“I want the House to add my amendment to this defense bill. It protects the religious freedom of military chaplains so they can serve troops without fear of punishment. It also punishes anyone who retaliates against chaplains for following their faith.”

“Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would attach the Military Chaplains Modernization Act of 2026 to the NDAA. It is supported by the Armed Forces Chaplains Board. This is not simply a chaplain protection bill. This is a military readiness, religious liberty, and command support bill. This bill builds upon the truth that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court that the First Amendment rights of our military chaplains are not suspended at the doors of the Pentagon. Our chaplains serve on the front lines, providing for the moral and spiritual well-being of our troops. The Department of War needs statutory clarity. Despite existing protections in the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, RFRA, and section 533 of the FY 2013 NDAA, chaplains continue to face obstacles for simply ministering according to their faith. These sections in title 10 were last updated in 1956 when polls showed that 90 percent of America identified as Christian. The United States is far more religiously diverse now. This is why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unanimously passed to protect religious freedom, and mainly religious minorities, in 1993. It is high time that title 10 was revised to reflect the diverse faith needs of our servicemembers, while also providing protections for the diverse chaplains that serve them. The chaplain’s ability to freely exercise their religious duties is not only constitutionally protected but is essential to forming the conscience of the warfighter. It is what helps restrain the soldier from committing atrocities while also providing a sense of purpose when facing down death’s door. Faith plays an essential role in forming and feeding the spirit of warfighters with unwavering integrity. This legislation does not create new rights. It simply codifies existing practices and protections across all service branches, which will ensure consistency for military chaplains of all faiths. It also recognizes the breadth of chaplains’ roles. They are not just religious officiants. They are the commanders’ adviser on ethics, spiritual readiness, morale, and even suicide prevention. This does not mean they replace other entities which provide advice or function. Rather, it ensures that chaplains, as spiritual advisers, are given a seat at the table. Let me be clear: This amendment does not empower chaplains to impose a particular belief. Instead, it protects them from violations of conscience and ensures they can facilitate spiritual care for all faiths. In fact, the amendment also protects servicemembers’ ability to access the spiritual care specific to their needs and faith tradition. Chaplains will continue to connect servicemembers of differing faiths to chaplains representing their respective faiths and equip them with tools to meet their specific needs. This bill respects and maintains the pluralistic approach of the military chaplaincy program. It also introduces real accountability under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for retaliation or censorship of a chaplain for acting according to their beliefs. This standard is essential to restoring trust. In 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt acknowledged the importance of the chaplaincy by vowing to never fail to provide for the spiritual needs of our officers and men. Mr. Chair, in order for military chaplains to serve our troops effectively, we must give them the legal protection to do so without fear or compromise. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the inclusion of the Military Chaplains Modernization Act in the NDAA, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I do not understand why Democrats oppose my amendment. Military chaplains will still help service members connect with leaders of their own religions, including the 31 faiths the military recognizes.”

