Sara Jacobs Slams Pete Hegseth For Being 'Reckless With Sensitive Information'

4 months ago

During a House Armed Services Committee markup meeting before the Congressional recess, Rep. Sara Jacobs (D-CA) spoke about Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Transcript

00:00Following up amendment log number 5619 by Ms. Jacobs, for what purpose does a

00:07gentlelady seek recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

00:11Clerk will report the amendment. With objection, reading the amendments to

00:23Spence With, the chair recognizes the gentlewoman for the purpose of explaining

00:26her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So my amendment is pretty simple. It would

00:32prohibit any funds from being used to install, maintain, or support any

00:36communications infrastructure in DOD facilities that don't follow security

00:40protocols. And it prohibits the Secretary of Defense from communicating about

00:44classified military operational plans using insecure methods. I'm proud to

00:48represent San Diego, the biggest military community in the country. And when I go

00:53home, it's my job to look those military family members in the eye and tell them

00:57I'm doing everything in my power to keep their loved ones safe. That's why I find

01:03it so disgraceful that Secretary Hegseth was so cavalier and reckless with

01:07sensitive information about an imminent military strike jeopardizing operational

01:11integrity and potentially putting our service members' lives at risk. I would

01:16expect our top military advisor in this country to have the utmost care and caution

01:21and reverence for our service members' safety. But as we all know, that is not the

01:26type of Secretary of Defense that we have. In April, the Associated Press reported

01:31that Secretary Hegseth used Signal to discuss classified military operations and

01:35had an internet connection that bypassed the Pentagon security protocols set up in his

01:41office to use Signal on his personal computer. That shows a blatant disregard for our

01:47security protocols that shouldn't be repeated. I know every person on this

01:52committee cares deeply about the safety of our service members, so I hope that there

01:57will be unanimous support for my amendment to protect classified information and the

02:01safety of our service members. I yield back.

02:06The Chair recognizes himself. Much like the previous amendment, this is just another political attack on the Secretary of Defense.

02:11Everyone with a clearance is briefed on proper handling of classified information and

02:16must sign an appropriate oath. We should let the ongoing review play out. Any action before

02:22that process is complete would be premature. I oppose the amendment and now recognize

02:29the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Houlihan.

02:31Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am rising in support of Ms. Jacobs' amendment, which is a more narrow version of Mr. Ryan's

02:405494. As she mentioned, it prohibits the SecDef from communicating about classified material using

02:47personal devices and insecure methods and it states that no funds can be used to install or to maintain

02:53or support any communications infrastructure in DOD facilities that are not in compliance with relevant

02:59standards. Rules for thee and not for me seems to be the law of the land right now when it comes to

03:05the Secretary of Defense. When I held a top-secret clearance in the Air Force, how to manage sensitive

03:11information was practically drilled into me as it is into all of our service members. And if I had done

03:16what Secretary Hegseth did as a junior officer, I would have resigned and likely expected to be prosecuted

03:22and perhaps jailed. Secretary Hegseth seems to have forgotten his training or perhaps has no regard for how

03:29it applies to him. All while he talks relentlessly about leaks and accuses people of being untrustworthy

03:35and disloyal to the administration and to this nation. More than once he's used a publicly available

03:40and non-secure and non-approved messaging app to share details about forthcoming military action,

03:45despite having every tool at his own disposal to have these classified conversations in secure networks.

03:52His negligence could have put our service members at risk and it could have killed them,

03:57but he and other members of the administration have continued to downplay the situation,

04:01including in front of this committee. If members of this committee were really true to themselves,

04:07I very much believe that they know that we shouldn't even have to have this amendment codified,

04:12but sadly with this particular Secretary of Defense, here we are, this is where we are,

04:17and we should collectively, bipartisanly be supportive of it. What Secretary Hegseth did has had

04:23no repercussions for him, so I guess we genuinely legitimately need a law. I believe that if

04:30Secretary Hegseth had any decency he would have long ago resigned over this conduct or had some sort

04:36of announcement of reform, but until then I guess we need a very specific law. So I asked the committee to

04:44be supportive of this amendment and as Mr. Bacon said, if there are other ways other than the previous

04:49amendment to perhaps be supportive without restricting the funding at a 75 percent level,

04:55he perhaps would be supportive of that. I would ask the committee members to really think within

05:01themselves, dig deep, and understand that we only need a couple of us to step forward in addition

05:06to the ones who already have to decry this particular behavior and to support this particular amendment.

05:12And with that, I yield back.

05:14General, he yields back. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. McCormick.

05:19Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is an investigation. There has been change. There will be accountability.

05:29I've seen mishaps and mistakes made in the military where we had top-down reviews. We have a voluntary

05:36review process ongoing right now, and we do not make permanent changes until the formal review

05:42process is complete. Now, unlike a review process when I believe Secretary Hillary Clinton was in

05:50charge and evidence was destroyed, I think this will be a much more transparent and open investigation.

