tv 2019 National Defense Authorization Act CSPAN May 9, 2018 1:58pm-3:53pm EDT
i think the mark does that well. the proposal appropriately encreases funding for research and development aimed at using advanced materials to increase ballistic protection and reduce the weight of the personal protective equipment we issue to those we send into harm's way. i want to thank the talented, committed, and knowledgeable professional staff members for all their work to help produce this mark. and especially doug bush with -- >> we'll now resume the discussion of the russell amendment 328. i have dr. abraham, mr. bacon. dr. abraham is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. mitchell. >> thank you, doctor abraham. mr. chairman, i know i
obviously am knew to the committee. i'm confused with some that are concern we don't have the document from ats saying we can move a machine gun from one contract to another. if that's a concern of this, is there any other technology we need to be worried about that we need to get the atf to join us before we can do our job here. i'm confused and maybe you can help me or maybe i can have mr. russell help me. >> i yield the remainder of my time to mr. russell of oklahoma. >> and with regard to the document that i was pointing from, mr. chairman, dated for september of 2014. it clarifies a previous ruling from 2004 and all of the things i quoted earlier are in it. we can enter it in the record, if desired. i also want to point out, mr.
chairman, that my staff and i just had a conversation with michael j sullivan, the former atf director. he stated the following. he said that he has read over the legislation and that there is absolutely no risk to the public. he stated that this has been a constant issue and that they have been trying to fix it for some time. i understand given the current political climate, mr. chairman, that any time the word "gun" is mentioned it could have some emotional ties and people suggesti suspicious. these are not the droids folks are looking for. this is different. this is plain and simple where you have contractor to contractor, attorney general oversight and approval to do transfer. i would invite to look at the actual amendment and if you look at section a-4c a transfer to a position by a licensed
manufacturer or licensed importer with respect to a transfer, such transfer has been approved by the attorney general in accordance with the law. it further states joint -- so all those concerns that people have are entrenched in the language of the amendment. but this is why this is needed. if i were a weapon manufacturer and i'm taking the weapon to someone who also is a defense contractor or government contractor that makes weapons, but in this case, they're making an airplane. and i want to put that weapons system on that airplane, currently i cannot transfer to them on government to government entity. that's all we're talking about. the language is crystal clear in the amendment. this is government contractor to government contractor. it does not mean that bubba can
walk in as a manufacturer and buy this machine gun that we would put on an aircraft. one, the attorney general would never approve such a sale. two, anyone doing anything like that it would be unlawful and they can spend a long time in prison for such a transfer. it also does not eliminate anything with regard to atf regulations with regard to the accountability of such the tracking numbers of such. the way these weapons must be stored and inventoried. it changes none of that. in fact, the september 4, 2014 document plays out they believe this should occur, unfortunately, we can't do that without the amendment which changes that and what i thought was going to be pretty innocuous and simple amendment has turned into something it's not. i understand the concerns of that other subject or whatever it might be that people are concerned about. but that is not this. so i urge my colleagues to set
that aside and allow us to do what is proper so we can make the lawful transfers with our department of defense and save the taxpayer a lot of money and headache and hassle. >> will the yiegentleman yield? >> that's up to dr. abraham. >> you have 35 seconds. >> i don't fundamentally see a problem with this. i think there's some concern on our side about whether the language truly restricts it to government contractors. can the gentleman clarify that for me. >> sure. i state it may -- to a federal, state, or local government agency to another qualified manufacturer for any manufacture aring processes provided the manufacturer has specific government contract or official written request. the time is up but it allow in statute to back what their
ruling was. >> i yield back to dr. abraham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> on the list i've got bacon. gentleman from california seeks recognition on this amendment? >> yes. >> no, i don't, mr. chairman. >> okay. he does not. gentleman from nebraska. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate for the clarification of the question there. i think the facts seem clear. we're not a changing the requirements for civilians. those standards are staying the same. we're protecting our society just the same. there's no other more lax standards. that has to be clear. two, we're talking contractor to contractor. that have been approved to work on this. i think this is the bottom line, we're saving money for the taxpayer. we're reducing costs for the contracts. i think that's a good thing. i like to yield the balance of my time to mr. russell.
