a second time and next year maybe a third time. I don't understand the rationale that there's a difference between where you are rather than the fact that it's a malpractice, a medical malpractice. So that's what this bill does.
▶ 5:50:20It would allow um the lucky family and any other individual who had endured a medical malpractice event on a ship to be able to seek to have recourse uh to address those injuries. Now, it turns out that Danielle Lucky, for whom this bill is named, um became ill on a naval vessel, the vessel that I won't name right now.
▶ 5:50:48uh and uh the result very very quickly was sepsis and equally quick was her death. There was no doubt there was malpractice. If I recall some of the uh dol she was ill, very ill, running a high temperature obviously with some sort of an infection and we simply said go back to your bunk and sleep it off.
▶ 5:51:11Well, she slept forever as a result of that advice and for the lack of medical services that could have saved her life. So, here we go. Once again, I guess I'll take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the committee members.
▶ 5:51:28And if any of the committee members on the Republican side or the Democratic side see the uh injustice that we have laid into the law that uh depending where you are, you can seek you have a recourse or not. If you're on a ship, no recourse. If you're at a base, let's say San Diego, you have a recourse. So that's what this is all about. Uh and u love to debate the issue with anybody that wants to talk malpractice.
▶ 5:51:57I've got about 48 years of experience in this, not as a lawyer, but uh the uh policy side of it, but that would be boring and consume a lot of time. So unless there's a debate to uh to happen, I don't propose to take this to a vote. And in fact, I intend to withdraw the amendment. And Mr.
▶ 5:52:18Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to once again try to um explain to the committee that this distinction about where you are uh is um foolish. So with that, I uh withdraw the
▶ 5:52:33Chair, thanks the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment and I withdraw my point of order. Uh we will now consider log number 5339R1 uh by Mr. Pasquez.
▶ 5:52:44Uh for what purposes gentleman seek
▶ 5:52:47Mr. Mr. Chair have an amendment at the
▶ 5:52:48Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading and amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes a gentleman for purpose of explaining his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh my amendment is simple. It prohibits DoD funds for FY26 from being used for the construction of new border wall and areas without an existing barrier until SEC def provides a feasibility study and cost analysis. Now, I've lived on the border my entire life, and I know that there's parts of the border that simply don't need a wall to be secure.
▶ 5:53:17And you know, I'm not the only one who thinks this. In fact, just a few weeks ago, Secretary Hegset sat in this very room and admitted that there are areas where we just don't need a border wall. And I quote, "I am aware that there are gaps in different places where walls are not as effective as other places. And I get that.
▶ 5:53:35That's not fake news. Those are the words spoken by Secretary Haggath in this very committee room. As I explained then, along many remote stretches of the border, there are much more cost effective tools to keep our border secure, like as tactical aerostats that can monitor remote stretches of the border and allow border patrol to effectively respond as needed. Border Patrol calls this technology a force multiplier and has consistently asked for this new technology.
▶ 5:54:04Now, for example, an A cost us about $625,000 per mile, while a border wall cost us $20 million per mile. And that a has much further range and effectiveness than one single stretch of a $20 million per mile wall.
▶ 5:54:20In these remote cases, it's a a border wall is is a waste of taxpayer funding, is it not? Does this enormous expenditure not fall under the category of wasteful spending when better, more effective technology is readily available? These investments will save taxpayers billions of dollars. And contrary to the president's initial proposal, this is not being paid by Mexico. It's being paid by taxpayers. Everybody in this room and everybody in this country.
▶ 5:54:47Not only are walls impractical and expensive in remote and rural regions, they also severely impact wildlife corridors for animals such as the pong horn analopee, the gold's turkey, the koozer, monizum quail. Animals that we cherish and in my case, animals that I hunt to put food on the table for my family. A wall near places like the most remote stretches of the Coronado National Forest would impact hunters and hikers access to federal public lands and desecrate tribal and culturally significant sites along the border.
▶ 5:55:17As an example, the massive undertaking it would take just to build a road to the most remote areas of the San Louis Mountains in my district would take hundreds of millions of dollars. That's not counting in the cost of construction for the physical wall itself. if it's even feasible just to build the roads and infrastructure to build this stretch of wall. Now, that's not taking to into account the millions of dollars that it would take to maintain these roads into the future in an area that is prone to massive annual flash flash flooding.
▶ 5:55:48This amendment does not prevent funding to upgrade or replace existing wall. But there is a reason parts of the border like the bootill in my district don't have a wall. and Secretary Hexath and members of this committee must fully understand why a wall has not been built and shouldn't be built before we throw billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain where more effective border security solutions are available.
▶ 5:56:12Lastly, DHS was just given $46.5 billion to build the wall in the reconciliation bill. There should be no reason that the Department of Defense should be engaged in this political ineffective project. DoD should be focused on war fighting, not domestic immigration efforts. Let me be clear. I am fully in support of securing our border.
▶ 5:56:33And it is our duty as lawmakers to do so in the most effective and common sense way that accomplishes this goal without needlessly throwing billions of dollars away towards an antiquated and flawed proposal. Thank you. I encourage uh all members to support my amendment and I yield back. Mr. Chair,
▶ 5:56:51gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. This amendment is another political stunt intended to undermine President Trump and his successor border policies, successful border policies. Uh the American people waited four years for real leadership at the border. They now have it, and this amendment's trying to kneecap their progress. We've seen the consequences of inaction, and the American people don't want to go back to the days of chaos, confusion, and lawless lawlessness defined by the uh last administration's policies.
▶ 5:57:18I have to oppose the amendment as it delays urgent action to secure our border at a time when national security demands speed and resolve. Uh does any other members seek recognition on the Vasquez amendment? Gentleman from Virginia. Uh well, let me go to Mr. Gar of California first, then gentleman from Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague from New Mexico raises a very interesting point.
▶ 5:57:49I wasn't going to speak to this, but as he was talking about border walls here, but border walls not there for a variety of reasons. I remember a Kodell that I was actually put together back in the day when the Democrats actually put together Kodell's um rather than just attending We part of that was to look at the border between Syria and Jordan, which at that time seven, eight years ago,
▶ 5:58:19was a real chaotic place. I mean, we're talking about Syria just boiling over, people trying to get out and leave, refugees, and they were headed to with American money put together a virtual border wall.
▶ 5:58:44It involved many of things that my colleague discussed uh using modern technology um drones, sound systems, other kinds of vibrations uh systems set in the ground and they had uh watchtowers about every quarter mile, maybe a half mile depending upon where it was. We looked at that on the ground.
▶ 5:59:09We spent time talking to the Jordanian police and military and asked him, "Does this work? There's no wall here. There's not even a fence. Does it work?" And he said, "Oh yeah, it works. Anybody that comes near that border, we know immediately." And a patrol is sent out and they're turned back.
▶ 5:59:32It's been in my mind for all these years and kind of sat there until this amendment was put forth in the explanation that there are better ways of doing it far cheaper and based upon the experience that we saw in the Jordanian Syrian border in the midst of the most difficult Syrian uprisings and deaths and the rest of it. It worked. It worked.
▶ 6:00:00And so the amendment that we have before us is let's not waste our money. Waste, fraud, possibly there's fraud. Is there abuse? Well, there's abuse just to move down this path. Surely wasteful. There's a better way. And I thank my colleague for pointing out the cost differential. So what do we want to do here? We want to close the border. Okay. What's the most effective cost-effective way of doing There is a better way.
▶ 6:00:30I've seen it. I walked that border with my colleagues on that Kodell. We talked to the military and the police that were there. Did anybody come through here? No, they don't. And by the way, we do have a specific place for them to go to enter Jordan. And there was a processing system set up there that, by the way, would have been very, very close to the U.
▶ 6:00:57immigration reform that Trump killed so that he could have this issue for his I I really want to compliment my colleague for at least bringing to our attention that you don't need a wall everywhere. You need a system that is effective, coste effective. I'd like us to consider this. I don't want us to get caught up in, you know, good or bad. Trump wants a wall, therefore we're going to build a wall. Well, maybe there's a better way.
▶ 6:01:27And it turns out there is a much better way. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
▶ 6:01:37Uh, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment from the gentleman from New Mexico. Thank God we have President Trump back in the White House. And let's be honest and transparent. The crisis at the southern border was wholly one created by failed policies of the Biden administration. Democrat policies told the American people that criminals are good, police are bad, and no one cared about the victims. We we don't know if it's 15 million or 20 million illegal aliens came across our border.
▶ 6:02:08And illegal criminal aliens trained today aua MS-13 have been robbing, raping, and killing American people. And with no effect, the Biden administration could not slow these criminals come across our border. and President Trump secured that border in just a matter of weeks. So, I think I would tr I would trust the administration that is effective and that considers police good, criminals bad, and he cares about the victims.
▶ 6:02:35Thanks to President Trump and his administration, we have record low numbers of border encounters. Additionally, the military presence at the southern border has significantly improved our situation and we are in a much better position today than we were a year ago. The amend this amendment seeks to impose bureaucratic loopholes that the administration would be required to jump through rather than completing the border wall construction in expedient and effective manner.
▶ 6:03:02This effort further shows how uncerious the minority is on the southern border and I urge opposition to this amendment. Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on the Vasquez Seeing none, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Vasquez. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 6:03:22Those opposed, no.
▶ 6:03:24Appearing the chair, the eyes have it.
▶ 6:03:26Mr. Chair, I request the recorded vote.
▶ 6:03:28Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote is postponed. we will now consider log number 4778 by Mr. Fallon. For what purposes a gentleman from Texas seek recognition?
▶ 6:03:44Mr. Chairman, I got an amendment at the
▶ 6:03:46Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman from Texas for the purpose of explaining his
▶ 6:03:55Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is about This amendment allows the Secretary of Defense to hire contractors to support border security by providing services like logistics, monitoring, transportation, data entry, and more to assist US customs and border patrol. The military has been aiding with operations at the southern border for more than two decades. When military personnel are at the border, they assist in several types of roles, including things as simple as logistics, clerical roles, uh even directing traffic.
▶ 6:04:23Many of these roles currently are filled by military personnel, could be filled by contractors for a, here's the key, fraction of the cost. This is a common sense amendment that was proposed by both the Biden and Trump administrations.
▶ 6:04:38The DoD estimates that using contractors instead of military personnel in FY24 could have saved $15 million in lodging, PDM, and family separation costs, which range from about $166 to $34 uh per day and uh $250 per person per month. So, the average cost savings would be about 20%. Well, if you look at fully integrating this, come FY26, we're talking $533 million in savings.
▶ 6:05:08Uh, so I think it's a common sense amendment and hopefully it'll pass with flying colors. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 6:05:16Gentleman yields back. Uh, does anyone seek rec? Ranking members recognized.
▶ 6:05:21Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I oppose this amendment. Basically, what we're making DoD do now is DHS's job. uh which is contracting for border security. Now we recognize that you know bipartisan administrations and congresses support DoD in a support role um on border security.
▶ 6:05:41They perform that role you know in a variety of different ways which people support broadly may disagree about some of the specific aspects of it but this is a pretty significant expansion of that um because it puts DoD in the position of contracting. Uh, it is something that the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to be in charge of and should be doing. It is mission creep and costs the Department of Defense money they shouldn't have to spend. So, I oppose the amendment and yield back.
▶ 6:06:11Gentleman yields back. Uh, the gentle lady from California, Miss Jacobs, is
▶ 6:06:16Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, this amendment would grant the Pentagon open-ended authority to hire troops and private military contractors for routine border enforcement, blurring the bright line between national defense and domestic policing. Our armed forces exist to deter foreign adversaries, not to police immigration checkpoints. Every soldier, aircraft, and dollar shifted to the border is taken from critical missions such as deterring aggression in the Indoacific, responding to disasters, or safeguarding sealanes.
▶ 6:06:46And before you say what could be more important to our national security than stopping an invasion, I'll remind you that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff appointed by this current president testified to our committee only weeks ago that there is no invasion at our southern border. And y'all just increased DHS's budget beyond even the budget of the entire Marine Corps.
▶ 6:07:07So the idea that on top of that misguided investment, they would also need to use mil US military assets is laughable at best and deeply concerning at worst. Bringing in private military firms only magnifies these risks. Rushed hiring, thin training, limited accountability, and a powerful lobbying class with a financial stake in permanent militarization. It's cheaper because they cut corners. We've seen how contractor scandals overseas damage US credibility.
▶ 6:07:36We should not import that problem onto American soil. Border communities thrive on cooperation with CBP and local law enforcement, not on the site of Humvees and concertina wire along Main Street. And I would know because unlike many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I actually represent a border community. And a standing military presence chills commerce and erodess trust without fixing the real gaps in our immigration system.
▶ 6:08:01This proposal diverts resources, muddles oversight, and undermines the foundational principle that the military stays out of the day-to-day domestic law enforcement. I urge my colleagues to reject it and keep the Pentagon focused on genuine external threats. I yield
▶ 6:08:16I must say I'm impressed that the young lady used the term y'all with such She must be from Southern California. chair and I recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Gari.
▶ 6:08:37A brief question to Mr. Fallon, if I might, if he would uh take a question.
▶ 6:08:43Yeah, sure.
▶ 6:08:45The money for these contracts. Does it come from the Department of Defense's
▶ 6:08:52I know it saves the Yeah, the the Defense Department, it would save them a half a billion dollars. So it is the defense department dollars
▶ 6:08:59I believe. So
▶ 6:09:01thank you. um reclaiming my time. In the uh reconciliation bill, there's 150 maybe $170 billion for the Department of Homeland, and ICE and related activities,
▶ 6:09:31Customs and Border Patrol. $170 billion of which and that's all additional money over and above their base. I I believe that is more or less the right numbers. So my question here uh Mr.
▶ 6:09:48Fallon, not to you but to this issue is why are we using the Department of Defense money to do contracts with private entities which we can argue the wisdom of that and I don't oppose that depending upon the nature of the contract.
▶ 6:10:06But why would that contract be paid for by the Department of Defense rather than Homeland Security in this case either ICE or Customs and Border Now, I've been on the readiness committee for quite a while, and I'm going that will undoubtedly be readiness money that will not be available for the military to train, equip, repair um well, maybe
▶ 6:10:36even upgrade barracks and living facilities. That money is going to be used for the purposes of immigration control. When I don't intend to debate the wisdom of that, just say that's okay. Let's do it. But why use the Department of Defense money?
▶ 6:10:57You argued correctly that it's cheaper to contract than to send the troops out there, and we've seen significantly in Southern California. uh the extraordinary expense of having the well troops, National Guard and others standing in front of federal buildings just
▶ 6:11:27with no purpose other than to stand there. And yet the clock is ticking and the money is spent. So my opposition here is not on the notion of contracting, but who's going to pay for the contracting? There's another argument to be made that the military shouldn't be doing this in the first place. We heard that earlier with the posiccomatus issue. Uh and we're going to probably hear it again. I won't bring that point up here.
▶ 6:11:56But uh if this is to pass, and it probably will considering where how divided we are in this committee. If it is to pass, I would urge Mr. Fallon that you consider amending this bill so that if the military is to do the contract and the military is reimbursed from the $170 billion dollar of new money that Homeland Security and specifically
▶ 6:12:26ICE and Customs and Border Patrol will have available to them and that we use the Department of Defense money to deal with those things that increased the readiness and the lethality of our troops. With that, I yield back.
▶ 6:12:44Gentleman yields back. The chair and I recognize gentleman from New Mexico, Mr.
▶ 6:12:49Thank you, chairman. Um, and thank you so much to the gentleman from Texas for putting forward this proposal. Uh, if you're interested in cost savings and border security, I have got a proposal for you and it's going to save not millions but billions of dollars. In fact, I just talked about it. Now, when we skip the campaign speeches and actually get to saving taxpayer money, we can achieve more secure border using better technology and using innovation. And you've just proved my point. So, I appreciate you bringing this up.
▶ 6:13:18And although my amendment will likely be voted down, let's just think about the billions versus the millions of dollars that I'm proposing to save on border security and uh have this discussion. But until then, that extra 46.5 billion dollars that goes to DHS for securing our border should stay in DHS and shouldn't be robbed from our servicemen and women. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on the Fallon There's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Fallon.
▶ 6:13:48Those are in favor will say I.
▶ 6:13:51Those opposed? No.
▶ 6:13:52No. Been share the eyes have it. The amendments agreed to. All right, we will now uh consider log number by Ms. Jacobs. For what purposes, a gentle lady from Southern California seek recognition.
▶ 6:14:10Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 6:14:13Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would prohibit FY26 FSRM funds for barracks and child development centers from being diverted to fund operations at the southern border. Our military's best asset isn't our fighter jets. It's not our destroyers or our aircraft carriers.
▶ 6:14:43It's our service members. But the investments of this committee, the investments of Congress do not reflect that. Many of our service members are living in barracks that are not up to standards, which compromises their health and their ability to complete their missions. All of us on this committee have seen the horrifying GAO report from the end of 2023. The issue of unsafe barracks is not isolated. It's not a few one-off incidents. It is a systemic problem affecting various bases across the entire country.
▶ 6:15:10That's why we have FSRM or facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization funds so we can do the necessary renovations, upgrades, and upkeep to ensure the health and safety of our service members. And look, all of you have been to military housing before. We are not talking about building Ritz Carlton's. We're talking about a basic level of health, sanitation, and safety. But unfortunately, we've seen reports that the Army shifted $1 billion dollars. That's right.
▶ 6:15:38$1 billion meant for barracks to instead fund its surge of troops to the southern border. And even if this money were replenished, it should never have been taken from the FSRM accounts in the first place. We don't need additional troops at the southern border. And you don't need to take it from me, though I do live there. Take it from the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Dan Kaine, who agreed with me in front of this committee last month that there's currently no military invasion on our southern border.
▶ 6:16:07And again, you all just increased DHS's budget to more than the entire Marine Corps. There's no invasion. There's no need to send our troops to the border. And there's certainly no need to take funds away from maintaining military quality of life infrastructure to do this. So, I urge my colleagues to support my common sense amendment that simply says no FY26 FSRM funds for quality of life infrastructure can be diverted to fund operations at the southern border. I yield back.
▶ 6:16:37Gentle lady yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. This amendment seeks to outlaw something that isn't happening. Facility sustainment money authorized and appropriated for barracks and childcare facilities is not being spent on border security and it cannot be reprogrammed for those purposes without congressional approve approval. This amendment is nothing more than a false effort to raise doubt about the tremendous progress the Trump administration has made to secure our border. I urge all members to oppose the amendment. And with that, I now recognize a gentleman from California, Mr. Gar Mindy.
▶ 6:17:08Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting. Uh, we now have three amendments, all of which revolve around the same issue. Mr. Vasquez raised the issue that, uh, walls may not be the best way to prevent immigrants from coming into the United States, that there may be other techniques available. He made a very good argument on that. uh I attempted to support him with a real life uh example. Uh then Mr.
▶ 6:17:37Fallon came forward with how to pay for it and uh and how to do it in a more cost-effective way, contracting rather than using uh military personnel and equipment. That that's wise. We ought to be doing that.
▶ 6:17:55Um, and then Miss Jacobs raises the question here with her amendment uh and the issue that these specific accounts within the Department of Defense's appropriation uh should not be used to uh for those uh and for those uh fac uh facilities remote or whatever they may be.
▶ 6:18:21but rather the argument that I was making this issue really falls to uh the homeland security uh and specifically to the $170 billion that is now available as a result of the rec uh reconciliation available to ICE uh Customs and Border Patrol and uh related immigration activities. That's where this should be paid for.
▶ 6:18:49And Miss Jacobs raises a very very important point giving a specific example. We know that the barracks uh in the Texas base are antiquated, moldy, broken down, toilets don't work, and on and on and on. And we put forth in last year's uh actually in this year's uh legislation that's now in effect that a billion dollars was to be spent to upgrade those facilities for our military personnel, specifically on barracks.
▶ 6:19:19There's more over on the housing side of it. And that money is being ripped off. It's being ripped off to pay for a border wall. And so the flow of these three amendments would indicate first of all a border wall may not be the solution. It may be the most costly and ineffective solution. There are other solutions available uh to stem the uh immigrants from coming across the border in certain places. All well and good. Uh Mr.
▶ 6:19:48Fallon raised the uh the issue of contracting. I think that's a good idea. Uh but why should the Department of Defense be the contractor when uh it should be uh Homeland Security and specifically ICE or Customs and Border Patrol.
▶ 6:20:06So we have a a circle here, three amendments, uh one Republican and two Democrats, all of which come together and for us and our task is to develop wise policy, wise solutions to profoundly important issue. I'm not going to debate the wisdom of border uh of border security and who did better or who did worse. That's not the point.
▶ 6:20:29The point that is facing this committee, what is the best way given that the committee will probably go to continuing to build some sort of border security system? Let's do it wisely. Let's do it in a way that's most effective, cost-effective, and let's make sure that the appropriate governmental entity that is responsible for this, Customs and Border Patrol and ICE bear the burden of cost as well
▶ 6:20:59as the contracting and that this is not a direct function of the Department of Defense. Uh with that um I I really think we have an opportunity here and I would yield my remaining 57 seconds to Miss Jacobs. Uh thank you Mr. Garandi. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that they already can't use this money. Uh but actually here's an article from military.com that the Pentagon diverted $1 billion from Army Barracks to fund border mission.
▶ 6:21:28Uh now they did end up replenishing it, but the idea that they could do this again and not replenish it is available to them unless we specifically say in law that they can't, which is all I'm saying that we should do. Thank you.
▶ 6:21:42Does the chairman yield back? Chair now recognizes gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orton.
▶ 6:21:48Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I've lived in barracks as a junior enlisted guy in the United States and in at least two other countries. I've also lived in Navy housing for a long period of time and they deserve attention. I mean, this is a quality of life issue for our military members.
▶ 6:22:10However, Smith Jacobs just the funds that this amendment are or the potential funds has already been And we have to understand that more people have died from fentanyl overdoses and were killed in World War II. And when we took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, it was against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
▶ 6:22:35And so this amendment is an attempt to kneecap the president of the United States and the secretary of defense from deploying troops to an area where they're needed. Um we've had over 20 million people enter this country unlawfully under the Biden administration. The number of fentanyl deaths have skyrocketed under the Biden administration.
▶ 6:22:59We've had two months in a row where not a single person who entered this country unlawfully was returned or sent back into the United States. That's due to the Trump administration. We're able to to lower the numbers of people crossing the border because of Pete Hexith and deploying troops to the border. So if my colleagues truly care about these people, and I'm sure they do, I just think they're misguided here.
▶ 6:23:26They have to understand that at times we need to take measures that some of us are and aren't comfortable with but are completely lawful and within the authority of the president of the United States as commander-in-chief and his secretary of defense who is acting as directed by the commander-in-chief. So I versifously oppose this amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
▶ 6:23:51Gentleman yields back. Chair I recognize gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Touche. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to uh, Representative Jacobs for introducing what I believed would be a very important amendment to protect the very significant work that this committee here was able to accomplish just last year. We have to protect resources that Congress already allocated for barracks and for child care, amongst other things, from being moved to things such as border expenditures.
▶ 6:24:20Last year's NDAA was a triumph. It was a bipartisan effort to improve the lives of our service members and their families. And my friend and colleague, Representative Bacon, and I led the quality of life panel, and our quality of life report served as the core of last year's bill. Last year's NDAA made significant strides to improve the lives of our service members and their families. And this committee bipartisanly voted to provide those funds to upgrade housing, to build child care facilities, and much more.
▶ 6:24:49Our military is strong because of our people. and we need to take care of them and their loved ones. Undoing our work or possibly undoing our all the work from last year or going back on our promises to our service members of course does the exact opposite. So, it's for that reason that I strongly support Representative Jacob's amendment to protect this funding and to make sure that it is used as intended to support our service members.
▶ 6:25:14And I agree with the chairman that we shouldn't have to bake this prohibition into law because congress does this constitutionally through article one. But it seems clear that we may be in a place where we might need belts and suspenders in this case to hold the role of congress and the constitution together and this case and many others unfortunately. And with that I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Chair I recognize gentle lady from Hawaii Miss Takuda.
▶ 6:25:40Thank you Mr. Chairman. You know, this is not about kneecapping the president. This is about actually showing our service members that we care about them so that maybe after they get sent to the border or wherever else they might be, a few of us saw them out in Guantanamo, that perhaps they can come back to something better than barracks in such appalling conditions that you can literally see the black mold on the wall, the leaks, cramped spaces with little to no privacy, lack of kitchen facilities, unreliable electrical systems, no air conditioning in the
▶ 6:26:10heat of summer. I should notice. Um, and if we ask ourselves why, why did they have to come back to these kind of unbearable conditions, unaccompanied housing being on such bad conditions, we can look back to the first Trump administration and see how the Pentagon diverted billions then back then documented from barracks maintenance to the border wall. For the army alone, we have over 300 permanent party barracks that are in poor to failing condition. And this data understates the problem.
▶ 6:26:40When GAO visited barracks supposedly in good condition, they found significant quality of life problems like air conditioning, plumbing not working, electrical systems broken, some were even deemed uninhabitable at this time. And while there seems to be a dispute, although it's well documented and widely documented, that $1 bill51,500 I believe was diverted from SFRM to maneuver units.
▶ 6:27:11The message that this sends to our service member is the damning part to service members and our families. the discussion and we know the fact that a billion dollars in the first six months of this administration was diverted from barracks and quality of life and operations and maintenance to the border is sending the message that we really don't care about your health and wellness. We want you to sacrifice everything, put it on the line and essentially we're just going to do what we will with this money and not Congress.
▶ 6:27:40I'm talking about this And by removing a billion dollars in the first six months from this particular fund, we're essentially guaranteeing that we will ultimately never fix these barracks. And many of us have walked through them. We have seen the mold on the walls ourselves. We have talked to people who have had to live in these un, you know, uninhabitable conditions. The reality is we're never going to catch up with this backlog. We're likely going to have to tear them down because we've waited too long to fix them.
▶ 6:28:07And if we can all agree, and it sounds like we can, that FSRM should not be diverted to the border wall. And at least right now, we know they are flush as a result of the big ugly bill that we just passed, then let's pass this amendment that Miss Jacob is proposing that FSFM should not and cannot be used and diverted for the border and should be used in fact for its intended purpose, which is to make sure that the barracks and living conditions of our service members and their families are safe and well. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 6:28:37Chair, and I yield back.
▶ 6:28:39Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle from California, Mr.
▶ 6:28:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank my uh colleague from California for introducing this bill. And I want to thank my colleague from Hawaii for putting it so eloquently what I was pretty much planning to say, but I will I will reinforce the point, right? And you know to my colleague from Wisconsin um you know this is not meant to take the kneecaps out from the president or the secretary of defense but is to ensure that we take care of the quality of life of our service members and their families.
▶ 6:29:14Uh which is important. Um and I remind the committee that you know during the 2019 um first Trump administration that money was taken from the army to uh support the uh the border wall. Uh so to say that it can't be happen or that it won't happen is false because it's already happened before.
▶ 6:29:35Uh and so this law would protect those funds that ensure that the administration carries out what Congress intended it for it to carry out that it actually executes the plan in the budget that Congress put forth. And so that's why I support this amendment. And with that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek uh recognition to speak on Miss Jacob's amendment? Uh there being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Jacobs.
▶ 6:30:04So many is in favor will say I.
▶ 6:30:07Those opposed, no.