“Mr. Chair, I am not sure, other than the statements against this amendment, what the opposition my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have from what I said. I failed to hear exactly what their opposition is, other than their statements of opposition to the amendment itself. Again, I say, chaplains will continue to connect servicemembers of differing faiths to chaplains representing their respective faiths and equip them with tools to meet their specific needs. There are now 31 faiths recognized by the Department of War, to include Muslims, Jews, Bahai, Sikh, agnostics, and I could go on. Again, I fail to understand the difference between what my colleague said in specifics with what I said. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 37 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I support this amendment. It creates a test program that lets some private investors get security clearances so they can fund small tech companies making secret military tools. This will help smaller companies build affordable gear like drones for our military.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. We are in changing times. The ongoing battles, both in Iran and in Ukraine, have taught us an important lesson. That is that large, long- term vendors for production of innovative tools don’t work together. The lead time is too long. The requirement for us to innovate at the Department of War simply isn’t working. We need to have small, innovative companies to be able to come forward and be given small allotments in order to develop. However, those allotments are seldom sufficient to operate a company for 1, 2, or 3 years to develop and get a contract going. For that reason, like other startups of all sorts, particularly in the technology field in America, they would normally go to private funding, go to venture firms. But there is a problem. If what you are producing for the Department of War or any other part of our government is classified, you have to say: I have a new product. I can’t tell you about it. Trust me and invest. That simply doesn’t work. More importantly, the requirements from within the government often are not available to the investor. Therefore, it is difficult to get. My amendment deals with this serious problem in a predictable and controlled way. Our 5-year pilot program simply says that with the permission of the Department of War, individuals within qualified investment firms may receive or update their clearances so that they can be part of the investment decision. It does not preclude their being excluded for any reason, including-- and I particularly want to note this--companies which have a foreign investment profile would have to disclose and may very well be excluded. However, the American investment community with American funds is more than sufficient to find, seek out, and invest in innovative companies that can give us a low-cost antidrone product or a low-cost drone, or any other number of critically needed and affordable products. For that reason, we are asking that the Department of War under this pilot program be empowered to allow for these nonoriginal participants to have, on a limited basis, with controls completely in the hands of the Secretary of War and while he retains full authority to revoke participation for any security violation, foreign ownership, control, influence, or any other concern. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. It stops the government from secretly giving classified information to big companies. It requires yearly reports to Congress, lasts for five years, and helps small private companies find investors while still following strict security rules.”

“Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will be brief. I am not going to address the items that were said by the opposition because they don’t go to the safeguards in this piece of legislation. Without this amendment, there is nothing to stop the administration from providing, without specific requirements to disclose, classifications to any and all individuals, particularly individuals that are, quite frankly, within companies either doing or wanting to do business with the Federal Government. It doesn’t stop the large companies from having unlimited access to programs that may not be widely understood. As a result, they get an advantage of bidding on something no one knows about. Instead, what it requires is annual reporting, including to this body, to Congress, to ensure that we can monitor this program. It sunsets. It is not for this administration, but for a 5-year period. Most importantly, it is extremely limited to private equity investing, by definition in private companies. No part of public companies are affected here, just the opposite. This is an opportunity for private companies to find investors who can only invest if they have a reasonable knowledge of what the product is asked to be and nothing more, and every one of them must still pass the same rigorous application and retention policy for whatever level of clearance is required. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that these words would help the other side understand that, in fact, Congress gains more control over many of the things being complained about by passing this amendment than by not. Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want to ban citizens of adversarial countries from entering private areas of our national labs. Countries like China use these visits to steal our technology and research on artificial intelligence and advanced computing. This change will protect our scientific discoveries and our national security.”

“Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit foreign nationals from designated countries of concern from accessing nonpublic areas of any national laboratory. This straightforward measure would protect the integrity of America’s national labs and the sensitive research that underpins our national security. For years, we know that the Chinese Communist Party has executed sweeping, coordinated campaigns to acquire American tech and innovation by any means necessary. Last month, Mr. David Shedd, the former Acting Director of Defense Intelligence Agency, said: Efforts blending cyber espionage, human intelligence, academic collaboration, and commercial investments have fueled China’s rapid military and economic rise. This should concern all of us. Congress passed a law 2 years ago which prohibited foreign nationals from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea from accessing our weapons labs. This was an important first step, but now we must address the same vulnerabilities in our science labs. These are labs where sensitive but unclassified work on artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and advanced computing are performed. These are the very labs that the President has tasked with executing the Genesis Mission, a modern-day Manhattan Project, to ensure that the United States wins the race for AI dominance. Yet, at the same time, we are allowing thousands of nontraditional intelligence collectors from our competitors and greatest adversaries to operate inside of these facilities. We know China’s playbook. The CCP will weaponize any expertise it gains militarily, commercially, or economically. Our adversaries are running sophisticated espionage campaigns while we are rolling out the red carpet for thousands of these foreign nationals from proven countries of concern. This is a direct threat to our national security. Mr. Chair, this amendment simply closes a known vulnerability. It prohibits foreign nationals from countries of concern from accessing any nonpublic area of a national laboratory that receives Defense funding. Building on those actions taken 2 years ago, this amendment protects the Genesis project and mission and ensures that America, not our adversaries, will reap the benefits of scientific breakthroughs that our scientists achieve. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want you to vote yes on this amendment. It protects research funded by American taxpayers from our enemies.”

