tv Defense Authorization Markup CSPAN April 27, 2016 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
under the current law, it is required that 10% of their total revenues come from nonfederal sources. so 90% can come from federal sources. 10% from nonfederal sources. except ironically and indefensibly the g.i. bill and d.o.d. education funds count towards that 10% nonfederal source. go figure. now, i know this has been double referred, and as a result, it's got to be withdrawn, but i really think, members, that we owe a responsibility to these veterans. and to somehow say since there's a double referral, we're just not going to deal with it is something that we should take seriously and finally do something about making sure that that 10% is not eligible for g.i. bill dollars and for d.o.d. education funds. and with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back.
>> the gentlelady withdrew her amendment? i'm sorry. i just couldn't hear. the gentlelady withdrew the amendment, correct? >> i won't withdraw it. >> my understanding is there are other referrals to other committees that have not waived jurisdiction, so we are not able to consider this amendment. i don't know if somebody wants -- has something they really need to get in right now. the amendment is withdrawn. the gentlelady from california, ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> staff will distribute the amendment.
without objection, the amendment is considered as read. and ms. davis is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, my amendment would strike a provision that was included in the chairman's mark that would prohibit the president there changing the military pay raises authorized in section 1009 of title 37 usc. although i support continued pay raises and i spoke to this earlier for our service members, i am concerned that by increasing them above the requested amount and by removing the discretion of the president and of our military leaders to adjust military compensation, that we could be setting a dangerous precedent. of course, the pay increases are -- do matter. they do count to our service members. but when we increase it, we're then saying that there's less
money available for ammo, for ranges, less time in simulators, less money for mtc rotations. if you ask our troops -- and i have asked our troops -- what's more important, the message from them is clear. invest in our readiness. invest in training. and get us the parts we need to maintain our equipment. we all know that it's difficult to make these decisions. but we need to give the president, this president, the next president, the authority to be flexible with the pay raise. what if the situation changes dramatically between now and january 1st of next year? this mark already puts us in a situation where there is not enough funding for oco beyond the first seven months. or the first five months into the seven. that's a concern, and it should be a concern for all of us. unfortunately, mr. chairman, my amendment was referred to several other committees, and
they have not waived their jurisdiction on this, and so i do withdraw it, but i hope we'll all work together to consider these points into the future. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentlelady, as we've discussed, i think context the gentlelady makes is important. i do think the pay is also significant as we've been discussing. further amendments, gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask consent to call up package number 2 consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, and the staff will please distribute the en bloc package. without objection, the
amendments are considered as read. the gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. en block package, amendment 004r1 to implement the recommendations listed in the program to assist veterans to acquire commercial driver's licenses, report to congress, amendment number 010r1 by mr. cook which creates a pilot program to share the successes of three state programs and providing low-cost and effective job placement services to members of the reserve component and veteran communities. 066 by ms. tsongas to ensure that individuals investigating allegations of retaliation have specific training on the definition and characteristics of retaliation and where applicable training on retaliation against victims of sexual assault. number 078 by sanchez which is congress recognizing the expanded service opportunities for women in the military and long service of women in the military. amendment number 103r1 by ms.
speier to publicly release any reports of administrative investigations of substantiated misconduct. amendment number 177r1 by mr. peters to review the circumstances that may have influenced the mutiny charges against and convictions of individuals court-martials following the explosion at the port chicago, california, naval magazine in july of 1944. amendment number 252 by mr. turner which rares a minimum confinement period for those members of the armed forces convicted of certain sex-related offenses. number 255 by mr. turner which is a sense of congress encouraging d.o.d.'s medical and mental health providers to be adequately trained to meet the needs of male survivors of military sexual trauma. and i yield back the balance of my time. further discussion? the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank the staff for including my amendment in this package which recognizes and honors the service of women in
the military. currently there are 201,000 women in act everybody duty, and there are 156,000 women serving in the national guard and reserves. and servicewomen have valiantly served and sacrificed their lives in "operation iraqi freedom and enduring freedom and freedom centennial, operation new dawn" and continue to serve in "operation inherent resolve." and i don't believe thaters that anyone in this room who would question the invaluable contribution service that women have made to the security and to the defense of our nation. time and time again, so many people have doubted and questioned the value of having women in the military. however, time and time again, these brave women have proven to us that they are indispensable and a part of the united states armed forces. last year we had the first three women to graduate from army ranger school, all from west point, and i was recently there because i sit on the board of visitors. it's just amazing to see these
women. they're conquering new challenges every day, and they're proving that restricting them is shortsighted. so this past december 2015, secretary of defense ashton carter officially announced that all military occupations will be open to females of the armed forces. they've broken a barrier. and as these women begin to take on roles and combat arms we need to make sure they're properly outfitted and equipped in order to ensure optimal safety and protection for them. and additional as more women enlist and commission in the armed forces, we need to encourage the secretary of defense to develop initiatives that will help retain these talented women leaders in order to ensure that our armed forces remain the greatest fighting force in the world. we have been ignoring an incredible asset for far too long. and with the defense secretary's announcement, we have ushered in a new era in military affairs that will make us stronger and more capable. and this amendment ensures that
we continue on the right path, and i ask all to support it. thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield back. >> further discussion on the en bloc package? if not, the question on the amendments offered by dr. heck those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, say no. being the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number 3. >> without objection and would the staff please distribute the amendments. >> without objection, the amendments are considered read.
the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. amendment number 036r2 by mr. takei which would require a briefing on joint research requirements at the military health services. amendment number 056r1 which authorizes an ep deem logical study. amendment by mr. peerlt which authorizes the secretary of defense to provide at his discretion financial or nonmonetary support to nonprofit organizations carrying out programs that support the attendance of children of military families at grief camps. amendment number 163r1 which requires a study concerning veterans' access to commissary and exchange facilities. amendment number 176r1 by mr. smith to conduct a study on opioid prescription use and its effects on health, quality of life and readiness. number 225r1 by mr. hunter which requires a briefing regarding
the activities that have been undertaken to implement provisional tricare coverage for emerging health care service and plies. number 258 by mr. kaufman which directs a briefing from the asant secretary of defense for health affairs and dha on the administration of tricare coverage for medically necessary foods. and amendment by mr. turner which combines the dayton-fourborn per diem lodging areas into one area with one per diem rate and i yield back. >> further discussion on the en bloc amend amounts? the gentleman from hawaii, mr. takei? >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to speak on my amendment, an en bloc package. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank the committee for working with me to provide critical oversight on decisions being made by the defense health agency. the decision to close the pacific joint information technology center was one that was made on an ill-advisedest to
show cost savings without considering the value that the facility adds the defense health enterprise. over the years, it's leveraged funding from dha and d.o.d. to produce important advances in the field of information technology. the location far away from the bureaucracy of washington, d.c., has been one of the main drivers of its innovative success according to many involved with its operations. and the decision to consolidate the facility back to the mainland runs counter to this. what bothers me about this process the most is the failure of the d.o.d. to engage with anyone in the community on maui or at the stakeholder level before making this decision. the d.o.d. continues to say that it is under great pressure to find efficiencies within the work force, but these types of projects are the ones that drive the innovation and efficiencies it is looking for in the first place. when the delegation was briefed
back in november, i was told that the outlook for new projects for the center was good and that past successes would all but ensure the dha that dha would work on a new contract to continue engaging hawaii businesses. i once again thank the committee for helping put the brakes on this so that we can fully evaluate the situation and find ways to keep the joint research going. thank you, many chairman. >> is there further discussion on the en bloc package? if not, the question on the amendment's offered by the gentleman from dr. nevada, mr. heck. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, say no. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. the gentlelady from illinois? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> if the staff would please distribute the amendment.
>> without action, the amendment is considered read and the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment both modernizes and simplified military parental leave to create a single 12-week paid parental leave standard for all new moms and dads regardless of their gender, marital status or whether a child is biological, adopted or fostered. to reduce bureaucracy and eliminating a confusing patchwork of leave policies, my amendment removes discrimination and most importantly ensures fair and equal treatment for all military children. as we have this discussion, i want everyone to remember two things. children are children. and they can't choose their parents. three months ago when secretary carter announced groundbreaking
changes to the department's parental leave policies, i was cautiously optimistic. here was an acknowledgment from the department that it needed to do more to support those who have made a solemn commitment to search their country but also to start a family. however, the proposals reinforce a system that blatantly discriminates against children based on their parents' family planning decisions and sexual orientation. i don't think the department means to tell kids who are ad t adopted or fostered that they are less worthy of parental bonding time than biological children, but it does under current policy. where a newborn infant adopted by two male service members would only get each parent for ten days. this is inherently unfair. that newborn needs their parents as much as the child of a heterosexual couple. if we enact the department's proposal, we will modestly improve the status quo. but ultimately, we'll preserve a system that divides children up into groups of haves and
have-nots. we will treat some kids as less deserving of their parents' time because they're adopted, fostered or part of a same-sex or single-parent family. that's truly troubling. we allow a same-sex couple to fight on our baf but we tell their children they don't deserve the same bonding opportunities given to biological children. this is wrong. we pledged to care for our wounded warriors and vet vans but when those struggling with infertility as a result of their service as we have discovered in so many who have served in iraq and afghanistan and they are forced to adopt because they cannot have their own biological children, we don't give them the same parenting opportunities as birth parents. i worry about the children of these wounded warriors. we should not discriminate against these families. my amendment takes the final steps the department should have taken if it was truly serious about offering a parental leave policy fit for a 21st century force. military service is hard. i know because i did it for 2 years. and i know many of my colleagues
on this panel can speak to the same or even greater sacrifice. we expect our troops to be at the right place at the right time in the right uniform at all times. we expect them to defend our nation here and abroad. we expect them to do all of this in a manner that honors them and the american people. we expect that they will do all of these things so that we don't have to. i know that balancing a stable family life with military service is a difficult task. operational and training requirements will often take precedence, and family life suffers. parental leave is one mechanism that can help restore balance to that relationship. furthermore, modernizing military parental leave policies will not only strengthen the department's ability to compete with the private sector for top talent, it will also enable service members to fulfill what the secretary of defense himself described as two of the most solemn commitments they can ever make. a commitment to serve their country and a commitment to start and support a family. all children need and deserve an opportunity to bond with their new parents.
and that includes our military families which routinely make significant sacrifices in support of our nation. if our armed forces are to recruit and retrain the world's best troops, congress must lead and take action to ensure our military has a world-class and fair parental leave policy. i urge my colleagues who support this amendment, and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate the gentlewoman's points on making sure that every child has the opportunity to have that bonding time with their parents. certainly the current policy as authorized by secretary of defense is that the birth parent gets 12 weeks of parental leave, and the nonbirth parent gets up to 14 days of paternity leave which is also in addition to the possibility of taking 30 days of earned leave. the idea of providing the same amount of time, 12 weeks, for both the birth and the nonbirth parent was considered inside the department of defense as part of the force of the future. and was rejected because of the
service's pushback on readiness concerns. there is a concern that allowing both parents of a dual military family to each take 12 weeks would have negative impact on force readiness. and because of that the department of defense in their most recent review and where secretary of defense carter normalized the varying degrees of leave that were present amongst the different services settled at 12 weeks plus 2 weeks for the -- for paternity leave, they felt was the level at which readiness would be maintained. and i'd point that in the mark, we do extend that to adoptive parents. due to a provision that was entered by mr. mcarthur. we allowed that same 12 and 2 for adoptive parents. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i yield to the gentlelady. >> thank you. i appreciate what you're saying, but i do think that in this case, the department is creating different groups of dependent children and creating groups of haves and have-nots.
a child that is being adopted or being adopted by a same-sex couple of two men, of two male service members, even now will only get 14 days with each parent. a newborn needs their parent. when we made the decision to allow same-sex couples to serve openly, this is one of the consequences. and i think that we are on a dangerous path to creating a whole series of inequalities among our dependent children. our most vulnerable children among our military. and i think we will lose members of our military, and i think we will get fewer people reenlisting and staying in, and will that adversely impair readiness? and with that i yield back. >> ms. davis. >> thank you mr. chairman. and i greatly appreciate what my colleague is trying to do here. i would suggest perhaps -- and i would love to work with her as well -- to -- in an en bloc amendment, we actually are doing
a study to look at dual military families and sharing parental leave in some way. i think the concern here is that if you had a full 12 weeks nondeployable, 12 weeks for both parents then that could create some readiness problems. there may well be a way to do this that's fair, that people can make those decisions as parents together, in terms of how to divide up the time. and we will be doing a study to look at some of those possibilities. and so perhaps that would be something to look at as well. i certainly, you know, don't want to oppose this, but at the same time, i think there may be a way to move forward, and we could work together on that. >> other discussion? questions on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from illinois, those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> no. >> the nos have it. the nos have it and the
amendment is not agreed to. further amendments? the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. russell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment. >> the staff will distribute the amendment. without objection, the amendment is considered read. and the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is the provisions of it are actually very simple. what it allows is the years that are served at the rank of the service member at the time of separation of a final decree of
the termination of a marriage to be used in calculation and division of disposable income. let me give you an example. of this. i have a constituent who ascended all the way to the chief master sergeant of the air force. early in that individual's career, for whatever reason, their marriage at two years, the first two years of the service terminated. two years later at a senior airman rank, two years later, a remarriage occurred at a sergeant rank. 31 for years were served, self wars, several deployments. when he retired from the air force at 35 years, the original spouse was able to claim 50% of
a 35-year retirement. now, this is not a gender issue or a spouse issue. this is a service member retirement issue, and i want to thank numerous members in a bipartisan fashion and especially the combat veterans on both sides of the aisle in this conference, the application is very simple. it just says that the number of years that you serve at the time of the divorce at that rank, then that will be the calculation for the division of the disposable income and how that would be determined. this has over 19 organizations now in support to include the veterans of foreign wars, military officers association, the enlisted association among many, many others, association of the united states navy, gold star wives of america, flag and general officers network, retired enlisted association,
vietnam veterans of america, et cetera. this is something that due to vague interpretive challenge wills over the decades has created a diminishment of service members retirement and the families that sacrifice for them. this is a means to correct that. with simple language. it is fair. it provides the shared experiences at the years and time at spaeparation. and it will protect our service warriors regardless of who they are, male, female that have put themselves in harm's way. and with that, mr. chairman, i will yield back my time and would be happy to answer any questions that this may be. >> further discussion, ms. duckworth? >> yes, mr. chairman, i'd like to speak in support of this amendment. i would like to note that the course of a military career is very different than the course of, say, some other profession
such as lawyers or doctors where so much of your final earning power rests with your ability to successfully complete and pass training at the very bee gipping of your career when that first spouse may be involved. if you don't pass the bar exam, you don't get to become an attorney. if you don't pass your medical boards, you don't get to become a doctor. in the military, it's very different. the spouse that's there at the very beginning when you first graduate from officers basic course and officers advanced course in the first couple years of your service is not there for all of the other trials and tribulations and benchmarks in that military career. you have to have a decent command. you have to go to the captain's career course. you have to go to intermediate-level education. you have to be successful, brigade command. whether or not you end up at the pinnacle of your career is really dependent on significant milestones that are just as important as that initial training where that first spouse may have been a party to. this goes both for officers and
enlisted as well. it is especially important for the enlisted ranks where someone doesn't get to become a command sergeant major if he didn't have a successful first sergeant. and he certainly could never become one if he hadn't been a good platoon sergeant. none of those things are determined by his graduating rank out of basic training. god forbid how well i did as a 2nd lieutenant would affect the rest of my career. i would have never fin ished th 23 years. this is why i stand in support of this bill. i think it's realistic based on the rank and the year at the time of the divorce. i think we create a far more just and equitable system. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. multen? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to quickly register my support for this amendment as well. this, i think, an injustice that's existed for far too long.