▶ 6:30:09Opinion chair, the nos have it. Gentle lady would ask for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is uh sus postponed until a later time. Uh we will now consider log number by Miss Jacobs. For what purposes? Gentle lady seek recognition.
▶ 6:30:28Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 6:30:29Will the clerk please distribute an amendment? Uh the amendment without objection. the reading of the amendments dispensed with the chair. I now recognize the gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.
▶ 6:30:38Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is similar to the last one. It would prohibit FY26 FSRM funds for barracks and child development centers from being diverted to fund deployments to the United States in order to support civilian immigration enforcement. I know that everyone on this committee is incredibly grateful to our service members who sacrificed so much for us.
▶ 6:31:00They've earned a clean and a safe place to sleep and work because that's what we owe them and because it's crucial for them to be able to do their jobs, focus on their missions, and protect our national security. But we've all seen and heard about the horror stories in barracks across the country, like the mold at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, which is just 2 hours away from Congressman Pat Harrian's district that made barracks unlivable.
▶ 6:31:23or the mold in the HVAC systems, closets, and even bedding at Fort Stewart in Georgia, which is right next to Congressman Austin Scott's district. Last year, a soldier at Fort Carson in Colorado, where Congressman Jeff Crank represents, reported an air conditioning unit leaking so badly that
▶ 6:31:40I would ask gentle lady to not refer to other members of the committee. Address her comments to the chair.
▶ 6:31:46I am addressing them to the chair. I'm just telling you who represents places. The same soldier from uh this uh Fort Carson in Colorado was then relocated due to black mold only to find the new room so filthy that it required extensive cleaning or the 10 barracks at Fort Cavazos in Texas that had broken AC for 6 weeks earlier this year and temperatures inside the barracks got up to the high 80s.
▶ 6:32:14These are huge problems and I know all of my colleagues care about this. We've talked about it, but we don't put nearly enough money towards fixing them. And that's why we shouldn't divert any of the scant money we do have toward anything else, and especially not toward funding deployments on American soil to support civilian immigration enforcement. Deploying troops against our own communities is wasteful, dangerous, and fundamentally unamerican. I've put forward a simple amendment to ensure that this doesn't happen.
▶ 6:32:41It would prevent any FY26 FSRM funds for quality of life infrastructure from being diverted to fund deployments to support civilian immigration enforcement in the United States. This is simply saying that the money that we allocate as Congress for barracks and child development centers and quality of life infrastructure should be used for barracks and child development centers and quality of life infrastructure, not anything else.
▶ 6:33:05And if my colleagues would like to send troops to the southern border or send troops to American cities, then they I don't think they should, but they should find that money and actually authorize that money instead of taking it from what we all agree is a really big problem that needs to be solved. So with that, Mr. Chairman, uh I urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield
▶ 6:33:25Gentle lady yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. Again, this money is not being spent uh on immigration enforcement, and it cannot be reprogrammed for those purposes without congressional approval. The Trump administration is doing the right thing by enforcing our immigration laws. We should be supporting them, not trying to raise red flags and confuse the public about how the DoD is assisting in that effort. I urge all members to oppose the amendment. Does any other members seek recognition? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan.
▶ 6:33:54Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak in support of and thank my colleague from California for raising uh and introducing this amendment. Two additional points that I think are important that this amendment brings out that also bolster the points the important points that she and my colleagues made in the previous First, and I and I say this with great respect to the chair, I I strongly disagree that the deployment of US troops against US citizens is in any way right
▶ 6:34:24or constitutional and I think is unamerican. That is a line that is a long-standing precedent going back to the revolutionary roots of our country and one that many many Americans including thousands of my constituents that have called, emailed, texted and even brought it up in town halls uh have raised that concern with me.
▶ 6:34:46And so I I commend my colleague for introducing that point and and one that is very important that is related to but separate from uh the diversion of funds which is the second point that that I want to raise. I know that these uh discussions, as I just did in in the first part of my remarks, often feel hypothetical or philosophical even, but I want to bring to light in my own district what the impacts are of the shifting of FSRM funds both towards border operations domestically and
▶ 6:35:17in this case uh towards the deployment of US troops both in California and now we've also seen uh concerning similar mobilization in Florida. And I I think many of us are concerned, which is the point of this amendment, that this could go further in other states domestically.
▶ 6:35:33The the documentation of over a billiona dollars diverted by the army from personnel and facilities accounts to pay uh for these deployments, specifically from barracks restoration projects in my district, in addition to the uh items noted by my colleague, Miss Jacobs. and and uh I think this really speaks volumes about our priorities in in a disturbing way. There are two soldier barracks, enlisted soldier barracks at at West Point in my district.
▶ 6:36:03They were both severely damaged by an unprecedented storm in uh the summer of 2023, two years ago. One of them was literally a week away from having the ribbon cut on a brand new beautiful enlisted barrack soldier, showing uh through our actions that we in our great United States military and and in our country, we put our enlisted soldiers first who risk so much for our country. That that barracks was unfortunately devastated by this storm.
▶ 6:36:32And now we were just briefed by the academy leadership that that project has been slowed down both in building 620 and building 624 on the grounds of West Point. Both of those products projects have been slowed down now multiple years uh due to diversion of funds including this diversion.
▶ 6:36:51And I think it's it's uh not only for our cadet barracks which are also affected by this um and and certainly um you know for senior officers but specifically for our junior enlisted uh barracks cannot stand. Uh so I uh proudly support this amendment and my courage encourage my colleagues to do the same and I yield back. Mr. Chair,
▶ 6:37:12gentleman from New York yields back. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Van Orton.
▶ 6:37:18Thank you Mr. Chairman. and I rise uh in opposition of this amendment and I just I have to say this. Um many of my Democrat colleagues are waxing poetically about how they care so much about our junior enlisted living in barracks when several several of them voted against last year's NDAA which had the largest increase of pay for junior enlisted in the history of the country. Uh so that's just disingenuous and uh that dog will not hunt.
▶ 6:37:49So this this again is specifically written to try to prevent the president of the United States who is the commander-in-chief of the military and secretary Pete Hexith from doing their job.
▶ 6:38:06Again, I took an oath as today to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and More Americans have died from fentanyl poisoning than died in World War II. And the only way to stop this is by the actions taken by the president of the United States. During the last administration, they said they needed more authorities and new laws and all this stuff. And it turned out that that wasn't true.
▶ 6:38:33You just needed new You needed a commander-in-chief that actually cared about the United States of America and American citizens. We're putting the lives of American citizens first. You have a secretary of defense who actually cares about the members of the United States military making sure that when they do deploy forward to the southern border to help protect the United States from criminal illegal aliens coming into the United States that they are they are treated in the best way possible
▶ 6:39:05in some very difficult circumstances. And I know this because I spent my entire adult life either training for war, training other people for war or at war. And if you don't think for a second that we are at war with the Chinese Communist Party that is responsible for smug for producing this fentanyl that was being smuggled across the border, you're wrong.
▶ 6:39:26So I I understand what Miss Jacobs has written in this amendment and I I applaud the fact that that she wants to make sure that the quality of life for our enlisted and others spending time in uh helps them perform their duties because we know that when you have a happy home, you can actually work better. But this is not how you do that. It just simply is not.
▶ 6:39:53And with that, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment as I will be doing. I yield
▶ 6:39:58Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognize gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Kading.
▶ 6:40:02Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just uh to follow up briefly on on the uh very instructive dialogue that's occurred back and forth on this issue. Uh the fentanyl issue is real. Uh but uh this administration took two helicopters, vital resources, vital assets fighting fentanyl in South America and took them out of service against the fight in fentanyl only to give them to the dictator of El Salvador, Buchi, because he's housing
▶ 6:40:32uh people, some of them innocent Americans there. So this points to one issue. Congress has a voice in this. This is why it's important and this is why I support the amendment. Congress has a voice in this. Our voice should be heard and to use the issue of fentanyl.
▶ 6:40:49I just couldn't help but bring back the point that the administration's doing something against that fight in fentanyl in support of their effort to house people, some of them uh inappropriately or illegally in El Salvador. So, uh, again, I'm supporting this amendment and Congress should have a voice in this and this amendment is a strong part of that voice. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Does any member seek uh recognition on Miss Jacobs amendment?
▶ 6:41:19Uh, there being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs. So, many is there in favor, we'll say I.
▶ 6:41:26Those opposed, no.
▶ 6:41:28Being the chair, the eyes have it. Does recorded votes requested? Recorded votes we will now consider log number 5629 by Mr. Van Ordinance. For what purposes gentleman from Wisconsin to seek
▶ 6:41:46Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 6:41:48Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman from Wisconsin for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 6:41:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh as a Navy Seal, I've participated in many different joint task forces and it's critical that we take a whole of government approach when we are fighting naroterrorists and trying to prevent uh the importation of fentanyl into the United States. As I've repeatedly said, it cost the lives of more Americans than died in World War II.
▶ 6:42:22So currently the ability for our uh Department of Defense to work handinand glove with other agencies is set to expire and this amendment is very very simple. We just want to codify and reaffirming the modernization joint task force authority for counterterrorism and transnational crimes.
▶ 6:42:44So what we want to do is make sure that our military can work in a whole of government approach to conduct counterterrorism operations and prevent transnational crime which as we know are a long series of narotists that are responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of It's just that simple.
▶ 6:43:09It will codify the authority under title 10, make it permanent so that our folks know that we will continuously have their back and the American people will know that we here in Congress are acting in a matter that's commiserate with a whole of government approach to protect them and their families. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and with that I yield back.
▶ 6:43:30Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California, Mr. Gary Mindy's recognized.
▶ 6:43:36Uh thank you Mr. Chairman. I I don't want to be a boore here, but I I do want to try to parse out what's really important here. Our colleague uh is putting forth an amendment that uh may raise the question the way this amendment is written may raise the question of going around the posic commatatus uh prohibitions in which the military cannot be a domestic
▶ 6:44:06police force. We've seen in recent weeks that there are some indications that the military deployed on the southern border in uh and also in Southern California, Los Angeles area may be engaging in policing activities beyond the stated purpose which was to protect federal assets and lives which perfectly appropriate.
▶ 6:44:33So I I I want to be quite certain that we do not drive a hole through the posiccomatus act. Uh I'm going to end with a question to my colleague that he can answer in in some time but not quite yet. Um so as we go through the amendments all of which are important the previous ones dealt with the issue of where's the money coming from uh FSRM funds barracks and the like.
▶ 6:45:02I I kind of caught myself early on when a billion dollars was taken out of the Sentinel to do to re to do the plane. I thought that was a fine idea, but I may be less open on this set. So, we need to be careful here. We need to be thoughtful.
▶ 6:45:20I know all the committee members, Democrat and Republican, are and I suspect once we get past the U rigors of the current debate back and forth, president's good, president's bad, so on and so forth, we are writing law and in this case it's a an an extension of existing authority. It's not clear as I read this as to the limitations of that authority.
▶ 6:45:45And so um leaving aside the issues of how this is paid for which we debated previously, my question goes to my colleague. Um is it your intent to broaden or excuse me to limit the posic commitatus law with regard to the military engaging in policing activities?
▶ 6:46:07Absolutely not.
▶ 6:46:09I'm sorry. I'm sorry,
▶ 6:46:10Mr. Garman. Um I appreciate it tremendously. Um, absolutely not. American civil liberties must be protected at all costs.
▶ 6:46:19Right. Thank you. Uh, I reclaiming my time. Thank you, sir. Um, in in many ways as we put together this NDAA and the final version after we work with the Senate, we need to be very of of what we are doing. Uh there are some principles this being one that uh we care deeply about where the money comes from that comes and goes every year.
▶ 6:46:45Uh and uh I think all of us Democrat and Republican are very concerned about the quality of life issues. Money coming from barracks and housing and and so forth and of course the readiness issues that we always deal with. Um but this gets to be this amendment deals with a fundamental issue. I thank the gentleman's and I'm sure that as this moves forward he and I will both be watching. Thank you so very much. I yield back.
▶ 6:47:10Gentlemen yields back. Chair not recognized gentle lady from California, Miss Jacobs.
▶ 6:47:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, look, I think we all here on this committee can agree that fentinel is a huge issue and we should be talking about how to address it. I'm happy to have that conversation with anyone on this committee because it's an urgent issue. But military assistance to law enforcement should never be routine or permanent. And that's what this amendment seeks to do. You see, we have a clear military and civilian divide for many reasons.
▶ 6:47:43One is to prevent creeping authoritarianism where the military might be used to suppress political opposition, descent, or control the population. Two is that there are very different rules of engagement for law enforcement and the military tactics, oversight that they're all different. Three, the military and law enforcement are trained differently. The police are trained in tactics like deescalation, crowd control, and due process. The military is trained for combat.
▶ 6:48:10We literally all call them the most lethal fighting force in the world. Why would we want the most lethal fighting force in the world on American streets talking to American civilians? And four, the Posi Commatitis Act rightly limits the military's role in domestic law enforcement to prevent misuse and abuse of the military against our own people. I believe that we should be strengthening that law, but this amendment blurs that line even more, even if you don't mean it to. This amendment is vague and ripe for abuse.
▶ 6:48:40So despite its good intentions, I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 6:48:46Gentle lady yields back. Is any uh gentle lady from Washington, Miss Strickland's recognized?
▶ 6:48:51Right. Well, thank you um Congressman Van Orton for clarifying that this is not a sneaky way to try and turn the military on US citizens. I think you've heard that expressed by my colleagues here on this side of the aisle. And you know, we think about disscent, we think about peaceful protest, and we think about freedom of expression as fundamental American traditions. And when that oath of office is taken to protect and defend the Constitution, that's what this is about.
▶ 6:49:19So I will, you know, I I agree with my colleagues about making sure that we are crystal clear that this does not take the US military and use it as a way to turn it on US citizens. And I will use the example. I mean, we've seen this president militarize domestic law enforcement duties and even allowing people who wear masks and are unidentified ICE agents roaming our cities, rolling up on people and hurting US citizens and detaining them.
▶ 6:49:47So, we want to make sure that scope creep does not happen. And because I cannot trust this admin, this administration to do that, I'm going to vehemently recommend a no vote. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back. Uh, any additional members? Is that is that as strong as viferously?
▶ 6:50:07I think it's stronger for all y'all.
▶ 6:50:09Okay. Okay.
▶ 6:50:13All right. There being no uh further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered uh by Mr. Van Orton. Those in favor say I.
▶ 6:50:22Those opposed? No.
▶ 6:50:24Penny chair the eyes have it. Uh and uh we will now turn to log number 5513R1 by Mr. Gar Mindy. For what purpose is gentleman from California seek
▶ 6:50:43at the desk?
▶ 6:50:44Clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 6:50:52Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh heads up, we're changing subject matters here. We're not going to be talking about the border, who's going to pay for what. We're going to talk about strategic arms. We're going to talk about the Sentinel program. We're going to talk about the Minute Man 3 program, at least for well, I guess, three amendments. I know that all of you are shocked.
▶ 6:51:13Both my Democrat and Republican colleagues are shocked that I would once again venture down this road after having been at least in view of some my Republican members properly disciplined in previous years. However, never give up. Uh and uh Mr. Chairman, an opportunity for you to once again try to discipline me. I resist that. Uh nevertheless, here we are.
▶ 6:51:37Um, this bill deals with something that we have written into the National Defense Authorization Act for several years. And as we've looked at this issue of the Sentinel, the new replacement for the Minuteman 3 missile and the uh issues of its u none McCertie breach and the extraordinary cost increases. Uh we keep coming back to the question of why, which is my favorite question. Why?
▶ 6:52:07Why are we doing this? Why are we not doing something else? And it comes down after listening to the various uh um organizations that we have tasked with giving us guidance on these strategic arms issues. They keep coming back to, well, we are required to have intercontinental ballistic missiles.
▶ 6:52:37And so we go round and round here. Uh we tell them we've got to have 400. They come back and said, "Well, if we got to have 400, then we got to have 400 sentinels uh and and the like." And I'm going, "Wait a minute. Why do we have to have 400?" Um well, nobody's explained why 400 is a magic number. Why 400?
▶ 6:53:01Particularly in consideration that we do have other platforms for nuclear deterrence. Uh we have u F-35s that will soon be uh in Europe that will be nuclear that will and could be nuclear armed. We have other uh fighter planes uh in the in Europe that are presently nuclear armed.
▶ 6:53:27Uh the B-21 seems to be working pretty well and we're going to have a whole bunch of those uh I think as many as 40ome in the next decade. Some of which will be available by reading this morning's uh press. Um available almost immediately. Right now the use of training they can be modified to handle nuclear weapons. We have uh the new we have submarines at sea. We have the new Colombia submarines that are hopefully going to be going forward.
▶ 6:53:57And uh Mr. Courtourtney and I see my colleague uh from Virginia is here now. And the two of them are damn well determined to get it done sooner than later. Well, good. Get on with it. Let's get those done. Um, so we have many many methods to deter. Uh, we have the B-52s that are going to re be repurposed. And I'm coming back why 400?
▶ 6:54:22It turns out that the intercontinental ballistic missiles sitting in a silo are in at least my view and the view of many not the best deterrent because it is a classic use it or lose it. If there is a threat, those silos have to be attacked or else they're lost.
▶ 6:54:49It turns out that the attack will probably almost certainly not be successful. A large number of them will not be disabled, but the entire Midwest and a good portion of America and the world would be seriously disabled by that nuclear attack. So what I'm trying to do with this amendment is to ask the question why so that each of us would ask that question why do we need 400?
▶ 6:55:16What's magic about that number other than that's what we had seven or eight years ago that is propelling us down the road to maintain those missiles Minute Man 3 probably for another 15 years and bring the Sentinel on along when we can for example the cost of the Sentinel somewhere 170 to$200 billion dollars could buy any number of I know you want a couple hundred B-21s Do you
▶ 6:55:46want 10 more Colombia class nuclear submarines? All of that is possible with the money for this. Mr. Chairman, I want us to ask the question why. And this amendment forces us to ask that question. Thank you for the extra 8 seconds. I yield
▶ 6:56:03Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Uh my good friend from California knows how much I appreciate his commitment to this topic, but he also knows I don't agree with him. Uh the Trump administration doesn't agree with him, nor did the Biden administration agree with him. Similar measures designed to halt the program have been defeated either in committee or on the floor since 2021. The Sentinel program is critical part of our effort to modernize the nuclear triad. This amendment seeks to stop that program.
▶ 6:56:33Consequently, I have to urge my colleagues to oppose it. And with that, I recognize gentle lady from California, Miss Jacobs.
▶ 6:56:39Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I promise this is the last time I'm speaking for a while. I swear this is not only because I have a bet on what time we're gonna I I thank my colleague from California, Mr. Garundy, for introducing uh this important amendment. Look, being good stewards of American tax dollars is one of Congress's most important responsibilities. And with our debt ballooning, that duty is more urgent than ever.
▶ 6:57:04So, I would expect that there would be broad consensus on this committee about the alarming fact that the Air Force's $100 billion groundbased nuclear missile program, the Sentinel, has overrun its budget by 37% already. That spike automatically triggers the non-mccertie statute, forcing the Pentagon to prove the program's worth or kill it. This means we're going to see an estimated future cost of at least $130 billion and many years of delay. This is unacceptable.
▶ 6:57:35Look, it's long overdue to rein in the astronomical cost of the Sentinel program and reassess our nuclear posture in its entirety. Increasing our land-based nuclear forces to outnumber the PRC in Russia is an archaic strategy that doesn't match the realities of our new multipolar world. And even if one believes that ICBMs are useful targets in the event of a Russian nuclear attack, why not opt for a cheaper nuclear sponge?
▶ 6:57:59Some or maybe even all of the existing force of Minute Man 3 ICBMs can be life extended for decades more and at a much lower cost. By deferring the sentimental program, which is all Mr. Garamundy's amendment does, and extending the existing Minuteman 3 force, the United States could save at least $ 37 billion through the mid 2030s, according to one CBO That $ 37 billion with a B is money we could redirect to real readiness needs instead of dumbling
▶ 6:58:30down on a Trump era boondog goal. We can still take seriously and address the threats posed by our strategic competitors without fueling a neverending arms race and compromising our fiscal responsibility. I swear to God, I am so sick of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle calling themselves the party of fiscal responsibility when they balloon our debt by $4 trillion and then won't even do standard oversight and making sure that our taxpayer dollars are being spent to good use.
▶ 6:58:56So, I urge my colleagues to support Congressman Garudy's amendments so we can be both sensible and strategic with taxpayer dollars. I yield back.
▶ 6:59:04Gentle lady yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member.
▶ 6:59:07Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, believe it or not, I will yield to Mr. Mr. Garini at this point
▶ 6:59:14I was told to do that just so that Mr.
▶ 6:59:20uh Mr. Chairman I was so anxious to get into this debate and move away from the previous one that I wasn't listening what amendment was actually called by our terrific staff down there and apparently I gave a great argument for the next amendment which I will not take five minutes to explain.
▶ 6:59:37That's what I figured. Thank you. The Lord giveth and taketh. Huh? Um, in any case, this this amendment deals with u the non mccertie uh situation in which the sentinel program was stopped pending a non mccertie review.
▶ 7:00:00This amendment deals specifically with the milestone B which is before the department of defense at this moment and u what we've seen from the department of defense in the Biden administration and it appears also going to be in the Trump administration is to just kind of blow past the detailed analysis that we need as policymakers about what to do here. Do we proceed with the uh Sentinel?
▶ 7:00:28Do we uh repurpose and re uh uh uh furbish the existing Minute Man 3? Those are fundamental questions. And by the way, they're about a $200 billion question over the next decade. About 150 170 of that for the rockets and the infrastructure, the silos and the rest for the bombs uh from the NNSA and entry vehicles as well as command and control. So we need to think this through.
▶ 7:00:57And what this amendment does is to clarify and expand the information that we need from the Department of Defense. Now, I'm not at all happy with the Biden administration. They just kind of shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh, it's okay. I expect that the current administration might do the same." But if we write into the NDAA, no, don't just blow through this. Do a detailed analysis. Uh, and I'll just give you some examples.
▶ 7:01:25Is the program of record an affordable solution to the DoD needs? I just talked in unfortunately for the wrong amendment about that question. Uh do we really need 400? Uh or is there other ways of doing it? Um the cost uh we need to really hone in on that. The Biden administration didn't do that as they moved forward with that.
▶ 7:01:54um how do we fund it? What's not going to be funded and and so forth. But this amendment forces the department to be more wholesome and more um you providing more useful information to ultimately the deciders which is us. Do we move forward with the Sentinel? Do we maintain the Minute Man 3 for the next uh decade?
▶ 7:02:18Actually for the next 15 years, which will be required under any even if we move forward with the Sentinel, the Minute Man 3 is going to be around for at least another 15 years and operable if you believe that this is an appropriate deterrent. So, we got to be smart. We're talking about a vast amount of money. I made the argument about all the other things that we could purchase.
▶ 7:02:43If you're interested in nuclear deterrence for the same amount of money, which I would argue, and if anybody wants to get in that debate, let's have at it, is far more of a deterrent than a bunch of missiles sitting in a silo in the Midwest. So, we ultimately must reconcile our infinite desires with our limited means. Even with the 150 billion, we still have limited means. That means making hard decisions about how and where to spend the taxpayer dollars.
▶ 7:03:13Billions of billions of dollars are at stake here. Well over easily 200 billion dollars over the next several years. Can we deploy that better elsewhere? I think all of us could raise an argument. Yes, we could. Could we still have the deterrent? Yes, we can. Be happy to have that debate with any and all of you. So I want us to use our intelligence.
▶ 7:03:39I want us to use our intelligence, our gathering of information in a way that security for our nation. And I would argue, as I did in the previous amendment, that the Minute Man 3 and the Sentinel do not increase our security, they actually increase our risk. And I can go into that in detail. Basically, it's use it to lose it.
▶ 7:04:09We came very very close in the past to a nuclear war based upon incorrect information in the system, given to the system that would have required that those missiles be launched immediately. And once launched, they're going to go wherever they're intended to go. And there's no calling them back. All of the other deterrent systems can be called back if there's an error. This one cannot. It's extraordinarily dangerous. Mr.
▶ 7:04:37Chairman, my apologies for getting so excited about the wrong amendment, but I'm excited about this one, too.
▶ 7:04:42I know you are, and it's genuine. Chair, I recognize gentleman from uh Tennessee, Dr. Jarle.
▶ 7:04:51Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to be clear, uh I will be speaking about amendment 5513. But not to worry, I will also be speaking about 5510 and I'm excited about that as well. Um, I have great respect for and I appreciate my colleague from California's dedication to having this debate every year, but I will again oppose this amendment.
▶ 7:05:12I don't think we need to have a prolonged debate on this topic because this is an issue where we simply have a fundamental difference in opinion about the Sentinel program and the ICBM leg of the triad. I don't. This amendment would cut off funding all FY26 funding including the reconciliation funds for the Sentinel program until it reaches milestone B. But funding is necessary for the program to reach milestone B. So this amendment is really just about stopping Sentinel.
▶ 7:05:43As my colleague from California knows, I do not support that. The Trump administration does not support that and the Biden administration did not support it either. We also continue to receive consistent testimony from our senior military leaders that this program is absolutely essential. So I will again oppose this effort to stop the Sentinel program. I would note that a similar amendment was rejected last year by a vote of 9 to 49. I urge my colleagues again to vote no and I yield back.
▶ 7:06:09Gentleman yields back. Chair I recognize gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
▶ 7:06:13Mr. Chairman, I now ask unanimous consent to refer to the ranking member.
▶ 7:06:18Gentlemen, ranking members recognized. Uh thank you Mr. Chairman and actually all three of these amendments Mr. Gari has are connected in in one sense. I mean one definitely deals with the overrun at the Sentinel program and the challenges that are there. Um then talks about the the number of ICBMs that we have to have restrictions on that and then we have uh the last one is on the pit production challenge that we have and I think you know Miss Jacobs sort of outlined the problem here and it is connected to the larger defense budget.
▶ 7:06:48We are headed towards an unsustainable fiscal path and I realize we don't want to think about that. We just want to say well gosh in an ideal world the defense budget we we should be at 5% of GDP. So we just magically say get to 5% of GDP and we don't look at the details of is that realistic and what are we spending the money on. We are spending a massive amount of money.
▶ 7:07:12We're planning on spending a massive amount of money on nuclear modernization for the submarines, for the B-21, for the pits, for the ICBMs. Can we really afford to do all of that, especially at the cost that the Sentinel is bringing our way? And I don't think we can be confident that that's not just going to keep going up, as are other programs. And we have other needs in national security. Missile defense is a huge one. The president has his golden dome thought.
▶ 7:07:42Um but even outside of that, we clearly have needs in the area of missiles missile defense. We have needs to increase our basic munitions and missiles as well. Um autonomous systems we all agree are crucial. We do not make enough of them in the United States. No one can really disagree with that fundamental point. And ship building, we're way over budget on every single ship building contract we have. and everyone in this committee, not everyone, most everyone in this committee seems to think that we need a lot more ships.
▶ 7:08:10It doesn't add up in any realistic way. So I think overall what Mr. Garmin is asking for us to do here is to do a nuclear posture review to go back and take a look at in light of all of those expensive in light of all the over cost overruns on all these programs. Is there some way we can meet our national security needs without going completely and totally bankrupt?
