H.R. 8800 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027

oh yeah oh yeah yeah i remember when i was a kid i used to love the music i remember when i was a kid i used to hate the music so i used to i remember when i was a kid i used to love the music so i used to hate the music so i used to hate the music so i used to hate it

yeah

yeah i was like oh yeah i'm gonna try it and then i was like oh yeah it's pretty good yeah yeah yeah i mean i think it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good i mean it's a pretty good product i mean it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good i mean it's just a it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good i mean i'm not a big fan of the uh the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the uh the the the the the the the the the the the the uh the uh the the the the the the the the the the the the i mean i mean i mean i mean i mean i mean i mean i mean it's pretty good i mean it's pretty good but

sir we have a court

committee will come nowhere I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to declare recess at any time, without objection. So ordered. Without objection, members have five legislative days within which to submit written statements to be made a part of the record or measure and consideration today. So ordered. Pursuant to committee rule seventeen, recorded votes on any measure or matter before the committee today will be conducted by electronic device. The overhead monitors will show the votes of members as they are cast. At the conclusion of the vote, the clerk shall secure and record the votes cast and report them to the committee. The chair reserves the right to request a roll call vote by the clerk in lieu of electronic voting, at his discretion. It is the chair's intention to operate under the five minute rule. I ask unanimous consent uh that there be no discussions on on-block amendments without objection so ordered. Now, I also ask unanimous consent on the time for debate to be reduced to three minutes. Without objection, so ordered. Uh, today the committee will mark HR eighty eight hundred, the National Defense Authorization Act fiscal year twenty twenty seven. And uh, I re- recognize myself now for an opening statement. Throughout our budget hearings this year, we've heard a consistent theme, the defense industrial base, the foundation of our military power, is in trouble. Over the last thirty years, the defense industrial base has atrophied significantly. We are no longer capable of manufacturing for our war fighters at scale and speed. In the nineteen nineties, there were fifty-one prime defense contractors. Today, there are only six. Our global munition stockpiles are low, and we no longer have the surge capacity to rapidly replenish them. We also have fragile supply chains that make us uh reliant on our adversaries. We have very little industrial capacity to mine, refine, or process critical minerals, making us dependent on other countries, including our adversaries, for access to them. Our skilled workforce has shrunk, further reducing our production capacity. And we falling dangerously behind when it comes to shipbuilding and maritime readiness. So when it comes to revitalizing our d- industrial base, the choice is clear. We can act now, or we can allow our deterrence to erode, undermining our national security and failing the men and women uniform who so bravely serve our country. The good news is that these are not problems beyond our ability to solve, but they do require action. In the FOI twenty-seven NDAA, we are taking that action. We are revitalizing the defense industrial base and rebuilding our capacity to produce the capabilities our military needs. We're breaking down the barriers that prevent small and agile businesses from working with the Pentagon. We're creating new jobs and helping Americans build advanced technical skills. And we're giving industry the certainty it needs to invest, expand, and produce faster. In addition to revitalizing the defense industrial base, the NDA meets our other critical n- critical needs. We are raising pay for service members and improving housing, education, and child care for our military families. We're strengthening our nuclear deterrence and missile deter defense, while maintaining a strong posture to deter adversaries. And we're prioritizing the development of innovative technologies that will give our war fighters the edge today and in future conflicts. To support these pro- policies, we're authorizing one point one five trillion in discretionary funds to match President Trump's historic budget request. For the first time in forty years, we've been presented with a budget that accounts for the true cost of American deterrence. This top line begins to reverse the damage caused by decades of underinvestment in our military. With this historic investment comes an even more urgent need to guard against waste, fraud, and abuse. This bill does so by standing up a new audit task force and providing the resources necessary for the Pentagon to achieve a full and clean audit in the next two years. Peace through strength doesn't begin on the battlefield. It begins in our factories, our depots, and our shipyards. And this bill reflects our commitment to that cause. I want to commend the ranking member and his staff for consulting, for continuing our tradition of putting this bill together in a very strong bipartisan manner. I also want to thank the all the members for their input and assistance in this process. There are more than nine hundred amendments for us to work through today, so I urge my colleagues to do, to work together to get through this process in a timely manner. There will be disagreements, but with all, but we all have the same goal, and that's to support our men and women in uniform. If we can keep that goal in mind, I'm optimistic that this bill report today, that we report today, will enjoy strong bipartisan support. Chair, now I recognize uh the ranking member for any opening statement he may have.

Thank you, uh, Mister Chairman, at the outset, I want to recognize all the members of the committee, but also crucially our staff and all the work they've already done, and the work they will do going forward. There were, I think, over a thousand different amendments submitted at one time or another over the course of the last week or two. The staff had to sift through all of that. try to make sense of it and move us forward. We just have the most unbelievable staff on this committee and and their ability to do that and meet all of the members' needs is something we we should always recognize. I thank them for that. They they have put us in a position to have what I think will be a really good debate today, on a lot of different incredibly important issues. That was not easy to do and I thank them for that. And I also thank the chairman for his work and I think the basics of the bill It's it's a good solid bill cuz it reflects certain key priorities. Number one, as the chairman said, it takes care of our troops. It has pay raises, a variety of different other support mechanisms, thinking of our service members and their family, what support do they need? This builds off of the task force from a couple years ago, uh the looking at the quality of life issues, absolutely crucial. Our military is the best in the world because of the men and the women who serve in it. We need to continue to support them and I'm very satisfied that this bill reflects that. priority. It also continues our effort on acquisition reform. I can't say it much better than the chairman said it in terms of how important it is. You know, we need to innovate faster at scale and in a more affordable way in order to meet our defense needs. And this committee, under Chairman Rogers' leadership, has really taken on this issue in the last two or three years, and I think made significant improvements. There's a long way to go, but it's absolutely crucial to what we need. Also, this bill Reflect support for partners and allies. Support that has been dangerously lacking from the administration, but at least in this committee there is a bipartisan recognition that we cannot meet our national security needs if we don't have partners and allies. It's one of the greatest strengths that we had coming out of World War Two and have had for the last eighty years. We have more partners than we've ever had before than any great power has ever had before, and that has served our interest. We continue to support you. We continue to support the Baltics, we continue to support Taiwan, we continue to support our partners and allies in this bill, and I think that priority um is very well reflected and I very much appreciate that. Though the problem starts with the money, and there's a lot of different ways to explain this, but a one point one five trillion dollar base budget, what we're coming out of here, uh depending on how you calculate it, is a thirty percent increase over what this committee did last year. That is a lot. of money at a time when we have a nearly four trillion dollar debt. And we have no intention whatsoever of making this money up elsewhere. We continue to cut taxes, we continue to reduce the access to revenue that we need. And then the spending cuts, many of which I'm I'm troubled by, but they're they're nothing to meet that forty trillion dollar debt. If you were really serious about continuing to have the level of revenue that we have and wanting to spend a massive amount on defense, the cuts that you would have to do with everything else are way beyond what what the majority is even calculating we're not willing to do that I'm not willing to do that I'll be honest I don't think we should make those cuts but since we're not willing to make those cuts continuing to drive up the amount of money spent on defense and if you throw in the three hundred and fifty billion dollars that is planned in the next reconciliation package you're looking at a nearly fifty percent increase in the defense budget at a time when without question The greatest threat to our long-term national security is our fiscal instability. So that amount of money is very, very difficult to swallow. And then there's the lack of transparency contained in it. We're now finding the money in a whole bunch of different places. The a hundred and fifty-six billion dollars that was in the reconciliation bill last year, we still are not a hundred percent clear on how the Pentagon spent that money. We are giving them this broad amount of money and saying, do what you want with it. if we want a one point five trillion dollar defense budget, I don't, this should be a one point five trillion dollar defense budget. Okay, we should have that debate. We should put it out forward. We shouldn't try to stick it in some corner place where people won't pay attention to it and where this committee and the appropriators don't have adequate oversight of how that money is being spent so I continue to be very concerned about that money and the solution to this to my mind is to come up with a national security strategy that doesn't require you to think you have to have a point six trillion dollar defense budget that you can't afford. And we could do that. We could rely more on diplomacy on our partners and allies. We could stop starting wars all over the world, in Latin America, in Iran, in Nigeria, in Yemen. We could find a way to meet our national security needs without having to fire off an endless array of munitions. I think we need to focus on that. I will come back now to one point of agreement. The one thing we need to do is to figure out how to meet our needs in a more cost-effective way. That's what acquisition reform can do. Acquisition reform could get the chairman and I closer to the same page. If we can meet our national security needs for an affordable amount of money, I just met with a company yesterday that's building a m- a uh hypersonic missile, um, four hundred thousand dollars a copy to figure out how to do that. That, that is like ten percent of what we would normally spend on that. That is what acquisition reform can do for us. And if we can find a solution that meets our needs ten percent of the cost, we can get a hell of a lot closer to having a realistic fiscal approach to our defense budget. That is the big overarching concern that we will talk about today. We also will have a bunch of amendments. We are concerned, the lack of transparency, the lack of accountability in the Pentagon, military action that is not legally justified, like the boat strikes that continue to happen in Latin America. We need to go after the politicization of the military, pulling names from promotion lists by secretary of defense based on ideological beliefs, we have a lot of concerns as we look at this. But we're gonna have amendments, we're gonna have an opportunity to to have that debate, and we'll get to our product at the end of this. And again, I thank the chairman and everyone involved in uh getting us started today. Um, and I thank him for the three minute thing too.

Okay.

That's leadership. With that, I yield.

I thank my friend, uh, and he is, I I I I've looked at, he's right. We have a stellar staff and we are very blessed to have people of this caliber that are willing to serve uh this country uh in this capacity and and I'm very proud to have them with us. All right, before proceeding any further, I have a few announcements. If a member has uh an amendment that involves the jurisdiction of another committee, we request a member, before he or she offers the amendment, have a letter from the respective committee, chair of jurisdiction indicating their waiver or or r- of referral. Um, I note uh that no an- I note that I imposed the same requirement before including language uh in the underlying mark. Uh I remind members that this approach has been in the practice of the committee for many years. It is done so uh so that we can proceed directly to the floor without our bill being sequentially referred to another committee. Amendments that do result in a point of order against H R eighty eight hundred's consideration in the h on the house board will not be in order, such as those that would violate the statutory Pago uh act or the Personal Budget Act. Uh before g- beginning with subcommittee prints and following consultation with Mr. Smith I ask unanimous consent uh that the provisions contained in the subcommittee prints and the chairman's mark which uh includes full committee provisions will be considered for the purposes of this mark-up uh as original text of the H R eighty eight hundred and that these provisions uh be considered as having been read and that the bill be open to amendment at any point without objection so ordered. The order of consideration of the for today's mark of HRA eight hundred will follow our subcommittee structure. We will begin with uh the first subject uh matter that falls under the jurisdiction of uh number one, subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, then we'll go to 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, then the subcommittee on military personnel, and after that the full committee matters. The committee will now receive the print uh of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, pursuant to committee rule seventeen, 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 have concluded. She recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, uh, the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Whitman, for any comments he would like to make.

Well, thank you, Mister Chairman. I want to thank you and ranking member Smith for your leadership in compiling this year's National Defense Authorization Act. I'd also like to thank the subcommittee's ranking member and my friend, Don Norcross, for incredibly hard work that goes in into this and the collaboration and making sure we're doing everything we can to to reach agreement and putting together this strong and very proactive tactical air and land forces subcommittee print. Also wanna thank the fantastic professional staff members who are the backbone of the TAL subcommittee. Michael Kurlin, Jay Valero Valerio, Heath Heath Boepp, Caroline Curley, Brooke Allred, Amelia Litinsky, and Andrew Smith. This year the subcommittee of tactical air and land forces delivers on sustainment and specifically it guarantees a continuation of American air superiority by authorizing the secretary of war to enter into a five-year multi-year procurement contracts for both F-thirty-five and F-fifteen EX aircraft. It further ensures mission capability by mandating that each procured aircraft comes with a full complement of initial spares, alternate mission equipment, and conformal fuel tanks. An additional six hundred million is authorized for spare parts for F-thirty-five, long overdue. This year's tail portion of the bill contains robust funding for the rotor aircraft procurement to include seven additional C H forty-seven Chinooks, six additional Black Hawks, four more MH one thirty nine A Grey Wolf helicopters, and full funding for the future long-range assault aircraft program to continue developing the MV seventy-five Cheyenne. Additionally, as small unmanned aircraft systems prove every day that they are the future of war fighting, this subcommittee print bolsters both our UAS capabilities and our ability to counter adversary systems. These provisions established for a common operating system for SUAS, as well as standards for networked autonomous kinetic abilities for countering SUAS. We have also prioritized the testing of these drones by requiring the establishment of test and training corridors for UAS and associated capabilities along with a strategy for sustaining our burgeoning drone fleet. On the artillery front, this print addresses one five five millimeter shortages by directing the secretary of the army to expand and upgrade facilities to reach a target production capacity of one hundred thousand rounds per month. It also requires the Army to provide briefing to the committee on its long-term goals for one five five millimeter artillery production. Seemingly by the day the capabilities of artificial intelligence continue to grow, and as such, the subcommittee focused on delivering autonomy to our warfighters both on the ground and in the air. Accompanying a two twenty million dollar funding ad for collaborative combat aircraft propulsion technology integration. The Navy is therefore directed to provide a briefing outlining the acquisition strategy for combat collaborative aircraft. And the Army is also directed to provide a briefing on its acquisition strategy for commercially available ground autonomy systems. If we've seen anything in Ukraine, we've seen for the first time ever a fully autonomous combined arms ground maneuver against human forces which not only took ground,

Chair, now recognized as ranking member of the uh subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.

Thank you, Chairman, to you and Ranking Member Smith for setting the structure and certainly the vision for directing this committee. And certainly, uh, to the long-standing bipartisan tradition of this subcommittee, of which we are very hard and which we take great pride in that relationship start with, uh, Chairman Whitman who sets the vision for the committee and we work together incredibly well to help protect our country. The subcommittee continues our close oversight of many of the department's most expensive and complex programs including Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, tactical, strike fighters, and all the services rotary wing aircraft programs. The department's manned and unmanned surveillance reconnaissance aircraft, the ISR, and certainly one that gained so much variety in the past couple of years starting from Ukraine, those small unmanned aerial systems and counter uh aerial systems. We also do the combat uh vehicles, ground combat vehicles, and tactical music munitions. We also are closely following the Marine Corps's force design and the Army's transformational initiative. We receive extremely helpful and informative annual reports from the Marine Corps that clearly articulates the progress they are making in the forced design. This year's NDAA includes language that requires similar report from the army on its transformation initiative. Our subcommittee continues its oversight on our most expensive program in the history of the Department of Defense, the F-thirty-five program. This year we authorized a multi-year procurement with a caveat that the Secretary of Defense must certify that the department will proceed with full spare packages for every aircraft in the contract. Too long, the department has underfunded sustainment for this program. The multi-year authority in this bill will drive our cost and insure sustainment. The bill also includes language that requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the progress made to address the historical GAO recommendations pertaining to the F-thirty-five program. The subcommittee also continues our strong investment and our munitions industrial base, both for munitions procurement and facilities modernization that we started almost eight years ago. Finally, Chairman, to the condition of what makes everything possible, I want to thank our staff for their hard work and certainly what they do each and every day starting with Jay Valerio, Michael Harlan, Heath Boat, Caroline Curley, Brooke Albrecht, Amalia Lysinski, and our Research Assistant, Andrew Smith. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I thank the Chairman. Let's see.

Yes, there is.

Before uh entertaining amendments uh is there any discussion on subcommittee print?

Um, yellow.

We will now consider en bloc Number one, the chair recognizes Mister Whitman for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number one, consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority.

The objection, so ordered, will the clerk please distribute the en bloc amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman uh is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining the en bloc amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, en bloc package number one is comprised of the following. Log fifty seven twenty eight by Rep. Scott. Log fifty seven Two R two by Rep. Dejarle.

We did say that.

Log fifty seven fifty three R three by Representative Dejarle. Log fifty seven seventy one R two by Rep. Hamade. Log fifty seven eighty two by Rep. Carbajal. Rep. Fifty, excuse me, log fifty eight twenty three by Rep. Vasquez. Log fifty eight twenty five R one by Rep. Hamade. Log fifty eight thirty five R two by Rep. Vasquez. Log fifty eight thirty eight R one. By Rep. Hamadei. Log fifty eight thirty nine R one by Rep. Stephane. Log fifty eight forty seven R two by Rep. Bergman. Log fifty eight seventy seven by Rep. Hamadei. Log fifty nine ten by Rep. Jackson. Log fifty nine twelve R one by Rep. Jackson. Log fifty nine eighteen R one by Rep. Harrigan. Log fifty nine twenty one R two by Rep. Scott. Log fifty nine thirty nine by Rep. Kiggins. Log fifty nine fif- fifty five R one by Rep Jackson. Log fifty nine ninety eight R three by Rep Hamadeh. Log six se- six zero zero three by Rep Norcross. Log six zero one one by Rep Whitman. Log sixty twenty five R one by Rep Kelly. Log six zero five one R one by Rep Bergman. Log six one zero one by Rep Ryan. Log six one one zero R one by Rep. Vindman. Log sixty one forty two by Rep. Kiggins. Log six one four seven R one by Rep. Elfritz. Log six one five zero by Rep. McGuire. Log six one eight one by Rep. Hamadegh. Log six one nine zero R two by Rep. Fallin. Log six two one four by Rep. Harrigan. Log six two two zero R two by Rep. McGuire. Log six two two eight by Rep. McGuire. Log six two four zero by Rep McGuire. Log six two five four by Rep McGuire. Log six two five seven R one by Rep Gooden. Log six two six zero by Rep Ryan. Log six two six six by Rep Rogers. Log six two seven two R two by Rep Hamadeh. Log six three five eight R two by Rep Vindman. Log six three nine three R two by Rep McGuire. Log six four four two R one. By Rep Scott. Log six five zero two by Rep Elfred. Log six five three zero by Rep Scott. Log six five four three by Rep McCormick. Log six five four seven by Rep Ryan. Log six five eight four R one by Rep Wilson. Log six five eight nine R one by Rep Whitman. Log six six three zero by Rep Crow. Log six six six six by Rep Harrigan. Log six six eight two by Rep. DeJarlais. Log six six eight five by Rep. Scott. Log six seven zero nine R one by Rep. McCormick. Log six seven seven four by Rep. Smith. Log six seven nine seven by Rep. Smith. Log six eight four one by Rep. Conaway. Log six eight four two by Rep. Vindman. Log six eight seven two by Rep. Graves. With that, I yield back.

I thank the gentlemen.

Uh yep yep, it's going.

The question is on the unblocked package offered by Mr. Whitman. So, may these in favor all say aye?

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment uh is agreed to.

Go to please.

If there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes a gentleman uh from Virginia, Mr. Whitman, for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I'm like you, I'm I'm struggling to get get get through my notebook here. I've got I've got more more more pages,

They do have a lot of tabs on these notebooks.

more more pages and tabs than I than I know know what to do with. Here we go. All right. There is a motion to adopt. Mister Chairman, I move to adopt a subcommittee print of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces as amended.

If there are no further amendments, share recognized gentleman, I see. Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Virginia. Somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no. From being present, you guys have it. The motion is agreed to.

Go to orange.

Committee will now receive the print on subcommittee on strategic forces, pursuant to uh committee rule seventeen and in consultation with ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on this uh the amendments to this particular subcommittee print and to the consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print have concluded, the chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, I mean from Tennessee, Doctor DeJarlais for any comments he would like to make.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I want to start by thanking all members of the Strategic Forces subcommittee for their work this year. I would also like to thank my friend ranking member Moulton for his contributions and for helping to steer the subcommittee through another season. very engaging hearings and classified briefings. The issues that fall within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee are some of the most consequential to our national security and the dialogue we've had on these important topics over the past six months has been some of the best I can recall, as a member of this committee. I would also like to thank the subcommittee's professional staff for their hard work to prepare the bill before us. Whitney Verrett, Peter Scherzinger, Maria Vastola, and Austin Richards. and Lindsay Keller on my personal staff. Well, it goes without saying, none of this would be possible if not for their dedication, professionalism, and guidance uh that they give me and uh ranking member, Moulton, throughout the process. The subcommittee's fiscal year twenty twenty-seven mark is the product of bipartisan cooperation and continues many of our long-standing efforts, such as such as advancing nuclear modernization, reforming the national security space enterprise, and enhancing missile defense. The broader bill authorizes full funding to keep modernizing the nation's nuclear forces and is, in particular, it supports the budget's significant increase in funding to invest in the Department of Energy's scientific and production capabilities, upon which our nuclear deterrent depends. It also includes legislative proposals developed with executive branch to improve acquisition flexibility for the Air Force's ICBM programs and National Nuclear Security Administration. And it refocuses statutory requirements related to the plutonium-pit production on the long-term needs for the nation to continue to a modern and effective nuclear deterrent. While the funding for the President's Golden Dome initiative falls within the Department's request for mandatory funds, this bill authorizes significant increases in FY twenty-seven for many programs across the services that will contribute to the architecture and broader missile defense efforts, including space-based sensing, development of the next generation interceptor, and standard missile three dash block two B procurement. The committee also added additional resources to accelerate the glide phase interceptor program, which is critical to addressing the hypersonic threats both to our homeland and to forward deployed forces. In space, we require the department to designate a single official to provide oversight of the vital positioning, navigation, and timing. Enterprise. Additionally, the mark removes duplicative bureaucracy that has only served to slow down development of technology and implementation of the new PNT strategy. We also allow the Space Force to streamline redundant space acquisition organizations to build on the progress made last year to reform acquisition processes and remove remove bureaucracy. Finally, I'm happy to support the historic increase in funding for the Space Force specifically. This much needed increase allows them to bring online the next generation of systems necessary to fight and win in space and supports the new missions, we as a nation are asking of them. And I yield back.

Chairman yields back. Chairman, I recognize the ranking member of the Sub-Karibbean Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mister Moulton, for any comments he'd like to make.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman Desjardins and the members on both sides of the aisle for continuing the long tradition keeping the subcommittee marked bipartisan and addressing areas that we have discussed in the past five months of of hearings and briefings I want to specifically thank the chair for continuing to foster the tough debate that these issues demand and that the American people deserve the jurisdiction of this subcommittee continues to be one of the most consequential in all of Congress whether it be on the continued criminal war being waged by war criminal Vladimir Putin in Ukraine the incredible demonstration of regional missile defense capability in Middle East, the increased long-range ballistic missile testing being conducted by North Korea, or the continued expansion of strategic capabilities by the Chine- Chinese Communist Party across the air, accro- in air, at sea, on land, and in space. Regarding space, in the past several months we have seen unprecedented demonstrations of both Russian and PRC capabilities that are specifically designed to degrade and destroy US space assets. to ensure the department is best posturing our forces to respond and, if necessary, prevail in a conflict in space, this mark address addresses areas the Trump administration continues to not take seriously enough, namely the position, navigation and timing enterprise, of which the global positioning system is at the heart and center, continues to be disjointed and under-prioritized. Further, despite what Pentagon officials have said regarding the importance of commercial space, the administration continues to cut the office's funding. And this mark reverses that decision by increasing needed funding to address areas such as commercial satellite communication and tactical surveillance, reconnaissance, and tracking services. As we have heard in open testimony and closed classified sessions this year, we cannot ignore the advancements our adversaries are making in various weapons systems as we make decisions regarding the strategic posture of the United States. While I firmly believe this world would be a better place without nuclear weapons, the reality is that they are a key component of strategic stability in today's environment. We are also now dealing with two near-peer nuclear armed competitors. We have never before, and that is why I am supportive of the fact that this mark continues modernization efforts across our nuclear triad. However, I will continue to question if we have the right balance, and if we are investing in capabilities that will contribute to the strategic stability, or do the opposite, because we owe it to our children's future that we have these tough conversations, and ensure that we aren't blindly pushing forward towards a nuclear arms race. Lastly, with regards to missile defense, this mark address key areas where there is broad bipartisan support. It provides multi-year authorization for critical munitions. On improving the missile warning and track architecture, it it requires the Space Force to continue development of the next generation polar satellites, a critical capability that has historically been a priority for both NORTHCOM and STRATCOM. However, I continue to have serious concerns about the strategy behind the Golden Dome for America initiative or frankly whether there is a strategy at all. and what exactly the program is developing. If it is what the President has pushed, it is an impossible task, even if money was infinite, and you could manipulate time. If they are really looking at a more limited capability to defend certain areas against certain types of threats, then we can have a discussion. But the fact that they're hiding behind classification for an effort that is going to potentially cost over a trillion US taxpayer dollars, means we can't even have that honest debate today. And more troubling, it makes it seem like they're hiding something American public. This mark is the result of a month-long bipartisan process to keep our long-standing tradition of producing an annual defense authorization bill, and it largely represents consistency and continuity. While there are areas w- where we disagree, I'm proud of the work this subcommittee has done and the ways we have come together. Finally, I want to take this opportunity to give a sincere thanks to our subcommittee staff, Whitney Verrett, Maria Vistola, Peter Scherzinger, and Austin Richards, and to my personal staff, Caroline Jones, Candace Esquivel, and our Navy Fellow, Ray Lizotte. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? Seeing none.

Good. Yeah.

We will now consider en bloc package uh We're on en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Doctor DeJarrelis for the purpose of offering an en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc 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 en bloc amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read, the gentleman is recognized uh for three minutes for the purpose of explaining his en bloc amendment.

En bloc package number one is comprised of the following. Log fifty eight fifty eight R one by Rep. Hamidah. Log fifty eight seventy eight R three by Rep. Kiggins. fifty nine O four R one by rep crank log fifty nine twenty four R two by rep Harrigan log fifty nine sixty eight R one by rep crank log sixty forty seven R two by rep Carbajal log sixty eighty four R one by rep crank log sixty one sixty four R two by rep Elfred log sixty one eighty four R one by rep Messmer log sixty two sixteen R two by rep McGuire log sixty two four one R one by rep McGuire log sixty two

Is there further discussion on the en bloc package? Oh, no, we gotta go back to the There are no further amendments to here recognize a gentleman from Tennessee for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move that to adopt a subcommittee print of the subcommittee on strategic forces as amended.

Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee. So, may he's in favor, we'll say aye.

Aye.

I suppose no. According to being present, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.

Let's go to the next one.

Orange. Subcommittee will now receive the print on subcommittee of uh uh the committee will now receive the print on the subcommittee on sea power projection forces pursuant to committee rule seventeen 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 ac- recognizes the subcommittee chairman the gentleman from Mississippi Mr. Kelly for any comments he'd like to make.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by expressing my appreciation to the members of the subcommittee. Their dedication and engagement shaped a strong bipartisan sea power and projection forces marked before us. With global tensions growing more complex and nuanced every day, projecting peace through strength at sea and in the skies is more important than ever. We we have more work needed to protect national security, international order and freedom of navigation. As our adversaries test American power with increasing we must be able to respond forcefully and without hesitation. This overarching goal shaped the sea power and production forces mark we have here today. To that end, we are committing to putting more hulls in the water this year and for the years ahead. We're procuring one Columbia class submarine this year, as well as investing in advanced procurement for future Columbia deliveries. I'm excited that we're producing two Virginia class submarines, procuring two Virginia class submarines, putting us at the target pace to support and strengthen our sub-sea advantage and back up our commitments. The Sea Power Mark also invests in our surface fleet with authority for procuring two guided missile destroyers and multi-year procurement authority for future destroyers. With more than sixty billion authorized for shipbuilding and conversion this mark supports strong investment in our surface fleet by supporting future carrier procurement as well as procurement of two amphibious warships one frigate two oilers, two submarine tenders, and one anti-submarine warfare ship in twenty s- FY twenty seven. The tensions of the last year have reinforced to all of us the crucial and versatile role our Marine Corps has at the tip of the spear in a wide variety of missions, and we need to keep it that way, which is why our subcommittee, Mark, invests in faster and more agile production and procurement of amphibious ships. With authority for advanced procurement and advanced construction of systems and parts, as well as multi-ship procurement contract authority, this mark supports the end goal of a continuous three point RRG new presence. The sea power forces mark also strengthens our ability to project proj- to project American power in the skies by keeping an elevated inventory of C one thirty aircraft supporting V twenty-two safety investment, procuring more P eights and allowing multi-year procurement of E two D aircraft. we are forcing an analysis of alternatives for next generation aircraft and renewing our commitment to our airborne force projection capabilities. As I wrap up, I want to reiterate my thanks to the members of the Seapower subcommittee, and I especially want to highlight the contributions of my good friend and our ranking member Joe Courtney whose dedication and leadership have been indispensable. I also want to thank the committee staff, Kyle, Kelly, Junine and Abby, and my personal staff, Samaj, Sh- Shields, Our fellow mark, the Sea Power and Projection Forces mark before us represents essential investments in our ability to project peace through strength at sea and in the air, now and into the future. And I urge all members of this committee to support this mark. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlemen, I yield back, Chair, and I recognize as the ranking member of the subcommittee on Sea Power and Projection Forces, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mister Courtney.

Thank you, uh, Chairman Rogers, and, uh, I'm pleased to join my good friend, Chairman Kelly, to present our subcommittee, for FY twenty twenty seven. The subcommittee stayed true to its bipartisan tradition incorporating input from members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that we positioned our sea services and air force to achieve success. Building off a strong shipbuilding budget request of sixty billion in the discretionary account, our mark authorizes twenty one new vessels with authorities that will foster efficiency and cost effectiveness, specifically adopting multi-year procurement with fixed price contracts that will deliver savings for the government and the taxpayer in certainty to our industrial base and workforce. This year's mark provides multi-year procurement for up to fifteen Arleigh Burke destroyers and for multiple John Lewis class oilers and for the E two D advanced Hawkeye aircraft. The subcommittee also provided authority to use incremental funding for long lead items for the Virginia class program which will provide stability to the supply chain to offset the ever-present threat of CRs and shutdowns. The bill initiates serial production of the Columbia class ballistic submarine program, the number one priority uh of the Navy, authorizing ten billion for procurement and five for advanced uh purchase of long lead items. The bill also allocates eight billion for procurement and four billion for advanced procurement of two Virginia class submarines including full funding for shipyard wage improvement that over the last three years have had a massive, positive impact on labor contracts, shipyard recruitment and retention. Since last year's mark-up, the department released its AUKUS review, endorsing the agreement and August coming out of last weekend's Shangri-la dialogue where the three defense ministers of the three countries announced joint development of payloads for undersea unmanned uh vessels. They also confirmed operation of UK and US sub-rotations in Western Australia remaining on track for twenty twenty seven which will provide all three navies with persistent enhanced presence in the South Pacific. The agreement's progress in twenty twenty five and twenty twenty six forces the need to support the Mark's investment in the Virginia program in order to deliver on our pillar one commitments. I would note there's not perfect unanimity in this in this mark as we will hear later today concerning the administration's unvetted premature request for funding of a new class of battleships which is a vessel that our nation stopped building in nineteen forty four. As retired four star Admiral John uh James DeVrietis recently wrote, " In today's battle space of long range missiles and advanced drones in the air and at sea investing tens of billions of dollars in vulnerable large surface combatants with thousands of sailors on board makes no sense. These funds would be far better spent on other agile Navy and Marine Corps platforms, both manned and unmanned, that disperse and distribute lethality, a much more effective fleet in today's contested maritime arena. I would also note the base text does not include the Marine Corps's request for six medium landing ships because of OMB's disruptive and ridiculous insistence on stranding this program to a reconciliation bill that may or may not ever materialize. The Marine Corps has testified time and time again to the need to build up our amphibious fleet yet OMB made the decision to split DOD's budget for the second year in a row which usurps Congress's constitutional role over spending and creates chaos and uncertainty for the service branches and the industrial base, who have been screaming out for procurement stability. Mister Chairman, I'm thankful for the diligent work of Chairman Kelly and the subcommittee members to reach this broadly bipartisan pro product. I want to give special thanks to our talented subcommittee staff. Janine Womble, Kyle Noyes, Kelly Goggin and Abby Snyder for their work in crafting this product that achieves the mission of the Seapower subcommittee. Thank you and I yield back.

Chairman yields back before entertaining amendments or any discussion on the subcommittee print. Seeing none,

Hello.

hello. We will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mister Kelly for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up unblock package number one consisting of amendments that have been at work and approved with the minority.

Without objection so ordered, will the clerk please distribute the unblock amendment. Without objection, the amendments are considered as read, the gentleman is recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining the unblock amendment.

Unblock package number one is comprised of the following. Log five seven one eight by Rep. Scott, log five seven one nine R one by Rep. Scott, log five seven two zero by Rep. Scott, Log five seven two two R one by Rep Scott. Log five seven four five by Rep Rep Houlihan. Rep five seven six one by Rep Bell. Log five seven eight three R two by Rep Kiggins. Log five seven eight seven by Rep Scott. Log five seven eight eight by Rep Scott. Log five seven nine zero by Rep Scott. Log five eight one nine by Rep Scott. Log five eight six four R one by Rep Jackson. Log five eight six nine R one by Rep Jackson. Log five eight seven five R one by Rep Harrigan. Log five eight eight three by Rep Hamadeh. Log five nine three three R two by Rep Finstad. Log five nine five zero R one by Rep Jackson. Log six zero one six by Rep Kelly. Log s- log six O two one by Rep Kelly. Log six zero two seven by Rep Kelly. Log six zero two nine R two by Rep Kelly. Log six O four four R one by Rep Kelly. Log six O six three by Rep Stephanec. Log six one nine three by Rep Mesmer. Log six one nine six R one by Rep McCormick. Log six two zero nine by Rep Scott. Log six two nine five R three by Delegate Moylan. Log six three one one R one by Rep Courtney. Log six three one three by Rep Courtney. Log six three seven one by Rep Kiggins. Log six three seven two by Rep Kiggins. Log six three seven seven by Rep Bergman. Log six four six seven by Rep Elfred. Log six four eight three by Rep Higgins. Log six six O seven R three by Rep Higgins. Log six six four one by Rep Scott. Log six six seven five by Rep Courtney. Log six seven three eight by Rep Delusio. Rep six eight zero zero by Rep Elfred. Log six eight one two R one by Rep Finstad. Log six eight three five by Rep Delusio. Log six eight three six by Rep Delusio. Log six eight three eight by Rep Delusio. And log six eight three nine by Rep Delusio. And I yield back, mister.

