00:00Senator King. Mr. Secretary, I'm somewhat puzzled. I grew up in Virginia where Robert E. Lee was
00:07revered. I think when I was a kid, his birthday was a school holiday. But as I grew older and
00:15learned more about American history, I learned that he fit the classic definition of a traitor.
00:20He took up arms against his country. He broke his oath as a member of the United States Army,
00:26which he took upon entering his career at West Point. Why are you going through these incredible
00:33gymnastics, finding current soldiers or other soldiers to rename? And you slipped a minute ago.
00:40You said we're returning these bases to their original names. Robert E. Lee, leading general
00:47of the Confederacy, Pickett, the other names. Why are you doing this? I don't understand what the
00:53motivation is to rename bases for people who took up arms against their country on behalf of slavery.
01:04What possible motivation can there be for this? Who is telling you to do this? Who is urging you to do
01:10this? Senator, the veterans and service members across the country who have deployed from Fort Bragg
01:22or Fort Benning or Fort Hood or Fort Pickett. There's a legacy. There's a connection to those bases
01:31and to those places, to what they trained for there, what they did for and what they came home back to.
01:37That matters to them. Ask enough of them, as I do all the time, before and later. And we recognize
01:43the service of those who were put into the replacement. No one's disputing that. I would never
01:49dispute that. What we're looking at is erasing history, erasing names, erasing base names that
01:56service members are tied to. Talk to people that serve at Bragg. Ask people that serve at Fort Bragg
02:01or Fort Benning if they like the fact that the names have been returned. And to a man and to a woman,
02:07they will tell you, thank God we're back to Fort Bragg. And thankfully, because so many men and women
02:13in this country have served, there's a Benning and a Bragg and a picket and a hood that has a silver
02:19star or a medal of honor that we could rename the base to because of the limits of what Congress
02:23allowed us to do. So this is something we've been proud to do, something that's important for the
02:27morale of the Army. And those communities appreciate that we've returned it back to what it was instead
02:33of trying to play this game of erasing names. We're not erasing history, Mr. Secretary.
02:39We're recognizing history and recognizing that mistakes have been made in this country. The greatest
02:45of all was the Civil War where people took up arms against their country on behalf of the institution
02:51of slavery. And to continue the practice of recognizing those people and honoring them by the naming of
02:57these bases is, I believe, an insult to the people of the United States. Let me talk about the budget.
03:03I don't understand why the budget is coming to us in two pieces. Why not give us an honest
03:09budget instead of putting a piece of it in reconciliation? As I understand it, OMB is saying
03:16we're going to have a flat defense budget for the next four or five years. Are we planning
03:21reconciliation every year from now on? Why not give us an honest budget telling us what your priorities
03:27are and then we can consider it. This committee always works in a bipartisan basis on a defense budget.
03:34We all want to see some increases in the defense budget. And yet you're giving us this fake,
03:41here's a piece of the budget, here's another. You're cutting in the base budget, you're cutting shipbuilding
03:46in half and saying, well, we're going to make it up in reconciliation. Are we going to have reconciliation
03:51every year? Which basically, by the way, puts a significant part, 10 or 15 percent of the defense budget
03:58in a wholly partisan decision-making process, whereas in the history of this committee,
04:04it's always been bipartisan. Why are we doing it this way?
04:10Senator, from our view, the budget number 961 meets the requirements and threats that we face.
04:15That's not the number. The number is 892.6. You're adding reconciliation. That's my whole point.
04:22Why not give us a base budget of 961 or whatever the right number is, what you consider the right number,
04:27and then we can operate and make our decisions? Why do it in this bifurcated way that really is
04:33fooling the American people about what the defense budget is?
04:38We're not trying to fool anybody, sir. It's two bills, one budget. We're working with OMB.
04:43Why is it being done this way? And we feel very comfortable with the number of 961 billion.
04:47Why don't you give us a straight-up budget for the Defense Department? That's my question.
04:52Senator, this is a straight-up budget for the Defense Department. It's a 13% increase over what Joe Biden gave us.
04:58It is a two-part defense budget. Part of it is in reconciliation instead of in the budget that's being presented to this committee.
05:04This committee only has a partial review of the budget.
05:08I don't understand why we can't have an honest, straightforward budget instead of this son of OCO that you're putting over on us.
05:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
05:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Comments