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

4 June 2026

Legend

Transcript markers

  • text Sentence being played
  • text Search result
  • text Intervention cited by the link you opened

Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.

More options
Official source
Offset

Transcript offset

0s
Text size
Export

Select segments to export (Word)

0 segments selected

House Armed Services U.S. House of Representatives

Follow its sittings
20:00 - 25:01
Speaker 1
Committee will come to order.  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 under consideration today, so ordered.  Pursuant to committee rule 17, 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 that there be no discussions on en bloc 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.  Today, the committee will mark H.R. 8800, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2027.  And I 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 30 years, the defense industrial base has atrophied significantly.  We are no longer capable of manufacturing for our warfighters at scale and speed.  In the 1990s, there were 51 prime defense contractors.  Today, there are only six. 

Our global munitions stockpiles are low, and we no longer have the surge capacity to rapidly replenish them.  We also have fragile supply chains that make us 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're falling dangerously behind when it comes to shipbuilding and maritime readiness. 

So when it comes to revitalizing our 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 in 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 FY27 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 NDAA meets our other critical needs. 

We are raising pay for service members and improving housing, education, and childcare for our military families.  We're strengthening our nuclear deterrence and missile defense while maintaining a strong posture to deter adversaries.  And we're prioritizing the development of innovative technologies that will give our warfighters the edge today and in future conflicts.  To support these policies, we're authorizing 1.15 trillion in discretionary funds to match President Trump's historic budget request.  For the first time in 40 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 continuing our tradition of putting this bill together in a very strong bipartisan manner.  I also want to thank all the members for their input and assistance in this process.  There are more than 900 amendments for us to work through today, so I urge my colleagues to work together to get through this process in a timely manner.  There will be disagreements, but we all have the same goal, and that's to support our men and women in uniform. 

25:01 - 25:12

Mike Rogers

If we can keep that goal in mind, I'm optimistic that this bill report today will enjoy strong bipartisan support. Chair now recognizes the ranking member for any opening statement he may have.

25:12 - 31:31

Adam Smith

Thank you, Mr. 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 their ability to do that and meet all the members' needs is something we should always recognize.

I thank them for that. They have put us into 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 a good solid bill because it reflects certain key priorities. Number one, as the chairman said, it takes care of our troops.

It has pay raises, 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, looking at the quality of life issues, absolutely crucial. Our military is the best in the world because of the men and 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 reflects 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 II and have had for the last 80 years. We have more partners and alliances than we've ever had before, than any great power has ever had before, and that has served our interest. We continue to support Ukraine, 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 is very well reflected and I very much appreciate that. The problem starts with the money.

And there's a lot of different ways to explain this, but a $1.15 trillion base budget where we're coming out of here, depending on how you calculate it, is a 30% increase over what this committee did last year. That is a lot of money at a time when we have a nearly $40 trillion 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 troubled by, but they're nothing to meet that $40 trillion 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'd have to do in everything else are way beyond 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 $350 billion that is planned in the next reconciliation package, you're looking at a nearly 50% 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 $156 billion that was in the reconciliation bill last year, we still are not 100% 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 $1.5 trillion defense budget, I don't, this should be a $1.5 trillion defense budget.

Okay, we should have that debate, we should put it out for, 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 $1.6 trillion 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 hypersonic missile, $400,000 a copy.

They figured out how to do that. That, that is like 10% 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 for 10% 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 the Secretary of Defense based on ideological beliefs. We have a lot of concerns as we look at this. But we're going to have amendments, we're going to have an opportunity to have that debate, and we'll get to a product at the end of this.

And again, I thank the chairman and everyone involved in getting us started today. And I thank him for the three-minute thing, too.

31:31 - 34:08

Mike Rogers

Thank you. That's leadership. And with that, I yield. I thank my friend. And he is, I, I was, 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 this country in this capacity, 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 an amendment that involves the jurisdiction of another committee, we request the member, before he or she offers the amendment, have a letter from the respective committee chair of jurisdiction indicating their waiver of referral. I note that, no, I note that I imposed the same requirement before including language in the underlying mark. I remind members that this approach has been the practice of the committee for many years.

It is done so that we can proceed directly forward without our bill being sequentially referred to another committee. Amendments that do result in a point of order against H.R. 8800's consideration on the House floor will not be in order, such as those that would violate the statutory PAYGO Act or the Congressional Budget Act. Before beginning with subcommittee prints, and following consultation with Mr. Smith, I ask unanimous consent that the provisions contained in the subcommittee prints and the chairman's mark, which includes full committee provisions, will be considered for the purposes of this markup as original text of the H.R. 8800, and that these provisions 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 for today's mark of H.R. 8800 will follow our subcommittee structure.

We will begin with the first subject matter that falls under the jurisdiction of number one, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, then we'll go to Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, then the Subcommittee on Seapower 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 of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces pursuant to committee rule 17, and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to this subcommittee print have concluded. Chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for any comments he would like to make.

34:09 - 37:47

Robert Wittman

Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 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, Donald Norcross, for incredibly hard work that goes into this and the collaboration in making sure we're doing everything we can to reach agreement on putting together this strong and very proactive Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee print. Also want to thank the fantastic professional staff members who are the backbone of the TAL subcommittee: Michael Kerlin, Jay Valerio, Heath Bope, Caroline Kehrli, Brooke Alred, Amelia Litynski, and Andrew Smith.

This year, the Subcommittee on 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-35 and F-15EX 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 600 million is authorized for spare parts for F-35, long overdue. This year's TAL portion of the bill contains robust funding for the rotor aircraft procurement to include seven additional CH-47 Chinooks, six additional Black Hawks, four more MH-139A Grey Wolf helicopters, and full funding for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft program to continue developing the MV-75 Cheyenne. Additionally, as small unmanned aircraft systems prove every day that they are the future of warfighting, this subcommittee print bolsters both our UAS capabilities and our ability to counter adversary systems.

These provisions establish standards 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 155 millimeter shortages by directing the Secretary of the Army to expand and upgrade facilities to reach a target production capacity of 100,000 rounds per month. It also requires the Army to provide briefing to the committee on its long-term goals for 155 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 20 million dollar funding add 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 but kept ground against a human force. Our military's greatest asset is its people, and we owe it to them to set them up for success on the battlefield. This print identifies and delivers upon modern warfighting needs, assuring that our men and women in uniform are equipped not only with the most exquisite kit, but also that the department is able to sustain those capabilities for generations to come. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

37:47 - 37:53

Mike Rogers

Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.

37:54 - 40:50

Donald Norcross

Thank you, Chairman, to you and Ranking Member Smith for setting the structure and certainly the vision for directing this committee. And certainly to the long-standing bipartisan tradition of this subcommittee, of which we work very hard and which we take great pride in that relationship starts with Chairman Wittman, 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 notoriety in the past couple years starting from Ukraine, those small unmanned aerial systems and counter aerial systems. We also do the combat vehicles, ground combat vehicles and tactical munitions. We also are closely following the Marine Corps' 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 force 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-35 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 ensure sustainment.

The bill also includes language that requires Secretary of Defense to report on the progress made to address the historical GAO recommendations pertaining to the F-35 program. The subcommittee also continues our strong investment in 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 Vilario, Mike Herland, Heath Bope, Caroline Curley, Brooke Alred, Amelia Litynski and our research assistant Andrew Smith. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

40:50 - 41:18

Mike Rogers

I thank the Chairman. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on subcommittee print? We will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Wittman for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

41:18 - 45:04

Robert Wittman

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 for five 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 5728 by Rep Scott, Log 5752 R2 by Rep DesJarlais, Log 5753 R3 by Representative DesJarlais, Log 5771 R2 by Rep Hamaday, Log 5782 by Rep Carbajal, Log 5823 by Rep Vasquez, Log 5825 R1 by Rep Hamaday, Log 5835 R2 by Rep Vasquez, Log 5838 R1 by Rep Hamaday, Log 5839 R1 by Rep Stefanik, Log 5847 R2 by Rep Bergman, Log 5877 by Rep Hamaday, Log 5910 by Rep Jackson, Log 5912 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 5918 R1 by Rep Harrigan, Log 5921 R2 by Rep Scott, Log 5939 by Rep Kiggins, Log 5955 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 5998 R3 by Rep Hamaday, Log 6003 by Rep Norcross, Log 6011 by Rep Wittman, Log 6025 R1 by Rep Kelly, Log 6051 R1 by Rep Bergman, Log 6101 by Rep Ryan, Log 6110 by Rep Ryan.

Log 6011 by Rep. Wittman. Log 6025 R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 6051 R1 by Rep. Bergman. Log 6101 by Rep. Ryan. Log 6110 R1 by Rep. Van Orden.

Log 6142 by Rep. Kiggans. Log 6147 R1 by Rep. Alford. Log 6150 by Rep. Maguire. Log 6181 by Rep. Hamadeh. Log 6190 R2 by Rep. Fallon.

Log 6214 by Rep. Harrigan. Log 6220 R2 by Rep. Maguire. Log 6228 by Rep. Maguire. Log 6240 by Rep. Maguire. Log 6254 by Rep. Maguire.

Log 6257 R1 by Rep. Gooden. Log 6260 by Rep. Ryan. Log 6266 by Rep. Rogers. Log 6272 R2 by Rep. Hamadeh. Log 6358 R2 by Rep. Van Orden.

Log 6393 R2 by Rep. Maguire. Log 6442 R1 by Rep. Scott. Log 6502 by Rep. Alford. Log 6530 by Rep. Scott. Log 6543 by Rep. McCormick.

Log 6547 by Rep. Ryan. Log 6584 R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 6589 R1 by Rep. Wittman. Log 6630 by Rep. Crow. Log 6666 by Rep. Harrigan.

Log 6682 by Rep. DesJarlais. Log 6685 by Rep. Scott. Log 6709 R1 by Rep. McCormick. Log 6774 by Rep. Smith. Log 6797 by Rep. Smith.

Log 6841 by Rep. Conaway. Log 6842 by Rep. Van Orden. Log 6872 by Rep. Graves. And Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back.

45:05 - 45:15

Mike Rogers

I thank the gentleman. The question is on en bloc package offered by Mr. Wittman, so many as in favor will say aye.

45:16 - 45:41

Mike Rogers

Those opposed no. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. If there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman, for the purposes of offering a motion.

45:41 - 45:59

Robert Wittman

Mr. Chairman, I'm like you, I'm struggling to get through my notebook here. I've got more pages and tabs than I know what to do with. Here we go. All right, there is a motion to adopt. Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, as amended.

45:59 - 46:07

Mike Rogers

If there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman, let's see. The question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Virginia, so many as in favor will say aye.

46:08 - 46:38

Mike Rogers

Those opposed no. None being present, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print on Subcommittee on Strategic Forces pursuant to committee rule 17, and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until the consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print have concluded.

The chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais, for any comments he would like to make.

46:38 - 49:55

Scott DesJarlais

Thank you, Mr. 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 of 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 Schirtzinger, Maria Vastola, and Austin Richards, and Lindsay Keller on my personal staff.

While it goes without saying, none of this would be possible if not for their dedication, professionalism, and guidance that they give me and Ranking Member Moulton throughout the process. The subcommittee's fiscal year 2027 mark is the product of bipartisan cooperation and continues many of our long-standing efforts, 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 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 the 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 plutonium pit production on the long-term needs for the nation to continue to field 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 27 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 3-Block 2B procurement.

The committee also added additional resources to accelerate the glide phase interceptor program, which is critical to addressing 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 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.

49:55 - 50:07

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton, for any comments he'd like to make.

50:07 - 54:07

Seth Moulton

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to extend my gratitude to Chairman DesJarlais and the members on both sides of the aisle for continuing the long tradition of keeping this subcommittee mark bipartisan and addressing areas that we have discussed in the past five months of hearings and briefings. I want to specifically thank the chairman 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 the Middle East, the increased long-range ballistic missile testing being conducted by North Korea, or the continued expansion of strategic capabilities by the Chinese Communist Party across the air, 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 postured our forces to respond and if necessary prevail in a conflict in space, this mark 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. In 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 weapon 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 addresses 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 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 from the American public. This mark is the result of a months-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 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 Vastola, Peter Schirtzinger, and Austin Richards, and to my personal staff: Caroline Jones, Candice Esquivel, and our Navy fellow Ray Lazotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

54:08 - 54:32

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Before we entertain amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? Seeing none. We will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Dr. DesJarlais for the purpose of offering an en bloc amendment.

54:32 - 54:38

Scott DesJarlais

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.

54:38 - 54:48

Mike Rogers

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 his en bloc amendment.

54:51 - 55:46

Scott DesJarlais

En bloc package number one is comprised of the following: Log 5858 R1 by Rep. Hamada, Log 5878 R3 by Rep. Kiggans, Log 5904 R1 by Rep. Crank, Log 5924 R2 by Rep. Harrigan, Log 5968 R1 by Rep. Crank, Log 6047 R2 by Rep. Carbajal, Log 6084 R1 by Rep. Crank, Log 6164 R2 by Rep. Elfrith, Log 6184 R1 by Rep. Messmer, Log 6216 R2 by Rep. McGuire, Log 6241 R1 by Rep. McGuire, Log 6248 by Rep. Whitesides, Log 6385 R1 by Rep. Stefanik, Log 6698 by Rep. Moulton, Log 6706 by Rep. DesJarlais, Log 6749 by Rep. Sorensen, Log 6818 by Rep. DesJarlais, Log 6860 R1 by Rep. Carbajal, and Log 6863 R1 by Rep. DesJarlais.

55:46 - 56:11

Speaker 7

Is there further discussion on the en bloc package? No further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee for the purpose of offering a motion.

56:11 - 56:17

Scott DesJarlais

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

56:18 - 56:21

Mike Rogers

Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Tennessee. So many as in favor will say aye.

56:22 - 56:56

Mike Rogers

Those opposed, no. Quorum being present, the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. Subcommittee will now receive the print on subcommittee of, the committee will now receive the print on subcommittee on seapower projection forces pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print has concluded. Chair recognizes the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly, for any comments he'd like to make.

56:56 - 01:00:03

Trent Kelly

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 seapower and projection forces mark 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 have more work needed to protect national security, international order, and freedom of navigation.

As our adversaries test American power with increasing scale and frequency, we must be able to respond forcefully and without hesitation. This overarching goal shaped the seapower and projection 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 are producing two Virginia-class submarines, procuring two Virginia-class submarines, putting us at the target pace to support and strengthen our subsea advantage and back up our commitments.

The seapower 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 60 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 FY 27. The tensions of the last year have reinforced to all of us the crucial and versatile role our Marine Corps as 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 3.0 ARG MEU presence. The Sea Power Forces mark also strengthens our ability to project American power in the skies by keeping an elevated inventory of C-130 aircraft, supporting V-22 safety investment, procuring more P-8s, and allowing multi-year procurement of E-2D 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 Sea Power 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, Janine, and Abby, and my personal staff, Somaj, Shields, and 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.

01:00:03 - 01:00:09

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on Sea Power and Projection Forces, the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.

01:00:10 - 01:03:49

Joe Courtney

Thank you, Chairman Rogers, and I'm pleased to join my good friend Chairman Kelly to present our subcommittee mark for FY 2027. 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 60 billion in the discretionary account, our mark authorizes 21 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 and certainty to our industrial base and workforce. This year's mark provides multi-year procurement for up to 15 Arleigh Burke destroyers and for multiple John Lewis-class oilers and for the E-2D 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 of the Navy, authorizing 10 billion for procurement and five for advanced purchase of long-lead items. The bill also allocates 8 billion for procurement and 4 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, fully endorsing the agreement, and AUKUS got another boost 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 vessels. They also confirmed operation of UK and US sub rotations in Western Australia, remaining on track for 2027, which will provide all three navies with persistent enhanced presence in the South Pacific. The agreement's progress in 2025 and 2026 reinforces 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 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 1944. As retired four-star Admiral James Stavridis 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' 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. Mr. Chairman, I'm thankful for the diligent work of Chairman Kelly and the subcommittee members to reach this broadly bipartisan 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 Sea Power Subcommittee.

Thank you, and I yield back.

01:03:49 - 01:04:07

Mike Rogers

Chairman yields back. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? Seeing none, we will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Kelly for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

01:04:07 - 01:04:14

Trent Kelly

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.

01:04:14 - 01:04:24

Mike Rogers

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.

01:04:25 - 01:06:50

Trent Kelly

En bloc package number one is comprised of the following: Log 5718 by Rep Scott, Log 5719 R1 by Rep Scott, Log 5720 by Rep Scott, Log 5722 R1 by Rep Scott, Log 5745 by Rep Houlahan, Rep 5761 by Rep Bell, Log 5783 R2 by Rep Kiggans, Log 5787 by Rep Scott, Log 5788 by Rep Scott, Log 5790 by Rep Scott, Log 5819 by Rep Scott, Log 5864 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 5869 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 5875 R1 by Rep Harrigan, Log 5883 by Rep Hamadeh, Log 5933 R2 by Rep Finstad, Log 5950 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 6016 by Rep Kelly, Log 6021 by Rep Kelly, Log 6027 by Rep Kelly, Log 6029 R2 by Rep Kelly, Log 6044 R1 by Rep Kelly, Log 6063 by Rep Stefanik, Log 6193 by Rep Mesmer, Log 6196 R1 by Rep McCormick, Log 6209 by Rep Scott, Log 6295 R3 by Delegate Moylan, Log 6311 R1 by Rep Courtney, Log 6313 by Rep Courtney, Log 6371 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6372 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6377 by Rep Bergman, Log 6467 by Rep Alford, Log 6483 by Rep Higgins, Log 6607 R3 by Rep Higgins, Log 6641 by Rep Scott, Log 6675 by Rep Courtney, Log 6738 by Rep DeLuzio, Rep 6800 by Rep Alford, Log 6812 R1 by Rep Finstad, Log 6835 by Rep DeLuzio, Log 6836 by Rep DeLuzio, Log 6838 by Rep DeLuzio, and Log 6839 by Rep DeLuzio.

01:06:50 - 01:06:53

Speaker 10

And I yield back, Mr. Chair.

01:06:53 - 01:07:12

Mike Rogers

Question is on the en bloc package offered by Mr. Kelly. So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. If there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi for the purpose of offering a motion.

01:07:12 - 01:07:18

Trent Kelly

Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the subcommittee on seapower and projection forces as amended.

01:07:19 - 01:07:54

Mike Rogers

Question occurs on the motion from the gentleman from Mississippi. So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. A quorum being present, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. Committee will now receive the print on the committee subcommittee on cyber information technologies and innovation pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with 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 Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, for any comments he would like to make.

01:07:54 - 01:10:29

Don Bacon

Thank you, Mr. 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 27 NDAA. I'd also like to thank my friend and ranking member Congressman Ro Khanna for his partnership in this effort. We have a bipartisan mark. This mark focuses on several crucial areas of our national defense and takes ambitious strides to maintain our dominance in cyber, IT, and science and technology.

The print supports the DOD's incredible innovation enterprise, leverages the boundless potential of artificial intelligence, and 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 and promotes a better coordination between the department and the T&E community. Moreover, this portion of the NDAA sets the course for quantum computing by requiring the lessons learned from DARPA's quantum benchmarking initiative to inform development and acquisition of future DOD quantum computing systems.

The city print also 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 such systems. Additionally, in a time where cyber warfare is more prevalent than ever, this print takes steps to unencumber our cyber defense forces from bureaucracy by requiring a review of DOD cybersecurity, 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 27 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, Mireia Herardo, Brooke Alred, Andrew Smith, Michael Herman, and Wendell White.

They've done a great job. Thank you everyone who contributed to the compilation of the subcommittee print, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

01:10:29 - 01:10:41

Mike Rogers

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from the cyber from the subcommittee on cyber information technologies, the ranking member, Mr. Khanna, for any statement he'd like to make.