Questions on the on-block package offered by Mr. Killey, so mayors in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to.

Uh, we can get a board.

There are no further amendments to here recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of motion.

Mister Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, as amended.

Question occurs on the motion from the gentleman from Mississippi. So, may he's in favor? We'll say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. For him being present, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print on the committee uh subcommittee on cyber information technologies and innovation pursuant to committee rule seventeen. And in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until the consideration of all amendments to this subcommittee print have concluded. The chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from the back, uh, Mister Bacon, for any comments he would like to make.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'd like to thank the members of the subcommittee for their collaborating collaboration in putting together a strong cyber, IT and innovation subcommittee print for the FY twenty-seven NDA A. I'd also like to thank my friend and ranking member of Congress, Ro Khanna, for his partnership in this effort. We have a bipartisan mark. This mark affects several crucial areas of our national defense and takes ambitious strides to maintain our dominance in cyber, IT and science and technology.

Well, let's take a look.

The print supports the DOD's incredible innovation enterprise, leverages the boundless potential

Okay.

of artificial intelligence, it strengthens and secures our IT networks. Most importantly, it focuses on rapidly delivering these improvements to the warfighter. Taking meaningful steps to bridge the valley of death, this print amends Defense Innovation Unit authorities to require more formal collaboration between the DIU and military services, speeding up the timeline by which cutting edge technology gets in the hands of the warfighter. In addition, the print expands the geographical footprint of our nation's test, and evaluation enterprise, it promotes a better coordination between the department and the TNE community. Moreover, this portion of the NDA sets the course for quantum computing by acquiring the lessons learned from DARPA's quantum benchmarking initiative to inform development and acquisition of future DOD quantum computing s systems. The city pr- also stream streamlines adoption of new AI tools by directing the chief data and artificial intelligence officer to establish a framework to enable rapid adoption and governance of AI systems across the DOD. It also directs the department to update its policies, governing autonomous weapon systems, creating risk-informed requirements for approval, oversight testing, and human involvement, and eventual operational use of the subs of such systems. Additionally, in a time where cyber warfare is more prevalent than ever, this print takes steps to un- un-encumber our cyber defense forces from bureaucracy, by requiring a review of duty, cyber security, IT and network defense, and defensive cyber operations in order to reduce redundancy and create direct accountability in this crucial area of national security. Once again, the FY twenty-seven NDAA continues the great work of the quality of life panel to deliver quality of life improvements to our service members and their families. I want to thank our our wonderful professional staff, Carolyn Curley, Maria Arato, Brooke Allred, Andrew Smith, uh Michael Herman and Wendell White. They've done great job. Thank you everyone to who contributed to the compilation of the subcommittee print. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the cyber s- uh from the subcommittee on cyber information technologies the ranking member, Mister Khanna, for any statements he'd like to make.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'd first like to thank you and Chairman Bacon for the bipartisan way in which this mark has been put together. Uh the uh chairman has led in a transparent bipartisan collaborative manner and deserves a lot of praise. I'd like to thank the majority staff, Carolyn Curley, Doctor Ma- Maria uh uh Jurado, Brooke Elred, Andrew Smith. I'd like to thank minorities my minority staff, Michael Herman and Wendell White, and of course my personal office staff, Kevin, Sameh and Dustin, and the rest of the committee staff for their hard work and support. On a personal note, Chairman Bacon, I especially want to thank you. This is your final NDAA mark-up, and while we still have many months to work together, the bipartisanship evident in this package is a testament to how you have conducted yourself as Chairman of the subcommittee. It has been a pleasure to work with you and appreciate your service. This mark reflects the hard work of members of the subcommittee in challenging emerging emerging technology ideas. A particular relevance to the issues of the day, The bill requires a comprehensive re-examination and update of the policy framework that underpins the deployment of autonomy and artificial intelligence systems across the DOD. As part of this update, the department is required to establish risk informed requirements for approval, oversight testing, human involvement, and rapid revalidation. The mark also creates a framework to enable rapid assessment, deployment and governance of AI systems, and requires the department to establish a program report, track, analyze and remediate artificial intel- intelligence incidents. I want to highlight as well that later today we will consider several amendments to strengthen the package further including amendments by Miss Jacobs, Mister Cisneros, Mister Whitesides, which the majority has worked with us in good faith to get to place on bipartisan agreement.

Ah.

The President's budget requests continue to slash some of the applied research investment. I find that sort short-sighted. I'm therefore proud that the mark responds to this underfunding of science and technology by prov- providing budget certification and review authority to the Under Secretary of Defense and Research in of s- Research and Engineering, allowing him or her to put forward and enforce minimum levels of science and technology funding. I'm grateful to the members who have worked to restore that funding both in the mark and in today's investments. In cyber, the mark streamlines the Defense Department's cyber security, information technology network defense. Mister Chairman, these are just a few highlights. I thank the members of the committee for their in inputs and enthusiasm to get to this point. I know today's mark will give us a number of opportunities to highlight areas where we may not agree, but I also wanted to say that this subcommittee mark is an example of the positive bipartisan work in this committee. Thank you, Yiltec.

I thank the gentlemen. Before entertaining uh amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? Seeing none, we will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mister Bacon for the purpose of offering an en bloc amendment.

Mister Chairman, I ask you now and I unanimous consent to call up en bloc 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 en bloc amendment? Without objection, the en bloc amendments are considered as read. The gentleman uh is recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining the en bloc amendment.

En bloc package number one compr- is comprised of the following. We'll add fifty seven forty eight R one by rep De Dejahla. We'll add fifty seven fifty five R one by rep Crank. We'll add fifty seven sixty nine R one by rep Finstead. We'll add fifty seven seventy six R one by rep Scott. We'll add fifty seven eighty six R one by rep McCormick. We'll add fifty eight O four R one by rep Gooden.

Hey.

We'll add fifty eight seventeen R two by rep Carbajal. We'll add fifty nine O six R one by rep Kiggins. We'll add fifty nine eleven R one by rep Turner. We'll add fifty nine fifty eight R one by rep Jackson. Log fifty nine sixty five by rep Takuda. Log fifty nine seventy three R one by rep Jackson. Log fifty nine eighty R one by rep Crank. Log fifty sixty twenty two R one by rep Kelly. Log sixty twenty eight R one by rep Kelly. Log sixty thirty one R one by rep Whitman. Log sixty sixty two R two by rep Gooden. Log sixty seventy R one by rep Houlihan. Log sixty ninety four R two by rep Stephanec. Log sixty ninety nine R two by rep Gooden. Lock sixty one, uh sixty one, zero four, R one by Rep Davis. Lock sixty one, six R three by Rep Kiggins. Lock sixty one, eighteen by Rep McCormick. Lock sixty one, thirty five R two by Rep Vindman. Lock sixty one, fifty eight R one by Rep Kiggins. Lock sixty one, seventy six R two by Rep Bacon. Lock sixty one, seventy nine by Rep Fallin. Lock sixty one, eighty seven by Rep Mesmer. Lock sixty two, twenty three R one by Rep McGuire. Lock sixty two, thirty eight R one by Rep McGuire. Lock sixty two forty three by rep McGuire. Lock sixty two sixty four by rep Jackson. Lock sixty two sixty seven R one by rep Vasquez. Lock sixty two ninety two R one by rep Conner. Lock sixty three twenty two by rep Swartzen. Lock sixty three seventy four by rep Whitesides. Lock sixty three seventy nine by rep Whitman. Lock sixty four thirty nine R one by rep Alfroth. Lock sixty four forty three by rep Jackson. Lock sixty four forty nine R two by rep Vindman. Lock sixty four sixty two by rep Bacon. Lock sixty four seventy R one by rep Jackson. Lock sixty four seventy three by rep Whitman. Lock sixty four ninety six R one by rep Fallon. Rep sixty four ninety eight R two by rep Vindman. Lock sixty five O three R one by rep Bacon.

Four.

Lock sixty five twenty R one by rep Fallon. Lock sixty five forty one R five by rep Vindman. Lock sixty five fifty five R two by rep Bergman. Lock sixty five sixty one R one by rep Wilson. Lock sixty five ninety five R one by rep Jacobs. Lock sixty six, hundred, R one by Rep Jacobs. Lock sixty six O two R one by Rep Whitman. Lock sixty six fifty seven R one by Rep Jacobs. Lock sixty six, sixty three R one by Rep Jacobs Lock sixty six, sixty five R two by Rep Khanna. Lock sixty six, ninety six R one by Rep Alfreth Lock sixty seven O three R one by Rep Khanna. Lock sixty seven forty two by Rep Khanna. Lock sixty seven fifty five R one by Rep Jay Jarlet. Lock sixty seven seventy three R one by Rep Conaway. Lock sixty seven eighty two by rep Bacon. Lock sixty twenty one by rep Whitesides. And lock sixty eight fifty by rep Fallon. And finally, lock sixty eight fifty one by rep Kelly.

Right, the question is on the en bloc package offered by Mr. Bacon. So, may these in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. See, eyes have it.

Mm.

And the amendment is agreed to.

Don't approve.

If there are no further amendments, chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mister Bacon, for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on cyber, information technologies and innovation as amended.

The question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. Somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. Quorum being present, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print on the subcommittee on readiness, pursuant to committee rule seventeen and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular sub committee print and took consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print have concluded. Chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee on uh the gentleman from Michigan, Mister Bergman, for any opening comments he'd like to make.

I thank the chairman for yielding. This mark is an unprecedented acceleration of the readiness of our armed forces. By expanding funding by almost ten percent to support the sustainment of our ground forces our naval forces our aviation forces and our space forces This readiness mark fully endorses the idea that the quickest way to expand our force structure is by having our military units ready in terms of both training and maintenance. Specifically, this mark supports critical investments to increase mobile and lethal combat formations. It strengthens our military's commitment to service members, civilians, and their families by resourcing major quality of life initiatives, including significant funding for facilities. Again, in keeping with the Chairman's focus on the Industrial Base, this mark resources the organic Industrial Base to deliver the maintenance and sustainment that our forces need to support our combatant commander requirements. This mark endorses an Army initiative that mandates annual sustainment reviews to identify and fix major weapon systems that do not meet material readiness objectives. Finally, these generational investments in the readiness of are accompanied by a framework to major success. For example, cost controls are placed on the largest ever military construction project to limit cost overruns, and an expansion of the accounting on construction overhead costs is mandated to ensure additional governmental transparency. In closing, I want to specifically thank my ranking member, John Garamendi, for his support in delivering this mark, Our nation is better off when we work together in a collaborative manner to deliver world-class products to our service members to ensure their safety combined with a heavy dose of warrior lethality. And finally, to the staff of the readiness subcommittee, Dave Sinecke, Drew Kennedy, Ethan Pelissier, Abby Snyder, Supra Sharma, Michaela Reardon, Wendell White, and my personal staff, Alex Zender. Zender and Dave And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Here recognizes the um now recognizes the uh subcommittee on readiness, the ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mister Guermini, for opening comments he'd like to have.

Uh thank you, Mister Chairman, and Mister Bergman, thank you so very much and congratulations on another successful readiness mark. It's been a genuine pleasure working with you on some of the most important issues facing our service members, not just this mark, but throughout the entire year. It's been a pleasure and I thank you for that. I also want to thank our staff for all the work they have done to help get us to this point. Sapna Sharma, Wendell White, Michael Rielton, Dave Sinecke, Drew Kennedy, Ethan Pelster, Abby Snyder, and on my personal staff, Robert Hurd, Sophia, and Eli Diaz. Also, have all provide a significant support to the work of this subcommittee. I'm proud of this year's mark. This subcommittee has a long-standing tradition of setting aside partisan differences for the needs of our service members and their families, and this year is no different. This year's readiness subcommittee mark is focused on sustaining our weapon systems and our infrastructure and increasing the readiness rates for aircraft ships and ground vehicles. Let me highlight a few areas that I'm particularly pleased. First, the organic industrial base. Much discussion from other sub-committees about the necessity of this particular activity. This mark invests in the people, the infrastructure, and the workload of the organic industrial base. We have included multiple reforms at these critical facilities, so our organic industrial base can maintain and repair the equipment our war fighters depend upon. This mark also focuses on sustaining our services in contested environments, including by supporting advanced manufacturing to ensure that our forces can sustain themselves in the field. It also ensures investments in the early pre-position stocks, which has proven to be critical in responding to threats around the world. Lastly is the right to repair. This mark takes important steps to ensure our service secretaries are identifying the readiness deficiencies, tracing them to specific parts, software, and intellectual property, causing those problems, and then developing corrective action plans. That is real accountability, and we intend to continue to pursue sue this. I know that many of my colleagues are interested in going even further on the right to repair. I find myself in league with them. However, it's not presently in the mark. But I do look forward to that debate in the hours ahead. This mark is a critical piece of legislation, and I encourage members of this committee to support it. Again, Chairman Bergman and the members of this subcommittee, I want to thank you for your collaboration. and partnership. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

I thank the gentlemen. Uh, before entertaining uh amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? Yellow.

Yep.

We will now consider on-block package number one that you recognize, Mister Bergman, for the purpose of offering an on-block amendment.

Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up on-block 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 en bloc amendment? Without objection the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining the en bloc amendment.

En bloc package number one is comprised of the following. Log five seven two four by Rep. Scott. Log five seven six two R two by Rep. Fidstead. Log five seven seven zero R one by Rep. Littrell. log five seven seven four by rep finstead log five seven seven five by rep kelly log five seven nine R one by rep Moulton log five seven nine R six R two by rep gooden log five seven nine eight by rep strickland log five eight zero one R one by rep strickland log five eight one three R one by rep vasquez log five eight one eight R one by rep strickland Log five eight two zero R two by rep Jackson. Log five eight two two R one by rep Jackson. Log five eight three one R three by rep Vasquez. Log five eight four seven by rep Hamadeh. Log five eight five five R one by rep Bergman. Log five eight six seven by rep Scott. Log five eight seven one by rep Scott. Log five eight eight one by rep Harrigan. log five eight nine or zero by rep bergman log five eight nine or three by rep bergman log five eight nine or seven by rep takuda log five nine or zero seven by rep scott log five nine or zero eight by rep takuda log five nine or one six r two by rep vasquez log five nine or one nine or by rep takuda log five nine or three seven r two by rep jackson log five nine or five two r one by rep takuda log five nineer five six by rep takuda log five nineer nineer nineer r one by rep whitman log six zero three four by rep whitman log six zero four nineer by rep bergman log six zero five seven by rep hoohlahand log six zero six four r one by rep harrigan log six zero six nineer by rep bergman log six one three six by rep bolton Log six one five seven R run by rep one by rep Fallon. Log six one six five by rep Crow. Log six one seven four R one by rep Mesmer. Log six one seven five by rep Fallon. Log six one seven seven by rep Fallon. Log six one nine R eight by rep Mesmer. And log six one nine R nine R by rep McGuire.

Question is on.

Question is only on.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the uh amendment en bloc is agreed to. We will now consider en bloc package says number one.

Number two.

Number two. The chair recognizes Mister Bergman for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package two consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority.

Without objection, so ordered, will the clerk please distribute the en bloc amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman uh is recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining his en bloc amendment.

En bloc package number two is comprised of the following. Log six two zero zero R one by Rep. Elfrith. Log six two one three by Rep. McGraw- Weyer. Log six two two two R one by Rep.

I'll do it.

Harrigan. Log six two three six R one by Rep. Harrigan. Log six two six one by Rep McGuire. Log six two nine R one by Rep Scott. Log six three zero eight R three by Delegate Moylan. Log six three one seven by Rep Sorensen. Log six three two nine R one by Rep Courtney. Log six three six one R two by Rep Hamadeh. Log six three six four R one by Rep Hamadeh. Log six three seven zero by Rep Hamadeh. Log six three eight zero R one by rep Bergman. Log six three eight one R one by rep Gooden. Log six four zero five R four by rep Kiggins. Log six zero Log six four zero seven R one by rep Amadei. Log six four eight nine R by rep Jackson. Log six four nine R two R run one by rep Scott. Log six four nine R four by rep Jackson. Log six five three eight. r one by rep fallon log six five four four by rep bergman log six five four six r one by rep jacobs log six five five nine r r two by rep bergman log six five eight zero r one by rep van orden log six five eight three r three by rep bacon log six five nine r seven r one by rep wilson log six six zero four by rep crank log six six zero five by rep ryan log six six one zero by rep khanna log six six eight six by rep scott log six six nine er zero r one by rep bergman log six six nine er two by rep bergman log six six nine er four r one by rep elfrith log six six nine er five by rep scott log six seven three seven r two by rep deluzio log six seven four three by rep sorensen log six seven eight six by rep garamendi log six seven nine r three by rep desjardins log six eight zero four r one by rep sesneros log six eight zero six r one by rep bergman log six eight zero seven by rep bergman log six eight four nine r by rep tran Log six eight seven zero by Rep Rogers.

Good.

Is there further discussion on the en bloc package? Question is down the en bloc package offered by Mr. Bergman. So many as are in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendments en bloc are agreed to. If there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan. Mister Bergman, for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mister Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on readiness as amended.

Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Michigan, so many in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. Quorum being present, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print of the subcommittee on military personnel Pursuant to Committee Rule seventeen 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 have concluded. Uh, this year recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, uh, the gentleman from Texas, Mister Fallin, for any comments he would like to make.

Uh, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The military personnel print was developed in a bipartisan manner and includes member priorities focused on taking care of service members and their families to ensure we have the most capable and ready fighting force in the world, really in history. To double down on historic recruiting numbers, we increased the end strengths for all military services, providing the services space to add needed warfighters and enablers to address rising threats which we've all seen around the world. We pay particular attention to military medicine this year to improve quality and access of our service members and their families by increasing the pool of eligible nurses who can now start their careers at military treatment facilities by requiring DHA to hire needed personnel at the proper wage to fill our hospitals and clinics and authorizing hospital commanders at remote installations to hire medical personnel directly without going through the layers of bureaucracy. to get to the doctors and nurses where they need to be and where we really uh have to have them. We also increased access to dental care for junior enlisted National Guard and children under twelve at on-post dental clinics. And continuing our focus on military health care, we continue our support to research into cutting-edge medical technology to care for our service members and their families' particular focus on combat, medicine, and trauma. Also, we continue the effort to reform civilian hiring, focusing on a skills-based workforce rather than credentialism, and making a concentrated effort to get young tech talent into the DOT, which is an absolute must. I wanna uh thank my ranking member, Christy Houlihan, from uh Pennsylvania. We worked very well together in the last couple of years and we really appreciate that. And our off- and my personal office staff, Andrew Bon, James Nuck. and Hannah Crossman. And lastly, I want to acknowledge our superstars on the committee, staff level. They are gold coins for our republic. Uh, uh, you know, I want to especially mention Dave Giacchetti, Hannah Kaufman, Ellie Bender, and Alexandria Evers. And also, um, Ilka Regino and Mikella Reardon. They've all worked tirelessly and always in a bipartisan manner to develop the subcommittee print. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair now recognizes the uh member of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member for any opening comments she'd like to have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh the military personnel mark is a very strong and bipartisan package that addresses many of the day-to-day concerns of service members and their families. Thank you as well to Chairman Rep and Representative Fallin for his partnership in making sure that we always have kept our North Star as the lives and livelihoods of our servicemen and women and their family. The mark includes a targeted pay raise in which more junior service members will get higher rate raises and increases. These improvements to service members' paychecks should provide a very welcome relief to f- military families who are struggling with ever-increasing gas and food prices. In addition to the pay raise and to address issues related to food insecurity, the mark includes a provision that in excludes the BAH BAH, or basic housing allowance allowance, from a service member's household income, greater number of service members can be eligible for the basic needs allowance. I'm optimistic that this effort will positively impact service members' pocketbooks and their ability to put food on the table. To address growing concerns over the future and the future viability of the military health system, the mark also includes a series of provisions aimed at an increased oversight. The military's health system is a no-fail mission and we need to make sure that there is a system that can provide our nation's military, a medically ready force to deploy. Just as importantly is ensuring that the medical providers themselves have the requisite skills to address whatever injuries come their way. In addition, beneficiary beneficiary access to health care has been a challenge for several years, and as a result this mark includes some innovative ways to improve civilian hiring and to preserve the network of care as it currently exists, until a further analysis is completed. The mark expands ongoing efforts to improve access to safe and quality child care by including an au pair in the chi- uh in the child care in your home pilot program and establishing a student internship program to improve recruitment and staffing of military child development centers the bill also ensures that uh military families executing a permanent change of station receive timely and relevant relocation assistance information about available child care and food access services in advance of their military duty station move and Finally, the mark requires the department to issue regulations banning the Department of Defense personnel from insider trading on prediction markets. This is a necessary and crucial step in safeguarding our national security and in maintaining the public trust in our military. I'd like to acknowledge all of the personnel's uh committee staff efforts, especially Ilka, Michaela, Hannah and Dave and those who are uh back in our office working diligently. Hello to you and thank you. Uh very grateful for the opportunity to work together on this bipartisan mark-up today and I yield back.

Generally yields back, uh before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print?

Three.

We we will now c- uh consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mister Fallin for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. I ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number one consisting of that have been worked and approved with the minority.

Without objection so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the en bloc uh amendment. Without objection the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining the en bloc amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. En bloc package number one is comprised of the following. Log fifty seven sixteen R one by Rep Bergman. Log fifty seven seventeen R one by Rep Bergman. Log fifty seven twenty five by Rep Scott. Log fifty seven twenty six by Rep Scott. Log fifty seven twenty seven by Rep Scott. Log fifty seven thirty by Rep Houlihan. Log fifty seven thirty one R one by Rep Houlihan. Log fifty seven thirty three by Rep Houlihan. Log fifty seven thirty four by Rep Jacobs. Log fifty seven thirty six R two by Rep Houlihan. Log fifty seven thirty seven by Rep Jacobs. Log fifty seven forty six by Rep Houlihan. Log fifty seven fifty seven by Rep Dakota. Log fifty seven fifty eight R one by Rep Bergman. Log fifty seven fifty nine by Rep Dakota. Log fifty seven sixty R one by Rep Dakota. Log fifty seven seventy two by Rep Luttrell. Log fifty seven seventy eight by Rep Hamidash. Log fifty seven seventy nine by Rep Hamade. Log fifty seven eighty by Rep Kiggins. Log fifty seven ninety nine by Rep Strickland. Log fifty eight O five R one by Rep Jimenez. Log fifty eight eleven by Rep Hamade. Log fifty eight twenty seven by Rep Luttrell. Log fifty eight thirty four R one by Delegate Moylan. Log fifty eight thirty seven by Rep Scott. fifty eight fifty seven by rep bergman log fifty eight fifty nine r two by rep jackson log fifty eight sixty one r one by rep bergman log fifty eight seventy three by rep takota log fifty eight eighty four by rep takota log fifty eight ninety one by rep takota log fifty eight ninety two by rep turner log fifty eight ninety eight r one by rep davis log fifty eight ninety nine r one by rep kiggins log fifty nine O two by rep kiggins log fifty nine O three by rep takota log fifty nine um fifteen by rep jackson log Fifty nine twenty five R one by Rep Scott, log fifty nine twenty seven R two by Rep Scott, log fifty nine forty one R one by Rep Fenstead, log fifty nine forty two R two by Rep Harrigan, log fifty nine forty six by Rep Dakota, log fifty nine forty eight by Rep Jackson, log fifty nine fifty one by Rep Dakota, log fifty nine fifty three R two by Rep Jackson, log fifty nine sixty by Rep Dakota, log fifty nine sixty seven by Rep Crank, log fifty nine seventy one by Rep Jackson, and log fifty nine seventy Six R one by Rep Jackson.

Is there further discussion on the en bloc package? Question is on the en bloc package offered by Mister Fallon. So many of you in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. And then the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendments are agreed to. We will now consider en bloc package number two.

Mr. Chairman, I ask you name is consent to call up on-block package number two consisting of the amendments that have been worked with and approved with the minority.

Without objection so ordered, will the clerk please distribute the on-block amendment? Without objection the amendments are considered as read. The uh gentleman is now recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining on-block pa- amendment number two.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, on-block package number two is comprised of the following. Log fifty nine eighty three by Rep Cisneros, log fifty nine R one by rep Cisneros Cisneros. Log fifty nine ninety four R two by rep Cisneros. Log sixty thirteen R one by rep Kelly. Log sixty fourteen R one by rep Crow. Log sixty twenty three by rep Kelly. Log sixty thirty five by rep Whitman. Log sixty fifty eight by rep Dakota. Log sixty seventy two by rep Keating. Log sixty eighty nine by rep Houline. Log sixty ninety by rep Ryan. Log sixty one O three by rep Gooden. Log sixty three, I'm sorry, sixty one O nine R one by rep Kiggins. Log sixty one eleven R one by Rep Mesmer log sixty one nineteen by Rep Bacon log sixty one twenty five by Rep Vindman log sixty one twenty nine R two by Rep Bacon log sixty one thirty R one by Rep Fallon log sixty one thirty three R two by Rep Bacon log sixty one fifty three R one by Rep Mesmer log sixty one fifty six R one by Rep Mesmer log sixty one sixty eight R one by Rep Fallon log sixty one seventy two R one by Rep Bacon log sixty one eighty two R one by Rep Fallon, log sixty one eighty five by Rep Khanna. Log sixty one eighty eight R one by Rep Fallon. Log sixty two eighteen R one by Rep Kiggins. Log sixty two nineteen R three by Rep Kiggins. Log sixty two twenty one by Rep Scott. Log sixty two thirty four R two by Rep Kiggins. Log sixty two thirty five by Rep Kiggins. Log sixty two thirty nine by Rep Bell. Log sixty two forty two R two by Rep Bell. Log sixty two fifty two by Rep Kiggins. Log sixty two fifty six by Rep Crow. Log sixty two sixty three by Rep Ryan. Log sixty two seventy three R one by Rep Scott. Log sixty two seventy five R one by Rep Scott. Lock sixty two eighty one by rep Bacon, lock sixty two ninety three by rep Conner, lock sixty two ninety six R two by rep Conner, lock sixty three O four by rep Whitesides, lock sixty three O five by rep Whitesides, lock sixty three sixteen R one by rep Sorensen, lock sixty three eighteen by rep Courtney, lock sixty three nineteen R one by rep Sorensen, lock sixty three fifty R one by delegate Moy- Moyland, lock sixty three fifty one R one by rep Amadei, lock sixty three fifty six R one by rep Bindman, lock sixty three seventy three by rep Kiggins. OK, that's it.

Question is only up. You're good, man. The question is on the en bloc package offered by Mister Fallon. Now, somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no. Depending on the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. We will now consider en bloc package number three. The chair recognizes Mister Fallon for the purpose of speed reading. I'll en bloc package number three.

I was telling Mister Jackson I got a little late at it. I got the doctor right here though, thankfully. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I ask you in a minutes' consent to call up unblocked package number three consisting of amendments that have been worked in a with the minority.

Without objection so ordered will the clerk uh please distribute the unblocked amendment without objection the amendments are considered as read the gentleman is recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining the unblocked amendment.

Unblocked package number three is combined in the following. Log sixty-three eighty-two R two by Rep. Houlihan. Log sixty-three eighty-nine R three by Rep. Houlihan. Log sixty-three ninety R one by Rep. uh Houlihan. Log sixty-three ninety-five by Rep. Harrigan. Log sixty-three ninety-six R one by Rep. Vindman. Log sixty four O one R one by rep Wilson log sixty four O six by rep uh Elfreith log sixty four eleven by rep Elfreith log sixty four twenty by rep Wilson log sixty three twenty three by rep Dakota log sixty four si- twenty five R one by delegate Moylan log sixty four thirty three by rep Dakota log sixty four thirty four by rep Elfreith log sixty four forty five by rep Fallin log sixty four seventy two R one by rep Goodlander log sixty four seventy one R one by rep Jackson log sixty four seventy eight R two by Goodlander. Log sixty four eighty one R one by Rep. Goodlander. Log sixty four eighty five by Rep. Higgins. Log sixty five O four R one by Rep. Gooden. Log sixty five thirteen R four by Rep. Binman. Log sixty five nineteen by Rep. Goodlander. Log sixty five twenty three by Rep. Fallin. Log sixty five fifty R two by Rep. Ahmade. Log sixty five sixty sixty eight R one by Rep. Binman. Log sixty five seventy R one by Rep. Ahmade. Log sixty five seventy six R one by Rep. Bacon. Log sixty five eighty seven by Rep. Crow, log sixty five ninety three R one by Rep Bacon, log sixty six O one by Rep Jacobs. Log sixty six O three R two by Rep Jacobs, log sixty six O six R one by Rep Ryan. Log sixty six O eight by Rep Ryan. Log sixty six thirteen R two by Rep Carber uh Carball. Log sixty six thirty two by Rep Scott, log sixty six forty three R one by Rep McCormick. Log sixty six uh sixty seven R one by Rep Swanson. Log sixty seven sixty nine by Rep Vindman. Log sixty six eighty four R two by Goodw- Gooden, log sixty six ninety three R one by Rep Whitman, log sixty seven O two by Rep Davis, log sixty seven eleven by Rep Strickland, log sixty seven thirty one by Rep McCormick, log sixty seven fifty eight by Rep Jacobs, log sixty seven seventy R one by Delegate Moylan, log sixty seven seventy one by Rep Ryan, log sixty seven ninety four by Rep Fallin, log sixty eight sixty seven by Rep Strickland.

Question is on the en bloc package offered uh by Mr. Fallin. So many is in favor, we'll say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. Being the chair, the ayes have it, and the en bloc uh package is agreed to.

Blue. Mm.

If there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mister Fallon, for the purpose of offering a motion.

Where do they Mr. Chairman, I move

Oh, sorry.

Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on military personnel.

As amended.

As amended.

As amended.

Okay. If there are no further amendment, chair, say aye. Question occurs on the motion uh from the gentleman from Texas. Somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. Quorum being present. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print of the subcommittee on intelligence and special operations pursuant to committee rule seventeen, and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print, until consideration of the amendments to this subcommittee print have concluded. Chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Doctor Jackson, for any opening comments he'd like to make.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to begin by thanking Ranking Member Crow for his support and contribution. as well as members of the subcommittee for their efforts as we developed this bipartisan subcommittee print. This ISO print continues to focus on providing our special operations, forces, and our defense intelligence enterprise, and the security cooperation enterprise with the tools and resources required to ensure their capabilities can support the department's national defense strategy and counter an ever-changing threat environment. The subcommittee print drives the department forward in several key areas to enable our war fighters intelligence professionals and security cooperation community to execute their mission at speed and scale. First we re- first we require the secretary of war to designate the head of an organization within the department of war, to be responsible for ubiquitous technical surveilance, surveillance, known as UTS, UTS functions and and to develop a strategy for research development and procurement of secure communications obf- obfuscation technologies, sorry. Uh, the UTS threat is well known and we need a streamlined focused effort within the department to get solutions to our war fighters. Next, the subcommittee print invest in a wide range of intelligence capabilities and disciplines to better enable leaders to make threat informed decisions in an increasingly complex world. We we direct new periodic intelligence and intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance or ISR strategy across all domains to evaluate whether current capabilities can meet intelligence collection requirements and drive the department to ensure collection postures going forward better meet future intelligence collection requirements.

Mm.

security cooperation enterprise, additional needed to broaden the capacity to work with partners and allies. This ISO print provides the secretary, the secretary of war the ability to establish a joint education and training program on military trauma research and care and to enhance that capability. Finally, the subcommittee recommends an additional one point three billion for US special operations command to cover approximately half of the items, on SOCOM's unfunded priority list, such as the Skyraider-two. The US Special Operations Command budget has remained relatively flat over the last decade despite the growing global demand for our special operations forces. Our ISO print recommends this additional funding so, you know, the US Special Operations Command can continue to meet the critical needs within its programs and deliver the capabilities required to keep our special operations forces in the fight today and prepared for future ba- prepared for the future battlefield no matter where or when that threat arises. It is our Article One responsibility to ensure we provide the men and women, service members and civilians who volunteer to serve in these roles in in with these cap- uh c- capabilities the the capabilities and tools to protect our special operators, intelligence professionals, and security cooperation professionals, and keep them in the fight. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the tremendous professional staff of Craig Green, Alex Iglehart, Mark Morehouse, Will Johnson, Katie Quinn, Austin Richards, and my personal office staff, Asher Thompson and Crystal Young. Without this team, the mark would not be possible. Finally, I want to recognize and extend my appreciation for our ISO subcommittee staff director, Craig Green. As many of you know, Craig will be retiring at the end of this year, making this his final House Armed Services Committee NDAA mark-up. He has helped shepherd through seventeen NDAAs over the course of his remarkable eighteen year tenure on this committee and I wish him all the best in his upcoming retirement. With that, Mister Chair, I yield back.