▶ 7:08:35It is a question that should be asked and analyzed and I think these three amendments if passed would put us in a position to force that conversation and to be ecumenical about it. It has been a bipartisan case of wanting to just close our eyes and shut off our ears and pretend that this isn't happening. Administration after administration has punted on this issue. Um, but we need to stop punting and address the costs. And I think all three of Mr. Garmin's amendments do that.
▶ 7:09:04Uh, and I urge support and good news at the close here. That means that I don't have to speak on the other two. So, I'm done and I yield
▶ 7:09:13Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition? Oh, Mr. Gar, Mr. Bacon is recognized.
▶ 7:09:21Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first chairman when I got elected in 2017 said every time the gentleman from California talks about nukes I have the task of responding and I've not been relieved to that yet. So I'm going to respond to both just real briefly. First of all, I would agree the Air Force needs to do better on this. They're going to have to get their act together on on fielding this. It is costly though. You got to replace the launch control build a new launch control facility and a silo. We haven't done that since the peacekeeper uh missile. So they've lost a little bit of that expertise.
▶ 7:09:49The Minute Man 3 was put in in 1970. It's 55 years old. It cannot be extended. We've had multiple studies look at it. It is at the end of its life. And so we have to accept the fact that we're going to have to uh transition the Minute Man 3 to uh the Sentinel. I would also point out that this ICBMs once they're installed are the cheapest to maintain and they have the highest readiness rates. They typically sit at 95% readiness and that's what you need for deterrence.
▶ 7:10:18And no one's going to want to pick a fight with America if you got 400 ICBMs. And every study I've seen to take them out, you have to put two warheads on each side on each missile or each silo. That is hard to do and it makes it very hard for anybody to target our nuclear forces effectively. So I just I think it this the ICBMs are needed for deterrence for the long haul.
▶ 7:10:41Russia has a nuclear force matching ours right now and is more modernized as we speak and China is building a nuclear force to match ours. So I think it we need this as much as we've ever ever have. Thank you. I
▶ 7:10:55Uh gentleman yields back. Does anybody gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Molton's recognized?
▶ 7:11:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um I want to associate uh myself with Mr. Garam Mendy and Mr. Smith's concerns uh because this program is has been vastly over budget, has run into a lot of problems, and the Air Force is not doing a good enough job. But I also want to associate myself uh with uh my Nebraska colleague, Mr. Bacon's uh remarks about the foundational importance of the Sentinel. It is time that we replace it.
▶ 7:11:30It does save taxpayer dollars in the long run. It's why there has been bipartisan support for this program and more fundamentally it forms the foundation of our strategic defense and I want to make that point Mr. Gar Mendy uh right now because it will become relevant when my amendment comes up as well. It's a very important point that we keep in mind and don't suddenly forget when we're four amendments down the road.
▶ 7:12:02At the end of the day, this strategic deterrent is important to keeping us safe and has been important for 70 years. Uh I'm a big fan of uh Secretary Mattis. General Mattis didn't agree with everything he did, but he was my division commander and the Marines. And I know that he actually came into the Secretary of Defense office hoping to be able to get rid of the groundbased deterrent uh leg of our triad. He knows it's very expensive as Mr.
▶ 7:12:31Garmendy says he knows that it needed to be replaced and he said wouldn't it be convenient for our budget and our security if we could get do away with it but he commissioned that study and it came to the same conclusion as studies under Democratic and Republican uh presidents before and since which is that this groundbased leg is important and uh and and so that's why uh as a ranking member on on strategic forces uh I respectfully disagree with my colleague from California and uh and appreciate um
▶ 7:13:02Mr. Bacon's remarks about how important this is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
▶ 7:13:06Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on Mr. Garmeny's amendment? Seeing none, no further debate um on the question occurs. The U or the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Gari. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 7:13:21Those opposed, no.
▶ 7:13:23Opinion chair, the nos have it. A recorded votes requested. Recorded vote is postponed. Uh We will now consider log number 5510 R1 by Mr. Garmeny. For what purposes gentleman from California seek
▶ 7:13:42I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 7:13:44Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the amend. The gentleman from California for the purpose of explaining his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what to do here. you were kind enough together with uh Mr. Smith to uh point me back in the right direction uh for the amendment that actually was before us. Uh I'm going to very be very very quickly. I'm going to take a minute or so.
▶ 7:14:13Uh these three amendments uh really deal with u one of the most profound and important elements of our national defense. This is the nuclear system. Uh, I think those members of the committee that have spent time on this, uh, very, very thoughtful. There's a disagreement. Uh, Mr. Molton just spoke to some of that disagreement a moment ago about, um, how to deal with this.
▶ 7:14:41Uh, these weapons, if ever used, it's the game over. The game over. Uh we can talk about well there's just going to be tactical and on and on and but the reality is if ever used the game is over uh and and this amendment uh that I spoke to earlier is one piece of that.
▶ 7:15:06Uh and I want us to inform ourselves and to ask the questions why are we proceeding with this? Um my view is that um we can do better to provide for nuclear deterrence than the current um ICBM groundbased systems which ultimately are extraordinarily dangerous because they are at the ready always
▶ 7:15:36as was pointed out and therefore if there is an alert there's less than I don't know 12 10 12 15 minutes for the president to make a mistake to launch or We've had incidents in the past that were frightening if you were to spend time learning about those incidents. Um they can't be recalled. So I want us to be wise. I want us to think through this one. 400. Why 400?
▶ 7:16:06Well, because somebody wrote 400 and and it forever more it's 400. Without going to the details, I said I'd take a minute. Mr. Chairman, how about if I take two and a half minutes? I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize a gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Dejar Lee.
▶ 7:16:26Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose the amendment which would strike a provision in the bill that prohibits reducing the nation's intercontinental ballistic missile fleet below its current size of 400 missiles. I can't answer the 400 question. Maybe 399. Maybe it's 401. We live in a round number world, so it's 400. Every year since 2016, Congress has included provisions in the Defense Authorization Bill to effectively prohibit any further reduction in our ICBM force. And the logic is very simple.
▶ 7:16:55Nuclear threats are growing and now is not the time to cut to make cuts to our ICBM fleet. That was true in 2016 and it's even more true today as China's ICBM forces continue to rapidly expand and may soon outnumber ours. An identical amendment was debated last year and was rejected on a strong bipartisan basis 13 to 45. I would urge my colleagues to again oppose this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Gentlemen yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on Mr. Gary Mendy's amendment?
▶ 7:17:26Seeing none, there's no further debate on the question occurs on the amendment now offered by Mr. Gary Mendy. So many in favor will say I. I
▶ 7:17:33oppose. No.
▶ 7:17:35Pined chair. The nose have it. A recorded vote is not requested. So um we will now consider log number 40 uh 5466R2 by Mr. Garmeny. What purpose? Gentleman from California seek recognition. Does he have an amendment at the desk?
▶ 7:17:56I have an amendment at the desk and I'm going be listening really really closely to which one they call up.
▶ 7:18:01Okay. Without objection, the reading of the amendments dispensed with. Chair recognized gentleman for purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 7:18:14Yeah, I clearly have too many amendments for us. Uh,
▶ 7:18:17clerk will distribute the amendment. thank you, Mr. chairman and thank you for the few moments to gather myself and uh reposition for the new uh issue.
▶ 7:18:44Uh, all of these nuclear weapons are built around a plutonium pit. And as we saw, as I explained with the 400 ICBMs, we are putting ourselves into a mandatory process that we're creating uh without thinking through the The manufacturing
▶ 7:19:15of nuclear plutonium pits is an extremely dangerous and extraordinarily expensive process that requires a very uh secure facility. That facility is now being built at U Los Alamos and the production of pits at Los Alamos. The first what do they call it?
▶ 7:19:42uh pit that is actually war ready uh was produced this year and the process will go on. We're requiring that 80 pits a year be built by 2006. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen 2008. It's not going to happen in 2030 or even 35. It's not going to happen.
▶ 7:20:09Uh there is a limitation on the number of pits that can be built under the best of circumstances at Los Alamos and it's it's said to be 30, but the reality is it probably will never get to 30. So it'll be somewhat no lower in number.
▶ 7:20:25I look at my uh friend and colleague uh from South Carolina who we've gone round and round on this forever and I greatly respect his u jobs program that is being developed in South Carolina uh for the Savannah River facility which w which is being repurposed and we had this debate the previous decade about its purpose and then it was decided it couldn't work for that.
▶ 7:20:53So, it's now being repurposed, rebuilt at an extraordinary multi-billion dollar cost to manufacture pits. There is no way, despite the gentleman's advocacy and strong support for South Carolina and the pit production there, it's not going to be available to produce a pit in the next decade.
▶ 7:21:18Maybe in the second decade from now it could, but we're talking about a very significant construction program. Very, very expensive. And then all of the equipment, all that goes into manufacturing a pit will have to be added to that. All of which says this is a herculean task. It is a task that is going to be timeconuming and it will be extraordinarily expensive. We don't know the cost. Every year the cost goes up.
▶ 7:21:48Um I I would love to sit down with my friend and have a long conversation about gee is there something else we could spend money on in South Carolina that would actually benefit the people of South Carolina beyond an an immediate job to build a facility. I'm sure there is and I'd like to find it.
▶ 7:22:10So what we have here is that once again we have put ourselves in an untenable position by requiring the national def the national nuclear security agency to produce a certain number of pits within a specific period of time. They have failed to do that year after year. They're going to fail again next year. The law makes them a failure and they're operating contrary to law.
▶ 7:22:37They're not going to produce the pits as required by the law that we write. So I'm going, why don't we think this thing through? Why don't we think through? Well, maybe we can take one of the mult,000 pits that sit in reserve at one of our facilities. They're sitting on the bench or in the in the racks. They're available. Can they be repurposed for the purpose of a new nuclear weapon?
▶ 7:23:06leaving aside the question of whether we ought to have a new nuclear weapon or not. That's another debate. But why do we need to produce a pit? It comes down to this. In my last 30 seconds, the only explanation I have found from the NNSA is we must produce the pit so that we can produce a Why can't we use an existing pit?
▶ 7:23:29one of the thousands that were available from the nuclear weapons that we have um torn apart and put the nuclear pits on the shelf. Why can we do it cheaper? Can we do it better? Can we do it faster? The answer is we don't know because we're stuck on this cycle of thoughtlessness. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 7:23:54Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Thank you, chairman. And I hope my friend from California isn't offended that I'm now opposing his third amendment in a row. But I do oppose the amendment which would undermine uh the targets for plutonium pit production currently in law. The committee debated and rejected a similar amendment last year and I would urge my colleagues to reject this amendment as well.
▶ 7:24:19As my colleagues probably recall from that discussion, current law requires the Department of Energy to build the production capacity to meet certain levels of pit production by specific dates. These targets were based on DoD requirements. The Garmendy amendment would effectively say if you're not going to meet these deadlines, you can propose your own. I disagree with that approach. My colleague argues that PIP production deadlines cannot be met, but nullifying the deadlines as this amendment seeks to and would do, is not the answer.
▶ 7:24:48I would also point out that the mark directs the chair of the nuclear weapons council to provide the committee an updated assessment on the Department of Defense's PIT production requirements. Any changes to the law should be based on the department's needs and until the department informs us those needs have changed. I believe the deadline should remain in place. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 7:25:11Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize a gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.
▶ 7:25:16Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mike Rogers and I strongly oppose this amendment again uh with the highest respect for my friend Lieutenant Governor John Garamandi again and indeed there are legitimate uh concerns he's raised that can be answered and I look forward to his um finding these out. Our nation's strategic nuclear deterrence is perhaps the best example of peace through strength.
▶ 7:25:41With the murderous invasion of Ukraine by war criminal Putin and Russia's recent decision to transport nuclear weapons to the Putin occupied client illegitimate dictatorship of Bellarus, the United States must be ready to face any challenge if provoked. Plutonium pit production and modernization is the right direction as Mr. Garamandi has seeks for critical and pressing national security needs.
▶ 7:26:10Employees of the Savannah River site in South Carolina are working around the clock, 24 hours a day, seven days a week to bring the Savannah River plutonium processing plutonium processing facility to produce the majority of our nation's supply of plutonium pits online as soon as possible.
▶ 7:26:29As the only member of Congress who has actually worked at the Savannah River site, I know firsthand of the professionalism of the site employees and indeed we look forward to having a visit at some time by Congressman Garamandi who will be welcomed to South Carolina. We should be working all that we can do to promote and support this mission to drive peace through strength.
▶ 7:26:52Plutonium pits are a key component for nuclear weapons and our adversaries sadly Putin and the Chinese Communist Party have very modern plutonium pit production facilities due to factors including plutonium aging safety and security advancements, global risk and weapons modernization. These pits need to be reproduced and replaced from time to time.
▶ 7:27:15But for nearly three decades, the United States has not had the ability to produce them in the quantities required for the nuclear weapons stockpile. Given the uncertainties regarding plutonium aging and the evolving geopolitical landscape, the United States cannot postpone reestablishing this critical capability. Delaying the restoration of this capability would result in significant cost increases and risk to national security. We must promote peace through strength.
▶ 7:27:43With that, I urge opposition to this particular amendment. I yield
▶ 7:27:48Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition with regard to Mr. Garmeny's amendment? Seeing none, there's no further debate on the question. Uh, it now the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Gari. So, in favor, we'll say I
▶ 7:28:04those opposed, no.
▶ 7:28:05No. Chair, the nos have it. A voted vote is requested. Recorded vote will be postponed. Uh the chair now recognizes gentle lady from Pennsylvania for the purposes of a motion.
▶ 7:28:17Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee limit debate on remaining amendments to three minutes.
▶ 7:28:22Question is on the motion and limit debate. So many in favor will say I. I.
▶ 7:28:26Those opposed, no. Uh the u corum being present, the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to debate will be limited to three minutes. uh moving forward.
▶ 7:28:40the wire
▶ 7:28:49it applies only to people from
▶ 7:28:54All right. Is this the next one?
▶ 7:28:57Uh there. Okay. We will now consider log number 5280 R2 by Mr. Cisneros of California. For what purposes? Gentleman from California seek
▶ 7:29:08Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 7:29:10Clerk will please please distribute the amendment without objection. The reading of the amendments dispensed with the chair. I recognize gentleman from California for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 7:29:19Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I guess I'll talk fast since I lost two minutes. The uh US military's greatest asset is its people. And one of the ways we've been able to support our greatest asset is by providing them with educational Tuition assistance has been a big part of that. I used it when I was on active duty to earn my MBA like thousands every year do.
▶ 7:29:41Unfortunately, cuts to the Navy's budget have significantly reduce the amount provided for tuition assistance and will unfortunately reduce education and career opportunities for active duty service members. The uh the Navy is twice the has twice the number of personnel as the Marine Corps. But yet the Marine Corps budget for tuition assistance is nearly five times as much.
▶ 7:30:05So many sign up to defend our nation with the expectation of getting an education in return, an opportunity to better themselves. Now all the services have cut tuition assistance, but the Navy cuts but the cuts in the Navy have been more drastic than the others. Cuts to this program will have a negative effect on morale, retention, and recruitment. My amendment would write the clear error the Navy has made and authorize an additional $38 million for United States Navy that can be used for tuition assistance.
▶ 7:30:35We can plus up these funds by taking it out of the sea launch cruise missile nuclear warhead program. The 20 2022 posture review stated that the program is no longer needed and has zero value. The Navy has argued against this program and worries that this program has diverted funds from other programs.
▶ 7:30:52The reality is that the Slickum will cost billions over time for a weapon that the Navy doesn't want while a few million dollars towards educational benefits will have a tremendous impact on service members both while they serve and after towards our nation. And with that, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment of plusing up the Navy's tuition assistance program. And I yield back the balance of my time. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 7:31:20Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Deja.
▶ 7:31:24Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment which would cut funding for the development of a warhead for the nuclear launch Cruise missile or Slick amend. This program is essential to address emerging deterrence gaps and respond to the changing nuclear threat environment, particularly China's nuclear breakout. As my colleagues may recall, the Trump administration called for restoring a nuclear uh slick capacity in its 2018 nuclear posture review.
▶ 7:31:49The Biden administration proposed to cancel it, but Congress on a bipartisan basis rejected this decision based on consistent testimony from senior military officials that this capability was necessary. Earlier this year in testimony before Congress, the Stratcom commander emphasized that the need for slick amend has only grown more acute since 2018 and the program should be accelerated. This amendment would cut funds for the development of the warhead for this vital program.
▶ 7:32:17I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and I yield back.
▶ 7:32:23Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
▶ 7:32:26Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I oppose this amendment as it uses slick amends warhead money to as a pay for to increase tuition assistance programs. We've heard this year and in years past from countless witnesses in front of this committee from the commander of strategic command to the to the secretary of defense to the chair of the chair of joint state chiefs of how important the slickmen program is.
▶ 7:32:48Slick them in is a vital capacity uh to address growing deterrence gaps and an imbalance in in regional non-strategic nuclear forces between the US and our adversaries. Congress mandated this weapon system to be a program of record and many in this committee have voted for it at at that time. As Russia continues to develop novel strategic weapons and China is modernizing and expanding its nuclear forces at a breathtaking rate, the Slick amend fills critical deterrence gaps to ensure adversaries think twice.
▶ 7:33:18And if deterrence fails, Slick amen gives the president the ability to control the escalation ladder and not be forced into a situation where an all ornone uh response is is the only option. This program needs to be kept on track and not used for a pay for for other programs. I recommend a no no vote and yield back.
▶ 7:33:36Gentlemen yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member. Is it
▶ 7:33:41Oh, sorry.
▶ 7:33:42Oh, Mr. Garindi is recognized for five
▶ 7:33:47Uh, Mr. Chairman,
▶ 7:33:49sorry, three minutes. Oh, come on. I'm I'm just in the tune for five minutes and I'm consuming it right now. Um, I want us to think through what this slick is all about. For the most part, our debate now and in the previous years have centered on the weapon itself. Uh, the warhead, by the way, that is one of the NNSA's uh task.
▶ 7:34:16And that takes us back to the plutonium pit issue. Uh, and uh the the rocket to propel that warhead to wherever it's going. We've not really focused on what does it mean to the submarine fleet. Right now the submarine fleet is is nuclear.
▶ 7:34:35It has multiple kinds of uh uh that are deployed most recently deployed uh in the attack on Iran uh and will undoubtedly be deployed in the days ahead. But if we put a nuclear weapon on that submarine, that submarine's entire process changes. All of it.
▶ 7:34:59The personnel on the will not be dealing with rockets. They'll be dealing with nuclear weapons. And so that's a whole different training program, a whole different set of requirements that those submariners will have to have. The submarine itself has to be significantly modified in order to deal with nuclear weapons. It is no small task.
▶ 7:35:26It is an extraordinarily complex and difficult task to take an attack submarine nuclearpowered but without nuclear weapons and put a nuclear weapons on it. It's not just a plugandplay. It's far far more complex and it is one of the reasons that the Navy is saying we don't want to go there.
▶ 7:35:48We've got the uh the boomers, we got the existing and and we're going to have the Colombia uh So, I want us to think through exactly what we're doing with this. Where will it be deployed and why will it be deployed? The issue of China comes up. We're going to deploy it uh to uh as a deterrent to China.
▶ 7:36:09Well, that means that submarine can't be too far away from China because this Slickum uh as envisioned is not an intercontinental missile. I'm not going to give you the range. I suppose that's classified, so I won't go there. But I know it is not an intercontinental missile. And so where will it be deployed? What are the requirements to defend that submarine?
▶ 7:36:34These are issues which we have never discussed here in committee but they are profoundly important if we are going to move forward with the slickum. The issue here of not moving not taking money out of slickum and spending on education. Uh representative Cisneros is absolutely correct. It's a much better use. But I want us to look below that and to spend time thinking about exactly how this works. Mr. Chairman, my three minutes is up. I
▶ 7:37:00you are all right with me Mr. Gary Mendy chair and I now recognizes uh oh is any other member seeking recognition seeing none there's no further debate question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Cesneros those many those that are in favor will say I
▶ 7:37:18those opposed no
▶ 7:37:19no chair the nos have it a recorded votes requested recorded vote is we will now consider log number 5527R1 by Mr. Molton of Massachusetts. For what purpose, gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition.
▶ 7:37:36Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 7:37:37Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendments dispensed with. The chair now recognizes gentleman from Massachusetts for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 7:37:46Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment is a simple, straightforward reaffirmation of a policy that has kept our country safe for over 70 years. namely that nuclear weapons are the bedrock of our strategic stability and deterrent against a large-scale nuclear attack like hundreds or even thousands of missiles launched by Russia or China. Mutually assured destruction and assuredly frightening concept promotes stability. If nations know that they will get obliterated if they use nuclear weapons against us, they are never going to use them.
▶ 7:38:17But if Russia or China believes instead that the United States is not so vulnerable to a retaliatory strike, it makes them less likely to think twice about acting quickly, acting first, or using novel delivery methods that get around our defenses, including Golden Dome itself, before we do anything to them. That is why even though Golden D may sound good to someone who doesn't fully understand the history of missile defense and nuclear deterrence, it could actually make us less safe by upending the strategic stability.
▶ 7:38:48I want to be clear that this amendment addresses the narrow yet most important case in strategic stability of an all-out attack. I have and continue to support missile defense, particularly when it comes to regional security. I have also been pressing the department to more aggressively address the threat that drones pose to our military bases, critical infrastructure and population. We have and maintain bipartisan consensus about improve improving missile detection, especially when it comes to hypersonics. And these are all part of Golden Dome as well.
▶ 7:39:18But great power strategic stability is different. Consider this a different way. In the past 70 years, we've come perilously close to nuclear war over a dozen times with radar or computer mistakes, faults, warnings, etc. A movie was written about one instance in 1983 when a lowly Russian major flagrantly disobeyed orders to launch a full-scale counterattack on us because he had a hunch, a hunch that his warning system was mistaken.
▶ 7:39:45It was the knowledge that a retaliatory strike would be guaranteed that stopped him from doing it. Deterrence delivers as close as we possibly can to 100% protection. The very best we can ask of any kind of missile defense is about 95%. And in the case of a nuclear exchange, that 5% is an American city or two melted into glass. Or consider this. We now know that Russia's developing a space-based nuclear weapon that could just simply take out Golden Dome with the push of one button.
▶ 7:40:16Now, I expect the counterarguments we're about to hear is that Molen is being partisan. that this amendment represents the bipartisan consensus for 70 years, Democratic and Republican administrations, this committee, and even the first Trump administration. If they were all wrong, if every one of us on this committee was wrong until Trump uttered the words Golden Dome on the political campaign trail, then make the case this amendment doesn't come from a political rally. The idea it corrects does.
▶ 7:40:45I would love to keep going for the remainder of my statement, if I may. Uh time is expired.
▶ 7:40:53Uh chair, I'll recognize gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Deja.
▶ 7:40:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh I certainly respect my ranking men uh member, and I I know where his heart lies, but I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The underlying mark contains a provision that would update our missile defense policy to reflect President Trump's January executive order on missile defense, what has now become Golden Dome. This amendment would insert language from the current statute, effectively retaining the existing policy instead of replacing it.
▶ 7:41:25The underlying issue here is whether US missile defense should remain focused on the threat from rogue states and unauthorized or accidental launches and explicitly refrain from countering missile threats from China or Russia. I agree with President Trump that this approach is outdated and support his policy for a defend for a defending against all threats regardless of their source. After all, Russia and China have not matched US restraint and do not observe any similar policy limitations when it comes to defending their territory.
▶ 7:41:56Russia's missile defenses are specifically designed to defend against an attack by the United States. China has rapidly developed missile defenses as well with us in mind. This outdated policy has not made us safer. It has not created strategic stability. Instead, it has left our homeland vulnerable while our adversaries increase their capability to hold us at risk. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 7:42:21Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Gary Mindy.
▶ 7:42:24Uh Mr. Chairman, um my colleague, Mr. Motton, was in the midst of making a profoundly important argument that he was unable to finish because of the time limitation. I yield my 2 minutes 49 seconds. Thank goodness I was waiting with baited breath.
▶ 7:42:43Mr. Mr. Molton is recognized.
▶ 7:42:45Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I just want to uh respond to the distinguished chairman's uh of subcommittee's uh remarks about about this. To be clear, uh Russia and China do not follow this policy. They do not have a system, a space-based interceptors to protect their entire country. They don't plan to do that. They don't have it. They do have specific missile defenses, for example, around Moscow that we've known about for a long time.
▶ 7:43:08It's also true that they have recently uh announced plans to dramatically increase increase their offensive capabilities specifically in response to this. That doesn't help with strategic stability. It actually makes strategic stability worse and it puts our country more at to just cite two former Trump administration officials speaking recently like in the past few months.
▶ 7:43:33Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery in a hearing to the China Select Committee said, "So this Golden Dome is not about stopping a nuclear exchange. What will stop a nuclear exchange is mutual assured destruction." Just a few months ago, Dr. Lisa Porter, a former deputy under secretary of defense, said, "We want to tell them, our adversaries, you're going to have holy terror raining down on you if you try anything on us." Not just that we're going to sit here and, you know, do our best to defend.
▶ 7:44:01Trump's own missile defense review from his first administration said, quote, "The United States relies on nuclear deterrence to address the large and more sophisticated Russian and Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities." And Admiral Charles Richard, I know he has a lot of fans on this committee, former commander of US Strategic Command, said, quote, "Every operational plan in the Department of Defense rests on the assumptions that strategic and in particular nuclear deterrence will hold." The language in this amendment is exactly the language that we came
▶ 7:44:31to a bipartisan agreement on last year and was enacted into law. I hope this year we can have the same outcome and maintain a policy that has kept our country safe for the past 70 It frankly takes 2024 politics out of strategic defense and it's the right thing to do for our troops and our country. Mr. Garami, I yield you 27 seconds back.
▶ 7:45:0127 23 valuable seconds. I'm having trouble containing myself, Mr. Chairman, but I'm seeing you giving me that eye that says time to go. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Any other members seek recognition on Mr. Molton's amendment? Seeing none, there's no further debate. Question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Molton. So many as are in favor will say I.
▶ 7:45:26Those opposed, no.
▶ 7:45:27No. opinion chair the nose have it nose have it and the amendment is not agreed
▶ 7:45:33a recorded vote is requested recorded vote is postponed uh we will now consider log number 5518 by Mr. Molton for what purposes gentleman from Massachusetts seek
▶ 7:45:45I have an amendment Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 7:45:47Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Uh, without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 7:45:57Uh, m Mr. Chairman, as I scroll through my notes here, just give me one second. This amendment would prohibit the department from spending money on the spacebased missile defense interceptor architecture touted in the president's golden dome announcement until the department tells us what that system is going to look like, how much it will cost, and can assure us that it will not negatively impact strategic stability.
▶ 7:46:20This year, in every strategic forces subcommittee hearing, I have raised spacebased interceptors and not a single witness could answer fundamental questions that we need to know before spending unknown hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on a program that might not work and that might make us less safe. The Congressional Budget Office, in response to Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee's bipartisan request, just released its updated cost estimate for deploying space-based interceptors.