>> thank you. >> we've worked on a lot of good things together. like i said, these are not the droids we're looking for on some gun issue. this is clearly about lawful government contract able to transfer lawfully to another manufacturer who has all the same controls approved by the attorney general, approved by the atf, approved by defense contract and then they're able to possess it. and by them doing that, then you don't have to have the added tax dollars where people come in and camp out and hotel fees or specialists or whatever they have to set up some shop inside a shop. all that have gets passed down to the contractor. not to mention it creates an inordinate amount of bureaucracy. i would hope my colleagues would support this amendment because it is good government, as i quoted from michael sullivan,
the former atf director. he's read the legislation. he stated there is absolutely no risk to the public and this is a constant issue they've been trying to address. that's what we're doing today. i hope that you will support the amendment and with that i yield back to the gentleman from nebraska. >> if there's no further discussion, this amendment the question occurs on russell amendment 328. those in favor of the amendment will say "aye." opposed say "no." the ayes have it. raise your hand. sufficient number. a recorded vote is ordered and that vote will be postponed. chair now moves to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i ask consent to call out bo blank package number 2 consisting of amendments that have been worked on and approved by the minority. >> without objection.
and so ordered. if the clerk would please distribute the amendments. without objection there considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> package number two is comprised as amendment 24 to convey 40 acres of department of navy property which has been carefully delineated with constant -- amendment number 34 r-1 of virginia concerning anti-terrorism training. amendment number 85 concerning adversary air capabilities for f-22 squadrons. amendment number 151, concerning the border security on military installations. amendment number 181 r-1 concerning secure fuel initiatives. amendment number 216 concerning
army national guard aviation training sites. amendment 234 concerning security clearance reinvestigations. the amendment number 244 r-1, concerning fielding of security forces brigades. amendment number 268 concerning hiring of astronomers. amendment number 306 concerning work force decisions in the department of defense. amendment number 387 concerning sale of energy proceeds from geothermal sources. >> is there any further discussion on package number 2? if not, the question occurs on the package. those in favor of the amendment say aye. opposed say no >> yes. aye. i'm --
>> does the gentleman wish to be recognized. >> i wanted to be recognized. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that. efficient facilities are critical for the support, redeployment of forces. services are taking steps to ensure installation and energy resilience for critical missions and infrastructure. an area that will further improve installation readiness across the country is to improve security by finding ways to reduce water. i would like to thank chairman wilson and staff for working with me to include report language that would direct secondary of defense to report on innovative ways to reduce water use across installations and to identify opportunities to replicate the successful water saving tactics already being deployed and installations. currently multiple bases across the nation including california army bases are already doing
great work in this area. such as planting more native species and increasing use of great water systems. i'm sure my california colleagues in this committee will agree with me that our military installations not isolated from the impacts of drought. as we continue to focus on readiness, we must also look at straightening the resiliencies of our military's water infrastructure. by looking at ways to maximize strategic use and water resources at military installations, the department can avoid added unnecessary costs that can be used on other priorities. i yield back. >> questions on readiness in package number two. those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ay es.