“Mr. Chair, while I think we can all agree that collaboration is an essential part of research, especially much of the research happening in our national laboratories, we are at a critical point for our country when it comes to national security and making sure that the investments that American taxpayers are putting into these institutions are protected from our adversaries. Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes’’ vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment to ban automated speed cameras on military bases and remove existing ones. These cameras unfairly take money from our troops. They are also a security risk because foreign enemies could hack them to track our military.”

“Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of my amendment. This amendment does one thing: It bars the Department of War from buying, installing, or operating automated speed cameras on military installations and requires any that are already in place to be decommissioned within 180 days. These systems are not about safety. They are about revenue. They hand out fines without context, without discretion, and without due process for our servicemembers. We just spent the last few years working hard through the NDAA to increase lower enlisted pay, only to seemingly try to take it away from them. Make no mistake, this is not just a financial risk. It is a security risk. We have seen what happens when camera networks tied to critical infrastructure get compromised. Reporting this year revealed that foreign intelligence services spent years secretly accessing Tehran’s traffic camera network to track the movements of Iran’s top leadership ahead of a strike that killed its Supreme Leader. These network systems are an open door for our adversaries to exploit. To be clear about what this amendment does not do, installation commanders still keep the full authority to enforce speed limits through military police, exactly as they do today. Force protection, access control, and criminal investigation cameras at our facility gates will remain untouched. This amendment targets one narrow thing: automated speed enforcement, and nothing else. Our troops should not be a captive customer base for a ticketing vendor or a soft target for our adversaries. This amendment closes that door while preserving every legitimate tool that a commander needs to keep a base safe. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want you to support this amendment. Speed cameras on military bases unfairly cost junior troops money. Military police already enforce the speed limits. Also, the computer network these cameras would use is not secure from our enemies.”

“Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague from California’s concern about overall base safety. I think if we step back and actually look at the big picture here, what we are talking about is simply a tax on our lower enlisted personnel. We have military police to enforce safety standards that are already issued by the base commanders across every installation that we have. At the end of the day, we cannot deny that NIPRNet has been compromised by over 90 percent of our most serious and significant adversaries--the exact same net that these speed cameras would live on. I think that is a significant concern for the safety and security of our installation personnel and the operations that are ongoing on our installations. For that reason, I encourage my colleagues to strongly support this amendment. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.”

“I want the House to pass my three amendments to the defense bill. They support military bases in my district. One requires an update on the cause of the recent B-52 plane crash. Another requires a study on health and safety resources at Edwards Air Force Base. The third requires a study on connecting supersonic airspace for military and civilian testing.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendments to the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act. Nowhere is this legislation more critical than in California’s 20th Congressional District, home to Edwards Air Force Base, the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, Naval Air Station Lemoore, and the Mojave Air and Space Port. I am honored to offer three amendments that support our installations today. First, amendment No. 136 honors the eight heroes lost in the tragic B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base last month. It directs the Department of War to brief Congress on the cause of the accident. These brave individuals sacrificed their lives so that we can live in peace and freedom. Their commitment and dedication will never be forgotten. Second, amendment No. 137 directs a comprehensive study of medical and safety resources at Edwards Air Force Base. Edwards is located in a remote area of our State that is critical for the test work that is performed. I want to ensure that the military members, civilians, and contractors serving at the base have access to the health and safety resources needed to advance their mission. Third, amendment No. 135 directs a study of supersonic airspace connectivity between the R-2508 Airspace Complex, which includes China Lake, Edwards Air Force Base, and Fort Irwin, and connects to the Point Mugu Sea Range. These ranges encompass over 56,000 square miles of world-class testing capacity. Combined with the civilian capabilities of Mojave Air and Space Port and NASA Armstrong, my amendment will help better integrate supersonic airspace connectivity and would expand test capabilities for both military and commercial aerospace, keeping America at the cutting edge of defense innovation. These amendments help ensure our defense installations have the resources, the safety, and the airspace they need to continue leading the way. I urge my colleagues to support them.”