▶ 7:46:46The 20-year costs range from 160 to $542 billion, and we all know which end of that range will be right. That hardly seems fiscally sound. Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, recently said that, quote, "While the costs have come down and the technology has matured, the physics of space-based interceptors has not changed." Most importantly, multiple witnesses testified to the subcommittee that there have been no significant policy deliberations on the impact
▶ 7:47:16of Golden Dome on strategic stability. There's a lot of classified reporting on the Russian and Chinese responses to this. And let's just say that none of it makes us sleep better at night. It's an invitation to an arms race. Further, we know that Russia's developing a nuclear weapon to be placed in low Earth orbit, the same orbit that these space in base interceptors would be. So if Russia decides that they want to destroy US missile defenses, they can do so with the push of one button.
▶ 7:47:43It's very hard to imagine that they're going to launch an allout nuclear attack on us and not push that one button. It's also somewhat ironic that Dr. Mike Griffin, former Trump administration under secretary of defense for research and engineering, who was the last official responsible for overseeing a space-based missile defense concept, recently said, quote, "In most cases, you do not have a shot from space at an ICBM in the boost phase. You can't get to it with reasonable probability. And by reasonable probability, I would say greater than a percent or so.
▶ 7:48:14For all the chaos of Doge, from cutting jobs at state and DoD and even the nuclear security administration from programs that we know work, saving somewhere around hundred billion dollars, it's incredible that we would throw $500 billion of taxpayer monies to the wind or I guess more accurately into space when we don't know it will work.
▶ 7:48:34So we should simply exercise our oversight responsibility and make sure that we understand the feasibility, the cost and the actual effect of a system this big before letting the department get to it. That's just our responsibility in Congress and I think we should exercise it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 7:48:53Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Deéja.
▶ 7:48:57Thank you, Chairman. I oppose the amendment. While this is an amendment to the defense authorization bill, the goal of this amendment is to restrict reconciliation funds that Congress provided earlier this year for the president's Golden Dome initiative. As it's written, the amendment would effectively prevent any consideration of space-based missile defense capabilities. I would draw my colleagues attention to the fact that it prohibits any design work from being done on a space-based interceptor until full life cycle cost estimates for the system have been completed.
▶ 7:49:27There is simply no way for the department to comply with this requirement. It's impossible to estimate life cycle cost of a system before any design work takes place. The result of this amendment would take would be to take space-based missile defense capabilities off the table. I don't support that. I support the president's vision of a next generation missile defense system and I think we should be open to space-based capabilities being part of that. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back.
▶ 7:49:55Gentleman yields back. chair and I recognize a gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crank. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, M. Mr. Gar Mindy.
▶ 7:50:03He said he'd go ahead. So, go ahead, Mr. Mr. Crank.
▶ 7:50:06Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I wanted to point out I do oppose the amendment. In 2023, the bipartisan Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States stated, quote, "The United States should develop and field homeland integrated air and missile defense capabilities that can deter and defeat coercive attacks by Russia and It went on to call for quote significant additional new investments in advanced potentially gamechanging missile defense
▶ 7:50:36defeat capabilities including space-based and directed energy capabilities. Again, this is the view of the bipartisan commission Congress created to review our strategic posture. Golden Dome isn't some halfbaked idea or vanity project. It's the result of years of careful planning and a serious review of our own defensive weaknesses.
▶ 7:51:03I also want to make one point about the concept of strategic stability and this idea that Golden Dome will cause an arms race. I think that's built on a foundational assumption that the world is currently stable and the Golden Dome will upset this calm and peaceful geopolitical landscape. The problem is that that's not the world that we're living in right now. China's already building new nuclear weapons as fast as it can.
▶ 7:51:31The missile threat to the homeland is increasing. It's becoming more complex with long range hypersonic weapons and advanced cruise missiles. Golden Dome didn't cause any of that. Our adversaries have already done everything they can to hold our territory at risk. And I would say my friend from Massachusetts talked about the Russian colonel who nearly launched uh a nuclear attack on the United States.
▶ 7:52:01That might have been a good time to have a space-based system that could have defended the United States of America. Golden Dome doesn't jeopardize strategic stability. Golden Dome is a way to respond to these threats and to restore strategic stability. And again, this amendment would take space-based missile defense capabilities completely off the table. I oppose that. We should o we should be open to all options. And last thing I'd say, one of these following things must be true.
▶ 7:52:31Either our current air and missile defense architecture can't protect the homeland or it can protect the homeland. in which case we have to kind of assume that our adversaries are pursuing new technologies to defeat that current architecture. I urge my colleagues to vote no and I yield back.
▶ 7:52:51Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from California, Mr. Gary Mindy.
▶ 7:52:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for your indulgence on this set of issues. Um Mr. Molton has really proposed something that is profoundly important about the future and it is informed his argument is actually informed by the uh not just the nuclear issues but every one of our military offensive systems whatever it happens to be taking the uh
▶ 7:53:26Abrams tank which u wow that is really a piece of work until a $500 drone can take it out you go oh how did that happen offense defense offense, defense, back and forth.
▶ 7:53:48And we're going to deal with that in every one of our systems, whether it's an Abrams tank or a nuclear missile. I would ask the committee to consider the history here in the nuclear enterprise.
▶ 7:54:08Star Wars, Reagan, Star Wars set off the debate about a nuclear uh confrontation in space and we've been dealing with that ever since along the way.
▶ 7:54:21uh and it has been added by the Bush administration repealing the anti-missile defense system uh treaty that immediately led to Russia and somewhat later China saying oh well we have to be able to defend we have to be able to overcome and more recently uh the Obama strategic uh arms system
▶ 7:54:52which is about to expire. Every one of these arms control issues uh is a result of an offense and defense. It turns off out that if you're playing defense, you're likely to lose, which brings us back to the offense. We really need to think through this very, very carefully.
▶ 7:55:12And Golden Dome plays directly into this by creating a massive, extraordinarily expensive, and ultimately insufficient, inadequate defensive system against missiles because guaranteed somebody out there is going to figure out a way to get around it.
▶ 7:55:34For example, take a container that's coming in from some port somewhere around the world and bring that container into New York Harbor or into LA Harbor with a nuclear weapon on the cheap. So, let's be aware here. Offense, defense. We will lose this one. Mr. Molton's amendment is extremely important in that it focuses on that relationship and on arms control. Thank you.
▶ 7:56:03Gentleman's time's expired. Is any other members? Gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. Uh what Israel has done with Golden Dome in many ways is remarkable and it wants to be replicated in a larger event for here in the US. But remember, Golden Dome did not keep all of them out.
▶ 7:56:28If a nuclear missile gets through our Golden Dome, you pray God it's not your city that that one slip through. I yield my remaining time to Mr. Molton.
▶ 7:56:39It's an incredibly important point for my colleague from New Jersey. And I also want to respond to the thoughtful questions from uh my colleague from Colorado. First of all, that Russian officer to cite your example, Mr. Frank, look, if he thought that he could fire a few missiles at us and they would just get shot down, then he probably would have split the difference. And said, "No, I'm not going to completely disobey orders. I'll respond." After all, that is the Russian doctrine, escalate to deescalate.
▶ 7:57:06But it's because he knew that the bedrock of our strategic defense is mutually assured destruction, that he didn't do it. It was in fact pulling out of missile defense in the early 2000s under President Bush that led to the dramatic increase in arms including the development of hypersonics by Russia and China. That's been documented in several of our of our hearings.
▶ 7:57:29And if you look at the chart of nuclear weapons over time, it was fact we had a lot more nuclear weapons in the world back in the 1960s and 70s for example. It was only as a result of that treaty established in the early '7s that we were able to have arms control agreements to get the nuclear weapons numbers down on both sides. Chairman Kaine just recently explained the risks of nuclear proliferation.
▶ 7:57:54The simple likelihood that nuclear mistakes happen goes up happens goes up the more nuclear weapons you have in the world. So the goal for all of us should be to reduce nuclear and this makes it worse. Now the way that Russia has made clear they plan to respond to Golden Dome is by in by doing just this by using novel delivery methods.
▶ 7:58:21They've already publicly declared their sea-based nuclearpowered torpedo that will just drive into Los Angeles or New York Harbor and blow up. What are space-based interceptors supposed to do about that? Maybe that's the one that leaks through. I guess Denver's safe because there's no coastline there, but it doesn't do much for all the cities on the coast.
▶ 7:58:46And by the way, the bipartisan commission you cited, which emphasized the importance of arms control and the importance of getting there, didn't know about the Russian space-based nuclear weapon that can eliminate that $500 billion of taxpayer money with the push of one button. They didn't know about that. I wonder how their opinions might change today. Gentlemen, time's expired.
▶ 7:59:16Does any other members seek recognition to uh speak on Mr. Molton's amendment? There being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Molton. So many in favor will say
▶ 7:59:28Those opposed, no.
▶ 7:59:30Opinion chair, the nos have it. Recorded votes requested, recorded votes We will now consider log number 5409R2 by Mr. Turner of Ohio. What purposes? Gentleman seek recognition. I
▶ 7:59:42have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 7:59:43Uh will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection reading the amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes a gentleman from Ohio for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 7:59:51Thank you, Mr. Chair. The chair and I have had an opportunity to speak concerning my amendment. I want to commend the chair on his work on acquisition reform of which I support. The chair is aware that this amendment comes out of my concern of the provisions of section 16001 and the potential impacts on the on specifically the career path requirements. Uh this amendment would have required an assessment of the space force talent management impacts specifically on acquisition career path requirements.
▶ 8:00:18Uh I'm concerned about the personnel effects of the prescriptive portions of that section. also concerned about the effects on current careers of those in the Space Force. Uh we've not had a hearing on this matter and discussing it with the uh chair.
▶ 8:00:37We're uh I appreciate his interest in ensuring that we continue to monitor the potential effects of these provisions, recognizing that this is not in the uh Senate version that this will go through conference. whatever provisions do come out, we'll have to work in monitoring the effects and working with DoD and the Space Force and ensuring that we are concerned of course with uh with the effects going forward.
▶ 8:01:01But with the conversation, I appreciate the the the chairman's efforts to work toward acquisition reform and balancing those and my respect for the chairman. I withdraw my amendment. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 8:01:13I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the gentleman from Ohio and appreciate his withdrawal. The amendment is withdrawn. Uh we now uh turn to uh consider log number 4849 by Mr. Mouland of Guam. For what purposes gentleman from Guam seek
▶ 8:01:30Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
▶ 8:01:33Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of minutes dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman from Guam for the purpose of
▶ 8:01:40and I need to chair needs to reserve a point of order. Uh the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Guam for the purpose of explaining his amendment. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of an amendment that is deeply personal to my constituents. The inclusion of Guam under the radiation exposure compensation act or RA. For decades, the people of Guam have endured the consequences of US nuclear testing in the Pacific without acknowledgement, assistance, or justice.
▶ 8:02:09Between 1946 and 1962, the United States detonated 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, just 1,200 miles from Guam. The radioactive fallout from those tests did not stop at the international borders. It traveled across the Pacific, carried by wind, deposited into the soil and water, and absorbed into the bodies and lives of our people.
▶ 8:02:35This fallout inflicted damage that was not only physical but emotional and generational. Families have suffered through waves of cancer diagnosis without clear answers, without compensation, and with little more than silence from the federal government. I speak today not just as a member of Congress, but as a son of Guam. I speak for the survivors, the caregivers, and the widows who have waited too long.
▶ 8:03:05And I speak for those who are no longer with us. Those who died before their stories could be heard or their suffering acknowledged. Guam remains the only US jurisdiction with confirmed exposure to nuclear fallout that has been left out of RA. Federal agencies, including National Cancer Institute, have documented the island's exposure.
▶ 8:03:27Yet our people remain excluded from the very program intended to provide restitution to downwind communities harmed by our nation's nuclear energy. We are now asking for special We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking to be treated equally to be seen as Americans who carry the burden of national security and who deserve the same recognition and compensation extended to others. This is not just a matter of eligibility.
▶ 8:03:57It is a matter of moral obligation. It is about whether we as a nation are willing to confront uncomfortable truths and deliver long overdue justice for those who were placed in harm's way without their knowledge or consent. The window to act is closing. Time is running out for many of our survivors. If Congress does not act now, we risk leaving behind yet another generation of families still waiting, still suffering, still unheard.
▶ 8:04:23I respectfully urge my committee to support the amendment to include Guam and RA. Let this be the year we say Guam is no longer invisible. Let this be the moment we deliver the recognition and relief that our people have earned.
▶ 8:04:40Mr. Chair, I acknowledge this amendment is not in order and respectively withdraw it from consideration.
▶ 8:04:46Gentleman withdraws his amendment and I withdraw my point of order. We will now consider log number 5176R1 by Mr. Sorenson of Illinois. For what purposes, gentleman from Illinois seek
▶ 8:05:03Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 8:05:04Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman from Illinois for for the purposes of explaining his
▶ 8:05:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would solidify the existing exemptions to OPM's hiring freeze on the Department of Defense. But like so much in this bill, um let's talk about why this is so important. In February, the administration put a hiring freeze into effect for the Department of Defense even as the world becomes more dangerous. Now, a month later, a memo came out that listed different jobs that can be exempted from the hiring freeze. Now, this is important because we must remain ready for everything.
▶ 8:05:44And my amendment would codify this list for 2026. The list includes educators, child care workers, technicians, firefighters, and medical staff on our bases. These jobs are essential. They're also my neighbors who work at the Rock Island Arsenal in the Quad Cities. At the Arsenal, we're 3D printing. We're casting metal at our foundry. We're developing new technology. You name it, we're probably already doing it.
▶ 8:06:10Now, these are just two pieces of a drone that are manufactured by workers at the Joint Manufacturing and Technology Center at Rock Island. But these parts are being made use using new state-of-the-art technology never used before, developing components that are necessary for American success on the battlefield of the future. This is non-controversial stuff.
▶ 8:06:35This amendment also allows the workers supplying medium to large caliber ammunition at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Burlington, Iowa. It helps workers keep their fighter jets ready for the next mission in Ogden in Utah. It helps workers at Tobiana Army Depot near Scranton, Pennsylvania, because they're going to put the inner workings and sensors into the drones that we manufacture at Rock Island.
▶ 8:06:58If we want readiness, we must make sure that our organic industrial bases have the ability to make their own hiring decisions. My amendment does nothing more than codify the administration's existing exemptions to the hiring freeze. It is essential to readiness and ultimately our military safety. I urge all of our my colleagues to support this common sense amendment and I yield back.
▶ 8:07:24Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. Although I am in agreement with Mr. Sorenson and the Secretary of Defense that these positions are vital to national security and should be exempt from the hiring freeze. There is absolutely no reason to put what is already policy into statute. This amendment unnecessarily restricts the president and sec from managing the personnel and DoD.
▶ 8:07:47I oppose all amendments to codify hiring exemptions as unnecessary limitations on the president and the secretary of defense's authority to dynamically manage their workforce. Chair and I recognize a gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss
▶ 8:08:00Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I I also very much support this uh number 5176 because anyone who is in the mil military or who has been in the military knows how essential that our civilian counterparts are to this successful execution of our mission. The Trump administration slashed the federal workforce, very chaotically, eliminating thousands of roles that are essential to the military operations as well as remote work options for military spouses.
▶ 8:08:27And that doesn't make our military or our country safer or stronger or more prosperous. And the most recent reductions in the in force in the State Department and the recision pro uh process are prime examples of that. Expelling thousands of experts and cutting millions of dollars of essential programs is disastrous for our national security. But the administration continues to do just this. Our military does not exist in a vacuum.
▶ 8:08:53It needs civilian support and the administration's actions across the federal government will undoubtedly impact our military readiness. It is for that reason that I support this amendment. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 8:09:05Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
▶ 8:09:09Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are in agreement. I oppose this amendment from the gentleman from Illinois. I recognize that these positions are vital and should be exempt from a hiring freeze. However, there is no reason to put what is already policy into statute. This amendment unnecessarily restricts the president and secretary of defense from managing personnel in their agency.
▶ 8:09:32If we were to sufficiently crew our ships in the future, this would prevent the Secretary of Defense from properly managing his force because Congress made a blanket rule restricting his authority. Any amendment that codifies hiring exemptions unnecessarily limits the president and secretary of defense authority to manage their workforce effectively. So I urge my colleagues to vote no. And with that, I yield back.
▶ 8:09:57Gentleman yields back. chair chair and I recognize the gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Cheryl.
▶ 8:10:03Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak today in strong support for my colleagues amendment that enshrines certain protections for our DoD civilians into law, which I think is completely necessary given the work of this committee to try to manage and mitigate the complete incompetence coming from the Secretary of Defense in this administration when it comes to DoD related matters. The Trump administration slash to the civil service is not just an attack on government workers.
▶ 8:10:30It's a direct threat to our national security and to the economic stability of communities like mine in New Jersey. At Pikatin Arsenal, we have engineers, science, and support staff who are building the future of our national defense, developing the weapon systems our service members rely on to stay safe and to succeed. Pikatini is a vital hub for US military innovation, especially in advanced munitions and armaments that keep our troops safe and mission ready.
▶ 8:10:59Cutting civil ser service roles here directly weakens our military's ability to develop, test, and deliver cuttingedge weaponry. Many of our civil servants have had years of specialized training in metallurgy, physics, and chemistry. some of it at the postgrad level at the Pikatini Armament School that I'm working to get accredited and which has graduated 41 master's degree recipients and two PhDs.
▶ 8:11:26So in delivering these cuts, we will cut our um we will harm and weaken our military's ability to develop, test and deliver cutting edge weaponry not just today but for years to come. Slashing civil service positions, risk shifting critical expertise to private contractors, driving up cost, and reducing institutional knowledge within the government. Maintaining a robust civil service at Pikatini ensures that the US retains strategic control over weapons development and innovation.
▶ 8:11:57Cutting civil service jobs at Pikatini is not just an attack on New Jersey workers. It's an attack on our national security. And as someone who has served her country, I know we need to strengthen, not weaken, our defense capabilities. I'll fight to protect every job and every innovation effort at Piktini because America's security depends on it. Thank you and I yield
▶ 8:12:18Gentle lady yields back. Does any other members seek to speak on Mr. Sorenson's There's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment by Mr. Sorenson. So many as are in favor will say I. Those opposed. No.
▶ 8:12:34Opinion. The chair. The nos have it.
▶ 8:12:36Mr. Chairman, I ask for the yays and
▶ 8:12:38The recorded votes requested. Recorded vote is postponed. We will now consider log number 5606 by Mr. Vinman of Virginia. For what purposes? Gentleman from Virginia seek
▶ 8:12:54Mr. Chairman, um, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 8:12:57Clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes a gentleman from Virginia for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 8:13:07Thank you, Mr. Chair. During my 25-y year army career, I had the privilege of serving as a paratrooper infantry officer in JAG, and I had the honor of serving as deputy legal adviser and national security council staff. I got a chance to work with inspectors generals uh across many different departments and agencies. And our inspectors general are skilled professionals. This amendment aims to protect those who conduct vital investigations uh and uh for the DoD itself.
▶ 8:13:37I will uh it will help ensure loyalty to the administration is not the determination for retention and prevent further decimation of this essential oversight workforce. Importantly, Congress has recently asked that OG to investigate the use of unclassified networks we've spoken about a number of times today like Signal to discuss sensitive and classified information. This directly impacts the Secretary of Defense and he's shared information about military operations in a chat.
▶ 8:14:03We know from what we've heard today that accountability matters and the Inspector General investigation is at least a piece of accountability, an important piece of that in that overall it's important to maintain a fully staffed OIG office to maintain oversight of DoD's operational leadership. This amendment would ensure that IG's cannot be fired for political or personal reasons, allowing them to do their job without fear or favor. We saw IG firings in January. We know IG personnel are at risk.
▶ 8:14:34We also know that civilians are being targeted for cuts in the administration rewards loyalty and uh and subservience over facts. The Inspector General Act of 1978 established independent oversight offices across various departments and agencies including the Department of Defense. These OIGs conduct audits and investigate to detect and prevent fraud, waste and abuse, which is a stated goal of this administration.
▶ 8:15:00The purpose of the uh IG, the primary goal is to improve the efficiency and economy of government operations by providing independent oversight of federal agencies. Independence is a critical aspect of this. While IG's report to the heads of their respective agencies, they also have a degree of independence to conduct their work without undue influence and Reporting requirements include Congress. That is one of the key venues of how we receive our information.
▶ 8:15:30That's why it's so important to have independent IG's that function at each department agency. IG's have uh various powers including the ability to conduct audits, investigations, issue subpoenas, and access agency records. IG's play a critical role in preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse, promoting economy inefficiency, and ensuring agencies are held to a public uh accountable to the public.
▶ 8:15:56Really, the original sort of doge if you if you will. That's why it's critical that we support IG's and prevent them from being politicized. I urge you to support this mission at DOG and vote yes.
▶ 8:16:09Gentleman yields back. Uh chair not recognizes himself. Once again, this amendment unnecessarily restricts the president and the secretary of defense from managing DoD personnel. I oppose all amendments that place unnecessary limitations on the president and the secretary of defense's authority to dynamically manage their workforce. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Gari. Uh Mr.
▶ 8:16:34Chairman and ranking member and members of the committee, I do not believe we can do our job of oversight and even before oversight, our job of directing policy, creating policy. What direction should the Department of Defense go? What should it be doing? Should it do this? Should it do that? Should it do neither?
▶ 8:16:56Um, we do not, despite an absolutely terrific staff, some of whom are behind me, others behind other members here at the top row and then at the table. We depend upon the inspector general. They have been there day after day.
▶ 8:17:16They specialize in specific sets of issues and they do their report and then that report is could be classified more likely public and it gives us the information that we must have to set policy. Uh it's it's not a matter of the president doing the right thing or the wrong thing or heads doing the right thing or wrong thing by reducing the number of IGs out there. This is for us.
▶ 8:17:47This is for the American taxpayer. These IG specialists are absolutely critically important. I know from my 15 years here, I don't have a clue what's going on until I read an IG report. Maybe some general will retired or otherwise come by and wow, that's interesting. But I depend upon the IG reports and then that leads to additional questions.
▶ 8:18:16It is fundamental to our work of establishing policy and then the oversight of the existing policies. I cannot understand why any member of this committee Democrat or Republican would not want would accept a situation in which half of the IG staff disappears. We cannot do our job without that Mr.
▶ 8:18:43Finman is correct and all of us ought to be jumping up and down and saying yes, bring them back. Make sure these people are there. Make sure that that experience, that knowledge is available to us. Waste, fraud, and abuse doesn't mean a good goddamn thing unless we have the knowledge to go with it. It's just three words and a talking point.
▶ 8:19:10It's critically important that we have the information and often, not always, but often it comes from the IG. Mr. Vinman, don't ever give up on this. It's critically important. Any chance you get drive this issue and those of us that care about waste, fraud, and abuse, we'll be with Gentleman yields back here. I recognizes the ranking member. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 8:19:37There's a series of amendments here all surrounding personnel, which can sort of make it sound a little, I don't know, bureaucratic and boring that were like quibbling over exactly how to handle personnel. And I just want to make sure everyone knows how completely unprecedented what the Trump administration has done to personnel is and the fundamental threat that it poses to civil service and the very concept that we are a nation of laws not of individuals.
▶ 8:20:07We have seen across the board, not just at DoD, obviously in a more dramatic fashion in other places in our uh civil service, a direct attack on civil servants. And basically, the goal in the effort is to terrorize them. Certainly, there's been thousands of firings across the board with very little reason given, but you have to get at some of the specifics.
▶ 8:20:29Some people have been fired weeks later been given a notice that they are allowed back in weeks after that fired again. They have been given a level of uncertainty that has made it very difficult for them to do their jobs. I read about one case where someone was was fired, brought back, but then told that their health insurance was no longer active even though they were still paying for their health insurance. Tens of thousands of workers have been treated this way.
▶ 8:21:00So we have also seen at DoD the firing of the inspector generals, the firing of the JAGs, the firing of four stars. It's hard to say exactly which one is the most egregious case, but the firing of the dual hated NSA cyber command chief. Uh Mr. talk is perhaps the worst where Laura Loomer showed up in the White House said, you know, this guy might not be trusted despite the fact that he has enjoyed years of bipartisan enthusiastic support.
▶ 8:21:29He was fired and as far as I know has not yet been replaced. What the Trump administration is trying to do is strip any check on Trump's power in a way that will weaken us as a country. Now, this focuses specifically on inspector generals, but as I mentioned, a whole lot of other people in the federal government have been terrorized in this way.
▶ 8:21:53And as I alluded to earlier when we were talking about the problem with the Secretary of Defense using a signal chat for secure communications, yes, there is an acting inspector general. But when the Trump administration makes it clear that loyalty is the one and only test that is going to apply for you to keep your job, are we going to be able to continue to rely on these independent reports in the way we have in the past? Clearly not.
▶ 8:22:21So I think this committee should exercise its oversight authority to say civil service still matters, laws still matter, we still need oversight. Now the IG amendment here, I think is the one that best drives home this point, but all these amendments are crucial on that front. I support them all and I urge the committee to do so as well.
▶ 8:22:43Does any other members seek recognition on the Benman amendment? Uh there's no further debate on the then the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Vinman. So many is in favor will say I.
▶ 8:22:54Those opposed no.
▶ 8:22:56Opinion the chair the nose have it. A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote will be postponed. All right. For everybody's situational awareness. We're going to take three more amendments. We're going to take the Tuda amendment, the Strickland amendment, and the Molten amendment. At the end of the Molten amendment, we're going to take a series of recorded votes. So, uh, staff and members, you not you might start migrating back into the chamber. At the end of the molten amendment, when we do the recorded votes, we will then break for supper.
▶ 8:23:27Um, so that's what our plan is. Now, let's turn to log number 5162R1 by Miss Duda. Um, for what purposes a gentle lady from Hawaii seek recognition?
▶ 8:23:44Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 8:23:46Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection the reading of the amendments dispensed with the chair and I recognize this gentle lady uh from Hawaii for the purpose of explaining her amendment.
▶ 8:23:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would suspend for calendar year 2026 the unfair, punitive, and counterproductive search charge that the commissary applies to select veterans with shopping privileges. These include veterans with service connected disabilities, veterans with Purple Hearts, and former prisoners of war, veterans who are Medal of Honor winners, and caregivers of veterans. They have already paid a high price in blood, in battle, in broken bodies, and sleepless nights.
▶ 8:24:23Well over 5 million veterans are eligible to shop at the commissary and would benefit from removing the search charge. Now, while this search charge might seem small to some, about 1.4%, 4%. It's not the right way to treat the people who served this nation in uniform and in some cases at great personal sacrifice. Sadly, we also know that one in three disabled veterans are food insecure and going hungry as we speak.
▶ 8:24:49Furthermore, it's actually counterproductive to the goal of attracting new customers and increasing sales for the commissary. Increase sales that are critical to the sustainability of the operation and to address the commissary's large facilities backlog. While my amendment can't be adopted this year due to a budgetary point of order, I hope that I can work with this committee and members on both sides of the aisle going forward to permanently eliminate this sir charge. These brave men and women didn't hesitate to sacrifice for us.
▶ 8:25:17We also must not hesitate to stop this shameful nickel and dimming of our veterans who have paid a very high price for our freedoms. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I withdraw my
▶ 8:25:27Gentle lady withdraws her amendment. Um, we will now consider log number 5110R1 by Miss Strickland. For what purposes, gentle lady from Washington seek
▶ 8:25:39I have an amendment at the desk. Mr.
▶ 8:25:41will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair and I recognize a gentle lady from Washington for the purpose of explaining her amendment.