>> it is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know we're strong proponents of -- i'm offering an amendment that strengthens both when it comes to reasonable stewartship of dod resources and taxpayer dollars. military air travel has been a valuable and often necessary resource for senior executive branch officials including cabinet secretaries. some are, indeed, rightfully required to travel exclusively by midair for national security purposes. for everyone else, there are rules. that's why we have strong and clear regulations and policies to exist to guide agencies that serve our constitution on responsible uses of these critical resources. dod's own direct policy on abuse of government aircraft could not
be more clear when it states that government aircraft transportation is a premium mode of travel involving high costs and limited resources. i repeat. limited resources. that's why we've been outraged at report after report surfacing that senior administration officials are abusing ethics rules and improperly using military aircraft for travel. last spring former secretary price and his wife took a gulf stream from multinational trips to europe and africa and also to asia that summer. travel cost taxpayers over $500,000. the subsequent political report discussing this travel quoted a former hs official said these trips -- the trips he's gone on make total sense. that's just how he got there. similar questions have been risen for many other cabinet
officials that used air travel. skro scott pruitt and his staff took a flight to new york to catch a flight to rome. the cost of the short flight cost $36,000 to the taxpayer. last may secretary zinke and his wife travelled to norway and alaska. and secretary mnuchin, according to recently revealed documents, cost the taxpayers well over $1 million in air travel including a trip to fort max. in all these cases, this type of travel was preapproved as required by the white house, it races the question. to what extent is dod being asked to support unnecessary and lavish travel for high-ranking officials? on occasion this type of travel has been found by agency
inspector generals to be appropriate. many of those same ig reports raise concerns about a disconnect in the standard required for approval in the actual amount of evidence provided by agencies to justify this type of expensive travel. but larger we don't know how much it cost dod and taxpayers. and i think congress and the american people deserve greater transparency. today we have heard time and time again how funding is needed for readiness and other important functions of dod. and not to mention, the appropriate salaries for armed service personnel. we owe it to our service-members and taxpayers to ensure dod resources are not being exploited or abused. common sense amendment directs dod to report to this committee each quarter on the direct and indirect costs to the department to support this type of travel for senior executive officials. any required use travel is
explicitly exempted from these reports. these reports must conclude information on any spousal travel furnished was reimbursed to the federal government. i want to note, the currently dod is required to report this type of travel semiannually to the gsa. these reports are only available upon request under the freedom of information act. so i am sympathetic to the question of burdening the department but dod is currently burdened when they are -- for these documents. that's how we've been able to find out how much the trips have cost. groups dod in losses and -- start. i think it's a burden for dod to have to lawyers to court to deal with this instead of providing congress with a same information on a quarterly basis.
whether a democrat, republican, or anyone else under this president. taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize lavish travel lifestyles for those to serve the american people. i urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment. i yield. >> mr. wilson. >> thank you. i oppose the amendment which requires the department of defense to report cost of travel by senior executive officials on military aircraft every 90 days. this provision would apply to all dod military aircraft travel by executive branch, political appointees, including spousal travel and would not apply to the president and the vice president. sadly, this has nothing to address the underlying issue of received excessive travel. it requires burdensome reporting on several thousand appointees across the federal government. it will be difficult to compile. also, unnecessarily requires the report every 90 days in
perpetuity. subsequently, the dod administration is opposing the amendment as it will lead to an open-ended report, as they have tried to resist. it undermys the previously stated effort to indetails the number of reports. i urge opposition to this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. i think so far we've seen this outrageous corruption that has taken place. and the money cost jetting around the country. and we, as a committee, and the american public have a right to know. i think it's interesting that the dod and some members of this committee are saying it would be burdensome. it's burdensome we have to press filing multiple requests trying to track down every instance of this abuse when we could have one process where we know that
we, at least, would have a check on this abuse. or at least be able to know what the reasons for this travel. if we have to look at some examples. let's talk about the $1 million spent so far on seven military flights by steve min knewsha. including a day trip to ottawa with his wife and $27,000 military flight to kentucky in august, which happened to coincide with the solar ellipse. let's talk about tom price spending more than $500,000 in personal travel on private and military jets. some of them new york city and philadelphia. we can't reign in all this type of waste and abuse. we understand that. and the out of control spending that our can because of it. that's why the amendment is critical. we have a right to know where it's being spent, how it's being spent, and what the reasons are for it and not just write a blank check to this administration to use our military for their personal
vehicles. and that's why i urge everyone to vote yes. >> secretary pompeo is in north korea right now. i certainly don't expect him to fly anything other than military aircraft with his security detail into north korea. and i guess my question is, only these reports and other things, the demands of these reports and the potential to get out of hand and expose where some of our people are traveling to them. we might not know where they're traveling to. so i understand the political shot that is being taken right now. certainly i will tell you in every administration there have
been some abuses. i have a serious concern about this potentially exposing travel to locations like north korea by senior executives we need to help bring peace. i'm opposed to the amendment. i think it's a cheap political shot with serious consequences for the people of this country >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. o'halloran. >> thank you. as indicated, in my statement before any required use travel is explicitly exempted from these reports. mr. pompeo, the secretary of defense, others that must use military aircraft for security reasons would be exempt from this report.
