“This defense bill has good parts, like pay raises for troops, but I have serious problems with it. Republicans blocked our amendments on the budget, Pentagon oversight, and the war in Iran. The war in Iran is a disaster, yet the president has no real plan to end it. This bill also spends way too much money while our national debt is rising and domestic programs are being cut.”

“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I want to thank Chairman Rogers for the process that he put together on this bill. In committee, I think we had a very fair and open process, certainly the way the bill was put together originally. The chairman did a lot of work in the last couple of years on acquisition reform, and we did that in a bipartisan way. It is reflected in the substance that was in the bill. Then we had a very good debate. A lot of amendments were offered, and I think it was handled in a very bipartisan way. So the product has a lot of good aspects to it, and the chairman mentioned most of them. The continuation down the road of acquisition reform can best be summed up as we need to innovate faster at scale. The chairman did a great job of describing why that is so important and the progress we have made and why this committee has played such a crucial role in helping to make that happen. I think we should be proud of that. I think the bill also reflects support for the troops, as the chairman mentioned: a pay raise, but more than that, just genuinely making sure that they and their families have the support that they need. This builds off of the Quality of Life task force that we had 2 years ago to continue to show strong support for our troops, and, yes, crucially the oversight component. We are really focused on trying to get the Pentagon to a place where they can pass an audit, where we can be more confident that the money that they are spending is being effectively spent, and I think this bill reflects that. The chairman didn’t mention this, but we have had a lot of frustrations with this particular Pentagon in terms of their not providing information in a timely manner to us and to the American public. We have a number of provisions in this bill that require that or fence funding for aspects of the Pentagon to get them there. I will say also a couple of Democratic amendments did pass in the process. We got collective bargaining for all defense employees back in on a bipartisan vote. We also changed back to the base names that the commission put in place, which I think is a very positive step. There are a lot of good things about this bill and certainly about the process as it came out of committee. There are just three problems from the Democratic perspective. First of all, the rule is incredibly partisan. There are a number of issues on the size of the budget, the number of oversight issues concerns, and concerns we have about the war in Iran. None of those amendments were ruled in order. I just don’t think that is the way this process should work. They should be ruled in order. If they want to vote them down, then vote them down, but they have completely blocked any of those Democratic amendments. Of the amendments that are up for debate, I believe that only one is a Democratic amendment. There is a lot of mutually agreed upon stuff that is en bloc, but on the truly controversially important amendments, they don’t give us a chance to even have the debate. Those debates are incredibly important because there are a lot of concerns we have, not so much with this bill as with the Department of Defense as it is currently being run, and as the President is currently exercising national security defense policy in this country. I will mention just two: number one, the war in Iran. We are all sort of, I guess, in collective denial about what an utter disaster this has been and how it is getting worse every day. We lost four more servicemembers over the weekend. This is after we have been told over and over and over again that Iran is completely obliterated, they have no military capacity whatsoever. Yet, they are still launching missiles. They are still launching drones. They are still wounding and killing American servicemembers and threatening shipping throughout in the Strait of Hormuz. The degree to which the President is not living in reality on the war in Iran is unbelievably alarming. Why do we let this continue? Why doesn’t the Republican Party Speaker say: Yes, it would be great if we could drop a certain number of bombs on Iran and they would quit, and they would give up, and they would abandon their nuclear program. They would abandon their support for terrorism. They would get rid of their ballistic missile program. They would open up the Strait of Hormuz. There is no plan to make that happen, and yet the President keeps going forward, keeps dropping more bombs deplenishing our stockpile, placing us at greater risk, and creating greater global chaos. Whatever else may be said about the NDAA, there are a lot of positive aspects to it. It will continue to support the Department of Defense which the President is using to wage this war, this incredibly disastrous, terrible decision of a war. That makes it very difficult to support this. We need to get peace now, and that would help. Second, the amount of money. You add it up, this is $1.15 billion. They want $350 billion for a reconciliation package, and they want another $90 billion in a supplemental package. That puts them at $1.6 trillion. Could we effectively spend $1.6 trillion in the Department of Defense? Maybe. I question whether or not they could spend that much money that quickly, that effectively. Sure, there are a lot more missiles, drones, ships, and planes we could buy. We have a $40 trillion debt. We are making cuts in Medicaid and other healthcare programs in order to fund this $1.6 trillion. Even then, we are still driving up the debt because we insist on doing $4 trillion in tax cuts. The math just doesn’t add up. We cannot support a defense budget of that size when we know that it is making it more likely that we are going to struggle to fund crucial domestic programs in healthcare, infrastructure, energy, and all kinds of areas that are an incredible priority. The dollar figure is simply too high. Mr. Chairman, in closing--this is a plea that always falls on deaf ears, but I will try--you can’t vote to increase the debt by $4 trillion and then a couple months later vote for a balanced budget amendment. We are not living in reality around here. Make a decision. Either the debt is fine and you don’t worry about it, or you want to balance it. You can’t vote to increase the debt and then say, oh, my gosh, we need a balanced budget amendment. The lack of fiscal reality is one of the two biggest problems with this bill. The other one is the continued support for the war in Iran that is implicitly included in it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I support the parts of this defense bill that fund new Navy submarines and ships. But I oppose spending $1 billion on old battleships instead of new landing ships for the Marines. I also want Republicans to remove the unrelated voting bill they added to this defense bill.”

“Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, I yield myself 2\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise to endorse many provisions of the Seapower and Projections Forces mark of the 2027 NDAA, which our subcommittee crafted under the able leadership of my good friend, Chairman Trent Kelly. A whole range of much-needed Navy warships and auxiliary platforms are authorized in this bill using multiyear contracting, which will save money for the taxpayer and provide certainty to our shipbuilding industrial base to invest and grow. The bill authorizes $15 billion for the Pentagon’s number one acquisition priority, the Columbia-class ballistic submarine program. It also provides $12.5 billion for Virginia-class attack submarines and full funding for shipyard wage improvements and workforce pipelines which are vital to hiring and retention. Adding more Virginia subs will grow our undersea fleet and keep our commitment to Pillar One of the AUKUS security agreement to sell three in-service subs to the Australian Navy in the 2030s. Multiyear contracts for destroyers and oilers are also included, as well as investments in missiles and hypersonics from unmanned surface vessels. Ukraine has demonstrated how effective unmanned systems are in their defense against Russia’s Black Sea invasion, and we must embrace that trend and expand our unmanned capabilities. There are areas of disagreement in this bill. Particularly, its approval of the administration’s request for $1 billion for obsolete battleships without a detailed design. I would note, last month the Senate Armed Services Committee wisely voted to reject this wasteful request. That money should, instead, be spent for the Marine Corps’ request for new landing ships, which is missing from both this bill and the new reconciliation bill. Mr. Chair, the NDAA has passed for 65 consecutive years because of disciplined avoidance of irrelevant hyperpartisan amendments. Unfortunately, the NDAA rule passed earlier today merging the NDAA with a completely nongermane voter suppression bill, the SAVE America Act, violates that long tradition. If Republican leadership is serious about passing a 66th NDAA with bipartisan support, the SAVE America Act merger should be stripped from the bill or later in conference. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to achieving that outcome, if not today, then later in the NDAA negotiations with the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I will vote against this defense bill. It spends far too much money on the military while cutting healthcare and food programs for children. It also lets the president misuse our military to fight immigration and wage war in Iran.”

“Mr. Chair, I begin by honoring those members of the military that lost their lives recently in the Iran conflict. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Smith for their leadership. It has also been a pleasure to work with Chairman Bergman. He is a great partner. I also thank the Readiness Subcommittee, both on the majority and minority sides. I am proud of what we were able to accomplish this year, authorizing over $2 billion for new barracks and dormitories and other critical infrastructure projects. The bill includes positive provisions, including servicemember pay raises, protections for civilian workers, right-to-repair authorities, and transparency on military operations in the Middle East. Good provisions do not cure the larger problems this bill faces. I voted against this bill in committee and will on the floor. This bill cannot continue to increase military spending while the administration unilaterally misuses our Armed Forces at home and abroad, as they intend to fight immigration and Iran. This bill also authorizes more than $1.5 trillion, plus another $300 billion in the reconciliation bill, which apparently will be with us soon, plus another $80 billion or $90 billion to pay for the Iran war. This is an outrageous and dangerously irresponsible amount of spending. Increasing the budget is not a strategy. Without discipline and oversight, it rewards programs that are over budget, behind schedule, and failing to deliver. How is all this paid for? It is paid for with cuts to healthcare. Medicaid is eviscerated in the upcoming months ahead. The children’s food programs, in schools and out, are not there. They will go hungry. Several hundred billion dollars in healthcare is gone, and it goes on and on. This could not possibly be in our interest.”

“We should not spend billions of dollars on the Sentinel nuclear missile. We do not need it because our current Minuteman missiles work well enough.”