▶ 8:25:51Mr. Chairman, I am offering a simple amendment to prohibit nepotism at the Department of Defense. And I want to say at the outset that it's unfortunate that I even have to offer this amendment. Federal law prohibits nepotism. A 1967 federal nepotism law prohibits government officials from hiring, promoting, or recommending relatives to any civilian position over which they exercise any control.
▶ 8:26:15But unfortunately, the Secretary of Defense either thinks he is above the law or he simply needs another reminder that we should not hire our immediate family members, including siblings or spouses, to work for you or report to you in any way. Pete Hugset's brother has an office at the Pentagon, and the Department of Defense, as we know, handles some of the most sensitive issues of national security.
▶ 8:26:39It is deeply concerning that the Secretary of Defense's judgment is so poor that he included his wife and his brother in an unsecured signal chat where sensitive operational details were being shared. And while the Pentagon has stated that the secretary's wife never quote attended a meeting where sensitive information was discussed, that's actually contradicted by widespread press reporting. And here's why this matters.
▶ 8:27:03Nepotism prioritizes personal relationships over qualifications, skills, and capabilities. And by the Republican definition of DEI, another HEG DEI hire. When Secretary Hegs was sworn in, he sent a message to the force which said DoD standards will be quote high, uncompromising, and clear.
▶ 8:27:27The secretary's use of unqualified people as his closest confidants demonstrates every single day that he's not holding himself to the standard that he demands of others. What message does this send to the troops? Making it crystal clear to this Department of Defense and to every administration after this that such behavior is unacceptable is the right thing to do. It does not matter who's in the White House. It does not matter who's Secretary of Defense. This should be a nonpartisan issue.
▶ 8:27:57I urge everyone to vote yes on this amendment and I yield back. Mr. Chair,
▶ 8:28:01gentle lady yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. Uh I agree that nepotism is not good. Uh it's not good government, which is why I support the nepotism laws already in place. Federal law at 5 USC subsection 3110 already prohibits a federal official, including a member of Congress, from appointing, promoting, or recommending for appointment or promotion any relative of the official or any agency or department over which the official exercises authority or control.
▶ 8:28:31This restatement of the law is simply a vehicle to attack the president. What it does do, however, is prevent the sons and daughters of military officers or other appointed officials from serving their country. For example, the enlisted child of the 101st Airborne Commanding General would be restricted from serving in that unit. That's not acceptable. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment. Any other member seek to Mr. Whitesides of California is recognized.
▶ 8:28:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and thank you, Miss Strickland, for offering. I wish this amendment wasn't necessary, but it is. Let's be clear, the Department of Defense runs on discipline, not on dynasties. The secretary has made a lot of noise about wanting to run his department based on merit, not on immutable characteristics, but he's not applied that same standard to himself and his family. He's employed employed his own brother, a podcaster without substantive government or policy experience in an important role at the department.
▶ 8:29:22If the top civilian official disregards basic norms against nepotism, it sends a corrosive message down the ranks that connections matter more than conduct. This isn't about one family. It's about the future of civilian leadership. If we don't draw a line now, we're opening the door to politicized, unaccountable, familyrun decision-making structures at the top of our nation's most powerful and important institutions. Make mo no mistake, good governance is buil built on norms that prevent conflict of interest.
▶ 8:29:52Nepotism erodess public trust, weakens morale morale within the department, and creates vulnerabilities in decision-making that foreign adversaries can exploit. And let's be honest, it doesn't stop at the foreign risk. We have protocols for a reason. Nepotism introduces chaos into command. When family members are involved in informal decision-making, especially without relevant expertise or experience, it creates confusion, duplication, and risk. This amendment shouldn't be partisan nor controversial.
▶ 8:30:21In fact, it protects the secretary as well. It protects him and future secretaries from being pressured or tempted to involve family inappropriately. It strengthens the office by clearly underlying its ethical boundaries and will increase the American people's trust in this institution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back.
▶ 8:30:41Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on the Strickland amendment? Uh there's no further debate. Question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Strickland. So many are in favor will say I.
▶ 8:30:54Those opposed? No.
▶ 8:30:56Opinion chair the nos have it. Recorded votes requested. recorded vote is I now um
▶ 8:31:05Yeah, we're about to consider the Molten amendment. So, I urge all members who are in their offices to start making their way back to the chamber because at the conclusion of the Molton amendment, we will have a series of recorded votes, but also I want Mr. Molton to have a wholesome audience for the compelling argument that he's about to make for his very important amendment. We now consider log number 5407R 4 by Mr. Molton.
▶ 8:31:35For what purposes the gentleman from Massachusetts seek
▶ 8:31:38Mr. Chairman, to quote you, I have a compelling and important amendment at the desk.
▶ 8:31:43The clerk will please distribute the compelling amendment. And without objection, the reading of the compelling amendment is dispensed with. The chair now recognizes gentleman for purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 8:31:53Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And before I get started, I want to take a moment to thank my colleague, the gentleoman from New Jersey, Miss Gerald, for her leadership on this issue. Her work helped make this amendment stronger, and I'm grateful for it. As always, Donald Trump and Pete Hgsth have claimed that meritocracy is back at the Department of Defense. We've heard the argument for meritocracy several times throughout today. But last month, during his testimony to the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary Hegsth couldn't even tell me how many generals he had fired. It's eight, by the way.
▶ 8:32:23Let alone name them or or tell me what a single one of them had done wrong. Is it a meritocracy to fire General CQ Brown, possibly the most qualified Air Force officer I've ever met with deep indoaccom experience, multiple prior camp commands at the four-star level, leadership on modernization, and profound bipartisan respect, including from this committee just because he apparently talked about his his experience of being black in the military.
▶ 8:32:49is the meritocracy to fire General Hawk, the commander of US Cyber Command, who served this country professionally, honorably, and apolitically for more than 33 years because apparently Laura Loomer told Trump she didn't like him. Is it a meritocracy to attempt to fire the three judge advocate generals of the service advocates general of the services unsuccessfully by the way because you didn't even know that one of those positions was empty and without having ever had a conversation with any single one of those career service members.
▶ 8:33:20No, Secretary Hegath's purge is not about merit. It's about loyalty and ideology. And that is utterly inconsistent with our democracy. Our service members swear their oath to the Constitution of the United States. All of us who have taken it know that oath is sacred and only dictators or wouldbe kings demand personal loyalty from their generals, not the president of a democracy.
▶ 8:33:43Dismissing an officer should either be because of a failure to uphold that oath or because that officer has failed to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the office. These dismissals have been neither. They are nothing short of an attempt to politicize our military. A politicized military, a politicized general and flag officer corps is a danger to our democracy. And I don't say that lightly. A military built to be loyal to a party or a politician puts the guys with the guns on the side of of of his politics.
▶ 8:34:13And then Democratic politics becomes an uneven playing field because people are afraid to oppose the other side. That's untenable for our military. Republicans have spent years decrying the politicization of the military. It's shocking to see them so quiet now that it's actually occurring. My amendment does not limit the president's constitutional and democratic right to remove an officer. That's essential to civilian control of the military.
▶ 8:34:38It simply says the secretary needs to provide us with a statement of cause after the fact in indeed because he should be able to provide an actual reason for firing uh professional military leadership. I think it's reasonable and necessary for our democracy and I urge support. I yield
▶ 8:34:58Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Current law uh 10 USC 601 states the president designates positions of importance and responsibility to carry out the grade of general or admiral or lieutenant general or vice admiral. By law, the appointment of an officer to pay grade of above 08 for service in a position of importance and responsibility ends on the date of the termination of the assignment of the officer to that position. The president makes these decisions and we will not tie his hands with these reporting requirements.
▶ 8:35:28For these reasons, I oppose the amendment. Um, and before I go to the next person, again, I want to remind the staffs of the various members who are not in the chamber, have your boss get back to the chamber because at the conclusion of this, we are going to have a series of recorded votes and we need everybody here. Uh, with that, I will now recognize Miss Cheryl of New
▶ 8:35:50Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. On February 21st of this year, President Trump and Secretary Higgs made the unprecedented decision of removing two members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff CQ Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franketti were capable and experienced leaders with 75 years of combined military service and they were fired without cause or even an explanation. This amendment today would change that.
▶ 8:36:20It would require the president to submit a written justification to Congress to remove any senior general or flag officer. As far as I can tell, the only difference between General CQ Brown and Admiral Franketti and their colleagues is that CQ Brown is black and Lisa Franketti is a woman. We don't have an explanation from the administration for why they were removed. And when I posited my theory that I just listed, Secretary Hegsth did not even dispute it.
▶ 8:36:50So even if some of my majority colleagues believe that General Brown and Admiral Franketti should have been removed, I hope they would agree that Congress needs to at least be given an explanation. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are our military's top leaders, overseeing their respective services and directly advising the president and the Secretary of Defense on everything from operations to man, train, and equip challenges.
▶ 8:37:17And leaving those positions unfilled is a serious risk to national security, depriving our military of experienced leadership and slowing down the decision-making process. In fact, we still don't even have a confirmed chief of naval operations because President Trump waited four months to select a new nominee after firing Franketi. This committee regularly discusses the importance of ship building and modernizing our Navy.
▶ 8:37:44But for the last five months, we have not even had a chief of naval operations. There are real national security consequences to removing one of the joint chiefs of staff, a combatant commander or other senior officer. And if a president is going to make such a monumental decision, they owe this committee and the rest of Congress an explanation. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 8:38:07Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Colorado, Mr.
▶ 8:38:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do oppose the amendment of my friend from Massachusetts. Um, as we know, each flag officer serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States and each president has a duty to ensure that his military leadership is in alignment with his administration's national defense strategy. And because of this, it is normal to expect turmo turnover in military leadership at the start of each new administration.
▶ 8:38:39New strategy priorities might require new leaders to execute the commander-in-chief's plan to ensure national security. It's not like President Trump is the first commanderin-chief to fire flag officers.
▶ 8:38:55President Abraham Lincoln, uh, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and President Obama all fired military leaders over strategy All this amendment does is politicize decisions that should be made on merit alone. This is about the president having trust in the decisions his military leaders will make, not job security for officers.
▶ 8:39:22I urge my colleagues to reject this danger, dangerous amendment which would not be offered but for Donald Trump being the current commanderin-chief. and I yield back the balance of my time.
▶ 8:39:36Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes a gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vinman.
▶ 8:39:41Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is truly a compelling and important amendment. Um, everything that uh the chair said about the president's power to uh to appoint his officers is true, but that is not mutually exclusive with the president doing it for a proper purpose. And as opposed to what my my colleague uh just said, Mr.
▶ 8:40:08Crank, there is nothing normal about the firing of eight senior officers, including all of the uh senior judge advocates and uh the chairman of the joint chief staff, chief of naval operations. There is nothing normal about that.
▶ 8:40:24Our general officers and flag officers are nonpartisan patriots who swear an oath to the That should be their only loyalty, not to the president of the United Service members serve regardless of party, background, race, or creed. It is perhaps one of the most American institutions precisely because it demands loyalty, honor, and respect based on one's shared quality, love of country.
▶ 8:40:50And this keeps us safe because merit is the measure of advancement above all other qualities. That is why it's deeply concerning that the Secretary of Defense fired eight generals and flag officers without any explanation or report to Congress or the American people. The Senate confirms all general and flag officers to their rank and the Constitution is clear that Congress that this is a congressional prerogative.
▶ 8:41:13The secretary and president owe Congress, the American people, an explanation why they fire America's finest, those that have sacrificed frankly the most decades apart from family. Why is Laura Loomer and her insane whims Why is that the driving principle behind the firing of a four-star general, the commander of Cybercom, incompetence or concerns? Would they would follow unlawful orders?
▶ 8:41:42Maybe that's the reason they want blind obedience and loyalty. We just don't know. This common sense amendment for my friend from Massachusetts would fix that. Congress and the American people deserve to know that our military remains nonpartisan, loyal to the loyal to the Constitution and the American people and not to the president of the United States. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 8:42:07Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes a gentleman from California, Mr. Tran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join my colleague Rep. Molton as a co-sponsor of this amendment requiring written justification from the Secretary of Defense before the removal of certain general and flag officers from the military. When President Trump abruptly fired several high-ranking military leaders earlier this year, Congress received no reasonable justification that these officers actions or performance were caused for removal.
▶ 8:42:37The decisions were purely political and made without regard for the strategic impact on our military readiness or the loss of important institutional knowledge. Back in February, when the Trump administration began mass layoffs of federal employees, I introduced the Protect Veterans Jobs Act to ensure that any veterans who served our country were immediately reinstated. Today, I endeavor to pro to prevent more indiscriminate layoffs from happening in the first place. Congress must assert itself.
▶ 8:43:05This amendment is necessary to ensure that President Trump does not further gut our senior military leadership simply because they were acting out of loyalty to the
▶ 8:43:15not a want to be king.
▶ 8:43:16He said, he told us,
▶ 8:43:17"Our military leaders deserve our support, not their dis dismissal simply for defending diversity in the military or serving their country. In the name of keeping our military nonpartisan and the greatest fighting force this planet has ever seen, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this common sense amendment. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 8:43:36Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes another gentleman from California, Mr. Whitesides.
▶ 8:43:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and thank you for to Mr. Molton for leading on this important amendment. I believe that this amendment should have the support of every member of this committee on both sides of the aisle. This is not political. It does not tie the Secretary of Defense's hands, and it doesn't constrain the president's ability to have the military leaders he trusts advising him. If there is cause to release a general or flag officer from command, the president and the secretary have the right to remove that officer. No one is arguing that they don't.
▶ 8:44:08This amendment simply protects two sacred parts of our defense infrastructure. Congress's constitutional oversight responsibility and the non-political nature of our military. The firing of a general officer isn't something to take lightly. It has serious national security implications for military operations. It ripples down the chain of command. It impacts on our relationships with our security partners and can even have a chilling effect on up and cominging officers.
▶ 8:44:33That's a serious thing and having the ability to conduct oversight over choices of that magnitude is intrinsic to our roles on this committee. Here's the thing. The president and the secretary may have perfectly valid reasons for relieving several members of the joint chiefs. They may have perfectly valid reasons for removing General Hall from Cyber Command. But the fact remains, we just don't know.
▶ 8:44:57That the members tasked with conducting oversight over our national defense have been kept out of the loop on major personnel moves implicating Senate confirmed defense leaders should concern all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment that will enable the members of this committee to do our jobs. And I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 8:45:16Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle lady from Maryland, Miss Elforth.
▶ 8:45:20Thank you. I don't think we designed that, Mr. chair, but it was fun. So, I appreciate um my colleague, Mr. Molton, for bringing up this issue. Um and as the ranking member highlighted, since April 3rd, CyberCom uh in Maryland, headquartered in Maryland, has been without a combatant commander. And in the more than three months since he was fired by the president, we still don't know why, and all we have has been mentioned are breadcrumbs.
▶ 8:45:44Far-right influencer Laura Loomer, known for spewing hate speech and spinning conspiracy theories, claimed that General Hawk was disloyal to the president because he was selected for the role by General Millie. Last month, I questioned Secretary Hegsth on when a replacement would be announced. And yet, despite the secretary saying an announcement would be eminent, there is still no general officer selected for that critical command. Firing combatant commanders on the whims of a social media influencer does not help our military become more lethal.
▶ 8:46:13It only harms our national security and makes America look weak on the world stage. Congress, this committee, and the American people deserve the president to show his math and explain why he is firing those entrusted with leading our combatant commands. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
▶ 8:46:27Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
▶ 8:46:31Thank you, chairman. I yield my time to Mr. Molton.
▶ 8:46:35I I thank the gentleman. Mr. Mr. Chairman, in the vain hope that uh the debate actually matters here, I do want to respond to some of the uh the the suggestions made by my colleague, Mr. Crank from Colorado. First of all, he cited Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Obama for firing generals, which they all did because they made clear mistakes. In every case, the president explained what those mistakes were and what his rationale now for firing them was.
▶ 8:47:04You said that they should only be fired for merit. So then where is it? Why is it that the Secretary of Defense came before this committee and could answer could not answer that simple question about any of the eight generals or flag officers that he fired? He couldn't even cite how many there were. Now the chairman said that this reporting requirement would hobble the president. I mean really like the Secretary of Defense can just have his aid literally write down why he's firing them and send it to Congress.
▶ 8:47:36That's the bare minimum. And the fact that we would throw out our constitutional responsibility here to provide some modicum of oversight because we can't ask Trump and Hegsth to explain the unexplainable why they would just fire these folks. That is the definition def definition of politicization of the military.
▶ 8:48:03Having Laura Loomer make these decisions is the definition of politicization of the military. So, we're about to vote on a whole slew of amendments that the majority claims will take politics out of the military. Just have the courage to vote for this one, too. It's not that hard.
▶ 8:48:28A simple We ask for it all the time for this There will be many reporting requirements included in the bill that we're all about to vote to pass later this one out of respect for men and women who have put in far more years of service than just about anyone on this committee, myself is I think the least that we can expect
▶ 8:48:58from the leadership of any administration, Republican or Democrat, when it comes to overseeing our Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 8:49:08Gentleman yields back. Chair, I recognize gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Hulan.
▶ 8:49:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I also support this really important and vital amendment for my colleague, Mr. Molton. This is a nonpolitical amendment, or at least it ought to be, and I agree that the people uh who we are speaking of serve at the pleasure of the commander-in-chief, but there ought to also be a clear reason or justification behind the actions of removing them from their offices. and none has been forthcoming in any of these cases that we've observed in the last four several months.
▶ 8:49:43Loyalty to the Constitution is the measure and standard that we should hold these professionals to, not feel to the president. The US Navy se uh Vice Admiral Shashana Chatfield, Admiral Lisa Franketti, Lieutenant General Short, uh Jennifer Short are just a few all removed and perhaps with valid reasons, but we just don't know. These names are some of the many names of the most senior women in our armed forces who have been strangely removed from their post by the Trump administration.
▶ 8:50:13And each of these women presumably earned their titles based on their merit, their experience, and their unwavering commitment to service and this nation. They didn't earn these titles based on their gender, but they were removed from their titles because of it. Most likely, it's hard not to see this as being the reason with no other explanation provided.
▶ 8:50:34This administration's systemic and intentional roll back of women's roles and overall troop diversity diminishes the military's readiness and it devalues the standards of inte integrity of the military itself. Diversity in our armed services improves innovation and mission outcomes making our military stronger and smarter and more prepared to face the challenges of the mo of modern warfare. It's for these reasons that I urge support of this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 8:51:00Gentle lady yields back. Does any other member seek recognition on this uh Mr. Molton's amendment? If there's no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Molton. So many as favor will say I.
▶ 8:51:13Those opposed will say no.
▶ 8:51:15Opinion chair, the nos have it.
▶ 8:51:17Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote will be postponed. We will now um take time to go back and uh catch up on our votes with a recorded vote series. Each member has an assigned device. It has your name on the back. I would urge you to pick it up and make sure it's your name on the back. it's secured to your spot on the dice. Please look on the back of the device to make sure it is your name.
▶ 8:51:48It is very important important that your device has your name on it. You can use three buttons to vote. Your vote once you make it will appear on the monitor. We're going to take our time. So everybody just take your time when you press the button to vote yes or no uh or present. Look on the board. Make sure that it's record reflected the way you voted. You can change your vote by pressing a different button.
▶ 8:52:18Please be mindful not to change your vote by accident. But we're going to go slow. Make sure you're voting the right way on the right amendment. The amendment number is also going to be on the screen. If you do not wish to be recorded at all, do not push a button. I'll hold the first vote open for a while and then we'll proceed expeditious expeditiously thereafter. Let's get
▶ 8:52:43Yellow tap.
▶ 8:52:45Yellow tap. We are going to uh proceed to vote on those amendments where recorded vote was ordered. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number uh by Ms. Jacobs and we shall now resume proceedings those proceedings. The question occurs on the amendment. Members record their vote by using an electronic device.
▶ 8:53:14The chairman will be voting nay. Ranking member will vote I. The clerk will open the machine and the members will vote.
▶ 8:53:42Have all members voted? Are there members who wish to change their vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 8:54:00Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays are 30. The amendment is not agreed to. We are now going to proceed to a vote on no the committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 4933 by Mr. Courtourtney uh and shall now resume proceedings. The question occurs on the amendment.
▶ 8:54:28Members will record their vote using electronic device. The chairman will be voting no. Uh
▶ 8:54:34ranking member will be voting yes.
▶ 8:54:36The clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted?
▶ 8:54:56Does any member wish to change his or her vote?
▶ 8:55:00If not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.
▶ 8:55:03But I thought it,
▶ 8:55:05Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays are 30. Uh the amendment is not agreed The committee postponed further proceedings on lo amendment log number 40 5494 by Mr. Ryan uh and shall now resume those proceeding. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no. Uh
▶ 8:55:29ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 8:55:31Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the vote.
▶ 8:56:00Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26, the nose are 31. The amendment is not agreed to. Uh the committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 5619 by Miss Jacobs and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.
▶ 8:56:21Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 8:56:22Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote?
▶ 8:56:42If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the vote.
▶ 8:56:47Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nas are 30.
▶ 8:56:50Uh, the amendment is not agreed to. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 5659 by Mr. Molton um and shall now resume uh those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.
▶ 8:57:09A ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 8:57:11Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Come undone. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the vote. Mr.
▶ 8:57:39Chairman, the eyes are 28, the nos are 29.
▶ 8:57:42The the amendments not agreed to. Uh the committee postponed further proceedings on log number 4839R1 by Dr. McCormick and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting I.
▶ 8:57:59Ranking member will be voting no.
▶ 8:58:01Clerk will open the machine uh and record and members will vote.
▶ 8:58:20Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 8:58:30Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 30 and Nas are 27.
▶ 8:58:33The amendment is agreed to. Committee postpone further proceedings on log number 4820 by Miss Mace uh of South Carolina and we shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting I. Ranking member will be voting no.
▶ 8:58:52Clerk will open the machine and members will vote.
▶ 8:59:07Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 8:59:16Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 30, the nays are 27. The amendment is agreed to.
▶ 8:59:22The committee postponed further proceedings on log number 4821 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting I.
▶ 8:59:35Ranking member will be voting no.
▶ 8:59:37Clerk uh will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:00:02Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 29, the NAS are 28.
▶ 9:00:05The amendment is agreed to. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 5501 by Miss Mace of South Carolina and shall now resume those proceedings. The question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting I.
▶ 9:00:29Ranking member will be voting no.
▶ 9:00:31Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and record the tally.
▶ 9:00:54Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 30 and a 27.
▶ 9:00:57The amendment is agreed to. Uh committee postpone further proceedings on amendment log number 5278 by Mr. Cisneros of California and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting nay.
▶ 9:01:16A ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:01:18Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:01:46Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the naysay are 30.
▶ 9:01:49The amendment is not agreed to. Committee postpone further proceedings on amendment log number 5339R1 by Mr. Basquez.
▶ 9:01:59Uh, the display is incorrect.
▶ 9:02:02Okay. The display is not correct.
▶ 9:02:05Log number
▶ 9:02:06log number 5339R1.
▶ 9:02:50This is where Quickly and Fitzpatrick. He wants the text.
▶ 9:03:53All right. Log uh the committee postponed further proceedings on log number 5339R1 by Mr. Vasquez of New Mexico and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. Chairman will be voting no. Our
▶ 9:04:12ranking member will be voting yes. Uh
▶ 9:04:14clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not. The clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:04:46Mr. Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 25, the NAS are 32.
▶ 9:04:49The amendment is not agreed to. Uh, the committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 5627R2 by Miss Jacobs of California and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chair will be voting no.
▶ 9:05:07Ranking member will be voting I. Chair,
▶ 9:05:11the clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:05:43Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the NAS are 30.
▶ 9:05:46Uh, the amendment is not agreed to. Uh, the committee postponed further proceedings on log number 5628 R1 by Miss Jacobs of California shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no. Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:06:07The clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? City member wish to change his or her vote. If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally. Mr.
▶ 9:06:36Chairman, the eyes are 27, the NAS are 30.
▶ 9:06:38The amendment is not agreed to. Uh the committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 5513R1 by Mr. Garmeny of California shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.
▶ 9:06:55Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:06:57The clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote?
▶ 9:07:27If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:07:32Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 15, the Naz are 42.
▶ 9:07:35The amendment is not agreed to. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number by Mr. Gar Mindy of California and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.
▶ 9:07:52Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:07:54Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote?
▶ 9:08:20If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:08:24Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 26 and N are
▶ 9:08:27Amendments not agreed to. The committee postpone further proceedings on amendment log number 5280 R2 by Mr. Cisneros of California shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no and the ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:08:47Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote?
▶ 9:09:12If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the vote.
▶ 9:09:17Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays are 30.
▶ 9:09:19The amendment is not agreed to. The f uh committee postpone further proceedings on log number 5527R1 by Mr. Molton of Massachusetts and shall resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no
▶ 9:09:37and the ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:09:39Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:10:06Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the Naz are 30.
▶ 9:10:08The amendment is not agreed to. Committee postpone further proceedings on amendment log number 5518 by Mr. Molton of Massachusetts and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.
▶ 9:10:24Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:10:26Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:10:52Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 23, the nays are 34.
▶ 9:10:55The amendment is not agreed to. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number by Mr. Saenson of Illinois and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members record their vote by electronic device. Chairman will be voting no.
▶ 9:11:14Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:11:16Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? City member wish to change his or her vote. If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:11:46Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the Naz are 30.
▶ 9:11:49The amendment is not agreed to. Committee postponing further proceedings on amendment log number 5606 by Mr. V menman of V Virginia and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. Chairman will be voting no
▶ 9:12:05and ranking member will be voting I. The clerk will open the machine and the members will vote.
▶ 9:12:31Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? No, I don't think that's
▶ 9:12:42okay. Clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:12:48Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the nays are 30.
▶ 9:12:50The amendment is not agreed to. Committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 5110 R1 by Miss Strickland of Washington and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. Chairman will be voting no.
▶ 9:13:09Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:13:11Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally. Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 27, the NAS are 30.
▶ 9:13:38The amendment is not agreed to. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 5407R4 by Mr. Molton of Massachusetts and now shall resume those proceedings. Uh the committee occur the question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.
▶ 9:13:56Ranking member will be voting I.
▶ 9:13:58Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the tally.
▶ 9:14:27Mr. Chairman, the eyes are 28, the nays are 29. The amendment is not agreed to Recess for supper.
▶ 9:14:39Okay. Uh we are now going to recess for supper. Uh supper is being provided compliments of the chairman. The MLAs will find their supper in room 2253. The members in room 2212. Uh we have barbecue and sauces from uh the state of Alabama. Roll tide North Carolina, Mr. Davis,
▶ 9:15:02uh, Texas, Mr. Fallon, I believe, and then Mr. Mr. Bell's brought some secret homemade salsa. I got to watch him. He's serious about this. Uh, it will be in room 20 2212. We will reconvene at 7:30. We are in recess.
▶ 10:01:50committee will come to order. We will now consider onblock package number three. I ask unanimous consent to call up onblock package number three consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. Without objection, so ordered. Uh will the clerk please distribute the onblock amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. Onblock package number three is comprised of the following. Log 4777R4 by Rep. Kiggins. Log 4829R1 by Rep. Kiggins.
▶ 10:02:21Log 4834 by Rep. Ryan. Log 4848 by Rep. Van Orton. Log 4860 by Rep. Bergman. Log 4868R1 by Rep. Herriagan. Log 4881R1 by Rep. Log 4902R3 by Rep. Courtourtney. Log 4892R2 by Rep. Maguire. Log 4935R4 by Rep. Mills. Log 4940R1 by Rep. Wilson.