this has nothing to do with politics but making sure that the american people know their taxpayer money is being wisely spent. that we are making sure that the soldiers that we make sure their salaries -- we can find the money for their salaries through not only this but many other areas that need to be looked at so we can save dollars for that purpose and other purposes within the military. as reported, this is something that is clearly identified the in the travels that is outside the scope of their normal need. further more, i just can't understand how we time and time again talk about saving dollars. and making sure that people have a transparent government. about citizens of this country know what we're doing. and to have the process not be put in place. this is about people who
shouldn't be using military aircraft. it's about the ability of us to save those taxpayer dollars. it's to explicitly there for the purpose of making sure whether it's democrats, republicans, and i mentioned it in the prior statement have to follow the rules. it's that simple. it so happens that i wasn't here when mr. obama was president. if i had been, this would have come forward at that point in time. i believe that these type of ethical standards and transparency of government are required. and i yield back. >> question on the amendment offer offered by mr. o'halloran. the "no"s have it. gentleman from arizona. >> mr. chairman, i request a recorded vote. >> in support of the request. raise your hand. sufficient number. a recorded vote is ordered which will be postponed.
gentleman from south carolina. >> mr. chairman, i ask anonymous consent to call out package number three. consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection. so ordered. the clerk will distribute the amendments number three. which, without objection, are considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. >> package number three is comprised of the following. amendment number 27 by mr. brown of maryland. to amend a provision and mark concerning simulators. amendment number 39 r-1 by myself concerning engines sustainment. amendment number 114 by mr. hunter of california concerning strategy. amendment number 144 r-2 by miss gabbert of hawaii. amendment number 206 r 1 by mr. general bacon of nebraska
concerning the energy source of a million center in germany. amendment number 230 by mr. courtney of connecticut concerning procedures for using military personnel for civilian functions. amendment number 238 by miss murphy of florida concerning the modelling and simulation. amendment number 258 by mr. scott of georgia concerning communications of military installations. amendment number 284 r 1 concerning a construction project at travis air force base. amendment number 386 by mr. cook of california concerning public schools on military installations. and, finally, amendment number 400 by mr. thornberry of texas concerning household goods weight allowances. >> is there any further discussion? gentleman from nebraska? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the majority and minority staffs for supporting my amendment that looks at
facilities in europe or military facilities in europe and the energy source. we're in europe because initially the soviet union. now we're there because of russia. yet some of our facilities are reliant on russian gas for power. and we know that the russians are working their cyber and own energy grid to shut us down. tensions get high. europe they don't have to do cyber. they can turn off the gas and some of our installations will not operate. i appreciate this building resiliency in our military installations so we can survive and deter in a time of crisis. we don't need the russians to turn off the gas to take away from our operational capability. i'm grateful for this. thank you. >> further discussion? if not, the question on readiness in package number three. those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. >> mr. chairman, i ask consent
to call out package number 4. consisting of amendments that have boeen worked and approved with the minority. >> the clerk will distribute the package. the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> pack able number four is comprised of the following. amendment number 3. concerning temporary workers in the beautiful territory of guam. amendment number 251 r 1 by miss murphy of florida considering the presidential management fellowship program. amendment number 184 by miss rosen of nevada concerning the yuck ma mountain project. and 237 by mr. courtney of connecticut. >> further discussion? gentle lady from nevada.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank for including this amendment in the package. it seems that most members of congress who are intent in storing radio active waste at yucca mountain are not aware of the potential threat to the national security. yucca mountain is located on the national nevada security site and adjacent to the test and training range in nevada. nevada test and training range is the largest air and ground military training space in the continuous united states. it's home to 75% of all state side air force live munitions. so i want to ask everyone here do you think it's safe to have our nation's nuclear waste stored right next door to our country's munitions supply? not to mention, getting the radio active waste to yucca mountain requires taking it across the training range. my amendment request report from
dodd and d.o.e. that will fully -- national security sites in nevada. thank you. i yield back my time. >> further discussion on this package? if know the question occurs on package four. those oppose say no. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. we're now going to proceed to vote on those amendments where a roll call vote was ordered. it's 301 regarding the command and control of the pacific. russell 323 regarding financial institutions on bases. russell 328 transfer of machine guns. and o'hall ran 282 on executive use of dod aircraft.