Chair, now recognizing the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations, a gentleman from Colorado, Mister Crow, for any opening statements.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I would also like to thank Chairman Jackson for his leadership, uh, and all of our subcommittee members for developing a a high quality mark in a bipartisan fashion. Uh, security around the world is increasingly volatile, and the need for agile, capable, and synchronized special operators and intelligence professionals cannot be overstated. This mark ensures that our special operations forces and the defense intelligence enterprise have the authorities, force structure, and people they need to accomplish their mission. Our special operators are called upon to respond to the most challenging global crises. This mark enhances the operational capabilities of special operations forces by accelerating the research development and procurement of innovative technologies ensuring they are able to meet emerging mission requirements And it ensures the department will have the authorities to properly conduct counter-intelligence investigations, providing needed protections at home and abroad. Uh, and it also makes progress in an effort that I have been leading on for many years, one that I believe is critical to our security, and that's understanding our partners' will to fight. Uh, this country and this committee invests substantial sums of money, billions of taxpayer dollars on our partners and allies and foreign military sales and assistance. programs and we don't always have the best track record in assessing whether or not those folks will fight when and how they need to, so we must do a better job at that and we continue to make progress. Uh we we also have to make sure that we have the tools to examine this issue at the national and strategic level and this mark allows us to understand it at the operational and tactical level I believe it's critical to having a comprehensive understanding of how we invest our money. Lastly, I would like to highlight our efforts to make sure our operators have the best intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capability as the Department of Defense looks to leverage technologies. Then I will uh close just on the process of this committee. I I'm gonna thank especially Chairman uh Jackson, uh my friend Chairman Jackson uh who uh has done a wonderful job of setting a tone for this committee, to make sure we keep it bipartisan, to make sure we have rigorous debates, cuz we don't always agree but we do so uh respectfully uh and we have put out a quality product that I think is befitting the service and the sacrifice of our military uh and for that I'm extremely grateful uh for your service both Chairman Jackson and I have military backgrounds uh military service is important to our families so this is a personal endeavor for both of us as well uh and I think uh we can say that this committee we have endeavored to have this committee be high speed low drag just like this operators that we endeavor to serve. I will reiterate the chairman's thanks to our incredible staff, Will Johnson, Craig Green, Alex Egelhardt, Austin Richards, Mark Morehouse, Katie Quinn, who do all the hard work here to make sure that we land the plane. Thank you for uh your support and and the work that you do for our country and for our special operators and my personal staff Rachel Everett and McKenzie Fault, for making sure that I arrive on time most of the time. where I need to be uh prepared uh and they do incredible work to uh prepare the product that we see before us today so with that thank you again, and I yield back.

Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's print? We will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Doctor Jackson for the purpose of offering uh the en bloc amendment.

Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number one,

Without objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please distribute the en bloc amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes for the purpose of explaining the en bloc amendment.

En bloc amen- en bloc package number one is comprised of the following. Log fifty seven thirty nine by Rep. Scott, log fifty seven forty four R one by Rep. Jackson, log fifty seven forty seven by Rep. Houlihan, log fifty seven ninety two by Rep. Amadei, log fifty eight twenty one R one by Rep. Scott, fifty eight eighty nine r one rep hamaday log fifty nine thirteen by rep harrigan log fifty nine forty three by rep jackson log fifty nine forty five by rep jackson log fifty nine seven two r one by rep jackson log sixty one sixty two r one by rep fallon log sixty one ninety four by rep scott log sixty two O two by rep fallon log sixty two fifty nine by rep jackson log sixty two sixty eight r one by rep jackson log sixty two seventy six by rep jackson Log sixty two eighty nine R one by Rep Jackson. Log sixty four one two R three by uh Rep Dejarlais. Log sixty four twenty four by Rep Jackson. Log sixty four fifty five by Rep Wilson. Log sixty four seventy four by Rep Kelly. Log sixty four nine zero R two by Rep Wilson. Log sixty five two one R one by Rep Wilson. Log sixty five two five R one by Rep Wilson. Log sixty six one two R one by Rep Harrigan. Log sixty seven O eight by Rep Dejarlais.

Question is on the on block package by offered by Dr. Jackson. So many years in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendments on block are agreed to.

Mm-hmm.

If there's no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Jackson, for the purpose of a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on intelligence and special operations as amended.

Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Texas. Somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. Quorum being present, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. Committee will now consider the Chairman's Mark. Pursuant to Committee Rule seventeen and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone recorded votes on the amendments until mutually uh um amutually agreed upon time. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the Chairman's Mark? We will now consider en bloc package number one. I ask unanimous consent uh to call up en bloc 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 en bloc amendment? Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. En bloc package number one is comprised of the following. Log fifty seven forty one R one by Representative Bell. Log fifty seven ninety five by representative Fenstead. Log fifty eight forty nine by representative Stephane. Log fifty eight sixty three by representative Fenstead. Log fifty eight ninety four R one by representative Bell. Log fifty nine O nine fifty nine O one R one by representative Bergman. Log fifty nine fifty four R two by representative Fenstead. Log sixty fifteen by representative Kelly. Log sixty thirty seven R two by representative Carbajal. Log sixty eighty eight by representative Ryan, log sixty one thirteen by representative Harrigan, log sixty one fifty four by representative Mesmer, log sixty one sixty R three by representative Mesmer, log sixty one sixty one by representative Harrigan, log sixty one seventy eight R one by representative Mesmer, log sixty two ninety eight by representative Crank, log sixty three twelve R two by representative Gooden, log sixty three twenty three by representative Courtney, three ninety one R one by representative Vindman log sixty four ninety one R one by representative Whitesides log sixty five O six R one by representative Whitman log sixty five thirty six R one by representative Whitman log sixty five sixty six R three by representative Whitman log fifty seven seventy I'm sorry log sixty five seventy three R one by representative Whitman log sixty five ninety nine R one by representative Goodman Gooden log sixty six eighty Representative Rogers, log sixty six eighty seven R two by Representative Scott. Log sixty six ninety seven R four by Representative Elfredth. Log sixty six ninety nine R two by Representative Elfredth. Log sixty seven twenty by Representative Delusio. Log sixty seven twenty eight by Representative Delusio. Log sixty seven thirty by Representative Delusio. Log sixty seven seventy nine by Representative Kelly. Log sixty seven eighty eight by Representative Scott. Log sixty seven eighty nine by Representative Scott. Log sixty. eight sixty four R one by representative Khanna log sixty six log sixty eight sixty six by represent Mindy log fifty eight O six R four by representative Jimenez log fifty nine twenty nine R two by representative Turner log sixty ninety seven R one by representative Davis log sixty one sixty nine R two by representative Herrington log sixty one eighty six by representative Moulton log sixty One ninety-three R two by Representative Mesmer. Log sixty-two five O R one by Representative Gooden. Log sixty-two eighty-six by Representative McCormick. Log sixty-three forty by Representative Norcross. Log sixty-four fifty-six R one by Representative Kelly. Log sixty-four eighty R one by Representative Elfret. Log sixty-seven thirty-four by Representative Graves. Log sixty-forty-three R one by Representative Kelly. Sixty one, twenty six R two by Representative Higgins. Log sixty two fifteen by Representative Higgins. Log sixty five, eighty one R one by Representative Higgins. Log sixty five, ninety four by Representative Norcross. Log sixty six, thirty seven R four by Representative Gooden. Log sixty, forty six R two by Representative Harrigan. Log sixty six R fourteen, I mean R sixty six fourteen R two by Representative Harrigan. sixty eighty three by representative Bergman log sixty five forty nine R two by representative Luttrell log fifty eight sixteen R one by representative Carbajal log fifty eight fifty three R one by representative Stefanek log fifty nine twenty three R two by representative Turner log fifty nine thirty four R one by representative Turner log sixty forty two R three by representative Harrigan Question is on on-block package number One. So many is in favor, we'll say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the en bloc uh package uh is agreed to. Okay, we will now consider en bloc package number two. I ask cons unanimous consent that en bloc package uh number two consisting of amendments that have been and approved with the minority is called up uh without objection. So order uh will the clerk please distribute the en bloc amendments without objection. The amendments are considered as read. En bloc package number two is comprised of the following. Log sixty fifty-three R two by Representative Bergman. Log sixty fifty-six R two by Representative Harrigan. Log sixty fifty-nine R three by Representative Harrigan. Log sixty sixty-one R two by Representative Harrigan. Log sixty seventy three r one by r representative hulahan log sixty one fifteen r four by representative gooden log sixty one forty six r three by representative mesmer log sixty one ninety five r two by representative mesmer log sixty two O five r two by representative tucuda log sixty six twenty four r one by representative gooden log sixty two thirty two r one by representative higgins log sixty three twenty five r two by representative hamide log sixty five twelve r two by representative hamide Log sixty seven thirty five R two by representative Graves. Log sixty seven seventy five by representative Whitesides. Log six uh fifty nine thirty five R four by representative Finstead. Log sixty seventy eight R one by representative Vindman. Log sixty two ninety by representative Gooden. Log sixty three O seven by representative Courtney. Log sixty three ninety two R two by representative Kelly. Log sixty five sixty one R one. by Representative Crank. Log sixty five seventy four R one by Representative Higgins. Log sixty seven forty by Representative Rogers. Log sixty seven fifty R one by Representative Rogers. Log s fifty seven forty two by Rep Scott. Log fifty seven fifty. R two by Representative Houlihan. Log fifty um eight hundred R one by Representative Basquez. Log fifty eight thirty R three by Representative Scott. Log fifty eight uh seventy R two by representative Scott, log fifty eight. Seventy two R one by representative Scott, log fifty nine thirty six R one by representative Bergman. Log fifty nine fifty seven R one by representative Takuda. Log fifty nine sixty one R three by representative Bell. Log fifty nine ninety six R one by representative Cisneros. Log sixty seventy six R two by representative Keating. Log sixty one twenty one R two by representative Wilson. Log sixty one fifty one R one by representative Crow. Log sixty one ninety two R one by representative Hamadeh. Log sixty two six uh forty six R four by representative Crow. Log sixty two forty nine R four by representative Crow. Uh log sixty two fifty one R one by representative Keating. Log sixty two seventy four R one by representative Hamadeh. Log sixty two seventy eight R three by representative Keating. Log sixty three sixty six R three by representative Vindman. Log sixty four twenty two R two by representative Wilson. Log sixty four forty seven R two by representative Wilson, log sixty five forty two by representative Jacobs, log sixty five forty eight R three by representative Wilson. Log sixty five ninety R two by representative Wilson, log sixty six fifteen R four by representative Amadei, log sixty six sixty R one by representative Vasquez, log sixty six seventy seven by representative Rogers, log sixty six eighty three R two by representative Jacobs, Log sixty six eighty eight by Representative Scott, log sixty seven thirty two R two by Representative Scott, log sixty seven thirty three R three by Representative Crow. Log sixty seven sixty by Representative Jacobs, log sixty seven seventy two by Representative Scott, log sixty six eighty, I'm sorry, log sixty eight O nine R two by Representative Basquez. Question is on on block package number two. Somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. Pin the chair, the ayes have it, and the on block package number two is agreed to.

Is that all right?

Right, we are on amendment thirty three.

Okay. We will now consider log number sixty eight thirty four by Mister Smith. For what purposes does a gentleman seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk, Mister Chairman.

Without objection, the reading of the uh will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, will the reading of the amendment be dispensed with? I reserve a point of order against the amendment. The chair thanks the gentleman uh oh, the chair recognizes the gentleman from uh Washington for uh his amendment.

Uh, thank you very much for your chair. This will be an offer in withdrawal. This has a sequential referral to it. Um, and I understand that. It's really just to make the point I made in my opening, which I know ver- very few people seem terribly interested in. Uh, but this amendment would raise taxes by a lot over the course of ten years. Um, basically two hundred billion dollars a year would get us a close to a trillion dollars in more revenue by the end of the year. Now, I feel very strongly that our tax code is inadequate. For those of you who haven't read it, Ezra Klein did a great piece about a month ago about how it is that billionaires don't pay any taxes in America, which I didn't fully understand. So, first of all, they don't accept salaries, so then they don't get taxed it on, taxed on income, so they, they get stock options. But you would think, well you cash out a stock option, you at least pay capital gains on it. They don't cash out the stock options. They borrow money from banks against the value of those stock options. So that basically they have, they have no income. And because the banks want to do business with these people, they give them unbelievable rates. So it is literally true that Jeff Bezos pays less taxes than anybody sitting at this table. OK? And that is absurd. OK? And I'm not, you know, I don't wanna soak the rich and, you know, tax billionaires and do all this and everything. But we have allowed our tax code to create a situation where people simply are not paying their fair share, just to begin with. So that needs to be fixed. But second, the amount we want to spend versus the amount that we're willing to raise. I would say basically in America we want two dollars in goods and services for every dollar in taxes that we're willing to pay. Cuz I go beyond the billionaire stuff. The billionaire stuff is relatively Well, I said it's relatively easy except we haven't done anything about it to date. Um, but we we should be able to address that issue, but but everyone has to pay taxes, even the no taxes on overtime, no taxes on tips. You you get rid of right nobody wants to pay taxes, but if you're going to want a one point five trillion dollar defense budget, somebody's gonna have to pay for it. And we decided just not to do that. And I think this is insane, and I think we need to fundamentally change this debate. If you wanna make a passionate case, uh, as the chairman often does for why we need to spend more money on defense, I still have this weird notion that if you really feel that way, you oughta be willing to pay for it. And we've just decided, nope, we're gonna take it, put it all on a credit card and hope for the best. So, I do have to withdraw this amendment, um, but look at it. This is what we would realistically need to do if we wanted to spend this money. And if you don't wanna raise these taxes, fine, okay? then get the hell out of here with the one point six six trillion dollar defense budget. You know, don't keep putting it on a credit card, imagining that somehow we can get something for nothing. So I withdraw this amendment. I I have one other one here. Um, but I have to withdraw the amendment cuz of sequential referral, a yield back.

Cheer. Thanks to gentlemen for withdrawing their amendment, and I withdraw my point of order. Uh, before we go to the next item, I did want to let people know that lunch is available in the ante room, uh courtesy of the Um, anybody wants to eat? We will now consider log number sixty eight forty three by Mister Smith for what purposes the gentlemen seek recognition.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mister Chairman.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the amendment's uh reading of the amendment is dispensed with. I reserve point of order against the amendment uh, chair recognizes the ranking member.

Uh, this is the same thing, only smaller. Um, this is what would it take to raise, I think, two hundred and fifty billion over ten Um, instead of every year. Um, and the thing to think about this, this I think a lot of people would consider painful as well. Um, it's got increases in marginal rates and a bunch of different other issues. But this is nothing. I mean, this is two hundred and two hundred and fifty billion dollars over ten years. We're increasing the defense budget or trying to increase the defense budget by five hundred billion dollars this year, this year alone. This, this is how the numbers are just completely out of whack. in terms of how we're trying, trying to make all of this work. So again, I just want folks to think in terms of, if you want this stuff, we ought to be willing to pay for it. And I also do wanna remind people that, and the chairman makes the point quite well, that as a percentage of GDP, we spend less money on defense now than we have at any point since the end of World War Two. And that's absolutely true. But the two things about that, one, at the end of World War Two there was no Medicare and there was no Medicaid. OK? We have significantly increased our social welfare state, and I don't see hardly anyone standing up and saying we wanna get rid of that stuff. I certainly don't. Alright, so that circumstance has fundamentally changed. But the other circumstance that I wanna remind people of, the top tax rate at that time time period was over ninety percent. Nine zero. So we wanna go back to spending as much money on defense as we did at the end of World War Two, but we want a top tax rate that's roughly a third. I mean, again, the the the math just doesn't add up. It's insane. The capital gains rate was two thirds, sixty six percent. I get in this argument all the time with conservative friends of mine who say, you know, John F. Kennedy knew what he was doing. He cut the capital gains rate. You know what he cut it to? He cut it to fifty percent. Five zero. Cut it from sixty six to fifty. All right? And now I I forget, I think it's like eighteen percent now. So, I realize this is a losing argument. Nobody wants to hear it. But we have to start hearing it. We we we know enough to basically say that we're concerned about fiscal responsibility and debt. Um, but I love the fact that right after we passed a four point something trillion dollar increase um in the debt and the deficit and the purposes of the reconciliation bill last year the same Congress that voted for that voted for a balanced budget amendment. Which is, I mean, that's hysterical when you stop and think about it. But that, but, but that's the way we've decided to do it, is it's like, oh no, facts, reality, they don't matter. You, you're, you say I'm not physically conservative? I voted for a balanced budget amendment. OK? The hell does that mean? You, w- w- wouldn't you vote to increase the debt by four trillion dollars? You know, believe me, reality is a pain in the ass. I am very much aware of that in a whole series of levels. I don't like to have the truth shoved in my face. But here it is. We're we're driving ourselves into the ground, and I just wanted to make the point that we should stop. Uh, and with that I withdraw this amendment.

Chair, thanks the uh gentlemen for withdrawing the amendment, I withdraw my point of order. We will now consider uh log number six one two three R one by Mr. Molten. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection to the reading of the amendment's dispense with the chair recognizes gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would cut the one point one five trillion dollar top line by a hundred fifty billion, to strengthen our country and our national defense. The world is passing us and our troops by when Heg- when Heg- Secretary Hegseth says that we should invest without divesting. We didn't keep all our cavalry when we bought tanks, we didn't keep our balloons when we invented The Pentagon should be following the lead of the Marine Corps in cutting old technology not only because it wastes American taxpayers' money but also because it wastes our troops' training time and when they find themselves caught in an obsolete platform that's a huge target it wastes their lives. This amendment preserves pay, readiness and the modernization of our deterrence that matters. The battlefields of Ukraine have Ukraine have proven that a five hundred dollar drone can incinerate a five million dollar tank. The Iranians have effectively shuttered global shipping lanes with inexpensive missiles, drones and mines. Today a nimble force equipped with the right technology can d- deny territory to massive armies and block sea lanes at a fraction of the cost of the legacy systems, we continue to stockpile. Secretary Hegseth and this administration refuse to make the hard choices that modernizing our national security demand.

Mm-hmm.

And why are they doing this? Because wars cost money, plain and simple. The president has unilaterally decided, for all of us, that the United States should be fighting in more places more often. American forces invaded Venezuela in January. We're mired in a war in Iran that is lasting far longer than the president envisioned when he chose to enter it. The administration has threatened Cuba, Greenland and even Canada. Americans are clearly against this expansion, but Trump doesn't seem to care. And I just don't trust this administration to use this historic budget appropriately. I'm not going to hand them a blank check to fund reckless unilateral wars of choice. The six hundred billion dollar defense expansion in this bill would pay for six years of the expanded child tax credit, the policy that drove child poverty to its lowest lowest level on record, and lifted nearly three million children out of poverty in a single year. Imagine what six hundred billion dollars would do for innovation. After World War Two, we made a conscious choice to invest in graduate school education, putting money into the best universities in the world, to develop the next generation technologies that would keep us prosperous, and our troops safe. We're doing the opposite by continuing to invest in the obsolete systems that put our troops at risk. This is a choice. This, the week before he sent this request, the president told the White House gathering, " We're fighting wars. We can't take care of daycare. It's not possible for us to take care of Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things. Well, it is possible, Mr. President. We just need to make wiser choices, wiser choices for American taxpayer dollars and wiser choices for our national defense. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlemen, I yield back, Chair recognizes himself, uh, fully funding the FY twenty-seven President's budget is absolutely critical, given the unprecedented global threat environment we face. Our adversaries are growing longer, the PLA has modernized their military force. uh, and are capable of significant power projection. They continue to invest heavily and we cannot afford to fall behind. But this amendment will cause us to fall behind. This amendment would inflict serious damage to our military readiness, impacting our ability to fight tonight. It would gut funding uh we've included in this bill to modernize our fleets, of ships, aircraft, and ground combat systems. It will slash investments we are making in the bill to restore our depleted arsenal of critical munitions. Finally, it will undermine the significant progress we are making in the bill to revitalize the defense industrial base. This is the first in a budget nearly forty years that fully funds the cost of American deterrence and American deterrence is expensive. Uh, but I don't want to live in a world where deterrence fails. I, Mr. Mayor, is to oppose the amendment. Is anybody else seeking uh recognition? Mi- Mr. Carbajal first. I'm sorry, Mr. Groh.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This year We are considering a one point five trillion dollars as part of the proposed defense budget. Today we are considering one point one trillion dollars for the NDAA. Our national security is paramount and there are critical investments we must make and keep our country and to take care of our war fighters. But this administration is also focused on vanity projects for the president, Golden Dome and a Trump class battleship. These are distractions from more important, more vital programs. And this budget comes at a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet. The cost of living is too high, groceries, health care, housing and gas are all necessities that are hard to afford by the American people. Yet, the administration is not offering relief on these. Instead, they have cut funding for Medicare, housing, assistance and SNAP. I also take issue with the fact that we are increasing spending by so much, with no plan to increase revenue. This is just inflating the deficit more. This is also a Department of Defense that has failed, failed to pass an audit. We can't continue to give Trump and Hexeth a blank check. I yield back.

Gentlemen, yields back, Chair, and I recognize the ranking member.

Thank you. Uh, in building off of my previous comments about the, let's raise taxes to pay for it. We're not gonna raise taxes to pay for it, um, since we don't want to make massive cuts in other aspects of the government, at least the majority of us do not want to do that. We're gonna have to live with a realistic amount of money. Um, and this a hundred and fifty billion dollar cut reflects that realistic amount of money. I think that we can meet our national security needs much more cost effectively than we are. And that's the whole purpose of acquisition reform, is to be able to do things, as I said, faster, more efficiently, innovate at scale. I think we can do that. There are ways to make missiles and counter drone capabilities and all kinds of other capabilities to meet our national security needs in a more cost effective manner. But, it's sort of two steps to the argument. One, I think we have to, for all the reasons that I said earlier, about the state of our fiscal Uh, we have to figure out how to do this in a more cost-effective way, because the state of the debt and the impact that it's having on our country is, I, again, I think the greatest threat to our national security. Now, I'm optimistic. I think we can figure it out. I've seen things in terms of technologies that have been developed that are gonna enable us to meet our munitions need in a much more cost-effective manner. I also think, to Mister Moulton's point, we don't have to actually violently defeat all of our adversaries. We don't have to start wars everywhere and let them run forever, like we're doing now in Latin America with all of the boat strikes, like we're doing with Iran. Um, we can form partnerships and alliances. We can engage in diplomacy to to find a way to peacefully coexist with adversaries. Um, we can do that. We're gonna have to shift our national security strategy to reflect that. This idea that somehow we are going to dominate the entire world, and if we someone who disagrees with us, we're going to bend them to our will through the sheer size of our military, is dangerous as hell, is a starting point. And second, we can't afford it. And I think that's what we've run into in Iran. The president honestly thought that he could bomb Iran for four to six weeks, and that would bend them to our will. He didn't understand the asymmetric advantage that Iran had, which is all they have to do is survive and inflict pain. And it's really cheap to survive and inflict pain. He put us on this path of conflict that didn't need to be done, not only was it costly, not only was it dangerous and deadly, we're in a worse position in terms of achieving our national security needs. The Strait of Hormuz is shut down and the hardliners are more in power in Iran than they were when the war started. There is a more cost-effective way to meet our national security needs. I believe that, but frankly even if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't be willing to bankrupt us us from, you know, with fiscally irresponsible spending just to find out whether or not we could. So I I support the gentleman's motion, I support the amendment, let's get a realistic defense budget. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Rowe.

Thank you, Chairman. I want to reiterate what uh Ranking Member S Smith said about uh Congressman Moulton's amendment, which I support. I I just can't in good conscience vote for an over trillion dollar defense budget When we have twenty million Americans at risk of losing health care, when I'm back home in Colorado and I'm talking to my constituents who are deciding today whether or not they're going to either buy prescription drugs for sick children or pay their mortgage. Right? We can't do everything and we don't have an endless pot of money, despite what some of the people in this Congress think. Right? We we we have to make tough decisions and we have Americans dying, losing their homes, farms going under, uh, and I just cannot in good conscience turn a blind eye at all of that suffering of Americans. At the same time, I am also pro-defense. I have spent much of my life in service to this country, and I believe in a strong national defense. So I also don't buy the argument that somehow just throwing money at the problem somehow results in bet- uh uh a better and more stronger defense. In fact, I think that the opposite is in case, is in fact true. Right, we're dealing with a massive bureaucracy with the Department of Defense. Bureaucracies respond to incentives and disincentives. And why would they possibly make tough decisions to divest things, to remove programs, to make major reforms, if all we're doing is throwing good money after bad, to the extent where they don't even have to make those tough decisions anymore. I know for a fact that we can be more efficient, that we can spend less money, and have better results for the American taxpayer and the war fighters than we are currently delivering them. And I know that's true, cuz Ukraine is doing it right now. They are, for pennies on the dollar, reinventing modern warfare, going toe-to-toe with the military multiple times their size, and winning. And uh am I to believe that America can't do that? Am I to b- to believe that we're past the point of innovation, of creativity, of tapping into the best and the brightest in this country, that we are unable to do what Ukraine is doing right now? I don't believe it. I won't believe it. And I support Congressman Moulton's amendment that it will do the right thing by Americans the right thing by my constituents and will actually create an incentive, for reform and change to America stronger, to make America more agile and to do right by our men and women in uniform. I yield back.

Chairman yields back. Sure, now recognize Miss, Doctor Conaway.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I um rise, uh, or rather not rise, well I s- I r- I am rising, I'll rise, uh, to speak in support of this amendment. Uh, I support a strong national defense as one who served in our military, but I understand that strength is not measured by how many billions and trillions of dollars we spend, it is measured by the capabilities that we uh bring to the field, our middle military res- uh readiness, and our and the deterrence that we create. And as uh the ranking member has mentioned time and time again, you know, our our strength uh is in our economic security and the budgets we are uh the deficits we are running uh uh mitigate or rather uh uh that strength and uh and hurts our national defense. An increase in funding at the amount suggested by the president's budget raises questions, serious questions, that Congress must carefully scrutinize. First, while this administration is asking for a thirty percent increase in defense spending to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, their actions have driven up costs across the board. They are disregarding the plight of hard-working Americans who cannot afford an extra fifty dollars to fill up their tank at the gas station as a result of the president's war with Iran. Farmers are suffering. They can't afford the fuel to run their machinery. They can't afford the fertilizer to plant crops in the fields. We're seeing uh bankrupts uh bankruptcies across the farming community, increased suicides as well because of the economic dislocations that have caused to that uh that are bring that we're bringing to that sector. Instead, the administration is asking members of this very committee and hard-working Americans to write a blank check to the department and hope that they'll spend it wisely. We need transparency from the department, but we have not gotten that. Myself and my colleagues have repeatedly asked for the cost of the war in Iran, and we have not received a sufficient answer o- or cost breakdown. Not only is this president starting wars all over the place, he's asking for billions more without knowing how much the war will cost. Secondly, if we are to increase funding at these levels, there should be a sound strategy. Uh, we should know where the money is going, and so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Gentleman, he goes back. You're now recognized. Gentleman from New York, Mister Ryan.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I wanna join my colleagues in uh uh supporting this amendment and thanking Mister Moulton for introducing this important amendment. Thirty-seven percent, year over year, in the base budget, almost fifty percent from last year overall. One point five trillion dollars. one point five trillion taxpayer dollars at the same time that this year we gave, this administration, certainly not me, gave a trillion dollar tax cut to the top one percent, most of which went to the top point one percent of the American people. This just does not pass the common sense test. And it, I, I think it also doesn't pass the test that the whole point of our defense and our national security is to keep the American people free. And in my district, this last year we've got, as as colleagues said, sick kids who've lost health insurance, families that can't make rent, churches in my district that we've been working with this week that literally can't keep the lights on, food banks that don't have enough to feed our communities, and then the rise in gas prices have made it even harder for them to deliver food when they already don't have enough funding to do it. And now Trump and HEGSF want one point five trillion dollars more? of my constituents' hard-earned taxpayer dollars to rise gas prices even more?

Mm.

Are you kidding me? And that that doesn't even mention the dumpster fire that is Hegs' management and lack of leadership at the Pentagon, firing generals, spending billions of dollars a day on a war that they never authorized, that finally yesterday this the House voted with the American people and said we should uh pull back from what our my constituents want, what the American people want, invest in housing, invest in utilities, invest in groceries, invest in healthcare. That's where they want us to invest. The Pentagon needs an audit, it needs a serious adult leader, it does not need a one point five trillion dollar blank check. I yield back, Mister Chair.

Gentleman yields back, Chair, and I recognize the gentlel- r- recognize as the gentlelady from California, Miss Jacobs.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. One point one four two trillion dollars is a staggering amount of money, and this committee has a duty to debate it before just authorizing it without a second thought. The United States already spends more than a third of all the military spending on the entire planet. And this bill pushes it even higher to the largest defense budget in American history. That is crazy. And it doesn't actually make us safer. And no one ever asks how we're gonna pay for it. Last year, congressional Republicans cut close to a trillion dollars from Medicaid, more than a quarter trillion from SNAP through reconciliation. They were fine telling hungry kids that we couldn't afford it. They didn't care about telling a mother on Medicaid that the math just didn't work. And to be clear, This was a direct attack on our military families. About eight hundred and fifty thousand people enrolled in Medicaid have TriCare as their primary coverage so military families rely on Medicaid too, not just TriCare. And I think we all know that we have too many families who rely on SNAP to put food on the table. In fact, the San Diego Food Bank alone serves nearly forty thousand active duty military and veteran family members every single month. And to make it all even worse, the Pentagon is still sitting on most of the a hundred and fifty billion dollars it got in last year's reconciliation bill the same bill that gutted Medicaid and Snap, and left families without the support they need. And yet the Pentagon is asking for even more money, even though we don't really know where all that money goes. They've failed their audit eight years in a row, eight. They are the only major agency in the entire federal government that has never once passed an audit. And we are about to reward that with almost one point two trillion dollars more? Truthfully, I think we should be cutting even more than the a hundred and fifty billion dollars, but this is an important first step. Republicans love to talk about how it's not how much money we spend that should be the metric we use to measure our commitment to a particular cause, it should be the results that matter. But they never seem to extend that logic to the defense budget. Can anyone actually defend the results of our recent defense investments? And yet, here we are attempting to build a whole new class of warships just because Trump watched one too many old World War Two movies? The American people. That is what makes America the greatest country in the world. That's what makes us competitive. That's what keeps us safe. And that's what we should be investing in. Our conscience should tell every single one of us to vote yes on this amendment. I yield back.

Young lady yields back to her not recognized young lady from Hawaii. Mr. Kuder.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to reduce the defense top line by a hundred and fifty billion dollars. Last year Congress appropriated eight hundred thirty-nine billion for defense. Today we are considering a bill with one point one five trillion in discretionary defense spending alone a thirty-seven percent increase in a single year. And that's before you add the administration's request for another three hundred fifty billion dollars in mandatory spending. Taken together, we're on a path to nearly double defense spending in just two years. Now, I wish we had been able to take a different approach and consider the ranking members amendment. We need to make sure that the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations pay their fair share. Because when we refuse to do that, every new dollar for defense comes from somewhere else. We've already seen this happen. It comes from the programs that makes life affordable for every day, Americans, it adds to our overall debt, which will be borne on the backs of our children. We've seen them take nearly two hundred billion dollars in cuts from SNAP, cuts to health care, cuts to child care, cuts to the very investments that help families put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. National security is not just about the strength of our military, it's about the strength of our country. A nation that prioritizes bullets and bombs over food and health care is not making itself stronger. A weak home front weakens our national security posture. What's even more troubling is that despite this record breaking request the administration proposes cutting military hospitals and clinics by roughly a hundred billion dollars. That tells us that this isn't a question of resources, it's a question of priorities. We can fund critical defense needs. We can support our service members. We can deter our adversaries, but we can do it responsibly and do it the right way. Even with this amendment, defense spending would still receive a substantial increase over last year. This is more than a reasonable compromise and I would rather cut it more, but as mentioned previously, this is a good start. This amendment recognizes that real security requires both a strong military and a strong America. I urge my colleagues to support it and I yield back.

General, I yield back, chair, and I recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Khanna.

Mister Chairman, I support Congressman Moulton's amendment, so we do not have a nearly one point two trillion dollar budget. You know, that's sixty five percent of the entire discretionary federal budget. Two thirds of the money of taxpayers is going to what they call the department of war instead of going for jobs here in America, instead of going for child care here in America, instead of going for health care in America. You know, someone greater than everyone collectively on this committee warned about that. Dwight Eisenhower, who won World War Two, gave the cross of iron speech. And he said, every bomb built, every missile built, was a school not built, a hospital not built, a homeless shelter not built. The American people are begging us in election after election saying, Don't send our money overseas. Don't get into these wars. Listen to George Washington. How about having a Marshall Plan not for Europe, but a Marshall Plan for America? How about rebuilding the de-industrialized towns? How about creating jobs here? Instead, we build out this budget and then we force our presidents into wars in Iran, and the American people feel betrayed. Now I know I've been casting lonely votes on this committee. No, no, no, no, no. They boo me on the committee sometimes, kinda, kinda, there's another no. And I warned they would raise this budget to over a trillion dollars. And they said, " Well, you're crazy. They would never do that." Well, here we are. Here we are. If we don't draw the line in the sand now, we're going to be consumed by a military-industrial complex that cares more about Tehran than Toledo. I strongly support Congressman Moulton's budget to actually put team America first instead of foreign interests.

Gentleman yields back, chair, and I recognize you, I'm from California, Mister Garamendi.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. I suspect anybody watching this hearing that has some recollection of the way in which the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have positioned themselves in the past their heads are spinning. What's going on here? Republicans are spending wildly? The Democrats are saying, wait a minute, we can't afford that, think about fiscal responsibility, think about the debt, think about how we're gonna pay for it. Woah, what's going on?

Mm-hmm.

What's going on is that finally the members of this committee, at least on the Democratic side, are saying woah woah wait a minute, oh and by the way, your one and a half billion dollar cut is not the total amount of money that is added to the military. It's one trillion five hundred billion dollars. Three to four hundred billion of that is over in the reconciliation which we are not even beginning to deal with. So let's talk about fiscal responsibility, let's talk about the role that this committee really must do, and listen to my democratic colleagues, all of whom are saying we want to be fiscally responsible, we wanna make sure that every single dollar that is spent in the Department of Defense is spent wisely, spent on useful materials, useful weapons, and the support of our troops. And that means we don't do yesterday, we don't do today, what we've done yesterday. We take a look at the world situation, take a look at Ukraine and say, wait a minute. Maybe we don't need new Abrams tanks, and surely we don't need a battleship, even if it's painted gold. Come on, let's talk about what is actually necessary. And as my colleagues have said here, let's be very, very clear that in order to do this, and not drastically increase the deficit even more, there are massive cuts in programs that everyday Americans depend upon. Transportation, education, health care, you name it across the board. All of that infrastructure that we need to build tomorrow's society slashed and cut in the President's budget. So let's listen very, very carefully. My Republican colleagues Would you please go back to where you once were, fiscal responsibility, and do the hard work in this bill of making sure that every single dollar that's spent is necessary, not on yesterday but on tomorrow. So let's stop all of this, and I want to yield uh some time to my colleague, the author of the amendment, Mister Bolton.