“I haven’t even gotten to my favorite issue, the Sentinel and the programs of our nuclear arsenal. Again, why? We don’t need the Sentinel. We don’t need to spend billions on it. We can get along quite well with the existing Minuteman.”

“Both parties worked together to write a strong defense bill. It funds new helicopters, fighter jets, ground vehicles, and weapons. I am disappointed that some Republicans want to ruin this bipartisan work. Our service members and their families deserve better.”

“Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Smith and Chairman Rogers for crafting this bill. Mr. Chair, this bill continues the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee’s proud bipartisan tradition and reaffirms our shared responsibility for managing strategic risk. In particular, I thank Chairman Wittman and our subcommittee staff for building this strong bipartisan bill. I am, however, disappointed that some in the majority would kill the bipartisan hard work that we have done on this bill. Our servicemembers and their families deserve better. Mr. Chair, this bill authorizes funding levels for key defense programs, including $4.3 billion for helicopter procurement, $3.3 billion for the F-35 program, over $3.9 billion for ground combat vehicles, and over $4.9 billion for key weapon systems procurement. Mr. Chair, this bill also addresses the risks and the costs of military modernization without sacrificing oversight, such as authorizing multiyear procurement for the F-15EX and the F-35 aircraft, conditional on procuring sufficient spares for each aircraft; requiring the Air Force to budget for procurement a sufficient number of E-7A aircraft; and authorizing multiyear procurement for key munitions, coupled with strong funding for the munitions industrial base. Mr. Chair, this bill also includes legislation that fortifies the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation. I have great concern with this administration’s plan for the DOT&E. We must ensure this office remains independent and relevant. Finally, I thank our subcommittee professional staff, including Jay Vallario, Mike Kirlin, Heath Bope, Caroline Kehrli, Brooke Alred, and certainly my personal staff, Sam DeVito, Naajidah Khan, and our defense fellow Captain John Dacier for their work on this bill.”

“I want the House to pass this military bill without adding partisan changes. It raises pay for junior troops to help them handle high food and gas prices. It also improves healthcare, expands childcare, helps families who have to move to new bases, and bans defense workers from insider trading on prediction markets.”

“Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Smith, for yielding me the time. Mr. Chair, today, I have the opportunity to speak briefly with regards to the fiscal year 2027 NDAA. The bipartisan bill that passed out of committee includes many quality-of-life provisions and priorities for our servicemembers and their families. These issues have an immeasurable impact on our recruitment and our retention efforts as well as on readiness. The bill includes a targeted pay raise in which junior servicemembers would get higher pay increases. These improvements to servicemembers’ paychecks should provide welcome relief to military families who are still struggling with ever-increasing gas and food prices caused by the ill-conceived and poorly executed tariffs and the current war with Iran. H.R. 8800 also addresses the growing concerns about medical readiness and access to healthcare by reversing efforts by the Department to limit the scope of services available at military treatment facilities. We need to make sure that military treatment facilities and military health systems can deliver a force that is medically ready to deploy at a moment’s notice and, just as importantly, we must be sure that the medical providers themselves have the requisite skills to address whatever injuries might come their way. The bill expands ongoing efforts to improve access to safe and quality childcare by including au pairs in the Child Care in Your Home pilot program and establishing a student internship program to improve recruitment and staffing of military child development centers. It provides a process by which military families executing a permanent change of station will receive timely and relevant relocation assistance and available childcare and food access services in advance of that military duty station move. Finally, the bill requires the Department to issue regulations banning the Department of Defense personnel from insider trading on prediction markets, a necessary and crucial step in safeguarding our national security. We brought this bill to the floor in a bipartisan fashion, and I urge my colleagues to reject poison pill riders that will destabilize this important work and to not insert bipartisan politics over the well- being of our servicemembers. This NDAA, like many previous defense bills, should continue to be bipartisan.”

“I am worried about the war in Iran because it has no plan and the costs keep rising. We are spending too much money on the military while cutting food stamps, healthcare, and other important programs, and adding to the national debt.”

“Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Once again, I thank the chairman for the process that we went through here. I have made the arguments. I don’t want to restate them and belabor them, but we are deeply concerned about the ongoing war in Iran. There is no plan, no direction, continually rising costs. We are also concerned about the amount of money that is being poured into defense, at the same time that we are seeing cuts in Medicaid, cuts in food stamps, cuts in a variety of programs that are enormously important, and tax cuts that continue as the deficit and the debt get ever higher. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

  See full analysis →
• Vague
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Clarity 46 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →