tv Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act Part 3 CSPAN June 29, 2017 11:17pm-11:39pm EDT
substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor? opposed, no. asking for the recorded vote is that true? okay we need to take it in real time the clerk will call the roll. >> this is an important amendment to advance the readiness of the fighting force and to save precious taxpayers money. it reveals policy instituted last summer by then secretary ash carter without any input from the members of congress which allows the transgender individuals to serve and be recruited in the military. this policy is ill-conceived and is contrary to our goal of increasing the troop readiness. and investing the defense dollars into addressing budget shortfalls of the past. by recruiting and allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military, we are suggesting taxpayers to high medical costs including an
average of $130,000 per transition surgery, lifetime hormonal treatments, and potential additional surgeries to address the average 25% of individuals who experience complications in addition to possible mental health issues and costs of training the new policy. the surgeries alone are estimated to cost $1.35 billion over the next ten years and that is with the assumption of only 30% of individuals choosing to transition. that equivalent money could find 14 super hornet f. 18 and strike bombers, 46, all weighing replacements or increase the end strength of the troops. in addition they object to the hormone therapy for family members and its associated cost as a policy that covers 16 and
17-year-olds dependence. this policy is not only costly but it also is a threat to our readiness and lost time for additional training, the inability to deploy and decrease morale. every member of the military must undergo a daylong training on the new policy which translates into lost time in the cockpit of the firing range or a simulator which they so desperately need and it's especially hit hard by the training is time is limited when the members are on duty, but it's not just time away from the primary task that is concerning its also the lack of deployability of the individuals going through the transition process. it requires between 210-2238 workdays where a soldier is not deployable after surgery. this recovery time he claims to 1.4 million manpower days over
ten years where transgender personnel cannot deploy and fight the nation's more. this doesn't address the concern of the transition due to ongoing hormone treatments that requires the refrigeration and other long-term care. a soldier cannot be deployed to the mountains of afghanistan with a need to refrigerate medicine someone has to cover the days of non- deployability meaning an already stressed force will be further stressed. also the diagnosis and treatment renders service personnel and eligible for personal duties like flying status. the reliability programs and jobs requiring sci, security clearances. the individuals that we know can not serve. is it fair for us to change the standards for this one condition knowing that it will result in many being unable to serve their
country with less complicated conditions like flat feet, asthma and sleepwalking. is it fair to recruit sons and daughters to fight for the nation and instead of being able to focus on the enemy, subjecting them to distractions of personal privacy issues involving sleeping and showering with individuals of the opposite sex, it is not. military service is a privilege, not a right. it is predicated on the singular goal of winning the war and defeating the enemy. all decisions on personnel and funding should be made with this in mind. hi entry standards are required because failure on the job costs lives. last year was costly in dollars and short on common sense. it is imperative the nation reverses its ill-advised policy and ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely. fairness is restored and we ensure our military personnel
can succeed on the battlefield. i plan to withdraw my amendment after some discussion tonight in hopes of getting the dod the opportunity to address this problem internally by reversing this policy. however if they fail to act on this policy, future action must be taken by us the guardians of national defense it is imperative that the original policy that stood the test of time be reinstated to prioritize our readiness and save precious defense dollars and ensure our men and women serving the nation can fight and win the nation's more so mr. chairman i yield back with the intent to withdraw this amendment after this discussion. >> further discussion. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no clear
definition of this exists for a military to develop the current policy that was implemented last year. in the definition the manual lacks support and ranks among the lowest scores in the reliability standards yet the armed services are being forced to provide medical recommendations on unproven criteria without regards to the rights of conscience both medically and morally. with regards to fully club type service members, should those definitions be accepted or coerced then we should accept the definition so a service member would be burdened by a profound state of depression, anxiety and agitation and has a high risk of suicide this doesn't sound like an otherwise,
quote, fully qualified service member. this policy also does not address the diminishment of readiness due to non- deployable dysphoric servicemembers. it places the priorities of the non- deployable service member who constitutes by a one's study estimate one in 20,000 individuals and its sidelined the readiness and five wednesday welfare and rights and privacy concerns of 99.999% of the armed forces. for example in the current trading manuals that have been implemented to both soldiers and commanders for guidelines, listen to the following vignette. following the transition from male to female that didn't 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 genitalia. this is from the army training manual. the guideline also is there should be respectful of the privacy and modesty concerns of others, however, transgender soldiers are not required or expected to modify or just their behavior based on the fact that they do not match the soldiers. here's another one that goes through to the commanders. a soldier has completed army gender transition from female to male is indicated in the soldier didn't have sexual reassignment surgery and recently stopped taking male hormones in order to try to start a family. today thi this water the slaughd 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 unit cohesion and we are lectured to believe that when they violate all that the other servicemembers, 99.99% of people have a more capable cohesive and ready force. under the leadership of vignette, when we have a policy that diverse leaders and commanders from combat readiness and cohesion to accommodate the impossible moral construct of pregnant men and how this impossibility will make a more capable and ready force, i suggest, mr. chairman, we have lost our way as a nation and with that i yield back.