I wanna thank my friend from California, I agree with his points and the coin points of my colleagues. I also wanna just Bring this home for Americans, because we throw around these big numbers in Washington. One trillion, trillions, billions. One point five doesn't even sound like that much. This defense bill equates to about seven thousand five hundred dollars per taxpayer. That's the cost. You can't get after seventy five hundred dollars lying around your kitchen counter. I don't think so.

Gentleman's Times Expired here, and I recognize a gentleman from um Virginia, Mister Bindman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, today marks the five hundredth day of the second Trump administration. And I think at this point we can see clearly what the president's priorities are. So, with, um, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record an article from April third from the New York Times titled "War with Iran Clarifies Trump's Spending Priorities, the Military Not Child Care."

Without objection, so ordered.

And a quote here from the president It's not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all of these individual things because this country is fighting wars. The priorities are crystal clear here. So last year,

OK.

ver- in the early days of this administration, a group of us were in front of USAID headquarters,

Yeah, I get it.

and we were talking about the fact that they're shuttering an agency, um, that the budget was about forty billion dollars. And my point there was that if we're gonna cut a forty billion dollar budget then we need to tr- massively increase the defense budget, because, you know, the elements of of national power are not only military, but they're diplomatic, information and um, economic. And here we are, now at five hundred days, and that's exactly what we have in this one point five trillion dollar budget. It's a massive increase, it comes at the expense of providing health care, child care, and even even social security benefits for struggling families. So that is why I'm in support of this amendment. We can spend more wisely. We need to increase our national budget. I recognize fully the dangers of the world today, but it can't come at the expense of child care and and health care. And by the way, we could also slash spending on on boondoggles like slush funds for a golden dome, which still nobody fully fully understands our Trump class battleship, battleship. So, um, our children and our grandchildren will be shouldering the burden of these, uh, of these massive increases in the budget long after this administration is done, and we need to restore some sanity. And so, I support this amendment. Thank you.

Gentleman, he goes back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, um the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Moulton. Uh, so many is in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed will say no. No. Opinion of the chair, the no's have it. The amendment's not agreed to.

We like to record it, right?

Recorded vote is requested and will be postponed until a later time. We will now consider log number sixty eighty seven by Mister Smith of Washington. For what purpose does this gentleman seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? With objection to the reading of the amendment's dispensed by the chair recognizer's gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, and just so you know, this may appear to be a dangerous trend that I have three of the first four amendments. I believe this is my last amendments for the day. I will not be taking up everybody's time for the whole rest of the evening. Uh, but this is about the battleship. Mr. Courtney alluded to that in his opening remarks in the sea power subcommittee. You know, going back to the whole speech about how we need to do, we need to meet our national security needs in a more affordable way. This is the exact opposite of that. Uh, this, I believe, is currently estimated to cost north of twenty billion dollars. Whatever the number is, I'm gonna give you right now one of the surest fire calci bets you will ever have. Take the over. Whatever they come up with the number, it's gonna wind up higher. We cannot afford to be trying to build a twenty plus billion dollar solution in the midst of our fiscal reality. Now, Mister Courtney is gonna talk here in a moment, he knows a heck of a lot more about what a battleship is in terms of how effective it is in the field. Where we need to be going is smaller, more attritable, autonomous systems.

Yep.

And we're actually making a ton of progress on this. The capabilities of these systems are growing by leaps and bounds from one iteration to the next, and they cost pennies compared to what something like this battleship would cost. We can meet our firepower needs, we can meet our shipping needs, by moving in a different direction. We don't need to go walking down a twenty plus billion dollar hole on a battleship, that also doesn't make any defense needs. But I I will leave that to my superpower colleagues who are more knowledgeable on that subject to make that argument. But this amendment is simple. It takes out the, I think it's two billion dollars, um, that would go towards the battleship. Now that's not gonna get us the hundred and fifty billion in savings that we were shooting for before, but two billion dollars is I think a good place to start and this is something we should not be doing and without a yield back.

Chairman yields back, chair recognizes himself, uh the battleship is not a new concept. There has been a requirement for a large service combatant for decades. Uh the battleship was born out of the studies conducted for the DGX. Uh during the Biden administration we currently lack a ship with enough space or power to support the combat systems we need for future conflicts like hypersonics and high beam high energy lasers. Uh, we all agree that the Navy needs a large surface com combatant for distributed marine operations, maritime operations. This amendment would compromise the delivery of future large service combatant by preventing procurement of long lead time uh materials, and stalling critical advancements in the Navy, Navy's ship design process. I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues do the same. Chair now recognizes Mister Courtney of Connecticut.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, and uh Uh it is true this is a a a concept that's been around for quite a while. The last time uh we built a battleship was in nineteen forty four in in the I Oh Iowa class battleships that was the USS Missouri um the uh concept of the battleship was uh announced last December uh down at Mar-a-Lago uh where again we didn't have any designs, we didn't have any studies in terms of analysis that normally go into starting a new class of any ship. Uh what we did have was an AI generated um picture on a poster board that showed lots of kind of bombs going off and and you know lot of uh you know pretty images that, uh really almost look like a cartoon. So we have now in this uh mark uh before us a billion dollars which uh again if you read the the language it's uh three hundred and ninety million to go to detailed design again I I wanna emphasize the point there is no design that exists, and that's what uh some of this money was allocated for and six hundred and ten million that actually goes for long lead items so they're ordering actually uh you know fabricated uh parts and steel uh for a ship that does not even exist in terms of a design concept it is the exact opposite of what um every lesson that we've learned in terms of failures of ship building and ship construction whether it's the class which again was s the construction started before design was complete littoral combat ship same thing Um and the and the um cruiser uh C G X uh program which also uh collapsed. So again from a just purely ship building sequential you know intelligent approach um this proposal before us uh again is way premature and unvented and if you look at the future year defense plan the fit up in year two, which would be in twenty twenty eight they're requesting sixteen point eight billion dollars so it's going from one billion to sixteen billion dollars really in about uh eighteen months period of time for uh a a a platform that does has no design. I wanna quickly just end by saying last uh in April of twenty twenty two the Russian uh flagship the Moskva was uh sunk by uh two missiles fired by the Ukraine's uh Neptune system has a two hundred mile range uh and again that was the flagship of the Russian navy in in in the black sea uh that demonstrates really what kind of contested maritime environment we have. The Neptunes are like pea shooters compared to what China has in terms of DF missiles, DF twenty one missiles that can cover thousands of miles. The advances that are taking place in drones, anything on the surface of the sea right now, again, is in a much different world than certainly it was in nineteen forty four and even in nineteen for uh in twenty fourteen. The world is changing fast. We need that distributed lethality that Mister uh Smith, we don't need a a lumbering, vulnerable battleship. Mister uh, Chair, I'd ask to enter into the record Trump's big battleship is a sitting dock from Admiral James Stavridis a four-star uh Navy officer who was the head of European command.

Without objection, so ordered.

I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes uh the gentleman from California, Mister Giermendy.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, following on on the discussion that took place uh earlier with um Mister Moulton's uh amendment to cut one hundred and fifty. Uh it does get down to the hard work, it gets down to um arms, a ship, or an airplane, and decisions have to be made. Uh this is the follow-up on the discussion that we just had with Milton's uh amendment about cutting a hundred and fifty billion dollars out. How do you do it? You do it piece by piece. You do it, wait a minute, what are we doing with a nineteen forty battleship, or maybe a nineteen for- a two thousand fourteen battleship? Doesn't make any sense today. And what we are what we must do as members of this committee is precisely what uh German uh ranking member Smith has put on and followed up with Mister Courtney, and that is platform by platform, military installation by military installation. Look to the present and then to the future and say does this make any sense? This battle ship makes absolutely no sense yesterday, makes no sense today, and tomorrow As the Admiral said, it's a sitting duck. Thousands of uh sailors on it, soon to be at the bottom of the sea, taken out by, I don't know, couple hundred thousand dollar missile. So we need to be very responsible here. This is step one following up on the earlier discussions that we had about fiscal responsibility, about cutting unnecessary expenditures, about making sure that we are doing those things that are necessary for today and tomorrow. but certainly not necessary for the days out ahead. And I would remind every member of this committee, it is not one hundred and fifty billion dollars, it's actually five hundred billion dollars of new spending for the military, of which three to four hundred billion of that will not be reviewed by this committee because it is in the reconciliation program that will soon be before us. So let's take this step by step. Let's look to the future, let's do things that are absolutely essential, let's do things that are wise, that are actually lessons that can be learned from Ukraine and other parts of the world. So I would uh ask that this uh amendment be adopted, and that we begin the process of fiscal responsibility and programmatic responsibility. And so with that uh I would uh yield back, and for those who have their head still spitting, Think about what is being cut out in the president's budget. Health care, food, education, hospital, all of those things, transportation, all of those are being cut to build a battleship? Give me a break. With that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mister Moulton.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um, I really appreciate the the work that you do and the difficult job that you have, and so I like to quote the chairman when I And uh he said earlier that this is not a new concept. Well indeed it is not. The last time we built a b- a battleship was in nineteen forty four. And why have we not been building battleships? Because they're obsolete. Admiral Stavridis called it a sitting duck. Well let me tell you, this is the most expensive sitting duck in world history. That's what we're talking about building. This battleship is a boondoggle.

Mm-hmm.

And while I'm against the corrupt prediction markets, I'm gonna make a prediction. This vanity project is gonna vanish. It's gonna vanish in a few years when Trump is gone, Republicans come to their senses, and stop defending the vanity projects of Donald Trump. Because it doesn't make any sense. And that's probably why There's not a single Republican defending this on the committee right now. In fact, I've noticed several Rep- Republicans just depart over the last few minutes of this debate, not wanna be caught, wanting to be caught here while this amendment is debated. It's also notable that when I proposed cutting a hundred and fifty billion dollars from the top line of the defense budget not a single Republican colleague debated that either. It tells you something. It tells you something about this administration's priority.

Th- this Republican did.

Excuse my That's right, Mister Chairman, which is why I quoted you. word. With that, Mister Chairman, I thank you for your charity.

Gentleman, he goes back. Here recognizes a gentleman from California, Mister Cisneros.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. You know, the Navy has not had a good track record of building ships recently and if they attempt to build this trump battleship, it's it's not gonna fix that at all. Uh program after program it's been shot down, turned down, stopped, uh mu- billions been on the LCS program which is ships were starting to be decommi- decommissioned uh just as soon as uh the program was started. Um when I was at the Pentagon in charge of readiness, never did the Navy ever come to me and talk to me about how we need a battleship. We need more battleships. It always was about more autonomous, you know, m- manless ships that they could put out there, right? Frigates, things that were more agile to put out there on the sea. That was what they were looking for. That's what they need. Um, you know, the Marine Corps could say, like, y- you know, the argument could be made, well, the Marine Corps wants firepower, right? They want firepower. What the Marine Corps wants is for shore bombardment is large guns. Uh, and this Trump battleship has none of those. Uh, there's no sixteen inch gun on there. five inch gun i think that they're planning to put on there so it does not meet any of those needs at all this is nothing more than what mister molten just said a vanity project for the president to stroke his ego cause he has to have everything you know bigger and and larger than anything else that was ever built and so you know he's gonna build the biggest best battleship that was ever out there and the damn things are probably gonna be painted gold too but this is not what the

mmm

navy is asking

Gentlemen yields back, and I recognize this is the gentleman from Virginia, Mister Binderman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. So, uh, this seventeen billion dollar project is, um, being included as a matter of military necessity, so I have a a simple test here. let's rename the class of battleship to the Obama class. Or better yet, uh maybe the Washington class, given that we are now approaching the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary uh of um this great nation. And let's see if this project proceeds on that point. And so I suspect it won't. The necessity of this trump class battleship is purely the necessity comes from the name and name alone. It is questionable at best when the real need on the m- modern battlefield is cheaper, smaller, distributed, and in in some cases unmanned systems. China can field dozens of DF-twenty-six ballistic missiles for under a billion dollars. These missiles are at most twenty million dollars each, and a single-tri-class battleship estimated seventeen billion dollars on the low end. You can you can uh sink that a vessel at that uh expense a thousand times based on the uh missiles that are available to the Chinese. That does not represent a sound in- uh investment and it is a waste of finite ship building dollars. When survivability rests on lasers, rail guns and interceptors that don't exist yet,

Who's in the middle?

this makes this pro- project even more questionable. So, as a big proponent of small drones, the seventeen billion dollars would enable us to buy three and a half million dollars of five thousand dollar drones. That seems like a much better investment of the funds, frankly. So, I don't see what the specific capability gap is for a project like this, uh, when smaller, distributed, unmanned, uh, platforms that are cheaper, faster, and already exist. can be produced at a much lower rate. So again, if we do strongly believe that this is a necessary This is the most important amendment. platform, let's just rename it the Washington class and see where it goes then.

Mm-hmm.

With that I yield back.

Gentlemen. Gentlemen yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further debate, question occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Smith. So many is in favor, we'll say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. Depending, chair, the no's have it. Uh, recorded votes requested, a recorded vote will be postponed to a later time. We now consider log number sixty six eighty one, uh, by Miss Jacobs of California. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk, uh, please distribute the amendment without objection, the reading of the amendment's dispensed with, the chair recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would like to thank my colleague Congressman Luttrell for his partnership on this amendment. We're gonna miss him next year. Um, my amendment would ban the transfer of cluster munitions. In twenty twenty one, the Landmine and Cluster Munitions Monitor found that over ninety seven percent of casualties from cluster bomb remnants were civilians, and two thirds of those were children, not combatants, not military targets, children. And that's because these deadly weapons don't look like weapons. But they do look interesting to kids. So when kids find these weapons in trees, in the water, or simply on the ground, they try and pick them up, and can end up losing a limb or their life. And here's the hard truth. We know our cluster munition dud rates are consistently higher than expected when they are actually used in war zones instead of testing sites. These weapons don't all explode on impact. They scatter. They wait. They outlast the war by decades. We are still paying to clean up cluster munitions that we've placed. Since nineteen ninety-three, the United States has spent nearly five billion dollars on cleaning up these weapons. As of last year, last year, we were still paying to clean up the cluster munitions the United States dropped in Laos because they were still killing civilians. That's billions of dollars that we are not spending on priorities here at home. These weapons are banned by more than a hundred other countries, including most of our NATO allies. Transferring these weapons risks damaging our alliances which have been critical in projecting our power and maximizing what we could ever do on our own. So this isn't only a moral stain. It's a financial burden, a tactical misstep, and a strategic liability. Now, I've heard the deterrence argument that we need t- cluster munitions to deter the use of cluster munitions. by our adversaries. But imagine applying the same argument to chemical weapons. We rejected that argument decades ago because we understood that some weapons are so indiscriminate that no military objective can justify their use. No amount of assurances, guardrails, or promises for cluster munitions is enough. We need to ban the transfer of these weapons entirely, and now is our opportunity to do that. To do the right thing. To protect civilians, especially kids. to restore our reputation and to live up to our values. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Generally, he yields back. Chair, and I recognize this gentleman from Virginia, Mister Whitman.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I uh stand in opposition to the amendment, uh I know there are a lot of arguments to be made about the morality of these munitions. That being said, where we are today is at a very challenging point in our weapons inventories. And when you look at the two thousand eight convention for cluster munitions, and you near-tier adversaries like China and Russia are not signatories to that. And when we look at the challenges that we face around the world, uh, our adversaries, you know, are producing weapons that have a much higher dud rate than our weapons do. Our weapons are are much, much more reliable, and therefore the the assertions that Ms. Jacobs makes about the harm potentially for, uh, civilians through unintended exposure there is something that is less likely to happen with our weapons than it is for our opponent's weapons. So I think the US should be able to have this in its inventory. The US should get other nations like China and Russia to agree to ban cluster munitions, but until our adversaries agree to give up these weapons too, We cannot afford to take them off the table, especially at times where we are very challenged with our weapons inventories and the ability to defend our interests in the face of growing threats from our near-peer adversaries. So, Mr. Chairman, therefore, with that I must oppose this amendment.

Chairman Yields is back. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Mister Wilson.

Thank you, Chairman Mike Rogers, for your really positive leadership. I strongly oppose this amendment. We're in a conflict we did not choose, of dictators with rule of gun. invading democracies with rule of law. Our military must be able to defend themselves for peace through strength. Prohibiting the transfer of cluster munitions would have a disastrous effect in the event America needs to transfer them to our allies, such as Ukraine and Taiwan. As stated before with uh Congressman Whitman in previous debates, the munitions the US possesses has only a two point three five percent failure rate, while those developed after two thousand eighteen have a dud rate of one percent. Currently we're seeing the aggression from adversaries around the world. War criminal Putin has invaded Ukraine to resurrect the failed Soviet Union. The Chinese Communist Party continues hostile actions worldwide, along with the Iranian attacks on our partners in the Gulf. We must not forget the mass murder of October seven, twenty twenty three, by Iranian puppets into a resid Israel. We should be promoting peace through st- strength. standing with Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan.

Oh, the distance.

If this amendment were to pass, we would not be able to send these weapons to countries like Taiwan or Ukraine, who are defending their sovereignty. Ukrainian parents, in fact, provide whistles to their children at night for them to use if they survive a war criminal Putin attack on civilian homes and churches. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. As a thirty-one year army veteran myself with four sons who've served in Iraq to Egypt and Afghanistan, our military and allies must be fully equipped for safety of service members in stopping mass murderers such as Hamas, who declare death to Israel, death to America. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman yields back as a further debate. Seeing none, we now will consider uh uh uh Amendment, the offered off-

We need to we need to vote, yeah.

That's what I'm saying, we need if there's no further debate, we're gonna

Vote.

vote on the amendment offered by Miss Jacobs. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. No.

No.

And the pending chairs, those have it.

Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

Generally request a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered. It will be postponed to a later date. We will now consider log number sixty five thirty seven R one uh by Miss Jacobs of California. For what purposes does a general lady seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection to reading an amendment suspense with the chair recognizer general lady for the purposes of a recogni- for of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, my amendment would establish human rights offices modeled after the one at South Com at every combatant command. Before I came to Congress, I spent years working in fragile states and conflict zones and years studying violent extremism. And what I learned over and over again is that how a military conducts itself matters. You can win every battle and still lose the war, if the population stops trusting you. If civilians stop believing you're any better than the people you came to fight. And the data reflect this too. One of the strongest indicators for recruitment and radicalization of violent extremism is state-sponsored violence against you or someone you know.

True.

So this isn't a values feel-good argument. This is a national security argument. And if the US or our partners are committing human rights violations, the consequences can cause ripple effects that can last generations. They can harm US national security for generations. Thirty years ago, SouthKom became the first combatant command to establish a dedicated human rights office. Over the years, SouthKom's human rights offices have worked with regional militaries to help them develop guidance that encompasses human rights principles strengthens their internal control systems, and increases cooperation with civilian authorities. Respecting human rights in all of our military operations is crucial to their legitimacy, effectiveness, and long-term objectives. In twenty twenty four, SouthKom Commander General Laura Richardson called this office a huge enabler for SouthKom, 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. These offices would have dedicated teams

General Yields back. Generally yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Chair recognizes himself. Uh, I agree that human rights are important. However, the combatant commands are already staffed by three lawyers whose jobs are to advise our combatant commanders on the law and procedure governing human rights uh and civilian harm. Creating an office uh in each combatant command is entirely unnecessary. Furthermore, this amendment creates an unfunded mandate by not providing any additional resources to stand up and staff these offices. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition on the gentlelady's amendment? M- gentlelady, Miss Strickland is recognized.

Thank you.

much, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to Congresswoman Jacobs.

Uh, thank you. So, this amendment actually used to have a provision that allowed it to use existing funds that actually made it not an unfunded mandate, but you all, Republicans, opposed that last year, even though you asked for that language in the first place. So, um, we can have the debate on how this should be funded, but I think it's an important competency that our COCOM commanders have said would be useful for them, and I think it's something That this committee should support. Thank you.

Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, um So many of you is in favor, oh, this was in favor of the bill, we'll say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no, no. Penny, the chair, the noes have it.

Mr. Chairman, record a vote.

Jen Lay requests a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered, be postponed to a later time. We will now consider amendment number sixty four fifty three R one by Doctor Jackson. The, let's see uh.

I think this needs to be on the front picture.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Uh without objection, the reading of amendments is dispensed with, the chair recognizes uh the gentleman now for the purpose of explaining his amendment. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to represent the number one fed cattle district in the entire nation. Every day my ranchers and cattle producers work tirelessly to produce the safest most nutritious beef in the world. For over two hundred and fifty years, American cattle producers have supplied our military with beef to s- to sustain our war fighters. Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, the Department of War attempted to use taxpayer dollars for the research and development of lab-grown meat, using our men and women in uniform as test subjects for experimental meat products that aren't even approved to be sold in grocery stores. The military does not represent a group of guinea pigs or lab rats that can be made available for every progressive good idea that comes down the pike. There are plenty of other government entities, academic institutions, private sector companies that can do this R and D. This amendment is straightforward, it would ensure that no funds authorized in this bill are being used to procure or further the research or development of cell cultured meat products for consumption, by members of our armed forces. There is no crisis in our conventional protein supply. For generations, American cattlemen have provided a reliable, affordable, and healthy protein source for our military. We should not be experimenting with lab-grown meat products on those that have volunteered to defend us. I strongly urge my colleagues to support my amendment. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further? Gentlelady from California, Miss Jacobs is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I know we're all trying to protein max these days and I really don't think job of the United States Congress to tell the military what kind of protein it's allowed to research or to tell service members what kind of protein they are allowed to eat. We are not the food police. And frankly, if a deployed service member wants an Impossible Burger, who am I to say no? Who are you to say no? I think we have bigger things to worry about than that. This amendment came out of a claim by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association that funding for BioMade equated to funding for development of lab-grown meat products for military rations. now made isn't a meat program. It's a half billion dollar bio-industrial manufacturing institute. A blanket ban on research takes a hatchet to a whole strategic portfolio, over one two million dollar grant call. Lab-grown meats are currently not cost-competitive. And the idea of alternative proteins replacing the livestock industry is laughable. Fear-mongering about research efforts could push potentially valuable technology policies, including to China. And think about why DOD actually wants this. In a Pacific fight, the supply line is the target. Being able to produce protein forward when you can't truck a refrigerator container across a contested ocean, is a readiness question, not a culture war question. This amendment doesn't improve our readiness or national security. It's just the latest example of my colleagues pushing a culture war issue now into the cafeteria instead of the bathroom. And it's a strange amendment from the party that claims they want government out of the market. You can't vote to deregulate everything else and then ban a line of research because one lobby asked you to. Pick a lane. I think we owe it to the American people to focus on substance and serious consequential decisions instead of Beyond Burgers or research cell cultivated meat alternatives I urge my colleagues to vote no.

Generally yields back. Anybody else seek recognition on this amendment?

Okay, we're gonna have a debate now.

There's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered uh by Doctor Jackson. So many of the people will say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed no.

No. No.

No. Oppended Chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment is agreed to.

Chairman, uh, for to vote please.

Gentlelady seeks a recorded vote recorded votes order to be postponed to a later time. Uh, we will now consider log number six zero eight one R one by Miss Mace of South Carolina. For what purpose what purpose does a gentle seat, gentlewoman seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Uh, will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection? The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the young lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Under the Biden administration, the Department of Defense went down a poisonous path, judging service members not by their ability but by the color of their skin, other demographic checkboxes. It was discrimination in disguise. Leadership training slots, promotion boards, command assignments, all of it increasingly filtered through the lens of demographic outcomes rather than demonstrated ability and merit. We had a secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, more focused on diversity metrics and on division readiness. And the recruiting numbers, the retention numbers, and the readiness assessments all told the same story. Those priorities were costing us. In the Department of War, the stakes are life and death. There is no room for social engineering or woke nonsense, which serves only to harm unit cohesion, readiness, and lethality. President Trump and Secretary Hag-Seth have begun the hard work of rooting out poisonous DEI initiatives and steering the Department of War back toward excellence and meritocracy. And that is in the right direction. But executive priorities change with administrations, what one president builds, another one can dismantle.

Mm-hmm.

If we want to guarantee that merit, not politics, not identity, not ideology, is the permanent foundation of our military personnel system,

Twenty three point four.

we need to enshrine it into law. This is exactly what we're seeking to do with this amendment. This amendment would ensure any personnel actions, promotions and assignments are based exclusively on individual merit. fitness capability and performance no identity-based favoritism race-based promotions or equity mandates which put politics ahead of performance the person who can make the military the most lethal and effective gets the job when you come face to face with the enemy merit is the only thing that matters the people beside you in the foxhole don't care what you look like or what pronouns you have or use they don't care they only care about if you can get the job done This amendment would permanently rid the Department of War of DEI and personnel decisions, which is nothing more than a dangerous distraction. This amendment would restore a culture of excellence and merit in our military and ensure we're not playing politics with personnel policy. This amendment would ensure our military can focus on what it does best fighting and winning the battlefield. I urge all members to support this amendment and I yield back.

General Lady yields back. Does anybody seek recognition? Uh, General Lady, Miss Wi- uh, from Washington, Miss Strickland is recognized.

Mister Chairman, I rise in a opposition to this amendment. Um, I've been in Congress for six years and I have consistently heard that the United States military is the most lethal fighting force in the world. It was true a decade ago, it's true today. I oppose this amendment because it creates statutory restrictions on military personnel management without identifying a readiness problem that requires congressional intervention. Our military already selects, promotes, and assigns service members based on merit, qualifications, performance, and leadership potential. Nothing in current law allows an unqualified individual to be promoted or selected over a qualified one. This amendment, therefore, creates a solution in desperate need of a problem. No one on this committee is arguing against merit. The question before us is this. Should Congress impose new statutory restrictions on personnel systems that are already merit-based and already designed to support readiness. The amendment's requirement that personnel actions be based exclusively on certain factors, creates unnecessary ambiguity and could generate confusion regarding on how the services manage assignments, professional military education, specialized training, opportunities and career development. Military personnel decisions often require consideration of operational experience language capabilities regional expertise and other mission-related qualifications that are essential to force readiness and mission success. This amendment includes an exception for certain overseas missions, but then imposes combatant commander approval and congressional reporting requirements that add bureaucracy to activities that military leaders are already capable of managing responsibly. Congress should be cautious about imposing rigid statutory requirements on military personnel systems that have evolved over decades to support readiness and mission accomplishment.

Interesting.

This amendment substitutes congressional direction for professional military judgment and unnecessarily limits the flexibility that commanders

Oh.

need to manage the force. At a time when the department is focused on

Yeah.

deterrence in the Indo-Pacific fighting a war in the Mideast supporting allies and partners and maintaining global readiness Congress must avoid inserting itself into routine personnel management decisions that are best left to military leadership. This amendment does not improve readiness, it does not strengthen deterrence, it does not increase military capability, and it does not improve the quality of life for service members and their families. Instead, it creates a new statutory restriction and reporting requir- requirement, while offering no measurable benefit to the war fighter. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back, Mister Chair.

General Addy, you're the

General Addy yields back, Chair, and I recognize the gentleman uh, Mister Cisneros.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Military promotions have always been based on merit, and they will always continue to be based on merit. And everything the author of this amendment has said is untrue, and it's based on political rhetoric. When I was at the Pentagon as the Under Secretary of Personnel Readiness, every promotion for every general and flag officer in the United States military came across my desk. Never did we ever talk about quotas, never ever did talk about we need to probe this many women or this many blacks or this many people of color. That is completely untrue and false. Everything that the military does has been based on merit, the promotions, the selection boards, in fact, pictures were even removed from the selection boards of of junior officers so that they couldn't see who they were and what they looked like. It it's it is this is basically is just one big lie to build political points on her election for governor in her state,

Yeah.

and it's not based on anything on fact. And so that, Why would you do that? I oppose this amendment, in fact the army had a great program, the CAP program that was recently taken away, that helped insure that the most selected people, the the top of the the the top people were selected for promotion, they came in for the physical fitness test, they actually interviewed for their job. I mean, who would ever hear you're given so many thousands of people to work for, you're put in charge of a battalion or a brigade, and you're never ever interviewed for the job. This was a process that was done in order to improve the leaders that were selected,

Mm-hmm.

uh, not only for command, but also for senior enlisted uh selection as as well, positions as well. Um, and unfortunately the army uh that program because you know it actually did have a a benefit of getting more women selected more people of color for command because they had the merit and and they had done the job performance in order to earn that and that's what needs to be done we need to insure that we are selecting the top people and that's what the military has always done and it programs that it has done and inserted in there to make it as insured to make theirs a better process in order to do that and this amendment to is just again based on political rhetoric and has nothing to do with truth, and for that far I encourage my colleagues to uh vote no on it, and with that I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back, is there further debate? Um There's no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. Uh, somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye, those opposed no.

No. No.

Deputy Chair, the ayes have it. The amendment's agreed to.

I would like a recorded vote, please.

Gentlelady, Mr. Rickman asks for a recorded vote, recorded is ordered and will be postponed to a later time. Um We will now consider log number fifty nine ninety seven R one by Mister Cisneros. Um will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Goodness gracious. Without objection, reading the amendment, Mr. Spence-Witherchir recognizes the uh gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Military service academies identity-based clubs provide support as cadets and midshipmen build communities on campus. These are places where cadets and midshipmen can come together, learn from one another, and support each other as they navigate their military journey. Removing these clubs limits professional development opportunities for individuals' further service. Further, the administration has failed to provide actual evidence that having a cultural club hurts readiness or makes the academies less merit-based. Regardless, some identity clubs are being allowed while others aren't. How is that fair? I don't think any club should be cut, especially when they are required to be approved by military leadership. My amendment would prohibit DOD from directing military service academies from disbanding any identity-based club that does not use or require federal funding. I would hope this is an easy amendment for my colleagues to support. There is no physical consequence to passing this amendment. And in reality, if when we have fifteen percent of the engineers in this country are only women, and three percent of the engineers in this country are only black, what is wrong with a group

Gentleman back, uh gentlelady uh from Maryland Missile Perth is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and I want to thank Congressman Cisneros for offering this amendment to allow the continuation of cultural religious, academic, and identity-based student organizations at our military service academies. At the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, dozens of student organizations have been removed, including clubs, professional societies, and cultural organizations that have long served midshipmen who come from every corner and all of our districts of these United States. I've represented the academy and Annapolis for eight years now, and I've seen firsthand how these organizations have developed well-rounded leaders prepared to serve around the world and lead sailors and marines from every background. Supporters of these removals argue that military academies should focus on war fighting and readiness. But there is no conflict between military readiness and together, learning about other cultures, and participating in professional organizations. In fact, these experiences help prepare future officers for the complex missions they will serve in and the diverse teams they will lead around the globe. We should be expanding opportunities for leadership and learning at these academies, not eliminating them. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense amendment, support our midshipmen, and support the mission of our service academies. Thank you and I yield back.

Generally yields back to your recognizer himself. Um, I oppose the amendment. Let's set the record straight. The service academies already permit establishment of these clubs and organizations if they are done at no cost to the government, as is the case at other universities. These clubs are appropriately organized by cadets. and led by cadets for cadets, forcing the military and uh by extension the taxpayer to fund and support DEI clubs at our service academies is wrong. I urge members to oppose the amendment.

Well

It's about a speech recognition. If there's no further debate question that occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Cisneros uh so many of you in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed no. No. If any chair of the no's have it.

No.

The amendment is not agreed to. Gentleman asked for a recorded vote.

Yes, sir.

A recorded vote's requested, but a recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed to a later date, a later time. Uh

Maybe a later date too.

Or later day.

Maybe a later date too, that's right. All right.

You got a point.

We will now consider log number sixty-six, sixty-eight R one by Mister Bell, for what purpose does a gentleman seek recognition?

Thank you, Mister Chairman. The dep- uh the Department of Defense.

For what purpose did you seek recognition? Do you have an amendment at the desk?

I have an amendment at the desk, Mister Chair.

Will the clerk please uh distribute the amendment without objection in the reading of the amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Defense currently relies on a patchwork of service-specific policies governing tattoos, symbols, and workplace displays. As a result, standards vary across the military, creating inconsistencies in how hate symbols are identified, addressed, and enforced. That lack of uniformity creates unnecessary gaps and uncertainty where there should be clarity. My amendment directs the Department of Defense to establish a single, department-wide hate symbol policy applicable to all service members and civilian employees, ensuring consistent definitions, enforcement and accountability across components. Within the past year, we have seen efforts across the armed services to revise its harassment and workplace policies which included removing language that explicitly identified swastikas, nooses, and similar imagery as hate symbols. The updated language described them as quote " potentially divisive" end quote symbols. Let's be clear here, the swastika is not politically div divisive. It is one of the most universally recognized symbols of hatred in human history. It represents racial supremacy, it represents anti-semitism, violent extremism, and the syst- and the systematic persecution and murder of millions. The noose is not politically divisive. It is a symbol of racial terror. It carries the legacy of lynching, intimidation, and violence used for generations to threaten Black Americans and deny them their fundamental rights and humanity. These are not symbols of political disagreement, they are symbols of hatred and intimidation. When symbols associated with violent extremism, racial supremacy, or targeted intimidation of military workplaces, they undermine unit cohesion, erode morale, and threaten the good order and discipline upon which military read readiness depends. This amendment provides a practical path forward, It requires the department to establish clear context-based standards, update guidance for commanders and investigators, provide training to the force, and brief Congress on implementation. We ask service members to defend the Constitution and represent the very best of our country. They deserve a workplace free of free from symbols of intimidation, extremist affiliation, and racial or ethnic hostility. This amendment helps ensure that context-based, Uniform standard is clear and consistently enforced across the Department of Defense's. This is not controversial, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes himself. Uh, I fully support Mister Bell's amendment. Uh, this amendment would require Secretary Hicks to define what constitutes a hate symbol, and issue regulations to prohibit prohibit their use. I too fu- have full faith and confidence that the Trump administration can write a fair and just policy on this important topic. I urge all members to support Mister Bell's amendment. General Lady Miss Elfrit is recognized.

