Jill N. Tokuda

Mr. Chair, The ask · 20 wordsI strongly oppose this amendment, which would require the Department of Defense to develop plans to eliminate 200,000 civilian employees.¹ Procedure · 5 wordsI have news for you: ProcedureUnearned certaintyClaims · 14 wordsThis administration already did that, and I saw the consequences with my own eyes. Anecdote · 9 wordsI had lunch with junior enlisted marines in Hawaii.Anecdote Claims · 118 wordsThey told me it took months to fix their broken washing machines, a full year to fix a sink in a barracks room. I saw windows duct taped and mold painted over. Childcare rooms were empty because they had no staff to care for servicemembers’ children. When I asked the base commander why it took a year to fix a sink, he said it is because almost all of the maintenance staff took the deferred resignation program, and with the hiring freeze, they couldn’t find replacements. There are 20,000 DoD civilian employees in Hawaii and about 800,000 worldwide.² They are essential to readiness. At a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet, they are good jobs. Reasoning · 20 wordsThey have been and should remain stable jobs, too, allowing people to serve their country and care for their families. Claims · 30 wordsBottom line, our war fighters rely on civilian employees for everything, from maintenance to acquisition, to healthcare, to childcare. They keep our subs and jets battle-ready and our servicemembers healthy. Mr. Chair, Positioning · 26 wordsit is time we stop treating them as disposable. Instead, we should be investing in the civilian workforce, not continuing to threaten to cut their jobs.Positioning The ask · 17 wordsI strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.