01:10:41 - 01:13:38

Ro Khanna

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first like to thank you and Chairman Bacon for the bipartisan way in which this mark has been put together. The chairman has led in a transparent, bipartisan, collaborative manner and deserves a lot of praise. I'd like to thank the majority staff, Caroline Curley, Dr. Mireya Jurado, Brooke Alred, Andrew Smith. I'd like to thank minority staff, Michael Herman and Wendell White, and of course my personal office staff, Kevin, Same, 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 markup, 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 technology ideas. Of 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 re-validation. The mark also creates a framework to enable rapid assessment, deployment, and governance of AI systems and requires the department to establish a program to report, track, analyze, and remediate artificial intelligence incidents. I want to highlight as well that later today we will consider several amendments to strengthen the package further, including amendments by Ms. Jacobs, Mr. Cisneros, Mr. Whitesides, which the majority has worked with us in good faith to get to place on bipartisan agreement. The president's budget requests continue to slash some of the applied research investment. I find that short-sighted.

I'm therefore proud that the mark responds to this underfunding of science and technology by providing budget certification and review authority to the Under Secretary of Defense and Research of 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 cybersecurity information technology network defense. Mr. Chairman, these are just a few highlights. I thank the members of the committee for their 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, I yield back.

01:13:38 - 01:14:10

Mike Rogers

I thank the gentleman. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? Seeing none, we will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Bacon 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.

01:14:11 - 01:17:09

Don Bacon

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 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 5748 R1 by Rep. DesJarlais, Log 5755 R1 by Rep. Krenke, Log 5769 R1 by Rep. Finstad, Log 5776 R1 by Rep. Scott, Log 5786 R1 by Rep. McCormick, Log 5804 R1 by Rep. Gooden, Log 5817 R2 by Rep. Carbajal, Log 5906 R1 by Rep. Kiggans, Log 5911 R1 by Rep. Turner, Log 5958 R1 by Rep. Jackson, Log 5965 by Rep. Tokuda, Log 5973 R1 by Rep. Jackson, Log 5980 R1 by Rep. Krenke, Log 6022 R1 by Rep. Kelly, Log 6028 R1 by Rep. Kelly, Log 6031 R1 by Rep. Wittman, Log 6062 R2 by Rep. Gooden, Log 6070 R1 by Rep. Houlahan, Log 6094 R2 by Rep. Stefanik, Log 6099 R2 by Rep. Gooden.

Log 6022 R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 6028 R1 by Rep. Kelly. Log 6031 R1 by Rep. Wittman. Log 6062 R2 by Rep. Gooden. Log 6070 R1 by Rep. Houlahan.

Log 6094 R2 by Rep. Stefanik. Log 6099 R2 by Rep. Gooden. Log 6104 R1 by Rep. Davis. Log 6106 R3 by Rep. Kiggans. Log 6118 by Rep. McCormick.

Log 6135 R2 by Rep. Wenstrup. Log 6158 R1 by Rep. Kiggans. Log 6176 R2 by Rep. Bacon. Log 6179 by Rep. Fallon. Log 6187 by Rep. Meuser.

Log 6223 R1 by Rep. McGuire. Log 6238 R1 by Rep. McGuire. Log 6243 by Rep. McGuire. Log 6264 by Rep. Jackson. Log 6267 R1 by Rep. Vasquez.

Log 6292 R1 by Rep. Khanna. Log 6322 by Rep. Sorensen. Log 6374 by Rep. Whitesides. Log 6379 by Rep. Wittman. Log 6439 R1 by Rep. Alford.

Log 6443 by Rep. Jackson. Log 6449 R2 by Rep. Wenstrup. Log 6462 by Rep. Bacon. Log 6470 R1 by Rep. Jackson. Log 6473 by Rep. Wittman.

Log 6496 R1 by Rep. Fallon. Log 6498 R2 by Rep. Wenstrup. Log 6503 R1 by Rep. Bacon. Log 6520 R1 by Rep. Fallon. Log 6541 R5 by Rep. Wenstrup.

Log 6555 R2 by Rep. Bergman. Log 6561 R1 by Rep. Wilson. Log 6595 R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6600 R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6602 R1 by Rep. Wittman.

Log 6657 R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6663 R1 by Rep. Jacobs. Log 6665 R2 by Rep. Khanna. Log 6696 R1 by Rep. Alford. Log 6703 R1 by Rep. Khanna.

Log 6742 by Rep. Khanna. Log 6755 R1 by Rep. Jayapal. Log 6773 R1 by Rep. Conaway. Log 6782 by Rep. Bacon. Log 6821 by Rep. Whitesides.

Log 6850 by Rep. Fallon. And finally, Log 6851 by Rep. Kelly.

01:17:09 - 01:18:22

Mike Rogers

The question is on the en bloc package offered by Mr. Bacon. So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. The ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. If there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon, for the purpose of offering a motion.

Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation as amended.

The question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Nebraska. So many as in favor will say 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 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to the subcommittee print have concluded. The chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bergman, for any opening comments he'd like to make.

01:18:22 - 01:20:20

Jack Bergman

I thank the chairman for yielding. This mark is an unprecedented acceleration of the readiness of our armed forces.

This mark supports readiness 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 weapons systems that do not meet material readiness objectives.

Finally, these generational investments in the readiness of our forces are accompanied by a framework to measure 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 Sienicki, Drew Kennedy, Ethan Pelissier, Abby Schneider, Sapna Sharma, Mikaela Reardon, Wendell White, and my personal staff, Alexander Zender and David Cybert.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

01:20:23 - 01:20:33

Mike Rogers

Chair recognizes the... now recognizes the Subcommittee on Readiness ranking member, the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi, for opening comments he'd like to have.

01:20:33 - 01:23:35

John Garamendi

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. 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, Mikaela Reardon, Dave Sienicki, Drew Kennedy, Ethan Pelissier, Abby Schneider, and on my personal staff, Robert Hurd, Sophia, and Eli Diaz also have all provided 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 weapons 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 subcommittees 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 warfighters 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 Army pre-positioned 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 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.

01:23:36 - 01:23:51

Mike Rogers

I thank the gentleman. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? We will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Bergman for the purpose of offering an en bloc amendment.

01:23:52 - 01:24:00

Jack Bergman

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.

01:24:00 - 01:24:11

Mike Rogers

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.

01:24:13 - 01:26:43

Jack Bergman

En bloc package number one is comprised of the following: Log 5724 by Rep Scott, Log 5762 R2 by Rep Finstad, Log 5770 R1 by Rep Luttrell, Log 5774 by Rep Finstad, Log 5775 by Rep Kelly, Log 5791 by Rep Moulton, Log 5796 R2 by Rep Gooden, Log 5798 by Rep Strickland, Log 5801 R1 by Rep Strickland, Log 5813 R1 by Rep Vasquez, Log 5818 R1 by Rep Strickland, Log 5820 R2 by Rep Jackson, Log 5822 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 5831 R3 by Rep Vasquez, Log 5847 by Rep Hamadeh, Log 5855 R1 by Rep Bergman, Log 5867 by Rep Scott, Log 5871 by Rep Scott, Log 5881 by Rep Harrigan, Log 5890 by Rep Bergman, Log 5893 by Rep Bergman, Log 5897 by Rep Tokuda, Log 5907 by Rep Scott, Log 5908 by Rep Tokuda, Log 5916 R2 by Rep Vasquez, Log 5919 by Rep Tokuda, Log 5937 R2 by Rep Jackson, Log 5952 R1 by Rep Tokuda, Log 5956 by Rep Tokuda, Log 5999 R1 by Rep Wittman, Log 6034 by Rep Wittman, Log 6049 by Rep Bergman, Log 6057 by Rep Houlihan, Log 6064 R1 by Rep Harrigan, Log 6069 by Rep Bergman, Log 6136 by Rep Moulton, Log 6157 R1 by Rep Fallon, Log 6165 by Rep Crow, Log 6174 R1 by Rep Mezmer, Log 6175 by Rep Fallon, Log 6177 by Rep Fallon, Log 6198 by Rep Mezmer, and Log 6199 by Rep McGuire.

01:26:46 - 01:27:08

Mike Rogers

Questions on the en bloc package offered by Mr. Bergman. So many as in favor will say aye.

Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment en bloc is agreed to. We will now consider en bloc package number two. The chair recognizes Mr. Bergman for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

01:27:08 - 01:27:15

Jack Bergman

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.

01:27:15 - 01:27:24

Mike Rogers

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 his en bloc amendment.

01:27:26 - 01:30:05

Jack Bergman

En bloc package number two is comprised of the following: Log 6200 R1 by Rep Elfreth, Log 6213 by Rep Maguire, Log 6222 R1 by Rep Harrigan, Log 6236 R1 by Rep Harrigan, Log 6261 by Rep Maguire, Log 6291 by Rep Scott, Log 6308 R3 by Delegate Moylan, Log 6317 by Rep Sorensen, Log 6329 R1 by Rep Courtney, Log 6361 R2 by Rep Amodei, Log 6364 R1 by Rep Amodei, Log 6370 by Rep Amodei, Log 6380 R1 by Rep Bergman, Log 6381 R1 by Rep Gooden, Log 6405 R4 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6407 R1 by Rep Amodei, Log 6489 by Rep Jackson, Log 6492 R1 by Rep Scott, Log 6494 by Rep Jackson, Log 6538 R1 by Rep Fallon, Log 6544 by Rep Bergman, Log 6546 R1 by Rep Jacobs, Log 6559 R2 by Rep Bergman, Log 6580 R1 by Rep Van Orden, Log 6583 R3 by Rep Bacon, Log 6597 R1 by Rep Wilson, Log 6604 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6605 by Rep Ryan, Log 6610 by Rep Khanna, Log 6686 by Rep Scott, Log 6690 R1 by Rep Bergman, Log 6692 by Rep Bergman, Log 6694 R1 by Rep Elfreth, Log 6695 by Rep Scott, Log 6737 R2 by Rep DeLuzio, Log 6743 by Rep Sorensen, Log 6786 by Rep Garamendi, Log 6793 by Rep DesJarlais, Log 6804 R1 by Rep Cisneros, Log 6806 R1 by Rep Bergman, Log 6807 by Rep Bergman, Log 6849 by Rep Tran, Log 6870 by Rep Rogers.

01:30:10 - 01:30:34

Mike Rogers

Is there further discussion on the en bloc package? Question is now on the en bloc package offered by Mr. Bergman. So many as are in favor will say 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, Mr. Bergman, for the purpose of offering a motion.

01:30:34 - 01:30:39

Jack Bergman

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

01:30:40 - 01:31:17

Mike Rogers

Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Michigan. So many as are 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 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of all amendments to this subcommittee print have concluded. The chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, for any comments he would like to make.

01:31:17 - 01:33:45

Pat Fallon

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 paid 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 have to have them. We also increased access to dental care for junior enlisted National Guard and children under 12 at on-post dental clinics.

And continuing our focus on military healthcare, we continue our support to research into cutting-edge medical technology to care for our service members and their families with 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 DOD, which is an absolute must. I want to thank my ranking member Chrissy Houlahan from Pennsylvania. We worked very well together in the last couple of years and we really appreciate that. And our and my personal office staff, Andrew Bond, James Knuckles, and Hannah Crossman.

And lastly, I want to acknowledge our superstars on the committee staff level. They are gold coins for our republic. And I want to especially mention Dave Giacchetti, Hannah Kaufman, Ellie Bender, and Alexandria Evers, and also Ilka Regino and Michaela Reardon. They've all worked tirelessly and always in a bipartisan manner to develop the subcommittee print. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

01:33:45 - 01:33:53

Mike Rogers

Chair now recognizes the member of subcommittee on military personnel, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, the ranking member, for any opening comments she'd like to have.

01:33:53 - 01:36:48

Chrissy Houlahan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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 and Representative Fallon for his partnership in making sure that we always have kept our North Star as the lives and livelihoods of our service men and women and their families. The mark includes a targeted pay raise in which more junior service members will get higher raises and increases. These improvements to service members' paychecks should provide a very welcome relief to 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 excludes the BAH or basic housing allowance from a service member's household income so a 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 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 access to healthcare 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 childcare by including an au pair in the childcare 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 military families executing a permanent change of station receive timely and relevant relocation assistance, information about available childcare 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 committee staff efforts, especially Elka, Michaela, Hannah and Dave and those who are back in our office working diligently, hello to you and thank you.

Very grateful for the opportunity to work together on this bipartisan markup today and I yield back.

01:36:48 - 01:36:56

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee print? We will now consider en bloc package number one. The chair recognizes Mr. Fallon for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

01:36:56 - 01:37:03

Pat Fallon

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

01:37:03 - 01:37:14

Mike Rogers

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.

01:37:14 - 01:39:09

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. En bloc package number one is comprised of the following: Log 5716 R1 by Rep. Bergman, Log 5717 R1 by Rep. Bergman, Log 5725 by Rep. Scott, Log 5726 by Rep. Scott, Log 5727 by Rep. Scott, Log 5730 by Rep. Houlahan, Log 5731 R1 by Rep. Houlahan, Log 5733 by Rep. Houlahan, Log 5734 by Rep. Jacobs, Log 5736 R2 by Rep. Houlahan, Log 5737 by Rep. Jacobs, Log 5746 by Rep. Houlahan, Log 5757 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5758 R1 by Rep. Bergman, Log 5759 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5760 R1 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5772 by Rep. Luttrell, Log 5778 by Rep. Hamadeh, Log 5779 by Rep. Hamadeh, Log 5780 by Rep. Kiggans, Log 5799 by Rep. Strickland, Log 5805 R1 by Rep. Gimenez, Log 5811 by Rep. Hamadeh, Log 5827 by Rep. Luttrell, Log 5834 R1 by Delegate Moylan, Log 5837 by Rep. Scott, Log 5857 by Rep. Bergman, Log 5859 R2 by Rep. Jackson, Log 5861 R1 by Rep. Bergman, Log 5873 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5884 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5891 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5892 by Rep. Turner, Log 5898 R1 by Rep. Davis, Log 5899 R1 by Rep. Kiggans, Log 5902 by Rep. Kiggans, Log 5903 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5915 by Rep. Jackson, Log 5925 R1 by Rep. Scott, Log 5927 R2 by Rep. Scott, Log 5941 R1 by Rep. Finstad, Log 5942 R2 by Rep. Harrigan, Log 5946 by Rep. De La Cruz, Log 5951 by Rep. De La Cruz.

01:39:32 - 01:39:39

Mike Rogers

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

01:39:40 - 01:39:55

Mike Rogers

Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendments are agreed to. We will now consider en bloc package number two. The chair recognizes Mr. Fallon for the purpose of offering the en bloc amendment.

01:39:55 - 01:40:01

Pat Fallon

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

01:40:01 - 01:40:13

Mike Rogers

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

01:40:13 - 01:42:05

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. En bloc package number two is comprised of the following: Log 5983 by Rep Cisneros, Log 5986 R1 by Rep Cisneros, Log 5994 R2 by Rep Cisneros, Log 6013 R1 by Rep Kelly, Log 6014 R1 by Rep Crow, Log 6023 by Rep Kelly, Log 6035 by Rep Wittman, Log 6058 by Rep Tokuda, Log 6072 by Rep Keating, Log 6089 by Rep Houlahan, Log 6090 by Rep Ryan, Log 6103 by Rep Gooden, Log 6109 R1 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6111 R1 by Rep Meuser, Log 6119 by Rep Bacon, Log 6125 by Rep Wenstrup, Log 6129 R2 by Rep Bacon, Log 6130 R1 by Rep Fallon, Log 6133 R2 by Rep Bacon, Log 6153 R1 by Rep Meuser, Log 6156 R1 by Rep Meuser, Log 6168 R1 by Rep Fallon, Log 6172 R1 by Rep Bacon, Log 6182 R1 by Rep Fallon, Log 6185 by Rep Khanna, Log 6188 R1 by Rep Fallon, Log 6218 R1 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6219 R3 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6221 by Rep Scott, Log 6234 R2 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6235 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6239 by Rep Bell, Log 6242 R2 by Rep Bell, Log 6252 by Rep Kiggans, Log 6256 by Rep Crow, Log 6263 by Rep Ryan, Log 6273 R1 by Rep Scott, Log 6275 R1 by Rep Scott, Log 6281 by Rep Bacon, Log 6293 by Rep Khanna, Log 6296 R2 by Rep Khanna, Log 6304 by Rep Whitesides, Log 6305 by Rep Whitesides, Log 6316 R1 by Rep Sorensen, Log 6318 by Rep Courtney, Log 6319 R1 by Rep Sorensen, Log 6350 R1 by Delegate Moylan, Log 6351 R1 by Rep Amodei, Log 6356 R1 by Rep Wenstrup, Log 6373 by Rep Kiggans. That's it.

Question is on en bloc package offered by Mr. Fallon. You're good, man. The question is on en bloc package offered by Mr. Fallon. So many in favor will say aye.

01:42:05 - 01:42:40

Mike Rogers

Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. We will now consider en bloc package number three. The chair recognizes Mr. Fallon for the purpose of speed reading en bloc package number three.

01:42:40 - 01:42:44

Pat Fallon

I was telling Mr. Jackson I got a little lightheaded. I got the doctor right here though, thankfully.

01:42:44 - 01:42:51

Speaker 18

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

01:42:51 - 01:43:03

Speaker 17

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

01:43:03 - 01:44:58

Pat Fallon

En bloc package number three is combined of the following: Log 6382 R2 by Rep Houlahan, Log 6389 R3 by Rep Houlahan, Log 6390 R1 by Rep Houlahan, Log 6395 by Rep Harrigan, Log 6396 R1 by Rep Wittman, Log 6401 R1 by Rep Wilson, Log 6406 by Rep Alford, Log 6411 by Rep Alford, Log 6420 by Rep Wilson, Log 6323 by Rep Tokuda, Log 6425 R1 by Delegate Moylan, Log 6433 by Rep Tokuda, Log 6434 by Rep Alford, Log 6445 by Rep Fallon, Log 6472 R1 by Rep Goodlander, Log 6471 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 6478 R2 by Rep Goodlander, Log 6481 R1 by Rep Goodlander, Log 6485 by Rep Higgins, Log 6504 R1 by Rep Gooden, Log 6513 R4 by Rep Wittman, Log 6519 by Rep Goodlander, Log 6523 by Rep Fallon, Log 6550 R2 by Rep Amodei, Log 6568 R1 by Rep Wittman, Log 6570 R1 by Rep Amodei, Log 6576 R1 by Rep Bacon, Log 6587 by Rep Crow, Log 6593 R1 by Rep Bacon, Log 6601 by Rep Jacobs, Log 6603 R2 by Rep Jacobs, Log 6606 R1 by Rep Ryan, Log 6608 by Rep Ryan, Log 6613 R2 by Rep Carbajal, Log 6632 by Rep Scott, Log 6643 R1 by Rep McCormick, Log 6667 R1 by Rep Sorensen, Log 6769 by Rep Wittman, Log 6684 R2 by Rep Gooden, Log 6693 R1 by Rep Wittman, Log 6702 by Rep Davis, Log 6711 by Rep Strickland, Log 6731 by Rep McCormick, Log 6758 by Rep Jacobs, Log 6770 R1 by Delegate Moylan, Log 6771 by Rep Ryan, Log 6794 by Rep Fallon, Log 6867 by Rep Strickland.

01:44:59 - 01:45:41

Mike Rogers

Question is on the en bloc package offered by Mr. Fallon. So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed no. Opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the en bloc package is agreed to. If there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon for the purpose of offering a motion.

01:45:41 - 01:45:47

Pat Fallon

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

01:45:50 - 01:46:27

Mike Rogers

If there are no further amendments chair says, question occurs on the motion from the gentleman from Texas. So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed no. A 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 17 and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments to this particular subcommittee print until consideration of the amendments to this subcommittee print have concluded.

Chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Jackson for any opening comments he'd like to make.