Th- thank you Mister Chair and thank you for your support of this amendment. There's gonna be a lot of nuanced and complex policy questions before this committee today, but this amendment is is not one of them. Um, I was shocked, I would hope everybody on this committee was shocked when we all read the news last year that one of uh the services had downgraded Swastika's nooses and other very clear hate symbols from hate symbols to potentially divisive imagery. And it underscored the need for us to clarify laws on the books regarding symbols of hate. So as this committee, I I agree, Mister Chair, and I wanna thank the sponsor of the amendment. Um, this is a moment for all of us to come together. Uh, it's an opportunity to do the right thing, to unequivocally denounce these symbols of hate. And I urge uh, I urge a favorable vote and I yield back. Thank you.

Jen Leid yields back, chair, and I recognize Dr. Khan away from New Jersey.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you for your support of Mister Bell's uh amendment. Uh, in New Jersey uh the Anti-Defamation uh Anti-Defamation League recorded one hundred uh I'm sorry seven hundred nineteen anti-semitic incidents in New Jersey the second highest annual total ever documented in uh my state nearly one quarter of these incidents involve swastikas nationally uh anti-semitic incidents have reached uh record heights. The swastika is not graffiti, it represents extreme anti-semitism and is a symbol that over uh uh that hundreds of thousands of American service members have uh uh uh have uh died to defeat. However, this administration has weakened the policy on swastikas and other anti-semitic imagery. Uh a few a few um a few mere months after this policy change, I was absolutely horrified that in my home state of New Jersey a swastika on the bathroom wall at the Coast Guard training center in Cape May. While I was happy to see the Coast Guard reverse uh this uh policy change, we need to see a such change across the services. We must reject anti-semitism. We must reject all forms of hate. It is absolutely critical that brave individuals who raise their hands and put on the uniform of our country are bound by a shared purpose. These Americans stand shoulder to shoulder, regardless of faith, race or background. Uh, I strongly once again urge support for this amendment and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Turned out recognized generally from California, Miss Jacobs.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. We all know what happened last year. The Coast Guard quietly updated its harassment policy, reclassifying swastikas and nooses from hate symbols to potentially divine symbols. So let me be clear. I'm Jewish. Unless I'm mistaken, I'm the only Jewish member of this committee. A swastika is not a potentially divisive symbol to me. It is a clear and direct reference to the Nazi regime and the Holocaust. It's a threat to millions of Jews, not potentially, not maybe, but one hundred percent. I'm glad the was loud and immediate and the policy was reversed, but the fact that this happened at all means we need to make sure it never happens again. And this hasn't happened in a vacuum. Twenty twenty five ranked as the fifth highest year for hate crimes in the thirty four year history of FBI collected police data. We know anti-semitism is on the rise here and around the world. Now is the time to be vigilant and intentional with our words and our policies. So I hope we get unanimous support for this amendment, to require the Pentagon to establish a policy banning the display of hate symbols. Thank you, Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Generally yields back. Anybody else seek recognition to speak on this amendment? There's no further dis- debate. The question occurs on the amendment by Mister Bell. So, many of yous in favor will say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Those opposed, no. Paying the chair the ayes have it, and the amendment's adopted.

Mister Chair asks for a recorded vote.

The amendment's adopted, but we'll have a recorded vote.

Yes. Yes.

Okay.

Sorry, Mister Chair, my staff member informed me incorrectly.

Okay.

We can have a

Yeah. We can have a Okay, so we are not gonna have a recorded vote. You wanna stay in the bill? Yes.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yes.

There was only one thing bad that could happen if we had a recorded vote and it might not pass. But we we can have it. All right, so the amendments agreed to and no recorded vote. Um.

Oh, so we're still talking about the budget.

Now I've lost my track, my train of thought. And I didn't expect that. All right, we will now consider log number sixty seven fifty seven by Miss Mace of South Carolina- South Carolina for what purposes did the gentlelady seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection to the reading of the amendment's suspense, the chair uh now recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Secretary Lloyd Austin baked DEI criteria into nearly every aspect of our military. Mandatory equity and bias trainings, racial quotas, race-based appointments and promotions to retrieve. quote equitable outcomes. DEI is not about unity, it's about division, not about mission readiness, but about indoctrination and racism. It was force-fed to war fighters encouraging them to divide into camps of racial grievance and view each other with distrust and hostility. Anyone who spoke up or opposed this woke nonsense was branded as a dangerous extremist. One of the most damaging and prejudiced applications of DEI is through the lens of who gets recommended and selected for promotions. The US military is supposed to be the ultimate meritocracy. Race-based preferences and racial quotas for the sake of diversity have no place in our armed forces. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made dismantling the DEI bureaucracy and restoring meritocracy in the military a top priority. But after four long years with Lloyd Austin in charge, the roots of DEI run deep. This racist ideology was entrenched into nearly every aspect of the department, and we're still trying to identify it and tear it out root and branch. This amendment directs the secretary of defense to report on the impacts of DEI criteria metrics and racial quotas on promotion selection board recommendations over the past decade this would tell us what if any DEI metrics and racial quotas were used by promotion selection boards any direction they've received from leader senior leadership and how many more qualified candidates were passed over for the sake of diversity quota systems have consequences when a promotion board is working toward a demographic target the question is no longer simply who is the most capable officer for this role, the question becomes who is the most capable officer for this role, who also moves us toward our demographic targets, and those are not the same question. The men and women under these leaders' command deserve better than that. They deserve to know that the officer responsible for their lives got there because they were not because they were the best person for the job. This amendment is about accountability and transparency. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the department. We authorize its funding, we set its policy parameters, and we have an obligation to understand what has been happening inside our promotion system and why and if its integrity was in compor- was compromised by DEI initiatives and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

General Adios back. Does any further d- uh General Adie from Washington, Mr. Rickman is recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this directive report language. To reiterate, United States military is the most lethal fighting force in the world. has been for a long time, still is today. This directive begins with a premise that has not been established, and directs the department to spend time and resources attempting to validate it. The language assumes that diversity, equity and inclusion policies cause less qualified candidates to be promoted over more qualified candidates, yet provides no evidence whatsoever that this occurred. If there is evidence that promotion boards were directed to disregard merit, Congress should examine that evidence directly. But Congress should not ask the department to conduct a decade-long investigation, searching for support for a predetermined conclusion. The director further asked the department to identify instances in which a less qualified candidate was selected over a more qualified candidate because of DEI, criteria, metrics, or quotas. If that's the case, I think we have a secretary of defense who fits that bill. Such an analysis would require department to reconstruct and re-evaluate thousands of promotion decisions made over the last ten years. It would require officials to speculate about alternative outcomes and hypothetical decisions that were never made. The result will be an exercise that is highly subjective, resource intensive, and unlikely to produce any definitive findings. This directive will risk casting doubt on the legitimacy of promotions rightfully earned by thousands of service members who advance through a merit-based promotion system. The men and women who earn these promotions did so through years of performance, leadership, sacrifice, and service to our nation. They should not have their accomplishments questioned absent evidence that promotion boards violated law, policy, or established standards. The department already rescinded the policies that supporters of this language claimed to be so concerned about. Rather than re-litigating personal decisions from previous

General lady yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mister Cisneros.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. A- again, this is just another amendment that's based on political rhetoric and and nothing around fact. There's never no quotas or anything And I would would welcome the any evidence that my colleague uh could provide, suggesting that there was evidence of quotas or or any other thing that said certain people should be selected uh while those who have uh the merit to get promoted should not because simply based on their sex or their color uh no such policy existed. You look, as the former Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer of the Department of Defense I I know firsthand that diverse teams perform better. Especially in combat situations, and that's shown time and time again. The Marine Corps has done research projects on this. Diverse officers are an important asset for our military, not only for their leadership, but also figures as as figures to enlisted people of color who can they can look up to and aspire to be. It's unfortunate that Secretary Hegseth does not see it that way. Diversity is about creating opportunity where none exists. finding that diamond in the rough and giving them a chance to shine. No one advances through the ranks because of their gender identity or skin color.

Huh.

Military advancements has always been about merit. The outrageous belief that military leaders belong only leadership should only belong to white men, and that women, people of color who rise through the ranks are some just mere DEI hire, uh, is repugnant and ignorant. And I refuse to sit idly and remain quiet while good leaders get tossed aside, simply because they do not fit the narrow, acquitted vision of what some of my colleagues here believe America should look like. To my colleague, to my colleague who continued to say that recruitment and retention were down because of DEI they are mistaken.

Yes.

In Trump's present first term, he cut recruitment funding. Representation matters. If there, if there were no white men in service, been inconceived of you to serve. This is just a topic that again, this is something that is just based purely on lies and political rhetoric and the fact that this is even being asked to to be investigated is just simply wrong. Um cuz it has never been a policy, right? And again, I would um I would ask my colleagues if she has any proof of quotas or anything that there was policy that that there should be quotas, I would ask her to provide that and give us that proof and show it to us, because the fact is it simply does not exist. And with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, um the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. All those in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no.

No.

No.

We're gonna share the ayes have it.

I like your recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

Recorded votes requested, recorded vote is ordered, and we bo- will be postponing to a later time.

That's fine.

Uh, we will now consider log number sixty six fifty six R one by Mr. Crow. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection, the reading and amendments dispensed with the chair recognizes the gentleman for purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this amendment uh is pretty straight forward, it provides that Judge Advocate General serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps may only be assigned or detailed to perform the functions of a civil office in another agency if there is a legitimate military nexus. Our JAGs advise commanders on some of the most consequential decisions our military makes from combat operations to targeting authorities to rules of engagement, military justice, personnel matters and international law. Their time should be focused on matters that directly affect military operations, unit cohesion, command authority, and mission effectiveness. Assigning them elsewhere takes them away from this critical military work especially in a time as as much conflict as we are seeing right now. Congress has a responsibility to ensure military legal resources are aligned with their core purpose which is maintaining an effective fighting force, and protecting national security. This amendment is consistent with that responsibility. Now the department uh recently authorized up to six hundred JAGs to be detailed to the Department of Justice to serve as temporary immigration judges. Immigration judges make final, binding, and life-changing decisions on an immigrant's status, including adjudication of asylum applications and final orders of removal. The effect of these orders involves detention and limitations of personal liberty sometimes immediately after an order is issued. Actions taken by military law lawyers acting as interim immigration judges would cross the line into civilian law enforcement, which cannot be performed by members of the armed forces. So this amendment would do a couple of things. First, it would make sure that our military resources and our men and women who step up to serve our armed forces and American citizens for our national security remain focused on that. Second, it would protect the sanctity of our military civilian d- divide and prevent the use uh and prevent uh the abuse of of our men and women of sending them into positions of conducting civilian law enforcement operations and politically contentious immigration enforcement proceedings. And the third is it would make sure that immigration judges actually remain the the highly skilled specialized folks that they are who have the background, who have the training, who have the history on immigration enforcement, not temporarily assigned JAG officers. So with all of that, I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, uh, and join me, uh, in doing so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. Uh, this is a direct attack on the administration, uh, which has used judge advocates in multiple ways to protect national security priorities for the president. Judge advocates have served as special assistants to the U S attorneys for years. Uh, that role has been expanded and the current administration to assist other agencies in defense of the homeland uh national security priority and great experience and training for our uh uniformed officers. Uh I trust that Secretary of Defense, with the help of the joint staff, may deploy judge advocates across the United States and the world to ensure the rule of law is followed. Therefore, I oppose the amendment that would limit the Secretary's authority to aid agencies in need for uh national security purposes and prevent our judge advocates from getting invaluable training as judges and assistant U S attorneys. And you're about to seek recognition. Gentleman of South Carolina is recognized.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, indeed. I'm very grateful that I've had thirty years' experience as a staff judge advocate. Uh, it was one of the highlights of my life in the National Guard. Uh, our services were so important, uh, for hurricane recovery and relief, and now, uh, the National Guard gets to serve all around the world. And by having, uh, JAGS, uh, capable of, uh, handling different issues, whether it be at MK Air Base in Romania, Novoselov base in Bulgaria, or at on Pristina uh Kosova that I visited with our guard uh personnel and also we have guard personnel thank goodness four hundred have just been uh assigned here to provide for security uh in Washington DC so over and over again I know the capabilities of JAG additionally I'm a JAG dad uh my oldest son Alan is has been the staff judge advocate for the state of South Carolina currently the attorney general of South Carolina and so I I deal with them uh almost today on different issues that uh indeed uh our JAG officers are independent, uh they follow the law, they're dedicated to the Constitution, uh and we do not need uh the uh this amendment at all. Uh it's uh interference with the capabilities of the very talented people who are Judge Advocate General. With that I yield back.

Jim yields back. Here and I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallin.

Mr. Chairman, I do respectfully and very respectfully oppose this amendment as well, because we're talking about limiting and preventing. And I I trust our uh our fine judge advocates and uh preventing a military judge advocate from being assigned to other positions in the government, uh that don't have a military nexus is uh very limiting. We want them to have the ability to serve to have them serve the republic and they're gonna gain invaluable experience. Not everybody that enters the military is gonna go career. So that's great when they do, but if they choose to go in and surface say a six year tour and then have even a a breath of experience, it's gonna help them when they go into the civilian sector and the private sector, and it's also gonna help on recruiting as well because they're gonna know that listen they can get a a lot of invaluable experience and training and hone uh the, you know, my skill set. And the national security strategy places a great deal of emphasis on homeland defense, and in order to meet these needs, an increase in attorneys has been needed to litigate in US courts. and aid in the administrative hearings across the Department of Justice and Homeland. So our uniformed attorneys are well trained, they're reliable attorneys who that we can trust, who uphold the greatest professionalism. I think we all agree on that. The secretary uh has determined that Homeland mission is essential to the Department of War, and that our uniformed attorneys have the ability to surge into positions when the country needs them. And I understand the concern, but that we don't wanna overextend our attorneys and place them in jobs outside the department. can't fill our legal billets in the military service, but nonetheless we can, and and the JAGS uh uh Advocate Generals are gonna know that. Their assignments are closely watched and managed and our attorneys are doing the important mission and they're gaining, as I mentioned earlier, the invaluable experience and closely managed by the uniformed Judd Advocate General is therefore I have to oppose this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment?

I'm sorry?

I have one more.

Oh certainly.

Jacobs, uh, I'm sorry, Mr. Crow, Miss Jacobs just bumped you.

No, I'm I'm yielding to him.

OK.

OK.

I was

He hasn't

OK.

have time to

Thank you to you both.

OK. I was trying to get to you.

I I just wanted to clarify one thing, that the the language of this amendment does not prevent Jags from serving as special assistant US attorneys, uh, or any other assignment for that matter. All it does that it clarifies that they can only prosecute cases in servant functions that have a legitimate military nexus. Right? They can't just do civilian law enforcement. So it's a very defined, very defined amendment here, uh, that's meant to actually honor their service in uniform. These folks sign up to be military officers. They sign up to be military prosecutors. Uh, and this amendment is consistent with honoring that service and not assigning them to do uh purely civilian law enforcement functions that don't have a military nexus. If there's a military nexus, fine. They can do it. So, I just wanted to clarify what this does and does not do.

OK, the uh gentleman yields back to Ms. Jacobs, I know. who now yields back to the chair. No, she doesn't have any. So is anybody seek further recognition uh to debate this issue. Seeing none, the the um question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Crow, uh so many of you in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. No. Can each of you have it?

No.

Recorded vote's requested, recorded vote is ordered, it will be postponed to a later time. Uh for everybody's situational awareness, uh we are going to uh pause for a series of recorded votes. for everything that's in the queue at two p m which is twenty mi- twenty five minutes from now, so for all the member offices out there, find your member and let them know we need them to be present uh to make their recorded votes uh at two o'clock. All right, now we will consider log number sixty eight fifteen uh by Mr. Garamendi. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

I have an amendment to make.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Yeah. Without objection, a reading of the amendments to Spence Wood, the chair now recognizes a gentleman from California for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. This amendment requires the Department of Defense to submit written readiness assessments when military units are to provide civilian, support to civilian law enforcement agencies, uh, for more than thirty days, including in that report the mission's description, the personnel and equipment to be used, combat readiness to be lost, delayed or canceled training, and the total cost broken down by reimbursable and non-reimbursable funding. We've seen the, uh, US military being deployed domestically for many reasons, basically since the very beginning of this country. However, in recent times these deployments have lasted for a very very lengthy period of time and in many cases, very controversial uh deployments. Uh earlier this year the Congressional Budget Office showed that the administration's domestic deployments of the National Guard and the Marines and other units have cost at least five hundred eighty-nine million dollars, more than double what was initially anticipated uh in the earlier reports. There is considerable evidence that these deployments have delayed the military's readiness programs, training programs and others. And also significantly disrupted their equipment. Uh So what are we doing here? We simply want to be aware of what all of this has uh in caused the military to lose its readiness in the various units that have been deployed. Uh so the department would have to report Congress, which units are involved, personnel and equipment being used, and whether combat training has been delayed and what the mission cost. Also in some cases it is the uh command structure that has been deployed and the rest of the operation is left back at the base, and the disruption would be obvious there. So let's find out what all of this is about. It's not to stop it. Uh, it does not uh, it does allow a thirty day deployment, and then if it goes beyond that, it would require that we would have the necessary information to understand the effects of the deployment on readiness. Pretty simple, but rather important for us, at least on the readiness committee, to understand uh what it what the deployment means for a particular unit and its ability to perform the normal military functions. With that, I yield back.

Gentleman Yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Um, the reality of this deployment is that it supports training and small unit maneuver for missions they might encounter in the future. This report is redundant to what we already included in last year's NDAA section ten fifty three, which requires the department to provide us notice of a request for assistance for support of operations within thirty days of initiating an operation and every ninety days thereafter I support our National Guard trump's attempt to reduce lawlessness and does anybody else seek recognition uh jenner bert recognized

thank you mr. chairman and and i i appreciate so much being able to work with the uh mr. garamendi on on the readiness subcommittee because we we cover a wide variety of topics every year from a full spectrum viewpoint and that and that's good news it helps to be the two oldest guys on the committee cause we've been around a long time and seen a lot in the world. But in this particular case I have to uh oppose the amendment. Uh as uh the chairman already stated, I'm not gonna restate what he said, cuz that wastes time and we don't wanna waste time. But you know, contrary uh uh to the presumption, the National Guard deployments to urban cities enhance unit training, particularly small unit maneuver in complex urban environment. We have unique training opportunities in this environment to to enable our National Guard units to be more ready from a command and control perspective when they deploy somewhere else, uh as needed under in some cases whether it's you know, title thirty eight, title uh title ten, whatever it happens to be in their where's the title? Thirty two. Thirty two. You know, it's it's, you know, numbers, but the point is they're either under the Commander-in-Chief's control, or they're under the control of the Governor of the state under which they're authorized. But we have a spectacular National Guard and reserve component here in our country that does its mission every chance it gets, which is not meaning every day, and what we don't wanna do is unnecessarily increase reporting paperwork that doesn't add value to their readiness and to our understanding here on the committee about how ready our National Guard uh troops are. So it just, we don't need to add any more paperwork than this. The last NDAA, we took care of that. And I, with that, I yield back, I oppose.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on the amendment offered by So many as are in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed will say no. No. Paying your chair the no's have it.

No.

A recorded recorded vote's requested. Recorded vote is ordered to be postponed to a later time. Um, chair uh we will now consider log number six eight zero eight R one by Mr. Carbajal. For what purposes do gentlemen seek recognition?

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chair.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection a reading of

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This administration wants to expand offshore offshore gas and oil drilling off the coast of both California and Florida. My amendment is simple. It requires that the Secretary of Defense certify new offshore oil drilling will not have adverse effects on military training, testing or operations. And, until the secretary makes this determination, The department cannot use funds in this act to enter an agreement or issue a decision in connection with oil and gas on the outer continental. We should be positive that these offshore leases will not harm national security. This is all this amendment does. Both states are home to signi- significant offshore military ranges and testing sites. Florida and California have the first and second most active spaceports in the world respectively. California and Florida also have high altitude and supersonic air combat training, air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons testing, electronic warfare testing, unmanned systems operations, naval surface and subsurface activities, including undersea and anti-submarine warfare testing with acoustic systems and torpedo evaluation. Additionally, California has hypersonics and strategic weapons testing. These ranges are hundreds of square miles to ensure these systems can be tested safely. The proposed leasing areas significantly overlap with military test ranges. Mister Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent to enter this Washington Post article titled, "Military Officials Are Worried About Trump's Oil Drilling Plan, Here's Why", from May twenty second, twenty twenty six.

Without objection, so ordered.

Thank you. Um In the article Rick Miller, a retired Navy captain and Vice Chair of Florida's Defense Alliance is quoted quoted saying "for a modest potential increase in oil production capacity, we'd be giving up a tremendous amount of national defense capability." The article also highlights a December twenty twenty-five letter led by Senator Scott Rick Scott and Ashley Moody of Florida. that was signed by the entire Florida congressional delegation, including my colleagues on this committee. The letter to the president expresses their strong opposition to any attempts to expand offshore oil and gas drilling off of the Florida coasts. Mister Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to also enter this letter into the record.

Without objection, so ordered.

Thank you. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment. Thank you.

Uh, Chairman, I recognize himself uh Regrettably, I have to oppose my good friend's amendment. Uh, this amendment would do nothing to prevent uh offshore oil and gas drilling, or improve military readiness. Instead it would do the opposite. The amendment does not limit funding for the Department of the Interior. As the permitting authority, the Interior is the agency that enters into offshore oil and gas agreements. All this language does is to prohibit the Department of Defense from participating in the inter-agency process in determining whether l- these agreements negatively impact military readiness. This would cut the Department of um out of discussions on projects off the coast of Florida or California. The Department opposes it, so uh I will oppose it as well. Does anybody else seek recognition on Mister Carbajal's amendment? Seeing none, um Uh question occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Carbajal. So, many of you in favor will say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no, no, paying the chair that no's have it.

Mister Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.

Gentleman asked for a recorded vote, a recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed to a later time. Now we will get back to the one that we should have called up, uh, the amendment, uh, number sixty seven sixty nine by Mister Ryan of New York. For what purposes did Mister Ryan seek recognition?

Uh, Mister Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute Mister Ryan's amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, the chair recognizes Mister Ryan for the in terms of explaining his amendment.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair. On March twenty eighth of this year, two age sixty four Apaches from the hundred and first combat aviation brigade out of Fort Campbell made an unauthorized flight to the private home of Kid Rock. Uh, a person I never thought I'd be frankly talking about on the House Armed Services Committee but yet here we are. Uh, understandably this raised a lot of questions about how something like this could happen. Even President Trump said the crew, quote, probably shouldn't have been doing it because, quote, you're not supposed to be playing games. I agree. Rightfully so, the army leadership immediately announced the pilots were suspended, and that there would be an investigation. So why, Mr. Chair, are we here discussing this? Because Secretary Hegseth, who continues to on a near daily basis exceed his SNL characters, ridiculousness, made a deeply problematic and I think a pathetic decision to tweet out two days later, quote, " Thank you, Kid Rock." US Army pilot suspension lifted all caps, no punishment, no investigation. So this amendment, Mister Chair, is really just about doing the right thing, which is getting answers both on what happened on that incident, which I think we can all agree is problematic, but also understanding why the secretary killed this investigation, what more uh is there something deeper that he might be hiding or covering up? I I think it goes without saying uh the army should not be in the business of doing what the president in the president's own words, playing games, essentially party tricks for any president's personal and political allies. It's not a not only inappropriate, it's a massive waste of money, it's dangerous, and not to mention it's in the middle of a war, So this amendment simply requires a briefing on why the Army investigation into this incident was canceled. I would welcome debate or discussion with any of my colleagues who who uh disagree with just an investigation to this committee to explain to us what happened. Um and I yield back, Mister Chair.

Gentleman yields back, Chair recognizes himself. Um I'm not sure what we gain uh from a congressional investigation. I'm gonna have to oppose this amendment. There's been extensive public reporting on the matter and the

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I echo my colleague, Congressman Ryan.

Thank you. Thank you.

This is common sense. On March twenty eighth two Army Apache helicopters made an unauthorized flight to the home of Kid Rock in Tennessee. The Army's hundred and first combat aviation brigade leadership did what commanders are supposed to do. They initiated a review to gather the facts and determine whether any standards had been violated. But before the review could be completed, Secretary Hegseth terminated the investigation via social media post. I asked Secretary Hegseth about his decision directly when he appeared before this committee a month ago, and he doubled down, saying that it was his call to cancel the investigation. We're not asking for much here, just a briefing on why Secretary Hegseth canceled the army's investigation. To my knowledge, he has never actually explained it. This is a basic issue of accountability. If the decision to terminate the review was the correct one, then there should be no objection to explaining it before Congress. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I yield back.

She yields back. Chair now now recognizes Mister Delusio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield my time to Mr. Ryan of New York.

Uh, thank you, Mr. uh, Delisio. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to address something you said, um, with with great respect. This does not require some big congressional investigation. It it is a very simple, lightweight briefing to the committee on on what happened. It has eleven very straightforward components to it. Understand there's a lot going on. We're not trying to add more burden. Um. All right, so I just wanted to address that point and I yield back to Mister DeLizio.

And I'll yield back, Mister Chairman.

Those opposed say no. No.

No.

Peering to the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested, a recorded vote is ordered, be postponed till later time. Goodness gracious. We will now consider log number sixty four twenty nine by Miss Dekuta. For what purposes does the gentlelady seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Uh, will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment is based on a very simple principle. We do not want to outsource our moral responsibility to a machine. When the United States military uses a human being, not an algorithm, not an AI model, not an autonomous system must make that decision. The question before us is not whether AI can help commanders, it can. The question is who is accountable when lives are on the line? Because accountability requires a decision maker. Machines cannot be held accountable. Software cannot testify before Congress. Algorithms cannot answer for mistakes. Human beings can. That is why strong testing, validation and oversight matters. They are not bureaucratic hurdles, they are how we will ensure that humans remain responsible for the consequences of military action. Today, Department of Defense policy calls for appropriate human oversight, but that's not a bright line. It's an open interpretation. It could mean little to no human oversight at all. My amendment establishes a clear standard, a human must approve the use of force. feels and believes that there is a compelling reason to depart from that standard, this amendment provides a waiver process requiring them to explain that rationale to Congress, so that we can do our job of holding them accountable and conducting appropriate oversight. For example, right now in Ukraine, drones are getting into their no-man-land zone and lose contact due to electronic warfare. No civilians are around, so they use AI for targeting and firing. These may be the potential kinds of situations, But Congress again should be the one to be both notified and conduct appropriate oversight. We should be especially mindful of what our adversaries are doing. China is racing to field increasingly autonomous military systems with fewer ethical constraints less transparency and little meaningful accountability. But our goal should not be to win the race to the bottom. If we abandon human judgment, human responsibility, and human accountability in the use of force, then we haven't China. We've become China. America's military advantage has never been that we can build powerful weapons. It's that we pair that power with values, responsibility, oversight, validation, the rule of law. This amendment protects and establishes these principles. I urge my colleagues to please support this. Again, it's a very straightforward and simple amendment. Human should be approving the use of force, not machines. not artificial intelligence models, not autonomous systems, not softwares, humans make the decision. Thank you, Mister Chair, and I yield back.

General Lady yields back, she recognizes himself. Um, I oppose this amendment because it would impose a rigid one size fits all requirement that would limit the utility of autonomous systems and create unnecessary bureaucracy. The department already maintains clear chains of command and policies governing autonomous weapons systems. In addition, this committee has already included language in the chairman's mark addressing these issues and has worked with the Democrats to include several amendments here in the mark-up to provide the department with more risk-informed framework for updating these policies. This amendment is duplicative of those efforts, uh therefore I oppose the amendment. Does anybody seek recognition? Uh, mister, General Bacon is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple concerns with with the amendment. First, I think it may be premature. Once we see how technology develops, there may be a utility for this down the road, but I think as it stands now, it may be early. Secondly, autonomous weapons present different levels of risk. This amendment applies to the same requirement to fundamentally different systems. Some autonomous systems are specifically designed to operate after communications are lost. This amendment could undermine those capabilities, cuz a lot of them they go in a automation mode uh when they lose contact. Secondly, the amendment does not define what constitutes an operational weapon system. Approving a missile launch, deploying an unmanned vessel, selecting a target, and authorizing the use. force are all different types of decisions. Uh, this d- amendment treats them as if they're the same. The department's already has policies that recognize that different systems require different levels of human judgment and oversight. The Chairman's Mark already includes provisions that support a risk-informed approach to updating those policies. Uh, therefore, I, I recommend uh opposing the amendment.

Gentleman, he goes back. Chair, recognized gentleman from California, Mister Garamendi.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Kuda has uh put before this committee a very very important piece of legislation. There is discussion all over this nation in uh communities as well as in legislatures and also here in Congress about how to deal with AI. Uh, it is true that in the base techs there is a discussion of ai and it tends to encircle and provide some direction however a review of that language would indicate that it is very broad and certainly incomplete mister cuda has put forth a much stronger and more relevant piece of legislation to address the ai situation as it is now being worked out into the military other parts of the base techs and undoubtedly some of the amendments that are going to be coming forward will further expand the role of ai in military operations some of which are perfectly benign and very very useful however in some cases it can be extremely dangerous mister kudis' amendment is necessary to provide guardrails around the use of ai in those situations where a human should be making actually multiple humans i would hope making a decision that is a life or death situation even a life or death situation about the continuation of life on this earth so i would support the amendment and suggest that it is a important step forward in understanding the use of ai in the military. With that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further uh debate? Seeing no further um further calls for uh debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Kuda. Uh, so many of you in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. Penny and chair, the noes have it.

No.

A recorded vote's requested. Recorded vote is ordered to be postponed for a few minutes. All right, we are going to take uh one more amendment with Mister Moulton's, is it Mister Moulton's amendment. After that we'll stop and do a series of recorded votes. So any member that's not in the chamber, I'm telling your office staff, find them and get them in here. We're gonna be voting soon. So find your member. We have a lot of empty seats that need to be filled by the time we conclude with Mister M- Mister Moulton's uh bill. OK, so uh We will now consider log number sixty-one twenty-seven by Mr. Moulton. For what purpose does a gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Bert, will you please distribute the amendment without objection to reading an amendment's dispense where the chair recognizes a gentleman for purpose of explaining his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, democracies require transparency. Since February twenty eighth, twenty twenty six, the United States has been engaged in an unauthorized unilateral war of choice with Iran. We've seen our troops place in the crosshairs of drone and missile attacks, and fourteen of them have been killed. Because the administration had no strategy, our navy has failed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open. In fact, they've been now forced to blockade a blockade, essentially, in trying to force the Iranians to surrender. We've also seen a humanitarian catastrophe unfold, catastrophe unfold, including the tragic bombing of a girls' school in Iran, and an untold number of civilians killed throughout the Middle East. But beyond the immense human cost, there's also a hidden bill for this conflict that has been systematically obscured from the American taxpayer. The administration's initial request for two hundred billion dollars to cover this war was buried within a one point five trillion dollar defense budget, making it nearly impossible for the average family to understand exactly what they're even paying for. So this amendment is very simple. It simply requires the Department of Defense to provide a total financial accounting for our military operations against Iran. We can't have an honest debate about winning when we don't even know the price of the fight. There have been numerous reports of extensive damage to US infrastructure in the region that has not been adequately reported by the administration. to even do our job on this committee if we don't understand what infrastructure to be replaced. We cannot properly exercise our constitutional rep- responsibility to supervise this war if we don't even understand what it costs. And the American people deserve to know what this war costs in taxpayer dollars as they see the daily cost of the war rise at the pump. American people deserve to know if this war is worth the about twelve hundred dollars per taxpayer it is costing if it turns out to be what the administration's initial request was for two hundred billion dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if it's more. This amendment is simple, whether you're for or against this war of choice, it's just about transparency so that the we and the American taxpayer knows what it costs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Let's be clear. Operation Epic Fury is not a unilateral war of choice. For forty-seven years, the Iranian regime and its proxies murdered Americans, attacked our allies, and terrorized the Middle East. President Trump was clear. Iran must not obtain a nuclear weapon. Despite every opportunity to negotiate, Iran refused to change course and continued building the military capabilities required to shield its nuclear ambitions. Operation Epic Puri delivered a devastating blow to those conventional military capabilities. Thanks to that success uh thanks to the success of the operation, the president is extremely close to a deal that will end the threat from Iran, wants him for all Irish members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody seek recognition? Gentlemen, uh, Mister Sorensen from Illinois. And then Mr. Crow after that, and then Mr. Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief so we can move along to votes. Um, I strongly support Congressman Moulton's amendment. Um, Americans cannot afford this war uh with Iran. Gas back home in Illinois is five dollars a gallon. Grocery prices are now going up because diesel is at six dollars a gallon. And for what? Iran doesn't seem to be any further from a nuclear weapon and the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. It's a strategic failure. As this amendment lays out, our armed forces are exceeding the levels of capability and expertise that are required of them there is no doubt about it. But we cannot in good faith put our service members in danger when we should be pursuing a diplomatic solution. That's the most effective plan forward. And not to mention this is a war of choice by President Trump. Congress did not authorize this war and the House of Representatives voted uh to end Donald Trump's war. So I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless war, stand up for the checks and balances laid out by our constitution and support the Moulton amendment. And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Krove.