▶ 10:02:50Log 4959R2 by Rep. Wilson. Log 4986 by Rep. Jackson. Logs 4998R3 by Rep. Dejarlay. Log 499 R1 by Rep. Delusio. Log 5035R2 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 505 53 R2 by Rep. Gooden. Log 5070R1 by Rep. Amade. Log 50 97R1 by Rep. Jackson.
▶ 10:03:19Log 5116R1 by Rep. Strickland. Log 5118R1 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5148R1 by Rep. Goodlander. Log 5164 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5178R2 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5184R2 by Rep. Mesmer. Log 5189R1 by Rep. Stefanic. Log 5227R4 by Rep. Amade. Log 5242R3 by Rep. Jacobs.
▶ 10:03:48Log 5255R1 by Rep. Cheryl. Log 5269R3 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 5288R2 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 5319R4 by Rep. Wilson. Log 5355R4 by Rep. Amp Hulahan. Log 5386R2 by Rep. Molton. Log 5396R3 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5398 by Rep. Turner.
▶ 10:04:17Log 5428R2 by Rep. Whitides. Log 5435 by Rep. Ulfre. Log 5488 by Rep. Ryan. Log 5493R1 by Rep. Takuda. Log 5498R1 by Rep. Norcross. Log 55 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5538 by Rep. Molton. Log 5575 by Rep. Stefonic. Log 5639 by Rep.
▶ 10:04:47Cheryl. Log 5660 by Rep. Whitesides. Log 5563 R2 by Rep. Van Orton. Log 5566 by Rep. Mace. Log 5573R3 by Rep. Garam Mindy. Log 5576R1 by Rep. Cheryl. Log 5577R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 5580R2 by Rep. Ulfre. Log 5587R1 by Rep. Bergman.
▶ 10:05:16Log 5598R1 by Rep. Elfreth. Log by Rep. Schmidt. Log 5625R1 by Rep. Fallon. Log 5647R1 by Rep. Carbajal. Log 5653R1 by Rep. Bacon. Log 5658 by Rep. Sorenson. Log 5662 by Rep. Norcross. Log 5670 by Rep. Connor. Is there further discussion on the onblock package?
▶ 10:05:50The question is on the onblock package. So many are in favor will say I.
▶ 10:05:54Those opposed, no. The eyes have it. The amendments on block are agreed to. We will now consider log number 5206 by Mr. Norcross of North of New Jersey. What purposes? Gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition.
▶ 10:06:15Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 10:06:17Clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendments dispensed with uh the chair recognizes gentleman from New Jersey for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 10:06:27Thank you, chairman. Very simply, my amendment prohibits the use of 26 funds for the Department of Defense to be spent in implementing executive order 14251, which late relates to labor management relations program to preserve collective bargaining for Department of Defense employees. Earlier this year, the Trump administration launched one of the biggest attacks on American labor in history, stripping collective bargaining from over 1 million federal workers, including the Department of Defense.
▶ 10:06:58While justification for this executive order was national security concerns, the facts tell a very different story. Collective bargaining is worker strongest tool for fair wages, safe workplaces, and certainly dignity on the job. This executive order is a blatant union busting.
▶ 10:07:16It's clear that this is an effort not based on national security concerns, but instead on retaliation for labor unions, defending the members rights, and as a tactic to make it easier to fire employees. Unions are formed by workers coming together through a democratic process and agreeing to act collectively. Any DoD employee union was formed when workers exercised their right and their voice in voting in a democratic process.
▶ 10:07:46For over 60 years, they've had this through both Democrat and Republican administrations. The idea of forming a union is fundamental and a right under our laws. Trump executive order seeks to silent workers and override their sacred vote to form a union. And to quote President Trump, let's stop this deal. Let's urge a yes vote on this to give collective bargaining rights back to the employees who earned it. I yield.
▶ 10:08:18Gentleman yielded. Uh we now go to the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crank.
▶ 10:08:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose this amendment. Uh, this amendment would prohibit funds from being used to implement the president's executive order on collective bargaining in the Department of Defense. That's a serious overreach. Let's be clear, the number one priority of the Department of Defense must be providing for the national defense, not creating jobs programs that only serve to slow down the department's priorities.
▶ 10:08:50This executive order simply says that when it comes to defense, the president needs flexibility to act quickly and to act decisively, not get bogged down in union negotiations. And the president is well within the authority granted by the Civil Service Reform Act to limit collective bargaining with federal unions with agencies that have national security missions. In fact, he is not the first president to do so.
▶ 10:09:16Previous presidents have used the National Security Exemption to prohibit collective bargaining with the CIA and other national security agencies since its inception. The goal of the Speed Act is to reduce regulations, build more, and go faster. This amendment runs opposite to the committee's priorities, and the amendment needlessly restricts the president's constitutional authority to manage the executive branch and protect the nation.
▶ 10:09:45Congress shouldn't tie the commander-in-chief's hands just to score political points with unions. Further, the president's executive order is working its way through the court system, and it would be premature for this committee to object before a full judicial review can be completed. I will oppose all amendments that place unnecessary limitations on the president and Secretary of Defense's authority to dynamically manage their workforce. This amendment does just that.
▶ 10:10:15The bottom line, this amendment is premature. It undermines executive authority and it's a threat to operational readiness at a time when flexibility is key. I urge my colleagues to vote no and I yield back.
▶ 10:10:28Gentleman yields back. Chair not recognized gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
▶ 10:10:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a co-sponsor of Mr. Norcross amendment. This concerns the rights of DoD employees and I'll be voting in favor of the amendment. Thank you.
▶ 10:10:40Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal.
▶ 10:10:43Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to yield my time to Mr. Norcross.
▶ 10:10:47Thank you. Just to give me an opportunity to uh comment on some of what we just heard. The fact of the matter is federal employees are not allowed to go on strike. That is not a concern. That is something that has not happened. 60 years through two administrations, all Republican Democrat, there are no collective bargainings that are up for renewal in the next two years. They've already been extended through. So the idea to falsely accuse this I think is disingenuous. We're talking about silencing the voice of workers.
▶ 10:11:17It happens across the board. They work together over the years. There's never been a complaint previous and all of a sudden without any justification, not even relating to any complaints that came from anywhere. He woke up. This is clearly taking the ability and making the president so he can fire anybody for any reason without retort. With that, I yield back to the
▶ 10:11:42Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
▶ 10:11:44Mr. Carbajali yields back. Uh the Mr. Whitesides of California is recognized.
▶ 10:11:49Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to Mr. Norcross for his years of leadership on this issue issue. I support this amendment because of something we all know to be true. Our national defense is powered by more than uniforms. Civilian personnel are engineers, analysts, logisticians, scientists, the backbone of our defense infrastructure. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian personnel in my district who work day in day out to improve our defense capabilities.
▶ 10:12:16Allowing these workers to advocate for their right to fair pay and benefits strengthens, not weakens mission readiness. When civilian workers have a voice, we reduce turnover, improve morale, and retain the expertise that keeps systems running and missions on track. This is about respect for service. DoD civilians support our troops every day. They deserve basic workplace protections, the same rights we extend to workers in other federal agencies.
▶ 10:12:42This collaboration leads to smarter operations and better, more efficient progress on the critical national security programs that we need. Bargaining means faster problem solving, better communication, and more efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Suppressing work workplace rights and collective bargaining creates instability, not flexibility. If we want a modern, resilient civilian workforce, we need to give them a seat at the table, not take it away.
▶ 10:13:07In my district, which is home to some of the most cutting edge national security innovation in the world, DoD civilians are leading the charge. They're pushing our aerospace industry into the future. We should be uplifting our workers, protecting their right to fair pay and collective bargaining, and ensuring they have the ability to provide for themselves and their family families. If we send them the message that they aren't valued, not only are we not giving them the support they deserve, we could be crippling our national security. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield
▶ 10:13:36Gentleman yields back. Chair, I recognize gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
▶ 10:13:40Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I am proud to stand with our unions and support the amendment put forth by my friend uh, Representative Norcross. It is no secret that this administration is hellbent on weakening organized labor. stripping collective bargaining rights is just another chapter in their book. And when you look at the fine print, it will affect more than a million federal workers. We cannot let that happen.
▶ 10:14:06It's unamerican because the United States of America is strong thanks to the labor movement that was built with the hard work and the determination of the men and women of the middle class. Every American deserves a fair wage, a safe workplace, good benefits, and dignity on the job. It's true everywhere, whether you work for a company back home or for the military, the greatest military in the world. I urge my colleagues to support Mr.
▶ 10:14:36Norcross's amendment, and I yield back.
▶ 10:14:44Does any other members seek recognition on the Norcross amendment? Miss Alfred of uh Maryland.
▶ 10:14:50Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I want to extend my gratitude to my my friend and colleague and hometown representative uh Mr. Norcross. This amendment will simply prohibit funding from from implementing the executive order 14251 that eliminates collective bargaining rights for 1.5 million federal employees, including most Department of Defense civilian employees. and it is singlehandedly the broadest and most aggressive action taken by the federal government against labor rights in US history.
▶ 10:15:19And as the daughter of two very proud civil servants, I understand the vital work that public servants do on behalf of the American people. And since the beginning of this administration, we have seen an unprecedented attack on our federal workforce. And I know our federal workers are the backbone of government services that the American people rely on, not just in my district, but across this country. So, this is not about scoring political points with unions. I take umbrage with that suggestion.
▶ 10:15:47This is about standing up for the collective bargaining agreements that have been in place for generations. I know this because I represent 44,000 federal employees in my district, many of whom serve this nation at Fort me, at the United States Naval Academy, at the Coast Guard, just to name three installations in my district alone. I've heard from these federal employees back home and every time I tore an installation, I asked the critical question, how many civilian employees support the critical work at that installation?
▶ 10:16:15And I urge my colleagues on this committee to ask that same question because you will hear from them. They are the backbone of this national security work. And ultimately, stripping federal employees of their voice on the job will impact military readiness. We'd be joking oursel with ourselves if we didn't believe that. We cannot allow this administration to continue to take a sledgehammer to the federal workforce without some check from this legislative branch. That's what our founders had in mind and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 10:16:45Gentle lady yields back. Does any other members seek recognition on the Norcross amendment? No further debate. The question occurs on the amendment by Mr. Norcross. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 10:16:56Those opposed? No.
▶ 10:16:59Opinion. The chair. The eyes have it. And I for
▶ 10:17:04a recorded vote is requested. Recorded vote will be postponed. we will now consider log number 5204 by Mr. Norcross. For what purposes gentleman seek recognition?
▶ 10:17:20Chairman I have an amendment at the
▶ 10:17:23Clerk will please distribute the amendment without objection to reading amendments dispenseed with. I reserve a point of order against the amendment. Uh cheer u gentleman re is recognized for his amendment.
▶ 10:17:33Thank you chairman. Very simply this requires the secretary of defense to establish policies authorizing access to military installations within appropriate conditions uh for the purpose of union labor organizations representation inspection and cover activities. This is something I know very well for over 20 years as a business agent. The idea of going to visit my members and force a collective bargaining agreement would sometimes take place at these bases.
▶ 10:18:01Our defense industry labor union representatives are often prohibited from going these sites for security concerns even when those concerns could easily be addressed. The barrier that prevents labor unions from ensuring collective bargaining agreements are being followed and adhered to. All workers with collective bargaining agreements, regardless of where they work, are protected and have the right to be inspected by their CBA representatives.
▶ 10:18:28Very simply, back in 2017, NDAA, this very committee created an amendment that would allow Uber drivers, Uber drivers who are picking up and dropping off at bases to be entitled to go on the bases. they too would have to follow the very same security concerns that the union reps were. Now, we've heard plenty about Uber drivers.
▶ 10:18:55The idea that they're allowed on base, but you will prohibit labor organizations is fundamentally wrong. The idea is there's a set of rules. We should all follow it. But unfortunately, I did not receive a waiver from education or workforce. Ironically, the very item that I am referring to on the Uber drivers did receive the waiver, but today it's not there. So, I uh I'm going to have to withdraw that amendment. And I yield back.
▶ 10:19:24Cheer. Thanks a gentleman for withdrawing his amendment. We will now consider log number 52, I'm sorry, 5620 by Mr. Smith. For what purposes, gentleman from Washington seek
▶ 10:19:36I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman. Uh will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendments dispensed with. The chair recognizes the ranking member for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 10:19:45Uh thank you uh Mr. Chairman. This amendment and the next four are all basically the same subject. You know, are we going to continue our support for Ukraine as they try to defend themselves against the Russian invasion? Uh so I mean there are different pieces to each one. Um but this will be the overall debate of whether or not this committee wants to strongly express our support for Ukraine in this conflict. I feel very strongly that we should and that we need to.
▶ 10:20:14The first amendment here adds $100 million to the US AI account. U we have supported at the level of 300 million before. I think the urgency commands that we step up that commitment and on this particular amendment I'll just make two arguments. One is given the ambivalence that we have seen from the Trump administration since the start.
▶ 10:20:37It is undermining support for Ukraine and emboldening Vladimir Putin to think that if he just holds out long enough, we will abandon Ukraine and contribute to the collapse of the 53 nation coalition that has come together to help Ukraine defend itself. I think it's really important for Congress to make it clear that we don't want to see that happen. We don't want to see that support collapse.
▶ 10:21:01And understand, I am sympathetic with the Trump administration's desire to end this war and their stated goal to get to peace. But you will not get to peace if Putin sees weakness. If he sees that we're walking away from Ukraine, his actions could not possibly be clearer in the last several months. He increases the attack. He increases all the bombings across Ukraine and presses forward trying to get to his maximalist goals.
▶ 10:21:31We need to show that we support Ukraine in order to stop that from happening. So number one is to try to send a message to the Trump administration to keep up the fight. Number two is to send a message to Ukraine and Putin on the same on the same topic. I mean those are two solid reasons to increase this. I have a couple of other arguments, but I'll save those for later amendments. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield
▶ 10:21:56Gentleman yields back. Chair, I recognize Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.
▶ 10:22:00Thank you, Chairman Mike Rogers. I support this this amendment. There is strong bipartisan support, Republicans and Democrats, for the people of Ukraine. The Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, US AI, allows the United States to support Ukraine's successful fight against war criminal Putin's unprovoked invasion. The Ukrainians are bravely defending their country and devastating Russian military.
▶ 10:22:26A courageously defending the sovereignty of the people for the people of Ukraine. The axis of dictators with rule of gun is clear that Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are working together chanting death to America. As long as the current dictators enslave their countries, national security will be at risk along with world stability.
▶ 10:22:53I'm grateful to President Donald Trump for his recent announcement for allowing NATO allies to buy the weapons necessary to send to Ukraine. President Trump continues his willingness to support Ukraine and we should provide him with all the necessary options.
▶ 10:23:07Moscow today Moscow mocked and insulted President Trump again by belittling his support of Ukrainian sovereignty quote as quote end of quote by President Trump as war criminal Putin murders civilians in Ukraine and murders descending government officials in Russia. We all support ensuring stockpiles are filled to the appropriate levels.
▶ 10:23:38This can be achieved as American and allied defense industries are facing the challenge of the axis of evil as the axis of evil conducts the largest peace time military buildup in history. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
▶ 10:23:54Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize a gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
▶ 10:23:57Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I appreciate the ranking member for this amendment. I plan on voting for this amendment. A Russian victory will cost us more. We we have to realize that it probably means Muldova will fall. If if if Ukraine doesn't survive this, maybe Georgia, possibly Azerbaijan. Trumpus just the other day said Lithuania would likely be next. There'll be challenge in the Baltics.
▶ 10:24:24We know from when we're young, if you don't stop a bully, they keep coming at you. And we got to stand up to this guy and the the Ukrainians are doing the fighting, but they need our weapons support to survive. It's in our national security interest that we prevail here. I yield. Gentleman yields. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vinman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Look, it's great to see President Trump finally coming around to understand that what many of us known all along that Putin is our enemy.
▶ 10:24:55The only way this war comes to a halt is pressure on Putin. I'd like to see the president slap the table on this and put pressure on on Russia right now, but looks like we're going to wait another 49 days. It seems to me we're um kind of at the at the leading edge of an irrever irreversible shift towards Ukraine and and NATO here, which is the right direction, something we should be doing, we should have been doing all along. The only way to end this war in Ukraine is to put pressure on Putin.
▶ 10:25:24And the best way to do that is send Ukraine more weapons as soon as possible. This is a bipartisan issue. Last week, I led 54 colleagues in urging the immediate resumption of munition shipments to Ukraine. I'm glad to see some of those weapons are finally moving. But 10 Patriot missiles isn't going to get the president the end of the war the Ukrainian people deserve. We need to send massive shipments now and put pressure on Russia instead of Ukraine. We need to keep the pressure on Putin.
▶ 10:25:54History tells us he only responds to strength and nothing less. The only way we make progress here and achieve the president's stated objective of peace in Ukraine and Europe is by putting pressure on Putin. This is in our national interest as Russia has aligned itself with Iran and China and North Korea for that matter uh against freedom loving countries like our allies and the United States. our own values. Supporting Ukraine is more than a moral imperative.
▶ 10:26:23It's a national security necessity. I've been to Ukraine 14 times with the State Department investigating Russian war crimes. I've seen the stakes firsthand. I've seen the destruction rain down on Ukrainian cities and Ukrainian infrastructure. I've been to BHA hospital, all of those names that are burned into our memory as war crime sites.
▶ 10:26:43We must continue to support Ukraine until Putin is forced to negot to the negotiating table and only on terms that respect Ukrainian sovereignty and our own national security objectives. The peace we negotiate must be acceptable to the Ukrainian people. I urge uh support for this amendment. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair not recognize gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Bale.
▶ 10:27:07I had an opportunity to go on my first Kodel to the Middle East and uh with the ranking member actually and the biggest for me was that stability is hard but democracy is even harder and when it takes root we must do everything we can to support it. If we abandon Ukraine, we embolden every authoritarian watching.
▶ 10:27:34From Moscow to Beijing to Tran, our adversaries are calculating our resolve. Weakness here invites aggression elsewhere. So this amendment ensures that no bureaucratic or political actors can quietly disrupt our support for our partner fighting for its sovereignty. If aid is delayed or cut, the president must take responsibility and inform top national security officials in writing.
▶ 10:28:02But it's important that we send a message that we stand with our fellow democracies. I yield my time.
▶ 10:28:09Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from California, Mr.
▶ 10:28:16Thank you, M.
▶ 10:28:18Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm delighted with what appears to be bipartisan support for Ukraine. Uh we've been at this uh some of us throughout the entire Ukraine experience, beginning with Crimea and even before that Georgia. And uh we had an opportunity over those years to understand that Putin is going to continue until there is an unstoppable force and that is Ukraine.
▶ 10:28:49Ukraine has proven that they're going to fight for their future. What they absolutely need is American the um I was just thinking about last summer and the way in which there was a seven almost an eight-month halt in the munitions that America was sending uh in the runup to the summer and Ukraine was short of munitions usually like 10 to one 155
▶ 10:29:24our ranking member is so correct to put forth this issue and to make sure that we're dealing with it here. Uh the details here are 100 million's important but also the way in which this particular amendment is structured. There may be some that are concerned well we're not going to build a frigot.
▶ 10:29:42Well, the frigot is in trouble to begin with, but if there's a need for a frigot, there's all the money in the ship building, 39 29 billion dollars uh to build ships in the reconciliation so that could be backfilled. This hundred million is not only necessary, but is a clear commitment that this committee, which I hope would unanimously vote for these amendments uh that Mr. Smith has put forward, stands firmly with Ukraine.
▶ 10:30:11There's a political piece to that and that is are we willing to stand with We must we really don't have a choice for the reasons that the members Democrat and Republican have put forward. Uh with that, Mr. Chairman, our you gentleman yields. She now recognizes gentleman from California, Mr. Carbajal.
▶ 10:30:32Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. We must continue to stand with Ukraine as they fight against Russia. Putin invaded a sovereign nation unprovoked. And if we stand by and let it happen, we are complicit and bowing down to dictators. We countries do not fold before dictators. They stand up to them and support for the fight for freedom and democracy. If we allow Putin to succeed now, he will not stop.
▶ 10:30:57He has called the collapse of the USSR the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. He said this about the same century where we saw two world wars. Make no mistake, Putin intends to continue grabbing old pieces of the Soviet Union to put it back together. It will save more lives and cost less money to deal with him. Now, if he invades the Baltic nations, all of NATO will be involved in a following war.
▶ 10:31:25Putin is backed by China, Iran, and North Korea. If that doesn't make clear what side the United States should be on, then we are blind. We must continue providing aid to Ukraine. To delay or stop the full aid we can provide is to side with the dictator. I urge support of this amendment. I yield back. Mr. Chair, gentleman yields back.
▶ 10:31:47Any other members seek recognition on the ranking members If there's no further debate, the uh question occurs on the amendment offered up by the ranking member. So many is in favor will say I.
▶ 10:32:00Those opposed, no.
▶ 10:32:03Penny the chair, the eyes have it and I request a recorded vote. A recorded vote is postponed. We will now consider log number 4964 by Miss Mace of South Carolina. For what purposes general lady from South Carolina seek recognition?
▶ 10:32:21Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 10:32:23Uh, will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? and the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her uh
▶ 10:32:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we go from one amendment that is America last to one that is America first. Today, I offer an amendment to remove funding for the Ukraine security assistance initiative because the American people are done footing the bill for endless foreign wars. The American people spoke loudly last November. They want peace. They want an end to foreign entanglements and for their representatives to actually put their interests above those of foreign nations.
▶ 10:32:58To date, we spend over 170 billion dollars in aid to Ukraine. And what do we have to show for it? A black hole where accountability should be and a war with no end in sight. All to prop up President Zalinski, who cancels elections in his country while interfering in the presidential election in ours. After his failed attempt to campaign for Kla Harris, President Zullinski showed up to the Oval Office and instead of showing gratitude to the American people, he acted like an insulent child toward President Trump.
▶ 10:33:28It's time we stop asking the American people to carry the burden of this war. It's not it's simply not in our interest to do so. For decades, this body has operated under the delusion that we can please the entire world, topple unfriendly regimes without consequences, and turn every nation in the world into a liberal western democracy. There's been an utter lack of thought for the one thing which matters most. How does American involvement make life better for the American citizens we represent? This amendment is not about choosing sides.
▶ 10:33:56It's about choosing responsibility to the American taxpayer and putting the American people first. Our national debt is over 37 trillion in counting. And our nation teeters on fiscal catastrophe. Every time Congress approves more aid, we put more debt on the backs of American taxpayers. We have real problems in this country. Walk outside this building and across our nation's capital and you'll see it. Visit California where the liberals are literally burning cities to the ground. Antifa and illegals. Just blocks away from where we sit.
▶ 10:34:25It's not funny watching watching cities burn under uh Gavin Newsome. We see American citizens being gunned down in broad daylight. Homeless veterans sleeping on our streets, crumbling infrastructure, and open air drug use. Every dollar sent to Ukraine is a dollar stolen from the American people. Uh, Congress has continuously signed off on war on behalf of a country most people can't find on a map. No one can coherently explain why it's in our national interest to do this. No one can tell us what victory looks like. No one can tell us what the endgame is.
▶ 10:34:55And no one can explain our exit strategy or even if we have one. And no one can tell us how much additional American treasure we will have to spill in Ukraine. For years, while NATO pushed eastward despite Russia's repeated warnings, our NATO allies underinvested in their own defenses and counted on the American people to bail them out. Americans don't want another forever war. Americans don't want to keep paying for Zillinsky's photo ops and they sure as hell don't want their sons and daughters to die in the dawn boss. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield
▶ 10:35:26Gentle lady yields back. Chair now recognizes gentle lady from Oh, chair recognizes the ranking member.
▶ 10:35:32Thank you, Mr. Chairman. spoke why we should support Ukraine to some detail, but just a couple things. I mean, just voted to increase the debt by nearly $4 trillion. I mean, I I just don't think you should be able to talk about the debt after you take a vote like that. Second of all, yes, I agree. The American people do not want the United States of America to send our troops to fight in wars. I think we've learned some really strong lessons about what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there are no American troops fighting in Ukraine.
▶ 10:36:01We want to prevent that from happening by keeping peace and stability in the world so that it doesn't tumble into that direction. So to use the wars where we did send American troops and in many cases mistakenly as an excuse for not stopping what Putin is doing in Eastern Europe completely misses the point. And we are not trying to create a liberal democracy.
▶ 10:36:25Ukraine was a free democracy before Putin invaded in an attempt to destroy it. In a relatively lowcost way, we are keeping peace and stability in a part of the world that could easily turn in the other direction. This is an excellent investment in that. And the endgame, as I said in the first point, is to stop Putin so he's forced to the table as has been outlined.
▶ 10:36:53There is no evidence that he's going to stop in the Donbos or at Keev or in Muldova or elsewhere. You know, Secretary Hegsath before he was secretary had a memorable way of putting it, saying, "Well, you know, in Ukraine Putin just wants his stuff back." And what he meant by that, of course, was the Soviet Empire that Putin has, you know, waxed nostalgic as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century that it collapsed. Yeah, Mr. Secretary, you're right.
▶ 10:37:21He wants his stuff back, but there's a lot of stuff he wants. And if he's not stopped here, the conflict grows. And furthermore, if the message is sent that you can simply take territory if you have the military muscle to do it, that is a lesson that China will take one way or the other. If this proves to be a disaster for Putin, a mistake that costs Russia more than it gains, China will learn that lesson.
▶ 10:37:51If we and the 53 nation coalition, it's not just us. It's 53 nations in this coalition. If we step back and let Putin take Ukraine and god knows what else, China will heed that message as well. That is why this is in our interests and why I urge opposition to this amendment. chair and I recognize a gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.
▶ 10:38:14Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair, and I echo the ranking member's comments here as well. And we learned in the 1930s that saying, "Hey, that what's going on over in Europe or what's going on in Asia, it doesn't affect us." We learned it didn't work. Isolationism did not work in the 1930s. The GOP was last isolationist in the 1930s, and we realized it didn't work. And we've ever since World War II have been advocates for peace through strength and having a strong alliance system and standing up to the bully.
▶ 10:38:44And we talk about endless wars. We don't have any troops there. It's Ukraine that's trying to defend themselves against a barbaric invasion against bombings every night in their cities. They just need our military help so they can win this war. And I echo the comments too. It's going to cost us more if Russia prevails. I'm telling you, Moldova will be next. and they'll put them right on the border of NATO. The Baltics could very well be next.
▶ 10:39:10Georgia is already being invaded by Ukra by Russia at a smaller scale, but still the invasions going on and Azarbaijan is under threat right now as we speak. And I think Americans voted for President Trump this last cycle because of the border and because of Yet every poll I see, it's typically around 2 to1 in favor of Ukraine. So the Americans did not vote for that. They voted they voted for other reasons for President Trump.
▶ 10:39:38And I am grateful that President Trump is seeing through Putin right now and pivoting on this strategy with Ukraine and now committing weapons to go to Ukraine and I hope a lot more as we go on as we go along. I yield.
▶ 10:39:52Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes a gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Gerald.
▶ 10:39:56Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly oppose this amendment. It's shortsighted. It goes against America's most fundamental values and would our security interest in Europe. My colleague on the other side of the aisle is fond of saying she's putting America's interests first, but eliminating the Ukraine security assistance initiative is the complete opposite of putting America's interests first. There's no better investment in America's national security than our support for Ukraine.