i compliment my colleague here in congress and also my colleague in iraq, mr. russell, for bringing it to our attention and pushing it forward. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. mcsally? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i also want to voice my support for this amendment. i appreciate the colleague for bringing it up while the original intent of the law was to support spouses which are very important family members that sacrifice as others serve. this clarifies it and makes it fair for the service member in order to avoid situations like you just described. and we all have probably -- i know i do -- constituents who have been in similar situations. so i do support this amendment, and it equalizes it to be more fair in its application and intent. so i'd encourage others to support support as well. and i yield back. >> ms. speier? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just have a question for the author. you create -- you gave an example that was very egregious. this is really about equity. on the other side, if a spouse
is with the service member for 25 years and the service member gets to one rank, then they divorce, there's another spouse that is with that particular service member for one or two years and let's say he moves on or she moves on to a general, it would seem that the more recent spouse would get a much greater benefit, although the years of involvement and years of service are much less. is that somehow addressed in here? >> it is a situation that does occur. i think it's important to note -- and i can give you an actual example, a 31-year marriage, a very senior person comes back. that spouse who was faithful on that deployment is -- the
marriage ends. that particular spouse would not have any diminishment of the shared sacrifices that they made at all 31 years, as it should be. that's the way that it absolutely should be. in the case of multiple, it is possible for multiple requirements to occur. i believe the record is a person in the interior part of the country -- i won't say exactly where -- that holds three such draws of retirement. this is what we're trying to fix. this is what we're trying to combat. so i appreciate the question. it needs to be equitable and fair. this is the first step to try to do that. so i appreciate that question. >> i yield back. >> ms. gabbern. >> thank you, mr. chairman. also would like to express my support for this amendment because it really is just about fairness and equity. there is nothing at all that
diminishes the sacrifice and service of a military spouse. this simply makes sure that if, for whatever reason, that marriage ends, that a settlement is come to that is equitable with that -- the length of the marriage and the length of the sacrifice in that relationship. we've seen how there have been different examples of quite unfair financial obligations that really don't have anything to do with whether a person was in a marriage for a year or for 30 years. and i think that this amendment he's crafted has been able to address that very directly so that if someone is there for 30 years and the marriage ends, that they are taken care of for the years that they put in in that service. thank you. >> further discussion? dr. winstrom. >> i'd like to yield my time to
mr. russell. >> and i thank my colleague from ohio and thank you, mr. chairman. for the record, i've been happily married 30 years. and the entire time was with my lovely bride. this does not personally apply to me. it's not an ax to grind. it is an unfairness that quite frankly i think all of our warriors here that have served on both sides of the aisle, we immediately get it. we immediately understand it. and i can't tell you, mr. chairman, how grateful i am for my colleagues on both sides of the eiffel aisle on this commitd i would hope we have support and get this passed today. thank you, i yield back. >> and i yield back. >> questions on the amendment. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. being the chairs have it, the eyes have it and amendment is adopted. further amendments. the gentleman from california? >> mr. chairman, you have an
amendment at the desk. >> stapp would please distribute the amendment. >> this discussion won't be as loving as the last one. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is pretty simple. this amendment lifts the exclusion of women from registering from the selective service. here's why i think this is important. it doesn't matter right now in this debate whether you think that women should be in the infantry or be in special operations. i personally don't. if we had that vote in committee today, i would vote against women being in infantry and special operations. the marine corps did a study on this. many of us have been to these
meetings. we've talked to the marine corps. we've seen the studies. but this is not about women serving in the infantry. the administration has made that decision unilat rolly, disregarding what the marines and special operations communities have said. but that's not what this is about. right now the draft is sexist. right now the draft only drafts young men. women are excluded. if the administration wants to send 18 to 20-year-old girls into combat to serve and fight on the frontlines in a real war, and by "real war," i mean not counterterrorism and not counterinsurgency. frankly, a war that my generation has not seen. we have not been to vietnam, korea or world war ii where you have thousands a day dying, where you have mass artillery fires, mass tank units rolling through people's lines. we have not seen that. that's what a draft is for. a draft is because people started dying in the infantry and you need more bodies in infantry. that's what a draft is for. the administration would like to make this decision on their own.
i think we should make this decision. i think we should be the ones talking about it. it's our families. we represent who are affected by this. and we should give them a say. this should not be a unilateral decision. this should be our decision. i can tell you just from my personal point of view, i've talked to coffeehouse liberals in san francisco and conservative faeks wfamilies wh three times a day. and neither group wants their daughter to be drafted, neither one of them. again, a draft is not to do with mode of transport, supply or finance. a draft is there to put bodies on the frontline to take the hill. that's what it's there for. it's to get more people to close with and destroy the enemy through fire and close combat. that's what a draft is for. the draft is there to get more people to rip the enemy's throats out and kill them for our nation. sanctioned by the u.s. government. that's what a draft is for. now, i may vote no on my own
amendment. if you vote yes on this amendment, you're voting with the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified to the senate that if it's lifted, that they should be drafted. general mill li, the chief of staff of the army, said if the combat exclusion for women is lifted for infantry and special operations, that the draft should be implemented and include women. if you vote for this amendment, you are voting with general dunford and general mill li. in 1981 the supreme court upheld the differential treatment where women were excluded because the prepare was to prepare a draft of combat troops. quote, since women were excluded from combat, they could be excluded from registration. that's no longer the case. and i will add, if you vote yes
on this amendment to send america's daughters to war, drafted, if it comes to that, the cbo says it will reduce federal spending. because you don't have to figure out who's a man, who's a woman. everybody at 18 years old gets drafted. i regretfully introduce this amendment. my daughters talk about everybody is iserving as well as my son, but i don't want to see my daughters put in a place where they have to get drafted. and to say that a big war will never happen and there's no need for a draft, that's not this debate. i think that's a naive and shortsighted point of view. we will have a big war again. america will be in a conventional war again. history tells us that. we don't just prepare to fight in syria and iraq and afghanistan. we respect to fight china, any other peer competitor. that's what this markup's all about. the question of drafting america's daughters is finally
integrating into full combat arms. so let this congress and this committee made the it's not the administration's job. and i would ask for a roll call vote regardless of the yeas and nays, mr. chairman, and i yelie back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. yield myself briefly to make just two points. one is the president will not decide selective service. the only ones who can decide this are us because it's in law or the courts. and there is a court case has ongoing through the process that challenges selective service being male only. i don't know how that's going to come out, but that is on its way through the court system. second point is this. in the underlying mark, we have a study that requires d.o.d. to come back to us about the
selective service system. about what the benefits are, what alternatives there may be, so that -- and what would it mean keep it? to have females in it for that broader picture? my view is that we feed to get those answers, follow the court case, and take this some further steps. i don't know what all the answers are personally. some people do. i don't know what all those answers are. but i do think it's -- it is up to us to decide, and secondly, we need to explore the various problems. and that's what we have in the und und underlying mark. other discussion on this amendment, ms. speier? >> thank you, mr. kachairman.