“I want the House to pass this amendment. It helps veterans get access to a medicine called ibogaine in clinical trials. This treatment helps heal brain injuries, stops drug addiction, and prevents veterans from killing themselves.”

“Mr. Chair, I thank our chairman for his great work on this National Defense Authorization Act. As always, he has delivered. Mr. Chair, every day our Nation loses 17 veterans to suicide. These are men and women who survived combat but then lost to a quiet and longer war against the invisible wounds that they carried with them. Since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, many of them are asking: Was it worth it? Well, we are providing a solution to that problem here today. I thank my colleague, Mr. Luttrell, for his service as a Navy SEAL and also for introducing this amendment to increase veterans’ access to ibogaine. I know personally how much this means to our Nation’s heroes because I have talked to them, the Special Operations Association, to people, veterans across this Nation who are clamoring for a solution to their problem, and we have one. They should not have to travel to Mexico to receive this treatment. Countless vets have told me that they were going to give this one shot before they committed suicide. They went down. They experienced ibogaine, and they came back cured. Stanford University did a study on 30 veterans with TBI and PTSD, verified through MRI brain scans, where it was demonstrated that ibogaine actually regenerated brain tissue and helped them get over their addiction to opioids and resolve their PTSD and TBI. This needs to be available in the United States of America now in clinical trials to our veterans. My home State of Texas passed legislation to provide clinical trials to veterans for ibogaine. I thank my former Governor, Rick Perry, and Mr. Bryan Hubbard, Americans for Ibogaine, for leading this effort. I thank Morgan Luttrell and Marcus, his brother, who we all know from the ``Lone Survivor’’ story. Ibogaine saved their lives, and we have heard the testimony from them about the effectiveness of this medicine. It is time, Mr. Chair, to make this medicine available to our veterans here in the United States at our VA clinics across the Nation. This amendment--and I thank the chairman for supporting it--will take us to that point where we can now save their lives, where they don’t have to worry about suicide and they don’t have to be on 30 medications, for God sakes, to treat their addiction, to treat their PTSD when we know we have a medicine that works. The evidence, the data, and the Stanford study are all there to save their lives. I urge my colleagues to vote for this measure. Again, I thank all my colleagues, including the chairman and Morgan Luttrell for their support. I thank the Energy and Commerce Committee for their work to bring all of this to the floor, not only today but in future legislation. I also thank the heroes, those who have served this country in harm’s way, those who have put their lives at risk who are suffering from these diseases today for their service. We owe it to them to pass this legislation.”

“I want the House to pass this measure. It urges the President to give the Medal of Honor to Colonel Bob Graham. He saved hundreds of American lives during a battle in the Vietnam War.”

“Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this en bloc, which includes an amendment that calls on the President to award the Medal of Honor to Colonel Bob Graham of Nuangola, Pennsylvania. On May 1, 1966, at the height of Operation Birmingham in the Vietnam war, then-Captain Graham flew his battle-damaged F-100 Super Sabre through monsoon weather to reach American troops surrounded by 4,000 enemy soldiers. He made more than 15 low-level attack passes under heavy artillery fire, knowing full well he may not survive. He not only survived, but destroyed eight enemy gun positions, neutralized over 1,500 enemy troops, and broke the back of that assault, saving hundreds of American lives. Colonel Graham flew over 500 combat missions across four tours in Vietnam and served this country faithfully for 26 years. He already earned the Silver Star for his heroic actions that day. However, it is past time that we recognize his actions went above and beyond the call of duty. I urge my colleagues to support this and finally give Colonel Graham the recognition he has long since earned.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Signal 32 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this amendment. It lets the Arkansas National Guard and the Army Reserve swap land and buildings at Camp Robinson for free. Both groups already agreed to this, and it will put their facilities to better use.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Amendment No. 158. Amendment No. 158 is extremely important to the Arkansas National Guard. That is why I am grateful to have the support of my Arkansas colleagues, Rep. Steve Womack and Rep. Rick Crawford. This amendment supports the Arkansas National Guard by seeking to codify the proposed land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve on Camp Robinson in North Little Rock. Currently, there is a strategic mismatch in facility use for the Arkansas National Guard and the USAR on Camp Robinson. The land exchange will include a two-star division headquarters at Camp Pike, currently occupied by a drilling unit with minimal full-time staff, a unit whose needs would be far better served by an armory. The second is the Chappell Armory in Arkansas, which was built for traditional drilling units but currently operates as a full-time headquarters. Amendment No. 158 seeks a no-cost land exchange between the Arkansas National Guard and USAR. This would result in a mutually beneficial outcome and ensure better stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The Arkansas National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve support the conveyance. I am pleased that there has been a signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Brigadier General Bridges of the Arkansas Guard and Brigadier General Cook of the Army Reserves. Amendment No. 158 directly relates to the signed MOA, and it ensures the necessary continuity and stability for the proposed land exchange. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.”

“I want the House to support my amendment. It requires a study on how well the military shares cyber threat information with local leaders, tribes, and private companies. This will help us better protect our vital infrastructure from online attacks.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 156. My amendment directs the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of the quality and effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s cyber intelligence sharing with state, local, Tribal, territorial, and private-sector partners. I drafted this amendment with the Arkansas National Guard to ensure we analyze cyber information sharing to learn how to stop and mitigate cyber threats for homeland defense. As you may know, the National Guard is uniquely positioned by its capabilities, geography, and manpower to add resilience to integrated critical infrastructure dependencies. That is why it is critical for the GAO to conduct this review, as it can inform and better unify efforts among federal partners, state-level defenders, and other critical stakeholders to ensure faster warning, mitigation, incident response, and better defense of our critical infrastructure. This amendment is extremely important to central Arkansas and the Arkansas National Guard. It is also extremely important to our national security and cyber health. I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 156. The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). The question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers). The en bloc amendments were agreed to.”

“I support this amendment to extend the Defense Production Act for five more years. This law helps American manufacturing, protects supply chains, and makes sure our military has the supplies it needs.”

“Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Chairman Hill’s amendment to extend the Defense Production Act for an additional 5 years. For decades, the Defense Production Act has served as an important national security tool. It has continually provided the flexibility to strengthen our industrial base, respond to emergencies, and ensure the United States has resources it needs to meet national security threats at home and abroad. The Defense Production Act helps keep our supply chains secure, strengthens manufacturing in the United States, and ensures that our servicemembers have the support they need to defend our Nation. At a time when our adversaries are investing heavily in new technologies and strengthening their own industrial and defense capabilities, we cannot afford to fall behind. Earlier this Congress, the House Financial Services Committee unanimously advanced bipartisan legislation to reauthorize and modernize the Defense Production Act. I was proud to sponsor that legislation. This reflects a shared understanding that a strong defense industrial base is essential to America’s national security and to our economic resilience. Congress has a responsibility to provide our servicemembers with the resources and support they need to accomplish their mission safely and effectively, and we must ensure there is no gap in essential provisions. While I am disappointed that this House is not considering the full bipartisan reauthorization of our standalone bill, I do believe it is essential that we provide certainty to our own economy, to our defense industrial base, and to the manufacturers and processors to help keep America secure. This is what a clean, 5-year extension achieves. Mr. Chair, I urge all of our colleagues to support this amendment.”