▶ 10:40:26Russia is one of America's foremost adversaries in the world and Vladimir Putin is hellbent on destroying America's global leadership. Since he first became president, he has pushed a violent and ceaseless campaign to restore Russia to its Soviet era strength. He has invaded Russia's neighbors, including Ukraine, multiple times, assassinated political enemies, and committed blatant acts of sabotage and terrorism in Europe and across the world. Vladimir Putin is America's enemy, and anyone who says differently is delusional.
▶ 10:40:57When Putin began his brutal invasion of Ukraine three years ago, he thought he would achieve victory in a matter of days. But he severely underestimated the courage, tenacity, and ingenuity of the Ukrainian people who have fought and died every day since that invasion to defend their country. So now, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers have been killed. Thousands of tanks and vehicles have been destroyed. Hundreds of aircraft and helicopters have been shot down, and some of Russia's most formidable warships have been sunk.
▶ 10:41:27Every Russian tank that Ukrainians destroy on the battlefield, every missile they shoot out of the sky, every nuclear bomber they blow up on an airfield is one less that we have to worry about. And it is one less that the US would have to destroy if we ever ended up at war with Russia. Ukraine is fighting our adversary and destroying its military. Even Trump agrees and seems to be starting to understand the threat that Putin poses.
▶ 10:41:52In just the last few days, he's expressed support for sending significant military aid to Ukraine. How is pulling US assistance from Ukraine and strengthening Russia putting America's interests first? Moreover, the majority of US money for Ukraine is spent right here in the United States purchasing munitions and equipment from American companies. This spending supports thousands of goodaying jobs in places like New Jersey and South Carolina.
▶ 10:42:20Supporting Ukraine doesn't mean we are supporting some far-off war that doesn't impact us. Supporting Ukraine means helping them defeat our adversaries and supporting American workers. That's putting America's interests first and I yield back.
▶ 10:42:34Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle from Georgia, Mr.
▶ 10:42:38Thank Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll I'll be brief on this, but I want this war to end. And if we want this war to end, there are two things that have to happen. One is uh we have to make sure that Ukrainians can defend themselves and we have to make sure that the Ukrainians can deliver offensive punches, not just defensive punches. Now, the mistakes that have been made in the past, Biden wouldn't allow the Ukrainians to play offense.
▶ 10:43:01We did not enforce the sanctions against countries that were buying oil from Russia that allowed Vladimir Putin to prop up his economy. And when if we're honest, Europe, their banks continued to do business in Russia. And Europe, the European Union in Greece sold almost 100 ships to Russia for the Russians to carry out um their fleet so that they could sell their oil.
▶ 10:43:27So there's a lot of people in the world that are responsible for um this Ukrainian war continuing at this stage. Now, what why does it matter? Well, it matters because of democracy, but I would respectfully submit it also matters because of the global food supply. Odessa's port is probably the largest port from the standpoint of gross tonnage of food deliveries to the world and the global food supply.
▶ 10:43:56And and the reason Putin wants to control the Black Sea is because it gives him control over a significant portion of the food supply of the world. and that gives him control over a lot of economies and um and he's he he's got to be stopped. Uh so I want the war to end. I think the best way for the war to end is for us to enforce the sanctions against Russia. Um and new sanctions too.
▶ 10:44:25But but we got to we got to give the Ukrainians the weapons they need to defend themselves until the sanctions are strong enough to Russia's economy and Putin goes back into his own territory and takes care of Russians instead of picking on um Ukrainians. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vindamman.
▶ 10:44:47Thank you, Mr. Chair. The gentle lady's amendment and comments in favor of this amendment are frankly nonsensical, short-sighted, and filled with misinformation. In fact, Russian misinformation and FSB talking points. Supporting Ukraine is in US national security interest. And it's not just the values side of this argument that freedom and democracy, the things that this country fought a revolution to achieve.
▶ 10:45:16But it's also in our real tangible national security interest now and standing against a autocratic access that is obviously very obviously forming with Iran, North Korea, China and Russia. China is watching what we do in Ukraine. They're watching to see whether we abandon our allies in NATO, our partners in Ukraine that we've committed um to supporting.
▶ 10:45:47We convinced Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons in uh in uh the '9s. They were the the third biggest nuclear power in the world. We convinced them to give up those weapons. We made a a commitment whether you want to call it a soft commitment or or otherwise. China is watching to see whether we back away from our commitments and they will act accordingly in Taiwan.
▶ 10:46:12Further, the winds are obviously changing and this amendment is contrary to the direction that this administration is heading in. The lady is on the wrong side. The general lady is on the wrong side. The war in Ukraine has provided untold benefits to the national security of this country. Taking out some of the strategic bombers, taking out thousands of armored vehicles that were uh poised uh against us in in Eastern Europe.
▶ 10:46:42And um frankly, it's created space in places like Syria where the Russians were too distracted in in uh in Ukraine to be able to reinforce Bashar al-Assad. And the same thing in Iran. The the benefits are are very obvious to me and uh I think the general lady is wrong on this amendment and I urge uh voting against it. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 10:47:10Gentleman yields back. here. I recognize a gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorenson.
▶ 10:47:13Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I strongly oppose Congresswoman Mace's shortsighted amendment to cut funding for the Ukraine security initiative. When Americans speak, people around the world listen. When America stands by its allies, its allies stand by us. When we abandon our allies, the rest of the world wonders if we will abandon them. Letting Vladimir Putin win isn't just bad for Ukraine, it's bad for us.
▶ 10:47:44Within the past few weeks, the city of Brovery experienced horrific shelling and a major drone attack at the hands of Russia. Brovery, Ukraine is the sister city of my hometown of Rockford, Illinois. Both cities have a place in my heart. The inconsistent messages from the White House are an embarrassment. The rest of the world is looking at us and either laughing or crying.
▶ 10:48:11While I'm glad our uh already congressionally appropriated military aid will be making its way to Ukraine, it should never be in question. I'm thankful that President Trump is finally beginning to understand who Putin really is. He's a man who says one thing and does something else. a dangerous autocrat who is hellbent on doing anything he can to resurrect the Soviet Union.
▶ 10:48:41As Americans, we must remain unified and the only thing the Congresswoman's amendment would do is make us weaker in the eyes of our adversaries. I urge my colleagues to be on the right side of this vote and on the right side of history. Vote no. I yield back.
▶ 10:48:59Gentleman yields back. Tier recognize gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.
▶ 10:49:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support the amendment because I support the the cessation of feeding this war. There's been zero definition of what victory would look like over there. You think Crimea is going back to Ukraine? You think they're getting back their eastern territories? You fed them.
▶ 10:49:31I've been on the ground over there having my heart love for the Ukrainian people and their and their stance for their for their own sovereignty and their freedom. I know what it I I know what that feels like. And you have fed them enough weaponry for their entire nation to be pounded into dust. And who's going to rebuild?
▶ 10:49:54If you could define victory, if anyone in this body could define out of some fantastic imagination that Ukraine is going to defeat Russia and get back what pre9 pre204 it's insanity and if that would happen funded by the American people
▶ 10:50:24with borrowed money that we don't have. We're currently $37 trillion in debt. The ranking member says that we voted to raise a debt. He knows that's not true. He knows that's not true. We raised we raised the the debt limit and decrease spending. And I think 37 trillion is not humorous. Good sir.
▶ 10:50:47If this body were to run a $1 billion surplus, it would require 37,000 years to address a $ 37 trillion debt. And that is not funny. So the American people are indeed watching very carefully should we continue to spend borrowed treasure on a war that that this body is unable to define victory.
▶ 10:51:16I support the good lady's amendment and I take offense to the to the way she's been referenced here. She certainly put her heart and her mind and her intentions into what she believes is best for the American people and I understand where she's coming from. I support the president's diplomatic endeavor, including using the threat of enhanced military actions. But watch what he does.
▶ 10:51:43President Trump is 10, 20 steps ahead of everybody in the and he knows that the end to this war is the only way to define victory. I support the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I
▶ 10:51:59Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognize gentleman from California, Mr.
▶ 10:52:05Well, sir, you certainly riled me up, but I'm going to let Mr. Smith have a go at you. I yield my time to Mr. Smith. I'm not going to have a go at anybody, but thank you very much. And just three quick points. One, to the extent that anyone was disrespectful to Miss Mace, I certainly didn't hear it. I mean, I appreciate the we have different of opinion. We expressed that difference of opinion. I don't think anyone said anything disrespectful. Um, second of all, I'm sorry, but you didn't just vote to increase the debt. That's a hard one to swallow.
▶ 10:52:33I apologize for laughing, but every single person who's analyzed it, even your own side agrees that you increase the debt. The disagreement is by how much. So, that one really threw me. But third, I will tell you what the definition of victory is. It is what the Biden administration said from time to time and then really struggled to stick to the message. I will grant you that.
▶ 10:52:58a sovereign democratic Ukraine that can defend itself and we don't wind up with a war against Russia. That is the definition of success. We are not insisting upon a particular set of borders. We are insisting that Putin stops his attempt to destroy Ukraine. That there is a sovereign democratic Ukraine when this is done. It will not be perfect to be sure, but to give up and let Putin destroy Ukraine.
▶ 10:53:29The goal is to stop that. Now, I'll grant you not everyone has been as clear as they should have been on that, but that has been the approach from the very start. A sovereign democratic Ukraine, the survival of Ukraine. That I think is achievable and that's what we should help them achieve. I yield back. Thank you. Um Oh my Mr. Smith, you left me with a minute 10 seconds.
▶ 10:53:55What's wrong with brevity? Exactly right. You just heard a definition of success from Mr. Smith. I'll give you a definition of defeat. Ukraine is overrun by Russia. Ukraine becomes a satellite of Russia or is absorbed into Russia.
▶ 10:54:17And then the next step is what Putin has said repeatedly for the last 25 years and that is the of the old Soviet Union including the Warsaw Pack. So all of the Eastern European countries are at risk. The definition of defeat is Russia taking dominating in one another way Ukraine. Step one.
▶ 10:54:47Step two has been alluded to by our colleagues here. That's the definition of defeat. I yield back.
▶ 10:54:54Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Hulahan.
▶ 10:55:00Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I strongly strongly oppose uh Representative Mace's amendment. It is absolutely insane to stop funding for Ukraine's security initiative at this point in time. I would encourage us, I would beg us to remember our history. Dare I say or ask people to do the research and understand that it is 1939 again here in this world.
▶ 10:55:29This is my father's teddy bear. It is a sawdust teddy bear that he brought over from Poland when he survived the Holocaust and World War II with his mom. He was born in what is now Ukraine. what it was was Poland at the time in 1942, just days into and days away from Hitler's final solution. We know how this conflict will end because Putin has told us how it's going to end.
▶ 10:55:57We know where this is going because he has told us where this is going. to Georgia, to the Baltics, to Azerbaijan, and indeed to Lithuania, where Pennsylvania's partner nation in Lithuania's soldiers are sitting right now as we speak. And then it's going possibly to she because he's watching, too, because they are watching, too.
▶ 10:56:21The investment that we Americans are putting into this is pennies on the dollar in terms of what we get in return. These brave Ukrainian men and women who have fought for years on our behalfs and put their lives on on the line for us for the democracies around the world deserve our continued support and I'm grateful that President Trump has finally seemingly seen the reality and the and the importance of support of Ukraine.
▶ 10:56:49I agree that this amendment is misplaced. Uh it is a artifact of time and history and it should be dismissed uh without regard. We must support Ukraine. Past is absolutely prologue. And I yield back.
▶ 10:57:05Gentle lady yields back. Chair not recognize a gentleman, Mr. Basquez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I may have missed something, Mr. Chair. Uh, and I want to make sure this doesn't go unressed. Uh, but what exactly do the California ice raids have anything to do with the Ukraine security initiative? We have got to stop scapegoating immigrants for every issue on the other side because this has absolutely nothing to do with this subject matter.
▶ 10:57:30We should be treating this committee with the respect that it deserves and staying on topic and talking about Ukraine and our national interest in the Baltic. And I respect the other side when they make coherent and logical arguments as to why we should be pulling out. Those are good discussions for us to have here. But I don't believe the Ukraine security initiative has anything to do with California ice rates. Unless I'm mistaken, unless there's some secret Ukraine cartel organization that's smuggling Central Americans into California.
▶ 10:57:58If that's the case, then I I will retract my comments. But as far as I know, using immigrants to scapegoat an issue about the Ukraine security initiative, give me a break. This has nothing to do with immigrants. I urge my colleagues to strongly oppose this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
▶ 10:58:13Gentleman yields back. Chair, I recognize a gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
▶ 10:58:18You know, um, thank you, Mr. Chair. my my colleague talked about um how likely is it to uh defeat for Ukraine to defeat Russia. And I would just say let's just go back and look at history. There was this I read about this small colony that took on the baddest, biggest superpower the world had ever seen and won its independence.
▶ 10:58:44And so I would remind this body to not forget who we are. We are the we are the legacy of of democracy. And democracy is hard. It's tough when it takes root. We have to support it as we've said before. But let's not forget who we are. And we our sworn enemy. We get an opportunity to take on our sworn enemy without using any of our troops.
▶ 10:59:16There's a disconnect here. I I don't what the what the issue is here when we're talking about a democracy that is fighting for its sovereignty that that aligns with our our very same principles. And so um I think we just need to remember who we are. I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Vinman.
▶ 10:59:39Thank you.
▶ 10:59:41Thank you. So um now that we're talking about history, a favorite topic of mine, let us also remember when when this nation was born, we defeated the the greatest power, land power and sea power on the planet. But we did that also with the help of the French. And um maybe we ought to remember that when we consider whether we want to support or revoke our support from the Russians.
▶ 11:00:06Let me recommend to my colleague also that on the other side of the aisle that um the values that you recognize in the Ukrainians seeking freedom, democracy, you know, this is a new democracy only 34 years old or so. Why not let those be your guidepost on what the right action here is? It's consistent with our national security. We already talked about that. But let's also be guided by by our values. Let's talk a little bit of facts. Ukraine is not being is not being powed into dust.
▶ 11:00:35Ukrainian cities are taking heavy fire undoubtedly, but there's no eminent threat of a collapse. Ukraine is now a major UAV power. We saw that in Operation Spiderweb. We see that in um the pace of Russian advance on the front line. We may be the preferred partner, but we're not the only partner. The Europeans will step in. NATO will step in. I guarantee the Polish have no interest in having Russia on their doorstep. Finally, how do we get to peace?
▶ 11:01:06We need negotiations. And we get to negotiations only by putting pressure on Russia. That is the direction that we have to move in. That is the direction the president is moving in. And that's why I'm against this amendment. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 11:01:20Gentlemen's time's expired. Does any other members seek recognition?
▶ 11:01:23Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman.
▶ 11:01:25I'm sorry. I don't Okay, Mr. Keing is
▶ 11:01:28Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh the number 30 to 27 is going to be something we'll remember tomorrow morning or whenever we get through with this because the votes will always be 30 to 27 with rare exceptions in this. So in one sense I'm glad this amendment's placed in. Uh I'm against it. Uh the concept behind it is dead wrong. We're going to have an opportunity in this committee and I think hope I'm not wrong where you're not going to see a 30 to 27 vote against this.
▶ 11:01:58You're going to see a bipartisan vote against this because there's a bipartisan consensus in Congress that we're concerned about honoring nuclear proliferation agreements that date back to the Budapest agreement here. Uh something that's important as we negotiate other agreements. We're at least sticking to our words so far. Not as well as I'd like, but certainly not the way Russia has betrayed that.
▶ 11:02:25There's a bipartisan concern about China and the threat of China and everyone in this committee knows our number one policy is and the number one example of not being deterrent power is collapsing our coalition around our support of Ukraine. There's a bipartisan concern about funding too and the money.
▶ 11:02:48And I think particularly long-standing members of this committee will know that uh in the absence of Ukraine winning and Putin's uh just overt attacks and threats to the Baltics, we're going to deploy more troops uh in Eastern Europe if Ukraine loses. And that'll cost a multiple uh amount more than the small amount we're investing here.
▶ 11:03:13And there's also a bipartisan concern on how we're going to pay it on the repo act uh and using the Russian frozen assets potentially to rebuild and to help Ukraine the way that we should make the person that's responsible and in Europe that's over $300 billion that's there much smaller here.
▶ 11:03:34So, I look at this vote coming up later on on this amendment, and I hopefully we'll see a break from about every other vote that we're going to have. And that will be a great message to send to Putin.
▶ 11:03:50That'll be a great message to send to people in the country who don't really know or confused by some of our support here by looking at the number one committee in Congress that's given the responsibility of making those decisions for the American people and seeing a bipartisan vote against this. So I look forward to that and I yield back.
▶ 11:04:13Gentleman yields back. Does any other members seek to speak on the me? Gentle lady from Washington, Miss Strickland. Thank you, chairman. Um, I too am going to encourage us to vote against this amendment. And speaking out against an amendment is not a personal attack on the person who brought it forward. This is about our responsibility as the United States of America to protect freedom and democracy.
▶ 11:04:36And our adversaries right now are watching this filled with glee that this nation looks divided right now. that President Zalinski first came to visit the House chambers in a bipartisan manner and got multiple standing ovations across the board. And as time has gone on, that support seems to be waning from one side of the aisle. No one wants a war to go on forever.
▶ 11:05:04But Vladimir Putin cannot be successful. He must be brought to the negotiating table to do something that is fair, that allows Ukraine to remain a sovereign nation and a democracy. So, if we want to put America first, we will support Ukraine. If we want to put America first, we're not going to take health care away from 7 million people or food out of the mouths of hungry children to give tax breaks to billionaires and jack up the debt to $4 trillion. I yield back.
▶ 11:05:35Gentle gentle yields back. Does any other member wish to speak on the Mace Uh there's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Mace. So many is in favor will say I.
▶ 11:05:47Those opposed, no.
▶ 11:05:50Opinion chair. The nos have it. All right.
▶ 11:05:56We the amendment is not agreed to. Uh we will now consider log number 5615 uh by the ranking member Mr. Smith for the purpose what purposes gentleman uh from Washington seek recognition.
▶ 11:06:10I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 11:06:12Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection or reading of the amendment dispenseed with the chair and now I recognize a ranking member for purpose of explaining his
▶ 11:06:19I'm going to do this quickly. It's essentially the same debate. This is a specific issue focused on USI money that has been designated for Ukraine. There is concern that that money would be grabbed and repurchas sorry repurposed back to US stocks. Once Congress has approved this money, it's supposed to go to Ukraine. There is some concern in a couple of instances where the Trump administration has tried to grab that back.
▶ 11:06:45This just says that once it is designated to go to Ukraine, it should go to Ukraine and not be repurposed uh back to US stocks. There's a whole lot that could be said about this, but I think we've already said it. Um and the arguments have been made fairly well on on both sides as to why we should support Ukraine. This is another amendment that simply assure ensures that we do so. And with that, I yield back. Mr. Chairman,
▶ 11:07:11gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Uh, American service members and security must take priority. Period. That's why I cannot support this an amendment that would tie the Pentagon's hands in a crisis and potentially put our troops at risk. Let me also set the record straight. The president is not diverting weapons bound for Europe. In fact, he announced yesterday that he plans to sell more weapons to eur to our European allies to backfill their military assistance to Ukraine. Therefore, I oppose the amendment. Uh, and now I recognize gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
▶ 11:07:41Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'm also someone who has always voted to support Ukraine. Uh, but I respectfully disagree with Ranking Member Smith on this one. I do think that the administration needs the ability to uh direct where weapons u are going. And sometimes I've agreed with those decisions, sometimes I've disagreed with them.
▶ 11:08:05Um I I just think we need to maintain what we currently have in this particular area. With that I yield. Gentleman yields back. Chair I recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Garam Almost went by this one and I'm suppose that many of you wish I had. However, um in listening to Mr.
▶ 11:08:28Smith as he presented this I began thinking about exactly what we have before us here. Uh this amendment basically says that money that is intended for Ukraine must go to Ukraine.
▶ 11:08:45uh we went through this uh 14 months ago, 15 months ago uh about American stocks and the money that was available at that time was used to rebuild our stocks but not sent to Ukraine. Uh this amendment deals with that problem.
▶ 11:09:05If we're going to pass an to fund Ukraine's military uh efforts, then that those talks whatever they may be of military weapons whatever uh should go to Ukraine.
▶ 11:09:21I would also bring to the attention of the committee a very fundamental issue that thus far we have not de dealt with directly and that is the interaction between the roughly $130 billion of additional money for the military uh and the underlying legislation that we're presently working on. Uh in the days ahead, we're going to have to try to figure out how those two fit together.
▶ 11:09:51And I would suggest that there is a very fit in this issue before us and that is in the U reconciliation bill among the 16 different items that are addressed in that bill. One of them is to rebuild the American stocks of of weapons and munitions and the like.
▶ 11:10:16Uh therefore there is money before us today in the reconciliation bill which presumably we cannot touch that could and should be used unless it's considered to be a slush fund uh for rebuilding American stocks of of Patriots and 155s and every every other thing that we need.
▶ 11:10:41So there's a the solution on rebuilding our stocks is already available to us. And so the money that Mr. Smith is talking about here really is for Ukraine, not a supplement to the supplement that is in the reconciliation bill. So with that, I'll yield back and draw the attention of the committee to not to worry, American stocks are covered in the reconciliation bill. This money is for Ukraine. I yield back.
▶ 11:11:11Mr. Courtney,
▶ 11:11:12gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney's recognized.
▶ 11:11:15Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Mr. Smith.
▶ 11:11:19Just a couple of quick points. First of all, we're talking about a very small amount of money in USAI. This is not tying the president's hands on the entire defense budget or any portion of it. It's, I believe, a couple of billion dollars that has been designated by Congress to go there. And in terms of our own stocks, two other arguments. First, we just spent our uh appropriated 150 billion additional dollars over the top to help with US needs. First of all, um so I think that should help with that.
▶ 11:11:49And second of all, there is authority within USAI for the president to replenish USA sorry, US stocks as part of USAI. This is not taking a lot of money away from the US government um's ability to build its own munitions. Second, Ukraine is sort of the point of the spear at the moment. They are the ones that are being bombarded continuously.
▶ 11:12:15If we, you know, are focused on the fight with our adversaries, that is where the fight is at and should be prioritized. Lastly, the purpose for this amendment is to help push the Trump administration, where they seem to be going in the last few days, but weren't before, to understand the importance of Ukraine and support it and to show that Congress means what we said a little while ago.
▶ 11:12:38Um, not everybody here voted for the for the uh Ukrainian money last year, but but most of us did, certainly the ones who were here. But it's pretty clear, I think, that we need to restate that priority. So I don't think it's going to hamper the US in any way and I urge folks who are strongly supportive of Ukraine to support this amendment. I yield back.
▶ 11:12:58Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
▶ 11:13:02Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
▶ 11:13:06So I I think uh the issue is that while the money has been appropriated to develop new weapons and manufacture new weapons, those weapons are not uh developed or manufactured at this stage. And we are currently engaged um in the Middle East uh the Houthis, Iran, other areas.
▶ 11:13:29And there may be a scenario under which weapons that were destined to go to Ukraine, the United States, it would actually be better served putting those weapons in the fight um the Hoodis or the Iranians. And I just think and and with respect to the ranking member that the administration does not have an unlimited supply of weapons.
▶ 11:13:54And if they need to be able to make the decision to to shift a weapon from Ukraine to uh the Middle East or some other theater, I I I think we need to make sure that the um administration has the ability to do that. And so it's just a respectful disagreement. Certainly support Ukraine.
▶ 11:14:13the weapons that the money has been appropriated for have not been developed, the stocks have not been replenished, but if the administration needs to send the weapons into the Middle East for white fight against the Hoodies or the Iranians, um then they need to have the flexibility to do that. I think the only time it's ever been used, according to my notes, was for counterdrawn rockets and fuses for those counterdrawn rockets. With that, I yield.
▶ 11:14:36Does any other members seek recognition on the ranking members If there's no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by uh Mr. Smith. So many in favor will say I.
▶ 11:14:50Those opposed, no.
▶ 11:14:52Opinion to chair. The nos have it. Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote is postponed. We will now consider log number uh by the ranking member, Mr. Smith. For what purposes? Gentleman from Washington State seek recognition.
▶ 11:15:10I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 11:15:12Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendments dispensed with the chair. Now recognize the rank member for the p purpose of explaining his
▶ 11:15:20Thank you. This is a similar amendment on stocks that we have procured specifically for Europe. As has been mentioned by a number of people, we want Europe to step up and be more responsible for their own defense and also they are part of supporting Ukraine. There's certainly agreement in the Trump administration that they want Europe to take more responsibility for that fight. If we have procured stocks for Europe specifically, we should not be able to grab them back. It's a similar argument.
▶ 11:15:49I imagine the opponents will make a similar argument against this. And the only thing I would emphasize again is a point I made before. Europe, sorry, Ukraine is where the fight is at right now. If we stop Putin in Ukraine, that's going to make it easier everywhere. Iran is cooperating very closely with Russia. Russia gets stronger, we got bigger problems in the Middle East. We have the opportunity to stop them in Ukraine. That should be our priority. We shouldn't be taking weapons away from there.
▶ 11:16:19That will only cause us more problems in every other theater that we can think of. So, I urge support for the amendment and yield back.
▶ 11:16:26Gentleman yields back. Chair not recognizes himself. I must oppose this amendment. Like the amendment before on Ukraine, there is no effort to divert weapons from our European allies. However, if a crisis occurs in the Middle East or Pacific, we need to give the commander-in-chief the flexibility to respond to that crisis and protect our troops. Uh for that reason, I urge members to oppose this amendment. And is there any other member that wishes to see speak on this amendment? If there's no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr.
▶ 11:16:56Smith. So many in favor will say I. I. Those opposed? No.
▶ 11:17:01Chair, the nos have it. Amendment uh recorded votes requested. Recorded vote will be postponed.
▶ 11:17:07Uh we will now consider log number 5626 by Mr. Molton. For what purposes? Gentleman from Massachusetts seek
▶ 11:17:15Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 11:17:16Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now recognizes a gentleman from Massachusetts for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 11:17:25Mr. Chairman, I've not been a fan of President Trump's Ukraine policy up until this week at least. He's been paring Kremlin talking points for the last 6 months, just as we heard in this hearing room quite remarkably for some of the last 60 minutes. But I do believe in the chain of command and the role of the commander-in-chief. The Department of Defense has now twice paused or interfered with lethal aid to Ukraine without direct orders from the president. Both times the president disagreed with the decision.
▶ 11:17:56So regardless of my disagreements with the president, we have one commander-in-chief. It's not Bridge KBY or Pete Hegsth. Last week, Mr. Trump said, quote, "We get a lot of thrown at us by Mr. Putin." Well, no kidding, Mr. President. Let's limit it to coming from Putin and not your own Secretary of Defense. We understand that the CA the Pentagon is in chaos under Secretary Hegsth, but it's a new level of chaos when that goes up the chain of command and not just down.
