Gilbert Ray Cisneros, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the California School of the Arts in the San Gabriel Valley.

Over the past decade, this special institution has inspired so many talented young students in California's 31st District to embrace their creativity and pursue their dreams as artists.

I visited the campus earlier this year and saw firsthand the talent on display. Students here are equally dedicated to academic excellence and mastering the artistic process. It is truly an inspiration to witness.

To the staff and educators, I congratulate them on their 10-year anniversary of setting our California-31 students up with the foundation for success.

Best of luck on the new school year, and I wish them all success in their future academic and creative endeavors.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Chair, I am going to say, I am pretty baffled by this amendment from my friend and colleague, and I rise in opposition to this amendment.

It moves base safety in the wrong direction. Even the Department of Defense opposes this amendment. This amendment would prohibit automated speed enforcement cameras on military installations.

To be clear, these cameras aren't about punishing our troops or their families. They exist to keep bases and military families safe. These cameras keep reckless drivers accountable and have a proven and effective record for reducing traffic accidents and maintaining safe and orderly driving.

According to the Federal Highway Administration, speed enforcement cameras have been found to reduce roadway fatalities and injuries by up to 37 percent.

I want to remind my colleagues that our military bases aren't just for troops to work and train. They are home to schools, youth centers, child development centers, playgrounds, and family housing.

Junior personnel can't usually afford vehicles and are usually having to walk around bases. It is imperative that we maintain traffic safety. The servicemembers and families who live and

work on these bases deserve every protection we can give them, and that must be part of this conversation.

I have not heard one shred of data and not one credible argument that this amendment makes our installations safer.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's argument there, but if the Department of Defense can't maintain the cybersecurity cameras on our own installations, then we have a lot bigger problems.

The truth is that vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of death for our servicemembers.

Why are we even debating this? We should be debating amendments that rein in this administration's reckless conduct on this Iran war or its reckless spending in the Middle East. Instead, my colleagues would rather discuss speed cameras.

The fact is, this amendment restrains the Secretary's ability to allocate security and law enforcement resources to address traffic safety. Prohibiting the use of speed cameras also undermines an installation commander's ability to deploy the appropriate resources to effectively meet the traffic and public safety needs of the installation.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this reckless amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The FY16 NDAA already granted the Department the authority to establish a process for servicemembers to carry personal firearms on base.

It is simple. The chain of command has the authority to grant these requests. However, Secretary Hegseth's MOU from April, which this amendment codifies, has a presumption of approval that weakens an installation commander's authority and would require them to essentially prove a negative to deny a request.

The process that we established was dependent on a servicemember's need for personal or force protection. Yet, this amendment strips that requirement or any justification for that matter in order to carry a personal firearm on base.

The Secretary's logic is that adding more firearms at military installations would make it safer. No law enforcement agency would ever suggest that more people carrying personal weapons makes any place safer. While our military personnel are trained to use firearms, they are not all trained to be law enforcement, and no one should ever take the law into their own hands.

There is nothing in this amendment that would restrict locations for personal firearms. Does that mean junior enlisted servicemembers who account for roughly half of all military suicides are now permitted to carry in the barracks under this amendment?

Are personnel now allowed to walk around the commissaries, schools, the exchange, or libraries with a firearm? More guns does not make us more safe.

Expanding access to personal firearms on base increases the risk of servicemember suicide. Independent research, including reviews commissioned by the Department of Defense itself, has found that greater access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risks among servicemembers.

There is a clear lack of consideration by Republicans for servicemembers' and their families' well-being and safety here.

Madam Chair, I urge all my colleagues to oppose this amendment.