Thank you, Chairman, I'm speaking in support of Mister Moulton's very sensible amendment because as Mister Moulton artfully and eloquently stated, this actually isn't about whether or not you agree with the war or not. It's not about whether or not Iran should have a nuclear weapon or not. It's not about w- the operations, it's not about any of the other elements that we must debate and will debate. It's simply about whether or not we wanna know how much it costs. That's it. How much are Americans paying for this? Because that knowledge is an essential element of this conflict. And that knowledge is not just a right of this committee, but it is a duty of this committee to know. And voting against this amendment is basically tantamount to saying, I don't wanna know. I I actually am gonna self-blind, I don't wanna know how much this war costs, which raises the question, if you don't wanna know how much the war costs, why? Are you afraid of that number? Are you afraid of what it's gonna show? Uh, and h- having to go back to your constituents and stand in a town hall, go to a high school gymnasium, go to a rotary club? and be held accountable for that number? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a simple amendment. Congressman Moulton has done a phenomenal job of bringing this uh to this committee. It is the right thing to do. It is the duty of this committee to seek this information, to have this information, so we can actually h- then have the debate about whether or not this war is the right thing for the American people. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the ranking member.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. two points to make. One was on the accountability piece of this, the fact that this committee should know. I can't put it any better than Mister Crowe just put it. I mean that that that is exactly what this amendment is about. Um, should we at least know what we're getting into? I am reminded of an argument on this and someone, you know, was pushing back on that notion and said, well, did Dwight Eisenhower ask what D-Day was going to cost? Yes, actually he did. OK? Uh, because that's the job and the duty of our military and of our committee, and it's of the many problems with this war, the complete unwillingness to be transparent about it, um, is a major problem, major problem for this committee. If you get Congress in general, um, this committee is responsible for oversight. And if we don't know the details, we don't know the facts that are coming at us, we can't do our job. So whether you support the war or not, you o- you ought to support this amendment and require more transparency in what's happening in the war and what it is costing. But the second point is the war itself, and this is not, I will grant you, directly pertinent to this amendment. You can vote for this amendment even if you disagree with what I'm about to say here, but this committee shouldn't go through this this uh mark-up without talking about the Iran war and the colossal mistake that it was. We've heard a lot about the cost, and then we talked about we blew up their navy, we blew up their air force, we blew up their missiles. Well, well what is it that Iran cannot do now that they could do before? Well, I guess the plausible thing is they they can't do a full scale invasion of their adversaries in the Middle East. I don't think they could have done that before, but it's certainly harder for them to do it now. But that's not what this was supposed to be about. This was supposed to be about breaking the hard line regime, so they wouldn't be as hard line, ending their nuclear program, ending their capacity to build a ballistic missile and drone program, and ending their support for terrorist proxies. accomplished none of those goals, and Iran is no further weakened in their ability to do that than they were at the start, arguably strengthened. And now

Gentlemen, you'll sit back, is anybody seeks recognition on Mister Moulton's amendment? Seeing none,

Mm.

uh there's no further debate question occurs on Mister Moulton.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no, no, opinion chair the no's have it.

No.

A recorded vote is requested, recorded vote uh is ordered and we will take that up in just a moment. Uh. So where's the

Alright, so.

K, we are now going to proceed uh to vote on those amendments where a recorded vote was ordered. Committee postpone further proceedings on amendment log number sixty one, twenty three R one by Mister Moulton and shall now resume those proceedings. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote uh using their uh assigned electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Recording member will be voting yes.

Okay, the clerk will open the machine and the members will vote.

Yes.

We're we'll leave it open for.

The mace is on.

Mister Jimenez is not here. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Seeing none, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Yes. Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-five, the noes are thirty-one.

The noes prevail and the amendment is not agreed to. Uh, we are now going to proceed to a vote on uh Mister Smith's amendment number sixty eighty seven. Question occurs on the amendment. Uh, the members will recr u record their vote using electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Uh, ranking member will be voting aye.

The clerk will now open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Now, the clerk will lock the machine and record the votes.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-six, the nays are thirty.

The nays prevail, the amendment's not agreed to. We will now to proceed to amendment log number sixty six eighty one by Miss Jacobs. Um, question occurs on the amendment, members will record their vote by electronic device, the chairman uh will be voting no.

Our ranking member will be voting no as well.

Claire will uh open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Seeing none, Yes. the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are fourteen, the nays are forty-two.

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now move to uh amendment num- log number sixty-five thirty-seven R one by Miss Jacobs of California. The question occurs on the amendment. Amendment will record uh members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will be voting aye.

The clerk will open machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Are you ready? All right. All members voted? Clerk will lock the machine and the members uh and and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the eyes are Twenty seven, the names are twenty nine.

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now uh move to uh amendment number sixty four fifty three R one by Mister Jackson. A question occurs on that amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

Ranking member will be voting no.

Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Mister Fallin, does Mister Fallin wish to vote? Okay. Uh, if all members voted, any member wish to change his or her vote, if not, the clerk will lock uh lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty, the nays are thirty-five.

The amendment is not agreed to. Um we will now turn to amendment number sixty, eighty-one R one by Miss Mace of S- South Carolina. Um Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

I'll rank a member who will be voting no.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty nine, the nays are twenty six.

The amendment is agreed to. We will now be moving to amendment log number fifty nine ninety seven R one by Mister Cisneros. Uh, members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no. Ranking member will be voting aye. Clerk will open the machine and members will vote.

You're recorded incorrectly.

Huh?

You need to be a no.

Oh.

Hmm. Doctor, please don't look. They're all on the board.

Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty seven, the nays are thirty.

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now be moving to log number sixty seven fifty seven by Miss Mace of South Carolina. Um, members will record their vote by electronic device. Chairman will be voting yes.

Ranking member will be voting no.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Now, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-nine, the nays are twenty-eight.

The amendment is agreed to. We will now be moving to log number sixty-six, fifty-six R one by Mr. Crow of Colorado. Uh, members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will be voting aye.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Now the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are twenty six, the nays are thirty one.

The amendment is not agreed to. We now move to l- uh log number sixty eight fifteen by Mister Garamendi of California. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

All right, can you remember where we voted yes?

The uh clerk will open the machine and 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 record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty seven, the nays are thirty.

The amendment's not agreed to. The uh, we will now move to log number sixty eight O eight R one by Mister Carbajal of California. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will vote yes.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote.

Come on, folks.

Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty seven, the nays are thirty.

The amendment's not agreed to. We will now move to log number sixty seven sixty nine by Mister Ryan of New York. Uh, we will um record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will be voting aye.

Clerk will open the machine. The members will vote. All members voted. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-five, the nays are thirty-two.

Amendment's not agreed to. Now moved to log number Sixty four, twenty nine, by Mister Kuda of Hawaii. Uh, we will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will be voting aye.

The clerk will open the machine and members will vote.

Oh, good.

Have all members voted?

Mr. Williams.

Does it, any member wants to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are twenty six, the noes are thirty one.

Huh? Okay. I'm p- The amendment's not agreed to. We now have our last recorded vote. It is log number sixty one twenty seven for well for this series. Uh by Miss Holton. Uh we will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Reconnaidable voting yes.

Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all me-

Forgive Mister Bell just a second.

Okay.

Just a little.

Would, take your time.

I'm sorry.

There you go.

That's good.

Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty seven, the nays are thirty.

The amendment's not agreed to. All right, we will now return to regular order. Before we do, I wanna take a minute and just tell you all, I've been doing this twenty four years, I've never seen debate be more direct and concise on both sides of the aisle than it has been so far today. Y'all deserving attaboy.

It's it's it's early, early, Mister Chairman.

It's early. As only Adam would say, it's early.

That's that's that's awkward on that one, but yes.

So far. All right. Where are we now on the All right. Where's my

Move back to red.

Uh, we'll now consider log number sixty eight twenty seven, uh, by Mister Conner of California. For what purposes did a gentleman from California seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will clerk uh distribute the amendment without objection, reading the amendments dispensed with, the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the American people are tired of the arrogance and insolence of Prime Minister Netanyahu telling America what we should do. The entire country of Israel has a GDP that is less than a single town in my district. Yet somehow Netanyahu thinks he could tell the American what we should do, the person who's most upset with him right now is President Donald Trump. And everyone in America, whether you're a Republican, an Independent or a Democrat, says that we need to tell Netanyahu that America calls the shots, not the Prime Minister of any other country. They want less cooperation and blank checks to Israel, not more. Only the United States Congress would dream up at this moment let's actually do more for Israel, not less. And that's what section twenty twenty four does. It's a pretty simple thing. Should we do more for Israel than we already do? Or should we do less? If you think we should do more for Israel, you should be against my amendment. If you think we should do less for Israel at the time that he is arrogantly telling Donald Trump what to do, then you should be for my amendment. Now let me just be clear. Mister Netanyahu actually wrote to a member of Congress to put this section two two four into the bill. He says, " I know that a- aid is unpopular in America. I know that even Republicans don't want aid." So here's what you gotta do. Quote, "Let's create a new framework," this is Netanyahu telling us what we should do, "a new framework of joint defense cooperation, co-development, co-production and mutual investment in areas including advanced missile defense, artificial intelligence, cyber security and next-generation military pr- platforms. Why? Cuz he doesn't want Congress to vote on the aid, he just wants it fused in the bill. Last I checked, Netanyahu doesn't have a seat on this committee, Mister Chairman. We need to reject an amendment which is language is coming directly from the Israeli Prime Minister. And we ought to have any aid have a vote of the American people. I am for Team America, I am for the interests of this country, and I believe that when Donald Trump ran, he ran America first, that includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike two, two, four, if we wanna give aid to Israel, if we wanna sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Uh, Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East and our cooperative programs enhance US national security by giving our war fighters access to cutting edge technologies. Section twenty uh two twenty four doesn't create any new programs within the Department of Defense. It simply designates a single senior office official to coordinate existing initiatives. Section two twenty four actually improves oversight and accountability of these programs by designating a single official responsible for them claims that this provision somehow cedes authority to a foreign government are simply ridiculous. I urge all members to oppose the amendment and uh uh Well, Mr. Smith, the ranking member is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm actually very sympathetic with some aspects of the remarks of Mr. Khanna about the frustration we have with Netanyahu's leadership in Israel. We have endless wars now, uh in Gaza, in the West Bank for that matter, in Lebanon. No effort to negotiate, no effort to find partners for peace amongst the Palestinians or the Lebanese, even where there are opportunities to do that. Mr. Netanyahu insisted on this war with Iran. that has strengthened Iran and weakened our position. I do not like his leadership of Israel or where he is going, but the way this amendment was described is simply not accurate. To begin with, and let's be very clear on that, this is not a new framework, it's not a new framework at all. We have three existing programs right now where we do military cooperation with Israel to develop technologies. Those programs already exist. This amendment doesn't create a single other program other than those three. It suggests some other areas where maybe we should look at opportunities. And as the chairman noted,

Mm.

we had somebody now appointed to coordinate those programs. This co- amendment comes at a very bad time because of everything I just said about Israel but let's not forget about what the amendment actually does. And the other part of this, and I agree with the chairman, to say that this is us bowing to the bidding of Israel on this is completely inaccurate. The reason we're doing this is cuz we benefit from that technology development. We developed the weapon systems. And the reason that we have these partnerships with Israel where we not, may not have as many developed partnerships with oth- other NATO countries, is because Israel's actually been having to fight. They have faced drone attacks and missile attacks. They have had to develop new technologies, technologies that we've benefited from. So I, I agree with the sentiments and the frustrations with the Netanyahu government. I strongly disagree the notion that this is Congress just bowing to what Netanyahu wants. This is to our benefit. Now I would suggest, and this just occurred to me this morning, we ought to be doing the same thing with Ukraine. Cuz Ukraine is another partner that is having to fight and learning. We we should develop drone technology, counter drone technology, counter missile technology. This is a partnership that benefits America. A whole host of other issues. You know, I'm a prime sponsor of the West Bank Accountability act to sanction the actions that are going on there, things we need to hold accountable. But taking a step back from using technology that is available to us, just because we strongly disagree with where Israel is at right now, I think would be a mistake. So I think this is a program that helps us develop these technologies. It's not an expansion. And again, I wanna make it very clear, this is not a new framework. This framework has existed for quite some time. So I hope we will not mischaracterize this and we'll vote on this amendment that is in front of us. not on the larger issue of how we deal with Netanyahu's government in Israel. I urge a no vote and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back and he makes an excellent point about Ukraine. I I think he's right. Um, we should uh go to Mr. Bacon of Nebraska right now.

I'll keep it brief. You know, this is a win-win relationship. We have Silicon Valley. Israel has Tel Aviv. And it's like Silicon Valley number two. We have gained so much technology advantages from our partnership with Israel and vice versa they gain as well. And this is what we're trying to do, is create that synergy. They support our foreign policy. They've been the most supportive of us in the UN. They're the only democracy in Middle East. And so I I'll oppose the amendment. I'll yield back.

And yields back to your recognizer, Mister Wilson of South Carolina.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I agree with the ranking member. And that is that we benefit from our association with the people of Israel. They have been instrumental because they're in a real war, a real war of uh enemies who are trying ex- extensively to murder all the people of Israel. And with that, uh, we've learned so much about, uh, anti-missile capability and to protect the American people, to protect the people, all of our, uh, allies, uh, from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, back to Azerbaijan. And so also, it should be known, uh, that it should be not a surprise that, uh, this is beneficial to the American people, and that we have a, a regime that is chanting death to Israel, death to America, death to the great Satan which is the United States with the little Satan which is Israel. This is not uh not interconnected. And then we should also remember the Hamas covenant of August nineteen eighty-eight and article seven provides " to chase down every Jew behind a rock or tree until you find the last Jew behind a rock and kill him." That's their plan. But after that they come after us. We already see that with the nuclear capability that Iran is trying to develop, with missile capability one day Might even reach California. I yield back.

Gentlemen, yours back, Chair, now recognized, Mister Golden.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Uh, bottom line is section two twenty-four is a practical, common sense effort to improve defense technology cooperation with one of America's closest allies, in an area that will directly affect US military readiness. I think to get to the heart of the matter in some ways, opponents of section two two four are really allowing a broader broader political disagreement and concerns about Israel, some of which you can debate could be legitimate. But they're allowing a much broader political disagreement to override a program that fundamentally advances US national security. What section two two four does not do is reduce oversight of US milit- military uh sales to foreign governments. It doesn't reduce oversight of cooperation with Israel. provide Israel with access to US military data. Section two two four does not give Israel control over US defense programs or supply chains does not provide any kind of back door way to hide military aid to Israel. And it does not merge or fuse the US military in any way with the Israeli defense forces. That is all false. What it will do is increase congressional oversight and transparency over an existing partnership with Israel. What it will do is build on an existing cooperative program that has been in place for years and what it will ultimately do is help save American lives, American service members' lives in particular, and strengthen US national security. I yield back my time.

Chairman, yields back, Chairman, I recognize the gentlelady from California, Miss Jacobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The United States should have the same standards for Israel as we do for everyone else. If any other country in the world had been credibly accused of violating US and international law again and again, of killing tens of thousands of civilians, of blocking food and medicine from reaching a starving population, we would not be moving to deepen and permanently expand our military ties with them. And yet that is exactly what section two two four of this bill proposes. Since October of twenty twenty three, the Gaza health secretary has counted more than seventy thousand Palestinians killed in Gaza, a number that the Israeli military itself has now reportedly accepted. Another a thousand seventy-nine Palestinians, at least two hundred and thirty-five of them children, have been killed in the West Bank. Settler violence has reached unprecedented levels, and the Israeli security cabinet has approved thirty-four settlements in the West Bank another violation of international law. But even against that backdrop, section two two four would institutionalize and expand US military integration, beyond anything in the history of the relationship, fusing our defense industries across research production and emerging technologies. And for my colleagues who say that this vote is actually not about the actual presi provision, it is. Emerging technology is not an abstraction. It means cyber. And that is one field where we have already had to act against an Israeli firm for turning its tools on us. In twenty twenty one, the Commerce Department blacklisted NSL group. the maker of Pegasus spyware, for malicious cyber activity against US interests after its software was used to target government officials and journalists. Two administrations from both parties left it on that list. And that same company is right now trying to buy its way into the American market. Fusing our defense and technology sectors together permanently with no conditions in the exact area where we have already been burned is reckless on its own terms. And it would do it through a must-pass bill, with almost no oversight, and with none of the human rights conditions that govern the rest of our security assistance. We already have laws on the books that tell us what to do in this situation. The Leahy law prohibits assistance to foreign militaries that have committed gross violations of human rights. The Foreign Assistance Act prohibits arms transfers to countries that are restricting US humanitarian aid and Israel has been consistently blocking and restricting humanitarian assistance. These laws exist and they're not being followed or enforced. And instead of demanding enforcement, this committee is proposing we reward that con- that conduct. This committee should enforce the laws we've already passed and condition offensive weapons as those laws require,

Yeah.

not permanently entrench our militaries together with no strings attached. A clear majority of Americans, sixty percent, already oppose sending more military aid to Israel. They will not support this and neither should we. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to strike section two two four. I yield back.

Generally yields back. Sure recognizes Dr. Jackson.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I actually am the author of this, to my knowledge, to the best of my knowledge, along with my colleague, Mr. Davis. And I don't know what Mr. Khan is talking about, but I never received a letter from the, from the, uh, from the Prime Minister. So, uh, that's complete misinformation. Uh, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is nothing more than a political stunt to remove a critical bipartisan provision that I was proud to craft, with multiple members across both sides of this committee to get included in this year's bill. Plain and simple, section two two four will allow the US to leverage advanced technologies that ensure our service members are prepared to fight and win against America's adversaries by designating a Department of War executive agent to synchronize defense cooperation efforts between the US and our strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel. This provision, the provision will allow us to expand and our and our accelerate bilateral defense technology research development testing and evaluation A relationship this committee has supported and reinforced over many NDAAs, but also ensures that we are turning our previous and current investments into real technological military advantages for US systems and war fighters. For example, last year's NDA fully funded US-Israel cooperative missile defense programs including Iron Dome, Arrow, and David Sling, as well as authorized funding to expand cooperation with Israel on counter-UAS initiatives uh uh counter UAS funding to expand cooperation with Israel. Continue US-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation program and establish a US-Israel defense industrial-based working group to evaluate opportunities for greater collaboration on defense production. This initiative builds on that momentum by facilitating the transition of cutting edge technologies from research and development into procurement and acquisition pathways as well as directing the US-based co-production and manufacturing partnerships. Over the last week we've seen an incorrect, uninformed narrative shared by many members of this uh uh of the house on this committee that section two two four would merge the US and Israel militaries together. The provision clearly outlines that integration here means integrating useful techno technologies into US systems, programs of record, and acquisition pipelines. The bill in no way places US forces under Israeli command, nor places Israeli troops under US command. We even require the Department of War to make available on a public website detailed on any cooperative efforts including a description of how these efforts contribute to US technological and military supremacy. Additionally, we have included a section that requires the protection of sensitive technology in US national security interests. Though those stating that section two two four is a military merger by uh mu- uh merger removing US sovereign command simply have not read or do not want to understand this provision. By supporting section two two four, we can leverage combat tested innovations to close our own capability gaps and stockpiles and ensure the US and Israel remain in the technologically advanced fighting force on the earth I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes, or to vote no on this amendment and vote for two two four. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Davis.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the ranking member, uh, Representative Jackson, we've worked on this for some time and I must admit too, I haven't received a letter from the Prime Minister. But let's be clear. Currently, the US and Israel cooperate. Um, this amendment would not stop the collaboration. However, what it would do is hinder our ability to cooperate more efficiently. The spirit of section two two four is to help us better organize our efforts, hear this, against bad actors around the world. Bad actors are coordinating. They're working together in a unyielding way to effectively and efficiently inflict harm upon Americans. If we don't coordinate and have the necessary defense systems in place, the bad actors would then exercise their free will against us. In April of twenty twenty four, Seymore Johnson Air Force Base, they sent a team of F-fifteen E's. They went over within a twenty two hour window and they began to knock about eighty missiles and drones out of the sky coming from Iran. Here's where I'm hitting. Modern warfare is quickly changing, quickly. Is it best practice to use resources such as a ham ram against a twenty thousand dollar drone? We have learned so many lessons from Putin's war, and yet there's so many lessons for us to learn, the cost of war, research, development. If we're really concerned about cost, why not explore and collaborate in a real way to look at research and employing advanced technology? If peace is our goal, section two two four serves as a deterrent, it does. Lastly, This is not just about the United States and Israel. It's about how we advance technology, how we innovate to protect the American people and our allies. I was deeply honored to attend a decorating ceremony recognizing those exceptional airmen at Seymore Johnson Air Force Base, those brave heroes that performed their mission. And I will say in the same spirit of their dedication, to the mission in this country. I ask to reject this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizer, gentleman from Georgia, Mister Scott.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Um I support Mister Jackson and what, um, he has put into the base of the bill, and I just wanna remind my colleagues that there are over fifty Muslim majority countries in this world. There is one Jewish majority country in this world. If you wanna stop the war with Israel, stop starting wars with Israel. That would be my suggestion to the rest of the world. I think that the alliance between the United States and Israel is extremely important, and I, for one, hope that we continue that alliance and that that alliance becomes stronger as time pushes forward. With that, I yield.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate on this amendment? Seeing none, uh, question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Khanna. So many of you are in favor of his amendment. We'll say aye. Those opposed say no. No.

No.

Being a chair of the no's have it. No, no, it fails. We now move to uh log number sixty three seventy eight by Ms. Houlihan. Um, the what purposes does the lady, gentle lady seek recognition?

Hi, Mister Chair, Mister Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Yeah, I asked the clerk to distribute the minute. They're just trying to get seated.

No problem. Mister Chair, this amendment is called the prohibition

But but wait, wait a minute. We need to let them distribute it first.

Okay.

Okay, chair recon- uh, chair, without objection, uh, uh, the reading of the amendments dispensed with the chair recognizes the young lady for purposes of explaining her amendment.

Mister Chair, this amendment is called the prohibition of funds for partisan political merchandise on installations. Taxpayer funds should never be used in ways that compromise the security or the non-partisan character of our military, and this amendment ensures that they are not. This is not a political issue, it's a base security and a force protection issue. Military installations are federal property with strict access controls and for a good reason. Unauthorized third-party vendors should not be able to come to a base and set up shop. When event logistics firms can override internal military objections and usher and unauthorized outside vendors they should be able to provide them with a base security to an installation, it is clear that this accountability has broken down. Congress has a constitutional responsibility for the regulation of the armed forces. Using the power of the purse to enforce access controls and military neutrality is squarely within our authority and consistent with our long-standing bipartisan commitment to keep our military above all politics. We're not telling anybody what to think or what to wear or buy off base. We're saying that federal dollars come with straightforward conditions. that outside vendors must be properly vetted and authorized. And that's not overreach, that's basic accountability. The standard here is simple, and it doesn't matter whose name is on the merchandise, no federal dollars for events where outside vendors haven't gone through proper authorization to access the installation should be allowed. So I urge you to vote yes on this very straightforward amendment, and I yield.

If you don't let he yields back, chair, we're gonna recognize as himself, uh, the political nature of our military, the apolitical nature of our Military is essential for men and women in uniform to fight, uh, and win our nation's wars. Existing law and DOD policy already limits political speech activity and participation in partisan political uh activities on military installation. This amendment's not necessary. I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so. Does anybody seek recogni- Miss uh, Mister White's sides of California is recognized. And then we'll get to Mister Ryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, last June at Fort Bragg during the Army's two hundred and fiftyth birthday celebration vendors sold political merchandise on base, including MAGA hats and swag to soldiers in uniform. The army itself called the vendors' presence " under review" and stated plainly " the army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents." Our troops swear an oath to the Constitution, not to any party, not to any candidate, using a military installation as a venue to sell partisan merchandise before a partisan speech, undermines that oath and erodes public trust in the armed forces. While this amendment seems like a small thing, it's not. A non-political military is one of the core pillars of American democracy, and a foundation of our continued strength. We're at a crucial moment in our nation's history. Political rallies in front of preselected troops, the secretary of defense actively campaigning against congressmen while in office, biased selection of general officers, firing intelligence leaders who do not parrot the party line, all of these actions erode at the independence of our armed forces and ultimately will make our military, our democracy, and our country weaker. This amendment is an important step to begin correcting these repeated attacks on the independence of our military and ensures the taxpayer dollars cannot be used for events that threaten that independence. I urge support and I yield back.

Mister Ryan of New York's recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and I want to thank my colleague, Miss Wilhan, for leading this important amendment, and I agree with her her comments and Mr. Whiteside's. I just wanted to um address your point, Mr. Chair, with respect. If if this the existing law and policy were working, we wouldn't need to introduce this amendment, but it's not working. You heard what the examples of this Houlihan and Mr. Whiteside shared. And again, th- this has to be, as you said, sacred and sacrosanct that our military is above politics. That is not working. And I'm not saying that there's responsibility for both parties on this. Certainly this administration but administrations prior. So I'd hope we could come together and we sh- we agree on the spirit of this, but we can all see with our own eyes that it's not actually working right now. So this uh is an important step and I urge uh all my colleagues to support this. And again, thank you Ms. Houlehans and yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Gentleman real yields back to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallin.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So let's just uh chat real quickly about this. This uh amendment prohibits the use of funds to be used for partisan events at miller installations which includes the sale or distribution of political merchandise. So that sounds on its face fine, but here's the issue. The law and policy already prohibits this conduct and the list is very long. You can go to two, US, US C forty uh four forty-one A federal elections campaign limitations on contributions and expenditures five, US C seventy-three twenty-one, seventy-three twenty-six prohibits it ten, US C eight eighty-eight US M J RR article eighty-eight prevents it, and I can go on and on. And there's fifteen more laws and policies that I won't list. So this is merely a messaging amendment that is overly broad and really doesn't do anything. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, military installations are communities, and there are civilians that live on those communities as well. And I can recall, cuz in a different life I saw this very often, when Barack Obama was president there were plenty of folks that were uh in the exchanges, uh that were selling uh, merchandise that's supported them and that's that individual, uh, in- uh, individual's right to purchase those items just like it is today. Uh, whether they're, uh, a civilian or a military, they can't wear it, uh, in uniform obviously or on duty, but they can certainly purchase it at their leisure. So, w- w- for those very reasons and the US Constitution, I have to oppose this amendment and I yield back. Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate? Seeing none. Question occurs on the amendment offered uh by Miss Houlihan. Uh, somebody who's in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed will say no. No. Opinion shared, the noes have it.

Mister Chair, I request a recorded vote.

Recorded votes requested. Recorded vote is ordered and postponed to a later time. We now consider log number sixty eight, eighty two R three by Miss Houlihan. Sixty three, eighty two R three by Miss Houlihan, for what purpose does this general lady seek recognition?

Mister Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with the chair now recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Sure. Mister Chair, this amendment is condi- uh is titled " Mandate SecDef to update policy prohibiting the sale and distribution of partisan political merchandise on military installations" where the last amendment prior was about funding money, this is about the actual policy, and clearly we we have a problem here. Because clearly there is no, there are no bright lines. We can list off all of the policies that exist, but they are being broken all the time on military relations. The US military derives its credibility from being nonpartisan and from being subordinate to the civilian leadership regardless of your party. Those of us who have served or who have grown up in military families or on military basis we know this. We know this, it was how we were raised and it was how we served. When service members are publicly associated partisan symbols or with campaign messaging, even the appearance or the hint of that association erodes public confidence. It weakens civil-military norms and it risks discouraging recruits who may view the uh air armed forces as being politically biased. As I just said, milit- military installations are federal property with strict access controls. Unauthorized third-party vendors should not be able to come on base and set up shop. It's not a political question, it's a security and force protection issue. Last June, an outside vendor sold partisan campaign merchandise at Fort Bragg without authorization. Army officers were reportedly shocked that the vendor was even able to operate on the base at all. So clearly our policies are not working and they need to be updated. Current DOD policy has no explicit prohibition on third party vendors selling campaign merchandise on base, and that gap needs to be closed through a clear department-wide directive, not ad-hoc installation by installation decisions. There was a report, twenty twenty four DODIG, that found that the existing framework has documented structural weaknesses and is inconsistently enforced, and that's why Congress and Congress alone needs to mandate this update. This update and amendment is narrow. It does not touch service members' first amendment rights as private citizen. It targets one thing, which is the unauthorized commercial activity by outside vendors on federal military property. This applies equally to merchandise from any party, any candidate. any political movement. If you don't have authorization to be on a military installation, you shouldn't be there. Full stop. I urge you to vote yes on this amendment. I hope it addresses many of the issues of Mr. Fallin and I yield back.

Chair, uh, the general that yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Uh, unfortunately, this amendment's misguided. Military installations are not just training areas with uniformed members. They are communities with family homes, schools, hospitals, cafes, and parks. The idea of banning partisan political speech across an entire community doesn't make sense. Civilians and military dependents living on military installations have First Amendment rights, even if active duty uniformed members have some restrictions. This amendment would restrict those rights. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody seek recognition? Uh, gentleman from uh Texas, Mr. Fallon.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really just want to echo what you just said, and for the the sake of time. This is opposition two point O. It's very similar to the uh other amendment that the the member put forth. And this are, are, there are already a myriad of laws on the books that prevent this. And again, this is merely messaging and it's unneeded and as you pointed out, there are other people than military members that live on the and therefore I have to oppose the amendment for, to protect their constitutional rights and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, a question occurs on the amendment, all in favor will say aye. Those oppose no? No. Opinions here, the no's have it. Recorded votes requested. A recorded vote will uh is ordered and will be postponed to a later time. We now consider log number sixty six forty nine by Mister Ryan of New York. For what purpose does a gentleman from New York seek recognition?

Uh, Mister Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk distribute the amendment? And without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with the chair and I recognize this gentleman from New York to explain his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is one that I introduced last year. It's along the same t- uh, sort of topic of politicization of our military, um, but takes a - a slightly different approach and one that I hope will appeal to my colleagues uh uh across the political spectrum on this committee given the conversations we've been having. It specifically takes what has been long-standing, decades-long DOD policy, which is DOD directive thirteen forty-four dot ten, And it just makes that policy law. It just makes sure that um the intent of the Congress matches what is already the intent of the department and puts that into law and ensures the apolitical nature of our military. This is the policy we all who serve grew up in, that we agree is necessary, it does not change or expand anything, it just makes sure it holds through the what we acknowledge is an increasingly divisive and politicized moment. It reaffirms the wise vision of our founders and framers that the military is an institution of patriots and not partisans. And, again, I wanna actually, I appreciate Mister Fallon engaging on this. You said something this year actually, Mister Fallon, that made me hope you might vote for my amendment. You said, uh, I don't want democratic generals, and for that matter I don't want republican generals either. I want American generals and I'm sure that extends to to all the ranks and I, excuse me, I agree with you. The problem is I introduced this a year ago in response to all the things we heard in the previous discussions, and since then it's gotten worse. Uh, President Trump went to brag this February, literally brought the Republican candidate for Senate it, for Senate on the stage, endorsed him and told the troops quote, " You have to vote for us." Then A few weeks ago, the secretary of defense, in the middle of a war, spoke at a campaign rally for the president's pick to primary our own colleague, uh, and then in September, uh, of twenty twenty five, the president gave a speech at the Navy's two hundred and fiftieth anniversary, saying quote, "Let's face it, this is a rally." Quote, " We have to take care of this little gnat that sits on our shoulder called the Democrats." This is putting our military, uh, and soldiers of all ranks in an incredibly impossible position. My amendment would would just make clear what has already been policy. Um, and again, I I welcome the debate. We should have the debate here. Um, and we're happy to go as many rounds as it takes. We've all said this is a problem. Let's fix it this year so it doesn't continue to get worse. Uh, I yield back, Mister Chair.

Gentlemen, yields back. You may seek recognition. Mister Vindman of Virginia.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. So, I speak in favor of uh this amendment as well. It's a a simple common sense solution to a problem. What it does is um enshrine into law what is currently policy. And you know, a military installation is not a location for for partisan political speech. It's a military community. The the interest of a military community and commanders is to maintain good order and discipline on installation. And so, as we all know, even members of the military, their First Amendment rights are curtailed because they're serving in uniform. That political-military divide is absolutely critical. And when you live on an installation, you frankly sign up to certain uh to to abide by certain rules. Uh, military installations are not the places to have partisan political activities. Uh, those constraints.

Gentlemen yields back, does anybody seek recognition on Mister Ryan's amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on Mister Ryan's amendment. So many years in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no, no, opinion chair the no's have it.

No.

Recorded votes requested, recorded vote is or ordered and postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number six three eight six R six by Miss Houlihan uh of Pennsylvania. For what purposes did the gentlelady seek recognition?

Mister Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will please distribute the amendment without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with the chair now recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Mister Chair, this amendment is titled " Ensure religious neutrality and equal access in DOD." When I was a teenage girl, I worked a part-time job at our base chapel, Saturdays and Sundays. I set up weddings for our men and women in uniform. The chapel had a rotating altar, a huge lazy Susan that I pushed from each wedding, from a Jewish altar to a plain nondenominational altar to a Catholic altar. And in this very tiny space, in this environment, it was reinforced to me as a young girl and to everyone who came, that all religions and no religion were respected on that base and in our military. This amendment reinforces a simple principle, that the Department of Defense should remain neutral on matters of religion, while fully protecting the religious liberty of every single service member. Our military includes Americans of many faiths and those with no religious affiliation. Every service member should know that they are judged on their performance and their commitment to mission alone, not on their religious beliefs. Religious neutrality is not anti-religion. The military should continue to accommodate and to protect individual religious exercise including access to chaplains and faith-based accommodations, as it always has. Because military leaders exercise significant authority over subordinates, government neutrality helps to prevent real or perceived religious favoritism coercion. Good order and discipline depends on trust. Service members should never feel that their religious beliefs affect their opportunities, their assignments, their promotions, or their evaluations. This amendment reflects the long-standing constitutional principles by protecting both the free exercise of religion and the government's obligation not to favor one over the other. Religiously neutrality fits everyone, majority faiths, minority faiths, and those with no faith at all, by ensuring equal treatment under the law. This amendment is about fairness. It's about professionalism and military readiness readiness. Please do read this amendment. This amendment protects the rights of all service members while preserving a military culture. that by its by its very nature is united by mission and service to the nation. Thank you for your consideration and I yield.

