tv Armed Services Committee Marks Up Defense Authorization Bill CSPAN June 29, 2017 8:39am-11:02am EDT
the section of the bill? the gentleman from hawaii. >> mr. chairman, i have -- [inaudible] >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. without objection the amendment is considered as read. is the gentlelady having trouble with remarkable? >> i think -- >> the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. what i will be doing is i'll be offering the amendment and then withdrawing it because i do not have at the end to come because they do not have the requisite waiver. however come having said that, i would like to present the animate and withdraw it at the conclusion. so 171 seeks basically a specific war memorial at pearl harbor hawaii. mr. chair, this is a very unique situation in that there is a rear admiral retired livening of
lloyd who served in world war ii as a submarine officer aboard the uss under the command of john s mccain junior, father of john mccain the third. and he advocated for many years the creation of the pacific war memorial at pearl harbor. in his own words he says there is no recognition of well over 150,000 brave americans who were lost in the pacific war. they are resting on the bottom of the pacific ocean somewhere, or the remains are scattered across the south pacific islands. we need to honor them and the family needs a place to mourn. the admiral turned 100 years old this year, and he is asked that something be done with his lifelong dream of having seen a little monument at pearl harbor so people could, and mourn those wwe've not yet identified or found. to give you an idea of what he
is like, he tells a story while being on the submarine and then wondering, there's got to be a different and a better way. we cannot fight these kinds of wars. so he is actually the founder of the center for strategic and international studies. we all know it as csis, he has it in the pacific and is called the pacific forum, there been many people gone to read as follows because of his interests in peace. he clearly epitomizes what the greatest generation defined amines and all american servicemembers who gave their lives to something that he does not forget, and he wants to see them memorialize the more important than that he wants the families to have closure. however, unfortunately i do not have the waiver from the natural resources committee, so with
that i will withdraw my amendment. >> gentlelady withdraws. other amendments to this section of the bill? gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number one consisting of amendments that a been worked out and approved by the minority led by congresswoman madeleine bordallo of guam. >> without objection, so ordered. if the clerk will distribute the amendments. without objection did amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> en bloc packaging of what is comprised of the following, amendment 001 requiring a briefing on the guam micronesian kingfisher recovery habitat. memorandum of agreement and specific impacts of that agreement. amendment 002 requiring the department of defense developed
guidance for the use of organic and daschle base. amendment ten by mr. scott directs the air force to briefed the committee on the status of the dance adversarial pair training program. amendment number 17 by mr. larson, th, the director of the defense contract management agency to briefed the committee on compliance with the department of defense, items unique identification policy. item 37 by mr. cook requires the secretary defense to report on mutually beneficial infrastructure projects tween military bases and local municipalities. amendment number 38 by mr. shuster clarifying that nothing in the ndaa can be construed as authorizing a base realignment and closure around. amendment number 40 by ms. bordallo withholds 25% of funds from the office of secretary of the navy until the request for
proposal for a drydock in the western pacific has been issued amendment number 47 by ms. tsongas authorizes the secretary of the army to sell or convey three plots of land in massachusetts and use the proceeds to fund military family housing and other supporting facilities. amendment number 106 by mr. coffman directs the secretary of defense to provide a report on each military services existing process for stationing basing and lay down decisions. amendment number 108 by mr. coffman directs the secretary of defense to provide everything on the potential of using additional military installation ranges for counter unmanned aerial systems testing and training. >> is the further discussion on the en bloc package number one? if not the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor?
those opposed? in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment are adopted. further amendments to this portion of the mark, the gentleman from softer line of. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call en bloc package number two, consisting of amendments that a been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, so ordered. the clerk will distribute the amendments which are considered as read, and the gentleman is recognize to explain the amendment. >> en bloc package number two is comprised of the following, amendment number 48 by ms. tsongas requires the secretary of defense to provide a briefing under the departments tom miner efforts to develop infrastructure master plans to support laboratory and research infrastructure requirements. amendment number 54 by ms. shea-porter directs the secretary defense to report to the department of defense efforts to develop joint minimum standards for commercial off-the-shelf equipment
protective covers to improve readiness by preventing corrosion. amendment number 122 by mr. rogers requires a report on the army contracting command reach back functions. amendment number 140 by mr. bishop directs the military department to report on the amount the military base facilities used by contractors. amendment 144 r-1 by mr. bishop extends the time for the multi-traits dimension project demonstration project through the year 2024 amendment number 145 by mr. bishop improves existing biannual reporting requirements on court dapl level maintenance and repair capabilities by clarifying what specific data should be included in such reports. amendment number 190 by mr. swazi includes a report on the
environmental restoration at active installations formal utilize defense sites and realignment and closure locations. amendment number 199 by mr. langevin requires a briefing on how the department of defense can leverage the smart city concept on military installations to improve readiness, delivery of services, infrastructure management and installation of physical and cybersecurity. amendment number 253 amendment section 2825 of h.r. 2810 complement of the transfer of québec dash 01 missile alert facility to include present agree to provisions between the state and at the worn that are laid out in the programmatic agreement. amendment number 2258 r-1 requires a cost-benefit analysis at afghan military and secret forces uniform specifications prior to entering into a
contractual agreement. >> is a further debate on en bloc package number two? if not the question occurs on the amendments as offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and amendments are adopted. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for further amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number three consisting of amendments that been worked out and approved by the minority under the leadership of the ranking member from guam. >> without objection, so ordered. clerk will distribute the en bloc package. without objections the a minute are considered as read at the gentleman from carolina is recognized to explain the en bloc package. >> en bloc dash -- amendment
number 43 r-1 modifies the boundary of the siloed national military park to establish parkers crossroads battlefield. amendment 55 r-1 by mission order requires a present whether the national security education program and language flagship program meet the department of defense requirements for training. amendment 80 r-1 by mr. knight requires a report on the chase aircraft availability at nasa armstrong flight research center. amendment 117 r-1 by mr. rogers requires an annual report on the procurement and retirement of military working dogs. amendment 123 by mr. cook prohibits typ type one highway s beads from being used to mark the department of defense airfields. amendment 131 r-1 by ms. davis requires annual briefings on
army explosive ordnance disposal programs. amendment to i did 19 r-1 by mra briefing from defense logistics agency on all agriculture related would equipment come disposal for the past five years. amendment to a 23 r-1 by mr. wittman requires a report on the aircrew training requirement for the fifth-generation weapon systems and advanced munitions. the air force in a price range plan and joint airspace range training. amendment 290 by mr. brown allows of the navy to lease approximate three acres of land to the naval academy alumni association and the u.s. naval academy foundation. >> further discussion on en bloc package number three? the gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, i don't understand what the glass bead issue is on military airfields.
this would be mr. cook's amendment, inhibiting highway glass beads from being used to mark department of defense airfields. what's the problem here? >> doesn't gentleman want to yield to somebody to describe -- >> colonel cook. >> last beads, goes back a long way in california -- glass beads. originally i ran a glass bead bill. part of it was safety, part of it was because the type three were made in china. it was originally run as an environmental bill. just to educate you on this. because part of the problem with the chinese bills, it wasn't as pure as the other ones. and there was this substance in that called arsenic, and as the
roads, as i said, originally it was for transportation to mark the main lines. the arsenic would wear away, go into the soil. and this was a big issue in my area because of the water contamination by arsenic and chromium-6, you might have heard of hinckley california. so i ran a bill and the bill was taken away from me because republicans did not run environmental bills. okay, the bill was taken over and he was actually passed. okay, we go fast-forward. i am concern with this because i think the bill that the beads that are submitted, they give more illumination, and the question is about where they are made. the ones that are made right now are in austria. there's another part that goes
into these other beads that they are recycled, including some from china where they are all ground up. so it goes back all the way to a certain extent to my original concern about glass beads and how i got involved in this, is about -- >> with the gentleman yield? >> pardon the expression but that with that illuminate the question for my colleague? >> with the gentleman yield? >> sure. >> i want to hone in on one thing. you are suggesting these are not made in america? >> that's right. >> well then, i am with you, sir. >> thank you. >> any further discussion on en bloc package number three? if not the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no.
in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. further amendments on this portion of the mark likes the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have the amendment on the computer. >> and if the clerk will press center whatever it is y'all do. without objection the amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that offer today that as a cosponsor, sir for everyone to democratic colleagues will recognize that climate security is a fundamental part of our national security strategy. we've studied a number of vectors for readiness on this committee but we offer -- multifaceted threat. climate change as we know is real and it can affect our
readiness, both tactically and strategically. we know this because current employment military leaders agreed. secretary mattis was correct when he stated and i quote the effects of a changing climate such as increased maritime access to the arctic, rising sea level, among others will impact our security and situation, end quote. and mr. chairman, i have a letter here from the admiral that has spoken out on this issue and it supports this amendment. i'd like to enter that for the record if i could. >> without objection. >> so mr. chairman, naval base just as norfork or key west already are at risk for flooding and batches going to get worse as storm surges and rising tides increase in magnitude. so inland basis would experience
other weather volatility such as extreme heat and wildfires, all of which can and do, in fact, impact their training capabilities. so thinking strategically that change in climate will totally alter our joint battle space. so we've already seen display of dominance in the arctic where new sea lanes will connect continence more directly than ever before. russia and other rural powers recognize the value of this area, and we must be ready. so moreover,, the changing global climate will lead to increased instability in the form of economic migration, increased competition over resources, and possibly more failed states which we know to be breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism. now, we know this because the leaders of the intelligence community as well have alerted us to the stack. they recognize that climate is a long-term threat, and we should
as well. so my amendment is straightforward and simple. it instructs each service to assess the top ten military installations likely to be impacted by climate change over the next 20 years. also asks for combatant commanders to incorporate the effects of climate into their strategic battle plans. this amendment, mr. chairman, is a step in the right direction. i believe we have to continue to be realistic and explore the changing ways that a volatile climate will threaten the department's mission. the truth is that the department can study this on their own as they have when it comes to assessing threats to national security. but this amendment shows that congress has the departments back. it signals that we are not naïve to the dangers of climate change or defense strategy. and it tells those researchers on the front line a threat
assessment that congress will work with them, not in spite of them as we together craft icing and sober strategy to defend the united states from a variety of threats. so i believe that we absolutely have to ensure that the department remains resilient and prepared to address the effects of climate change on threat assessments, resources and redness, as well as to conduct operations for both today and in the future. so with that i want to thank all my democratic colleagues for the support and cosponsorship of my amendment. i welcome the support and the comment of all of the members of the committee on this topic, and i urge anyone today to support its passage. and without i think mr. chairman, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, in virginia recurrent flooding is already sadly affecting life.
sea level rise hoses existential threat to committees right outside of my district. and to those bases in the communities contained. if anyone doubts me i invite you to come down and visit our region, local officials from both parties will gladly explain to you how much is at stake. in the chesapeake bay, tangier island is slowly disappearing for the city of norfolk needs more than $1 billion to cope with just one foot of sea level rise. scientists expect far larger increases than that. as i do in industry knows the entire hampton roads region is littered with military bases. many of the most critical set right on the coast, notably naval station norfolk, joint base langley used to come in naval air station annex. ..