▶ 11:18:27When the Department of Defense freelances with lethal aid, it sends mixed signals to our allies and emboldens our adversaries. My amendment reaffirms a foundational principle. The military answers to one commander-in-chief. The Secretary of Defense should have no authority to freelance foreign policy. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 11:18:45Gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes himself. The president is in full control of America's Ukraine policy. Yesterday's announcement to accelerate weapon deliveries with NATO support made that crystal clear. Therefore, this amendment does nothing more than add red tape. Uh by contrast, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Turner, offered a serious amendment earlier to provide real oversight of the aid uh pauses that have already been addressed and reversed.
▶ 11:19:12I support supported that amendment but I will oppose this one as it is nothing more than political theater. U does anybody else wish to speak on this amendment? Uh Miss Cheryl of New Jersey.
▶ 11:19:28Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my strong support for Rep. Molton's amendment today. The Pentagon has frozen the delivery of aid to Ukraine three times since President Trump's inauguration. Two of those times, Secretary Hegsth froze the aid without even gaining the approval of President Trump.
▶ 11:19:45According to news reports, the first time Secretary Hegsth the froze the aid was less than two weeks into the Trump administration when he apparently misunderstood President Trump's directions in a National Security Council meeting and believed that DoD was supposed to halt all aid delivery to Ukraine. While this decision was reversed by the White House only a few days later, Secretary Hegsth's poor decision cost millions of taxpayer dollars and delayed the delivery of vital aid.
▶ 11:20:15Last month, I asked Secretary Hegsth about this early freeze in aid to Ukraine when he testified before this very committee. Secretary Hegsth unsurprisingly refused to provide an actual response to my questions about why he ordered the first freeze to aid. Then just a few weeks ago, we learned again that he uh ordered the freeze of vital military assistance to Ukraine. Again, he apparently didn't coordinate with the White House or State Department before making his order.
▶ 11:20:43And once again, Secretary Hegsath's decision was overruled by President Trump. His poor judgment and mismanagement of the Pentagon has twice now led to the freeze of military assistance to Ukraine. This committee needs to make sure that these deadly pauses don't happen again. President Trump himself has apparently come around to the idea and announced that he would once again begin sending significant defense equipment to Ukraine.
▶ 11:21:08After serving at Sinus Navier and as a Russian policy officer in the Navy, I know firsthand how dangerous a threat Vladimir Putin is to Ukraine, Europe, and the US. The Ukrainian soldiers fighting and dying on the front lines against Russia don't have time to wait for the delivery of artillery and munitions. They need that aid today. Thank you, and I yield back. gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
▶ 11:21:32Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is um like that, you know, the old impeachment trial from a few congresses back. It's just political theater. President Trump has proven that he is a strong leader and he's clearly in charge of his Ukrainian policy has proven by him being the first president to uh send lethal aid and by unlocking more arms to keep um using NATO funding. This is about delegation.
▶ 11:21:57There's a reason why every president has a cabinet and if the president's not happy with any of his cabinet members, he can uh fire them and he can or ask them to resign. So, put simply, this is sticking your congressional nose where it does not belong. This amendment is just really political fog and it's a a waste of time. For those reasons, I oppose it and I urge my colleagues to get back to the task at hand. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chair, I recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Whitides.
▶ 11:22:23Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support this amendment strongly because it is not only consistent with US law and our constitution, but because it is crucial to our nation's interests at home and abroad. We all know this fact. Unilateral freezes of aid weaken our credibility with our allies. Our allies rely on us to stand by our commitments. Pausing aid to Ukraine sends a message that the US is an unreliable partner, especially damaging in a moment when global coalitions matter more now than ever.
▶ 11:22:52It also empowers authoritarian regimes. Every delay is a gift to the Putin regime and to the ambitious autocrats watching from Beijing, Thrron, and Pyongyang. When we waffle, they revel. They re revel in our lack of resolve. Let's be frank here. This is bigger than Eastern Europe. A Russian victory would embolden aggressive aggression globally, disrupt trade routes, and destabilize energy markets. All of which will affect American families at home.
▶ 11:23:19We don't need to posture and we don't need to lean on Russian narratives about Ukraine. Ukraine is using our aid to tremendous effect. Without deploying US troops on the ground, we are degrading the military of one of our principal adversaries. That's a strategic return on investment. And this fight isn't just about Ukraine and Russia. This fight is about a frontline democracy fighting for survival. If we believe in the rule of law, in freedom of speech, in in self-determination, then our values demand action, not hesitation.
▶ 11:23:49And on this committee, we all agree that national security doesn't exist in silos. It's interlin. This isn't just about tanks or missile defense platforms. It's a multi-dommain fight that shapes the future of warfare. Standing with Ukraine helps us learn, adapt, and strengthen our own defenses. I know many of our colleagues on the committee are also on the foreign affairs committee and I can't believe that this needs to be said but neither the secretary of defense nor USD policy gets to override US foreign policy.
▶ 11:24:17Neither the secretary of defense nor under secretary Kby should have unilateral authority to freeze aid without the president's explicit approval. Decisions of this magnitude do not belong to a single cabinet official with a political agenda. This amendment doesn't tie the president's hands. It doesn't change the president's policies. It simply corrects an overreach. It's common sense. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and I yield back.
▶ 11:24:40Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentle lady from California, Miss Jacobs.
▶ 11:24:45Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly support uh this amendment. Continuing US military support of Ukraine helps secure American interests, protect democracy, preserve global stability, and reaffirm the rules-based order that we rely on for our shared security, prosperity, and peace. And it does all of this without dragging the US into direct boots on the ground war. But Secretary Hegsth has unilaterally stopped military shipments to Ukraine at least three times that we know about.
▶ 11:25:14All seemingly on a whim without any inter agency coordination. Secretary Hexes failure to notify the White House or Congress before pausing these shipments is beyond concerning. I can only imagine what my Republican colleagues would be saying if Secretary Austin had done this. And it adds to the laundry list of actions that show that Pete Hexath is unfit to serve as Secretary of Defense.
▶ 11:25:40And I wish more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would stand up and say it publicly because I know they know it and they tell me privately. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
▶ 11:25:51Is any other member? Gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Keing, recognized.
▶ 11:25:55Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chairman, I I really didn't think this amendment would have been necessary, honestly, until just uh a short time ago. Uh you know, uh it came to the attention uh of the press and public secondhandedly that uh the Secretary of Defense had made another his third effort to cancel shipment shipments that uh this Congress supported to Ukraine.
▶ 11:26:22And it came to the attention of reporters at the White House. And the reporters asked the president, they said, you know, why did you uh why did you cut those arms back? And the president responded, you know, well, I I don't know. I mean, you tell me. They said, who's responsible? And he said, well, you tell me.
▶ 11:26:47So, the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief was asking a reporter, this is all public. Most of you have seen the clip of this. The president of the United States was asking a reporter to tell him who ordered the cancellation of shipments of arms to Ukraine. It's amazing. So, I'm going to support this amendment when I just think of three simple words.
▶ 11:27:14The president saying, "Well, you tell me." Well, you know what? Commander-in-chief should be telling the American public, not asking a reporter, why the shipment of arms was being canceled. I yield back.
▶ 11:27:28Gentleman yields back. Does any other member wish to speak on this amendment? There being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Molton. So, many in favor will say I.
▶ 11:27:42I. Those opposed? No.
▶ 11:27:44Pins here. The nos have it. Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote will be
▶ 11:27:52We will now consider log number 5582 uh by Mr. Smith. For what purposes a ranking member seek recognition?
▶ 11:28:00I have an amendment at the desk. Mr.
▶ 11:28:01Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with the chair and I recognize the ranking member for purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 11:28:09Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will attempt to be brief. this an amendment basically to prohibit um the Department of Defense, the president from using military force to grab territory from Canada, Panama or Greenland. We will remember during the hearing, Secretary Hath, despite Mr.
▶ 11:28:26Turner's noble efforts to try to give him an opportunity to say so um would not deny that they had a plan to use the US military to by force take land from any one of those three places. I think that is a very bad idea um for a number of reasons. Most importantly, it has been a cornerstone of our foreign policy since the end of World War I to try and put in place a rules-based international order.
▶ 11:28:56Now, I understand that is not perfect and certainly hasn't been perfect, but it is incredibly important principle of international law that really didn't used to exist. Fascinating article on foreign affairs uh just last month outlining the history of it. And prior to World War II, it was kind of accepted that if countries wanted to take land, international law allowed them to do so. Changing that has given us the most peaceful 80 years in the history of human civilization.
▶ 11:29:23I know it may not seem like it, but by comparison it is. If we, the United States of America, who was most responsible for positing that change in international law, just shredded to go after Canada, Greenland, and Panama, we are jeopardizing the very global security system that we put in place and offering justifications to Putin and Chi and others who want to do the same thing.
▶ 11:29:51It is horrible to talk about that as the president has. It's horrible that the secretary of defense did not even deny that there was potentially plans to do it. Now, the argument will be made, well, you never know. Okay? Do we really want to tie the president's hands in terms of using military engagement?
▶ 11:30:10And I will, you know, admit I'm fond of the phrase, "The future is notoriously hard to predict." But I will say that I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that we are not going to be militarily threatened by Canada, Panama, or Denmark through Greenland. That's not going to happen. And the risk of allowing a policy to stay out there that we think it is acceptable to threaten weaker neighbors because that's all we're doing. There's no national security threat here.
▶ 11:30:40They don't threaten us at all. We merely they have something that we want. So, we've decided that it is okay to use force to threaten them, which makes us no better than Putin because that's exactly what he's doing in Ukraine and the threats that he's giving to other countries. This is a policy that I think this committee should stand for. We should stand up for the principles of international law and not threaten our partners and allies uh just because we think we can. I yield back. gentleman yields back here and recognizes himself.
▶ 11:31:11Despite my enormous respect for the ranking member, I see this as a messaging amendment that has realworld consequences. Uh it would tie our military's hands in a crisis. We'd be prevented from honoring our NATO article 5 commitments if Greenland or Canada were in fact attacked. Uh, worse, we would be unable to defend our own troops if our base in Greenland came under fire or US forces were targeted while transiting the Panama Canal. We'd be forced to stand down.
▶ 11:31:40Even rescuing American hostages in danger would be off the table. Leaving American citizens and service members exposed is unacceptable. Therefore, I respectfully have to oppose my friend's amendment. I would like to recognize a gentle lady from New Jersey.
▶ 11:31:55Thank you, Mr. Chairman. supporting this amendment because I agree with the ranking member that normalizing the idea that a country can simply annex another country will lead to further destabilization and is against the rules and norms of the international community. Thank you and I yield back.
▶ 11:32:10Gentle lady yields back. Chair and I recognize gentle lady from California, Miss Jacobs.
▶ 11:32:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Honestly, I can't even believe we're debating this. Like, this is too crazy even to be a VEP story line and yet here we are. This is not strategically sound military decision that anyone should actually make. First of all, it's unnecessary and risks destabilizing the region, antagonizing Denmark, an ally, and provoking our adversaries into increasing their own Arctic footprint. No current threat justifies a deployment of US troops.
▶ 11:32:44We already have the Pufix space base that meets our current defense needs, and we don't need an aggressive posture there. And Greenland, unlike its name would suggest, is cold throughout the year. It's remote. It's cold. And contrary to what Vice President Vance seems to believe, Patu space can't accommodate an endless number of US troops beyond the ones that are already there. Maybe he would know that if anyone had agreed to meet with him.
▶ 11:33:09Any increased presence would be costly, logistically challenging, and a hardship to the military families forced to deploy there. Deploying US troops would be a waste of time, a waste of resources, and a waste of money. So, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to prevent such a silly deployment. Thank you. I yield back.
▶ 11:33:30Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from uh Connecticut, Mr. Courtney's
▶ 11:33:34Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to Mr.
▶ 11:33:36Thank you. I do realize that this is probably not the decisive factor, but nothing in this amendment says that we can't defend these territories or that we can't come to their aid. It just says that we can't use our military force to seize their territory. So, I I disagree with the chairman's interpretation of that. This is about preventing us from seizing territory through military force.
▶ 11:34:01It does not prevent us from meeting our treaty commitments or defending our allies which would be a preferable approach. I yield back.
▶ 11:34:09I yield. Gentleman yields back. Chair not recognizes gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.
▶ 11:34:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would submit if we did a sense of Congress saying we disagreed with the comments about Canada, uh, Greenland, Denmark, Panama. that that would address the concerns that we have about the president's comments, but would but would also address the chairman's concerns about tying our hands for hostages and things like that. But, you know, I share the concerns from the ranking member of the comments made.
▶ 11:34:39I I know many businesses in Omaha who have lost business with Canadian uh clients out of because they're angry at us. We're seeing a a a decrease in Canadian tourists coming here. I have personal friends in Denmark. The Danes have lost more people per capita in Afghanistan. Of all the countries in Europe fighting by our side, they felt very hurt by the comments of our our administration. So I think it would be fair game to say we disagree with the comments.
▶ 11:35:08These are our allies as a sense of Congress tying our hands in some of the scenarios that the the chairman meant that the chairman said. Thank you. I yield.
▶ 11:35:19Gentleman yields back. Gentle lady from Washington to recognize Miss Strickland.
▶ 11:35:23Thank you, chairman. The fact that we are even having to have this conversation is absurd. And under any other president, Democrat or Republican, we wouldn't have to bring this forward. But here we are with this administration in words that get thrown out there. Um, I was on a Kodell with leader Jeff and a group of folks and we were in Denmark among other cities.
▶ 11:35:48And when we did the presser, the entire Danish press had one question that kept coming up with every outlet. Are you going to do something if President Trump tries to invade Greenland? Will Congress try to stop them? This is a big concern to them. So even though we say to ourselves, well, he just said that. He really doesn't mean it. You just don't know what to expect with this administration. Again, any other president, Democrat or Republican, this would not be necessary.
▶ 11:36:18But there's an issue of trust. There's an issue of credibility, and we have to make sure that we are standing with our allies. I yield back.
▶ 11:36:25Gentle lady yields back. Gentleman from California, Mr. Connor, is recognized.
▶ 11:36:30Mr. Chairman, um my biggest concern with the annexation is not simply the violation of the international rule of law. as ranking member Smith says, but also that it is a fundamental misunderstanding of power in the 21st century. I mean, power in the 19th century was about the acquisition of land. And if President Trump was born at the time of James Pulk, maybe he would have been a great president.
▶ 11:36:57But power in the 21st century is about technology leadership. It is about having supply chains. It is about leading in biotechnology, in quantum computing, in electric vehicles. And I would submit that the most important article yesterday in the New York Times was by David Otter, an MIT professor, who says we're losing to China on industry after industry in terms of building our economic power.
▶ 11:37:23So to me, this is just a distraction of a nation that would be in decline if we don't reverse our industrial policy and our technology leadership. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman chair and I recognize gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
▶ 11:37:41Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief about this, but I think this is this hits on one of the points that um President Trump has been trying to make that nobody's paying attention to. If you look at Canada, they spend about 1.5% of their GDP on defense, somewhere less than $30 billion. The fact of the matter is they're totally dependent upon the United States to protect them if somebody attacks them. These other countries like Canada have got to reach closer to the 5% and help with the security of the world.
▶ 11:38:11So, I mean, the there's no plan to invade Canada. Uh but the fact of the matter is if anybody invaded Canada, they would be totally dependent upon the US to defend to defend them because they have not done their job
▶ 11:38:26building their own.
▶ 11:38:28So So you're saying that basically this is just telling Canada, hey, if you don't get your stuff together, we're coming for you.
▶ 11:38:34No, we don't want them.
▶ 11:38:36We don't want any more threatening them.
▶ 11:38:39We're trying to export.
▶ 11:38:40All right.
▶ 11:38:41We're trying to export people that think like that. Uh uh but back to the it's a serious issue that the rest of the a large portion of the rest of the world including Canada has become dependent upon the United States taxpayer to cover their back. Canada and the majority of the countries of the world are not putting in what it takes to have reasonable defense mechanisms against aggression.
▶ 11:39:05and they I believe have the second lowest percentage of contributions of GDP uh in NATO below 2%. I think there are two countries below 2% and NATO is one of them. With that, I yield. Gentlemen yields back. Does any other member wish to speak on this amendment? There be no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Smith. So in favor will say I.
▶ 11:39:31Those opposed, no.
▶ 11:39:32No. Chair the nose have it. Recorded votes for question. Quarter vote will be We will now consider log number 5284 by Mr. Crow. For what purposes, gentleman from Colorado seek recognition.
▶ 11:39:49Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 11:39:51Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The chair, the gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment.
▶ 11:40:01Thank you, Mr. Chairman. America is strong not just because we have the most bombers, the largest aircraft carrier fighter groups or the largest defense industrial base. We are strong and at our strongest when we have friends. You know, our partners and our alliance network is the envy of the world and it certainly is the envy of our adversaries who repeatedly have tried to build similar alliance networks.
▶ 11:40:31Never in the the history of American military campaigns have we ever had a contingency operation or a conflict when we haven't worked closely with local partner forces. It is simply an essential part of what we do. They keep us safe. They help us operate. They help us navigate. They help us do all of the things that are essential to conducting safe and effective military operations.
▶ 11:41:01That is why in a bipartisan way, this Congress has stood up to try to fix the significant problems with the Afghan SIV program. Now, I have been very critical of the Biden administration's withdrawal and and the the chaos that ensued.
▶ 11:41:23Uh, and I have also been very critical of this administration, the Trump willingness to turn its back on our SIV partners, the Afghans with whom we fought within with whom I fought in That's why this amendment, which would simply extend the special immigrant visa program by several years, costs nothing.
▶ 11:41:48Just extend the program and to send a message that we are going to continue to work as a Congress to find a solution for our Afghan partners and those who served with us and fought with us is so Uh, I want to thank Representative McCormack for partnering with me, a fellow veteran, uh, on this bipartisan effort. I want to thank Chairman Mast, ranking member Meeks and Ranking Member Rascin for providing waivers.
▶ 11:42:14We unfortunately were not able to get full waiverss for this amendment from the judiciary committee. So I am regrettably uh going to have to withdraw this amendment. But for the Afghans who have working who have worked with us, who are in despair, who feel as though they have been left behind, you should know that there are many people in Washington and Capitol Hill who see you, who are committed to you, who will continue to fight for you in the way that you have fought for us,
▶ 11:42:44and we will continue to work on this effort. So with that, chairman, I withdraw this amendment, and I yield back. Gentleman withdraws his amendment. Uh we will now consider log number 5534 by Mr. Deluzio. For what purposes gentlemen seek recognition?
▶ 11:43:04Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
▶ 11:43:06Uh will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection reading of the amendment is dispensed with. I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The gentleman is now recognized to explain his amendment.
▶ 11:43:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this amendment is to update uh the insurrection act dating back to 1807. And because of issues with waiverss, I will ultimately withdraw. But before then, I'll yield two minutes to gentle lady from California, Miss Jacobs.
▶ 11:43:29Thank you, uh, Congressman Duzio. In Los Angeles, we've seen excessive force, questionable detentions, intimidation tactics, and legal rights violations by our military. And that's just a glimpse of what we could have see nationwide if President Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and turns US troops on civilians. Now, right now, the statute is vague, archaic, and ripe for abuse. Our amendment fixes that. It narrows and clarifies the criteria for the domestic deployment of military troops for law enforcement purposes.
▶ 11:43:58It specifies that the use of the military is a last resort and is authorized only if the use of civilian law enforcement authorities would be insufficient. It clarifies that the law cannot be used to suspend habius corpus, impose martial law, or deputize private militias to act as soldiers. and it requires a justification for the use of this law and consultation with Congress prior to its invocation and explicit congressional authorization if it is used for longer than one week.
▶ 11:44:25These are simple, thoughtful fixes to respect the rights of the American people and prevent an abuse of power. I sincerely wish we were able to truly debate this crucial issue tonight. And if we had been, I would have strongly urged all of my colleagues to support this critical amendment needed to protect our democracy, regardless of which party you're in. Because honestly, without real reforms on the insurrection act, it feels like we are all just rearranging the deject chairs on the Titanic all night tonight instead of addressing the actual issues at hand.
▶ 11:44:53So, unfortunately, we are not able to do that. Uh, and I thank my colleague, Mr. Duzio, for yielding time, and I yield back to him.
▶ 11:45:00I thank the gentle lady. As I said, Mr. Chairman, because of a lack of waiver, we'll be withdrawing and I yield back to the chairman.
▶ 11:45:06Gentleman withdraws his amendment. Uh we will now consider log number 5297R1 by Mr. Duzio of Pennsylvania. For what purposes, gentleman seek recognition.
▶ 11:45:19I have an amendment at the desk, Mr.
▶ 11:45:20Uh will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. I reserve a point to order against the amendment. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized to describe his amendment.
▶ 11:45:29Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief and this amendment is an easy one and we'll welcome colleagues in both parties here to work with me in the future on this. This is about giving the Pentagon and the secretary more of a say uh more of an ability to weigh in when we see mergers and acquisitions that could harm competition in our defense industrial base. I think there is broad agreement here that we need more competition in our defense industrial base. We need new new entrance and new companies coming into the defense industrial base and we need to make sure that there aren't transactions that are reducing competition.
▶ 11:45:59unfortunately was not able to obtain the waiver we would need from the financial services committee, but I think this is a place we can work together. I look forward to doing that. Uh because of that lack of waiver, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the amendment. I yield back.
▶ 11:46:10Chair, thanks the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment. We will now consider log number 5023R1 by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina. For what purposes? Gentleman seek
▶ 11:46:22I I speak uh I reluctantly withdraw the amendment of the mega party.
▶ 11:46:27You have a clerk. Do you have a amendment at the desk?
▶ 11:46:29I have amendment at the desk.
▶ 11:46:30Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection reading of amendments dispensed with? I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The chair now recognizes gentleman to explain his amendment.
▶ 11:46:38Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your leadership. I reluctantly withdraw the amendment of the Meabari bill due to the jurisdictional issues for later consideration this week with great appreciation of chairman Mike Rogers for his leadership having supported the Meabari bill for nearly 250 days.
▶ 11:46:55Courageous courageous citiz citizens of the Republic of Georgia have taken to the streets to protest the mafia style takeover of a great country by crooks who have s being subverted by the Chinese Communist Party giving the communist to Black Sea port and who glorify war criminal Putin mourn Iranian regime terrorist and rever the Chinese Communist Party all while criminalizing association with America and making demands of President Trump.
▶ 11:47:26Georgian dream conspirator Ian Vasilei, a Putinist who became a billionaire because of privatized Soviet assets, spews anti-American lies daily as he orchestrated rigging elections in Georgia on October 26 with all election monitors agreeing that the results were fake as the real parliamentary winner was the legitimate President Salomi.
▶ 11:47:51Ivan visually having criminalized association with America, the illegitimate puppet regime has jailed nearly every opposition leader in the country is continuing to do so as we're here today. The Chinese Communist Party knows the Trump administration has prioritized new sourcing for criminal and strategic partnerships in the region.
▶ 11:48:14The middle cartrid is a critical trade route and the Georgian port of Anakia on the Black Sea is one of the only access points to Central Asian minerals. The Georgian Dream Party signed the Bel and Road Initiative in 2023 and has fixed bids for the Chinese pop communist party to develop the port kicking out American bids.
▶ 11:48:36Since then, the puppet prime minister has said China quote is the superpower every country should emulate emulate uh as a um country. The people of America and Georgia have a longstanding history of friendship as Georgians have courageously fought by the American side in Iraq and Afghanistan. In 2020, the Republican Study Committee has called for sanctions on Georgian Dream.
▶ 11:49:05The message that we have is this amendment uh has not been determined to be gerine for markup inclusion. I thank Mark Rogers Mike Rogers for his uh supportive amendment being the meabari bill which is passed with 90% vote in the house of representatives and is under unanimous consent consideration and the senate on the floor. I yield back.
▶ 11:49:29Does the gentleman withdraw?
▶ 11:49:30Does the gentleman withdraw his
▶ 11:49:32I withdraw. Uh gentleman from Cal uh California is
▶ 11:49:40Uh this would be another withdrawal before the members have an opportunity to comment on the U amendment. We've had three different amendments come up in the last few minutes and the well very well presented comments that could have uh enhanced our understanding were not allowed. I'm not at all sure that my comments will enhance our understanding. So I start with an apology to all of you.
▶ 11:50:08However, I recall very clearly uh Mr. Wilson uh a codell that you led several years ago to Georgia and we were going through all of these issues uh specifically the role that Georgia plays in that region. the democracy is weak now. Uh and your amendment would encourage further democracy and further engagement of the United States.
▶ 11:50:37Uh and it's really important that as a defense committee or strategic arms committee or whatever our committee is that we understand what you're trying to do here, Mr. Wilson. Uh it's an important part of the issue of Putin which we've discussed for some time here about his aggression and about his goals.
▶ 11:51:02His goals are not only Eastern Europe and several members have commented uh on some of the the reestablishment of the former Soviet Union Kazakhstan and Georgia being among them. Mr. Wilson, I really encourage you to continue this. Try to get your waiverss where and when you can. But it's really important for this committee to understand the way in which uh Georgia plays into the larger strategic issue of Ukraine and specifically Putin's ambitions. Mr.
▶ 11:51:31Wilson, I I yield back, but thank you for bringing this
▶ 11:51:34Uh the gentleman withdraws his amendment. We will get a chance, I believe, to visit this amendment on floor debate when our bill reaches the floor. Um, we will now consider log number 5117R3 by the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan. For what purposes, gentleman from New York seek recognition.
▶ 11:51:53Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk.
▶ 11:51:55Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes gentleman from New York for the purpose of explaining his amendment.
▶ 11:52:04Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think if there's one theme that emerged tonight in a lot of our discussion, it was a bipartisan agreement that bringing politics into our military is detrimental and goes against our values and that the military, it is, I would argue, sacred, that our military remains apolitical. So, my amendment is is truly a good faith effort to get at that.
▶ 11:52:30I think everyone in this room understands and and many of us have worn the uniform as well that this our our our military while we may have political debates in this Congress and in this committee room those in uniform are patriots not partisans. Uh and there's always been a tension in our country going back to George Washington's incredibly American decision uh to step aside and set this important precedent.
▶ 11:52:59And I think it's concerning to many of us that while this has been a long-standing tension the last six months we've seen several I believe bright red lines cross when it comes to increasingly overt politicization of our military.
▶ 11:53:12I specifically want to highlight and I brought this up when the secretary was before us uh an incident or a series of incidents that happened at Fort Bragg where I believe our soldiers who are great patriots and and wanted to just come and attend a visit from our commander-in-chief were put in an incredibly wrong position where they were told uh essentially that if they didn't agree politically with the president they needed to be quote
▶ 11:53:43swapped out from the audience if their political views were in opposition to the current administration. And to add to that, there was actually a which is remarkable, a a pop-up merchandise shop selling political merchandise on posts. Uh another bright red line. A commander at Fort Bragg actually said uh in in a military.com article, "This has been a bad week for the Army, for anyone who cares about us being a neutral institution.
▶ 11:54:10This was When I had the chance to ask uh Chairman Kaine about this, if soldiers should have to pledge political loyalty to participate in event with their own commander-in-chief, he explicitly, to his credit, thankfully said no and said, I quote, "The nation demands an apolitical, nonpartisan military." Unfortunately, the secretary uh did not foot stomp that um in the way that I would have liked and I hope we would all would have liked.
▶ 11:54:39So this amendment, what it does is it codifies longstanding bipartisan DoD regulations, specifically DoD directive 1344.10, and make sure that it is law and that is required across all administrations going forward, Democrat or Republican. And I hope colleagues would join saying that this is