Generally yields back, chair recognizes himself. Uh, it's already against the law and the constitution to discriminate against people based on their religion. To my knowledge there are no complaints filed against the secretary or anyone in the department alleging a religious discrimination. I'm also concerned that this may undermine the ability of our military chaplains to counsel service members and carry out the tenets of their fe- who carry out the tenets of their fate. Uh, I am very concerned about the unintended effects of the of legislating on faith issues. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek, General Lady from California, Miss Jacobs, and then we'll get to Mr. Fallin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The first amendment prohibits the government from establishing an official religion. That should be something we all can acknowledge and agree on. But that principle is under direct attack at the Pentagon right now. Secretary Hegseth has organized a Christian worship service inside the Pentagon. He's invited Doug Wilson, who has justified slavery and argued women should be denied the right to vote, to deliver a sermon broadcast live on the Pentagon's internal TV network. He's overhauled the chaplain corps and even framed the war in Iran through religious terms and referenced divine prophecy.

Greatness.

In a public prayer delivered by Secretary Hegseth, He said that the American people should pray for victory every day on bend knee with your family in your schools in your churches in the name of Jesus Christ. I pray, but not in the name of Jesus Christ. I'm Jewish. That is not separation of church and state, and that's not religious neutrality. I'm Jewish. Chairman Rogers is Christian. There are many different religions represented on our committee, and the same is true of our military. Our one point three million troops come from diverse religious backgrounds, and everyone should feel included and welcome. But these policies amount to a de facto religious test for our military. This amendment requires the Pentagon to maintain religious neutrality, which is so important for our recruitment and readiness, but also for our military's legitimacy.

That would be a

So if it's already codified, why not codify it again, Mister Chairman, and if it's not, That's why it's more important than ever for this committee to put this into the National Defense Authorization Act. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.

Generally yields back. Chair, now I recognize Mister Fallin.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chairman. Again, this seems uh respectfully to be a solution in search of a problem, and it also appears to be a direct attack on Secretary of War's faith. He has a strong faith and that permeates his life and his work, and this is merely, really uh an attack on the man and his beliefs. The military isn't religiously neutral. We have a chaplain corps full of pastors and priests and rabbis who minister to all service members and I'm concerned that this would impact our chaplain's free exercise of their religion and therefore I have to uh vehemently oppose this amendment. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Sure, and I recognize Mister Ryan of New York.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair. just to briefly address your points and Mister Fallon's, I think that this is important. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a a long established nonprofit, literally committed to the free exercise of uh religion by our military service members has reported receiving hundreds of complaints and allegations from active duty service members and their families about Secretary Hegseth's escalation of his imposition of his particular faith. There's also an active lawsuit being filed uh by another uh advocacy group uh against this behavior. So in fact there, this has risen to a level of of unprecedented concern, at least in modern times, which again, on as we've seen in other topics, we're not making this up. The, we are needing to legislate on things that had previously been held as long-standing norms and and enshrined under our constitution, But the secretary and others are not following those things. That's where we're coming from here. And and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on this amendment offered uh by Ms. Houlihan. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no. No. Depending if you hear the no's have it.

No.

Mister Chairman, I ask a recorded vote.

Recorded vote is requested. Uh recorded vote is ordered and we will

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection, a reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment addresses a glaring hypocritical double standard currently trickling down from the top of the Department of Defense. Every year during this mark-up we talk about how our people are our ultimate strategic asset. We promise to give our service members, our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians, every tool they need to win. But right now, leadership at the Pentagon is trying to deny them the tool of a higher education. Let's be completely honest about what's happening here. We have a Secretary of Defense who loves to go on Fox News and rail against our nation's top academic institutions. calling them woke or detached from American values. But let's look at the resume. The secretary himself is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard. Count me among the Amer- many Americans who hear that and are shocked he got in, but that point aside, he applied and he went there because he had the basic freedom enshrined in our constitution to get an education not curtailed by a government that doesn't believe in freedom of speech. Did Harvard make our acting secretary of the Navy too woke? Did Princeton and Harvard make Secretary Hegseth too weak? Maybe that's not my best argument, but he don't teach pull-ups at Harvard. The bottom line is this, Mr. Secretary. This administration wants to deny our troops the fundamental freedom to get the education they choose in a free country. And if you vote against this, you're denying our troops that freedom, that trust. Do my Republican colleagues believe that our troops can't be trusted, can't ask critical questions, can't go to an institution, where they might actually disagree with some of the other students. If you don't believe in those things, don't believe that we can trust our troops, and instead believe that our government must dictate their education along ideological lines, then you should move to China and supervise the armed services of the Chinese Communist Party. Or you could choose Russia or North Korea or Iran, because that's how they work. Freedom is America's biggest advantage. It's our biggest advantage over our authoritarian adversaries. It's fundamental to our country, our constitution, and to the innovation and leadership that we demand of our troops. This amendment draws a hard line against this administrative overly- reach. It plainly states that the secretary cannot arbitrarily ban service members or ROT se- cadets from attending accredited institutions that they choose to attend, nor strip away their hard-earned educational benefits over the secretary of defense's strange political vendetta. The nation, we face complex, multi-domain global threats. We need leaders who can out-think and out-innovate our adversaries. We do not make our military stronger by making our officers less educated. This, Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Uh, this provision is a direct act on the uh authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine where his offer where his officers will receive the best education in line with the goals and values of the United States military. The secretary's policy only impacts professional military education for our most senior officers. It does not a- apply to medical school, it does not apply to ROTC, it does not apply to institutions receiving tuition assistance. This amendment lim- limits the secretary's inherent authority to build well-educated corps of senior uh strategic s- war fighters. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? Seeing none, the question uh now occurs on the amendment offered by Mister Moulton. So many of yous in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed no, no, opinion children no's have it.

No.

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

What's the issue?

This amendment is a small step towards correcting a fifteen year error. The OMB circular A seventy-six process is a tool by which the

Mm.

federal government can save resources and support local commercial development by determining which services that are currently performed by federal employees can be better performed by commercial contractors. Specifically, Mister Chairman, the A seven six process makes a determination whether certain services are inherently commercial in nature, and if they can be better performed by commercial contractors. Uh facilities, maintenance, landscaping, some medical services and custodial and general services. For fifteen years there's been a government-wide moratorium on A seventy-six studies as a result of this protectionist moratorium some facility services have been performed poorly or have not been performed at all. We've heard in some of our military installations there are instances where services currently provided by federal employees are being delivered in- inadequat- inadequately. The result is that facility commanders have been forced to pull military personnel off their training schedules to do tasks like mowing the lawn, gardening, cleaning bathrooms, essentially we are taking people away from their war fighting and training duties to perform perform tasks other federal employees are paid and supposed to be performing. By allowing this to continue, we're harming readiness, disrupting training schedules, and hurting morale and retention. Our brave men and women in the military signed up to defend our country, not to do facilities maintenance activities others are being paid for to perform. The ISSA amendment would enhance readiness, increase morale, and lift burdens from our service personnel. It will also allow the department to save resources and reduce budgetary overhead. While this amendment does not address the federal government-wide moratorium, this amendment does take several steps, small steps to enable the Department of Defense to stake seek alternatives to provide A seventy-six type services. Specifically, this amendment repeals the temporary suspicion of A seven six services in the two thousand four NDAA, repeals the delayed implementation of A seventy-six studies from the same

Th- thank you uh, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman. Again, I rise to uh oppose this amendment. Uh, the moratorium on A seventy-six, which goes back to uh two thousand and seven, happened in response to really one of the most shocking, appalling, gut-wrenching scandals in terms of uh poor treatment of military veterans at Walter Reed Hospital, uh that again was directly uh identified as uh caused by the A seventy-six program. Again, in uh two thousand, the Bush administration uh implemented the A seventy-six competition in terms of uh alternative uh vendors for provision of of services for uh federal programs. Uh but over the course of the seven years, according to the CRS report that was done for Congress in the wake of a Washington Post series of stories that showed uh again, just appalling conditions that uh veterans were living in. Uh one of the stories uh describes a uh uh army specialist who was in a in in his bathroom uh in a Walter Reed facility, standing in the shower looking up, he can see a bathtub on the floor above, through a rotted hole, the entire building construction uh was uh uh between world wars had uh mouse droppings, belly up cockroaches, stained carpets, and cheap mattresses. Secretary Gates uh secretary of defense at the time conducted a full um review of the um uh scandal that took place there and again the findings were that the A seventy six process created a de-stabilizing effect on the ability to hire and retain qualified staff members to uh operate garrison functions there were a number of of whose heads rolled uh because again of the um A seventy-six operations happened on their watch uh again this committee as well as the oversight committee and mister Wilson may recall again when that happened over at Walter Reed uh again it was just uh uh an appalling uh situation. The moratorium was put into to effect and has stayed in effect for good reason, which is that again the treatment of those patients at Walter Reed who uh again many of them were uh people who had served overseas in the Middle East uh again were again just being treated at a level that again the entire Congress, on a bipartisan basis, uh uh rejected. So uh again I think that um you know the notion that somehow A seventy-six is gonna come back, and and suddenly be different uh I think the uh bitter horrible experience uh that um uh we saw uh uh play out in real life uh still in my opinion um uh should make us very cautious and very unwilling to uh revert back to to putting A seventy six uh back into place and again Mister uh Chairman I would put into uh the record the CRS report for congress dated April the first uh two thousand and seven

Without objection. To order.

Which again references Secretary Gates's uh investigation, again identifying A seventy six as the cause of the problems that happened at Walter Reed and with that I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chain out recognizer gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Norcross.

Thank you, Chairman. In search of a problem. Almost two decades ago, this issue that Joe just spoke about was in front of everybody. We made that decision to change it back and put the moratorium on. But for the last sixteen months, federal workers have seen unprecedented attacks and give them such uncertainty of where we are. We know how valuable workers in public service are to not only us, but to the entire country. Repealing this moratorium would take us back to where we were, with no changes. The very issues that were set up twenty years ago would go back in place. No discussions, nobody running around asking for help, hold a hearing to find out what can we do different, so we don't go back and do the same thing again. And that's exactly what this amendment would do. We've had no discussions other than this dropping before us. So what changed in those twenty years? Can they do it differently? Should we amend what was on there to make this a potentially better program? We're not having those discussions. what we're seeing is let's do it, let's privatize it, they'll do it better. Well we've heard that story over and over and over again, who ends up paying the cost for that, A the government, but B the workers who get treated in a very different way when they historically go into here so this is unsustainable that we wanna go back to the future and do exactly what we did before because you know what? we're gonna get exactly what we got before. So I urge my colleagues to vote now on this amendment, now yield back the balance of my time.

Gentleman yields back. Sure now recognizes gentleman from Texas, Mister Fallin.

Thank you, Mr. President. You know, you're right, Walter Reed, what happened twenty years ago was atrocious. And that was twenty years ago. And in those twenty years, well I think that we can argue very strongly that we've learned from our mistakes. First of all, only commercial functions are subject to A seventy-six inherently governmental functions are not. Allowing this process to be used uh provides a number of positives for readiness and potential cost savings. For instance, Rand determined that despite some problems identified with the A seventy-six procedures, there may not be a way for uh commensurate savings to be achieved without A seventy-six, and that the real problem problem may not have been budget issues But uh or it may have been rather budget issues, but not the process itself. And the department has consistently urged Congress to lift the moratorium. We should definitely listen. And arguing that it is necessary for readiness and fiscal responsibility for the taxpayers, uh is obvious. And the OMB has consistently argued that this tool is important to help reduce costs at DOD which we should all be for. And for all of these reasons, uh I have to support vigorously and enth- Basically support this amendment. Thank God you're back.

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody seek recognition on uh this amendment? Question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. Uh, all in favor will say aye.

Opposed, no.

Aye. Those opposed, no.

No.

Penny, the chair, the ayes have it. Requested a recorded vote is ordered and and uh recorded vote will be postponed to a later time. We will now cons- consider log number sixty one forty eight by Miss Mace of California, of of South Carolina. For what purpose does this gentlelady seek recognition?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Uh will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection. The reading and the amendment is dispensed with the chair recognizer gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will restore rigorous admission standards to the service academies which train and educate the future leaders of our armed forces. Our service academies are not just institution of higher education, they're a crucible where the leaders of America's military are forged. The academies must remain uncompromising and relentless in their pursuit of excellence. Uh unfortunately, we've been seeing a disturbing trend where academies have moved away from considering the merit and qualifications of those who've applied. and either overtly or covertly begun to prioritize diversity and affirmative action, emitting less qualified minorities over more qualified candidates. This issue is exemplified by the story of a young woman. This young woman was determined to ascend West Point and serve our country as an officer in the United States Army. She had a four point O GPA, a black belt in uh martial arts, multiple varsity letters, a four year participant in JROTC, was a JROTC group commander and member of student council attended girls' state and was elected selected for national honor society. Simply put, she was exactly what the service academies are looking for, but she was white. Less qualified to candidates in her category who were diverse, whose candidate scores were hundreds of points lower than this young woman were admitted. This young woman was rejected. West Point's loss was unfortunately my alma mater Citadel's gain. This young woman ended up attending the Citadel, the military college of South Carolina, and excelling. Rating amongst the top of her class and even showing exemplary leadership in becoming one of the five battalion commanders at the Citadel. While the Citadel is lucky to have this young woman and she will surely go on to be a great success, she should have been able to attend a service academy. She should have been able to train to serve her country. She was objectively more qualified than many of the candidates who were admitted in lieu of her. The metrics show she was hundreds of points more qualified by the candidate's score, but she was rejected because she didn't check the right demographic check boxes. and it's shameful. This young woman is not an outlier. The academies are turning away highly qualified candidates who are scoring as much as thirty percent higher than the less qualified candidates who are admitted. For years the academies have lowered standards, allowed widespread waivers, and placed an unfair emphasis on race and other demographic criteria or other subjective criteria which is used as a proxy for demographics. This amendment reduces this emphasis and would ensure objective measurements of performance merit and character matter the most. My amendment would codify rigorous admission standards, emphasize academic achievement and test scores, ensuring candidates are admitted in order of merit, not based on race, or subjective criteria which can be used as a proxy for race. Merit matters, leadership matters, and our war fighters deserve nothing less than the most capable and qualified leaders. And this starts with restoring standards and merit at the academies who train their leaders. And I urge all members to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Generally yields back. Does anybody uh seek recognition? gentlelady from Hawaii, Mr. Koot is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is twenty-three pages of Washington micro-management built around a deeply flawed idea, that merit can be measured almost entirely by grades and test scores. In fact, the amendment is so focused on numbers that it even contains arithmetic errors of its own, creating a scoring system that actually adds up to a hundred and fifteen percent instead of a hundred percent. But the bigger problem isn't the math. It's the mindset. This amendment would make academic metrics account for more than ninety percent of a candidate's evaluation, reducing everything else to an afterthought. What gets lost? Leadership, service, character, resilience. The student who worked a job to help support their family, the young person who overcame poverty, hardship, trauma. The team captain who inspires others, the enlisted service member seeking to continue serving their country, the candidate who has demonstrated grit, integrity, and a commitment to something greater than themselves, those qualities cannot be captured as standardized test score. Yet they are precisely the qualities we ask of military officers. Our service academies are not simply looking for students who can pass an exam or ace a class. They are developing the next generation of military leaders. That requires evaluating the whole person, not just a transcript. We should not replace a proven admissions policy and process with one that grossly prioritizes test taking over leadership service and character. Our military needs officers of intellect, absolutely. But if you ask me, real warrior ethos should be about officers of courage, judgment, and grit. This un- this amendment undermines and undermines and undervalues these very qualities. And I strongly urge our colleagues to oppose it. Thank you, Mister Chair, and I yield back.

Gentlelady uh yields back. Gentleman from Nebraska is recognized, General Bagan.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. If it was strictly test scores, I have concerns, but I may be misunderstanding Mrs. Mace's amendment here. If I could ask her question, would would she would a person get extra points if they were a Eagle Scout?

Uh, I believe so. I mean, it's not just test scores, it's overall meritocracy. So, The example I put forth, this is a well-rounded candidate, had high test scores, uh, and did well in every category, including volunteer work, et cetera. And she was rejected

OK.

based on race.

But if you, hopefully your amendment explicitly allows some of that subjective stuff, because I think Eagle Scout people do very well, even if they don't score quite as well academically or on the test scores. Class presidents, presidents or captains.

It was National Honor Society, it was the whole nine yards.

Yeah.

It was, uh, promising more than just test scores.

So, but you But so the so when you s- count the points, Yeah. Yes. that that stuff could be included. It's it's in there. Okay. Thank you.

So uh, about seat recognition, mi- Mi- was it Miss Strickland?

Miss Strickland.

Miss Strickland of Washington is recognized.

Um, thank you. I would just like to make an observation. You don't have to have perfect SAT scores or a GPA to demonstrate your capacity to lead. What's curious to me, however, is the number of times I've heard the word race used. whenever these amendments are raised. I yield back, Mister Chair.

Generally yields back. Miss Bass- Miss Elfritz, I'm sorry, is is next.

Th- thank you, Mister Chair. I wasn't gonna speak on this one, but I I'm I'm one of the few members of this committee who also serve on the board of visitors for one of these academies we're talking about. And we spent a significant amount of time in those board meetings talking about acceptance standards, whole person model, what uh we know to be one of the greatest indicators of success, not just the academy or in service but also after service as a civilian, which is not test scores, it's actually grit. It's actually the ability to overcome hardship, it's the uh the experience you have as a young person, yes as an Eagle Scout or a team captain, or as you know an older sibling with younger si- I mean it's a whole person model that is already being, uh is already being used at these academies. I think this uh this amendment is absolutely unnecessary, and I I urge it the committee to reject it. I yield back.

Generally yields back. Now, shall we recognize Mr. Ben-Waiz?

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to Mister Kuder.

Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify towards Representative Bacon's question about what else qualifies. Taking this straight from the amendment itself, the academic component of such composite, the total composite score shall be weighted at not less than sixty percent of the overall composite score and shall include the candidate's standardized test score, which shall be weighted at not less than forty five percent of the overall composite score. The total of all subjective components, which would be things like Eagle Scouts and volunteering, shall be weighted at not more than ten percent of the overall composite score. Um, any subjectively based adjustment of the candidate composite score shall be limited to not more than ten percent of the score before such an adjustment, and candidate composite scores only shall be used to determine order of And so when we talk about the whole person, which I think you're referring to, that we wanna look not just at your test scores or your grade point average, and many students these days have well above a four point O because they're taking advanced placement classes. But we also wanna see the Eagle Scouts, those who started at Cub Scouts and disciplined themselves to stay the whole way. Those who have served in sports and leadership capacity, so many other ways that we can really see uh the true grit, resilience, competency, character and leadership of an individual that's not always

Jen Leigh yields back, does anybody seek recon um Okay, Mister Basquiat has yields back, does anybody seek recognition on Miss Mason's amendment? And question occurs on the ra- on the uh amendment offered by Mace. Uh, so many who's in favor will say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no.

No. No.

Opinion two of the ayes have it.

Recorder vote.

Recorder votes requested. Recorder vote is ordered and postponed for a later time. We will now consider log number six six three five R one by Ms. Mace. Uh, for what purposes does the young lady seek recognition? Uh, will the clerk please distribute the amendment, uh, without objection, the reading of the the amendment's dispense? The chair now recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, the College Board who administers the SAT and ACT education currently have a duopoly in the market for standardized testing and have immense market power over the curriculum and testing standards for children. We've seen the College Board wield this market power inappropriately, injecting progressive ideologies, critical race theory, and identity politics in their curriculum and testing. Content on intersectionality, the Black Lives Matter movement validity of sexuality and gender, an ideologically driven revisionist versions of history, has no business in a child's curriculum or dictating their future and ability to serve this nation. The classic learning test is an alternative, standardized test of the SAT and ACT rooted in classical education. The test evaluates reading, writing, and math, imagine that, using text from great thinkers of Western and Christian traditions. It's a rigorous test which reflects the values of many families whose children seek to enter a military service academy. This amendment would require the service academies to accept the results of the classic learning tests in the service academy admissions process and consider those scores in a similar way to the ACT and SAT this amendment doesn't say what tests students have to take if a student's learning and test taking style is better suited to the format of the SAT or the ACT they would be free to use those results in their application to a service academy this amendment simply provides another option for candidates for admission to the service academies one which may

General, he yields back. General, he yields back. Chair, now recognized as ranking member. Chair, now recognized as ranking member.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I find this amendment fascinating because what what TLT is, is that it was a test that was generated because of the belief that the existing tests were biased. OK, biased, I guess, provoked. So they had to come up with something that had a better better measure. And that's really interesting because what we should keep in mind in all this, when people say, oh, we should use merit, you have to understand the word merit in this context is one hundred percent subjective. One hundred percent. It's thrown out there like, well, two plus two is four, and if you're saying it's five, I'm right and you're wrong. But that's completely untrue. Merit is a subjective term. And what we've been fighting with and pushing back on these amendments that wanna say no it must be merit is the notion that there are implicit biases in our society that we need to take into account so that we don't miss out on talent. Now Miss Mace is offering an amendment here because the bias that she sees is against people who aren't woke, I guess. We needed to come up with a new test to make sure that people not in that category weren't being biased against. But the bias that all of our amendments refuses to see is the notion that in American society for some period of time, we had a bias against anyone who wasn't basically a straight white male. OK? We wanna act like no such bias existed, we're just going with merit. So we we can see a bias, so much so that we require an entirely different test to make sure that we're not giving in to that bias but our history of racism and bigotry and sexism and trans and, uh, sorry, you know, anti-gay feelings, ah, that's all irrelevant. We we should just go ahead and judge it on merit. I mean, even something seemingly as simple as, well, if you're an Eagle Scout, aren't you a better person? Admittedly, I'm biased. I was a terrible Boy Scout. I sort of crapped, crapped out as a Star Scout, so I would never made it by that test. But but by and large you know, people with non-white backgrounds were less likely to join the Boy Scouts. OK? Le- less likely to be promoted. So all we've been trying to argue on this side is, let's take into account just a little bit all of the biases that have gone against the people that our society discriminated against for decades. I mean, and that's not debatable. Now people wanna pretend like somehow we woke up one day and said, we're no longer racist, we're no longer bigot, nothing bad is ever happening. That's more of an arguable point, I disagree with it. But it is not arguable that locked into our society for generations was pure bias against anyone who wasn't a straight white male so we come along and say, let's open the aperture a little bit. Let's find all those traditional things that gave into that bias. And the other side loses their damn mind every time we try to, oh god that's unfair. That that's you know, you you're not picking people based on merit. And yet here we are, OK, we we got some anti-woke people who we think are being biased against, so we have to change the rules to make sure that their merit is seen. Now all of that said, as you've heard me before, um I freely admit from where I come from in particular out in the greater Seattle area, that some people got a little overly enthusiastic with this implicit bias thing. Completely agree on that. We should have standards, we should work through that. But we're doing all of this effort to drive out any effort to deal with the very clear bias that happened for centuries in this country. All right? So that, that people who were discriminated against, who grew up in this situation, would, could possibly have a fair shot. And now we're gonna do this? Now I, I suppose it's possible that, you know, anti-woke people are the most discriminated against people in this, well no, it's actually not possible, sorry. Um, but the belief is that they're the most discriminated against people, well we must protect them, you know. But after hundreds of years of slavery and Jim Crow, and bias against Native Americans and sexism, women, sorry, I love throwing this stat out here. Prior to nineteen seventy three, if you worked for the State Department, you were not allowed to keep your job if you were a woman and you got married. I happen to know this because my biological mother worked for the State Department. Nineteen seventy three, people. You couldn't have a frickin' job, I mean, let alone be promoted. Right? And we come along and say, " Hey, we wanna fix that for the sake of a little bit greater equality." Oh, that's woke. You're you're moving away from merit and true opportunity. You know, never mind the fact that so many people get into these places based on who their family was and how much money they have. So, I just, I can't, I can't believe we're considering this. You're given all the talk about merit and you know, we shouldn't be, you know, trying to adjust these things. Now we're gonna come up with a specific test for a specific group of people that we believe have some up and unfairly biased against. So, reject this amendment and can we please get back to a place where we're having an honest conversation about how to fairly measure people's ability and make sure everyone has an opportunity so that we don't lose out on talent. To me, that's the biggest concern. We are losing out on talent. Because of historical bias and discrimination, we gotta open the aperture to bring more people in, but we sure as hell should be committing new tasks to protect some of the very people who created that problem in the first. I urge a no vote. I yield back.

Uh, gentlemen, yields back, gentlelady, from Maryland, Miss Elfberth is recognized.

Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. I second everything the ranking member had just said. And I rise in strong opposition to this amendment for two reasons, one's process and the other one is is the merit of the very amendment. Profit wise, Secretary Hegseth has already directed the service academies to begin accepting CLT scores in next year's admissions cycle, so I I'm confused as to why we're spending any of this committee's precious time. discussing this amendment. Number two, on the merit of the amendment, the classic uh language test learning test uh is actually not widely accepted by other colleges or universities and significant questions remain about its reliability and validity as an admissions tools. Again, we're not talking about just any universities in the nation. These are our leading universities, our service academies, incredibly challenging to get into, incredibly high standards once you're there, as it should be. The majority often speaks about the importance of merit-based admissions and objective standards, and I agree with that, but objective standards only work when we can accurately compare applicants against one another. Unlike the SAT or ACT, the CLT does not have an independently validated comparison table that shows admissions officers, uh, allows them to reliably compare scores across exams. In fact, the College Board and the Iowa border regions have reviewed the CLT and concluded that it lacks any sufficient evidence to predict college readiness and does not meet accepted industry standards for score comparisons. If we care about merit and fairness and maintaining rigorous admission standards we should rely on the assessments that are thoroughly validated and widely accepted across higher education for those reasons I urge a a no vote on this amendment and I yield back.

General, he yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, uh the question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss May. So many is in favor will say,

Aye.

Aye. Faux no.

No.

Opinion shared, the ayes have it. Recorded votes requested, recorded vote is ordered and postponed to a later time. We now consider log number six four seven six R two by Mister Higgins. Uh, for what purpose does the gentleman from Louisiana seek recognition?

Miss Chairman, I'd like to speak on my amendment.

Gentleman has an amendment at the desk. Will the clerk please uh distribute Amendment. Uh, without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with the chair now recognized as a gentleman from Louisiana for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, I offer my amendment log six four seven six, which would establish age normed, sex neutral, physical fitness standards for combat roles in the Army, the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Space Force. As a member of Congress and a veteran, my highest priority through this committee is ensuring our armed forces remain the most lethal, ready and capable fighting force in the world. In twenty-five, Secretary Hegseth issued a series of memos that instituted sex neutral physical fitness standards for combat roles across the armed forces. This enabled our fighting force to be focused solely on operational demands and readiness against adversaries. My amendment which codifies the secretary's guidance, it's not about politics, it's about war fighting reality and keeping our troops alive on the battlefield and winning conflicts. The enemy does not adjust for gender or identity. Our physical fitness standards for our service members in combat roles must reflect the unforgiving demands of war. In response to secretary Hegg's guidance, several of our services have already Effective June, twenty twenty five, the US Army rolled out its new army fitness test with a higher sex neutral standard for twenty one combat specialties, and a requirement that our combat armed soldiers complete a combat field test. The Marine Corps has aligned its physical fitness test for combat armed Marines to a minimum of seventy percent using male age norm standards. Basically, My amendment ensures the best qualified Americans, male or female, are serving in the most strenuous, rigorous roles within our armed forces. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of my amendment and I hope my colleagues will support it.

Gentleman Neil's back, Chair, and I recognize this young lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Houlihan.

Thank you, Mister Chair, and I I feel like that uh, Mister Higgins, you and I must be reading a different amendment um and I and I apologize for some reason I'm misunderstanding your amendment but I too am a member of Congress, and I too am a veteran, and I do also share the desire, your desire to make sure that we have the most ready and lethal force in the world. But this amendment, as I read it, to be clear, codifies the establishment of age-normed, so based on your age, things will be different, but sex-neutral physical fitness standards for all of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Space Force in all positions, not in combat positions, but in all positions is my understanding of your amendment. As it, as it is proposed, if I'm correct about this, it's fundamentally flawed because it's inconsistent and it claims to require a sex neutral physical fitness standard while also keeping steady the age requirements. If st- if our stated goal is to make sure that we have a single uniform standard that's tied to our military readiness then the amendment can't selectively decide that gender and sex distinctions shouldn't count while also allowing for age-based distinctions. To your point, we wanna make sure that the enemy doesn't dif- differentiate between whether you're an older person or a younger person, whether or not you're a gender o- of one for- one kind or another. If I'm correct about your amendment, making all jobs, both combat and not combat related, subject to that same gender neutral fitness test for both men and women, this will certainly have a lot of real world consequences existing service members and in future recruitment of service members as well. So consider as an example a public affairs officer or a doctor or a nurse or a lawyer, just a few examples. In this new standard you would be required to have the same non-gendered uh physical fitness standard but age related to physical fitness standard and personally I would prefer a medical doctor by my bedside or in the battlefield that was highly medically credentialed and not one that can catch a medicine ball, And in really in all seriousness this amendment raises serious questions about what the intent is. Is this it uh the intent of this amendment to ensure that every service member can meet the demands of the job? Or is it really just a cynical attempt to use the language of standards to target women's continued service at all? Today we fight with more than just pure muscle, we fight with our brains as well, and this amendment's singular uh single standard fitness requirements will prevent us from retaining the very best minds who already that standard today. And we certainly cannot requ- uh forget about recruiting as well. The downstream consequences of creating age norm but gender neutral standards will cost our military and we will hemorrhage talent that we've worked so hard to recruit. I look forward very much to bringing forward my amendment which is instead only focused on gender neutral standards for ground combat only, and I strongly oppose this amendment and I yield back.

Generally yields back. Does anybody Texas's recognize?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.

I thank the gentlemen, and I respect my my colleagues' concerns. I'd like to address them. Um, the intention of the of the amendment is to recognize the long-standing, successful implementation of age norm um, roles within our military for physical fitness testing, but also to address in the in in the the modern era of recognizing the capabilities of women to serve across the board in our military. But modifying the indeed the intention of Congress is that the physical fitness standards shall be sex neutral. So if you if if you can pass the test to be on this team, one of the specialty teams, which it's up to you, in the in the amendment the the n- Department of War determines these roles, combat roles, but I have many of them listed. If the primary purpose of that role, of that MOS on in that unit in includes close engagement and close combat, and it's a combat role, with sex, noise, physical fitness would be across the board. N- we we clarified by using, by separating combat roles that we don't, we, it's not the intention of Congress for the Pentagon to choose the lowest standards and say, OK, the, the new sex neutral standard is whatever the lowest standard was. The combat roles would have higher standards. So, if you're a female in the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and you wanna you wanna be on a team then I want you to be on that team if you can pass the physical fitness standards that the team establishes for everybody on the team aside from age norming and I have fifty seconds left I'm glad to yield to the good lady to respond to my response. If the gentleman

Yeah, I yield my uh balance of my time to this award.

Thank you, I appreciate it. I think we're talking across each other because this, I too agree and believe in standards, and I too agree in combat roles particularly, specifically, that you need to meet the standard and the standard is the sa- standard to participate in five thousand women have the that standard right now in active duty, who are serving active duty. I think where we struggle is our current secretary of defense's is uh on the record as saying the highest male standard and I think that you are

Mr. Fallin's time has expired. Uh, chair now recognizes a gentleman from Nebraska, Mister Bacon.

Thank you, uh, and all due respect to Mister Higgins, I I I have to agree with uh Miss Houlihan on this one. I think if there were certain combat roles, you narrowed it down the, you know, the sex neutral standard to certain combat roles, I think that would be persuadable, but to do it across the board, and I served thirty years in the Air Force, I just don't think it would work. Uh, to have the same standard and measure men and women with the same physical fitness standards for every job in the Air Force, I think it would end up disqualifying a lot of people that would un- wouldn't, you wouldn't have to do any, that would be unnecessary. Uh, so just I was, I think if your amendment directed towards certain combat jobs I think it's a a winning amendment, but across the board, I think it's uh goes maybe too far.

Gentleman, you're s back, you're now recognized as ranking member.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to uh Miss Wilhelm.

I appreciate that. Well, I have just the amendment for you, uh, Mister Bacon, uh, and it will be coming soon to a theater near you, which does exactly what we're talking about. I too really very much believe that we need to sort of stop this, this, what I believe is a slippery slope and uncertain future where we we know the answer to these questions. There are women who are qualified and can meet those standards, those very very high standards to be in those combat related roles, and they should be allowed to be there. Um there is a concern that I have, that I think we should all have, that the secretary has has asked for yet another study of something that we already know. Uh General Cooper when he was in front of us I asked him about the readiness and lethality of the people who are fighting in Iran eighteen percent of whom are women, and he said without pause or hesitation that every last one of them, man and woman, was lethal and ready. And so I hope very much, Mister Bacon and others who are listening to this conversation, that you will take under consideration uh a more uh surgically aimed uh amendment that is aimed just at our combat uh uh ground combat uh troops. Thanks and I appreciate the time.

Jen lady yields back uh, does Mister Smith yield the balance of his time?

I'm sorry, I'm the last person.

And now

Mister Bacon.

Mister Mister Vindman of Virginia is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, so I wanna talk about um this particular amendment because I think it's important um that we get this right. Um I served twenty-five years in the army, uh half of it as a uh infantry officer, the other half as a JAG, and so I understand the high standards that we need to maintain in uh the combat arms, and that we cannot uh let those standards slip. At the same time, I think we have recognize that um there are specialties in the military and my wife happened to be uh a army microbiologist a a molecular geneticist by training and that those jobs are are not combat arms jobs and that we need that talent, we need that expertise uh in our military and we have to be very careful that we are not losing highly qualified candidates um that we'd require for our national security. And um, the last thing I would say is that, you know, as we look at the modern battlefield, we have to recognize also that wars, modern wars are being fought hundreds of of miles away from the front line. In Ukraine in particular, you have uh, you have warriors uh that are destroying Russian material and equipment

True.

from hundreds of miles away. Uh, they're qualified drone operators. Uh, they're serving in uniform and, uh, they're are the most effective combat force that the Ukrainians have on the battlefield. So uh, we we have to be careful. We have to make sure that, uh, we take the most qualified fighters that we possibly can to maintain our lethality and that we disqualify what is already a limited pool of folks um that are eligible to join the US military. Thank you, I yield back.

