tv Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act Part 3 CSPAN June 29, 2017 6:49pm-7:13pm EDT
politics at its worst, there are indirect costs. he would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just trying to come up with a definition of indirect costs at the pentagon. as far as not using-year-old money barack obama made $85,000 a year prior to being elected and between getting elected he made over 20 million bucks. i would say if mr. trump's net worth goes up by the same factor that president obama's did we have got something to worry about but if not let the man do his job. >> the question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama mr. byrne. those in favor say aye, those opposed no. depending of the chair the ayes have it. mr. holleran asked for a vote. we need to take in real-time. the clerk will call the roll.
>> this is an important amendment to advance the readiness of our fighting force and save precious taxpayer money. repeal of the policy institute last summer by then secretary of defense ash carter without any input from members of congress which allowed transgender individuals to serve and be recruited in the military. this policy is ill-conceived and contrary to our goals of decreasing troop readiness and addressing budget shortfalls of the past. by recruiting and allowing individuals to serve openly in our military we are suggesting tax -- subjecting taxpayers to high medical costs including an average of $130,000 per transition surgery lifetime hormone treatments and additional surgery to address the average 25% of individuals who experience complications in addition to possible mental health issues and cost of
training. the surgeries alone are estimated to cost one point $35 billion over the next 10 years and that is with the assumption of only 30% of individuals in transition. that money could fund 13 f-35, 14 super hornet f-18s, too, the 21 long-range strike bombers 18 wing replacements or increase in strength of our troops. in addition the policy subjects tri-care for hormone therapy for family members and associated costs of the policy cover 16 and 17-year-old dependence. this policy is not only costly, and also loses time time for additional training, the inability to deploy and increase morale. every member of the military
must undergo a daylong training on the new policy which translates for our troops into lost time in the pit on the firing range or the simulator which air force a desperately needs to reserve forces are hit especially hard by this training and time is limited by these members on duty but it's not just that is concerning itself with the lack of deployability of the individuals going through the sex transition process. the process requires between 210 and 238 workdays were soldiers not deployable after surgery. this recovery time it equates to 1.4 billion dollars manpower over 10 years for transgender personnel who cannot deploy and fight our nation's wars. this doesn't address the concern of non-deployability after transition due to ongoing hormone treatments that require refrigeration and other long-term care. a soldier cannot be deployed in
the mountains of afghanistan with the need to refrigerate medicine. someone has to cover the non-deployability meeting and are ready stress force will be further stress and also the diagnosis and treatment and are ineligible for special duties like personnel reliability programs and jobs sei, sap security clearances. why would we purposely recruit individuals to serve whom we know cannot serve taxes at fair for us to change our standards for this one commission knowing it will result in many being unable to serve their country when we deny military service to individuals with less complicated conditions like bunions flat feet and sleepwalking. is it fair to recruit our sons and daughters to piper nation instead of being able to focus on and may subjecting them to distractions of personal privacy
issues involving sleeping and showering with individuals born of the opposite sex? it is not. military service is a privilege not a right. it's predicated on the singular goal of winning wars and deceiving the enemy all decisions on personnel and funding should be made with this in mind. high injury and retention standards are required because failure on the job cost lives. last year's memorandum is costing dollars and short on common sense. it's imperative our nation reverse its ill-advised policy and ensure tax dollars are spent wisely, fairness is restored and we ensure military personnel can't -- on the battlefield. a plan to withdraw my mm adapters and vital discussion tonight in hopes of giving the dod the opportunity to address the problems internally by reversing this policy.