>> thank you mister chairman. i'm a cosponsor of this amendment and strongly support passage. i just tell us that climate change is real, is caused by human activity and could have devastating effects across the globe . it is a very real crisis that is left untouched will cause irreparable harm to current and future generations. our military leaders, secretary of defense matters, secretary of the joint chief dunford, secretary gaetz have all testified to the rest that climate change poses to military readiness and our national security. this amendment is a commonsense addition to the national defense authorization act, i think representative landrigan for his leadership and i heard a yes vote. with that ideal back. >> ms. rosen. >> thank you. i want to say we can debate the causes of climate change all day long. but nonetheless, climate change that challenges us to
deal with the current and future issues that we have, bld must pay attention to the adverse potential effect of climate change and secretary mattis said it really impacts us in a food and water and all of our agricultural areas. it's how it thrives instability in the middle east, the article 5 russian ports, it was clear those northern sea lanes. and try to increase resource extraction activity and we also have to consider plans to respond to climate driven disasters and the instability that they caused.>> as to whether the former, trout and salmon will create more failed states. former secretary of the air force debra lee james said in an interview failed states on the natural breeding ground for terrorism. more countries including our own can be hit by drought and famine.
governments can be destabilized, it can pave the way for the rise of dictators and dissolution of countries into lawless regions similar to what we have in isis. i want to say that it affects our agriculture, here at home in very important ways, we can live without a lot of things but we can't let without a safe, secure watercraft, that means safe secure drinking water and secure farming within our borders and if we don't have that globally, we will have a worldwide crisis. for those reasons and so many more i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yelled back. >> mister carvalho. >> thank you mister chairman. mister chairman, this should not be a partisan issue. the risks are too high. it is not just our oceans and ecosystems at risk but our nations security. climate changes impacting all parts of the world in different ways and as a
military that has committed to and invested in maintaining a global presence, we must be prepared to protect our personnel from the impact of climate change and this amendment does exactly that. in 2008, the national intelligence council found that over 30 military sites in the continental us are already facing elevated risks because of sealevel rise. in the western united states, it has amplified the threat of wildfires and floods of damaged roads, runways and buildings on military bases. >> last year in california, fires and camp pendleton as well as bedford air force base in my district. >> a years worth of rain fell in 80 minutes at fort irwin in the mojave desert in california. causing $64 million in damage. >> there's no question
climate change will increasingly impact our nation's military infrastructure here and abroad. ultimately, making it more difficult to defend america's interests . climate change will continue to pose serious threats for the american people and the health of this nation. we must make the necessary investments to address climate change and its impact will increasingly disrupt our ability to carry out critical missions and defend our country. this amendment will not only help us further identify weaknesses and vulnerabilities, but also investments we must make within the department to protect it from the impact of climate change. mister chair, i yield back. >> let's see, mister o'halloran? okay, miss birkdale.
>> we've heard from many senior officials that climate change is a national security issue. the report directed in this amendment will help to define the rest to our installations and identify potential mitigation efforts in the future. climate change threatens our installations, particularly coastal installations where rising sea levels and threats of tidal flooding raise serious concerns. i certainly wouldn't want mom to disappear. a recent study noted tidal flooding events have increased fourfold since 1970 and conservative estimates forecast an increase of 10 fold over the next 35 years. climate change is holding many of our facilities at bay and this report will clearly detail which installations are at risk and potential mitigation efforts. so i urge my colleagues to
vote yes on mister langevin's fact-finding amendment and i yield back. >> bishop? >> mister chairman, i guess i am first grateful that we are no longer using paper, were doing this electronically because for the six pages is rhetoric on this particular issue before you get to report language, we would've cut down a lot of trees have we been passing out paper but there is a line in the play 1776 about the declaration of independence and stephen hopkins of rhode island was also quoted as saying i have never seen, heard nor smelled in issue so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. whether the first four pages in here are accurate or not, there's nothing dangerous about talking about it. this report, i'll support the idea of having a report. ideal back.
>> i want to associate myself with mister bishop's comments, thank you. >> ms. davis? >> i'll do the same but i want to point out this is a start, it was in an effort to look at the vulnerabilities of proper military installations all over the world but it was too select the top 10 and that's why this is a good start. it will be looking at mitigations as well. this is one of those issues that is sort of in that bucket that we ignore at our peril moving forward, beginning this discussion as we look at our installations is a trip worthwhile thing to do and i appreciate my colleagues efforts. >> thank you mister chairman, i hate to disagree with german bishop but i'm going to. i oppose this amendment strongly. we have heard testimony from this committee insistently about the array of imminent threats we face about the extent to which the russians,
the chinese, isis, al qaeda, iran, north korea are presenting in some cases imminent threats as a nation and as the extensive ground capabilities have diminished, we face a situation today where our adversaries are developing weapons systems we may not be able to defend against and there is simply no way you can argue that climate change is one of those threats. it's not even close. at a time of significant resource constraints we cannot afford to instruct the department of defense to take their eye off the ball. there is no evidence that climate change causes more. if you look at the refugee flows that are cited, the refugee flows across syria and iraq are the greatest today. people are not leaving their homes because they are too hot. they're leaving their homes to escape isis and the regime, north korea is not developing nuclear tipped
icbms because the climate is changing. russia is not engaging in aggressive behavior against his neighbors because it's too hot. isis and al qaeda are attacking the west because of the weather. at this moment of crisis for our military, particularly in the area of readiness, we on this committee have an obligation to do everything we can to begin today out of the hole we are in and to ensure maximum lethality for our forces. declaring that climate change requires additional reporting from the department of defense makes that more, not less difficult. we have to face our responsibilities and the threats with a clear eyed determination and i believe we should take steps on this committee that make it more possible for us to build a military that we all know we need. we should take steps that oppose additional requirements, based on political issues and in my view that's exactly what this one is, we have an obligation in my view to vote against this amendment and to ensure that we provide the resources our military needs to keep their eye on the ball which is an array of complex and
critical and in some cases imminent threats to the security of the nation and climate change is not one of those. >> i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment an ideal back. >> . >> ms. murphy. >> thank you mister chairman. i'm speaking in support of this amendment. when i was at the department of defense more than a decade ago, conversations about climate change changed the impact on our national security were being had and they were being had the service level and in policy. for a number of years, secretaries of defense of republican and democratic administrations alike and numerous other uniformed defense leaders have identified climate change as a challenge to national security. in fact, secretary mattis has acknowledged the climate change such as increased maritime access to the arctic, rising sea levels, and among others impact our security situation. this amendment requires an assessment for vulnerabilities to military installations.
things that they are already talking about more in the department. the department and congress need to understand these impacts and integrate the responses and plans and in resourcing activities.i think we should value fact-based decision-making and effective climate change is something that we deal with on a daily basis in florida and it has an effect on our economy and on our way of life. so we can no more deny climate change is impacting our life and state then we can deny its impact on our national security so i think that i would request the support of my colleagues for this amendment, ideal back. >> mister chairman. >>. >> one could debate whether climate change is real or not, i think that's a debate that we don't need to get into but to suggest that there's no connection between the changing climates and its effects on wars is incorrect. >> there are major conflicts
now underway in areas with the us troops, you might take a look at the window push, the induce river. india and pakistan having a bit of a discussion about dams on the induce river and the reduction in flows of that river as a result of climate change and the receding glaciers. similar attacks are occurring in great rivers of china as a result of climate change and the decision of receding glaciers. >> you might want to take a look at the great mequon river and the countries that are along and through which the mekong river flows and look at the debates going on now and the conflicts, not in the wars that could be, and you only need to look at the environmental impacts of climate change with regard to food production. to suggest that there is no relationship between food production or the lack of
production and wars is to ignore the reality. >> long before or shortly before there was a civil war in syria, there was a serious reduction in agricultural production on another great, to great river systems in that region. in part as a result of climate change and certainly in part as a result of overuse of the aquifers in the area. you may want to consider turkey's relationship with syria and iraq with regard to rivers in that area. >> in fact, climate change doesn't directly relate to war. >> ideal back. >>. >> just like to make a quick comment here, associating myself with mister bishop. >> i think it's important to note on this particular issue , there are real changes in the arctic that do affect the navy.
