During a House Armed Services Committee hearing in July, Rep. Mikie Sherill (D-NJ) introduced an amendment to codify women's role in combat, which Rep. Trent Kelly (R-MS) objected to.
00:00We now consider log number 5586R1 by Ms. Sherrill. For what purpose is General
00:06Lady from New Jersey seat recognition? Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
00:10desk. Will the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection. The
00:14reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The chair recognizes General Lady
00:18for the purpose of explaining her amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This
00:21amendment does not create new policy. It simply codifies current policy that the
00:26Department of Defense has been practicing for over a decade by affirming women's
00:31eligibility for combat roles and allows for waiver if necessary for exclusion.
00:37This amendment does not change requirements, standards, or qualifications
00:41for any service member assigned to their position in the military. So let me repeat
00:47this. This amendment does not change any standards and suggestions that it does
00:52are simply misstatements meant to attack women's service. I graduated from the
00:58Naval Academy in 1994. The first year women were allowed to serve in certain
01:02combat roles, including my role as a naval aviator. I qualified as an expert shot in
01:07an M16 rifle, Colt .45, and a 9mm Beretta. I'd put my training up against
01:12anyone else's, and in the nine years I served, I served alongside incredibly
01:16intelligent, dedicated, and strong women whose service was just as valuable as
01:21anyone else's. More than 9,000 women have earned combat action ribbons during
01:27modern combat operations, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, and hundreds more
01:32have earned valor awards. Take Army First Sergeant Leanne Hester, for example, who was
01:37the first woman awarded the Silver Star for direct combat action after her heroic
01:42actions against an enemy ambush in Iraq. She cleared two enemy trenches against
01:47overwhelming odds alongside her fellow soldiers. Neither her comrades nor the
01:52enemy cared if she was a man or a woman. Since 2015, women have been serving in
01:57direct combat roles alongside men. Whether it's conventional units or selective
02:01units, such as the 75th Ranger Regiment, women have served in these units in
02:05direct ground combat operations with distinction. Throughout the wars in Iraq and
02:10Afghanistan, women operated in crucial roles under fire alongside men, like the
02:14women of the Lioness teams who cleared homes and gathered intelligence of
02:18suspected militants. Their service saved lives and contributed significantly to
02:23mission success. Oddly, Secretary Hegseth stated during his confirmation
02:29hearing that, quote, some of the best soldiers I ever worked with were women, and yet he
02:33continues to attack their service. Codifying women's eligibility for combat
02:38roles is about honoring the reality of our armed forces today. It's about ensuring
02:43fairness, maintaining our military's operational effectiveness, and recognizing
02:47the bravery and sacrifice of thousands of women who have fought and will continue
02:52to fight alongside their male counterparts. I urge my colleagues to support this
02:56amendment to codify women's eligibility for combat roles and to yield back.
03:00General, he yields back. Chair now recognizes himself. To be clear, this amendment
03:05purports to prevent gender from being considered when assigning service members
03:09to different positions. It does not mention men, women, or biological sex. It is
03:14already policy that the military assigns members based on merit and the needs of
03:19the service. Men and women may serve in any position they are qualified to serve. I oppose
03:24this amendment. Does anybody wish to speak on Ms. Cheryl's amendment? Oh, I'm sorry, Ms.