however if the dod failed to act decisively on the policy future action must be taken by us as guardians of national defense. there was no policy that withstood the test of time should be reinstated to prioritize precious defense dollars and ensure amendment women serving our nation can fight and win our nation's wars. mr. chairman i yield back with the intent to withdraw this amendment after discussion. >> further discussion? mr. russell. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman know. definition of dysphoria exists for the military to develop this current policy that was implemented last year. in the psychiatric dsm five manual that definition lacks clear empirical support and
ranks among the lowest of scores in the reliability standards. yet the armed services are being forced to provide medical recommendations on unproven criteria without regard to their rights of conscience both medically and morally. with regard to fully qualified servicemembers should those definitions be accepted or coursed then we should accept the definition that says a servicemember would be burdened by a profound state of depression, anxiety and agitation and has a high-risk of suicide. this does not sound like an otherwise quote fully qualified servicemembers end quote. this coerced policy also does not address the diminishment of readiness due to non-deployable dysphoric servicemembers. places the priorities of a dysphoric non-deployable servicemember who constitutes by
one study to estimate one in 20,000 individuals and sidelines the readiness, it's sidelines the morale and the welfare of the rights and privacy concerns of 99.999% of the armed forces. for example in the current training manuals have been implemented to soldiers and commanders for guidelines, listen to the following vignette. following her transition from male-to-female which not include sex reassignment surgery a transgender soldier begins using female barracks bathroom and shower facilities because she did not undergo a surgical change the soldier still has male. this is from the army training manual. the guideline also should be respectful of the privacy and modesty concerns of others however transgender soldiers are
not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based on the fact that they do not match the soldiers. here's another one that goes to commanders. a soldier has completed army gender transition from female-to-male as indicated. the soldier did not have sex reassignment surgery and recently stopped taking male hormones in order to try to start a family. today the soldier approached his commanding officer to discuss his newly confirmed pregnancy. his pregnancy. transgender soldiers under these vignettes are not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior but everyone else is violating their privacy, their rights, their morality and their unit cohesion and we are lectured to believe that when the soldiers violate all but the
other servicemembers, 99.999% that we will have a more capable cohesive and ready force. under the leadership benyette when we have a policy that diverse leaders and commanders from combat readiness and cohesion to accommodate the impossible moral construct of pregnant man and how this impossibility will make a more capable and ready force, i suggest mr. chairman that we have lost our way as a nation and with that i yield back. ..
>> thank you mr. chairman. i just want to remind of the process, the year-long review process that led to secretary of defense, ash carter ending the ban on trans gender service. last year he stated that quote, we don't want barriers on related to a person's qualification to serve preventing us from recruiting and retaining the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who can best accomplish the mission, unquote. that process was rigorous and included leadership of the services, medical and personal experts across dod, transgender service members, outside experts, medical groups and the rand corporation. analysis by the dod working group and the rand corporation in included there be minimal
readiness impact for allowing transgender people to serve openly. the service chief signed off on exclusive policy because they concluded on the basis of the research that inclusion would not compromise readiness. secretary mattis has indicated that he will not revisit decisions of the previous administration absent concrete evidence. we know of no such evidence. i urge you to refrain from relying on open to figures and assumptions to change a policy that was designed to open service to all who could meaningfully contribute to the military and their country. particularly given the rigorous process used to write it. i respectfully oppose this amendment. >> i think the gentle lady for missouri from bringing this
amendment. mr. chairman, i know that you wrote secretary carter in july 17 of 2015 and november 29 of 2016, raising serious questions about what happened to transgendered individuals coming into the military and issues such as housing, medical costs, limitations on the validity to be deployed, and my understanding is that you are the committee never got satisfactory answers back. i think it's uncommon on secretary mattis to inform this committee with straight answers on the serious questions that many of us have on the committee. we should not go forward with the previous administration's policy until we get answers to issues like housing, medical costs, and limitations on deployment.
so, with that i would yield back given the lateness of the hour. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would just know that right now today, we have transgendered individuals deployed in the armed services and to answer one of the specific reservations the gentle lady had, you don't refrigerate the testosterone coming switch over to a gel which is what think con requires a forget to be to play. what's troublesome to me is i can imagine not these individuals to my right and my colleagues to my right by the congress 70 or 80 years ago that set a certain group of people were not smart enough to fly airplanes that they run at the first sign of battle and african-americans cannot serve. while african-americans proved them wrong. i yield back. >> mr. kelly did you seek
recognition? >> i do and i would yield my time. >> thank you. there's a huge difference between what was change in policy several years ago in a person with a medical condition. it is a medical condition. it does require additional expenses. this policy was flawed from day one. secretary carter initiated the policy and said the assumption that transgender persons can serve openly without adverse impact on military effectiveness. how can you say then how can that be accurate when were recruiting people cannot serve? who if they go through the gender transmission process, first roll just to recover from the service that's 210 or 238 days and that doesn't include the 28% that would have competition sending a second dairy surgery.