“I want to pass my amendment. It keeps the partnership between the military and Scouting America going, which helps train future leaders and recruit them into our armed forces.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise today to recognize my amendment No. 297 in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2027, which ensures the Department of War and Scouting America remains in a partnership. For more than 116 years, Scouting America has endeavored to develop young Americans into leaders of tomorrow through service, physical activities, and community projects. Scouting helps instill a drive in young people to carry out their duty to God and country, understand the principles of the American social, economic, and governmental systems, and take pride in their American heritage, while being prepared to lead their communities. With more than one million participants who have contributed more than seven million service hours in 2024 alone, Scouts know how to build stronger communities and how to lead people. Scouting America believes--and through over a century of experience, knows--that helping youth is a key to building a more conscientious, responsible, and productive society. I am grateful for the longstanding partnership between Scouting America and the Department of War. I can think of no better recruitment tool for our military than the lessons learned through Scouting. Scouts are known as leaders within their communities, and approximately 15 percent of all military academy cadets and midshipmen across U.S. service academies are Eagle Scouts. Mr. Chair, this historic partnership between Scouting America and the Department of War is a relationship that strengthens our country and ensures our best and brightest become leaders of tomorrow.”

“I want the House to pass this amendment. It requires the military to study and publish the costs of future F-35 fighter jet bases before choosing where to put them.”

“Mr. Chair, I rise in support of Rep. Steve Womack’s Amendment No. 311, that I am proud to cosponsor. Amendment No. 311 seeks to maximize taxpayer value by directing the Department of Defense to conduct and publish a cost comparison study for future F-35 basing locations for aircraft receiving first delivery between Fiscal Year 2030 and Fiscal Year 2035. As you may know, the next round of F-35 basing decisions is expected in the next 24 months. This study is critical to arm military decision-makers with objective, data-driven analysis before that decision is made. The Arkansas National Guard believes that this study is critical to ensuring a complete understanding of the current mission and personnel before future F-35 basing decisions are made. I agree with the Arkansas National Guard and that is why I urge my colleagues to support Amendment No. 311.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. Too many unauthorized drones are flying over our military bases and ships. My amendment requires a report to Congress on these drone threats and whether base commanders have the tools and legal power to stop them.”

“Mr. Chair, my amendment addresses a stark and increasing threat to our Nation’s critical infrastructure, the malicious use of drones, especially their use around critical military installations and law enforcement vessels. Amendment No. 283 requires the Inspector General of the Department of War to produce a report to Congress regarding Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) activity around military installations in the United States and abroad, sensitive national security sites, military and law enforcement vessels, and the capabilities possessed by installations to counter this activity, protocols in place to coordinate with state and local law enforcement, and the sufficiency of legal authorities provided to installation commanders to address threats both inside and outside the wire. Over the last several years, there has been persistent unauthorized drone activity around military installations. In 2024, for 17 days a fleet of unidentified drones penetrated the airspace over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, home to advance jet fighters including F-22s, continuing on to the airspace over Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek and Naval Station Norfolk. Also in 2024, the Department of War confirmed a number of drone sightings over multiple installations in my state of New Jersey, including Picatinny Arsenal and Naval Weapons Station Earle in my district. Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, also in my district, has seen significant unauthorized drone activity including attempts to smuggle contraband in FCI Dix and other drones whose intent was not clear. Additionally, a Coast Guard Commanding Officer told me more than a dozen drones, in formation, followed a 47-foot rescue boat a mere 100 feet off the stern, as it made maneuvers in the ocean off Ocean County. Earlier this year, Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana--home to B- 52 bombers who play a critical role in America’s nuclear triad--was forced to issue a shelter in place order due to reports of unauthorized drone activity. And just months ago, here in Washington D.C., Fort McNair saw unauthorized drone overflights. In testimony last year before the Senate Armed Services Committee, NORTHCOM Commander General Gregory M. Guillot expressed concern over what he called the ``rapidly evolving strategic environment’’ and ``the emergence of small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS) as a threat to infrastructure and personnel in the homeland.’’ He went on to describe the threat as ``widespread’’ as ``there were 350 detections reported’’ on military installations in 2024. At the same time, we have seen adversaries--notably Russia and Iran-- make significant investments in drone technology and seen its impact on the battlefield, both in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Communist China is a global leader in drone technology and continues to integrate these capabilities into its military doctrine and exercises. It is vital we gain a thorough understanding of adversary capabilities, and their will deploy these technologies to threaten American interests. Congress has taken steps to address these threats, both the Armed Services Committee and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee have methodically strengthened military and law enforcements authority and ability to deploy counter-drone technology in recent reauthorization bills to, yet a further accounting of how widespread this threat is and what, if any shortfalls remain is needed. Make no mistake, it is imperative Congress ensure that those on the ground and charged with the safety of military installations and the lives of servicemembers and the community at large have the authority and technology necessary to effectively mitigate and overcome these threats to protect the homeland. I thank the Committee on Rules for finding this amendment in order, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment with a yes vote.”