03:29Houlihan, Pennsylvania. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am again in strong support of my
03:36colleague's amendment to codify women's roles in combat. It is very, very clear that
03:41Secretary Hegseth is on a mission to bit by bit get women out of the military. So this
03:46is another case of belts and suspenders. I fear that we need to codify the progress
03:51that women have made in combat. Time and time again, Secretary Hegseth has said that
03:55women should not be in combat roles. And since taking the helm at the Pentagon, he's
03:59removed top women leaders, he's changed fitness standards, he's scrubbed female
04:04military history, and more. Even in front of this very committee, he refused to
04:08acknowledge the vital role that women play in our military readiness, war fighting,
04:12and lethality. Aside from being empirically sexist and disrespectful, Secretary Hegseth's
04:19actions are irresponsible. Women do make up 18% of our active duty force and do make up
04:2522% of our National Guard. And I believe this growth is not because of policy, it's
04:30despite recent policy. As I've already said, women's service improves innovation
04:36and mission outcomes. It makes our military stronger, smarter, and more prepared to face
04:41the challenges of modern warfare. Our military cannot be fully ready to face the
04:46challenges of tomorrow without maintaining and strengthening the numbers of women who
04:50serve. And we must continue to support the women who raise their hand. We must codify
04:56the role of women fighting for us in all ways, in all positions. I very much support my
05:01friend's amendment and I urge my colleagues on all sides of the aisle, both sides of the
05:05aisle, to do the same. Thank you, and I yield back.
05:08Chair Letty yields back. Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly.
05:12Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While this is intended to promote equality, this amendment risks degrading military
05:17readiness and warfighting flexibility. Current authority exists under Title 10, USC code 652,
05:25which already protects against unjust exclusion. I have served in combat with women that I proudly
05:32call my comrade in arms. They are just as lethal, just as good in some positions. The ability
05:40already exists for them to serve alongside anybody, anywhere. This is just a cheap shot at the
05:51Secretary of Defense. It has nothing to do. We don't need to codify it. It's already in the law. And so, I just
05:57ask, do not support this amendment. Women are absolutely lethal and effective in all roles in the military, and we do not need a political statement made in this committee to do what
06:09they already have. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
06:12Gentleman yields back. Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crow.
06:15Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to support Ms. Sherrill's amendment. My colleagues have repeatedly said that the ability exists. That is often true. The executive branch and the Department of Defense often have the ability or the authority to do things.
06:35And yet, policy of any one administration set by the leader of the department can decide whether to do those things, which is why Congress exists.
06:52Because it's then our job, if we believe that the policy or the decisions of any one administration are inconsistent with the values of our nation,
07:03or undermine the role of our military. This amendment would say that the policies of this administration when it comes to women in the military and in combat are inconsistent with the values and morals of this country and what's in the best interest of our service members.
07:23That's why we legislate. I did three combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can tell you a lot of things make up an effective combat soldier. Grit, courage, mental and physical toughness, steadiness, ingenuity, and teamwork.
07:46Men and women can and do possess these qualities. I am all about maintaining equal standards. That's what this amendment would do. But providing opportunity for men and women to stand up and to show those qualities and to serve our nation.
08:06And I would encourage my colleagues to join us in passing this amendment. I yield back.
08:13The gentleman yields back. I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan.
08:15Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleague, Ms. Cheryl, for introducing an important amendment. And again, as we've heard from my colleagues before this, these are not debates that we frankly thought we needed to have or should have to have.
08:31But we've seen a rollback of progress that has been made, progress towards more Americans serving this country, more Americans, men and women being able to step up and raise their right hand and take that oath that has now been in place and proven to be successful in creating a more lethal, cohesive and effective force since the policy was put into place in 2013.
08:58So with respect to my colleagues, if our goals are to have more folks serving, to up our recruitment numbers, then why would you oppose codifying this?
09:10If, as Mr. Kelly rightly said, women have and continue to prove themselves as lethal and ferocious fighters, not just as lethal and ferocious as men, but in many, many cases, more lethal and ferocious than men.
09:26If you agree with that, as I appreciate him saying, then why would you oppose codifying that into law?
09:33So again, I just want to say that I support this and finally drive home the point of the reality.
09:41It's striking that 9,000 women have earned the same combat action badge ribbon that I proudly earned and many others on the committee and across the country.
09:52This is just about recognizing that and seeing it as an opportunity to unify the country, not to divide us.
09:59Thank you, Mr. Chair.
10:00I yield back.
10:01The gentleman yields back.
10:03Does any other member wish to speak on Ms. Cheryl's amendment?
10:06If there's no further debate, the question occurs on the amendment offered by Ms. Cheryl.
Be the first to comment