that doesn't include their homerun therapy and perhaps mental health treatments. those are the physical realities of the situation. so, i had an intern a few years ago that wanted to serve in the military, she went to law school and applied for j core. she was denied because she had a bunion on her foot. that is ridiculous there were going to consider changing the standards for the entire military multiple places in multiple ways to invite people to come in have serious medical conditions where they cannot serve. yet we tonight someone who is a bunion? we need to return to common sense. the policy before was the one that ensured and it was tough that people had to pass certain parameters or else you cannot serve. that is what we should continue to hold as her standard. to make sure that people are able to fight, that we don't
waste precious dollars or type on individuals who are not ready to fight. i yield back. >> thank you. to expand on the point those made earlier, every time we have added a new group of americans beyond white males who originally served, the sky was feared to be falling. in each case we learned that everybody in this country when treated with dignity and respect and given the chance to serve does us all proud. we know the facts from those transgender service members there serving with distinction, their widely praised by their commanders. we know from other militaries were transgender have served that they have had no problems with readiness or costs.
we know because dod has studied this, we know the numbers with all due respect that they are using are a great divergence and overblown from what we have studied and what has already been determined. i would ask us to stick to the facts and stick to water military commanders have reported back to us. and to continue with full integration of the u.s. military and ensuring every single person in this country is treated with dignity and respect and offer the chance to serve. they'll make us a stronger country and a stronger military. >> the military is not the job corps, it's not some other group that you conserve and everybody concerned. the militaries there to kill people and execute the will of
our government. this doesn't make it more effective or efficient, more deadly, what it does is distract everybody. i cannot even imagine having to share bathrooms or showers or somebody was a girl and didn't have the surgery to become a man but cu kept the girl stuff and w she's with a bunch of guys or vice versa. this is one of the most ridiculous things that are prior commander-in-chief has done in his storied eight years of doing many ridiculous things. i would urge the gentle lady to keep on working this. i support the amendment if it were not withdrawn. >> obligor with the understanding a plea to
secretary mattis to take the steps needed to restore readiness and make sure we don't waste precious tax dollars. if that doesn't happen understand that we need to take action once this gets on the floor. i withdraw. >> yesterday, the house armed service committee past the 2018 program spell 60 - 1. the congresswoman of hawaii being the only member of the committee to vote against it. 622 make $640 billion of federal programs are contained in the bill. it would authorize funding for the defense department, military construction, and the energy department. >> c-span's "washington journal", live every day with new some policy issues that impact too. coming up on friday row calls and we are post review the leak in washington including the latest healthcare reform effort. usa today contributor alicia
shepard discussed the rising tension between the media and the trump white house. watch c-span's "washington journal", live at seven eastern on friday morning. join the discussion. >> this weekend, c-span cities tour with the help of comcast partners takes book tv into american history tv to portland, oregon. we explore the rich history and literary culture. saturday at noon eastern a book to be will visit the city of books covering an entire city block will go inside to see the collections learn about the history of one of the largest independent bookstores. >> we first moved in we are 15000 square feet of books, now we are 75000 retail square feet of books. i think it's the reason why some others moved to portland. we had that quite often that this is a resource for them. >> former state senator shares
her personal and professional journey as an african-american growing up in oregon with her book, remembering the power of words. >> knowing that we, that i could be a part of the march in the demonstrations and conversations that went on in our local community the word that was his use now is very empowering. and connecting to what is happening, all of those many miles away. >> on sunday 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history to be will step inside the ranch and built in 1914. the home belonged to the formal publisher of the oregonian newspaper and his wife. >> he worked there for a number of use approved himself invaluable. he kept it going the owner was
rather distracted with politics to the point where they owed henry back wages. in 1860 his employer decided to give the paper to henry. so he became owner of the newspaper and turned it into a success invested in a lot of real state as the town grew and was able to build a house. >> watch the city tour of portland, oregon saturday at noon eastern on c-span twos book tv and a 2:00 p.m. on american history tv on c-span three. >> treasury secretary announced she sanctions against the chinese bank for its involvement with north korea. he stressed that sanctions were not aimed at china and that the two countries continue to work together to solve the north koreuc