01:46:27 - 01:49:45

Ronny Jackson

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 warfighters, intelligence professionals, and security cooperation community to execute their mission at speed and scale. 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 surveillance, known as UTS, UTS functions and and to develop a strategy for research, development, and procurement of secure communications, obfuscation technologies, sorry. The UTS threat is well known and we need a streamlined focused effort within the department to get solutions to our warfighters. Next the subcommittee print invests in a wide range of intelligence capabilities and disciplines to better enable leaders to make threat-informed decisions in an increasingly complex world.

We direct new periodic 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. We deliver to the security cooperation enterprise additional authorities needed to broaden the capacity to work with partners and allies. This ISO print provides 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 1.3 billion for US Special Operations Command to cover approximately half of the items on SOCOM's unfunded priority list, such as the Skyraider 2. 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 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 the future battlefield, no matter where or when that threat arises. It is our Article 1 responsibility to ensure we provide the men and women, the service members and civilians who volunteer to serve in these roles and with these capabilities 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 Greene, Alex Eigelhart, 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 Greene.

As many of you know, Craig will be retiring at the end of this year, making this his final House Armed Services Committee NDAA markup. He has helped shepherd through 17 NDAAs over the course of his remarkable 18-year tenure on this committee and I wish him all the best in his upcoming retirement. With that, Mr. Chair I yield back.

01:49:45 - 01:50:13

Speaker 21

Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on intelligence and special operations, the gentleman from Colorado Mr. Crow for any opening statements.

01:50:14 - 01:53:23

Jason Crow

Thank you Mr. Chairman and I would also like to thank Chairman Jackson for his leadership and all of our subcommittee members for developing a high-quality mark in a bipartisan fashion. 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 counterintelligence investigations, providing needed protections at home and abroad.

It also makes progress on 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. This country and this committee invest substantial sums of money, billions of taxpayer dollars, on our partners and allies on 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. 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 have 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 new technologies. Then I will close just on the process of this committee. I want to thank especially Chairman Jackson, my friend Chairman Jackson, who has done a wonderful job of setting a tone for this committee to make sure we keep it bipartisan, to make sure that we have rigorous debates, because we don't always agree, but we do so respectfully. And we have put out a quality product that I think is befitting the service and the sacrifice of our military. And for that, I'm extremely grateful for your service.

Both Chairman Jackson and I have military backgrounds, military service is important to our families, so this is a personal endeavor for both of us as well. And I think we can say that this committee, we have endeavored to have this committee be high speed, low drag, just like the special operators that we endeavor to serve. I will reiterate the chairman's thanks to our incredible staff: Will Johnson, Craig Greene, Alex Egelhart, Austin Richards, Mark Morehouse, and Katie Quinn, who do all the hard work here to make sure that we land the plane. Thank you for your support 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, prepared, and they do incredible work to prepare the product that you see before us today.

So with that, thank you again, and I yield back.

01:53:23 - 01:53:39

Mike Rogers

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

01:53:40 - 01:53:46

Ronny Jackson

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.

01:53:46 - 01:54:06

Speaker 22

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

01:54:06 - 01:55:05

Ronny Jackson

En bloc package number one is comprised of the following: Log 5739 by Rep Scott, Log 5744 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 5747 by Rep Houlahan, Log 5792 by Rep Amodei, Log 5821 R1 by Rep Scott, Log 5889 R1 by Rep Amodei, Log 5913 by Rep Harrigan, Log 5943 by Rep Jackson, Log 5945 by Rep Jackson, Log 5972 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 6162 R1 by Rep Fallon, Log 6194 by Rep Scott, Log 6202 by Rep Fallon, Log 6259 by Rep Jackson, Log 6268 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 6276 by Rep Jackson, Log 6289 R1 by Rep Jackson, Log 6412 R3 by Rep DesJarlais, Log 6424 by Rep Jackson, Log 6455 by Rep Wilson, Log 6474 by Rep Kelly, Log 6490 R2 by Rep Wilson, Log 6521 R1 by Rep Wilson, Log 6525 R1 by Rep Wilson, Log 6612 R1 by Rep Harrigan, and Log 6708 by Rep DesJarlais.

Question is on the en bloc package offered by Dr. Jackson. So many as are in favor will say aye.

01:55:05 - 01:55:31

Mike Rogers

Those opposed, no. The ayes have it and the amendments en bloc are agreed to. If there's no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Jackson, for the purpose of a motion.

01:55:32 - 01:55:37

Ronny Jackson

Mr. Chairman, I move to adopt the subcommittee print of the Subcommittee on Intelligence and Special Operations as amended.

01:55:37 - 01:55:41

Mike Rogers

Question occurs on the motion of the gentleman from Texas. So many as are in favor will say aye.

01:55:42 - 02:00:26

Mike Rogers

Those opposed, no. A 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 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone recorded votes on the amendments until a mutually 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 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 5741 R1 by Representative Bell, log 5795 by Representative Finstad, log 5849 by Representative Stefanik, log 5863 by Representative Finstad, log 5894 R1 by Representative Bell, log 5901 R1 by Representative Bergman, log 5954 R2 by Representative Finstad, log 6015 by Representative Kelly, log 6037 R2 by Representative Carbajal, log 6088 by Representative Ryan, log 6113 by Representative Harrigan, log 6154 by Representative Mesmer, log 6160 R3 by Representative Mesmer, log 6161 by Representative Harrigan, log 6178 R1 by Representative Mesmer, log 6298 by Representative Crank, log 6312 R2 by Representative Gooden, log 6323 by Representative Courtney, log 6391 R1 by Representative Wenstrup, log 6491 R1 by Representative Whitesides, log 6506 R1 by Representative Wittman, log 6536 R1 by Representative Wittman, log 6566 R3 by Representative Wittman, log 6573 R1 by Representative Wittman, log 6599 R1 by Representative Gooden, log 6680 by Representative Rogers, log 6687 R2 by Representative Scott, log 6697 R4 by Representative Elfrith, log 6699 R2 by Representative Elfrith, log 6720 by Representative DeLuzio, log 6728 by Representative DeLuzio, log 6730 by Representative DeLuzio, log 6779 by Representative Kelly, log 6788 by Representative Scott, log 6789 by Representative Scott, log 6864 R1 by Representative Khanna, log 6866 by Representative Garamendi, log 5806 R4 by Representative Jimenez, log 5929 R2 by Representative Turner, log 6097 R1 by Representative Davis, log 6169 R2 by Representative Harrigan, log 6186 by Representative Moulton, log 6193 R2 by Representative Mesmer, log 6250 R1 by Representative Gooden, log 6286 by Representative McCormick.

Log 6169 R2 by Representative Harrison. Log 6186 by Representative Moulton. Log 6193 R2 by Representative Mesmer. Log 6250 R1 by Representative Gooden. Log 6286 by Representative McCormick.

Log 6340 by Representative Norcross. Log 6456 R1 by Representative Kelly. Log 6480 R1 by Representative Elfrith. Log 6734 by Representative Graves. Log 6043 R1 by Representative Kelly.

Log 6126 R2 by Representative Higgins. Log 6215 by Representative Higgins. Log 6581 R1 by Representative Higgins. Log 6594 by Representative Norcross. Log 6637 R4 by Representative Gooden.

Log 6046 R2 by Representative Horgan. Log 6614 R2 by Representative Horgan. Log 6083 by Representative Bergman. Log 6549 R2 by Representative Luttrell. Log 5816 R1 by Representative Carbajal.

Log 5853 R1 by Representative Stefanik. Log 5923 R2 by Representative Turner. Log 5934 R1 by Representative Turner. Log 6042 R3 by Representative Horgan. Question is on en bloc package number one.

So many in favor will say aye.

02:00:27 - 02:02:41

Mike Rogers

Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the en bloc package is agreed to. Okay, we will now consider en bloc package number two. I ask unanimous consent that en bloc package number two consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority is called up. Without objection so ordered.

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 6053 R2 by Representative Bergman. Log 6056 R2 by Representative Horgan.

Log 6059 R3 by Representative Horgan. Log 6061 R2 by Representative Horgan. Log 6073 R1 by Representative Houlahan. Log 6115 R4 by Representative Gooden. Log 6146 R3 by Representative Mesmer.

Log 6195 R2 by Representative Mesmer. Log 6205 R2 by Representative Takuda. Log 6624 R1 by Representative Gooden. Log 6232 R1 by Representative Higgins. Log 6325 R2 by Representative Hamaday.

Log 6512 R2 by Representative Hamaday. Log 6735 R2 by Representative Graves. Log 6775 by Representative Whitesides. Log 5935 R4 by Representative Finstad. Log 6078 R1 by Representative Vendeman.

Log 6290 by Representative Gooden. Log 6307 by Representative Courtney. Log 6392 R2 by Representative Kelly. Log 6561 R1 by Representative Crank. Log 6574 R1 by Representative Higgins.

Log 5742 by Rep. Scott, log 5750 R2 by Representative Houlahan, log 5800 R1 by Representative Vasquez, log 5830 R3 by Representative Scott, log 5870 R2 by Representative Scott, log 5872 R1 by Representative Scott, log 5936 R1 by Representative Bergman, log 5957 R1 by Representative Tokuda, log 5961 R3 by Representative Beall, log 5996 R1 by Representative Cisneros, log 6076 R2 by Representative Keating, log 6121 R2 by Representative Wilson, log 6151 R1 by Representative Crow, log 6192 R1 by Representative Hamaday, log 6246 R4 by Representative Crow, log 6249 R4 by Representative Crow, log 6251 R1 by Representative Keating, log 6274 R1 by Representative Hamaday, log 6278 R3 by Representative Keating, log 6366 R3 by Representative Venman, log 6422 R2 by Representative Wilson, log 6447 R2 by Representative Wilson, log 6542 by Representative Jacobs, log 6548 R3 by Representative Wilson, log 6590 R2 by Representative Wilson, log 6615 R4 by Representative Hamaday, log 6660 R1 by Representative Vasquez, log 6677 by Representative Rogers, log 6683 R2 by Representative Jacobs, log 6688 by Representative Scott, log 6732 R2 by Representative Scott, log 6733 R3 by Representative Crow, log 6760 by Representative Jacobs, log 6772 by Representative Scott, log 6809 R2 by Representative Vasquez. Question is on en bloc package number two. Some as in favor will say aye.

Log 6740 by Representative Rogers.

02:04:39 - 02:05:00

Mike Rogers

Those opposed no. In the chair the ayes have it and the en bloc package number two is agreed to. Okay. We will now consider log number 6834 by Mr. Smith. For what purposes is the gentleman seek recognition?

02:05:00 - 02:05:02

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

02:05:04 - 02:05:24

Mike Rogers

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

02:05:25 - 02:08:20

Adam Smith

I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This will be an offer and withdraw, this has a sequential referral to it and I understand that. It's really just to make the point I made in my opening, which I know very few people seem terribly interested in, but this amendment would raise taxes by a lot over the course of ten years, basically two hundred billion dollars a year would get us up 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 they don't get taxed on income, so they get stock options. But you would think, well you cash out a stock option, you at least pay capital gains on it. But 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 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. And that is absurd, okay. And I'm not, you know, I don't want to soak the rich and 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, because I go beyond the billionaire stuff.

The billionaire stuff is relatively, well, I say it's relatively easy, except we haven't done anything about it to date. But we should be able to address that issue. But everyone has to pay taxes, even the no taxes on overtime, no taxes on tips. You get rid of, nobody wants to pay taxes, but if you're going to want a 1.5 trillion dollar defense budget, somebody's going to have to pay for it. And we've decided just not to do that.

And I think this is insane. And I think we need to fundamentally change this debate. If you want to make a passionate case, 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 ought to be willing to pay for it. And we've just decided, nope, we're going to take it, put it all on a credit card and hope for the best. So I do have to withdraw this amendment, but look at it.

This is what we would realistically need to do if we want to spend this money. And if you don't want to raise these taxes, fine, okay, then get the hell out of here with the 1.66 trillion dollar defense budget. You know, don't keep putting it on a credit card and imagining that somehow we can get something for nothing. So I withdraw this amendment. I have one other one here, but I have to withdraw the amendment because of sequential referral.

I yield back.

02:08:20 - 02:08:41

Mike Rogers

Chair thanks the gentleman for withdrawing their amendment and I withdraw my point of order. Before we go to the next item, I did want to let people know that lunch is available in the anteroom, courtesy of Whip Emmer, anybody wants to eat. We will now consider log number 6843 by Mr. Smith. For what purposes is the gentleman seek recognition?

02:08:41 - 02:08:42

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

02:08:42 - 02:08:52

Mike Rogers

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

02:08:52 - 02:11:59

Adam Smith

This is the same thing, only smaller. This is what it would take to raise, I think, 250 billion over 10 instead of every year. And the thing to think about this, this I think a lot of people would consider painful as well. It's got increases in marginal rates and a bunch of different other issues. But this is nothing.

I mean, this is 200, 250 billion dollars over 10 years. We're increasing the defense budget, or trying to increase the defense budget, by 500 billion dollars this year, this year alone. This is how the numbers are just completely out of whack in terms of how we're 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 want to 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 in any point since the end of World War II.

And that's absolutely true. But the two things about that, one, at the end of World War II, there was no Medicare and there was no Medicaid, okay? We have significantly increased our social welfare state, and I don't see hardly anyone standing up and saying we want to get rid of that stuff. I certainly don't. All right, so that circumstance has fundamentally changed.

But the other circumstance that I want to remind people of, the top tax rate at that time period was over 90 percent, 9-0. So if we want to go back to spending as much money on defense as we did at the end of World War II, but we want a top tax rate that's roughly a third, I mean, again, the math just doesn't add up. It's insane. The capital gains rate was two-thirds, 66 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 50%. 5-0.

Cut it from 66 to 50. All right? And now I forget, I think it's like 18% now. So I realize this is a losing argument. Nobody wants to hear it.

But we have to start hearing it. We know enough to basically say that we're concerned about fiscal responsibility and the debt. But I love the fact that right after we passed a 4-point-something trillion dollar increase in the debt and the deficit in 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's the way we've decided to do it.

It's like, oh no, facts, reality, they don't matter. You say I'm not fiscally conservative? I voted for a balanced budget amendment. Okay, what the hell does that mean when you vote to increase the debt by $4 trillion? You know, believe me, reality is a pain in the ass.

I'm 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 driving ourselves into the ground and I just wanted to make the point that we should stop. And with that, I withdraw this amendment.

02:11:59 - 02:12:17

Mike Rogers

The chair thanks the gentleman for withdrawing the amendment and I withdraw my point of order. We will now consider log number 6123R1 by Mr. Moulton. For what purposes does the gentleman seek recognition?

02:12:17 - 02:12:18

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

02:12:19 - 02:12:27

Mike Rogers

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

02:12:27 - 02:15:27

Seth Moulton

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would cut the $1.15 trillion top line by $150 billion to strengthen our country and our national defense. The world is passing us and our troops by when 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 airplanes. 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 proven that a $500 drone can incinerate a $5 million 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 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.

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 are 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 $600 billion 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 level on record and lifted nearly three million children out of poverty in a single year.

Imagine what $600 billion would do for innovation. After World War II, 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 a 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.

02:15:27 - 02:16:46

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Now, fully funding the FY27 president's budget is absolutely critical given the unprecedented global threat environment we face. Our adversaries are growing stronger. The PLA has modernized their military force and is 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 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 budget in nearly 40 years that fully funds the cost of American deterrence and American deterrence is expensive. But I don't want to live in a world where deterrence fails. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Is anybody else seeking recognition?

Mr. Carbajal first, I'm sorry, Mr. Crow.

02:16:46 - 02:18:01

Jason Crow

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This year we are considering a $1.5 trillion as part of the proposed defense budget. Today we are considering $1.1 trillion for the NDAA. Our national security is paramount and there are critical investments we must make in keep our country safe and to take care of our warfighters. 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, healthcare, 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 Hextheth a blank check. I yield back.

02:18:01 - 02:18:08

Speaker 23

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes ranking member.

02:18:08 - 02:21:18

Adam Smith

Thank you. And building off of my previous comments about the let's raise taxes to pay for it, since we're not going to raise taxes to pay for it, 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 going to have to live with a realistic amount of money. And this $150 billion 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 there'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 picture in this country. 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 going to enable us to meet our munitions need in a much more cost-effective manner.

I also think, to Mr. 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. We can form partnerships and alliances. We can engage in diplomacy to to find a way to peacefully coexist with adversaries. We can do that.

We're going to 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 have 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 as 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 are in a worse position in terms of achieving our national security needs. The Strait of Hormuz is shut down and the hardliners are more empowered 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 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.

02:21:18 - 02:21:22

Speaker 25

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crow.

02:21:22 - 02:23:52

Jason Crow

Thank you, Chairman. I want to reiterate what Ranking Member Smith said about Congressman Moulton's amendment, which I support. I just can't in good conscience vote for an over trillion dollar defense budget when we have 20 million Americans at risk of losing healthcare, 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 have to make tough decisions and we have Americans dying, losing their homes, farms going under, and I just cannot in good conscience turn a blind eye to 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 better 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 warfighters than we are currently delivering them. And I know that's true because Ukraine is doing it right now.

They are, for pennies on the dollar, reinventing modern warfare, going toe-to-toe with a military multiple times their size and winning. And am I to believe that America can't do that? Am I 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 will do the right thing by Americans, the right thing by my constituents, and will actually create an incentive for reform and change to make America stronger, to make America more agile, and to do right by our men and women in uniform. I yield back.

02:23:52 - 02:23:55

Speaker 27

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes Dr. Conway.

02:23:55 - 02:26:33

James Conway

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise, or rather not rise, well I am rising, I'll rise, to speak in support of this amendment. 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 bring to the field, our military readiness, and the deterrence that we create. And as the ranking member has mentioned time and time again, you know, our strength is in our economic security and the budgets we're, the deficits we are running, mitigate or rather that strength 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 30% 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 hardworking Americans who cannot afford an extra $50 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 their fuel to run their machinery, they can't afford the fertilizer to plant crops in the fields. We're seeing bankruptcies across the farming community, increased suicides as well because of the economic dislocations that are caused to that, that we're bringing to that sector. Instead, the administration is asking members of this very committee and hardworking 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 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, we should know where the money's going, and so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Gentleman yields back.

02:26:33 - 02:26:39

Speaker 26

Chair now recognizes gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan.

02:26:40 - 02:28:22

Patrick Ryan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to join my colleagues in supporting this amendment and thanking Mr. Moulton for introducing this important amendment. 37% year-over-year in the base budget, almost 50% from last year overall, 1.5 trillion dollars.

This just does not pass the common sense test and 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 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 rising 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 Hegseth want 1.5 trillion dollars more of my constituents' hard-earned taxpayer dollars to raise gas prices even more? Are you kidding me? And that doesn't even mention the dumpster fire that is Hegseth's 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 the House voted with the American people and said we should pull back from.

What 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 1.5 trillion dollar blank check. I yield back, Mr. Chair.

02:28:22 - 02:28:38

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs.

02:28:38 - 02:31:25

Sara Jacobs

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1.142 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 going to pay for it. Last year, Congressional Republicans cut close to a trillion dollars from Medicaid and 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 850,000 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 40,000 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 150 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 1.2 trillion dollars more?

Truthfully, I think we should be cutting even more than the 150 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 II 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.

02:31:25 - 02:33:39

Jill Tokuda

Gentlelady yields back, chair now recognizes gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Kuda.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to reduce the defense top line by 150 billion dollars. Last year Congress appropriated 839 billion for defense. Today we are considering a bill with 1.15 trillion in discretionary defense spending alone, a 37 percent increase in a single year. And that's before you add the administration's request for another 350 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 member's 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 everyday Americans, it adds to our overall debt, which will be borne on the backs of our children.

We've seen them take nearly 200 billion dollars in cuts from SNAP, cuts to healthcare, cuts to childcare, 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 healthcare 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 100 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.

02:33:39 - 02:33:49

Speaker 32

Gentlelady yields back, chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Khanna.