>> okay i am getting a long list on an amendment that is to be withdrawn. i don't want to cut off people's debate, but i also want to just keep a little perspective in mind. >> thank you mr. chairman and i just want to remind us of the process, the year-long review process that led to secretary of defense ending the ban on transgender service went last year he stated we don't want barriers related to a person's qualifications to serve preventing us from maintaining a soldier, sailor, airman or marine who can best accomplish the mission, "-end-double-quote. that process was rigorous and included leadership of the services, medical personnel
experts across the dod, transgender servicemembers, outside medical experts advocacy groups and the rand corporation. an analysis by the dod working group and the rand corporation concluded that there would be minimal readiness impacts from allowing the transgender servicemembers to serve openly. the service chiefs signed off on an inclusive policy because they concluded on the basis of the research that inclusion would not compromise readiness. secretary indicated he will not revisit absent concrete readiness at this point. we know of no such evidence, so i urge my colleagues to refrain from relying on 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 process you survived and so i would oppose this amendment in anticipation [inaudible] >> thank you mr. chairman and i think the gentle lady for bringing this amendment. i know that you wrote secretary carter july 17 and novembe november 292016 raising serious questions about what would happen to transgender individuals coming into the military and issues such as housing, medical cost, limitations on the ability to be deployed, and my understanding mr. chairman is that you were the committee never really got satisfactory answers back. i think that it is really incumbent on the secretary to inform this committee with
straight answers but many of us have on the committee and that we shouldn't go forward with the previous administration's policy on tilt we get answers to issues like housing, medical costs and limitations on deployment. with that i would yield back given the lateness of the hour. >> thank you mr. chairman i would note right now today we have transgendered individuals deployed in our armed services and to answer one of the specific reservations the gentle lady had, you don't refrigerate the testosterone, you switch over [inaudible] which is what they required if you are going to be deployed. so, what is troublesome to me, mr. chair, as i could imagine not these individuals to my right, not my colleagues to my right for the congress 70 or 80 years ago that set a certain group of people were not smart enough to fly airplanes they run the first sign of battle as
are needing to recover from the surgery. they will be out of service from 210 until 238 days. that doesn't include the 20% who will have a secondary surgery. that doesn't include their hormone therapy and perhaps mental health treatment. those are the physical realities of the situation. i had an intern a few years ago that wanted to serve in the military, she went to law school and she applied for jacob court. she was denied because she had a bunion on her foot. now that is ridiculous that we are going to consider changing the standard for the entire military in multiple places in multiple ways to invite people to come in who have serious medical conditions for they cannot serve. yet we deny someone who has a bunion from surgery. we need to return to common sense.
the policy before was the one that ensured and it was tough the people serving this country had to pass certain parameters or else you cannot serve. that's what we should continue to pulitzer stander. to make sure that people can fight tonight, that we don't waste precious dollars or time on individuals who are not ready to fight. i yield back. thank you. >> mr. chairman, thank you. just 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 followed. 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 are most transgender service members there serving with distinction, they are widely praised by their commanders. we know from other militaries were transgender serve that there have been no problems with readiness costs. we know because dod has studied this. the rand corporation has studied this. the numbers that she was using her 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 what the military commanders have reported back to us. they continue with the full integration of the u.s. military and ensuring that every single person in the country is treated with dignity, respect and offer the chance to serve. that will make us a stronger country and a stronger military. i yield back.
>> will make this quick, the military is not the job corps. the military is not a group that you can serve and everybody concert. the militaries there to kill and people and execute the will of our government. this doesn't make it more effective, more efficient or more deadly. what it does is distract everybody. i cannot imagine having to share bathrooms or showers with somebody who was a girl and didn't have the surgery to become a man but cap the girl stuff i know 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 story that years of doing lots of ridiculous things.
i would urge the gentle lady to keep on working this. i would support the amendment if it were not withdrawn. with one minute i yield back. >> the gentle lady from mr. withdraw the amendment? >> with the understanding and plea to secretary mattis to take steps needed to restore readiness to make sure we don't waste precious tax dollars. if that does not happen than understand that we need to take action once this gets on the floor. i withdraw. thank you. >> "washington journal", live every day with new some policy issues that impact too. coming up on friday morning, roll calls -- in the news new york post review the week in washington including the latest senate republican healthcare reform. usa today contributor felicia separate discuss rising tensions
in the media. watch "washington journal", live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on friday morning. join the discussion. >> on afterwards, temple university to repressor he davis examines gender identity in his book, beyond transferring does gender matter? mr. davis is interviewed by sarah ellis, president and ceo. >> when talking about transgender discrimination were really talk about something different which is about the predicate of those stereotypes. it's not so much about what you should and shouldn't do as a man or woman but do you get to the larger category of man or woman in the first place. so that's an important distinction to draw. transgender people just like anybody experience traditional sexism. what i try to point out in the book is there something else going on were talking about transgender discrimination which
is about belonging to the categories themselves. >> and so in this book you talk that we should eliminate those categories. in a lot of different places. so from a birth certificate to college or professional level sports and everything in between her most things in between. >> watch afterwards, sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span twos book tv. >> the trump administration has requested $19 billion for nasa for fiscal year 2018. $561 million less than the current year. acting administrator robert appear before the senate committee to talk about the budget and future missions including a new space telescope, mars rover and propose man