my good friend from california seemed to take a very bellicose direction in offering this amendment. i would suggest to him that thinking liberal coffeehouse liberals from san francisco. not that i'm going to take umbrage of that because i'm proud of it. i actually support universal conscription. i actually think if we, and that they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription. so while you may be offering this as a gotcha amendment, i would suggest that there's great merit in recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in time of war. and provide some period of time,
do some kind of service, whether it's -- i actually support your amendment and will be delighted to vote for it. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all thank you for accepting my lang age on the selective service system. you think we need to update ourselves as to whether or not it is practical -- it is an effective tool in time of war. and if we look at iraq and afghanistan during the height of those conflicts, there was never a discussion in the department of defense to resort to conscription. and i can tell you, i'm very opposed to the draft to conscription because i think in donald trump's words, the system is rigged by virtue of the fact
that when a war becomes unpopular, those with the political connections, those families of influence to not to serve. we know from vietnam, it was the sons of working-class families that fought and died in the jungles of vietnam. i think the gentleman from california is right in referencing a supreme court decision that essentially said that it is okay not to have -- not to draft women or require them to register for the draft because women at that time didn't serve in combat roles. now they do. the selective service as it stands today is by that case law unconstitutional. and so but i think the selective service system is unnecessary. there was a previous report by
the department of the army by the recruiting command that said something like 75% of draft-age young men are ineligible for military -- don't meet current standards for the united states army to enlist. they're overweight. they can't get a high enough score in the entrance exams. they don't have a high school dlip lo diploma. they have altercations with the law, issues that preclude them. the bar would have to be dramatically lowered if we revarietied to conscription again. i served in the united states army at a time when there was a draft when i started my military career. that is not something i want to go back to forcing people into military service that don't want to be there. and we have, i think the most elite military in the history of this country. and i want to keep it that way. and so i think the draft is unnecessary. i think what is necessary is for the united states military, for
the department of defense to update its inactive reserve component, the contact information for that where those individuals, as i think mr. hunter was called up, during the iraq -- during -- for afghanistan, i think. i think that that is -- that is the reserve of qualified personnel that would require the minimum amount of retraining in time of conventional war as mr. hunter described it. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield to mr. -- >> the gentleman yield. thank you. this be one, i would love to have that debate. on does the draft need to exist. we should have that debate here in this room a year from now. that should be debated by us and decided by us. we're the experts. so let's have that debate. but this is not that debate. number two, to ms. speier's points, this is not a got you amendment. this is a let's talk about this amendment. because if i didn't bring this up, you have all the combat exclusions that are no longer
valid that are not there anymore. we wouldn't talk about this. so we would open things up to everybody, but then say in a big, big war where you had to go in and draft people because you need bodies it would be unconstitutional. so that's why i'm bringing this up so that we can talk about it so the american people can call us and talk to us about it. and we get to make this decision. i yield back. thank you. >> i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an important debate we're having. and as you say, the issue about the draft, per se, is one. but whether or not with the lifting of the combat exclusion whether or not women should now be included is a separate one. and former army chief of staff odierno, i remember at an army breakfast, that we can't have the best army in the world if we exclude 50% of the population. and i think the lifting of the exclusion was in part recognition of that fact.
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 met many of our talented service women who are serving side by side with their male counterparts. and i said in many instances, virtually in the fight. and we have to remember that women are serving not just on the frontlines of our country's war efforts but at military installations across our country and the world, we see women serving as military scientists, program managers, engineers, lab tech technicians. gender equality is achieved when men and women enjoy the same rights, opportunities and obligations across all sectors of society, and that includes military service. and when the different behaviors, aspirations and needs of women and men are equally valued. i do believe including women in the draft, should we have it, is a step toward equality. and as my colleague congressman
duncan said, this is a position that is shared by both our army chief of staff mark millie and rob neller, and i would support this amendment. >> mr. gibson. >> thanks, mr. chairman. let me just begin by saying that it's definitely in my view our responsibility to the people's representatives to be weighing in on this. i do support the amendment. and i'll say that after four combat tours, nothing would make me happier that -- if the current set of teenagers never had to see a shot fired in anger. and i would include my two teen auj daughters and my teenage son for that matter. but the fact of the matter is that we have a standards-base force now. and we don't have a standards-base selective service. and i think it needs to change. so i plan on voting for it. i yield back. >> ms. gabberd? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to echo the comments of my colleague from new york who just spoke.
i think the whole question of this conversation is misguided because the real conversation is why do we have the selective service and the draft in the first place? when we look at our all-volunteer professional military, i can speak as a soldier that i would much rather have someone who i know wants to be there, someone who is trained, who is highly capable and who is a professional warrior and knowing that they have my back rather than having someone who has been forced to be there and does not have that commitment either themselves or throughout their training and capability. and i think that's the conversation that we should be having which really gets to the core of this issue. i yield back. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i just want everybody to understand, this is about a big war, meaning when you have tens of thousands of people dying, tens of thousands, that's when you have a draft. and that's why we have a draft is when you have tens of
thousands of people dying and being wounded where there literally aren't enough people to fill the ranks. this isn't about iraq or afghanistan or the wars that we have fought in our different careers in the military. this isn't about that. this is when something really, really bad happens and goes wrong, and america has to mobilize as a nation. that's what this is about. and that's what the draft is about. it's not about what we've been doing. i thank you for yielding. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> go ahead. >> i just want to get in behind that. but i will say this. let's not lose sight of the fact that what we have right now is standards based. you know, the fact of the matter is, if we need, you know, hundreds of thousands of folks to serve, that hasn't changed any reality that we're going to be standards based as to who's going to be in the infantry and who might be supporting. i just think we have a situation now where we have standards-based m.o.s.s but we don't have standards-based selective service. we're not talking -- we're
talking about selective service right now which prepares us for that possibility that you're suggesting. but i don't think we should leap because i think what you're suggesting, you might be suggesting, is that somehow we're going to draft individuals whether they be female or male and we're going to put them in a situation where they can't perform, you know, general millie wouldn't stand for that. the chairman wouldn't stand for that. i believe that's what the service chiefs have all stated. i don't think, let's not mix, you know, apples and oranges here. i think what we're talking about in clarity is the selective service. thank you for yielding. >> thank you. to my colleague from california, i recognize the conflicts that you are referring to and what it would take which is one of the reasons why i and mr. gibson, i've co-sponsored mr. gibson's bill, the posture act, to recognize the needs for us to have a professional ready military that can deal with both the conventional and unconventional conflicts and
threats that our nation faces in addition to the need to protect the homeland. this is a conversation that has been happening and will continue as we work toward to increase our country's and our military's capability to not only deal with one front but especially multiple fronts in the scenario that you're describing. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to echo my colleague from new york and hawaii of their concerns. i think this is an important discussion. i do believe it's our role. i think what is in the underlying mark is an important first step for us to discuss this issue. i do want to correct my colleague from california as he pointed the picture of the only reason for the draft is to go into frontline combat. that is not true. we all know many people drafted in world war ii are, korea, vietnam, who served in other positions, not the infantry.
if our nation's interest were at stake where we needed to call up the selective service, individuals would be put into positions they are qualified for and capable to fill. that could be medical positions, cyber warriors. there's all sorts of positions we'd need the country to mobilize for. people need to make sure as we're discussing this the intent of the draft is not to fill 100% of the positions with frontline infant infantry. the ratio of all the other positions it takes to run all our services in a time of extended and massive conflict would mean all sorts of positions would theneed to be filled. i don't think we need to turn this into an emotionle discussion. we need to make it be fact based and i think the chairman's mark language is an important first step and i yield. >> thank you. . oh, miss davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i appreciate this discussion as well. i think that at this particular time, the department of defense has not suggested that they need
to really analyze our needs for mass mobilization. that's really not where we are. we've been talks about what we can do, though, to be in a far better prepared and readiness position. i would like to really extend the conversation. one of the things that i think we recognize in our country is that we have many young people who are interested in serving in multiple ways, not necessarily in the military but multiple ways. teacher corps, all kinds of ways. it may be after some real analysis, we might see that given a time span of a number of years and developing an infrastructure that some kind of universal service for our country would be appropriate and that that could include even more people thinking about how they're going to serve. so, you know, this is a different conversation, bullet i
do think it's something that we could hopefully, perhaps, as we're looking at, how to we get there, what do we need to do, what kinds of questions need to be asked? some of that is included i think in the mark. thank you. >> thank you. >> as a huge supporter of national service, i want to support the gentlelady from california's remarks but i also want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, representative mcsally, from arizona. i think she makes some important points. and the fact of the matter is that the department of defense under the secretary of defense has made some major changes in just the last year with gender integration and, frankly, i think congress has punted its role in having a part in its supervisory role as the changes are made. we haven't had a single hearing
on this issue. so, although i would not have chosen to advance this issue or advance this discussion in the way mr. hunter has done so, i want to thank him for bringing this up and forcing this discussion and making sure that we do our duty as the oversight arm of government having these important debates on this committee. with that i yield. >> those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the nos have it. ask for a roll call vote which will be postponed. further amendments, dr. heck? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i ask unanimous consent to call up unblocked package number 4 consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, staff will please distribute the amendments.