02:33:49 - 02:35:38

Ro Khanna

Mr. Chairman, I support Congressman Moulton's amendment so we do not have a nearly 1.2 trillion dollar defense budget. You know, that's 65 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 childcare here in America, instead of going for healthcare in America. You know, someone greater than everyone collectively on this committee warned about that. Dwight Eisenhower, who won World War II, 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 deindustrialized 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. Khanna, Khanna, there's another no. And I warned they would raise this budget to over a trillion dollars.

And they said, Ro, 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.

02:35:41 - 02:35:47

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.

02:35:47 - 02:38:22

John Garamendi

Thank you, Mr. 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 and Democrats are saying, wait a minute, we can't afford that, think about fiscal responsibility, think about the debt, think about how we're going to pay for it. Whoa, what's going on?

What's going on is that finally the members of this committee, at least on the Democratic side, are saying, whoa, whoa, 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 want to 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, healthcare, 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 some time to my colleague, the author of the amendment, Mr. Moulton.

02:38:22 - 02:38:42

Seth Moulton

I want to thank my friend from California. I agree with his points and the points of my colleagues. I also wanted to bring this home for Americans because we throw around these big numbers in Washington. One trillion, trillions, billions, 1.5 doesn't even sound like that much. This defense bill equates to about $7,500 per taxpayer.

That's the cost. You got an extra $7,500 lying around on your kitchen counter? I don't think so.

02:38:42 - 02:38:52

Speaker 34

Gentleman's time's expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vindman.

02:38:52 - 02:39:20

Eugene Vindman

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So today marks the 500th day of the second Trump administration. And I think at this point we can see clearly what the president's priorities are. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter into the record an article from April 3rd from the New York Times titled "War with Iran Clarifies Trump's Spending Priorities: The Military, Not Childcare."

02:39:20 - 02:39:21

Without objection, so ordered.

02:39:22 - 02:41:15

Eugene Vindman

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, very in the early days of this administration, a group of us were in front of USAID headquarters and we're talking about the fact that they're shuttering an agency that the budget was about $40 billion. And my point there was that if we're going to cut a $40 billion budget, then we need to drastically increase the defense budget because, you know, the elements of national power are not only military, but they're diplomatic, information, and economic. And here we are now at 500 days and that's exactly what we have in this $1.5 trillion budget.

It's a massive increase. It comes at the expense of providing healthcare, childcare, 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 childcare and healthcare. And by the way, we could also slash spending on boondoggles like slush funds for a Golden Dome, which still nobody fully understands, or Trump-class battleship. So our children and our grandchildren will be shouldering the burden of these 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.

02:41:15 - 02:41:25

Mike Rogers

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

02:41:26 - 02:41:26

Those opposed will say no.

02:41:27 - 02:41:30

Mike Rogers

Opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment's not agreed to.

02:41:31 - 02:41:32

We'd like a recorded vote.

02:41:32 - 02:41:46

Mike Rogers

Recorded vote is requested and will be postponed until a later time. We will now consider log number 6087 by Mr. Smith of Washington. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

02:41:47 - 02:41:48

I have an amendment at the desk.

02:41:48 - 02:41:56

Mike Rogers

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

02:41:56 - 02:43:46

Adam Smith

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 amendment for the day. I will not be taking up everybody's time for the whole rest of the evening. But this is about the battleship.

Mr. Courtney alluded to that in his opening remarks in the Seapower 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. This, I believe, is currently estimated to cost north of $20 billion. Whatever the number is, I'm going to give you right now one of the surest fire Kelsey bets you will ever have: take the over. Whatever they come up with the number, it's going to wind up higher.

We cannot afford to be trying to build a 20 plus billion dollar solution in the midst of our fiscal reality. Now, Mr. Courtney is going to 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. 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 20 plus billion dollar hole on a battleship that also doesn't make any defense needs. But I will leave that to my sea power 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, that would go towards the battleship. Now, that's not going to get us the 150 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 with that I yield back.

02:43:46 - 02:44:45

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. The battleship is not a new concept. There has been a requirement for a large surface combatant for decades. The battleship was born out of the studies conducted for the DDGX 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. We all agree that the Navy needs a large surface combatant for distributed marine operations, maritime operations. This amendment would compromise the delivery of future large surface combatant by preventing procurement of long lead time materials and stalling critical advancements in the Navy's ship design process. I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same. Chair now recognizes Mr. Courtney of Connecticut.

02:44:47 - 02:47:43

Joe Courtney

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is true, this is a concept that's been around for quite a while. The last time we built a battleship was in 1944, the Iowa class battleships, it was the USS Missouri. The concept of the battleship was announced last December down at Mar-a-Lago, where again, we didn't have any designs, we didn't have any studies in terms of analysis that normally goes into starting a new class of any ship. What we did have was an AI generated picture on a poster board that showed lots of kind of bombs going off and, you know, lots of, you know, pretty images that really almost looked like a cartoon.

So we have now in this mark before us a billion dollars which, again, if you read the language, it's 390 million to go to detailed design. Again, I want to emphasize the point, there is no design that exists and that's what some of this money was allocated for. And 610 million that actually goes for long lead items. So they're ordering actually, you know, fabricated parts and steel for a ship that does not even exist in terms of a design concept. It is the exact opposite of what every lesson that we've learned in terms of failures of shipbuilding and ship construction, whether it was the Zumwalt class, which again, was construction started before design was complete, Littoral Combat Ship, same thing, and the cruiser CGX program, which also collapsed.

So again, from a just purely shipbuilding sequential, you know, intelligent approach, this proposal before us, again, is way premature and unvetted.

8 billion dollars. So it's going from 1 billion to 16 billion dollars really in about 18 months period of time for a platform that has no design. I want to quickly just end by saying last in April of 2022, the Russian flagship, the Moskva, was sunk by two missiles fired by the Ukraine's Neptune system. It has a 200-mile range. And again, that was the flagship of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea.

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-21 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 1944 and even in 2014. The world is changing fast. We need that distributed lethality that Mr. Smith, we don't need a lumbering, vulnerable battleship.

Mr. Chair, I'd ask to enter into the record Trump's big battleship is a sitting duck from Admiral James Stavridis, a four-star Navy officer who was the head of European Command.

02:47:43 - 02:47:45

Without objection, so ordered.

02:47:45 - 02:47:45

I yield back.

02:47:45 - 02:47:49

Speaker 36

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.

02:47:49 - 02:50:40

John Garamendi

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following on the discussion that took place earlier with Mr. Moulton's amendment to cut 150, it does get down to the hard work. It gets down to arms, a ship or an airplane, and decisions have to be made. This is the follow-up on the discussion that we just had with Moulton's amendment about cutting 150 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 1940 battleship or maybe a 2014 battleship? Doesn't make any sense today. And what we are, what we must do as members of this committee is precisely what Chairman, Ranking Member Smith has put on and followed up with Mr. 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 battleship makes absolutely no sense yesterday, makes no sense today, and tomorrow, as the Admiral said, it's a sitting duck.

Thousands of sailors on it, soon to be at the bottom of the sea, taken out by, I don't know, a couple hundred thousand dollar missile. So we need to be very responsible here. And 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 150 billion dollars, it's actually 500 billion dollars of new spending for the military, of which 3 to 400 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 ask that this amendment be adopted and that we begin the process of fiscal responsibility and programmatic responsibility. And so with that, I would yield back.

And for those who have their heads still spinning, think about what is being cut out in the President's budget: healthcare, food, education, hospitals, all of those things, transportation, all of those are being cut to build a battleship? Give me a break. With that, I yield back.

02:50:40 - 02:50:43

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton.

02:50:52 - 02:52:20

Seth Moulton

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the work that you do and the difficult job that you have, and so I'd like to quote the chairman when I can. And he said earlier that this is not a new concept. Well, indeed, it is not. The last time we built a battleship was in 1944.

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. And while I'm against the corrupt prediction market, I'm going to make a prediction. This vanity project is going to vanish. It's going to 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 Republicans just depart over the last few minutes of this debate, not wanting to be caught here while this amendment is debated. It's also notable that when I proposed cutting 150 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 priorities.

02:52:20 - 02:52:25

Speaker 37

But this Republican did.

02:52:25 - 02:52:34

Speaker 38

That's right, Mr. Chairman, which is why I quoted you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your charity.

02:52:34 - 02:52:38

Speaker 39

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.

02:52:39 - 02:54:21

Gilbert Cisneros

Thank you, Mr. 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 not going to fix that at all. Program after program has been shot down, turned down, stopped, billions spent on the LCS program, which ships were starting to be decommissioned just as soon as the program was started. 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, manless ships that they could put out there, right, frigates, things that were more agile to put out there in the sea. That was what they were looking for. That's what they need. You know, the Marine Corps could say, like, 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, and this Trump battleship has none of those.

There's no 16-inch gun on there, there's not even a 5-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 Mr. Moulton just said, a vanity project for the president to stroke his ego because he has to have everything, you know, bigger and larger than anything else that was ever built, and so, you know, he's going to build the biggest, best battleship that was ever out there, and the damn things are probably going to be painted gold too. But this is not what the Navy's asking for. It's not what they need.

As soon as this administration is gone, they will scrap the program, and anything that is put into this now, it's just going to be a waste of money that we'll never ever get back. And with that, I yield back.

02:54:21 - 02:54:25

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Veneman.

02:54:26 - 02:56:46

Eugene Vindman

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, this 17 billion dollar project is being included as a matter of military necessity.

So I have a simple test here. Let's rename the class of battleship to the Obama class. Or better yet, maybe the Washington class, given that we are now approaching the 250th anniversary of 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 modern battlefield is cheaper, smaller, distributed, and in some cases unmanned systems. China can field dozens of DF-26 ballistic missiles for under a billion dollars. These missiles are at most 20 million dollars each, and a single Trump class battleship estimated at 17 billion dollars on the low end, you can sink that vessel at that expense a thousand times based on the missiles that are available to the Chinese. That does not represent a sound investment and it is a waste of finite shipbuilding dollars.

When survivability rests on lasers, railguns, and interceptors that don't exist yet, this makes this project even more questionable. So as a big proponent of small drones, the 17 billion dollars would enable us to buy three and a half million dollars of 5,000 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 when smaller, distributed, unmanned 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 platform, let's just rename it the Washington class and see where it goes then.

With that I yield back.

02:56:50 - 02:57:18

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? If there's no further debate, question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Smith. So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no.

Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested, a recorded vote will be postponed to a later time. We now consider log number 6681 by Ms. Jacobs of California. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

02:57:19 - 02:57:21

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

02:57:21 - 02:57:27

Mike Rogers

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.

02:57:27 - 03:00:02

Sara Jacobs

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I first would like to thank my colleague Congressman Luttrell for his partnership on this amendment. We're going to miss him next year. My amendment would ban the transfer of cluster munitions. In 2021, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor found that over 97 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 1993, the United States has spent nearly 5 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 100 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 cluster munitions to deter the use of cluster munitions by our adversaries. But imagine applying that 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. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.

03:00:02 - 03:01:29

Robert Wittman

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand in opposition to the amendment. 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 2008 Convention for Cluster Munitions and you see that our near-peer adversaries like China and Russia are not signatories to that, and when we look at the challenges that we face around the world, our adversaries, you know, are producing weapons that have a much higher dud rate than our weapons do.

Our weapons are much, much more reliable, and therefore the assertions that Ms. Jacobs makes about the harm potentially for civilians through unintended exposure there is something that is less likely to happen with our weapons than it is for our opponents' 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.

03:01:29 - 03:01:34

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson.

03:01:34 - 03:03:25

Joe 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 by Congressman Wittman in previous debates, the munitions the US possesses has only a 2.35 percent failure rate, while those developed after 2018 have a dud rate of 1 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 Iranian attacks on our partners in the Gulf. We must not forget the mass murder of October 7, 2023, by Iranian puppets into Israel.

We should be promoting peace through strength, standing with Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. 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 31-year Army veteran myself with four sons who've served in Iraq, 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.

03:03:25 - 03:03:48

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate? Seeing none, we now will consider amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs. All in favor will say aye.

03:03:48 - 03:03:49

Those opposed, no.

03:03:49 - 03:03:54

Mike Rogers

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

03:03:54 - 03:03:56

Speaker 42

Chairman, I request a recorded vote.

03:03:56 - 03:04:13

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady requests a recorded vote. A recorded vote is ordered, it will be postponed to a later date. We will now consider log number 6537 R1 by Ms. Jacobs of California. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

03:04:13 - 03:04:15

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

03:04:15 - 03:04:23

Mike Rogers

Would 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.

03:04:23 - 03:06:19

Sara Jacobs

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would establish human rights offices modeled after the one at SOUTHCOM 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 reflects this too. One of the strongest indicators for recruitment and radicalization of violent extremism is state-sponsored violence against you or someone you know. 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. 30 years ago, SOUTHCOM became the first combatant command to establish a dedicated human rights office. Over the years, SOUTHCOM'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 2024, SOUTHCOM Commander General Laura Richardson called this office a huge enabler for SOUTHCOM that has helped them build deeper relations with partner countries over the years.

That's why we should have these offices in all of our combatant commands. These offices would have dedicated teams that focus on human rights, engage with civil society and partner nations, implement bipartisan laws and policies that Congress has already passed, like the Combating Trafficking in Persons policy. This should be a basic capacity that all of our combatant commands have. I urge my colleagues to vote yes. I yield back.

03:06:19 - 03:06:55

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Chair recognizes himself. I agree that human rights are important. However, the combatant commands are already staffed by military lawyers whose jobs are to advise our combatant commanders on the law and procedure governing human rights and civilian harm.

Creating an office 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? Gentlelady Ms. Strickland is recognized.

03:06:55 - 03:07:04

Marilyn Strickland

Thank you very much. I'd like to yield the balance of my time to Congresswoman Jacobs.

03:07:05 - 03:07:23

Sara Jacobs

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 language last year even though you asked for that language in the first place. So, 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.

03:07:23 - 03:07:41

Mike Rogers

Is there further debate on the amendment? Seeing none, so many as are in favor of the bill will say aye. Those opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

03:07:41 - 03:07:42

Chairman, record a vote.

03:07:43 - 03:08:12

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady requests a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered, be postponed to a later time. We will now consider amendment number 6453R1 by Dr. Jackson. Let's see. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment?

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman now for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

03:08:12 - 03:09:51

Ronny Jackson

Thank you, Mr. 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 250 years, American cattle producers have supplied our military with beef to sustain our warfighters. 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, and private sector companies that can do this R&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.

03:09:51 - 03:11:35

Sara Jacobs

Gentleman yields back. Is there further? Gentlelady from California, Ms. 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 it's the 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. But BioMADE 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. Fearmongering about research efforts could push potentially valuable technologies overseas, 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.

03:11:35 - 03:11:47

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? There's no further debate. Question occurs on the amendment offered by Dr. Jackson. So many as in favor will say aye.

03:11:47 - 03:11:47

Those opposed, no.

03:11:48 - 03:11:50

Mike Rogers

Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.

03:11:50 - 03:11:53

Speaker 45

I'd like to request a recorded vote, please.

03:11:53 - 03:12:17

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady seeks a recorded vote. Recorded vote's ordered, to be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 6081 R1 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina. For what purpose does the gentlewoman seek recognition?

03:12:17 - 03:12:18

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

03:12:18 - 03:12:25

Speaker 47

Would the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment's dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

03:12:26 - 03:14:36

Nancy Mace

Thank you, Mr. 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. Leadership training slots, promotion boards, command assignments, all of it increasingly filtered through the lens of demographic outcomes rather than demonstrated ability and merit. It was discrimination in disguise. We had a Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, more focused on diversity metrics than 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 Hegseth 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. If we want to guarantee that merit, not politics, not identity, not ideology, is the permanent foundation of our military personnel system, 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, no 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 in 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.

03:14:36 - 03:17:34

Marilyn Strickland

Gentlelady yields back. Does anybody seek recognition? Gentlelady, Ms. Washington, Ms. Strickland's recognized.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

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 military 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. This amendment substitutes congressional direction for professional military judgment and unnecessarily limits the flexibility that commanders need to manage the force.

At the time when the department is focused on deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, fighting a war in the Mid-East, supporting allies and partners, and maintaining global readiness, Congress must avoid inserting itself into routine personnel management decisions that are best left to military leaders. 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 requirement while offering no measurable benefit to the warfighter. For these reasons, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I yield back, Mr. Chair.

03:17:34 - 03:19:53

Gilbert Cisneros

Gentlelady yields back, chair now recognizes the gentleman, Mr. 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 is based on political rhetoric. When I was at the Pentagon as Under Secretary of Personnel and 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 we talk about we need to promote 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 junior officers so that they couldn't see who they were and what they looked like. This basically is just one big lie to build political points on her election for governor in her state and is not based on anything on facts. And so with that, I oppose this amendment. In fact, the Army had a great program, the CAP program that was recently taken away, that helped ensure that the most selected people, that 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 giving somebody thousands of people to work for you, putting you in charge of a battalion or a brigade, and you never ever interviewed for the job? This was a process that was done in order to improve the leaders that were selected, not only for command, but also for senior enlisted selection as well, positions as well. And unfortunately, the Army scrapped that program because, you know, it actually did have a benefit of getting more women selected, more people of color for command, because they had the merit and they had done the job performance in order to earn that. And that's what needs to be done. We need to ensure that we are selecting the top people, and that's what the military has always done, and programs that it has done and inserted in there to make as ensured to make there's a better process in order to do that.

And this amendment is just, again, based on political rhetoric and has nothing to do with truth. And for that, I encourage my colleagues to vote no on it. With that, I yield back.

03:19:55 - 03:20:16

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate? There's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. So many as in favor will say aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no. No. In the chair, the ayes have it. The amendment's agreed to.

03:20:16 - 03:20:18

I would like a recorded vote, please.

03:20:18 - 03:20:52

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady from Michigan asks for a recorded vote. Recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 5997R1 by Mr. Cisneros. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Goodness gracious.

Without objection, reading the amendment's dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

03:20:52 - 03:22:21

Gilbert Cisneros

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 culture 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 fiscal consequence to passing this amendment. And in reality, when we have 15% of the engineers in this country are only women and 3% of the engineers in this country are only black, what is wrong with a group of them coming together to support one another in achieving a goal that few have? It would allow individuals at all service academies to continue networking and building community. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.

03:22:21 - 03:22:23

Speaker 49

Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Alford, is recognized.

03:22:23 - 03:23:38

Sarah Elfreth

Thank you, Mr. 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 warfighting and readiness. But there is no conflict between military readiness and midshipmen studying 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.

03:23:39 - 03:24:29

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. 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, by extension, the taxpayer to fund and support DEI clubs at our service academies is wrong. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody seek recognition? If there's no further debate, question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Cisneros.

So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. The amendment is not agreed to.

03:24:31 - 03:24:32

Gentleman asks for a recorded vote.

03:24:33 - 03:25:06

Mike Rogers

Yes, sir. A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed to a later date, later time. Maybe a later day too. Maybe a later day too, that's right.

All right. We will now consider log number 6668R1 by Mr. Veasey. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

03:25:06 - 03:25:15

Speaker 52

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Department of Defense...

03:25:15 - 03:25:18

Speaker 51

For what purpose do you seek recognition? You have an amendment at the desk?

03:25:18 - 03:25:19

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

03:25:19 - 03:25:26

Mike Rogers

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

03:25:26 - 03:28:21

Speaker 53

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 conduct 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 divisive. It is one of the most universally recognized symbols of hatred in human history.

It represents racial supremacy, it represents antisemitism, violent extremism, 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 appear in military workplaces, they undermine unit cohesion, erode morale, and threaten the good order and discipline upon which military 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 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.

This is not controversial, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

03:28:22 - 03:28:47

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. I fully support Mr. Bell's amendment. This amendment would require Secretary Hicks to define what constitutes a hate symbol and issue regulations to prohibit their use. I too 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 Mr. Bell's amendment. Gentlelady Ms. Elfrith is recognized.