Uh, gentlemen yields back, does anybody else seek recognition on Mister Higgins' amendment? Seeing none, the question now occurs, only amendment offered by Mister Higgins, so many is in favor will say aye. Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, no. Can you hear the aye's habit? The aye's habit? The a recourse vote, a recorded vote is requested, a recorded vote is ordered, and shall be uh postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number sixty five fifty-two R one by Miss Jacobs of California. For what purpose does a gentlelady seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection. The reading of the amendment is dispensed with the chair, now recognized as a gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

My amendment establishment establishes an ombudsman of Stars and Stripes. Stars and Stripes has been published continuously since eighteen sixty-one, when Union soldiers published the first edition in Bloomfield, Missouri. It covered the Civil War, both world wars. It was there at Normandy, at Fallujah, at every meaningful turning point in war. For a hundred and sixty-five years, it has been the independent voice of the service member. Not a Pentagon mouthpiece, but a real newspaper reporting the truth. Secretary Hexeth is trying to end that legacy and we should not let him. In January of this year, the Pentagon announced it was refocusing stars and stripes, quote, "away from woke distractions that siphon morale."

Let me play it.

A new Pentagon memo imposed new content requirements and job applicants were asked to explain how they'd advanced the president's policy priorities.

Pardon me.

And when the ombudsman began reporting on these threats, she was fired without any explanation. This is censorship. And it is a dangerous warning sign. The public needs independent reporting on how their dollars are spent by the military and the actions of military leadership,

Yeah, yeah.

not propaganda. My amendment establishes a stars and stripes ombudsman in statute. We've been here before. In the late nineteen eighties, the Pentagon tried to suppress unfavorable coverage at the stars and stripes of the Iran-Kontra affair. And it was because of that interference that we created this position in nineteen ninety one. make this position permanent now. This amendment protects integrity. It protects independence and the free press. It reflects the principles of the First Amendment. So I urge my colleagues to vote yes to protect the paper and the troops who read it. I yield.

General, it yields back, Chair, and I recognize this himself. I I agree that the role of an Ames Budman is important. However, I cannot support restricting the secretary's oversight authority of an Ames Budman as the amendment provi proposes. Making arms abutment explicitly independent is not how the military chain of command works. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallin.

Uh, Mr. Chairman, in your very uh powerful and succinct uh uh argument, I I do wanna echo it because it does restrict the sec defs authority in the chain of command or its designate for that matter. And while the rigid standards were intentionally omitted during the creation of the abutment uh position to allow it to be flexible between, you know,

This is about, yeah, gentlemen, yields back, is anybody out to seek recognition? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Jacobs. So many of those in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. No. Opinions here, the noes have it.

No.

Recorded votes requested and and is ordered and shall be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number six five two seven R one by Miss Goodlander. For what purpose does a gentle lady from New Hampshire seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please describe the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now recognizes the gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I offer this bipartisan common sense amendment to strengthen the independence, the credibility, and the long-term stability of stars and stripes, our military's independent news source for one hundred and sixty-five years. Specifically, our bipartisan amendment establishes stars and stripes as an independent establishment within the Department of Defense. It includes common sense provisions that will safeguard its independence, uh, create checks against political interference, and ensure that editorial decisions remain where they belong, and that's in the hands of professional jur- journalists and political appointees. I- the amendment also preserves long-standing protections for classified information and operational security, of course. Mister Chairman, this, this amendment is necessary to protect stars and stripes by statute. Long history, it has a daily circulation. It's reaching more than one point four million people across the world. This is, we're talking about service members, military families, who are hungry for independent and credible reporting on the issues that impact their daily lives. Our service members deserve access to independent journalism. Our military family is needed, and this has been a long-standing bipartisan commitment of this Congress. So, our amendment really does just establish these common sense safeguards, uh, to ensure that the leadership and staff of Stars and Stripes have the independence that they need to do their jobs. Um, removal of the publisher of Stars and Stripes, who's who's gotta be a person appointed on the basis of significant journalism experience, uh, removal would require documented evidence of misconduct or performance failures, and it would be subject to congressional oversight, which I think makes a whole lot of sense. You know, this this amendment is not gonna undermine our national security in any way. It doesn't authorize the disclosure of classified information. It wouldn't interfere with operational security or prevent the department from protecting service members and military operations. It explicitly preserves the protections for classified information that we've always relied on. Um, and it wouldn't so so these are important protections that remain clearly in place. This this amendment is about the basic principle that stars and stripes which since sixty-one has been a proud and independent source of news for our service members and military families would remain independent. And I urge all of you to support this common sense bipartisan amendment. With that I yield back.

General, let he yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. This amendment would place constraints on the operational functions and staff structure of the Stars and Stripes newspaper. It ultimately re- removes the necessary oversight authorities from the secretary. Additional parts of the amendment seeks to shape the nature of materials and editorial practices that the Stars and Stripes is able to produce and engage in, which can potentially oppose the overall values of our military. Therefore, I do not support this amendment. It hinders the secretary's ongoing efforts to modernize and ensure accurate reporting that is consistent with the values of our military. Uh, does anybody else seek recognition? General Lady from Maryland's recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment upholds a cornerstone of the constitution, that a free and independent press is essential to the very health of our democracy. As we've said here a couple times now, Stars and Stripes was founded during the Civil War and has served as a trusted, non-partisan source of news for service members and their families for over a hundred and sixty-five years. I wanna share just in as context for the committee, words of General Pershing, who during World War One attested "The paper written by the men in the service should speak the thoughts of the new American army and the American people from whom the Amer- the army has been drawn. It is your paper." General Eisenhower expressed the same sentiment decades later, saying, quote, " Stars and Stripes is the soldier's newspaper. We will not interfere," unquote, after the paper published an unflattering cartoon of the general. Its credibility rests on its editorial independence, which has been codified for years when this committee saw fit to step in. The paper does not belong to generals or admirals. It does not belong to secretaries or presidents. It belongs to the soldiers, marines, sailors, airmen, and guardians of this nation. I urge all our members of this committee to support this amendment and a yield back.

Generally yields back. Does anybody seek recognition? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Goodlander. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. No. Pending to each other, no's have it.

No. Mister Chairman, may I request a recorded vote?

Recorded vote is requested and ordered. Uh, it will be postponed to a later time. We will now move to log number sixty four eighty-two R one by Miss Goodlander of New Hampshire. For what purposes Janel Janel ladies seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with the chair and I recognize as a gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I offer this common sense bipartisan amendment to protect the independence of the Pentagon press corps, and ensure that the American people get access to accurate independent reporting about one of the most important institutions in the world, the United States Department of Defense. This straightforward amendment simply states that no funds authorized by this act can be made available, uh, or be used to restrict the free and independent press. I wish that this weren't a necessary amendment, but what we are seeing right now is the most coordinated and permi- pernicious attack on the free press that we've seen in my lifetime or perhaps in our history. Trust in the United States military and our department of defense depends upon transparency and this is the least transparent Pentagon in American history in large part because we've seen coordinated attack on independent journalists who have dedicated their lives to reporting on the Pentagon. Um, Mister Chairman, this is a a straightforward amendment that will protect a cornerstone principle of our Constitution. There's a reason why the First Amendment is first in our Bill of Rights, and I urge all of our colleagues to support this common sense bipartisan amendment. With that, I yield back.

Yields back, uh Chair recognizes himself. Freedom of the press is a core tenet of our democracy and should be protected fiercely. However, in light of current and ongoing national security risks, the Pentagon has taken certain measures to limit un-escorted access to the building by the press. This policy is consistent with how press access is managed in other federal agencies. I support this policy because protecting information on the sensitive military engagement in operations is imperative. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody seek r- oh, Mister Whitesides of California is recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Last September, the Pentagon distributed new unprecedented restrictions requiring journalists to see the removal before revealing information gathered in the building, even if it was unclassified, and warning that credentials could be revoked if a journalist was deemed a security risk. Dozens of correspondents refused to sign and were forced to surrender their press badges. The federal court ruled that those new policies were unconstitutional. The Pentagon's response was to move media offices out of the building entirely, and require escorts for journalists inside the Pentagon. And just this week, the Department of Defense declared its own press office a classified space, completely inaccessible to journalists. Let's be clear about what's at stake here. A free press is a constitutional guarantee, a necessity to hold those in power accountable and make sure our government works for the people that it serves. This is especially true for military power. The Pentagon oversees near a nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer funds, commands millions of American service members, and frequently makes life and death decisions. The public has a right to know how those decisions are being made, and that right depends on journalists having the ability to report freely, without fear of retaliation, and without having to ask the government's permission. This amendment addresses those concerns. It prohibits using DOD funds to impose prior approval requirements, mandate escorts, close press workspaces without any alternatives, or revoke credentials as retaliation. And it requires Congress to be notified within ten days any time a journalist's credentials are are pulled. This administration's repeated attacks on the free press should alarm every American, regardless of party. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back, Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mister Fallin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In two words, it's overly burdensome. I mean, we have to what restriction of the free press means. It does not say in the US Constitution, you have a right to go into the Pentagon. We're members of Congress. It's difficult to get to the Pentagon for us, and we're on the Day of Narbor Services Committee. So it's certainly within their purview to limit that access, and this amendment stands in direct opposition to the SECDEF's efforts to ensure operational security and the protection of sensitive information particularly when we're in a time of conflict. Uh, you know, and um so it also We need to be able to protect sensitive spaces in information as it relates to national security and defense. So again, because it is overly burdensome, I will have to oppose, and I yield. Thank you.

Gentlemen, yield seat recognition on this amendment. If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Goodlander. So many of you that are in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. No. Depending on your chair, the no's have it.

No.

Mister Chairman, may I request a recorded vote?

Recorded vote is requested and ordered and postponed to a later time. K, next we'll go ahead, um, votes have been called but we're gonna go ahead and try to get Miss uh Jacobs in, before we head over there. We're gonna have six votes, so it's gonna be a while. Uh, we now consider amendment sixty-seven seventy-seven by Miss Jacobs of California, for what? As gentle lady from California seat recognition.

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Uh, will the clerk uh please distribute the without objection. The reading and amendments is dispensed with the chair and I recognize as gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

My amendment would protect press access at the Pentagon.

I will miss you.

This administration loves to talk a big game about the First Amendment.

I need points.

They preach about it constantly. Free speech, free press, cancel culture. They literally built an entire political identity around it. But here's the actual reality of what's happened at the Pentagon under this administration. First, Secretary Hegseth kicked NBC News, NPR, the New York Times and CNN out of their dedicated workspace. in the building and replace them with pro-Trump media that had never covered the Pentagon a day in their lives. Then he shut down the briefing room and banned reporters from entire wings of the building without a government escort. And on Monday, the Pentagon said the press office is a classified space, which we know is not true because we on this committee understand what is required of a space in order for it to be secure. Secretary Hexseth tried to make journalists sign a loyalty pledge, as a condition of doing their jobs. And when a federal judge said that was unconstitutional, he shut down the correspondence corridor entirely. And while news organizations have sued and won in court, this administration continues to fight back against press freedom. We need independent oversight of the most powerful military on the planet. It's how we keep the military accountable and it's how we know what's going on. It's because of CNN that we know about the initial US drone strikes on Venezuelan soil. It's because of NPR that we know about the strikes on the girls' elementary school in Manab, Iran. It's because of Reuters that we know about the initial Pentagon inquiry that pointed to the United States being at fault for that strike. And it's because of CBS News that we learned that Secretary Hegseth wanted a make-up studio at the Pentagon. The list goes on and on. If we take the press out of the Pentagon, you blind Congress and blind the American people to what's happening in their name and with their money. Replacing independent media with sycophants isn't about protecting national security and it's actually unbelievable that anyone can c claim that it is with a straight face when the secretary of defense added a journalist signal chain when talking about an imminent sensitive military operation. This is about eliminating scrutiny. It's about hiding the truth, it's about controlling the media, and we cannot let that happen. My bipartisan amendment is simple. It puts into law what every administration, Republican and Democratic, has upheld for fifty years. Credentialed journalists get appropriate access to the Pentagon. They get briefings. Hey, what's this? No pledges, no political litmus tests, I grabbed a no retaliation for tough coverage, I got a and their security credentials are managed by the Pentagon Force Protection Agency as it should be. This is the absolute minimum that democratic accountability requires, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes.

Your time is coming.

I yield back.

General Lady yields back. Does anybody well, I recognize myself. Um, as we discussed in the previous amendment, the Pentagon established a prudent policy to protect sensitive information by placing responsible limits on press access. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition on Miss Jacob's amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on Miss Jacob's amendment. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed no. No. Penny chair the no's have it.

No.

Mr. Chairman, record a vote.

Recorded vote is requested and ordered and and postponed to Date. OK, we are going to now, uh, break, uh, for votes. There's gonna be a series of six votes. Uh, I would tell, members, we've got about thirteen, uh, votes in the queue for rec- to be recorded. So as soon as this vote is over, ten minutes after the closure of this last vote, we're gonna reconvene and start recorded votes, uh, so we can get those in. So everybody, as soon as votes are over, come straight back so we can get those recorded votes. And with that, we now stand in recess. Reported outcome of log number What was the log number again, Mr. Bindman?

Sixty seven sixty nine.

Sixty seven sixty nine. The amendment was not adopted. Is there any objection to the gentleman's request? Without objection, so ordered the committee records will reflect this request.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, I determined during the break that I was not a fan of Mister Rock's music, so

all right we still got a couple of members see so i think we got five members there's one two

so you want

we're getting close

this one

yep and then there's gonna be a whole wing of them down there

where Oh we got some down there, didn't even see those. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You were on the floor. Yeah, I see. We'll just thank you though.

Hey hey hey,

There's Davis.

the meeting is over. yeah it's like a yeah it's like a oh wow yeah you can really get a lot of money from that you know like uh i don't wanna come to you know like how many times i've been to a restaurant and i've never had a good meal and then i'm like oh i want a good meal and then i go to a restaurant and i go to a one thing and they have like a menu and then you can just order a meal and then you can just order a meal and then you can just order it for free I think it's it's like a hundred percent cheaper than like a hundred percent cheaper than like a hundred percent cheaper. Yeah. You know, I I was wondering if you were gonna say like a hundred percent cheaper than like a hundred percent cheaper than like a hundred percent cheaper than like a hundred percent cheaper than like a thousand percent cheaper than like a hundred percent cheaper than like a hundred percent.

This is yours.

Are we

You guys can go.

All right, um, we are now gonna proceed with our recorded votes. Um. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number sixty three seventy eight by Ms. Houlihan. Um. And we shall now resume those proceedings. The question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will give out a no.

I'll rank a member of voting yes.

Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. All members voted.

Done, done.

The law members voted.

No, I'm good.

Is there Does anybody wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty.

For the NAZER twenty eight.

Amendment is not agreed to. Uh, we will now uh proceed to log number sixty three twenty eight R three by Miss Houlihan and uh shall um record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will be voting yes.

The clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Ah, shit. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-four, the nays are twenty-eight.

The amendment's not agreed to. Uh, we will now proceed to proceed to log number six six four nine by Mister Ryan. Um, we will record our votes by electronic device. Device, the chairman will be voting no.

Making remember we're voting yes.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-five, the nays are twenty-eight.

The amendment's not agreed to. We will now move to log number six three eight six R six by Ms. Houlihan. We will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

A ranking member will be voting yes.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

All right, hold on.

Nope. Woah, woah.

Did not register. There we go.

He's got no more. He's on.

All right, go ahead. Lock the machine and record the vote.

Does not know.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-six, the nays are twenty-eight.

Amendment's not agreed to. We now proceed to log number six one three two R two by Mister Moulton of Massachusetts. Uh, we will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Our ranking member will be voting yes.

Clerk will open the machine. Members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-six, the nays are twenty-eight.

Members not agreed to, we now move to log number six six one one R two by Miss Mace of South Carolina. Uh, we will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

Great, member will be voting no.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are twenty-six, the nays are eight.

The amendment's not agreed to. Now moved to log number six one four eight by Ms. Mace. Uh, we will record our vote uh by record uh electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

Ranking member will be voting no.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Now, it's the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-five, the noes are twenty-nine.

The amendment's not agreed to. Uh, we will now move to log number six six three five R one by Miss Mace of South Carolina. Now, we will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

Rank member will be voting no.

Clerk will open the machine and 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 record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty seven, the nays are twenty seven.

The amendment is not agreed to. We now move to a log number six four seven six R two by Mister Higgins. Uh, d- we will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes. How would the ranking member be voting?

Sorry, um, ranking member voting no.

Okay, the clerk 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 record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-five, the nays are twenty-nine.

The amendment's not agreed to. We now move to log number six five five two R one by Miss Jacobs of California. Uh, we will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will be voting yes.

Clerk will open the machine and uh members will vote. All members voted. Have all members voted? The member wish to change his or her vote. Not the clerk machine and report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the aye is twenty five, the nays are twenty nine.

The amendment is not agreed to. Now go to amendment. six five two seven R one by Miss Goodlander. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Clerk and member will vote yes.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. If all members voted Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Not the clerk will lock the machine and report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-six, the nays are twenty-nine.

The amendment's not agreed to. Now move to uh log number six four two eight R one by Miss Goodlander. And we will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

A ranking member will be voting yes.

The c- uh clerk will open the machines 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 uh record the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-seven, the nays are twenty-eight.

Uh, the amendment is not agreed to. We've now moved to our final vote and that is uh, Miss Jacobs, uh, ROG number six seven seven seven. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

Ranking member will be voting yes.

Clerk will open the machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and report the vote.

Mister Chairman, the ayes are twenty-seven, the nays are twenty-eight.

The amendment's not agreed to. All right, as I previously stated, uh, we're got to move on back into amendments. But having said that, during, we're gonna keep plowing through, but, uh, I have provided dinner for everybody in room twenty-two, twelve. If at your leisure you wanna walk down there, get some great food, we're gonna keep wor- working. We won't be voting again for a good while. I do want y'all to know we were kept over there for an unreasonably long amount of time, we are not going to s- go back when votes are called until we get caught up. So we're gonna stay here and keep working and the chair- the ranking member and I will let you know when uh we're gonna go over there. So, we're gonna get our business done. Y'all have been doing great. Keep it up. All right, let's get back to the l- the log.

Mr. Chairman, I I assume that the dinner is vegetarian?

No, the dinner is Although, I will, that's a great point the ranking member makes. Uh, the dinner is not vegetarian, but Mister Eklund has made sure that I have salads for the people who don't want to eat meat. So there's plenty of good food down there. Uh.

Is there a libation for twenty twenty four?

Libations in twenty twenty four, I don't know anything about that.

Mm.

Uh, that's not the chairman's doings. All right, let's get back to our amendments. Okay, now we're gonna bring up log number Sixty one O five by Miss Strickland. Uh, for what purpose does a gentlelady from Washington State seek recognition?

Chairman Rogers, I have an amendment at the desk.

Clerk will report the amendment uh without objection w- oh, see, let me find my stuff here. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with the share, and I recognize the lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Where is that?

Thank you. "Promotion boards exist to identify the most qualified officers for advancement based on merit, performance, and the needs of the armed forces."

Yeah, twenty two twelve, I'm sure.

"Francoris has established a thoroughly rigorous promotion system that includes selection boards, serval service level review, certification, and civilian oversight." "Before an officer's name reaches the secretary of defense, that officer has already been reviewed, vetted and approved by their military department.

Mr. Eklund, will you pull the microphone a little closer, I wanna hear every word you got to say.

OK. Is this better?

That's much better.

All right. Service Secretary certify that all known adverse, reportable and disqualifying information has been considered long before forwarding a promotion recommendation. In other words, these officers have already received the endorsement of their military service before their names are submitted to the secretary of defense. If new misconduct, adverse information, or disqualifying facts emerge after that certification, removal from a promotion list may be entirely appropriate. But when that occurs, Congress deserves to know what changed. The affected officer deserves to know what changed. Transparency is essential to maintaining confidence in the officer promotion system. Under normal circumstances, this amendment would not be necessary. However, Secretary Hegseth has recently removed officers from promotion lists after they

Mm-hmm.

successfully completed the department's established review and certification process. The Wall Street Journal wrote an article saying that nine Air Force colonels were removed.

Did they?

They also wrote that eight Navy senior officer promotions were done. Members of Congress requested information regarding the basis of these removals, including whether any new adver- or disqualifying information had emerged after the service level certification. The department did not provide substantive answers to those questions. Congress cannot determine why fully vetted and qualified certified officers are being removed from promotion lists. It raises legitimate concerns about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of the personnel system. This amendment responds to those concerns. It ensures that if a promotion board recommendation is overturned after service review and certification has been completed that decision must be made by the President of the United States the President is a Commander-in-Chief the President is the highest level of civilian authority in our constitutional system the President is directly accountable to the American people if a fully vetted and certified officer is going to be removed from a promotion list that decision should be made by the official who bears ultimate constitutional responsibility This amendment does not change standards. It does not alter the authority of promotion boards. It does not prevent the removal of officers for being

General, these times expired, sir, and I recognize the gentleman from California, Mister Whitesides.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. In recent months, we've seen the Secretary of Defense block or delay promotions for more than a dozen senior officers across all four branches of the military officers who had already been vetted and selected by promotion boards. These officers were not under investigation, were not facing misconduct, allegations and no formal explanation was provided to military leadership. This amendment uh responds directly to that conduct with four targeted fixes. First, it takes secretary and deputy secretary off the removal chain entirely. The president alone can take a name off a promotion list. Second, it closes the loophole the secretary exploited. Holding or redacting a name now counts as a removal. You can't do that indirectly, what you're prohibited from doing directly. Third, it expands congressional notification to cover removals for any reason, not just misconduct, so Congress always knows when the list has been touched. And fourth, it tightens the notification deadline from thirty days to five, so Congress finds out fast, not a month or two later. When the Army secretary refused to remove officers, given their years of exemplary service, the secretary removed names himself, like likely without the legal justification or authority to do so. This amendment makes that impossible going forward. Our service members deserve a system that is transparent, lawful, and accountable. I urge my colleagues to support my colleagues' amendment and I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Here now recognized, Mr. Scott of Georgia.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and um I too am concerned about the removal of the officers from the list. And what I want the American citizens to understand is that of all of the colonels out there, approximately three percent of them are selected by peers to move forward as general officer candidates. That list of general officers is is then submitted to the Senate and then the Senate gets to vote to affirm or deny uh the promotion. So three percent, three percent approximately of those who have attained the rank of colonel um get promoted on the general officers list. I'm not aware of other members being removed by the Secretary of Defense. Maybe it's happened in the past, but I'm not aware of it. And I will tell you, I wrote a letter to the secretary asking for an explanation of why. I'm not saying that his actions aren't justified. Maybe they are, but if they are justified, then he should give a public reason why they were removed from the list. And so, I - I think the language is good. Uh, I'm disappointed that the secretary has chosen to, um, refuse to answer any of the questions that the members of Congress have asked him on any of these issues. Uh, the Constitution gives us responsibility on these issues. And I would just suggest that if the Secretary of Defense wants to have a good relationship with the members of Congress, then perhaps he should be responsive to the questions that the members of Congress ask. But, uh, the removal of those officers is unacceptable, and I believe that the secretary owes an answer to the officers and to the, and to this committee of why they were removed. And with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Now, chair, and I recognize this gentleman from New York, Mister Ryan.

Uh, thank you, Mister Chair, I'm gonna yield the balance in a moment to my colleague, but I just wanna, uh, strongly support this amendment and, and thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The only point I wanted to add is that from almost all of these officers, this is not only a lack of a promotion, it's the end of their career, often in many cases after decades of honorable service without even an explanation. That, I think we can all agree that that is inappropriate and disrespectful of their service to our great nation, and I yield the balance to Miss Strinkland, Mister Chair.

Right, thank you. This amendment does not change promotion standards. It does not alter the authority of promotion boards. It does not prevent the removal of officers for misconduct, disqualifying information, or any other legitimate reason. It simply ensures that when the promotion process is overridden, that action is taken with the highest level of civilian accountability and transparency. This amendment also clarifies that withholding or redacting an officer's name from a promotion report constitutes a removal for the purposes of the law. Transparency strengthens trust. Accountability strengthens confidence. And both are essential to preserving the integrity of the officer promotion system. I also sent a letter with Congressman from Georgia asking the Secretary of Defense for an explanation of what happened. We got a sorry little two paragraph curt response that said, they promote based on merit. These people are being promoted based on merit. So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to urge adoption of this amendment, that's have a transparency, that's respect the qualified people who deserve promotion. And I yield back, Mister Chair.

Thank you, Chairman. So, I'm gonna uh argue in favor of this amendment to restore regular order. I spent twenty-five years in the army and I have been um nominated and uh Senate confirmed by presidents of both parties. What this does, it makes clear that this is a highly regimented process, that if there is a sol- there, if there is a an officer that has derogatory information, there is a mechanism to remove that officer. All this does is recognize the gravity of the commission every officer in the military past the grade of major ha- it's a commission where they are charged with safeguarding the most valuable asset. that this country has, its sons and daughters. And so if that commission that is not that nomination is not confirmed by the president, it is the president who has the authority to do that, not the secretary of defense, not anybody else. And so to restore regular order,

Yeah.

it should go to the president and then to the Senate for confirmation. And with that, I yield back.

Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mister Sorensen.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, um like so many of us here uh I have been appalled by Secretary Haft's moves to block certain officers from being promoted. Uh this is not typical practice. These officers are so closely vetted by their service branch uh to even be considered to be promoted to a senior position, you have to have a a track record of years and most time decades of service and leadership. Secretary Hegseth claims to want a meritocracy, but it is clear that he cares more about promoting people that look like him, think like him, love like him, than doing what's right by our military. Our military should be promoting the leaders who have earned the trust of the troops and who will do right by their country, not just who Hegseth wants standing next to him in a photo op. I support Ms. Strickland's amendment and I urge my colleagues to support it a yield back.

Does any other member seek recognition? Mr. Fallin of Texas is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, you know, this amendment further ties the hands of the secretary and it restricts the president's authority and inhibits the uh their ability really to make a determination and uh certain officers being promoted according to merit alone, should be uh, as the secretary said, merit alone. President Trump's only gonna be president for two and a half more years, by the way. So these uh officers that we're talking about are promoted and serve at the pleasure of the president and he should have the authority to delegate when he so chooses, and that's what a lot of the times he has the secretary of defense uh doing. So current law already charges the president with this authority, and I don't wanna further restrict them. Mister Chairman, I yield back.

Does any of does any of the members seek recognition on this amendment? There being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Strickland, uh log number sixty-one. Five. So many in favor will say aye. Opposed no. No. If any of the chairs of the no's have it.

No.

A recorded vote is requested and and is ordered and will be postponed to a later time. Uh, we now will consider log number sixty ninety-three by Miss Houlihan. For what purpose does a general lady from Pennsylvania seek recognition?

Mister Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection to reading the amendment's suspense-wood, the chair recognizes the young lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, this amendment ensures and codifies gender neutral standards for women just in com ground combat roles. And I'd like to remind this committee that both General Leneve and Secretary Driskell supported this amendment, here in this room on May fifteenth. Everyone on this committee has said at one point or another that we have the greatest the strongest and the most lethal military in the world, and this of course I agree with, we do. General Cooper said in this room just as much as much as that. This amendment would simply help us to maintain that status quo, and to ensure that women who meet our standards can continue to serve. Women play critical roles across the US military, including in combat arms, and are integral to our military readiness. More than five thousand women across this military, are already serving in ground combat roles, including in infantry, and meeting and exceeding the same standards as men. Let me emphasize as clearly as possible, these women in combat roles already have to meet gender neutral standards. They already have done that. The amendment is not about lessening the standards, it's about codifying and recognizing what already is, that the many qualified women who already serve in ground combat roles, and already meet the same gender neutral occupational requirements as men, continue to be able to serve, and that others who similarly meet these standards in the future are able to as well. Despite ample empirical evidence and despite studies that have, that we already have conducted, that we are, that conclude that we are already in a fair place with regard to these issues, the administration and secretary Hegsath has yet again asked for another study to add to th- what we already know and what we have already lived. He has demanded that something he is curiously naming the highest male standard, be applied. And we have just learned, just uh in this last couple days, that the twenty eighth annual laying of wreaths at Arlington in honor of women who have served has been cancelled due to a gui- guidance from the Department of Defense and an executive order not to honor these women. For those who believe that this amendment is not necessary at this time, or is redundant to what already is existing in practice, and that preserving the role that women play in our service is already protected, I would argue that it is indeed necessary that we, this body, codify what is already being done so that it cannot be undone. Congress has a very timely voice in this. Your yes vote here matters. I urge a yes vote on this amendment. Thank you and I yield.

General, I yield. The chair now recognizes himself. Uh, for ten years it has been the official policy of the department uh that women can serve in combat roles. That policy is not changing. Any service member, regardless of sex, who can meet the fit high fitness standards required for combat are allowed to serve in those roles. The Secretary of Defense reaffirmed that in his testimony before this committee. Nothing is changing. There is no reason to codify this policy. I urge all members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? Miss Jacobs of California and then Miss Ryan after that.

Thank you. Secretary Hexeth clearly has a woman problem. Maybe he's intimidated by women who can outrun him, shoot him and outperform him in the field women who earned their ranger tab when he never did maybe something freudian going on i don't know this is a man who shared and praised a video saying women shouldn't vote and who wrote that moms don't belong in the military this is also a man who paid fifty thousand dollars to a woman who accused him of sexual assault but whatever his issues with women i know that he shouldn't be taking them out on the united states military secretary hexes Reviews of women's effectiveness and announcements to return combat roles to men only are dangerous. Anyone willing and able to serve should be able to, in any role, including combat ones. Women in combat roles have the exact same standards as men. There there are the same entrance requirements, the same endurance metrics, the same physical and performance standards, and the same tests. We can't build the most lethal fighting force in the world by shrinking the pool of people who qualify. We build it by setting a fair and equal standard and holding everyone to it. That is what gender neutral standards mean and the ones women are already passing. If you can do the job, you should get the job. This amendment prohibits the Pentagon from barring women from any role, and it locks gender neutral physical standards for combat roles into statute. I would hope that we can all support this and support all the brave courageous and capable women in our military. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan is recognized.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanna commend and thank my colleague, Miss Woolhan, for again her leadership on this year after year. Um, and I'm proud to support this along with my my colleagues. Um, I just wanted to add add two points, Mr. Chair. Uh, the first is again, as has been the case in several issues we've debated here, the argument that nothing is gonna change does not hold up to the facts of the reality of what's happened in this Pentagon for the last year. And specifically, I would cite, which Ms. Houlihan did as well, this absolutely made-up witch-hunt study that the secretary commissioned to try to take us back from the proven progress that you yourself, you know, acknowledged and we all agree, uh, has worked. incredibly lethal, effective, proven uh women in combat roles that are some of our absolute fiercest fighters. But there is a deliberate effort right now under the guise of this study um directed by the secretary to roll us back. That's why we need this amendment. And again, for my colleagues that have said they're happy and good with the current policy, voting against this would take us back, cuz that that is the current direction. Um, the the second point I just wanted to make is again, throughout the last year, I've rightly heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle here say things along these lines. Uh, for example, uh, one of our colleagues said, um, in a hearing this year, posture hearing, I think all the fellow veterans in this room would agree that if somebody saved your life on the battlefield, you wouldn't care if they're a male or a female, black or white, Democrat, Republican, or Independent. I agree. That's what this is about. If you vote against this, that's a direct contradiction to that. Now yield back, Mister Chair.

Gentleman yields back. Does any of the members seek recognition on the Houlihan amendment? There being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Miss Houlihan. Those are in favor, will say aye.

Aye.

Those opposed say no.

No.

No.

Penning sure the no's have it.

Chairman, I, Mister Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

Recorded vote is requested and ordered and postponed to a later time. We will now uh m- consider log number six six three eight R two by Mr. Golden. For what purpose does uh Mr. Golden seek recognition?

Uh, just

You have a amendment at the desk?

Yes, sir, amendment at the desk.

Will the clerk distribute the gentleman's amendment without objection to reading of the amendment's dispense with the chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the Boots Act has now passed the House two times, in twenty-twenty-four and in twenty-twenty-five. Last year it passed the House as part of this committee's annual defense bill, and every member of this committee at that time supported it by unanimous consent. Everyone's got a packet on their desk about this amendment. If you wanna follow along for a minute, I'll explain to you. On the front page we've got the Global Times, owned by the People's Daily Press, which is the largest newspaper in China and serves as the official paper of the Chinese Communist Party, seeks to undermine the Boots Act by asking the following, since when does a pair of humble combat boots pose a threat to the combat readiness of the US military and even to national security? What a ridiculous question, mister chair. History is replete with examples of the importance of boots in combat.

Uh.

If you don't agree with me, try marching to battle barefoot yourself. The CCP's interest in boots actually tells us, they know. how important combat boots are.

Oh, thank you. Little bit. Oh, I am.

Moving on, we have uh a letter from the Defense Logistics Agency to Congress where they state that they conducted a war game for various go-to war uh class two items in October of twenty-three, with boot production being one of the commodities commodities included in the exercise it demonstrated that the United States would struggle to meet wartime surge requirements. One of the recommendations from the exercise was to expand opportunities for the deme- defense uh domestic industrial base prior to the next contingency to build additional capacity and it stated that passage of boots would create additional opportunities for the domestic industrial base, uh as as encouraging foreign producers to bring their production home to the United States. Uh we then have six pages where we see forty-nine options combat boots that would meet the standard of this amendment and meet the existing Barry Amendment requirement. If you don't see the boot of your choice, I would just point out that anyone who's ever served knows serving our country in the armed forces means surrendering choices like what to wear, what to fight with, what to eat. The list goes on. But especially Marines, I might say, who are raised to proudly proclaim, Marines make do. Uh, just moving on a little bit. I'll just close by reminding everyone the problem is a loophole in the Barry Amendment. Uh, it w- results in an estimated one million pairs of foreign-made boots on the feet of our service members. The loophole has produced three compounding harms. Domestic manufacturers are squeezed out. Investment in US capacity is frozen, and national security is left at risk. The biggest opponents, private equity firms and the Chinese Communist Party. In closing, you supported this provision last year. and I urge my colleagues to support it once again. Thank you, Mister Chair.