without objection, the amendments are considered as read. gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. unblocked package number 4 is comprised of the following. amendment which authorizes up to $25 million to be used for grants to medical research ers and universities for chronic traumatic enreceisephalopofy. amendment number 214 r-1 which requires a briefing on the policy implementation plan for the u.s. military apprenticeship
program. amendment 228 r-2, a methodology that identifies patterns and friends among the service as to which individuals and units are at highest risk of suicide and then use that data to create a central resource. amendment 310 by mr. lobiano which authorizes a pilot program for breathalyzers. amendment by mr. connoway which requires the national guard bureau to give a brief on the formula for forced allocation across the 54 states and territories. amendment 147 by miss davis which increases leave of a spouse for someone who gives bifrt to at least 14 days and allows dual military couple who adopt to split 46 days of leave according to family needs. amendment by mr. peters which directs the secretary of defense to determine how to have new recruits identify a, quote, network of support, end quote, and brief the armed services committee on its assessment and estimate cost associated with integration of the network of support and to existing efforts. amendment number 037 r-2 which
would recognize and provide a briefing on community partnerships between local schools, military, and the community. and amendment number 047 by mr. jones which provides active oscillating negative pressure treatment for wounded warriors. i yield back the balance of my time. >> further discussion on the unblocked amendments? mr. molten. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak briefly on my amendment which is aimed at ensuring the department of defense takes the most effective approach for reducing suicides in our armed services. since 2012 suicide has been the lead lg cause of death in our military. over the past three years the suicide rate in our military has been nearly 50% greater than l civilian population. of those suicides, almost 2/3 are among those who had been deployed to either operation iraqi freedom, operation enduring freedom, or operation new dawn. department of defense needs to take an aggressive approach to solving this crisis.
"a" identify patterns and trends in incidences of suicide among service branchs and "b" develop a methodology to assess which units will see such circumstances that may lead to such incidences in order provide both better proactive and reactive mental health care among active personnel. many factors that impact instances of suicide are not currently tracked. by collecting all services data and facilitating formation sharing among the services, best practices can be exchanged and high-risk units, locations and deployment locations can be identified and targeted for increased attention. i'd like to thank the co-sponsors of this aem and i yield back. >> further discussion? if not, questions on the unblocked package offered by the gentleman from nevada.
a ayes have it. adopted. gentlelady, miss spear. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the staff will distribute the amendment. without objection the amendment is considered read and the gentlelady is recognized for five month five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members, this is a very important amendment. this committee, as we do in our house, have varying views on abortion in this country. there is nothing that changes the fact that abortions will not be paid for with federal
dollars, but this issue is important because so many of our service members who get pregnant, who need an abortion are finding themselves in really dangerous situations. dangerous for their health. dangerous for others as well. i just want to read to you two real-life stories that put this in perspective. the first is from a servicewoman serving in south korea who's requested to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation. and this is a quote. "i'm in the military and got raped and became pregnant. i would like to just move on without military intervention. i'm stationed in south korea and abortion is illegal here even for rape. i cannot go home on leave at this time. i don't know what to do. what can i do?" the second comes from dr. janet
jac jacobson, an m.d., m.s., ob-gyn in california and former lieutenant commander of the u.s. navy. the name of her patient has been changed to preserve the privacy. "i walked into the intensive care unit when i was a second-year resident to meet my new patient. sammy had been transferred to my care from a different hospital overnight. she couldn't talk because she was on life support and had a tube down her throat to make her breathe. sammy was an airman in the u.s. air force. she was five months pregnant and became ill. at the hospital where she was initially treated, the infection spread and she almost died. ending the pregnancy would have improved her status, but the military hospital where she was getting care was not able to do an abortion for her because no one on staff had been trained in the procedure. she lost her pregnancy, her feet, as well as multiple fingers but did survive. it's really ridiculous servicewomen may be less able to exercise constitutional rights
of abortion than civilian counterparts who they fight to protect. in order for this amendment to meet the standards in the law, the service member would have to use her own private funds in order to get the abortion. it's not changing the law as it exists. it just provides some health and safety to our service members who are in the position to request and need an abortion. now, i might also add that in some situations, the service members are in, for instance, in south dakota, at ellsworth air force base, service members have to remain within travel boundaries of 3 00 to 500 miles round trip or 150 to 250 miles each way. the nearest abortion provider in south dakota is actually 300 miles from the base one way. additionally, challenges both
domestically and internationally include disclosing personal health information to their commanding officer in order to travel off base, approval by the unit commander which might take days or weeks. the need to seek approval of mileage pass, limited or no access to a car and local facilities abroad that are substandard, unsafe or have language barriers. members, this is the right thing to do for our services members. we should not be placing their lives at risk. they're going to use their own money in order to get that abortion. you're not taking a position on abortion by supporting this amendment. you're just making sure that a woman who is a service member has the ability to use the military base hospital to seek out the service. any woman in this country who has had a miscarriage, whether at 10 weeks or 20 weeks, a miscarriage is an abortion in this country, and our providers needs to be in a position to
provide that service. and with that, i will offer my time and his time as well to the co-sponsor of this. >> gentleman's recognized for the balance of the time, or would you like to have time of your own after dr. heck? >> i'd like to have time alone afterwards. >> okay. then the gentlelady yields back. doctor, is there any other debate on the amendment? dr. fleming is recognized for five moninutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, it's my understanding that in case of danger to the life of the mother or result of rape or incest, women are already able to access abortion on military facilities and military hospitals. so we're really talking about elective abortions. of course, a miscarriage is not
an elective abortion. miscarriage is something that happens in nature. we know that most miscarriages result -- having to do with n nonelective options so when it comes to costs, we know many health care providers on military bases, active duty military health care providers, will opt not to participate, which means that you'll have to hire civilians. there will have to be an investment of equipment, additional equipment. so there will be cost to taxpayers. this will in effect create a government-run planned parenthood on all the military bases. so for this and many other reasons, it really makes no sense to go down this road. again, there are abortion facilities in every state.
we have great transportation. if a young woman wants to go off base to a private facility, the option is available to her. if she's going to pay for it, anyway, she can pay for it there, and no one is preventing her from doing that. so for that reason and many more, i think it's a very bad idea to do this. i know it's been attempted for 20 years now and defeated each time and i think we should defeat it once again. thank you. i yield. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from texas, mr. visi recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad to join my colleague from california miss speier in introducing this amendment. of course, federal law has banned the department of defense for providing abortion services at military treatment facilities except in the cases of rape, insests or if the woman's life is in danger. the facilities ban imposes hardship on servicewomen and
compromises their privacy and does nothing to improve our nation's military readiness. all this amendment would do is lift the unnecessary ban without providing public funds for abortion services which is already consistent with federal law. our amendment would also preserve the existing provisions that allow military personnel to refuse to provide abortions because of their religious beliefs which i know is something that's important to conservatives that they've talked about over the years and while i believe that that provision is unnecessary, we are trying to strike a balance here and i want to counter something that the gentleman just mentioned -- or, a second ago. he said that states already allow women to have abortions in every state in the union. i can tell you in the state of texas where i'm from, and many places in the state, it's almost -- it's all but impossible for women to be able to have access to abortion services because of the draconian law that was passed by the texas lecture.