03:28:47 - 03:29:34

Sarah Elfreth

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for your support of this amendment. There's going to be a lot of nuanced and complex policy questions before this committee today, but this amendment is not one of them. I was shocked, I would hope everybody on this committee was shocked, when we all read the news last year that one of the services had downgraded swastikas, 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 a member of this committee, I agree, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the sponsor of the amendment.

This is a moment for all of us to come together. It's an opportunity to do the right thing, to unequivocally denounce these symbols of hate, and I urge a favorable vote and I yield back. Thank you.

03:29:34 - 03:29:39

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes Dr. Conaway from New Jersey.

03:29:40 - 03:31:14

James Conway

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your support of Mr. Bell's amendment. In New Jersey, the Anti-Defamation League recorded 719 anti-Semitic incidents in New Jersey, the second highest annual total ever documented in my state. Nearly one quarter of these incidents involve swastikas. Nationally, anti-Semitic incidents have reached record heights. The swastika is not graffiti; it represents extreme anti-Semitism and is a symbol that hundreds of thousands of American service members have died to defeat.

However, this administration has weakened the policy on swastikas and other anti-Semitic imagery.

A few mere months after this policy change, I was absolutely horrified that in my home state of New Jersey, a swastika was drawn on the bathroom wall at the Coast Guard Training Center in Cape May. While I was happy to see the Coast Guard reverse this policy change, we need to see such change across the services. We must reject antisemitism. 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. I strongly once again urge support for this amendment and I yield back.

03:31:14 - 03:32:34

Sara Jacobs

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs.

Thank you, Mr. 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 divisive 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 100%. I'm glad the outcry to this 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. 2025 ranked as the fifth highest year for hate crimes in the 34-year history of FBI-collected police data. We know antisemitism 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, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

03:32:34 - 03:32:50

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition to speak on this amendment? There's no further debate. The question occurs on the amendment by Mr. Bell. So many as in favor will say aye.

Aye. Those opposed, no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment's adopted.

03:32:50 - 03:32:56

Speaker 54

Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.

03:32:56 - 03:33:00

Speaker 55

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

03:32:56 - 03:33:01

Speaker 56

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

03:33:00 - 03:33:45

Mike Rogers

Okay, so we are not going to have a recorded vote. You want to stay in the bill. Okay. Yes. There was only one thing bad that could happen if we had a recorded vote and it might not pass.

All right, so the amendment's agreed to and no recorded vote. Now I've lost my track, my train of thought. And I didn't expect that. All right, we will now consider log number 6757 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

03:33:45 - 03:35:57

Nancy Mace

Mr. 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 now recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DEI is not about unity, it's about division, not about mission readiness but about indoctrination and racism. 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 achieve, quote, equitable outcomes. It was force-fed to warfighters 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 report would tell us what, if any, DEI metrics and racial quotas were used by promotion selection boards, any direction they've received from 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 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 compromised by DEI initiatives. And I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

03:35:57 - 03:36:05

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Is there any further debate? Gentlelady from Washington, Ms. Strickland, is recognized.

03:36:05 - 03:38:19

Marilyn Strickland

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this directive report language. To reiterate, the 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 directive further asks 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 reevaluate thousands of promotion decisions made over the last 10 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 also risks casting doubt on the legitimacy of promotions rightfully earned by thousands of service members who advanced through a merit-based promotion system. The men and women who earned 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 claim to be so concerned about.

Rather than relitigating personnel decisions from previous administrations for political points, this committee should focus on oversight efforts on the challenges facing our force today. There's so many challenges we are facing today. I urge opposition to this directive report language, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.

03:38:19 - 03:38:24

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.

03:38:24 - 03:41:09

Gilbert Cisneros

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this is just another amendment that's based on political rhetoric and nothing around fact. There has never no quotas or anything, and I would would welcome the any evidence that my colleague could provide suggesting that there was evidence of quotas or any other thing that said certain people should be selected while those who have the merit to get promoted should not because simply based on their sex or their color. No such policy existed.

Look, as the former chief diversity and inclusion officer of the Department of Defense, 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 military, not only for their leadership, but also as figures to enlisted people of color who they can look up to and aspire to be. It's unfortunate that Secretary Hicks 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. Military advancement 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 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, antiquated vision of what some of my colleagues here believe America should look like. To my colleague, to my colleague who continue to say that recruitment and retention were down because of DEI, they are mistaken.

In Trump's present first term, he cut recruitment funding. Representation matters. If there were no white men in service, would it have been inconceivable 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 be investigated is simply wrong because it has never been a policy. Right, and again, I would ask my colleague if she has any proof of quotas or anything that there was policy 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.

03:41:10 - 03:41:26

Mike Rogers

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

Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

03:41:26 - 03:41:27

I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chair.

03:41:27 - 03:41:56

Mike Rogers

A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote is ordered and we will be postponed until a later time. We will now consider log number 6656R1 by Mr. Crow. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

03:41:56 - 03:41:57

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

03:41:57 - 03:44:18

Jason Crow

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is pretty straightforward. It provides that judge advocate generals 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 in 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. They are a limited and specialized resource.

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 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 recently authorized up to 600 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 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 divide and prevent the use and prevent the abuse 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 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 and join me in doing so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

03:44:19 - 03:45:11

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. This is a direct attack on the administration, 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 US attorneys for years. That role has been expanded in the current administration to assist other agencies in defense of the homeland, national security priority, and great experience and training for our uniformed officers.

I trust the 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 national security purposes and prevent our judge advocates from getting invaluable training as judges and assistant US attorneys. Anybody else seek recognition? Gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.

03:45:11 - 03:46:26

Joe Wilson

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I'm very grateful that I've had 30 years experience as a staff judge advocate. It was one of the highlights of my life in the National Guard. Our services were so important for hurricane recovery and relief, and now the National Guard gets to serve all around the world. And by having JAGs capable of handling different issues, whether it be at MK Air Base in Romania, Novo Selo Base in Bulgaria, or at Pristina, Kosovo that I've visited with our Guard personnel.

And also we have Guard personnel, thank goodness, 400 have just been assigned here to provide for security in Washington, DC. So over and over again, I know the capabilities of JAG. Additionally, I'm a JAG dad. My oldest son, Alan, has been the staff judge advocate for the state of South Carolina, currently the Attorney General of South Carolina. And so I deal with them almost every day on different issues that indeed our JAG officers are independent, they follow the law, they're dedicated to the Constitution, and we do not need this amendment at all.

It's interference with the capabilities of the very talented people who are judge advocate general. With that, I yield back.

03:46:26 - 03:46:33

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.

03:46:33 - 03:48:18

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do respectfully and very respectfully oppose this amendment as well because we're talking about limiting and preventing, and I trust our fine judge advocates.

And preventing military judge advocates from being assigned to other positions in the government that don't have a military nexus is very limiting. We want flexibility to serve, to have them serve the Republic, and they're going to gain invaluable experience. Not everybody that enters the military is going to go career. That's great when they do, but if they choose to go in and serve for say a six-year tour and then have even a breadth of experience, it's going to help them when they go into the civilian sector and the private sector. And it's also going to help on recruiting as well because they're going to know that, listen, I can get a lot of invaluable experience and training and hone, 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 that we can trust who uphold the greatest professionalism. I think we all agree on that. And the Secretary 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 that we don't want to overextend our attorneys and place them in jobs outside the department if we can't fill our legal billets in the military service. But nonetheless, we can, and the JAGs, advocate generals, are going to 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 closely managed by the uniformed judge advocate generals. Therefore, I have to oppose this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

03:48:19 - 03:48:44

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? I'm sorry. Well, certainly. Jacobs, I'm sorry, Mr. Crow, Ms. Jacobs just bumped you.

03:48:44 - 03:48:44

No, I'm yielding to him.

03:48:45 - 03:48:45

Thank you to you both.

03:48:45 - 03:48:47

Okay. I was trying to get to you.

03:48:47 - 03:49:35

Jason Crow

I just wanted to clarify one thing, that the language of this amendment does not prevent JAGs from serving as special assistant US attorneys or any other assignment for that matter. All it does is it clarifies that they can only prosecute cases and serve in functions that have a legitimate military nexus. They can't just do civilian law enforcement. So it's a very defined, very defined amendment here 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. And this amendment is consistent with honoring that service and not assigning them to do 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.

03:49:31 - 03:50:26

Mike Rogers

Okay, the gentleman yields back to Ms. Jacobs, who now yields back to the chair. So does anybody seek further recognition to debate this issue? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Crow. As many as in favor will say aye. Aye.

Those opposed, no. No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Recorded vote is requested, a recorded vote is ordered, it will be postponed to a later time. For everybody's situational awareness, we are going to pause for a series of recorded votes for everything that's in the queue at 2:00 PM, which is 25 minutes from now.

So for all the member offices out there, find your member and let them know we need them to be present to make their recorded votes at 2:00. All right, now we will consider log number 6815 by Mr. Garamendi. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

03:50:26 - 03:50:27

I have an amendment.

03:50:27 - 03:50:45

Mike Rogers

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

03:50:45 - 03:51:08

Speaker 57

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment requires the Department of Defense to submit written readiness assessments when military units are to provide civilian support to civilians.

03:50:51 - 03:50:57

Mike Rogers

Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

03:50:58 - 03:53:41

John Garamendi

Thank you, Mr. 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 for more than 30 days, including in that report the mission's description, the personnel and equipment to be used, combat readiness to be lost, delayed or cancelled training, and the total cost broken down by reimbursable and non-reimbursable funding. We've seen the 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 deployments. 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 $589 million, more than double what was initially anticipated 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. So what are we doing here? We simply want to be aware of what all of this has caused the military to lose its readiness in the various units that have been deployed. So the department would have to report to us, 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 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. It does allow a 30-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 what the deployment means for a particular unit and its ability to perform the normal military functions. With that, I yield back.

03:53:41 - 03:54:15

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. 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 1053, which requires the department to provide us notice of a request for assistance for support of operations within 30 days of initiating an operation and every 90 days thereafter. I support our National Guard and President Trump's attempt to reduce lawlessness.

And does anybody else seek recognition? General Berg, recognized.

03:54:15 - 03:55:31

Jack Bergman

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate so much being able to work with Mr. Garamendi on the Readiness Subcommittee because we cover a wide variety of topics every year from a full spectrum viewpoint, and that's good news.

It helps to be the two oldest guys on the committee because we've been around a long time and seen a lot in the world. But in this particular case, I have to oppose the amendment. As the chairman already stated, I'm not going to restate what he said because that wastes time. And we don't want to waste time. But, you know, contrary to the presumption, 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 as needed under in cases whether it's, you know, Title 38, Title Title 10, whatever it happens to be in their or is it Title 32?

03:55:31 - 03:56:23

Jack Bergman

32. You know, it's, you know, numbers, but the point is that 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 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 want to 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 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.

03:56:24 - 03:56:32

Mike Rogers

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

03:56:33 - 03:56:35

Those opposed will say no.

03:56:35 - 03:56:53

Mike Rogers

Opinion of the chair, the nos have it. Recorded vote is requested, recorded vote is ordered to be postponed to a later time. Chair we will now consider log number 6808R1 by Mr. Carbajal. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition?

03:56:53 - 03:56:55

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

03:56:55 - 03:57:02

Mike Rogers

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

03:57:04 - 03:58:48

Jason Crow

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This administration wants to expand 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 shelf.

We should be positive that these offshore leases will not harm national security. This is all this amendment does. Both states are home to 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.

Mr. 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 22nd, 2026.

03:58:48 - 03:58:54

Speaker 59

Without objection, so ordered.

03:58:56 - 03:59:41

Jason Crow

Thank you. In the article, Rick Miller, a retired Navy captain and vice chair of Florida's Defense Alliance, is 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 2025 letter led by Senator 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. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to also enter this letter into the record.

03:59:42 - 03:59:43

Without objection, so ordered.

03:59:44 - 03:59:48

Jason Crow

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

03:59:48 - 04:00:48

Mike Rogers

The chair now recognizes himself. Regrettably, I have to oppose my good friend's amendment. This amendment would do nothing to prevent 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 interagency process in determining whether these agreements negatively impact military readiness. This would cut the Department out of discussions on projects off the coast of Florida or California. The Department opposes it, so I will oppose it as well. Does anybody else seek recognition on Mr. Carbajal's amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Carbajal.

So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

04:00:48 - 04:00:50

Mr. Chair, I ask for a recorded vote.

04:00:50 - 04:01:06

Mike Rogers

Gentleman asks 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, the amendment number 6769 by Mr. Ryan of New York. For what purpose does Mr. Ryan seek recognition?

04:01:07 - 04:01:10

Patrick Ryan

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

04:01:10 - 04:01:22

Mike Rogers

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

04:01:22 - 04:03:29

Patrick Ryan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On March 28th of this year, two AH-64 Apaches from the 101st Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Campbell made an unauthorized flight to the private home of Kid Rock, a person I never thought I'd be frankly talking about on the House Armed Services Committee, but yet here we are. Understandably, this raised a lot of questions about how something like this could happen. Even President Trump said the crew "probably shouldn't have been doing it" because "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 character's ridiculousness, made a deeply problematic and I think a pathetic decision to tweet out two days later, "Thank you Kid Rock, US Army pilot suspension lifted, no punishment, no investigation." So this amendment, Mr. 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 is there something deeper that he might be hiding or covering up?

I think it goes without saying 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 only inappropriate, it's a massive waste of money. It's dangerous, 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 cancelled. I would welcome debate or discussion with any of my colleagues who who disagree with just an investigation to this committee to explain to us what happened, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.

04:03:29 - 04:04:17

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, Chair recognizes himself. I'm not sure what we gain from a congressional investigation. I'm going to have to oppose this amendment. There's been extensive public reporting on the matter and the Secretary very publicly announced he was ending the Army's review and clearing the air clearing the aircrews. The Secretary has the clear legal authority to take these actions and he did so in a transparent manner.

I urge all members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? Gentleman Deluzio, Mr. Wa- I'm sorry, Mr. Whitesides was first, we recognize him. Go ahead, Mr. Whitesides.

04:04:17 - 04:05:00

George Whitesides

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I echo my colleague Congressman Ryan, this is common sense. On March 28th, two Army Apache helicopters made an unauthorized flight to the home of Kid Rock in Tennessee. The Army's 101st Combat Aviation Brigade leadership did what commanders are supposed to do: they initiated a review to gather the facts and to 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 cancelled 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.

04:05:00 - 04:05:09

Speaker 62

Gentleman yields back, Chair now recognizes Mr. Deluzio.

04:05:09 - 04:05:11

Christopher Deluzio

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll yield my time to Mr. Ryan of New York.

04:05:11 - 04:05:33

Patrick Ryan

Thank you, Mr. Deluzio. Mr. Chair, I just wanted to address something you said with great respect. This does not require some big congressional investigation. It is a very simple lightweight briefing to the committee on what happened. It has 11 very straightforward components to it.

Understand there's a lot going on, we're not trying to add more burden. So I just wanted to address that point, I yield back to Mr. Deluzio.

04:05:33 - 04:05:44

Christopher Deluzio

And I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

04:05:45 - 04:06:08

Mike Rogers

Those opposed say no. No. Opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested, a recorded vote is ordered to be postponed until a later time. Goodness gracious.

We will now consider log number 6429 by Ms. Takuda. For what purposes does the gentlelady seek recognition?

04:06:08 - 04:06:10

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

04:06:11 - 04:06:17

Mike Rogers

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.

04:06:17 - 04:09:01

Jill Tokuda

Thank you, Mr. 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 forces, 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. And if the department 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's-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 beaten 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, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

04:09:01 - 04:09:37

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Chair recognizes himself. 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 weapon 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 markup to provide the department with more risk-informed framework for updating these policies.

This amendment is duplicative of those efforts, therefore I oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? General Bacon's recognized.

04:09:37 - 04:10:40

Don Bacon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple concerns 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 because a lot of them they go into automation mode when they lose contact. Secondly, the amendment does not define what constitutes an operation of a weapon system. Approving a missile launch, deploying an unmanned vessel, selecting a target, and authorizing the use of force are all different types of decisions.

This amendment treats them as if they're the same. The department 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. Therefore, I recommend opposing the amendment.

04:10:40 - 04:10:47

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Garamendi.

04:10:47 - 04:12:37

John Garamendi

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Khanna has put before this committee a very, very important piece of legislation. There is discussion all over this nation in communities as well as in legislatures and also here in Congress about how to deal with AI. It is true that in the base text 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.

Mr. Khanna 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 text 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. Mr. Khanna's 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 the 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 an important step forward in understanding the use of AI in the military.

With that, I yield back.

04:12:37 - 04:13:36

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Is there further debate? Seeing no further calls for debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Khanna. So many as in favor will say aye. Those opposed say no.

Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote is ordered to be postponed for a few minutes. All right, we are going to take one more amendment, Mr. 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 going to 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 Mr. Moulton's bill. Okay, so we will now consider log number 6127 by Mr. Moulton.

For what purpose is the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?

04:13:37 - 04:13:38

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

04:13:38 - 04:13:45

Mike Rogers

Clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

04:13:45 - 04:16:32

Seth Moulton

Mr. Chairman, democracies require transparency. Since February 28th, 2026, the United States has been engaged in an unauthorized unilateral war of choice with Iran. We've seen our troops placed in the crosshairs of drone and missile attacks and 14 of them have been killed. Because the administration has 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, 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 $200 billion to cover this war was buried within a $1.5 trillion 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. How are we to even do our job on this committee if we don't understand what infrastructure needs to be replaced? We cannot properly exercise our constitutional 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 $1,200 per taxpayer it is costing if it turns out to be what the administration's initial request was for $200 billion.

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 we and the American taxpayer know what it costs. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

04:16:32 - 04:17:35

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Let's be clear: Operation Epic Fury is not a unilateral war of choice. For 47 years, the Iranian regime and its proxies murdered Americans, attacked our allies, and terrorized the Middle East. President Trump was clear: Iran must never 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 Fury delivered a devastating blow to those conventional military capabilities. Thanks to that success, thanks to the success of that operation, the President is extremely close to a deal that will end the threat from Iran once and for all. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition?

Gentleman, Mr. Sorensen from Illinois, and then Mr. Crow after that, and then Mr. Smith.

04:17:35 - 04:18:35

Eric Sorensen

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief so we can move along to votes. I strongly support Congressman Moulton's amendment. Americans cannot afford this war with Iran. Gas back home in Illinois is $5 a gallon.

Grocery prices are now going up because diesel is at $6 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 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.

04:18:35 - 04:18:37

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crow.

04:18:37 - 04:20:04

Jason Crow

Thank you, Chairman. I'm speaking in support of Mr. Moulton's very sensible amendment because, as Mr. 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.

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 want to know.

I actually am going to self-blind, I don't want to know how much this war costs, which raises the question, if you don't want to know how much the war costs, why? Are you afraid of that number? Are you afraid of what it's going to show and 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 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 then have the debate about whether or not this war is the right thing for the American people. I yield back.

04:20:04 - 04:20:08

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes the ranking member.

04:20:08 - 04:22:24

Adam Smith

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had 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 Mr. Crow just put it. That is exactly what this amendment is about.

Should we at least know what we're getting into? I am reminded of an argument on this when someone was pushing back on that notion and said, well, did Dwight Eisenhower ask what D-Day was going to cost? Yes, actually, he did. Okay, 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 is a major problem, major problem for this committee, for Congress in general.

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 ought to support this amendment and require more transparency in what's happening in 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 markup without talking about the Iran war and the colossal mistake that it was. We've heard a lot about the costs, and then we talk about, well, we blew up their navy, we blew up their air force, we blew up their missiles.

Well, what is it that Iran cannot do now that they could do before? Well, I guess the plausible thing is they can't do a full-scale invasion of their adversaries in the Middle East as easily. I don't think they could have done that before, but it's certainly harder for them to do now. But that's not what this was supposed to be about. This was supposed to be about breaking the hardline regime so they wouldn't be as hardline, ending their nuclear program, ending their capacity to build a ballistic missile and drone program, and ending their support for terrorist proxies.