“I want the House to pass my amendment. It makes the military study how to cut 200,000 civilian jobs to stop wasting money.”

“Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of War to examine options for reducing its civilian workforce by 200,000 positions. For point of reference, at the time that President Trump took office, the number of non-uniformed personnel in the Department of War was about 770,000. There was a buyout situation in which they reduced that number by about 80,000, and since that time, they have felt there were certain positions that they had to refill that they probably shouldn’t have let go of, so right now they are sitting around 705,000. We know that DOGE felt that throughout government they had unnecessary personnel. We have all heard anecdotal evidence of people working in a variety of agencies, but particularly the Department of War, who may not be necessary. I will point out, since I have kind of looked into this, that I have found shocking anecdotes of people working in the private sector in big companies who manage to get by doing very little work because the companies are just plain too big and people fall between the cracks. If that is going on in private-sector big companies, Mr. Chair, think how much more likely that is happening in a big organization like the Department of War. In any event, right now, we are dealing with a situation in which the Department of War is asking for a considerable increase in money, in particular with regard to its authorization bill and also with regard to the other bill that we are going to be trying to pass this week. Given that, we have to make sure that they are not wasting any money. I think it would be a good exercise for the Department of War to say: We have got at least 705,000 people. What would happen if we had to get rid of 200,000? Maybe we will find they are all necessary, but I don’t think so. In any event, I think it is good from time to time for big organizations to look and see whether everybody is necessary and what they are doing. For too long, Washington has allowed Federal bureaucracies to grow without regularly asking whether every position is necessary and asking what people are doing. We can protect national security while also demanding efficiency and accountability. As we know from the proposals that we are going to have to vote on this week, the military certainly needs to find new money and we are broke, so it would be better if they find out whether in their workforce they are wasting money. In any event, we are going to ask the Department of War to see what would happen if they had to reduce their number of nonuniformed positions by 200,000. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.”

“I want a study on what happens if we cut the defense workforce. Many federal workers do not do enough work, and we should be allowed to study this.”

“Mr. Chair, just one final comment. We didn’t say we were going to reduce the workforce by 200,000. We were going to say what happens if we try to do it. I do believe if you get around here and ask people, they will give you anecdotal evidence of people working for a very short period of time. As far as already dealing with this, there was a buyout. As I mentioned, they bought out several employees who they shouldn’t have bought out. Right now, we have reduced the workforce by about 65,000. Again, I think if you ask people in this town, it will not be hard to find people who feel people working in the Federal agencies are not doing a lot. I know that is true in the private sector. It is certainly more likely to be true here. Mr. Chair, I am a little bit shocked that we won’t even allow the Department to do a study. I reserve the balance of my time.”

“We should study whether our defense agency has too many civilian workers. We are spending hundreds of billions more on the military, but Democrats do not want to check for unnecessary office jobs.”

“Mr. Chair, just a final comment. I know somebody who bought a company, and he informs me that he found out that probably half of his white-collar employees were unnecessary. I think if you get around this town and talk to people, you will certainly find a lot of anecdotal evidence. I think it is kind of amazing that the Democratic Party is afraid of a study. Maybe the study will come back and show it is tight as a drum. I don’t think so. I am just kind of shocked that at a time when we are asking for tens of billions--hundreds of billions of dollars more for our Department of War, we are not going to do a study on our civilian employees. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”