and texas is a very large state. it can take literally hours and hours to get from one end of the state to the other and because of the law passed in texas, this burden would be huge on military women in the state of texas which there are a lot of them. and so all we are asking is that women not have to face these barriers just because they're trying to receive the medical care that is constitutionally provided to them and so i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very common sense amendment which does the right thing for women soldiers. mr. cherairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, sometimes i think it's easy for us to argue the ancillary issues whenever this subject comes up, and i
think all of us are a little uncomfortable. sometimes those of us that speak forthrightly to it, sometimes people think we're not uncomfortable with it. we are. but it is of consequence to look at the underlying issue here. those in arlington national cemetery died for a principle. suggesting that we hold certain truths to be self-evident that all of us are created, that the image of god is stamped on every soul and that every little child has that image stamped on their souls. so wenthen the gentlelady that introduced the amendment suggests there's an intensity and kind of contention surrounding the debate, she's precisely accurate. but i think it has something to do with our collective conscience in that ultrasound
technology and modern ability to see into the womb is beginning to demonstrate to all reasonable minds, to all people of good will, to all people of compassion, the humanity of the victim here and the inhumanity of what is being done to them. and it's always difficult for me to understand that the fact that we take the lives of over a million children a year in america, that that is somehow not enough for my friends on the left. that they not only want abortion on demand for any reason, at any stage of development, or for no reason up until the moment of birth and they want the government to pay for it. now, i would challenge them to suggest what part of that
statement isn't true? and now we come and we want to put, make a basis of our military abortion clinics and i think it dishonors those who gave everything they had for this country and what it stands for. and i think it's time for all of us to ask the real question, as hard as it is, and that is does abortion really take the life of a baby? if it doesn't, i'm glad to stop talking about it. but if it does, then those of us living here in the seat of freedom in the greatest country in the history of humanity find ourselves in the midst of the greatest genocide in the history of humanity. and i don't want us to miss that foundational point. our job here is to make sure our men and women that tee fend this country are capable of doing so and giving them every opportunity they have not to politicize military bases and overlook the notion that what
we're doing here is talking about something that hurts little babies and hurts their mothers. and i would oppose the amendment, mr. chairman, and i would hope all of us would look to the underlying issue. and with that, i would yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, recognized for five minutes. >> thank withdryou, mr. chairma. the amendment on the desk from miss speier. once again, we find ourselves debating about the ability of a woman to have access to safe and lis legal abortion services. in this case, it is our brave servicewomen who find themselves facing insurmountable obstacles that prevent their access to abortion care in addition to comprehensive pregnancy care. since 1996, d.o.d. medical treatment facilities are banned from providing abortion care.
to make matters worse, care is also restricted in its coverage of a broad range of pregnancy-related medical care including abortions. the combined effect of both a facilities ban and insurance restrictions makes it nearly impossible for servicewomen to receive an abortion, especially when they are overseas. instead, they are forced to seek potentially risky and dangerous treatment off base. alternatively, women find themselves forced to make the choice of carrying to term an unwanted pregnancy. of course, the other all teterne is to use a back alley abortion provider. obvious risks are compounded when a servicewoman is in a country where their rights are nonexistent. issue of affordability as most servicewomen do not have the
means to cover the out of pocket costs associated with seeking an abortion off base, nor do they have the time, resources, or capacity to travel far distances in order to find an abortion provider. this is utterly acceptable in a time when abortion under circumstances laid out in the law is the law. our soldiers deserve access to the best comprehensive health care and services we have to offer and this should include access to safe abortion methods. this amendment moves us one step closer to lifting the ban on abortion care in military treatment facilities and for that reason, i ask my colleagues to support this amendment with all due respect to the views of those who oppose abortion. i yield the balance of my time
to miss speier from california. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. colleagues, oftentimes we talk over each other and we don't listen. this amendment is not going to do anything more than give our servicewomen in this country and abroad the opportunity to pay for an abortion at a military facility. it also is important because as i pointed out in south dakota, a woman will have to travel 300 to 500 miles to get to the closest clinic. she cannot dhoo that based on h responsibility to be been 150 and 250 miles from her post. so if we truly believe that our service members who are women are not second-class citizens,
give them the right to have lth abortion at a military facility in which they pay for it themselves and the physicians at that facility know how to do the procedure because they have done dilations ander sirclauges, fo women on base, dependence on members who are on base when it's a miscarriage situation. so i cannot belief that there are not physicians within our military who are willing to provide this service to service members who are women who want to pay for it themselves. and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from florida, mr. miller, is reck niognized for f minutes. >> thank you. will the gentlelady yield for question? >> i don't have any time back, but -- >> i'll yield.
>> that's my time. >> gentleman from florida is on his time. >> will the gentlelady answer a question? >> of course. >> if the female military person pays for the abortion using their own money, can the physician refuse to perform an abortion based on religious grounds? >> yes. >> thank you. >> the gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of this amendment. i believe a woman's access to safe, affordable reproductive health care should not depend on where she lives, her financial status, or the fact that she has chosen to serve in the united states military. military women serving overseas and military dependent stationed outside the u.s. do not have the same access to basic health care that other american women do or that is ensured by the laws of the country they are fighting to protect. while i believe that we must
work to reduce unintended pregnancies, the restriction on abortion care in military hospitals is unfair and places our service women in miand mili at risk. this unfair policy leads to delay in care and unnecessarily increased health and safety risks. this amendment would alleviate those issues and allow service women and military dependents access to abortion care. women would use their own money to pay for procedures just as they do for other types of care and military fiacilities and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. with that i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. gentleman, mr. russell, recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. no taxpayer funding can be used to pay for abortions. it's the law. and part of the equation that is not being considered is the fact d.o.d. facilities are built and funded by all americans.
a child also should have access to life. as a father of five children, three of whom are adopted, we can destroy human life and call it a relief of hardship. we can make the killing of children legal and pretend it is beneficial. we can cover acts of barbarity with the have neveneer of civil cannot escape our accountability before the creator of life. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentlelady from california recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i began this morning by saying this is my 20th ndaa markup so for 20 years i have watched this amendment be put forward. before i came to the committee, miss schroeder -- when i was on the committee, miss harman, when miss harman left, it became the
sanchez amendment. then it fell to miss davis for a while and now miss speier has this amendment. it's amazing to me that in 20 years, we could have gone from voting women out of the military, as i said this morning, to seeing women advance into any position to serve their country and to fight, put their lives on the line for our freedoms. for all of our freedom in this country. and yet all of our freedoms, our constitution and our supreme court, has said that abortion is legal. and yet we deny this set of women, the women who serve all of us, to protect our freedoms
and our rights. we deny them their rights. this is about accessibility. this is about affordability. this is about being in a country outside of there here in a country serving us in a time of war and not being able to get that service in our own hospitals. i would hope that this committee would consider that it is time to pass the speier amendment. thank you. >> question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california, miss speier. those in fave sor say aye. those opposed say no. being the chair, the nos have it. >> i request a roll call. >> gentlelady will request a
roll call vote which will be postponed. further amendments. gentleman from nevada? >> thank you, mr. chairman. request unanimous consent to call up unblocked package number 5 consisting of amendments worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, if the staff would please distribute the on block amendments. without objection the amendments are considered read. gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on block package number 5 is comprised of the following. 015 r-1 by mr. larson, the continuation of tri care for the national guard performing disaster response duty following the period of full-time guard
duty. amendment number 007 r-2 by miss sanchez, d.o.d. efforts, separation, characterization of former members of the armed forces separated by reason of sexual orientation. amendment by miss speier, creates a hazing support database and directs the secretary of each military department to conduct hazing surveys of service members. amendment 108 by miss speier, burden of proof applicable to whistleblowers in the military. amendment by mr. veasey. and amendment number 085 by miss speeier which offers service members the option to opt into donating their brain for search. >> gentleman yields back. is there further discussion? questions on the amendment, dr. heck. those in say aye.