>> the arctic ice is this appearing, there's strategic changes that are being implicated here. and it's important for the department of defense to report to congress on this. we're talking about a report here. i'd like to associate myself with mister bishop on this issue. it's just a report and there are strategic implications that we need to be aware of. >> shea porter. >> thank you and i have to say that i live in a coastal state and i think it's very nonpartisan issue in new hampshire. that people recognize the impact that is having. we do have streets that have water in them in the middle of the sunshine days and we also have some military installations that are looking at this. this is a real threat and
this is congress's responsibility to do something about this and i appreciate the fact that we're talking about a report but vice admirable league on says national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of suspected impacts around the globe, even in our own country. climate change poses a clear and present danger to the united states of america but if we respond appropriately, i believe we will enhance our security not simply by diverging the cop climate change impacts but my pursuing a new energy revolution. those words give me hope and we are responding appropriately, i urge my colleagues to vote yes. >> concluding comments from mister lamborn. >> i have a quick quest and for the sponsor of the amendment for clarification purposes. on page 3 paragraph eight it says a three foot live rising sea levels are a threat to the operations of 198 military site and the study that called for at the end of the amendment says to dod to look at threats within the next 20 years so are you saying or predicting there's
going to be a three foot rise in the oceans in the next 20 years? >> i'm not sure of the time frame for when that is but that would be the assessment that dod could conclude as, over the next 20 years what areas and what bases would be most affected within that timeframe. i don't want to prejudge the date they would use to make that calculation. whether it be science-based, fact-based and let them come to that determination and look to what mitigating steps they would take in the event of what the anticipated based on science, what the outcome would be to do this change. >> thank you, reclaiming my time, ideal back. >> questions offered by the amendment from rhode island, mister langevin. those opposed say no, the aye's habit and the amendment is adopted. further amendments, gentleman from south carolina. >> i ask unanimous consent to call the package number four,
consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority. >> without objection it is so ordered, the clerk will distribute the package which without objection will be considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized to explain the amendment. >> the package number four is comprised of the following, amendment number six by mister kelly requires a briefing on the air force's efforts to maximize undergraduate pilot training. amendment 14 are one by mister larson reinstates the navy mine warfare readiness certification program, amendment one 7202 by miss hannah boozer requires a briefing on the history of the accelerated promotion program and the navy's considerations to enable the accelerated promotions active between january 2016 and december 2016. amendment to 26 are one by
mister whitman requires a briefing on the potential use of water quality credits to comply with applicable federal and state laws regulations to include the cost benefits and challenges associated. amendment number 291 by has the designation of corrosive control and provincial executives to the military departments. amendment 301 are one by mister pauls requires the national guard fly over a public event, they would only , as part of an improved mission and make the state or territory as a general approval authority to the garden flyovers in that state or territory. >> . >> other discussion on block package number four. >>. >> if not, the question is on the amendment offered the gentleman from south carolina, those in favor say aye. >> those opposed say no, the
aye habit, the amendments are adopted. >> there are no further amendments to this portion of the market share, we recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >>. >> mister chairman i move adoption of the report as amended. >> questions on the motion of the gentleman from south carolina, those in favor say aye. >> those opposed say no. and the aye's habit, a quorum being present the motion is adopted. >> committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on military personnel pursuant to committee rules 17th and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone recorded votes on amendments to this particular subcommittee portion of the mark until consideration of all of them , as is marcus included, chair recognizes the chairman of the
subcommittee gentleman from colorado, >> thank you mister chairman. the military personnel subcommittee mark was adopted unanimously last week , reflecting the support of participation by all members of the subcommittee. the provisions adopted by the subcommittee and other military personnel related provisions found in a full committee mark provided our war fighters, retirees and families necessary payment benefits to sustain them in today's highly stressed force. >> the highlights, the highlight a few items, the subcommittee recommends increasing an increase in and strengths where most of the military servicemen including the full unfunded requirements by the chief of staff of the united states army of 10,000 more soldiers to the active component, 4000 in the army national guard in 10,000 in the army reserve. recognizing the relentless
demands of military life, we recommend a full 2.4 percent pay increase rather than the lesser amount recommended by the department of defense. in addition, we prohibit the reduction of hospital beds overseas to ensure troops of them continue to receive excellent medical care when hospitalized abroad. >> we conclude a provision that clarifies the role of the surgeon general and maintaining medical readiness and their respective military departments. we include a provision to help military families to fray the cost of the spouses obtaining a professional license in another state and provide an extension of special pay and bonuses for servicemembers designated to enhance retention and high demand specialties like air force, navy, aviation. the mark would also improve support to those suffering from posttraumatic stress or brain injuries, ryan hansen
the process for consideration and discharge upgrades by the military review board agency. and ensures as members understand their rights related to applying for important va benefits. >> finally, the proposal would continue to provide sexual assault prevention. and respond by adding a new provision to the uniform code of military justice, prohibiting nonconsensual sharing of internet images expanding special victims counsel training to include training on a unique challenges often faced by mail thickens and clarifying the process by which a designated representative can be appointed for a victim prior. >> in conclusion, i want to thank members fear for her support as well as other members of the subcommittee. >> ideal back mister chairman. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, mistress. >> thank you mister chairman, mister kaufman and i enjoyed a very good working relationship this year and i
want to thank him as chair of the committee for his efforts to make sure that we dealt with all the issues brought to me by my colleagues. the subcommittee mark includes provisions that will provide the military services flexibility to recruit and retain members of our armed forces and to continue our commitment to take care of military families. the mark includes the private acts authored by martin mick sally and many of us joined in that effort to prohibit the broadcast or distribution of internet visual images and tour the military services have the sources to prosecute those that violate the law, this is a result of the marines united. mark provides training for special victims counsel to recognize and address unique challenges faced by male victims of sexual assault. mark also continues the committee focuses on families by including third $30 million for consistent continued assistance to agencies and authorizes the reimbursement of money for
state professional licenses and certifications from the prior to relocate to the state with their military members. the subcommittee continues to provide oversight of important programs by providing in the mark reviews from the comptroller general of the united states to ensure the welfare and recreation programs are properly funded to required levels and the department of defense in that collection processes are fair and do not place undue burdens on servicemembers and their families. i'm pleased the market emphasizes the consideration of posttraumatic stress disorder and brain injury during review by the board for corrections to military records by codifying into law the requirements to review these cases with liberal consideration and requiring the board to consider medical evidence in these cases from the va and civilian healthcare providers. mark also requires the secretary of defense to create servicemembers how to donate to dod's brain repository to further cdi research. i'm concerned the
subcommittee reacted by 10,000 soldiers can also include significant increases for the reserve component. i recognize the chief of staff for the army submitted an unfunded requirement for this increase, however we still do not have a strategic plan from the pentagon that would inform congress how large the army should grow or why. further, by having funding for the nda this committee is not providing the stable funding the army needs. chairman mark will provide a four percent pay raise for our servicemen and women that this is about the president's request. once again, committee has increased funding to cover the $300 million increase but where did it come from? i have hope we have the opportunity to find the required office this fund a special survivor's indemnity allowance to ensure it does not expire in may 2018. his fall short of my strong desire as well as other members on this committee to permanently fix the survivors benefit compensation offsets
for receiving the dependency and indemnity compensation. this also amounts to a shameful tax on surviving spices who as widows are already struggling emotionally and financially. by the fsi extension would be an important temporary fix, i hope this committee and work with leadership and other committees to make a permanent fix to offset a priority for next year. lastly, i want to acknowledge the outstanding staff who has worked with us in a bipartisan manner. including trade green, danced and, and andrew peterson and daniel sykes, thank you chairman and i yelled back. >> further discussions on the personnel portion of the mark. >> are there amendments to this portion of the mark? gentleman from colorado. >> i give consent to the color of influx, these amendments that have been worked out and approved in
the minority.>> without objection, so ordered. the clerk will distribute the unblocked package which without objection is considered as read. the gentleman from colorado is recognized to explain the package. >> thank you, the package number one is comprised of the following minute, number five by miss or dino, which affects dca two provide a briefing on guam, commissaries vendors. >> amendment number 18 r15 prime minister lawson which extends garnishment and authority to include judgments for childabuse , amendment 29 r1 by prime minister joe is a provision on hyperbaric oxygen therapy for third members of the armed forces. amendment 33 by mister cook which directs the establishment of a pilot program , that provides job
placement assistance and employment services to members of the national guard and reserve . amendment 44 are two by mister tsongas which requires a briefing by the officer of the secretary of defense of the military services and stability to provide childcare development services on military installations, amendment 63 by mister wilson which forces to stabilize military families in the event of pcs that is not advantageous work or school for the family. amendment 66 by mister scott which changes the regular update for, the regular update for prescription drug pricing vendors under tricare retail pharmaceutical programs, amendment 74 by mister o'rourke which requires a mental health examination for servicemembers before they transition to military along the existing physical exam. amendment 87 by mister which
directs the secretary of the navy to provide a policy to make our independence of members of the armed forces eligible for representation by legal counsel if independent was victim of an alleged sex-related offense by a member of the armed forces. >> that's all mister chairman. >> other discussions on what number one? gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you mister chairman and thank you for allowing me to speak on the en bloc amendments, as i said from the member of a military family or i know firsthand the challenges families face in the regulation your about this from this federal frequent relocations and prolonged deployments, as the former chairman of the military personnel subcommittee, and current chairman on the readiness subcommittee i appreciate how critical the success and happiness of our military families are. >> the military families
ability amendment in the en bloc package supports military families by giving them a greater ability to plan relocation, a grant families the option to of remaining in their existing station or up to six months or relocate up to six months early of a permanent change to the station. they further allow families to choose where to use their housing allowance. this amendment provides rater support to families with school-age children allowing them to relocate at the next break rather than at the middle of the school year and it provides greater flexibility or the career or education military spouses. i am grateful that increasing stability or military families by creating additional relocation to flexibility is bipartisan. and particularly highly i'd like to recognize congressman susan davis for joining me and introducing this measure
as a stand-alone bill. last month and of course the leadership now of chairman mike hoffman. >> this is the result supported by many military veterans service organizations and military family organizations including the national military family association, military officers association of america, voluntary trial education coalition, veterans of foreign wars, american legion, iraq and afghan veterans, the blue star families, national guard association of the united states, veterans court foundation. families on the are the backbone of our military, we should support them and they said for us, mister chairman, i heard a passage of the block amendment. >>. >> further discussion on the block package, if not the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, those in favor say i. >> those opposed say no. the eyes and the amendments are adopted. >> further amendments to this subcommittee mark, gentle lady from california.
>> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. without objection, the amendment is considered as read in the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment would extend the application of military selective service registration and construction requirements to female citizens and us residents between the ages of 18 and 26. it's nearly identical to the amendment that was approved by a vote of 32 to 30 during last year markup. >> the only difference of the change to reflect the fact that the secretary of defense is now certified to congress that all, acquisitions are open and qualified female candidates. let me remind the committee of some of the key points of last year's state, responses to this amendment one year ago rightly described a draft as, that is no less true today. in 1985 the same court upheld the exclusion of women from selective service because of
the purpose of registration is a draft of combat. that ruling is no longer applicable as qualified women are now eligible for combat positions. this admission of the chairman of the joint chiefs and chief of staff of the army remain unchanged. if you are voting yes for this amendment you are voting with both of them. >> the old suggest this amendment will reduce spending. >> probably as many said during last year's markup isn't it's our responsibility to address. it's time to stop delaying the inevitable studies and parliamentary gymnastics to undermine the will of the committee. >> i don't want to see daughters in a place where they will be fasted, also don't want to see some in a place where they will be captured. i don't think any of us would want to see anyone's children put in a place where they will be drafted but if it does come to draft, men and women should be treated equally. my colleague from massachusetts noted last year
quote, gender equality is achieved when women and men enjoy the same rights, same opportunities and the same obligations across all sectors of society and that would include military service. ". that remains as true today and did a year ago and i urge the committee to vote down and did then. chairman and ideal back. >> i yield to myself in opposition. we discussed this issue a year ago and we have moved on. it is not in the law that there is a commission, that has been appointed, it is operating, that is first looking at whether we need a draft or not. and secondly, if we do need a draft, it should be drafted. so that was the outcome of the conference agreement last year. that is in law, that is underway and i think that is certainly what makes sense
rather than rehashing past debates. again, the first question is and i don't know the answer to tell you the truth, whether we continue to need selective service or not. >> that's what this commission is looking at and if it decides we do, then it is looking at who should be drafted, obviously any change to current law has to come back to us but i think we have to ask first questions first and that's what current law does. we ought to let it operate. >> other comments on this, mister tsongas. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i do appreciate there is a commission in place but as it's making analysis, i think it's important to reiterate the important role that women should play. an analysis kentucky for the defense advisory committee on women in the service estimated that only one of nine percent of young people ages 18 to 24 need
eligibility criteria for military service. that eligibility pool is equally divided between men and women. including women in the selective service that ensures that and the very unlikely possibility that it becomes necessary, the full spoke of the talent of all our citizens are available in our time of need and given the nature of war today, women are virtually always in the fight. i have visited iraq and afghanistan a number of times and while there i've interacted with our talented servicewomen. these women have served side-by-side with their male counterparts but it isn't just on the front lines that women are serving our country. military installations across our country in the world, women are serving as military scientist, program managers, engineers, physicians, lab technicians and many other roles . as represented here just mentioned, last year and i said and i reiterate today gender equality is achieved when women and men enjoy the same rights, opportunities and obligations across all sectors of society including
military service. and when different behaviors, aspirations and needs are equally valued. including women in the draft, it's a step toward equality. at army chief of staff mark kelly and marine robert heller have both testified in support of women registering. this amendment passed this committee during markup with a bipartisan majority and i urge my colleagues tosupport it again and ideal back . >> thank you, i would just, we're not talking about voluntary service in the military as i think everybody on this committee and every american thinks that our wives and daughters when they decide they want to serve the country in the military should be allowed to serve in the military. you're talking about a draft. you're talking about forcing some money to go to war. that's what selective service is used for. so when, i listen to all
these argument on the other side and i'm just to be honest, i'm just baffled by them. you're not talking about whether or not a lady can serve, you're talking about whether or not a mother asked to go to war in a time of draft. i'm opposed to the amendment and look forward to voting against it. >> if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from california, missed spirit. those opposed say no. the nose have it, >> mister chairman, i like a rollcall. >> the gentle lady asks for a roll call vote, there is further proceedings will be postponed. further amendments on this section of the mark, gentleman from california, mister carbajal. >> thank you mr. chairman.
>> you have an amendment the desk? >> i have an amendment that the desk. >> the clerk will rapidly distribute the amendment. >> i was going to get to that. >> without objection it is considered as rent, the gentleman is recognized. >> this amendment would amend the current tricare system and we can ensure our servicemembers are provided the same access to preventative health services as those insured under the affordable care act. including preventative services, screenings for gestational diabetes with no copayment, smoking cessation and over-the-counter drugs. it would create greater parity between the tricare program and the aca requirements regarding free coverage for preventive health services. all preventative healthcare services provided under this new authority will be provided to beneficiaries free of charge. this statutory change will permit a more timely adoption
, a more preventative healthcare service and screenings consistent with evolving national trends for tricare beneficiaries. as new evidence preventative healthcare services become available, a delay currently occurs in providing these services to tricare beneficiaries. if the law is not changed. current law only allows for a specific preventative healthcare services and cancer screenings for tricare beneficiaries. this amendment would also cover childcare through age 17 along with women's preventative services and screenings gestational diabetes. this amendment is about providing our servicemembers with the same health services as those covered under the affordable care act and that we as members of congress enjoy today. >> unfortunately, due to sequential referral issues, i
will be withdrawing this amendment by but i look forward to debating it on the floor. ideal back mister chair. >> the amendment is withdrawn, further amendments, gentle lady from california. >>. >>. >> i have an amendment to the desk. >> clerk will distribute the amendment without objection, the amendment is considered as read. >> thank you mr. chairman.. the 4.6 million women who receive healthcare through the department of defense are not second-class citizens. yes, these women are currently receiving healthcare that is subjectively inferior to civilian plans. access to contraception is essential to women's health and well-being and the department of defense should not give servicewomen and their dependents fewer options than civilian women receive. recent studies have shown that women in the military had a 60 percent higher rate, but the repeat that.
a 60 percent higher rate of unplanned pregnancies and the general population. this has an effect on readiness since nearly 10 percent of active-duty servicewomen were unable to deploy as a result of pregnancy according to a 2011 department of defense report. these disturbing statistics are a direct result of barriers to servicewomen's ability to accept access to contraception and family planning counseling. under the aca, civilian women are required to have access to fda approved contraception and counseling real costs. however, some active-duty servicemembers and all non-active-duty servicemembers and military family dependents experienced constellated barriers to care depending on the type of contraception they use and if they feel their prescription outside of the military treatment facility. many of these women, and to a place to access and control is not possible. in active-duty includes those servicewomen who are on active duty but away for
training. or who are having actual training or who have been on active duty for less than 30 days. and applies to all those in the reserve, national guard, retirees and military family dependents. military families deserve access to all that's necessary to make informed family-planning decisions, that's why this amendment would refrain from tricare and line with the standard recovery offered by civilian health insurance plans by removing cost sharing requirements for birth control to obtain through the mail order pharmaceutical program or at a military inspection facility. >> it would also remove cost-sharing for contraceptive care including insertion and removal of contraception methods like intrauterine devices. servicemembers and their families deserve the same level of care as civilians, it's only fair that we stand up to those that have that fight for our freedom daily. >> german, i'd like to yield
sometime from texas. >> . >> thank you. he represented the air and i appreciate the opportunity to be able to offer my rule to this important amendment and i want to echo what you talk about about the importance of bringing tricare in line with standards of birth control coverage offered by civilian health insurance. this is a very important, i can't think of an issue that has probably been more important than birth control and family planning and we seen the devastating effects of that and by giving your empowering women and empowering families to be able to have coverage and to be able to also have the opportunity to be offered again what is a standard of birth control coverage is very important. >> and we need to make sure that happens and we need to make sure our servicemembers and families have the same level of coverage and care as the civilians to that effect
that they protect and they fight for every day that work for the federal government and i urge us to take care of thisamendment and i reserve the balance of my time . >> i now yield my remaining time to mister conover of california.>> thank he represented here and thank you for being a trailblazer and pioneer on issues of gender equality. as a new member of congress, i found it find it appalling that military families don't have the same access to contraception as civilians. i would never have guessed that we still have this disparity. it seems to me just basic common sense that we should give those who fight and protect us the same access to contraception as those who are civilians so i appreciate your leadership on this, thank you. >> with a 32 seconds i have left , i would give you that
time. >> thank you mister chairman. clearly servicemembers and their families deserve the same level of coverage and care as the civilians that they fight for. >> your amendment would bring tricare in line with standard birth control coverage, coverage offered by civilian health insurance plans and remove cost-sharing. i also it would remove cost-sharing for contraceptive care in general. >> this, i want to thank you for your leadership on this issue an ideal back. >> the time of the gentle lady has expired, other discussion on the amendment? the gentleman from oklahoma. >> thank you mister chairman. >> while the intent is certainly good to have those served in the military and their families and others who deal with family planning, having spent a career in the armed forces and raise a family in the military, it's not completely foreign, these
issues. however i'm concerned with language in the amendment mister chairman because it talks about providing any method of contraception. if we look at the equivalent to some of the plans that are covered as civilian insurance, i also other types of plans that could include board positions and counseling that may not be within high amendment language, i think this amendment as a major gap in it and for that reason i urge my colleagues to vote against it. >> thank you and ideal back. >>. >> missed drexler. >> sure, i guess i have a question. what is the cost of this? do we have an estimate of how much increased costs? >> the way we've framed this amendment there isnegligible cost . >> how can, i reclaim my time. how can there be no cost if we are providing free contraception to all family members now?