We've 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 the Strait of Hormuz is on the table, and that's what has strengthened them. We've given them another point of leverage in the region. So we need more transparency on this. If we'd had more transparency up front, I don't think it would have happened.

So now we need really to know what the cost is and where it's going. So I support Mr. Moulton's amendment and I urge the committee to do the same.

04:22:24 - 04:22:34

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody seek recognition on Mr. Moulton's amendment? Seeing none, there's no further debate.

Question occurs on Mr. Moulton's amendment. So many as are in favor will say aye.

04:22:35 - 04:22:36

Those opposed no.

04:22:37 - 04:23:37

Mike Rogers

Opinion of the chair the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote is ordered and we will take that up in just a moment. Okay, we are now going to proceed to vote on those amendments where a recorded vote was ordered. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 6123R1 by Mr. Moulton and shall now resume those proceedings.

Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote using their assigned electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:23:37 - 04:23:42

Speaker 69

Ranking member will be voting yes.

04:23:42 - 04:24:24

Speaker 68

The clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. We're going to leave it open for a bit. It's the first one, we'll give everybody a shot at it. Mr. 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.

04:24:28 - 04:24:31

Speaker 67

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 25, the noes are 31.

04:24:32 - 04:24:53

Mike Rogers

The noes prevail and the amendment is not agreed to. We are now going to proceed to a vote on Mr. Smith's amendment number 6087. Question occurs on the amendment. The members will record their vote using electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:24:54 - 04:24:56

Ranking member will be voting aye.

04:24:56 - 04:25:19

Mike Rogers

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? Not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the votes.

04:25:23 - 04:25:26

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 26, the nays are 30.

04:25:26 - 04:25:43

Mike Rogers

The nays prevailed, the amendment's not agreed to. We will now to proceed to amendment log number 6081 by Ms. Jacobs. Question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:25:44 - 04:25:46

Ranking member will be voting no as well.

04:25:46 - 04:26:19

Mike Rogers

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? Seeing none, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

04:26:19 - 04:26:25

Speaker 65

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 14, the nays are 42.

04:26:25 - 04:26:37

Mike Rogers

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now move to amendment log number 6537R1 by Ms. Jacobs of California. Question occurs on the amendment. Member will record, the members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:26:38 - 04:26:40

Ranking member will be voting aye.

04:26:41 - 04:27:11

Speaker 68

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 record the vote.

04:27:13 - 04:27:15

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 29.

04:27:15 - 04:27:33

Mike Rogers

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now move to amendment number 6453R1 by Mr. Jackson. The question occurs on that amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

04:27:34 - 04:27:35

Ranking member will be voting no.

04:27:35 - 04:28:13

Speaker 68

Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Mr. Fallon, does Mr. Fallon wish to vote? Okay. Have all members voted? Any member wish to change his or her vote?

If not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

04:28:13 - 04:28:15

Speaker 67

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 20, the nays are 35.

04:28:15 - 04:28:33

Mike Rogers

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now turn to amendment number 6081R1 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

04:28:33 - 04:28:34

Ranking member will be voting no.

04:28:35 - 04:29:01

Speaker 68

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.

04:29:05 - 04:29:08

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 29, the nays are 26.

04:29:08 - 04:29:22

Mike Rogers

The amendment is agreed to. We will now be moving to amendment log number 5997R1 by Mr. Cisneros. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:29:23 - 04:29:25

Ranking member will be voting aye.

04:29:25 - 04:30:01

Speaker 68

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.

04:30:01 - 04:30:01

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 30.

04:30:01 - 04:30:15

Mike Rogers

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now be moving to log number 6757 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

04:30:16 - 04:30:19

Speaker 71

Ranking member will be voting no.

04:30:19 - 04:30:50

Speaker 68

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.

04:30:50 - 04:30:52

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 29, the nays are 28.

04:30:52 - 04:31:05

Mike Rogers

The amendment is agreed to. We will now be moving to log number 6656R1 by Mr. Crow of Colorado. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:31:05 - 04:31:08

Speaker 70

The ranking member will be voting aye.

04:31:08 - 04:31:34

Speaker 68

The 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.

04:31:37 - 04:31:40

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 26, the nays are 31.

04:31:40 - 04:31:52

Mike Rogers

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now move to log number 6815 by Mr. Garamendi of California. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:31:53 - 04:31:55

Speaker 72

The ranking member will be voting yes.

04:31:56 - 04:32:16

Speaker 68

The 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.

04:32:18 - 04:32:21

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 30.

04:32:21 - 04:32:33

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We will now move to log number 6808R1 by Mr. Carbajal of California. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:32:33 - 04:32:35

The ranking member will be voting yes.

04:32:35 - 04:33:00

Speaker 68

The 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.

04:33:00 - 04:33:03

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 30.

04:33:04 - 04:33:14

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We will now move to log number 6769 by Mr. Ryan of New York. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:33:15 - 04:33:16

The ranking member will be voting aye.

04:33:16 - 04:33:43

Speaker 68

The clerk will open the machine, 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.

04:33:43 - 04:33:46

Speaker 65

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 25, the nays are 32.

04:33:46 - 04:33:55

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. Now move to log number 6429 by Mr. Tokuda of Hawaii. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:33:55 - 04:33:57

Speaker 74

The ranking member will be voting aye.

04:33:57 - 04:34:33

Speaker 75

The 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.

04:34:36 - 04:34:41

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 26, the noes are 31.

04:34:42 - 04:34:58

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We now have our last recorded vote. It is log number 6127 for, well, for this series, by Mr. Moulton. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

04:34:58 - 04:35:00

Ranking member will be voting yes.

04:35:00 - 04:35:35

Speaker 68

Circle open machine and members will vote. Have all members voted? Give Mr. Bell just a second. Okay. Take your time.

Have all members voted? There you go. That's good. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

04:35:37 - 04:35:40

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 30.

04:35:40 - 04:35:54

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. All right, we will now return to regular order. Before we do, I want to take a minute and just tell you, I've been doing this 24 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 deserve an attaboy.

04:35:54 - 04:36:01

Speaker 76

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

04:36:01 - 04:36:27

Mike Rogers

As only Adam would say, it's early. That's the last word on that one, but yes. So far. All right. Where are we now on, where's my, all right, we'll now consider log number 6827 by Mr. Khanna of California.

For what purposes does the gentleman from California seek recognition?

04:36:27 - 04:36:29

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

04:36:30 - 04:36:36

Mike Rogers

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

04:36:36 - 04:39:13

Ro Khanna

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 can tell the American people 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 2024 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. Mr. Netanyahu actually wrote to a member of Congress to put this section 224 into the bill.

He says, I know that 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, cybersecurity, and next generation military platforms.

Why? Because 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, Mr. Chairman. We need to reject an amendment which 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 interest of this country, and I believe that when Donald Trump ran, he ran on America first. That includes American interests against any foreign country. We should have American sovereignty and make it clear that we strike 224. If we want to give aid to Israel, if we want to sell them weapons, that should be a vote for the entire Congress.

04:39:15 - 04:39:56

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East, and our cooperative programs enhance US national security by giving our warfighters access to cutting-edge technologies. Section 224 doesn't create any new programs within the Department of Defense. It simply designates a single senior official to coordinate existing initiatives.

Section 224 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 does anybody seek... Mr. Smith, ranking member is recognized.

04:39:56 - 04:42:51

Adam Smith

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 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, we had somebody now appointed to coordinate those programs. This 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 because we benefit from that technology development. We develop the weapon systems, and the reason that we have these partnerships with Israel where we may not have as many developed partners with 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 agree with the sentiments and the frustrations with the Netanyahu government. I strongly disagree with 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 because Ukraine is another partner that is having to fight and learn. We should develop drone technology, counter-drone technology, counter-missile technology. This is a partnership that benefits America. There's 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 want to 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.

04:42:52 - 04:43:03

Mike Rogers

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

04:43:00 - 04:43:25

Don Bacon

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 the Middle East and so I'll oppose the amendment. I'll yield back.

04:43:26 - 04:43:28

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes Mr. Wilson of South Carolina.

04:43:29 - 04:44:45

Joe Wilson

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 enemies who are trying existentially to murder all the people of Israel. And with that, we've learned so much about anti-missile capability and to protect the American people, to protect the people all of our allies from Turkey to Saudi Arabia back to Azerbaijan. And so also it should be known that it should be not a surprise that this is beneficial to the American people and that we have 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 not interconnected. And then we should also remember the Hamas Covenant of August 1988. And Article 7 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.

04:44:46 - 04:44:52

Speaker 77

Gentleman yields back, chair now recognizes Mr. Golden.

04:44:52 - 04:46:24

Jared Golden

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bottom line is Section 224 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 224 are really allowing a 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 224 does not do is reduce oversight of US military sales to foreign governments. It doesn't reduce oversight of cooperation with Israel.

It does not provide Israel with access to US military data. Section 224 does not give Israel control over US defense programs or supply chains. It does not provide any kind of backdoor 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.

04:46:24 - 04:46:26

Gentleman yields back, chair now recognizes gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs.

04:46:26 - 04:49:52

Sara 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 224 of this bill proposes. Since October of 2023, the Gaza Health Ministry has counted more than 70,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, a number that the Israeli military itself has now reportedly accepted. Another 1,079 Palestinians, at least 235 of them children, have been killed in the West Bank.

Settler violence has reached unprecedented levels, and the Israeli security cabinet has approved 34 settlements in the West Bank, another violation of international law. But even against that backdrop, section 224 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 provision, it is. Emerging technology is not an abstraction. It means cyber, and that is the one field where we have already had to act against an Israeli firm for turning its tools on us.

In 2021, the Commerce Department blacklisted NSO 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 have 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 reward that conduct.

This committee should enforce the laws we've already passed and condition offensive weapons as those laws require, not permanently entrench our militaries together with no strings attached. A clear majority of Americans, 60%, 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 224. I yield back.

04:49:52 - 04:49:54

Gentlelady yields back. Chair recognizes Dr. Jackson.

04:49:54 - 04:52:32

Ronny Jackson

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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. Khanna's talking about, but I never received a letter from the from the Prime Minister, so that's complete misinformation. 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 224 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.

NDAAs, but also ensures that we are turning our previous and current investments into real technological military advantages for US systems and warfighters. For example, last year's NDAA fully funded US-Israel cooperative missile defense programs including Iron Dome, Arrow, and David's Sling, as well as authorized funding to expand cooperation with Israel on counter-UAS initiatives, counter-UAS funding to expand cooperation with Israel, continue US-Israel anti-tunnel cooperation program, and establish a US-Israel defense industrial base 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 of the House and some on this committee that section 224 would merge the US and Israel militaries together. The provision clearly outlines that integration here means integrating useful 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 information 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 and US national security interests. Those stating that section 224 is a military merger by merger removing US sovereign command simply have not read or do not want to understand this provision. By supporting section 224, we can leverage combat-tested innovations to close our own capability gaps and stockpiles and ensure the US and Israel remain the most 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 224. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

04:52:32 - 04:52:36

Mike Rogers

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

04:52:37 - 04:55:11

Don Davis

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and to the ranking member. 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. This amendment would not stop the collaboration, however what it would do is hinder our ability to cooperate more efficiently. The spirit of section 224 is to help us better organize our efforts here it is again against bad actors around the world.

These bad actors are coordinating, they're working together in an 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 2024, Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, they sent a team of F-15Es. They went over within a 22-hour window and they began to knock about 80 missiles and drones out of the sky coming from Iran. Here's where I'm heading.

Modern warfare is quickly changing, quickly. Is it the best practice to use resources such as an AMRAAM against a $20,000 drone? We have learned so many lessons from Putin's war in Ukraine, 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 employ advanced technology? If peace is our goal, section 224 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 Seymour 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 and this country, I ask to reject this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back.

04:55:11 - 04:55:14

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.

04:55:15 - 04:55:53

Austin Scott

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support Mr. Jackson and what he has put into the base text of the bill. And I just want to remind my colleagues that there are over 50 Muslim-majority countries in this world. There is one Jewish-majority country in this world. If you want to 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.

04:55:54 - 04:56:04

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, is there further debate on this amendment? Seeing none, question occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Khanna. So many as are in favor of his amendment will say aye.

04:56:04 - 04:56:05

Those opposed say no.

04:56:05 - 04:56:20

Mike Rogers

Opinion of the chair, the nos have it. Amendment fails. We now move to log number 6378 by Ms. Houlahan. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

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

04:56:20 - 04:56:35

Speaker 83

Will the clerk please distribute the amendment. I asked the clerk to distribute the amendment, they're just trying to get seated.

04:56:35 - 04:56:40

Speaker 80

No problem. Mr. Chair, this amendment is called the prohibition of funds for partisan political merchandise on installations.

04:56:40 - 04:56:46

Speaker 81

Wait a minute, we need to let them distribute it first.

04:56:46 - 04:56:52

Mike Rogers

Okay, chair without objection the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, the chair recognizes the gentlelady for purposes of explaining her amendment.

04:56:52 - 04:58:21

Chrissy Houlahan

Mr. 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 nonpartisan 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 unauthorized outside vendors 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 is 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.

04:58:22 - 04:58:51

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back, chair recognizes himself. The apolitical nature of our military is essential for men and women in uniform to fight and win our nation's wars. Existing law and DOD policy already limits political speech, activity, and participation in partisan political activities on military installations. This amendment is not necessary, I oppose the amendment and urge others to do so. Does anyone else seek recognition?

Mr. Whitesides of California is recognized, and then we'll get to Mr. Ryan.

04:58:51 - 05:00:16

George Whitesides

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last June at Fort Bragg during the Army's 250th birthday celebration, vendors sold political merchandise on base, including MAGA hats and swag to soldiers in uniform. The Army itself called the vendor's 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 really 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 pre-selected 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 taxpayer dollars cannot be used for events that threaten that independence.

I urge support and I yield back.

05:00:16 - 05:00:17

Mr. Ryan of New York is recognized.

05:00:17 - 05:01:14

Patrick Ryan

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank my colleague Ms. Houlahan for leading this important amendment, and I agree with her comments and Mr. Whitesides'. I just wanted to address your point, Mr. Chair, with respect to 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 Ms. Houlahan and Mr. Whitesides shared. And again, 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 would hope we could come together and 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 is an important step and I urge all my colleagues to support this and again, thank Ms. Houlahan and yield back, Mr. Chair.

05:01:15 - 05:01:18

Speaker 85

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.

05:01:18 - 05:02:44

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So let's just chat real quickly about this. This amendment prohibits the use of funds to be used for partisan events at military 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 2 USC 441a, Federal Elections Campaign limitations on contributions and expenditures, 5 USC 7321, 7326 prohibits it, 10 USC 888, USMJ Article 88 prevents it, and I can go on and on. And there's 15 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, because in a different life I saw this very often, when Barack Obama was president, there were plenty of folks that were in the exchanges that were selling merchandise that supported him.

And that's that individual's right to purchase those items just like it is today, whether they're a civilian or a military. They can't wear it in uniform obviously or on duty, but they can certainly purchase it at their leisure. So for those very reasons and the US Constitution, I have to oppose this amendment and I yield back. Thank you.

05:02:47 - 05:02:57

Mike Rogers

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

05:02:58 - 05:02:59

Those opposed will say no.

05:03:00 - 05:03:01

Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

05:03:01 - 05:03:03

Mr. Chair, I request a recorded vote.

05:03:03 - 05:03:19

Mike Rogers

Recorded vote is requested. Recorded vote is ordered and postponed to a later time. We now consider log number 6882R3 by Ms. Houlahan. 6382R3 by Ms. Houlahan. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

05:03:19 - 05:03:21

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

05:03:21 - 05:03:30

Mike Rogers

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.

05:03:30 - 05:06:10

Chrissy Houlahan

Sure. Mr. Chair, this amendment 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 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 installations.

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 bases, we know this. We know this, it was how we were raised and it was how we served. When service members are publicly associated with 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 armed forces as being politically biased.

As I just said, 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, 2024 DOD IG, 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 citizens. 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. Fallon and I yield back.

05:06:10 - 05:06:39

Mike Rogers

The gentlelady yields back. Chair recognizes himself. 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 anyone else seek recognition?

Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.

05:06:39 - 05:06:55

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really just want to echo what you just said and for the sake of time, this is opposition 2.0. It's very similar to the other amendment that the member put forward. And this, there are already a myriad of laws on the books that prevent this. And again, this is merely messaging and it's unneeded.

05:06:57 - 05:06:58

And I yield back.

05:07:00 - 05:07:26

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on the amendment. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 6649 by Mr. Ryan of New York. For what purposes does the gentleman from New York seek recognition?

05:07:26 - 05:07:28

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

05:07:28 - 05:07:38

Mike Rogers

Will the clerk distribute the amendment? And without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York to explain his amendment.

05:07:38 - 05:10:15

Patrick Ryan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is one that I introduced last year. It's along the same sort of topic of politicization of our military, but takes a slightly different approach and one that I hope will appeal to my colleagues 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 1344.10, and it just makes that policy law. It just makes sure that 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 served grew up in, that we agree is necessary. It does not change or expand anything. It just makes sure it holds through 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 want to actually, I appreciate Mr. Fallon engaging in this.

You said something this year, actually, Mr. Fallon, that made me hope you might vote for my amendment. You said, "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 all the ranks. And 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.

President Trump went to Bragg this February, literally brought the Republican candidate 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. And then in September of 2025, the President gave a speech at the Navy's 250th 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 officers and soldiers of all ranks in an incredibly impossible position.

My amendment would just make clear what has already been policy. And again, I welcome the debate. We should have the debate here, 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.

I yield back, Mr. Chair.

05:10:15 - 05:10:22

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Anybody seek recognition? Mr. Vindman of Virginia.

05:10:22 - 05:11:26

Eugene Vindman

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I speak in favor of this amendment as well. It's a simple common-sense solution to a problem. What it does is enshrine into law what is currently policy.

And you know, a military installation is not a location for partisan political speech. It's a military community. The interests of a military community and commanders is to maintain good order and discipline on the 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 abide by certain rules. Military installations are not the places to have partisan political activities. Those constraints already exist, and this is just a common-sense way to enshrine what has been policy for decades. With that, I yield back.

05:11:28 - 05:11:56

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on Mr. Ryan's amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on Mr. Ryan's amendment. So many as are in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Recorded vote is requested. Recorded vote is ordered and postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 6386R6 by Ms. Houlahan of Pennsylvania. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

05:11:56 - 05:11:58

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

05:11:58 - 05:12:10

Mike Rogers

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.

05:12:10 - 05:14:18

Chrissy Houlahan

Mr. 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 for each wedding, from a Jewish altar to a plain non-denominational 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 or 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. Religious neutrality benefits 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. Please do read this amendment. This amendment protects the rights of all service members while preserving a military culture that by its very nature is united by mission and service to the nation. Thank you for your consideration and I yield.

05:14:19 - 05:14:50

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Chair recognizes himself. 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 religious discrimination. I'm also concerned that this may undermine the ability of our military chaplains to counsel service members who carry out the tenets of their faith.

I am very concerned about the unintended effects of legislating on faith issues. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? Gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs, and then we'll get to Mr. Fallon.

05:14:50 - 05:16:51

Sara Jacobs

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. In a public prayer delivered by Secretary Hegseth, he said that the American people should pray for victory every day on bended 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 1.3 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. So if it's already codified, why not codify it again, Mr. 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.

05:16:51 - 05:17:35

Pat Fallon

Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes Mr. Fallon.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this seems 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 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 chaplains' free exercise of their religion and therefore I have to vehemently oppose this amendment. Thank you very much. I yield back.

05:17:36 - 05:17:37

Chair now recognizes Mr. Ryan of New York.

05:17:37 - 05:18:32

Patrick Ryan

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to briefly address your points and Mr. Fallon's, I think that this is important. The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a long-established nonprofit literally committed to the free exercise of 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 by another advocacy group against this behavior. So in fact, there this has risen to a level of of unprecedented concern, at least in modern times, which again, as we've seen in other topics, we're not making this up.