being the chair the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. further amendments, gentleman from arizona. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the staff would please distribute the amendment. without objection the amendment is considered read. the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, the time has come for america to own up to a troubling legacy. between world war ii and 2011 when don't ask, don't tell, wases repealed. in retrospect, we know the policies responsible for these discharges were contrary to our
values and national interests. more importantly, they did an incredible disservice to brave americans willing to wear the uniform and sacrifice everything for our nation. however, thanks in part to the outstanding leadership of members of this committee, don't ask, don't tell is a thing of the past. it took decades but the pentagon recognizes on the battlefield who you love has you bearing on how well you fight. unfortunately, the task of repairing the damage of these homophobic policies inflicted on the lives of tens of thousands of fellow citizens is far from over. specifically, the repeal of don't ask, don't tell offered little relief or restitution for lgbt veterans issued less than honorable discharges. they continue to be denied v.a. benefits and still carry the stain of a tarnished military record. thankfully, the obama administration has established an administrative process to enable gay former service members to correct this grave injustice. mr. chairman, my amendment would put this process into law
ensuring no matter what wins the presidency this november, veterans will be able to clear their names and get the discharges they deserve. unless we act, there's no -- some invented bureaucrat burden won't eliminate this process all together. unfortunately this version of the amendment had a scoring issue. i'm hopeful we can work together as the process moves forward to ensure it doesn't result in additional spending. mr. chairman, i'm to withdraw the amendment at this time. i look forward to the moment all our veterans regardless of their sexual orientation receive the respect they deserve and i yield back. >> the amendment is withdrawn. if there are no further amendments to this section of the bill, we will now proceed to those roll call votes which have been ordered. they are for amendment 224 for mr. hunter regarding selective service. amendment number 99 by miss speier regarding abortion services. the question is on the amendment
offered by gentleman from california, mr. hunter, number 224 regarding selective service. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thornberry. >> no. >> mr. thornberry votes to. >> mr. smith. >> aye. >> mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones? mr. jones votes aye. miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes aye. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes no. mr. brady. mr. brady votes aye. mr. miller. mr. miller. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes no. mr. landrovan. mr. lobiando. mr. lobiando votes no. mr. larson. mr. larson. mr. bishop. mr. bishop. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes aye.
mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. miss bordao votes aye. mr. klein. mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney. mr. courtney. mr. rogers. >> no. >> mr. rogers votes no. masongas votes aye. mr. franks. mr. franks votes no. mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster. mr. johnson. mr. jaunohnson. >> yes. >> mr. johnson votes aye. mr. connoway. mr. connoway votes no. miss speier votes a yeah. mr. landborn. mr. landborn votes no. mr. castro. mr. castro votes aye. mr. whitman.
mr. whitman votes no. miss duckworth. miss duckworth votes aye. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters. mr. peters votes aye. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes no. mr. veasey. mr. veasey votes aye. mr. kauffman votes no. miss gabbard votes aye. mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls. mr. walls votes aye. mrs. hartsler votes no. mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke votes aye. dr. heck. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. scott. mr. scott votes no. mr. gallego. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. nugent.
mr. nugent votes no. miss graham. miss graham votes aye. mr. cook. mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes aye. mr. bridenstine. mr. bridenstine votes no. mr. moulton. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. winstrop votes no. mr. aguilar votes aye. mr. burn. mr. burn votes no. mr. graves. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinke. mr. zpiinke votes no. mismcsally. miss mcsally votes aye. mr. knight. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur. mr. mcarthur. mr. russell. mr. russell votes no. mr. miller. mr. miller votes no.
mr. londrovan votes aye. mr. larson. mr. larson votes aye. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes no. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes no. mr. takai. mr. takai votes no. mr. mcarthur. >> mr. chairman -- >> who seeks recognition? mr. takai? >> may i change my vote? >> how is mr. takai recorded? >> mr. takai voted no. >> how would you like to be
>> clerk will report the result. >> mr. chairman, there were 32 aye votes, 30 no votes. >> the aemmendment is adopted. question occurs on amendment number 99 by miss speier. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thornberry. >> no. >> mr. thornberry votes to. mr. smith. mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones. mr. jones votes no. miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes aye. mr. forbes. mr. forbes.
mr. schuster. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes no. mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mr. johnson votes aye. mr. connoway. mr. connoway votes no. miss speier. mis miss speier votes a yeah. mr. castro votes aye. miss duckworth. miss duckworth votes aye. mr. hunter. plc mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters. mr. peters votes aye. dr. fleming votes no. mr. veasey votes. mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes no. mr. walls. mr. walls votes aye. mrs. hartsley votes no.
mr. o'rourke rovotes aye. dr. heck votes no. mr. norcross. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. scott. mr. scott votes no. mr. gallego. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes no. mr. takai. mr. takai votes aye. mr. nugent. mr. nugent votes no. miss graham. miss graham votes aye. mr. cook. mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes aye. mr. bridenstine. mr. bridenstine votes no. mr. moulton. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. winstrop votes no. mr. aguilar votes aye. mr. burn. mr. burn votes no. mr. graves. mr. graves votes no. mr. zinke. mr. zinke votes no.
>> the amendment is not agreed to. if there are no further amendments, chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada, dr. heck, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report on the subcommittee on military personnel as amended. >> questions on the motion of the gentleman from nevada. quorum being present. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on strategic forces pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, postpone recorded votes in this particular portion of the mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, for any comments he'd like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank both you and the ranking member smith for your leadership again this year as we move forward with another bipartisan ndaa.
i also want to thank my friend and colleague from tennessee, jim cooper. we have traveled together across this globe, braving minus-40 degree temperatures in bean fields, venturing into crumbling manhattan project era nuclear facilities and missile defense installations overseas. we spent countless hours and innumerable briefings. gotten to know each other's wives and worked together in transparent and bipartisan way for this mark and previous marks. his thoughtful input and seriousness with which he approaches the subcommittee's business is beyond measure. i also want to thank the subcommittee staff for their hard work in preparing this mark. tim morrison, steve, and drew walter. at this point i would usually turn to a description of the subcommittee mark, but in the interest of time, i'll ask unanimous consent to introduce my full remarks into the record. and i'll just summarize and say it's a great mark and beautiful
mark, best mark i've ever seen. it's a huge mark. and -- and i thank mr. chairman. i yield back. >> without objection, the gentleman's request to extend is granted. wait until the doors get shut. ranking member of the subcommittee, mr. cooper, is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and to ranking member smith. it's been a genuine pleasure to work with my friend and colleague from alabama, mr. rogers, and other members of the subcommittee including all-important staff and particularly the democratic staffer, but tim morrison, drew walters, steve all deserve a tremendous praise and recognition. with all the amendments that are likely under this section, you would think there would be a strong bipartisan disagreement, but the mark indicates otherwise. there's strong bipartisan
agreement on almost all of these issues. so we will be arguing over the 2% to 5% instead of on the 95%. of the five major areas under the subcommittee's jurisdiction, space, missile defense, nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and environmental cleanup, nuclear cleanup, it's amazes the degree of consensus. for example, under sparce, the mark fully funds our national security space assets. thank goodness. more than fully funds u.s. missile defense. nuclear weapons, the mark more than provides enough money for a safe, secure, reliable arsenal. nonproliferation, the mark fully funds the nuclear nonproliferation programs. finally on nuclear cleanup, the mark authorizes nearly full funding for defense environmental clean wrupup. i know this section of the mark is still an amendment magnet.
i hope we can get through those in an expeditious fashion. we tried to work at the subcommittee level to clean up much of the debris. at the subcommittee level we had some five amendments. they were largely report related. relatively minor issues in comparison to the larger ones. but thank you, mr. chairman, i look forward to getting through the amendment process. >> i thank the gentleman. i look forward to that as well. any further discussion on this portion of the subcommittee's mark? if not, we'll turn to amendments to this portion of the mark and i might note just because the amendment has been filed does not mean it has to be offered. gentleman from colorado, mr. kauffman. if you wish to off an amendment? >> thanks, mr. chairman. i have an amendment on the desk. >> the staff would distribute the amendment.
without objection the amendment is considered as read, and gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the united states government as approved by the congress created the cooperative threat reduction program and it essentially gives, is a grant that gives money to foreign governments so that they participate in nonproliferation activities. so the people's republic of china is a recipient of that, but yet they've not been compliant. two ways, number one, there's a private citizen who, in fact, has been in china that has been indicted in u.s. courts and that
the fbi has put a $5 million reward out for who was operating a number of front companies that were providing missile -- ballistic technology to iran and so that's one aspect is to get china's cooperation in detaining him and then the other one is china, itself, as a government to comply with the provisions of required under the cooperative threat reduction program. and so essentially what this does is it requires quarterly reports to the congress and suspension of these payments until it's proved that they, in fact, are cooperating with the provisions of nonproliferation and are not supporting missile technology in the countries that are part of this legislation which is i think pakistan and
iran and i think there's one other country, but essentially that is the amendment and it's focused on the people's republic of china. >> other discussion on the amendment? gentle m gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this may be the easiest decision tonight. if we can't certify china isn't proliferating, we shouldn't be spending funds on nonproliferation in china. what this means is we wouldn't be borrowing money from china to spend money in china while china is engaged in proliferation. i urge a yes vote on mr. coffman's excellent fiscal responsibility and common sense amendment. i yield back. >> questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado, those in favor say a ye ye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. gentleman from arizona, mr. franks.