>> first of all, if you're on a base anyway, this is if you're not on the base, and if you have an unintended pregnancy, the cost actually are much higher than if you offer birth-control. >> so we only provided in terms of an eric for mail order. >> i thought there was some other costs involved. but thank you. >>. >> further discussion on the amendment. >> if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from california, those in favor say aye. those opposed say no area. >> the nose have it i guess. >> is a close call. >> the gentle lady from california, asked for a reported vote. there is support and further proceedings will be
postponed. further amendments, the gentleman from colorado. >> mister chairman, ask unanimous consent to call our block package. there are amendments that have been worked out and approved with the majority., minority. >> without objection, so ordered. the clerk will distribute the package without objection, is considered as read and the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. amendments number 30 by mister jones which directs a one-year extension upon programs for prescriptiondrug acquisition cost priority and the pharmaceutical benefits program . amendment 52 are, miss tsongas, which requires the
secretary of defense breathing outlining efforts to increase the limit to serve in the armed forces, amendment 67 by mister scott, provision regarding the establishment of rotc cyber institutes at senior military colleges. amendment 84 r1 by mister smith which directs the secretary to carry out the program to provide health care assistance services to certain covered beneficiaries , amendment 88 are three by mister spear which directs that if there is a military prosecution of an alleged related offense, the special victims counsel shall be entitled to a copy of all cases information that is in possession of the prosecutor and is not privileged. amendment 164 by mister
gallego was the rex the army to establish a scholarship program at minority institutions. amendment 175 by doctor abraham directs the secretary of defense to submit a report outlining the process used by health health professionals in the nhs, amendment to 25 by mister whitman which grants a permission to the secretary of transportation to designate recovered training entities at centers of excellence for domestic and maritime workforce training and education, amendment to 61 by mister canada which authorizes the armed forces retirement home to lease access property. mister chairman. >> okay, just to clarify the amendment for mister whitman is number 224 rather than anything else. all right.
any further discussion on the on block package number two? if not, the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the aye's habit and the amendments are adopted. further amendments on this section of the market, mister spear. >> i haven't amendment. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment, without objection the amendment is considered red and the lady is considered for five minutes. >> this is an issue many of you have heard me speak about many times before, the issue of sexual assault in the military where some 15,000 men and women each year are sexually assaulted, only about 5000 of them actually reported. of those, only 500 go to court-martial and of those only 250 are actually sentenced.
most recently, i was at our air force academy and spent a lot of time with our cadets because the newest reports have come out suggest that is prevalent in our academies as well and that the air force academy for instance 47 percent of the cadets experienced sexual harassment. >> it's a pretty stunning statistic and those are the individuals who would then go on to be our leaders . and if in fact we allow for sexual assault, sexual harassment to be acceptable in our economy, you can imagine what's going to happen in our forces and we know the numbers of women joining the military is increasing, it's now about 20 percent. and again, the number of those who are sexually assaulted are for the most part men. i might add. women represent a higher percentage because of their numbers. so this amendment keeps the decision-making in the
military. it doesn't take it out of the military. it makes the determination as to whether an investigation should move forward. for a court-martial should move forward in the hands of the chief prosecutor in each of the services. >> under the current system, commanding officers in the defendant's chain of command decide whether to prosecute criminal offenses. these commanders are not attorneys. the authorities receive only a few hours of field training. the staff such advocates who advise them are also typically not experts in the military, that's the system. most focus on administrative law and any direct court-martial appearance appears to be behind them. often her that commanders must lead the efforts to combat sexual assault and i couldn't agree more. but i hear less about is how this system prevents commanders from cracking down
on sexual assault. >> i want to share with you just in case it came down a few months ago. >> in the us court of appeals for the armed forces. they grow out aaron ronnie voices rape and assault conviction. this is someone who was convicted in a court-martial. he was thrown out because of the involvement of lieutenant general craig franklin who referred the court-martial. this came about because in 2013 general franklin was admonished by his superiors for tossing out the aggravated sexual assault conviction of a fellow f-16 pilot. because franklin was justly incorrectly admonished for this abuse of power, the court of appeals found his subsequent decision to move forward with the entirely separate case constituted unlawful command. this is made more ridiculous by two facts. first, the military judge during the trial found no evidence of unlawful command. second, the appeals court said throughout the case, also didn't find evidence of unlawful command influence.
josh, the appearance coverage. >> franklin shows we have placed commanding officers in a irresponsible position. if they declined to pluck press charges they may be seen as favoring the defendant. if they learn from the experience and press charges on subsequent cases, that decision may be seen as unlawful command influence. this is a no-win scenario. it erodes trust in commanders and the roads good order and discipline at a time when our nation faces significant threats abroad. >> this is not just a matter of fairness, it's a matter of national security. >> far past time for us to fix the system. fixing the systemthe decision-making in the military , the decisions to investigate or pursue a court-martial would be determined by the person who is most equipped to do that and that would be the prosecutor in each of the key prosecutors in each of the services. so with that mister chairman,
i asked my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back. >> mister turner. >> . >> mister chairman,, miss. right, this is an issue that we dealt with many times before and dealt with it correctly. by enacting a number of reforms that have made a difference in the manner in which sexual assault prevention is undertaken, the training, sexual assault protection of victims victims counsel and also additional training. but also prosecution and one of the things that we did is we changed the chain of command process so the manner that the issue that mister spears is speaking about is not what we have today. >> my position to our having removed article 60 where commander could overturn the decision from, where a conviction, we've also
changed the process by which these cases are reviewed and a recommendation for prosecution. now to give you some statistics, that relate to the defense department's annual report on sexual assault in fiscal year 16, commanders had sufficient evidence to take action against 64 percent of alleged defenders and sexual assault. military commanders used the assault process to adjudicate allegations involving servicemembers and their jurisdiction. these clearly indicate the prosecutions are moving forward and furthermore it's been our understanding and others who've reviewed this thatit's actually probably higher than what is occurring in the civilian courts . >>
the claim goes for. the psychosocial cases reported from all requires that case be investigated by professional investigators who do have experienced their threat investigation prosecutors are consulted on the type of evidence needed. any additional information required to make a determination. after it is completely go to the prosecutor whose experience and training sexual assault cases at the lowest level which decisions can be made, it's referred up the chain of command, with the case is recommended for a court-martial then goes to the next higher command for referral and for decisions made, the commander lawyer must agree. if there's a disagreement at it the case come if the lawyers are recommending the case go forward but the commander is recommended it does not they goes all the way to the service secretary for review. so far there are no cases that it had to go up that chain to the service secretary for
disposition. there's a number of reasons which include the commanders responsibility, they have prevention responsibility, they have cohesion. also in issues we have a combat environment, but the main issue i think that we must review this on is that there is no need for it. the other aspect is, this would consolidate basically in the pentagon a huge bottle of all of these cases and would result in time delays that we don't have time for, both these victims and the need for a commander to have morale in their unit require quick action, the action we currently have in place. not all of the provisions we've adopted over the last five years have yet come to fruition for us to show the impact and some of them are in the process of being implemented from the 2017 ndaa. this is not needed. it would be disruptive and it
does not help the victims of sexual assault. i yield back. >> ms. tsongas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank congresswoman spear for continue to raise this very important issue that obviously merits the attention just brought to it. congressman turner is a right that committee has worked on a bipartisan basis and i commend him for all his significant leadership in that area. to make a number of changes over the years to off military addresses the score to sexual assault in its ranks. making sure every victim of military sexual assault receives an attorney, making sure jury verdicts cannot be overturned and ensuring that those were convicted of sexual assault will absolutely be processed or discharge. there's no place place for those were convicted of sexual assault in the military. these changes get the military and its later additional tools and resources to demonstrate that when these crimes occur justice is served.
however there are still many the questions that deserve our attention such as should a a commander have the authority to make a final decision on whether a criminal case should proceed to trial. will that change have a significant impact on the military stability to confront and eliminate this all too pervasive crime? ultimately went to get this right if this is this is a muld challenge and requires effort on all fronts and i think we all agree that by itself simply changing the commanders authority will not get rid of the scourge of military sexual assault. and yet an institution defined by the chain of command and the dictates of deference inherent in that command structure, commanders have played a crucial role. we need a change from a culture that too often are often enough allows a general to be promoted after he perpetuates a toxic military culture that accepts harassment and criminal behavior as the northern and i should say
he or she took a change of a culture where servicemembers can be more afraid of their fellow soldiers than they are the enemy, and we have all heard of such stories. we need a change in an organization when last year dod estimated nearly 15,000 active-duty servicemembers experienced a sexual assault in the prior year. military commanders must understand how key they are to changing this culture and held accountable when they do not serve the interest of decency professionalism and justice. i do have concerns over how this particular amendment would be logistically implemented and what collateral consequences there might be where many changes have recently been absorbed. however i feel this amendment is timely and sends an important message that we need to continue the conversation about commander authority, and i will support this passage. i look forward to continue to work with congresswoman speier
and the many others have taken such an active role in this very serious issue, and others, and i'm looking for to examine the full scope of the impact of this proposed amendment but i do thank congresswoman speier for raising this important issue, and ideal back. >> mr. russell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we hear stories. we hear phrases like the norm. we all agree that sexual-harassment cases are sexual crimes. one incident is too many. we would all agree with those statements. but here's the truth. the trend in the last seven years is down, not up, but that is not the case in the general public at large. the programs are also sound and implemented by current leaders that often face the greatest criticism, tools such as sharp and separate now don't have
statistically proven effective, they bear a great scrutiny for the same. when we see university statistics by comparison to our military academies who, mr. chairman, one state it was that these are our future leaders, as if somehow they were flawed and broken in the production of those leaders. the ncaa and university statistics by comparison r36% worse, worse. what does that mean? that means that general public at large ought to be knocking on the doors of our service academies and asking them how they're doing such a fantastically better job. still one incident is too many. but it's not because it's broken or the military somebody doesn't have a handle on it or that commanders and the uniform code of military justice is some of the need of being fixed.