We are needing to legislate on things that had previously been held as long-standing norms and and enshrined in 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.

05:18:34 - 05:18:48

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on this amendment offered by Ms. Houlahan. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

05:18:48 - 05:18:51

Speaker 86

Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

05:18:52 - 05:19:04

Mike Rogers

A recorded vote is requested. A recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed until a later time. We now consider log number 6132r2 by Mr. Moulton. For what purpose does the gentleman from Massachusetts seek recognition?

05:19:04 - 05:19:06

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

05:19:06 - 05:19:13

Mike Rogers

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

05:19:13 - 05:22:02

Seth Moulton

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 markup, 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 is 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 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 overreach. It plainly states that the Secretary cannot arbitrarily ban service members or ROTC 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. As a nation, we face complex, multi-domain global threats.

We need leaders who can outthink and out-innovate our adversaries. We do not make our military stronger by making our officers less educated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

05:22:02 - 05:22:51

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair recognizes himself. This provision is a direct attack on the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine 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 apply to medical school, it does not apply to ROTC, it does not apply to institutions receiving tuition assistance.

This amendment limits the Secretary's inherent authority to build a well-educated corps of senior strategic warfighters. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Moulton. So many as are in favor will say aye.

Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

05:22:51 - 05:23:12

Speaker 87

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

05:23:12 - 05:23:24

Speaker 88

The clerk will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York to explain her amendment.

05:23:24 - 05:26:00

Nancy Mace

This amendment is a small step towards correcting a 15-year error. The OMB Circular A-76 process is a tool by which the 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, Mr. Chairman, the A-76 process makes a determination whether certain services are inherently commercial in nature and if they can be better performed by commercial contractors, such as facilities maintenance, landscaping, some medical services, and custodial and janitorial services. For 15 years, there's been a government-wide moratorium on A-76 studies. As a result of this protectionist moratorium, some facilities 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 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 warfighting and training duties to 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.

This 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 seek alternatives to provide A-76 type services. Specifically, this amendment repeals a temporary suspension of A-76 services in the 2004 NDAA, repeals the delayed implementation of A-76 studies from the same 2004 NDAA, a repeal of the moratorium on A-76 competitions for military personnel medical services from the 2008 NDAA, and it creates an exemption for A-76 studies for certain facility services if the service has been delivered inadequately or not at all for a period of five years. And I urge all members to support this common-sense amendment, and I yield back.

05:26:00 - 05:28:27

Joe Courtney

The gentlelady yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I rise to oppose this amendment. The moratorium on A-76, which goes back to 2007, happened in response to really one of the most shocking, appalling, gut-wrenching scandals in terms of poor treatment of military veterans at Walter Reed Hospital that, again, was directly identified as caused by the A-76 program. Again, in 2000, the Bush administration implemented the A-76 competition in terms of alternative vendors for provision of services for federal programs. 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, again, just appalling conditions that veterans were living in.

Secretary Gates, the Secretary of Defense at the time, conducted a full review of the scandal that took place there. And again, the findings were that the A-76 process created a destabilizing effect on the ability to hire and retain qualified staff members to operate garrison functions. There were a number of officials whose heads rolled because again of the A-76 operations happened on their watch. Again, this committee as well as the Oversight Committee, and Mr. Wilson may recall again when that happened over at Walter Reed, again, it was just an appalling situation. The moratorium was put into effect and has stayed in effect for good reason, which is that again, the treatment of those patients at Walter Reed, who again, many of them were people who had served overseas in the Middle East, again, were again just being treated at a level that again, the entire Congress on a bipartisan basis rejected.

So again, I think that you know, the notion that somehow A-76 is going to come back and suddenly be different, I think the bitter, horrible experience that we saw play out in real life still in my opinion should make us very cautious and very unwilling to reverse back to putting A-76 back into place. And again, Mr. Chairman, I would put into the record the CRS report for Congress dated April 21st, 2007.

05:28:27 - 05:28:29

Speaker 89

Without objection, so ordered.

05:28:30 - 05:28:38

Joe Courtney

Which again references Secretary Gates's investigation, again identifying A-76 as the cause of the problems that happened at Walter Reed. And with that, I yield back.

05:28:39 - 05:28:46

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross.

05:28:46 - 05:30:34

Donald 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 back and put the moratorium on. But for the last 16 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 20 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 20 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 want to go back to the future and do exactly what we did before because you know what, we're going to get exactly what we got before. So I urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and I yield back the balance of my time.

05:30:34 - 05:30:36

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.

05:30:38 - 05:31:53

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you know, you're right, Walter Reed, what happened 20 years ago was atrocious. And that was 20 years ago. And in those 20 years, 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-76, inherently governmental functions are not.

Allowing this process to be used provides a number of positives for readiness and potential cost savings. For instance, RAND determined that despite some problems identified with the A-76 procedures, there may not be a way for commensurate savings to be achieved without A-76, and that the real problem may not have been budget issues, or may have been, rather, budget issues, but not the process itself. 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 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, I have to support vigorously and enthusiastically support this amendment.

Thank you, I yield back.

05:31:53 - 05:32:35

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? Question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. All in favor will say aye. Aye. Those opposed, no.

No. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Recorded vote is requested, recorded vote is ordered, and recorded vote will be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 6148 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

05:32:35 - 05:32:39

Speaker 90

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

05:32:39 - 05:32:45

Mike Rogers

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.

05:32:46 - 05:35:39

Nancy Mace

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, this amendment would 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 institutions of higher education, they are a crucible where the leaders of America's military are forged. The academies must remain uncompromising and relentless in their pursuit of excellence. 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, admitting less qualified minorities over more qualified candidates. This issue is exemplified by the story of a young woman.

This young woman was determined to attend West Point and serve our country as an officer in the United States Army. She had a 4.0 GPA, a black belt in martial arts, multiple varsity letters, a four-year participant in JROTC, was a JROTC group commander, a member of student council, attended Girls State, and was selected for National Honor Society. Simply put, she was exactly what the service academies are looking for, but she was white. Less qualified 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 in candidate score, but she was rejected because she didn't check the right demographic checkboxes, 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 30% 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, emphasizing 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 warfighters 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.

05:35:39 - 05:35:43

Speaker 92

Gentlelady yields back. Does anybody seek recognition? Gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Tokuda is recognized.

05:35:43 - 05:37:28

Jill Tokuda

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment is 23 pages of Washington micromanagement 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 115% instead of 100%. But the bigger problem isn't the math, it's the mindset.

This amendment would make academic metrics account for more than 90% 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 by a 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 amendment undermines and undervalues these very qualities, and I strongly urge our colleagues to oppose it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.

Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from Nebraska is recognized, General Bacon.

05:37:28 - 05:37:44

Mike Rogers

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

05:37:44 - 05:37:57

Don Bacon

I believe so. I mean, it's not just test scores, it's overall meritocracy. So the example I put forth, this was a well-rounded candidate, had high test scores and did well in every category, including volunteer work, etc., and she was rejected based on race.

05:37:57 - 05:38:09

Speaker 93

Okay. But 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, captains of teams.

05:38:09 - 05:38:13

Don Bacon

National Honor Society, it was the whole nine yards. It was encompassing more than just test scores.

05:38:13 - 05:38:15

Speaker 91

But so when you count the points, those could be included.

05:38:15 - 05:38:16

Yes, it's in there.

05:38:16 - 05:38:16

Okay, thank you.

05:38:16 - 05:38:20

Don Bacon

Does anybody seek recognition? Was it Ms. Strickland? Ms. Strickland of Washington is recognized.

05:38:20 - 05:39:00

Marilyn Strickland

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, Mr. Chair.

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, Mr. Chair.

05:38:58 - 05:39:07

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Ms. Elfreth, I'm sorry, is next.

Gentlelady yields back. Ms. Elfreth, I'm sorry, is next.

05:39:06 - 05:39:49

Sarah Elfreth

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't going to speak on this one, but I'm one of the few members of this committee...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't going to speak on this one, but 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 spend a significant amount of time in those board meetings talking about acceptance standards, whole person model, what we know to be one of the greatest indicators of success not just at 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 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 siblings. I mean, it's a whole person model that is already being used at these academies.

I think this amendment is absolutely unnecessary and I urge the committee to reject it. I yield back.

05:39:49 - 05:39:51

Speaker 95

Gentlelady yields back. Now the chair recognizes Mr. Vasquez.

05:39:51 - 05:40:08

Gabe Vasquez

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield the balance of my time to Ms. Tokuda.

05:40:08 - 05:41:34

Jill Tokuda

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 60% of the overall composite score and shall include the candidate's standardized test score, which shall be weighted at not less than 45% 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 10% of the overall composite score. Any subjectively based adjustment of the candidate composite score shall be limited to not more than 10% of the score before such an adjustment.

And candidate composite scores only shall be used to determine order of merit. And so when we talk about the whole person, which I think you're referring to, that we want to look not just at your test scores or your grade point average, and many students these days have well above a 4.0 because they're taking advanced placement classes, but we also want to 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 the true grit, resilience, competency, character, and leadership of an individual that's not always reflected in numbers on a transcript. And so I just want to make very clear what is in the direct language of the amendment and how this falls short of really truly capitalizing on those types of leadership opportunities like the ones you mentioned. Thank you very much and I yield back the time.

05:41:36 - 05:42:12

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Mr. Vasquez yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on Ms. Mace's amendment? The question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. So many as in favor will say aye.

Aye. Opposed no. No. Opinion of the chair the ayes have it. A recorded vote is requested.

A recorded vote is ordered and postponed for a later time. We will now consider log number 6635 R1 by Ms. Mace. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

05:42:12 - 05:42:14

Nancy Mace

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

05:42:14 - 05:42:23

Mike Rogers

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.

05:42:23 - 05:44:10

Nancy Mace

Thank you, Mr. 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, fluidity of sexuality and gender, and 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 to the SAT and ACT rooted in classical education. The test evaluates reading, writing, and math, imagine that, using texts 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 Test 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 test 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 be better suited for those who are homeschooled or attend private or parochial schools. Last year, Secretary Hegseth directed the military service academies to begin accepting the Classic Learning Test beginning in the 2027 admission cycle. This amendment would codify this action.

More than 320 colleges and universities nationwide now accept Classic Learning Test scores. It's time to ensure the service academies continue to do the same now and in the future, and I urge all members to support this amendment, and I yield back.

05:44:11 - 05:44:15

Speaker 97

Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes the ranking member.

05:44:15 - 05:49:44

Adam Smith

I thank you, Mr. Chair. I find this amendment fascinating because what CLT is, is it was a test that was generated because of the belief that the existing tests were biased. Okay, biased, I guess, pro-woke, 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 100% subjective. 100%.

It's thrown out there like, well, 2+2 is 4, and if you're saying it's 5, 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 want to say, no, it must be merit, is the notion that there are implicit biases in society that we need to take into account so that we don't miss out on talent. Now, Ms. 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 her 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. Okay, we want to act like no such bias existed. We're just going with merit. So we can see a bias, so much so that we require an entirely different test to make sure that we're not giving into that bias.

But our history of racism and bigotry and sexism and trans- and, sorry, you know, anti-gay feelings, ah, that's all irrelevant. 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? Now, admittedly, I'm biased. I was a terrible Boy Scout.

I crapped out as a Star Scout, so I would never have made it by that test. But by and large, you know, people with non-white backgrounds were less likely to join the Boy Scouts. Okay, 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. And that's not debatable.

Now, people want to 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 fight all those traditional things that gave into that bias. And the other side loses their damn mind every time we try to do that. Oh god, that's unfair. That's, you know, you're not picking people based on merit.

And yet here we are, okay, 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, 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, alright, so that people who were discriminated against, who grew up in this situation, would could possibly have a fair shot.

And now we're going to do this? Now 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. But the belief is that they're the most discriminated against people in the world, we must protect them, you know. But after hundreds of years of slavery and Jim Crow and bias against Native Americans and sexism, sorry, I love throwing this stat out here. Prior to 1973, 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. 1973, people! You couldn't have a freaking job, I mean let alone be promoted. And we come along and say, hey, we want to fix that for the sake of a little bit greater equality. Oh, that's woke.

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 believe we're considering this. Given all the talk about merit and, you know, we shouldn't be, you know, trying to adjust these things, now we're going to come up with a specific test for a specific group of people that we believe have somehow been 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 got to open the aperture to bring more people in, but we sure as hell shouldn't be creating new tests to protect some of the very people who created that problem in the first place. I urge a no vote, I yield back.

05:49:44 - 05:51:10

Sarah Elfreth

Gentleman yields back, gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Elfreth is recognized.

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 the merit of the very amendment. Process-wise, Secretary Hegseth has already directed the service academies to begin accepting CLT scores in next year's admission cycle, so 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 learning test is actually not widely accepted by other colleges or universities and significant questions remain about its reliability and validity as an admissions tool. 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 allows them to reliably compare scores across exams. In fact, the college board and the Iowa Board of Regents 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 no vote on this amendment and I yield back.

05:51:11 - 05:51:40

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? Seeing none, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Mace. So many as in favor will say aye. Opposed no.

Opinion chair the ayes have it. Recorded votes requested, a recorded vote is ordered and postponed to a later time. We now consider log number 6476 R2 by Mr. Higgins. For what purpose does the gentleman from Louisiana seek recognition?

05:51:42 - 05:51:44

Speaker 98

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

05:51:44 - 05:51:56

Mike Rogers

Gentleman has 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 gentleman from Louisiana for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

05:51:56 - 05:54:14

Clay Higgins

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer my amendment log 6476, which would establish age-normed, sex-neutral physical fitness standards for combat roles in the Army, 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 January 2025, 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, is not about politics. It's about warfighting 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 Hegseth's guidance, several of our services have already responded.

Effective June 2025, the US Army rolled out its new Army fitness test with a higher sex-neutral standard for 21 combat specialties and a requirement that our combat arms soldiers complete a combat field test. The Marine Corps has aligned its physical fitness test for combat arms Marines to a minimum of 70% 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.

05:54:14 - 05:54:17

Speaker 99

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlahan.

05:54:17 - 05:57:11

Chrissy Houlahan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I feel like that Mr. Higgins, you and I must be reading a different amendment. And I and I apologize if 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 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 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-based distinctions shouldn't count while also allowing for age-based distinctions. To your point, we want to make sure that the enemy doesn't differentiate between whether you're an older person or a younger person, whether or not you're a gender of 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 for 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 physical fitness standard, but age-related 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 like the guy that's next to her. And in really in all seriousness, this amendment raises serious questions about what the intent is. Is 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 single-standard fitness requirements will prevent us from retaining the very best minds who already meet that standard today.

And we certainly cannot forget about recruiting as well. The downstream consequences of creating age-normed 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.

05:57:12 - 05:57:17

Speaker 101

Gentlelady yields back. Does anybody... gentleman from Texas is recognized.

05:57:17 - 05:59:23

Clay Higgins

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

I thank the gentleman and I respect my colleague's concerns, I'd like to address them. The intention of the amendment is to recognize the long-standing successful implementation of age-normed roles within our military for physical fitness testing, but also to address in the modern era of recognizing the capabilities of women to serve across the board in our military, but codifying that the intention of Congress is that the physical fitness standards shall be sex-neutral. So if you can pass the test to be on this team, one of the specialty teams, which is up to in the amendment, the 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 in that unit includes close engagement and close combat, then it's a combat role, but sex-normed physical fitness would be across the board. We clarified by using, by separating combat roles, that we don't... it's not the intention of Congress for the Pentagon to choose the lowest standards and say, okay, 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 want to, you want to 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 50 seconds left, I'm glad to yield to the good lady to respond to my response, if the gentleman...

05:59:24 - 05:59:27

Speaker 102

Yeah, I yield my, the balance of my time to Ms. Houlahan.

05:59:27 - 06:00:08

Chrissy Houlahan

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 standard to participate. 5,000 women have that standard right now in active duty who are serving active duty. I think where we struggle is our current Secretary of Defense is on the record as saying the highest male standard.

And I think that you are correct in saying that there's a history of us having age-based standards that we're, that we're comfortable with. I would argue that we also have a history of having gender-based standards for certain roles that are non-combat related that we are also comfortable with.

06:00:08 - 06:00:12

Mike Rogers

The gentlelady's time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.

06:00:13 - 06:01:14

Don Bacon

Thank you, and with all due respect to Mr. Higgins, I have to agree with Ms. Houlahan on this one. I think if there were certain combat roles, you narrowed it down to, you know, this sex-neutral standard to certain combat roles, I think that would be persuadable. But to do it across the board, and I served 30 years in the Air Force, I just don't think it would work to have the same standard and measure men and women at the same physical fitness standards for every job in the Air Force. I think it would end up disqualifying a lot of people that wouldn't, you wouldn't have to do anyway, that would be unnecessary. So I just, I think if your amendment directed towards certain combat jobs, I think it's a winning amendment, but across the board, I think it goes maybe too far.

06:01:14 - 06:01:16

The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the ranking member.

06:01:16 - 06:01:17

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield to Ms. Houlahan.

06:01:17 - 06:02:12

Chrissy Houlahan

I appreciate that. Well, I have just the amendment for you, Mr. Bacon, 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, 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. There is a concern that I have, that I think we should all have, that the Secretary has asked for yet another study of something that we already know.

General Kurilla, when we had him in front of us, I asked him about the readiness and lethality of the people who are fighting in Iran, 18% 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, Mr. Bacon and others who are listening to this conversation, that you will take under consideration a more surgically aimed amendment that is aimed just at our combat, ground combat troops. Thanks, and I appreciate the time.

06:02:12 - 06:02:26

Mike Rogers

The gentlelady yields back. Does Mr. Smith yield the balance of his time? And now Mr. Vinnman of Virginia is recognized.

06:02:26 - 06:04:20

Eugene Vindman

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I want to talk about this particular amendment because I think it's important that we get this right. I served 25 years in the Army, half of it as an infantry officer, the other half as a JAG.

And so I understand the high standards that we need to maintain in the combat arms and that we cannot let those standards slip. At the same time, I think we have to recognize that there are specialties in the military, and my wife happened to be an Army microbiologist, a molecular geneticist by training, and that those jobs are not combat arms jobs and that we need that talent, we need that expertise in our military. And we have to be very careful that we are not losing highly qualified candidates that we require for our national security. And 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 miles away from the front line. In Ukraine in particular, you have warriors that are destroying Russian materiel and equipment from hundreds of miles away.

They're qualified drone operators, they're serving in uniform, and they are the most effective combat force that the Ukrainians have on the battlefield. So we have to be careful, we have to make sure that we take the most qualified fighters that we possibly can to maintain our lethality and that we don't disqualify what is already a limited pool of folks that are eligible to join the US military. Thank you, I yield back.

06:04:21 - 06:04:58

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition on Mr. Higgins' amendment? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Mr. Higgins. So many as are in favor will say aye. Aye.

Opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. The ayes have it. A recorded vote is requested, a recorded vote is ordered and shall be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 6552R1 by Ms. Jacobs of California.

For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

06:04:58 - 06:05:00

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

06:05:00 - 06:05:06

Mike Rogers

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.

06:05:08 - 06:06:32

Sara Jacobs

My amendment establishes an ombudsman of Stars and Stripes. Stars and Stripes has been published continuously since 1861, 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 165 years, it has been the independent voice of the service member, not a Pentagon mouthpiece, but a real newspaper reporting the truth. Secretary Hegseth 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. A new Pentagon memo imposed new content requirements and job applicants were asked to explain how they'd advance the President's policy priorities. 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, not propaganda. My amendment establishes a Stars and Stripes ombudsman in statute. We've been here before. In the late 1980s, the Pentagon tried to suppress unfavorable coverage at the Stars and Stripes of the Iran-Contra affair.

06:06:51 - 06:07:14

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back, Chair now recognizes himself. I agree that the role of an ombudsman is important. However, I cannot support restricting the Secretary's oversight authority of an ombudsman as the amendment proposes. Making ombudsman 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. Fallon.

