00:00We will now consider log number 5110R1 by Ms. Tricklin. For what purpose does the
00:07gentlelady from Washington seek recognition? I have an amendment at the
00:10desk, Mr. Chair. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment? Without
00:14objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair now
00:17recognizes the gentlelady from Washington for the purpose of explaining
00:20her amendment. Mr. Chairman, I am offering a simple amendment to prohibit
00:25nepotism at the Department of Defense. And I want to say at the outset that it's
00:29unfortunate that I even have to offer this amendment. Federal law prohibits
00:33nepotism. A 1967 federal nepotism law prohibits government officials from
00:39hiring, promoting, or recommending relatives to any civilian position over which they
00:43exercise any control. But unfortunately, the Secretary of Defense either thinks he
00:48is above the law or he simply needs another reminder that we should not hire
00:52our immediate family members, including siblings or spouses, to work for you or
00:57report to you in any way. Pete Hegseth's brother has an office at the Pentagon. And
01:04the Department of Defense, as we know, handles some of the most sensitive issues of
01:07national security. It is deeply concerning that the Secretary of Defense's
01:12judgment is so poor that he included his wife and his brother in an unsecured
01:17signal chat where sensitive operational details were being shared. And while the
01:22Pentagon has stated that the Secretary's wife never, quote, attended a meeting where
01:26sensitive information was discussed, that's actually contradicted by widespread
01:30press reporting. And here's why this matters. Nepotism prioritizes personal
01:35relationships over qualifications, skills, and capabilities. And by the Republican
01:42definition of DEI, another Hegseth DEI hire. When Secretary Hegseth was sworn in, he sent a
01:50message to the force which said, DOD's standards will be, quote, high, uncompromising,
01:56and clear. The Secretary's use of unqualified people as his closest confidants
02:02demonstrates every single day that he's not holding himself to the standard that
02:07he demands of others. What message does this send to the troops? Making it crystal
02:13clear to this Department of Defense and to every administration after this that such
02:18behavior is unacceptable is the right thing to do. It does not matter who's in the
02:22White House. It does not matter who's Secretary of Defense. This should be a
02:26nonpartisan issue. I urge everyone to vote yes on this amendment, and I yield back,
02:30Mr. Chair. The gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. I agree that
02:35nepotism is not good. It's not good government, which is why I support the
02:40nepotism laws already in place. Federal law at 5 U.S.C. subsection 3110 already
02:47prohibits a Federal official, including a member of Congress, from appointing, promoting
02:51or recommending for appointment or promotion any relative of the official or any agency
02:57or department over which the official exercises authority or control. This restatement of the
03:02law is simply a vehicle to attack the President. What it does do, however, is prevent the sons
03:07and daughters of military officers or other appointed officials from serving their country.
03:12For example, the enlisted child of the 101st Airborne Commanding General would be restricted
03:17from serving in that unit. That's not acceptable. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment.
03:22Any other members seek to Mr. Whitesides of California is recognized.
03:25Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Strickland, for offering. I wish this amendment
03:30wasn't necessary, but it is. Let's be clear. The Department of Defense runs on discipline,
03:35not on dynasties. The Secretary has made a lot of noise about wanting to run his department
03:39based on merit, not on immutable characteristics, but he's not applied that same standard to
03:44himself and his family. He's employed his own brother, a podcaster without substantive
03:48government or policy experience, and an important role at the Department. If the top civilian official
03:54disregards basic norms against nepotism, it sends a corrosive message down the ranks that
03:58connections matter more than conduct. This isn't about one family. It's about the future of
04:04civilian leadership. If we don't draw a line now, we're opening the door to politicized,
04:09unaccountable, family-run decision-making structures at the top of our nation's most powerful and
04:15important institutions. Make no mistake, good governance is built on norms that prevent conflict
04:21of interest. Nepotism erodes public trust, weakens morale within the Department, and creates
04:27vulnerabilities in decision-making that foreign adversaries can exploit. And let's be honest, it doesn't
04:33stop at the foreign risk. We have protocols for a reason. Nepotism introduces chaos into command.
04:39When family members are involved in informal decision-making, especially without relevant
04:43expertise or experience, it creates confusion, duplication, and risk. This amendment shouldn't
04:49be partisan nor controversial. In fact, it protects the secretary as well. It protects him and future
04:55secretaries from being pressured or tempted to involve family inappropriately. It strengthens the office
05:01by clearly underlying its ethical boundaries and will increase the American people's trust
05:06in this institution. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield back.
05:11Gentleman yields back. Does any other member seek recognition on the Strickland amendment?
05:17There's no further debate. Question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Strickland. So many
05:21is there in favor? We'll say aye. Those opposed, no. No. Opinion chair, the no's have it. Recorded votes
05:28requested. Recorded vote is postponed.
Comments