importance of commanders queries, ig investigations, criminal investigative division investigations and the like are paramount to all commanders and the tools that they possess. i have use those tools as a command at various levels in the various organizations that i commanded to include sending people to prison for sexual crimes. to suggest that because commanders had these tools that they will somehow not be capable of using the uniform code of military justice to bring justice in good order and discipline in the military is absolutely absurd. once again what we see, mr. chairman, is an attempt to move the military away from its own separate justice system, one more ship, one more crack so the commanders no longer have the ability to establish good order and discipline in their organizations. if staff judge advocate, mr. chairman, as one stable was made
are not experts in ucmj, then my goodness, who is? after all they go to school specifically and/or legally trained specifically to understand the uniform code of military justice. one anecdote with service academies, maybe they can handle it and they should refer these to outside sources, outside prosecutors, impartial prosecutors and the like. free -- three dozen referrals arofmay 2 magistrates only one s accepted. and all of the others were sent back to that service academy so they were doing such an unjust and terrible job that they couldn't be trusted. taking away commanders authority, that is exactly what we do not need. why would we take away authority that is 36% better at our service academies and our colleges and universities and why would we take away authority where we see the military as an institution is usually discovers
its own problems, investigates, exposes them to the media, demonstrate what their corrective programs are. you would never see these types of actions and certainly not in support of fashion as you see in the military out in the civilian community. what we don't need is unnecessary congressional interference in the uniform code of military justice. oversight yes, hearings, yes. what we don't need though is to break what is a better performing uniform code and a better set of standards and i urge my colleagues not only oppose this amendment but to stand with commanders and the military. and mr. chairman, i yield back. >> ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and to everyone who spoke on this issue, because it has been a long time that we've been working with it, and frustrating and just about every other thing i could say.
because we all want to get to the same place. i remember one day going up to camcamp pendleton to speak to te commander there, and we were focused specifically on this issue and what was happening. and in the course of my sitting there, he got a phone call. it was another case that had just been referred to him, and it already had won that day. so i was wholly convinced of the problem. there was no question about that. i also know that in working hard we begin to develop better partnerships and to think mr. turner spoke to this. so that there's much more discussion, certainly a consciousness but beyond that, so my so that all the stakeholders are part of the solution. i also saw the changes they came about as i spoke to particularly with women on basis that a special counsel has had on their ability to understand the system. there still are problems with
this combo for me at least they know what their rights are and that somebody can be there and stand in for them as well. that's made a big difference. what did concern the and all of these discussions that we have was a sense for many of our judge advocates that they actually pushed not to go to trial more than a commander. because the commanders had more passion, more concern. they knew the people that were involved and they wanted to make that happen. and unfortunately folks who, good at what they did, didn't have that same interest really because it could be that they would have a number of cases he said/she said, in many cases he said he said, she said she said. and in those cases that it would be too difficult to get any agreement to get a conviction.
and so therefore they tended to stay away from them. but commanders, not all, we had bad apples and this can we acknowledge this, and there still are unsure, but at least those commanders really wanted to see the case resolved. so i'm glad that we did the actions that we did. i've always held out that it was to go forward. i think that this is actively looking at it, and i greatly appreciate my colleague, ms. spear, and all the people, the women on both sides of the aisle particularly got involved in this issue because we heard from too many cases. when i go to stand down in san diego and ask all the women to come join me in a tent and talk about their issues, you know, last time we met at bobby had 25 women. they all came to the tent to talk about this. it is still a problem. i do believe that we really have
a solution at hand in the ability of people to interface on this, and we need to continue to work very hard on it. so at this point i'm going to decline to support it but i am certainly there and looking at these issues and i will continue to do that and continue to talk to people in the field. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chair. i want to associate myself with remarks with a joke but also in my position on this and yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. >> thank you mr. rogers. thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank susan davis for her comments. we have spent a significant amount of time on this and it's one because we are very concerned about this issue as a whole. this proposal does not fix a problem for sexual assault. it actually makes the issue of prosecution more difficult. since one of seven congress a list of everything that we
passed as the house armed services committee that is become law, singlespaced, page after page of reforms of the process to make sexual assault prosecution and prevention easier and more effective. we did have concerns would look at the issue of chain of command on lies, coercion, unprofessionalism and rights of the victim. we for rights of the victim gave special legal counsel as ms. davis said to the victims and then we give a special legal counsel representing the victims standing in court. contrary to out it's been described the command doesn't have a decision. that is, that is by themselves. again to go over what we've done, if a commander and their lawyer agree it goes forward. if the command and a lawyer do not agree, then he goes to the next level for review. but there's never instance where command on his own just makes a decision that this is not going
to be reviewed so it will not be referred for prosecution if there's disagreement. if there is it goes all the way to the secretary of the service branch. what this provision would require is that it actually be sent to the chief prosecutors for each service, which are basically three lawyers. thour 6000 cases per year. so we would have a determination of the 6000 cases by these three service branch lawyers rather than how we're doing it now which is com concludes the commander, lawyers, a review of actually the case and whether it needs to go forward. but we've been absolutely dedicated to protecting the victims and are trying to address the issue of sexual assault. we can't use the excuse that sexual assaults are still continuing for every amendment that comes forward. we actually referred this whole issue to a bipartisan panel and they came back and told us do not do this.
so at a minimum if we're ever to the point where we caution what we have done and so far everything appears in all the data as to what we've done is working, the answer would be for us to give it to those who know more, not merely have a 30 minute debate here and then change the entire prosecution system within the department of defense. but again at this point and as ms. davis has said what we've done is working at what is in place is what is been recommended to us, and this amendment is not only i think detrimental to the overall process but it certainly doesn't go to the heart of everything that were trying to do and try to help victims make the process work, bring prosecutions forward and have people actually be brought to justice. i yield back. >> ms. mcsally. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do not associate myself with the comments of my colleague mse work of ms. speier and report on
many things to get invited to women in military that has he only female veteran over here who are still with these issues in many capacities to include in the chain of command i would urge our colleagues to not support this. as a said by many of our colleagues, there been a lot of improvements over the last years and ultimately we need a chain of command more responsible, not less responsible, more engaged, not less engaged. we may need to have less neanderthals in chain of command at different times approaching cultural issues, but this structural change is not what is needed. it needs to stay as it is i appreciate that and i yield back my type and urge people to vote no. >> mr. bacon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll keep my comic sugar i certainly 30 using air force, i can command we want to respect the chain of command want respect the commander and no one cares more about the unit, the units, the morale welfare distant others units then the commander. my experience has been when, in
one of the inside took over had a very high rate of the salt when i in. we worked hard to put come use court-martial and drugged others raise. as ms. davis said the cases where those like 50-50 hard to know what the verdict was as a command but we went to court-martial anyway. are often than not got a conviction for the person pled guilty. we want commanders to be the central part of his come making the decisions with lawyers advising. we don't want lawyers making his decision with commanders advising. thanks again for the chance to come of it i opposed the amendment and encourage this committee to do so. >> mr. kelley. >> mr. chairman, i also would e brief. i'm one of the key people has been a district attorney and the city prosecutor, professional prosecutor and has also command at the italian everyday levels. and i can tell you as being both a district attorney and inside of a grand jury and seeing what is referred and what is not referred come what gets indictment and what is true
build are no true bill. i contend that military commanders for the most part are uniquely qualified to be able to do that and decide what is best for the military order and discipline of the unit. the second part of that is i've seen evolution of the judge advocate general, the jack or commented ability and access with and to commanders and to delete to inform them and to be a part of everything that they do so that when these commanders make decisions, they're basing it on sound legal guidance, the center i would get from assistant district attorney. i think it's important to note that cid or professional investigators do this every step of the way. i don't think the system is broke. i think we can always get better activating we do, mr. chairman, but i think it is critical that we not take commanders of this process. it is detrimental to the good order of military order and discipline to take access from the commander away because this
only happens at the 06 love and about with legal counsel every step of the way. with that i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the questions on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california, ms. speier to those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the nose haven't picked and '07 and the amendment is not agreed to. further amendments to the subcommittee mark, ms. speier. >> i have a minute at the desk. >> if the clerk would dispute the amendment, the amendment come without objection the amendment is considered as read and a gentlelady is recognized for fibers. >> mr. chairman, thank you. generally the court-martial jury must be comprised entirely of commission officers who account for only 11% of the defense department total. charges are levied by commander acting as the convening authority who also personally selects the members of the
court-martial panel he will try the accused. the convening authority selects members who in court visiting our best qualified for the duty by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service and judicial temperament, and put. this often results in judges having a greater impact on a case by selecting jurors they know instead of a more random sample. the military should follow the civilian construction -- structure and about a random process to select the jury pool for each trial. it's a caveat that members hold a high rate. this would remove the commanders hand from the jury box and eliminate conflicts advice as well as specter of unlawful command influence that this would also extend the universe of potential jurors to all service members not to senior members which judges can select from. i understand certain personnel serving critical roles. in this case is commanders could be provided authority to excuse individual from the jury pool
whose current task are crucial to the overall mission of the command and must not be interrupted by the court-martial process. this is another situation where we should attempt to align the military justice system with the civilian one. i might just add here that uniform code of military justice was created by the congress of the united states. we just want to make sure that servicemembers have the same love of justice as a person in the civilian world. and with that, mr. chairman, i would yield back. >> mr. russell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i felt a bit of experience with this, not as an attorney but as both a soldier and as a commander. i actually testified in a court-martial at ultimate put a lieutenant colonel in prison and stripped him of all ranks, all retirements, all decorations and all privileges having worn the
uniform. i also sent unto war crimes tribunal as a member of the panel, as well as other types of courts-martial. and so what i would suggest is the fact that he convening authority oftentimes someone it equivalent of three stars a break, station when they are very serious cases they may even go higher than that, the selection for such panels errs in favor of justice and impartiality rather than entering in favor of some unit or chain of command -- pairing. in one of the war crimes that i sat in on as a panel member it was an enlisted soldier, and of in this incident was an officer. both enlisted soldier, the panel was composed of 12, which is no shock. six of them were officers, all
commanders, all that had extensive combat experience. the enlisted soldiers, all in the rank of sergeant major, which is the highest enlisted grade, were all combat experienced and all sat in judgment bring those things to do because the particular incident was dealing with a war crime. you would not get that with a random selection. you would not get something that could be so impartial it included male, female and like the military it included people from every stripe and every color and everything else. why? because we are all americans and we all serve together. and so i disregard, mr. chairman, this notion that somehow because military convening authorities are in authority, that they are incapable. they are just not competent. we break glass and we dragged it out when we need to fight something or fix something or
break something. my goodness, they probably don't know how to write come they don't know how to speak. they can't put you into together. they can't put a good panel together. by the time they get to the furthest levels you would hope that they probably could do that. i would suggest not only do they do that, they do it with great skill. many times we had this hollywood notion of jack nicholson stepping up at all of these things have gone awry and gone wrong, you know, we can't get to the truth. but the truth is, the most trusted institution in the united states of america is our military, bar none. i got a little expense with it. i went for the most trusted institution in the united states to the most despised. i happen to be the same person. and what i will tell you is that we have no grave concerns about
the military being able to put fair and impartial panels together for the most serious crimes. sometimes they convene sometimes with this many members, that many members come ask members, maybe get 12 depending on what level. it may go to major general come in they go to a three star, it may go all the way up. maybe this sector has an interest in it himself but what you will not see as a lack of concern on the cases that are serious. and again i go back, mr. chairman, honestly i didn't know that i was such a knuckle drag her, that i was so close minded that i was a rapist, that i was a murderer, that is a sexual assault her, that i were all of these things until i came to congress and often heard from my colleagues how horrible i was when i was in uniform as a commander and how incapable i was in being able to do justice and make decisions. but now i've learned that may be i, i just didn't realize who i was.