05:57Legislating this issue is inflammatory and could interfere with an ongoing DOD Inspector General's

06:04investigation is not appropriate until the investigation is complete. I urge a no vote on this amendment.

06:11The gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vindeman.

06:17Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've already commented, at least for now, on signal gates sufficiently,

06:23but I do want to point out one more time, now this is based on my experience as both a White House lawyer

06:29and a Department of Defense lawyer, that the investigation by the Department of Defense, IG, is

06:34is not capable of drilling down to all the details that we need. They have no purview to be able to

06:44investigate other departments or agencies or the White House National Security Council. So the only way

06:50to go about this, the only way to get a complete and full investigation is to have Congress investigate.

06:57And one more point on the what about-ism on previous administrations. I think we need to deal with the here and now.

07:04Let's talk about accountability for the current failings. Thank you. With that, I yield back.

07:11The gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.

07:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

07:16Mr. Chairman, like everybody on this committee knows that whenever we go into a classified briefing,

07:23whenever we go to read classified materials, we are walking into a SCIF in order to do that.

07:30That means removing your cell phone, removing any phone, anything with a Bluetooth connection.

07:37You have to take it off your personal self before you enter the room.

07:42At the Pentagon, when I was there, my office was a SCIF. I couldn't walk in with my personal

07:50cell phone. I had to take my Fitbit off. I had to take my headphones out of my pocket. The secretary's

07:56office is a SCIF. He cannot take any of his personal devices into his office. When he walks into his

08:05office, or at least when I was there, Secretary Austin would take everything off, hand it to his

08:09person and he would put it outside the office where it would stay until he left. Same thing with the

08:14Deputy Secretary. The fact that the current Secretary of Defense would put a dirty line in his office

08:22in order so that he could communicate inside a SCIF is just unimaginable and without any comprehension

08:31for the law at all. This is very simple. Take it out of your office. Admit that you were wrong.

08:42Live by the standards that the E-1s and the O-1s and everybody else in the military has to live by.

08:50You were supposed to be there leading by example. Get it together and do this. With that, I yield back.

08:56Gentleman yields back to you and I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Moulton.

09:00Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to respond to some of the concerns from across the aisle.

09:07Yes, it's true that there is an investigation ongoing. The investigation has been going on for

09:14quite some time. It's hard to see that it's not been dragged out. But what we're asking with this

09:20amendment is not a change in policy, as Mr. McCormick has suggested. The policy is very clear.

09:29There's no one in this room who would imagine sitting in a SCIF and having unclassified internet

09:34piped into that room. I'm sure General Bergman had a SCIF in his command. I'm sure he didn't request

09:42unclassified internet piped into that room. I'm sure that Mr. McCormick didn't suggest having

09:50unclassified internet piped into his ready room so that classified mission data could easily be shared

09:58with friends, wives, supporters, whoever it is. So there's no change in policy. But the reason the

10:06amendment is necessary is because this Secretary has in fact done these things. He's done something

10:15that as long as it exists is a national security threat to the United States.

10:22We know on this committee because we get the classified briefings just how sophisticated

10:26our adversaries are. Some people on the other side of the aisle feel confident that the Secretary

10:32has learned his lesson and yet there is no accountability. So it's hard to understand

10:37that he has. If though in fact they're true that he has learned his lesson, then there's no consequence

10:45to this amendment because it simply says that the Secretary is going to follow the procedures that

10:51everyone else in the military, including my colleagues who have served, have had to follow for their

10:56their entire careers. So it's just hard for me to understand what the objections to this are unless

11:04they are purely political, unless you're just afraid of crossing Trump or Hegseth. This should be something

11:12that the Secretary, the President would take in stride if indeed changes have been made, if indeed

11:21accountability is accepted. And if indeed we on this committee care about the chance that this does

11:29happen in the future, the classified mission details are released. We're lucky that those missions were just

11:39over Yemen for a message for a mission that my colleague said was very successful even though there has

11:46not been a single US flagship that has transited the Red Sea since expending hundreds of millions of dollars

11:53worth of ammunition that we really need to deter China. But putting that aside, imagine if this mission had been

12:00over China or Russia. Those pilots would be dead. And yet I still wonder if the Secretary would have apologized to the

12:13mother of those pilots, of that pilot. This is about accountability, yes, but it's about just basic common sense.

12:25So let's take the politics out of it and just do the right thing, not for the Secretary, but for every

12:35young man and woman who serves under him. I think that's our responsibility on this committee. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

12:42The gentleman yields back. Any other members seeking recognition on the Jacobs amendment? Seeing none,

12:51the question occurs on the amendment by Ms. Jacobs. So many in favor, we'll say aye.

12:54Aye. Those opposed, no. No.

12:58In the opinion of the chairs, the amendment is not agreed to. A recorded vote is requested. The recorded vote

13:03will be postponed to a later time.

Sara Jacobs Slams Pete Hegseth For Being 'Reckless With Sensitive Information'

Category

Transcript

Be the first to comment

Recommended