06:07:14 - 06:07:48

Pat Fallon

Mr. Chairman, in your very powerful and succinct argument, I do want to echo it because it does restrict the SecDef's authority in the chain of command or his designee for that matter. And while the rigid standards were intentionally omitted during the creation of the ombudsman position to allow it to be flexible between, you know, be a flexible bridge between Congress and the DOD, the vast military community, this inclusion of this new language will now create unnecessary obstacles and impede oversight in the ability in the established chain of command. So I have to oppose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.

06:07:48 - 06:08:15

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Jacobs. So many as are in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. Recorded vote is requested and is ordered and shall be postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 6527R1 by Ms. Goodlander. For what purpose does the gentlelady from New Hampshire seek recognition?

06:08:16 - 06:08:18

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

06:08:18 - 06:08:26

Mike Rogers

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.

06:08:27 - 06:11:13

Maggie Goodlander

Thank you, Mr. 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 165 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, create checks against political interference, and ensure that editorial decisions remain where they belong, and that's in the hands of professional journalists and not political appointees. The amendment also preserves long-standing protections for classified information and operational security, of course.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary to protect Stars and Stripes by statute. It has a long history, it has a daily circulation, it's reaching more than 1.4 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 families need it.

And this has been a long-standing bipartisan commitment of this Congress. So our amendment really does just establish these common sense safeguards to ensure that the leadership and staff of Stars and Stripes have the independence that they need to do their jobs. Removal of the publisher of Stars and Stripes, who's got to be a person appointed on the basis of significant journalism experience, 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 amendment is not going to 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, and it wouldn't, so these are important protections that remain clearly in place.

This, this amendment is about the basic principle that Stars and Stripes, which since 1861 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.

06:11:14 - 06:11:50

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady 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 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. Does anybody else seek recognition? Gentlelady from Maryland's recognized.

06:11:50 - 06:12:59

Sarah Elfreth

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 nonpartisan source of news for service members and their families for over 165 years. I want to share just as context for the committee words of General Pershing, who during World War I attested that 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 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 was codified years ago 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 members of this committee to support this amendment and I yield back.

06:13:00 - 06:13:12

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Does anybody else seek recognition? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Goodlander. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no.

In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

06:13:13 - 06:13:16

Speaker 104

Mr. Chairman, may I request a recorded vote?

06:13:16 - 06:13:27

Mike Rogers

Recorded vote is requested and ordered. It will be postponed to a later time. We will now move to log number 6482R1 by Ms. Goodlander of New Hampshire. For what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition?

06:13:27 - 06:13:29

Maggie Goodlander

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

06:13:29 - 06:13:37

Mike Rogers

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.

06:13:38 - 06:15:05

Maggie Goodlander

Thank you, Mr. 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 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 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 a coordinated attack on independent journalists who have dedicated their lives to reporting on the Pentagon. Mr. Chairman, this is 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.

06:15:05 - 06:15:39

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. 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 unescorted 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 and operations is imperative. I urge members to oppose the amendment. Does anybody else seek recognition? Mr. Whitesides of California is recognized.

06:15:39 - 06:17:22

George Whitesides

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last September, the Pentagon distributed new unprecedented restrictions requiring journalists to seek approval before reporting 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. A 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 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 an alternative, or revoke credentials as retaliation. And it requires Congress to be notified within ten days anytime a journalist's credentials 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.

06:17:22 - 06:17:26

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon.

06:17:26 - 06:18:06

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In two words, it's overly burdensome. I mean, we have to define 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 into the Pentagon for us, and we're on the Armed 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. You know, and so it also, we need to be able to protect sensitive spaces and 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.

06:18:06 - 06:18:19

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields. Does anybody else seek recognition on this amendment? If not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Goodlander. So many as are in favor will say aye. Those opposed no.

Opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

06:18:19 - 06:18:23

Speaker 104

Mr. Chairman, may I request a recorded vote?

06:18:23 - 06:18:40

Mike Rogers

Recorded vote is requested and ordered and postponed to a later time. Okay, next we'll go ahead, votes have been called but we're going to go ahead and try to get Ms. Jacobs in before we head over there.

We're going to have six votes, so it's going to be a while. We now consider amendment 6777 by Ms. Jacobs of California. For what purpose is the gentlelady from California seek recognition?

06:18:40 - 06:18:43

Speaker 106

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

06:18:44 - 06:18:52

Mike Rogers

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.

06:18:52 - 06:21:51

Sara Jacobs

My amendment would protect press access at the Pentagon. This administration loves to talk a big game about the First Amendment. 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 workspaces in the building and replaced 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 Hegseth 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 Minab, 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 makeup 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 claim that it is with a straight face when the Secretary of Defense added a journalist to a 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 Democrat, has upheld for 50 years.

Credentialed journalists get appropriate access to the Pentagon. They get briefings. No pledges, no political litmus tests, no retaliation for tough coverage, 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. I yield back.

06:21:51 - 06:23:09

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields back. Does anybody, well, I recognize myself. As we discussed in the previous amendment, the Pentagon has 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 Ms. Jacobs' amendment?

Seeing none, the question occurs on Ms. Jacobs' amendment. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

Mr. Chairman, a recorded vote.

Recorded vote is requested and ordered and postponed to a later date. Okay, we are going to now break for votes. There's going to be a series of six votes. I would tell members we've got about 13 votes in the queue for to be recorded. So as soon as this vote is over, 10 minutes after the close of this last vote, we're going to reconvene and start recorded votes 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.

08:39:37 - 08:39:45

Speaker 108

For the outcome of log number... What was the log number again, Mr. Vinman?

08:39:43 - 08:39:45

Speaker 107

6769.

08:39:45 - 08:39:54

Mike Rogers

6769, 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.

08:39:55 - 08:40:11

Speaker 109

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I determined during the break that I was not a fan of Mr. Rogers' music, so...

08:40:10 - 08:41:09

Speaker 68

Let's see. So I think we've got five members. All right. There's one. We still got a couple of members.

Two. We're getting close. Where? Oh, we got some down there. Didn't even see those.

There's Davis.

08:42:30 - 08:43:27

Speaker 110

All right, we are now going to proceed with our recorded votes. The committee postponed further proceedings on amendment log number 6378 by Ms. Houlahan, and we shall now resume those proceedings. The question occurs on the amendment. Members will record their vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:43:28 - 08:43:29

Ranking member voting yes.

08:43:30 - 08:44:18

Speaker 68

Clerk will open the machine and the members will vote. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Is there anybody wish to change his or her vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

08:44:18 - 08:44:23

Speaker 65

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 24, the nays are 28.

08:44:24 - 08:44:35

Mike Rogers

Amendment is not agreed to. We will now proceed to log number 6328 R3 by Ms. Houlahan and shall record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:44:35 - 08:44:36

Ranking member will be voting yes.

08:44:37 - 08:45:14

Speaker 68

The 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.

08:45:14 - 08:45:16

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 24, the nays are 28.

08:45:16 - 08:45:30

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We will now proceed to log number 6649 by Mr. Ryan. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:45:30 - 08:45:31

Ranking member will be voting yes.

08:45:32 - 08:45:55

Speaker 68

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.

08:45:58 - 08:46:00

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 25, the nays are 28.

08:46:00 - 08:46:11

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We will now move to log number 6386 R6 by Ms. Houlahan. We will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:46:12 - 08:46:13

Ranking member will be voting yes.

08:46:14 - 08:46:48

Speaker 68

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. Sorry, hold on.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, did not register. There we go. All right, go ahead. Lock the machine and record the vote.

08:46:48 - 08:46:49

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 26, the nays are 28.

08:46:49 - 08:46:56

Mike Rogers

Amendment's not agreed to. We now proceed to log number 6132 R2 by Mr. Moulton of Massachusetts. We will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:46:57 - 08:46:58

Ranking member will be voting yes.

08:46:59 - 08:47:25

Speaker 68

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.

08:47:25 - 08:47:26

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 26, the nays are 28.

08:47:26 - 08:47:35

Mike Rogers

Amendment's not agreed to. We now move to log number 6611 R2 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

08:47:36 - 08:47:37

Ranking member will be voting no.

08:47:38 - 08:48:03

Speaker 68

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.

08:48:04 - 08:48:07

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 26, the nays are 28.

08:48:07 - 08:48:17

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. Now move to log number 6148 by Ms. Mace. We will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

08:48:18 - 08:48:19

Ranking member will be voting no.

08:48:20 - 08:48:40

Speaker 68

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

08:48:44 - 08:48:46

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 25, the noes are 29.

08:48:46 - 08:48:57

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We will now move to log number 6635 R1 by Ms. Mace of South Carolina. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes.

08:48:58 - 08:48:59

Ranking member will be voting no.

08:48:59 - 08:49:24

Speaker 68

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.

08:49:24 - 08:49:27

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 27.

08:49:27 - 08:49:44

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We'll now move to log number 6476 R2 by Mr. Higgins. We will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting yes. How will the ranking member be voting?

08:49:45 - 08:49:46

Sorry, ranking member voting no.

08:49:46 - 08:50:14

Speaker 68

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

08:50:12 - 08:50:14

Speaker 66

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 25, the nays are 29.

08:50:15 - 08:50:26

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. We'll now move to log number 6552 R1 by Ms. Jacobs of California. We will record our vote by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:50:26 - 08:50:27

Ranking member will be voting yes.

08:50:27 - 08:50:57

Speaker 68

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? If not, the clerk will lock the machine and report the vote.

08:50:57 - 08:50:59

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 25, the nays are 29.

08:50:59 - 08:51:06

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. Now go to amendment 6527 R1 by Ms. Goodlander. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:51:07 - 08:51:08

Ranking member will be voting yes.

08:51:08 - 08:51:34

Speaker 68

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 report the vote.

08:51:34 - 08:51:35

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 26, the nays are 29.

08:51:36 - 08:51:43

Mike Rogers

The amendment's not agreed to. Now move to a log number 6428 R1 by Ms. Goodlander. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:51:43 - 08:51:46

Speaker 111

A ranking member will be voting yes.

08:51:46 - 08:52:12

Speaker 68

The clerk will open the machines 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.

08:52:12 - 08:52:14

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 28.

08:52:14 - 08:52:29

Mike Rogers

The amendment is not agreed to. We will now move to our final vote and that is Ms. Jacobs' log number 6777. We will record our votes by electronic device. The chairman will be voting no.

08:52:31 - 08:52:33

Speaker 112

Ranking member will be voting yes.

08:52:33 - 08:52:58

Speaker 68

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.

08:52:58 - 08:53:00

Mr. Chairman, the ayes are 27, the nays are 28.

08:53:00 - 08:53:45

Mike Rogers

The amendment is not agreed to. All right, as I previously stated, we've got to move on back into amendments, but having said that, during we're going to keep plowing through, but I have provided dinner for everybody in room 2212, if at your leisure you want to walk down there, get some great food. We're going to keep 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 go back when votes are called until we get caught up. So we're going to stay here and keep working, and the ranking member and I will let you know when we're going to go over there. So we're going to get our business done. Y'all have been doing great. Keep it up.

All right, let's get back to the log.

08:53:45 - 08:53:48

Speaker 113

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

08:53:48 - 08:54:31

Mike Rogers

No, the dinner... although, I will... that's a great point the ranking member makes. The dinner is not vegetarian, but Mr. Strickland 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. Libations in 2024, I don't know anything about that. That's not the chairman's doings.

All right, let's get back to our amendments. Okay, now we're going to bring up log number 6105 by Ms. Strickland. For what purpose does the gentlelady from Washington State seek recognition?

08:54:32 - 08:54:34

Chairman Rogers, I have an amendment at the desk.

08:54:34 - 08:54:54

Mike Rogers

Clerk will report the amendment. Without objection, let's see, let me find my stuff here. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the chair now recognizes the lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment.

08:54:54 - 08:55:20

Marilyn Strickland

Thank you. Promotion boards exist to identify the most qualified officers for advancement based on merit, performance, and the needs of the armed forces. Congress has established a thoroughly rigorous promotion system that includes selection boards, service-level review, certification, and civilian oversight. Before an officer's name reaches a Secretary of Defense, that officer has already been reviewed, vetted, and approved by their military department.

08:55:20 - 08:55:30

Mike Rogers

Ms. Strickland, will you pull the microphone a little closer? I want to hear every word you got to say.

08:55:30 - 08:55:30

Okay. Is this better?

08:55:30 - 08:55:31

That's much better.

08:55:31 - 08:57:49

Marilyn Strickland

All right. Service secretaries 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 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.

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 adverse or disqualifying information had emerged after the service-level certification. The department did not provide substantive answers to those questions.

When 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 the 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 for the armed forces. This amendment does not change standards, it does not alter the authority of promotion boards, it does not prevent the removal of officers for

08:57:49 - 08:57:53

Mike Rogers

Gentleman's time's expired, chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Whitesides.

08:57:53 - 08:59:15

George Whitesides

Thank you, Mr. 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 responds directly to that conduct with four targeted fixes. First, it takes the 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. Withholding or redacting a name now counts as a removal. You can't do 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 30 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 their names himself, 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 colleague's amendment, and I yield back.

08:59:16 - 08:59:19

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back, chair now recognizes Mr. Scott of Georgia.

08:59:19 - 09:01:10

Austin Scott

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And 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 3% of them are selected by their peers to move forward as general officer candidates. That list of general officers is then submitted to the Senate, and then the Senate gets to vote to affirm or deny the promotion. So 3%, 3% approximately of those who have attained the rank of colonel 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 think the language is good. I'm disappointed that the Secretary has chosen to refuse to answer any of the questions that the members of Congress have asked him on any of these issues. 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 the removal of those officers is unacceptable, and I believe that the Secretary owes an answer to the officers and to this committee of why they were removed. On that, I yield back.

09:01:11 - 09:01:16

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Now the chair and I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan.

09:01:16 - 09:01:55

Patrick Ryan

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to yield the balance in a moment to my colleague, but I just want to strongly support this amendment and thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The only point I wanted to add is that for 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 is inappropriate and disrespectful of their service to our great nation. And I yield the balance to Ms. Strickland, Mr. Chair.

09:01:55 - 09:03:14

Marilyn Strickland

Great, 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. Let's have transparency. Let's respect the qualified people who deserve promotion.

And I yield back, Mr. Chair.

09:03:14 - 09:04:19

Eugene Vindman

Thank you, Chairman. So I'm going to argue in favor of this amendment to restore regular order. I spent 25 years in the Army and I have been nominated and Senate-confirmed by presidents of both parties. What this does and makes clear that this is a highly regimented process that if there is a soldier, if there is 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 has.

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

09:04:19 - 09:04:25

Speaker 114

Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Sorensen.

09:04:25 - 09:05:20

Eric Sorensen

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like so many of us here, I have been appalled by Secretary Hegseth's moves to block certain officers from being promoted. This is not typical practice. These officers are so closely vetted by their service branch to even be considered to be promoted to a senior position. You have to have 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. I yield back.

09:05:22 - 09:05:26

Mike Rogers

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

09:05:26 - 09:06:03

Pat Fallon

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this amendment further ties the hands of the Secretary and it restricts the President's authority and inhibits their ability really to make a determination and certain officers being promoted according to merit alone, which it should be, as the Secretary said, merit alone. President Trump's only going to be President for two and a half more years, by the way. So these 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 doing. So current law already charges the President with this authority, and I don't want to further restrict them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

09:06:07 - 09:06:55

Mike Rogers

Does any other member seek recognition on this amendment? There being no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Strickland, log number 6105. So many as in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed, no.

No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A recorded vote is requested and is ordered and will be postponed to a later time. We now will consider log number 6093 by Ms. Houlahan. For what purpose does the gentlelady from Pennsylvania seek recognition?

09:06:55 - 09:06:57

Speaker 115

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

09:06:57 - 09:09:28

Chrissy Houlahan

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, Mr. Chairman. This amendment ensures and codifies gender-neutral standards for women just in ground combat roles. And I'd like to remind this committee that both General Leneve and Secretary Driscoll supported this amendment here in this room on May 15th. 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 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 5,000 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 conclude that we are already in a fair place with regard to these issues, the administration and Secretary Hegseth has yet again asked for another study to add to what we already know and what we have already lived. He is demanded that something he is curiously naming the highest male standard be applied.

And we have just learned just in this last couple days that the 28th annual laying of wreaths at Arlington in honor of women who have served has been canceled due to a 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.

09:09:28 - 09:10:05

Mike Rogers

Gentlelady yields, chair now recognizes himself. For 10 years it has been the official policy of the department that women can serve in combat roles. That policy is not changing. Any service member regardless of sex who can meet the 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? Ms. Jacobs of California and then Mr. Ryan after that.

09:10:05 - 09:11:56

Sara Jacobs

Maybe he's intimidated by women who can outrun him, outshoot him, and outperform him in the field, women who earned their Ranger tab when he never did. Thank you. Secretary Hegseth clearly has a woman problem. Maybe there's 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 $50,000 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 Hegseth's 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 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.

09:11:56 - 09:13:32

Patrick Ryan

Gentlelady yields back. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan's recognized.

Ah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to commend and thank my colleague Ms. Houlahan for again her leadership on this year after year and I'm proud to support this along with my colleagues. I just wanted to add two points, Mr. Chair. The first is again, as has been the case in several issues we've debated here, the argument that nothing is going to 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. Houlahan 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 has worked, incredibly lethal, effective, proven 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 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 because that is the current direction.

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. For example, one of our colleagues said 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 male or 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.

I yield back, Mr. Chair.

09:13:33 - 09:13:50

Mike Rogers

Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition on the Houlahan amendment? There being no further debate, the question occur on the amendment offered by Ms. Houlahan. Those in favor will say aye. Aye.

Those opposed say no. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes have it.

09:13:50 - 09:13:53

Speaker 116

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

09:13:53 - 09:14:06

Mike Rogers

A recorded vote is requested and ordered and postponed to a later time. We will now consider log number 6638R2 by Mr. Golden. For what purpose does Mr. Golden seek recognition?

09:14:10 - 09:14:11

You have an amendment at the desk?

09:14:12 - 09:14:12

Yes, sir, amendment.

09:14:12 - 09:14:21

Mike Rogers

Will the clerk distribute the gentleman's amendment? Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maine for the purpose of explaining his amendment.

09:14:21 - 09:17:19

Jared Golden

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Boots Act has now passed the House two times, in 2024 and in 2025. Last year, it passed the House as part of this committee's annual defense bill, and every member of this committee at the time supported it by unanimous consent. Everyone's got a packet on their desk about this amendment. If you want to 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 newspaper 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, Mr. Chair. History is replete with examples of the importance of boots in combat. 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. Moving on, we have a letter from the Defense Logistics Agency to Congress where they state that they conducted a war game for various go-to-war class two items in October of '23, with boot production being one of the 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 defense 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, as well as encouraging foreign producers to bring their production home to the United States. We then have six pages where we see 49 options of combat boots that would meet the standard of this amendment and meet the existing Berry 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. Just moving on a little bit, I'll just close by reminding everyone the problem is a loophole in the Berry Amendment. Results in an estimated 1 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 are 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, Mr. Chair.

Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.

U.S. House of Representatives

Follow upcoming sessions live, transcribed word for word, with AI chat

One free trial opens the AI chat on every session, the biographies of your parliament's members, alerts, and your questions to Claude or ChatGPT.

  • Live transcript, every speaker identified
  • The biography of every member of your parliament, with its assistant
  • Alerts on your keywords, and your questions to Claude or ChatGPT

Every video is free to watch, live and on replay, no account needed.

14-day free trial · cancel anytime

Free trial Learn more

Already have an account? Log in

Keyboard shortcuts

Playback

Play / pause
Space
Back / forward 15 s
←→
Back / forward 10 s
JL
Full screen
F

Chapters and transcript

Previous / next chapter
PN
Search the transcript
/
Turn follow on / off
S
Copy the current sentence as a quote
C
Show this help
?

Inactive while a text field, a button or the chat has focus.