do you have an amendment to offer? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> the staff would please distribute the amendment. without objection, amendment is considered as read. and the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment would update the language of the national defense act of 1999. it's clearly necessary, mr. chairman, to update this outdated and inadequate language. since 1999, the threat posed by
ballistic missiles has grown precipitously and it is the appropriate thing to do that our national missile defense policy reflect that growing threat. in 2015, alone, there were over 300 missile launches and more than 60 foreign space launches. and our adversaries have begun to further develop missile technology which intentionally exploits gaps in our existing missile defense framework. from direct descent asat missiles and hypersonic to maneuvering ballistic missiles. the language adopted in 1999 calling for defense against a, quote, limited ballistic missile attack, seems wildly out of place in today's threat environment. north korea has two satellites orbiting the earth above america. china and arussia developing complex missile technology specifically designed to exploit our weaknesses and iran
continues to develop and mature missile technologies with no concern for international opinion. the language from the 1999 bill, mr. chairman, simply does not match reality. the national defense act must be amended to reflect both the substantially greater and more diverse threat and the reality that our national defense capability, our national missile defense capability is much more -- a much more mature program than it was at the time. the law should establish that our system be robust capable of a complex threat. rather than simply defending our territory, our policy should be to establish missile defense policy which defends our territo territory, allies, deployed forces and capabilities. in the face of complex threat environment, mr. chairman, we must make sure that this amendment to adjust our missile defense posture to meet and defeat those threats is adopted.
with that, i encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. >> other discussion on the amendment? gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the gentleman's amendment is long overdue. repeals and repeals a 17-year-e that was written at a much different time. russia was a peaceful partner. china was -- had not deployed a sea based ballistic missile force and the u.s. was a party of the a.b. treaty which thankfully is no longer the case. think about this for a minute. under the current policy of the united states, we will defend the homeland against russian sea loss cruise missiles but not sea launch defense missiles. we will defend a sailer on an aircraft carrier but not at home with his policy. it doesn't make any logical sense when we consider that russia and china are developing missile defenses to counter u.s. offensive capability, i support the gentleman's amendment and
ask for its passage. with that, i yield back. >> further discussion? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. tranks. those in favor say aye, those opposed say no. and the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. oh, i'm sorry. i was jumping ahead. >> mr. chairman, i'm definitely the gentleman from alabama. >> sorry. i was -- i was jumping ahead too fast. gentleman from washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. although the gentleman from alabama and i are good friends, i do want to -- i have an amendment at the desk number 158. >> if the staff would please distribute the amendment. >> consider it as read mr.
chairman. >> let's wait for just a minute. [ pause ] >> without objection, the amendment is considered read and the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, last week in the strategic forces sub-committee we adopted an amendment by mr. franks that would convert a plan for space base missile defense to the deployment of space base missile deployment offense. this amendment would strip that amendment made last week in the sub-committee's mark. the reasons for my amendment is that this provision that was introduced and adopted into the sub-committee mark disregards
the advice of our top military and missile defense commanders, as a for instance in, response to a question at the april 14 hearing on defense budget on whether space base interceptors would give the united states a defense, they responded if it was feasible and affordable which i think in both of my mind at this point are no, the answer would be yes to your question. i have serious concerns about the technical feasibility about the interceptors in space and i have serious concerns about the long-term affordability of a program like that, end quote. and i would note that the commander at the same hearing said this does not mean the department is not looking at another alternative to go after the problem set, the problem set that exists with -- that could otherwise potentially be addressed by space base interceptors but there may be other mechanisms and other ways to do that. sometimes one overarching system may be technically very hard and expense but we could talk about
other mechanisms that we are using. i would also note, as well, mr. chairman, that the amendment adopted in the sub-committeee!ñ premature, the nd 16 aa asked for space base missile defense and to report back to the committee no later than one year after the enactment of fy 16 ndaa. i think it is certainly reasonable to at least wait to see what that report says and it has not been a year. rather than rushing forward and levying a duplicate plan for deployment. we should wait for this concept development. as well as there is no military requirement for this, we should be united on missile defense and largely we are in the sub-committee and the full committee and make sure that we have a system that works and that we're making smart investments.
past independent studies have concluded that space base interceptors are costly and impractic impractical. and i would like to at some point get an answer to this, that the amendment that was put into the sub-committee mark last week did not provide a way to fund this additional fund -- fund this additional cost to the budget but rather was left kind of -- well wide open. according to committee rules, no doubt about that. but to date, so far as i know, we have not received a mark on what this would cost to implement since it is a full deployment of space base interceptors as opposed to merely the plan that we had asked for. so for those reasons, mr. chairman, i would ask that this committee take a step back from space base interceptors and mda, let the missile defense agency move forward on what they have,
and let the missile defense agency finish the report that we asked them to do last year. we gave them a year to do that. that year is not up. i would ask the committee to support this amendment which would replace the amendment that we made in the sub-committee mark last week. with that, i yield back. thank you. >> gentleman from alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman, unfortunately, i'm going to have to oppose my friend and colleague from washington's state amendment. since 2011, technology and commercialization of space have increased dramatically. for exampler under the eeov block by and we have seen the cost of launch come down. and i think mda should direct and update of the 2011 ida study and think research and development of a space base missile defense system that could provide us a global boost mid course and possibly terminal
defense capability and improving our space assets is worthwhile. i can't see why any member of this committee would refuse planning to do research and development of a potential missile defense improvements and that is what mda is here to do in any event. so i order no vote regrettably to my friends amendment and with that i yield back. >> mr. cooper? >> well, agree with my colleague from alabama on many issues, i think that the sub-committee made a mistake when they adopted the franks' amendment. for those not regular attendees at our sub-committee meeting, one of the most respected leaders is admiral searing of the missile defense agency and let me repeat what rick larsson has already quoted here. his testimony. and this isn't outdated. this is as after april 14th of this year. he said, quote, i have serious concerns about the technical
feasibility of the interceptors in space and i have serious concerns about the long-term affordability of a program like that. two thoughts. one, will it work. because we should be, for anything that protects america, that will work. but we should not be for pipe dreams and science fiction. and no one is better positioned than admiral searing to be a judge of this. second, and it is second, because the first thing is whether it will work, and he is at the cutting-edge of science and r&d in this. the cost. it is pretty presumptuous for this congress that still hasn't lifted the burden of sequestration and funded our regular military to be considering embarking on this unless there is some sort of identified or potential funding stream. cost estimates are upwards of $300 billion. and we might be for that if it
would work. but let's listen to admiral searing. let's ready, aim, fire, not ready, fire, aim. we have to aim first. and this is a momentous step that the sub-committee took on very little discussion, very little information, and direct contradiction of admiral searing. so support the gentleman from washington's amendment to strike that sub-committee mistake. >> mr. franks. >> well thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman, in memory of some of the same arguments that were made many years ago when ronald reagan proposed the strategic defense initiative. they calmed it science fiction. they called it star wars der izively and today because of his insight and his consideration of what we could do we have a limited defense capability in this country that in my judgment caq protects my children and all of
yours. perhaps from a north korean launch at some point that they want to at least put us under threat, and mr. chairman, some of the discussions about price, let me just say, a robust yet limited constellation would cost $26 billion over 20 years or $1.3 billion per year. and according to hudson study as well as the ida study there are a variety of ways to get the cost down further if we get serious and invest in it. and it should be noted this is a plan for research in a space test bed not to build the system at this time. and it is always wise for us to consider looking ahead. and finally, before i give a little clearer picture of this, mr. chairman, i don't think there is anything in this amendment that directly conflicted with admiral searing's perspective. we don't know what we can and can't do and this is a means of