whatever suggest is that once again we do not break the uniform code of military justice. it is the glue that holds our discipline and good order together. and the last illustration i will give you, mr. chairman, that as a field commander an incident where soldier tried to kill his nco with his own battle rifle, i had the tools as a committee to immediately send him in irons, and he was sent away and he was sent to prison. and all of that was handled by a chain of command and it was done with a court-martial dealing in such grave and serious issues. do not break the ucmj. opposed the amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. garamendi. >> mr. chairman, i think the gentleman for service. i'd like to use my time to ms. speier. >> thank you for giving me a time. mr. russell, i, too, thank you for your service to this country.
the one thing i don't like is to have my words twisted. and with all due respect to you, i have not said that you are a rapist or that you cannot conduct yourself in an appropriate manner as a commanding officer. what this amendment does is quite simple. it just says that when a jury is being impaneled, they would be randomly selected from the universe of those who are eligible to serve on the panel, not specifically hand-picked by the convening authority. if we really all about justice, we want to make sure that everyone is going to have the sense that these are those who are appropriately selected and that they arrange them. this would be like a judge in every jury trial handpicking those who would serve on the jury.
i must say that we have the uniform of code of military justice not a perfect body of law. we have been amending it took we been come we amended it to the privacy act. we have amended it because the convening authority had extraordinary power before where they could overturn a court-martial just because they wanted to. and we change that article 60. there's elements of uniform code that could be fairer and more equitable. this is one that which is a let's ran to my seat, let's not had the convening authority actually picked the panel themselves. and with that i yield back. >> mr. turner. >> well, this is not just a quite simple provision. and it's also something that we have dealt with before. in fact, and last years ndaa we did take action with respect to
the eligibility to sit on court-martial panel. >> but thi this is a solution looking for problem where there is not a problem. we've not had anything before us as a committee that says there's a problem with the juries. but when we saw there might be and administered issue we did take action. but even so we didn't just out there. we look at the joint service committee which are made up of experts and military justice. they actually researched this issue on grand jury selection and they found up in figure if also found that it would be detrimental for number of reasons. one, there is a standing principle in the military that no member shall sit in judgment of an accused who outranks them. so there's no sense of a buys their of the individuals that they are reviewing. we would have to need to eliminate that firmly rooted for quite and what i think the structure of the mr. kirk
another issue is to go completely and you'll end up more junior enlisted and perhaps rather the expertise that you need for some of these provisions where the commander has an understanding of the subject matter and then can select those who sit base on that. you also get those who press have very little military expense or perhaps legal anderson at the issues that are before the the other thing is, is that in deployed environments it would get rid of the building of the committee to take into consideration key personnel at various times. so people could get jury selection at a time with the commander needs them. so we have no evidence or anything before it indicates at all and even to alter the amendment didn't cite any problem with the jury selection process. we have a report that this committee has and the joint service committee that says do not do this and we have some standard principles of mildew that would be affected by. this is an event that should be rejected.
>> history bacon. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will just briefly state again my experience being in command-we are very qualified juries. they are experienced, often commanders in own right but outside of the same organizations of the victim or the perpetrator, but typically very well experienced and mostly with trust that if we take this anime i believe we will go backwards. we will have less experience people. i think the confidence in the juries will go down. i yield back. >> mr. kelly. >> mr. chairman, again just very briefly, i feel like i uniquely qualified. we don't have random juries in the civilian world. we are guaranteed in the constitution the right to a fair and impartial trial in front of a fair and impartial jury. in the supplying world as a district attorney we get of were dire that we determine who's qualified to serve and who wasn't.
who had biases or who had prejudices and which they could surface or who it information about age which they could not set aside and only rule on evidence which was a fun of them come not the evidence which they may have heard is a great find. i think it is imperative that we not have random juries. i think that we get the best qualified who are not biased, who are impartial -- >> would've the gentleman yield for a question? >> no. not right now. and i think it's important that we have commanders picketers, or the juries are selected from a panel who are qualified and to have unique capabilities in order to rule the right way, not by a jury of random people who may or may not have bias. now, i think a commander should never be allowed come just like in the civilian world, you cannot remove people for prejudicial reasons or for sex are always other things. you cannot do that.
and so if you see those things i think obviously you want to take care of that commander for doing the wrong thing to the panel. budget see that. that's not the question. the question is random versus a selected jury mbf aboard i processed instantly world. i yield and now. >> i would ask the gentleman if it's appropriate, try to maybe i should go through you, with the gentleman tell me if the voir dire process is available under the u.n. ji -- ucmj. >> yes, it is. thank you for asking the question i'm sorry to interrupt but it was the minute and a forgot to mention it. it is. >> i yield to mr. turner. [laughing] >> and with that i yield back, mr. chairman. >> are you could argue what we recognize? >> i would like to be recognized. recognized. i appreciate my good friends comments and respect his body of knowledge, but i'm not completely sure that i
understand the logic behind the comparison between the military justice court and a civilian court. if both courts have voir dire than both courts have the ability to we doubt folks with prejudice, biases and the like. so i am not, it is lost upon me by one court should have a specialized jury and as a court should have a randomized jury. in my experience, which is admitted all civil and some, but mostly civil, you put a jury in the box can be asked in the that are decid designed to elicit prejudice. prejudice. i'm not sure understand why the military should be any different. >> with the gentleman you? >> i will yield. >> the issue of voir dire as a positive why we should make a change. the defense has ability to object. the aspect of this as to why it's different is because the structure is different.
the military is custodial of its membership, and so it's not like the random public which is why you would want a random jury in our processes in civilian court. it is an organization and an institution where it has its own judicial system within it. and that's what it's different in many respects. and again this was reviewed, researched. they look at this issue determine whether or not the current system should be kept in place. the research came back and said he put in place, it makes a difference. it enhances the judicial process. we have no information force at all that contradicts everywhere nothing that says there's a pub with jury selection, a problem with the justice on either side both defendants are those who are victims. and again we have now given victims their own counsel that have their own stand in court. it's completely unheard of at a victim would have the own attorney or be able to be present in court and outstanding. none of the issues we've had
have there been raised the issue of the jury itself. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just back. >> mr. larson. >> i can be brief. first i just want to say i opposed the amendment but just make a point of principle. as i said at the earlier, we should not touch ucmj, it's a penn center saunter but it isn't. isn't. it isn't safe and sound. we've amended it more than a few times last 15 years, and we will probably do it more than a few times over the next 15 years. so the debate is taking place on the policy side is positive but i don't think we should get trapped by the issue whether we should as a general rule about whether or not we should and then the ucmj. because we do, we have and will in the future. the final point i want to make, with exception to the gentleman spoiled from oklahoma how we went from one of the most common
of the most revered institution in america military to one of the most despised i wanted mike and he's not in the senate yet. [laughing] with that i yield back. >> question on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california? in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. further amendments? gentlelady's time california ms. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, it's estimated that there are speedy doesn't gentle a wish to offer -- >> i am offering. >> the gentleman has an amendment at the desk. clerk with us to the amendment. without objection it is considered as read and other gentlelady is make it asked for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman pickets estimated that more than 30,000 food insecure servicemembers and the film in the united states. the barrier to accessing snap
caused by county our basic housing allowance come basic allowance for housing, we know as bob come as income has led many military families across the country to turn in desperation. the food pantries and food banks many operating on base or new military installations for emergency food assistance. for example, just in san diego there are four different emergency the distribution programs that operate on basis of the marine corps camp pendleton which serves the needs of our military families stationed there and i can tell you that just about every station in town has covered the story from time to time because it congress must publish it we get many calls saying why isn't congress thing something about this? our families once again do not have access to snap benefits because their basic allowance for housing is factored into the calculation for this benefit. in other words, into their
income. this is inconsistent with a number of other government programs and calculations to the irs, for example, this bah is one of the tax exempt military allowances not considered as earned income when determining eligibility for income tax credit. the child tax credit from the special supplemental nutrition program for women infants and children that we know as wic. for head start and of the federal assistant programs. so quite honestly this is a really unacceptable situation and i was looking forward to debating how we could work together to and food insecure among our servicemembers and take some possible actions. today. unfortunately that discussion isn't going to take place because the agricultural committee has refuse to weigh their jurisdiction on this issue. i will reluctantly withdraw -- >> whether gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> before you withdraw. >> unhappy if you want to give
us the waiver. [laughing] >> probably not going to happen. the problem is this hits snap benefits which i agree to with increased tri-car tricare cost o linking those two together in my mind is not the right way to go. i will commit with you that when we do reauthorize the far farm l and i tried an opportunity to address this specific issue, i will commit to work with you on that during that timeframe but i can't let it happen of because of the objection i have two pitting increase costs tricare to everybody for the valuable benefits that our servicemembers can get, if we can get that done. while i refuse to waive jurisdiction at this point i will commit to work with you on this issue. >> thank you very much. i will take you at your word and we have an audience and i look forward to working with you on this issue. because quite honestly it is very painful, and i know that it affects so many of our families.
i will withdraw and thank you, mr. chairman. we will be here again. thank you. >> the gentlelady withdrawals. further amendments? the gentleman from minnesota who we are glad to welcome back to the committee, at least temporarily but hopefully longer. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. i do have an amendment at the desk and in order to not overstatement welcome i will be withdrawing it. >> what a good start. [laughing] >> the clerk what should the amendment. without objection it is considered red at the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this issue is one that i'm glad to be back with all of you and know the hard work you do. this is an issue that you have addressed partially in this ndaa and it deals with how you treat our reserve and guard forces. many of you know i think that a passion over the last decade to make sure that we moved our reserve and guard forces to parity in terms of what's asked of them into poor mr. have performed admirably right alongside you in the active forces.
the issue at hand is how they're called under title x. it's the 12304 issue. this committee has taken a big bite out of fixing this with the tri-cartricare piece. i'm grateful for that but as you all know if you are called to duty as a hotel unit in mankato, minnesota, just returned from a deployment of the past year in the sinai, they were called up under involuntary call up under 12304-b authority which means they're prohibited from receiving the benefits they would receive if there were called under a normal chain. it's an unequal treatment. we are not in a four to money. i know all those argument because the troops that would givnomatter what to defend this nation but we have responsibility come if we're going to have an operational guard and reserve we need to treat them the same way when it comes to the benefits when you put themselves into families out there. i know the issue here is that pay for. i'm cognizant of that. we have fixed the tricare piece for those families in this effort that i say thank you but
going forward we do need to address this, get this fixed and and of all the give you want to do that. so thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman withdraws -- >> i withdraw the amendment. >> further amendments? the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc number three, consisting of minnesota all been worked out and approved with the minority. >> without objection it is so ordered. if the clerk will distribute en bloc package number three pick without objection it is considered as read and the gentleman from colorado is recognized to explain the amendment. >> in number three it is comprised of the following, amendment 65 by mr. jones which
sets up an advisory board for military commissions and exchanges, amendment 82 by mr. brady which directs the doj to conduct a study which evaluates the different with each military service conducts data on race engine of those convicted of violations of ucmj. amendment 102 by ms. speier which directs the secretary of defense to submit to the committees on armed services of report on dod personne personals regarding members of the armed forces infected with hiv. amendment 149 r-1 which directs the secretary of defense to brief availability of certified financial planners to servicemembers at the onset of the new blended retirement system. amendment 191 by dr. wenstrup which directs residency requirements or pediatrics,
pediatricians. amendment 284 by mr. thornbury which creates a defense public service to be awarded by the congress. amendment 287 by mr. carbajal which is a sense of congress regarding the national guard challenge program. that's it, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i just back. >> for the discussion on the en bloc package? if not the question occurs -- the gentleman from california, mr. carbajal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. according to the department of defense less than 30% of the u.s. use qualify for military service. either because of poor criminal health, criminal record for of a high school degree. each year 1.3 million kids drop out of high school come severely affecting their local community and the greater u.s. economy.
the national guard youth challenge program works to fix or avoid all three of these issues here the youth challenge program, why cd, is one of the most effective youth development programs for high school aged students that of drop out or are at risk of dropping out of school. the national guard youth challenge program provides the dod an opportunity to work with states and local governments to engage our nation's youth. the goal of the youth challenge program is to improve the life skills and employment potential participants by providing military base training, a high school degree, high physical fitness standards and assistance with family concerns that could result in legal trouble and i appreciate the committee working with me to include my amendment, bringing attention to this important program.
mr. chairman, i yield back. >> other discussion on en bloc package number three? if not the questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, mr. carpenter those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in keeping of the chair the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. -- in the opinion of the chair. moving on further amendments, the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the event. without objection to the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from florida is like for fibers. >> its inner dashboard like to begin by thanking congressman bilirakis and congressman bishop from the house veterans affairs committee for their work on the concurrent receipt issue. currently there are approximate 550,000 military retirees that are eligible to receive both military retired pay and va disability compensation but they are prohibited from doing so
under the current guidelines of the program. this means more than half a million veterans are being taxed for having the courage to serve the country. as we debate the necessity of enhancing our military readiness, after decades of military degradation let us not forget that the most important resource we have automated and women in uniform. mr. chairman, i see communis consent introduced into the record a letter from the veterans of foreign wars to the united states in support of the minute. >> without objection. >> and i would yield such time as you may consume. >> mr. chairman? i think mike colleague from florida for his work on this very important issue here there are over 50,000 veterans in my district and southwest alabama, and this is an issue i hear from veterans about quite often. this is also an issue that has bipartisan support. we need to ensure that those who serve our country receive all
the benefits they earned. we should not allow bureaucratic regulations to punish our veterans who have given so much to our country. mr. chairman, i understand this and budgetary issues that must be addressed, i hope the committee can work with the gentleman from florida and the rest of us to fund a solution and a user back to the gentleman from florida. >> the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from arizona. >> mr. chairman, up like to echo my colleagues in expressing the urgent need to this urgent need. this committee understands the profound sacrifices that our nation ask of our men and women in uniform. in return we promised them character and just compensation, compensation for the serve as well as for any service-connected injury. in nearly hassling veterans up and she did at of the benefits they earned so because of outdated policies prohibiting concurrent receipt of unrelated benefit payments. this amendment would bring an end to this clear injustice. it is been widely endorsed by the vsos and deserve our
strong support. what we will be able to pass today as a marine corps veteran i look for to working with memphis about 40 to get this legislation across the finish line. it just makes sense. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman from flood withdraws the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> next amendment, gentleman from california ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at in full disclosure i am going to withdraw this amendment but i think this is an important issue for everybody pitched if the gentle he was suspended the clerk will distribute the amendment. without objection considered as read and the gentle he is recognized. >> and last years in the a week written it a tv structure system tricare enrollment fees. we created one for future serving retirees and those electing tricare select like a ppo and we created another for currently serving and current retirees in tricare prime. as we continue to try to limit redone systems we now see that this was a mistake that will
force the department of defense to maintain a structure system for the next approximately 50 years. and until the last person who comes in military on 31 decembee for medicare. my amendment will repeal the grandfather clause so all retiree benefits are on the same fee schedule. it will change the index, change the index to the fee schedule from a cola to the national health expenditures. but it would delay any enrollment fee increase until 90 days after the gao report that is to first of february 2020. to verify that the dod has increased assets to care, beneficiary satisfaction, et cetera. active duty and the family members, chapter 61 retirees and surviving spouses still do not pay any enrollment fee.
the dod supports this change. it was a legislative proposal of theirs with the budget submission and it will save they dod approximate 32 million in mandatory common 10 billion and discretionary over ten years. they dod also estimates changing from cola to the national health expenditures -- sorry, i just lost my place. that was a 61 million in fiscal year 19, and 400 million over five years. we can't just look a savings for the department because it must be fair and just for our retirees, and this is really where the rubber meets the road. in 1994, a military retirees and approximately 25% share of his or her health care. currently, i retiree come and you might be thinking about what this percentage is, so from 25%
usher in 94, retiree today pays approximately 8%. this amendment will bring it to 10%. it's estimated that the increase would be from $47 a month to $58 a month for a family a family. and in my estimation that's fair and it is just pure this grandfather clause is for the predicated on the misguided assumption that are passed retirees have seen more combat that our future retirees. and thus should be less of the cost of the future generation. i would love to believe that the world would be at peace, but at this point i think that seems aspirational. of the 1,145,634 retirees under the age of 65, 425,910 deployed in support of centcom contingency operations. our future retirees deserve equal consideration and
treatment as are passed retirees. and in addition to that the savings to our country both in terms of eliminating redundant t system and in savings are too large to ignore. however, this is one of those issues what we really want to bring all the stakeholders on board, we are not there yet, going to die to get there. i certainly encourage all of you to continue to think about this issue, but for the meantime i'm going to withdraw. thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady withdraws. okay. we are doing pretty well. according to my notes we may have nine or ten more amendments in personal and then we got stride and the we're full committee. so we can do this. everybody go vote, stretch your legs, and then come back for a big push to get done this evening, hopefully earlier than usual. the committee stand in recess. [inaudible conversations]
the trump administration at this year's aspen ideas festival. here's a look. >> one of the things that concern me a bit as folks have talked about the special counsel investigation that is going on top bob mueller is doing, i know bob mueller of folks ought to have tremendous confidence in him. i mean, he is the consummate professional. [applause] he is going to call like he sees it. he's going to do this the right way. but bob mueller is going to be decided whether or not crimes were committed, that they could be used for prosecution or for impeachment. surely that's not our bar for the next, that's not the standard of conduct that we are looking for from a president or our administration. it shouldn't just be by the committed a felony or not. it should also be whether or not you are observing the kind of norms that we've been talking better today that are so essential to really the fabric
of the rule of law. and so while i have total confidence in bob mueller and disability to conduct this investigation, i don't think that we should just be putting all of our hopes and well that will tells what anything bad happen here. because there's potential editor with the facts are some not drawing conclusions about what he may ultimately determined,, but there are facts here that should be alarming to us as a country that falls short of facts that would establish a basis for impeachment or for prosecution. >> former acting attorney general sally yates spoke at the aspen ideas festival in aspen colorado for a discussion on the rule of law under the trump administration. she is joined by former acting solicitor general neil cadieux to talk about russian influence on the elections and the presidents travel ban. see it tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span.
>> the u.s. senate will continue debate on president trump's nominee to be the administrator of the office of information and regulatory affairs. the senate will vote on advancing the nomination at noon eastern today. live senate coverage now here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black , will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. almighty god, source of all goodness, use our lawmakers today for your glory. make them undaunted people who strive to know your will and experience your power.
provide them with exactly what they need to accomplish your purposes. may they receive heaven's approbations for their faithful service to you and country. transform their intractable problems with solutions from your throne. lord, we commit the work of this day to you, receiving your strength to honor your name. and lord, we thank you for the summer faithfulness of our pages. bless these young people as they prepare to leave us. we pray in your generous