the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from hawaii number 30 1. recorded vote has been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. [ roll call vote ] >> chairman thorn berry no. mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones. mr. jones. mr. brady. mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson? >> no. >> mr. wilson votes no. mrs. davis? mrs. davis votes aye. mr. longeman. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson? mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner?
mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper? mr. rogers? mr. rogers votes no. mr. shuster. mr. shuster votes no. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. conway? mr. conway votes no. mr. lamborn? mr. lamborn votes no. mr. wightman. mr. whitman votes no. miss spear. miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter? mr. hunter?
the clerk will report the tally. mr. chairman, there were 26 aye votes. 34 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. question now occurs on russell amendment number 323 related to financial institutions on military bases. the clerk recorded vote has previously been reported. the clerk will call the roll. mr. thornberry votes aye. mr. smith votes no. mr. jones? mr. jones? mr. brady votes no. mr. wilson votes aye. mrs. davis votes no. mr. longman votes no.
mr. whitman votes aye. ms. spear votes no. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. gacy votes no. mr. coffman votes aye. ms. gabbert votes no. plst heart votes aye. mr. o'roork votes no. mr. scott? mr. scott? mr. scott votes no. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. brooks votes no. mr. moulton votes aye. doctor whenstop votes aye.
>> how is mr. moulton recorded? >> recorded as voting aye. >> good. thank you. clerk will report the tally. mr. chairman 33 aye votes. 28 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. question now occurs on russell amendment number 328 regarding machine gun transfers. a recorded vote has been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thornberry votes aye. mr. smith votes no.
amendment offered by mr. o'halloran 282. recorded vote has been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thornberry votes no. mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones? mr. jones? mr. brady? mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson votes no. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper votes aye.
ms. shayporter votes aye. mr. graves votes no. ms. rosen votes votes aye. miss stephanic votes no. mr. mc-kiesch envotes aye. miss mcsally votes no. mr. carbajal votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. mr. brown votes aye. mr. russell votes no. mrs. murphy votes aye. dr. day shah lay votes no. mr. cona votes aye.
>> clerk will report. >> mr. chairman, there were 30 aye votes. 31 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. >> there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for the purposes of doing a motion. >> on subcommittee on readiness as amended. >> questions from south carolina, mayors in favor say a. those opposed being no. quorum being present the aye have it and the motion is adopted. committee will now receive the
report of the subcommittee on military personnel sur sunt to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until consideration of all amendments to this subcommittee mark. chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from colorado mr. kaufman for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the military personnel subcommittee mark was adopted unanimously last week reflecting the support and participation by all members of the subcommittee. the provisions adopted by the subcommittee and other military personnel related provisions found in the full committee mark provide our war fighters, military families and retirees the necessary benefits and support they have earned. i'd like to highlight just a few items included in the subcommittee mark. the subcommittee recommends increases in the end strength across the army, navy, air force, naval and air reserve,
and air guard. in addition, the mark would extend pay and bonuses for service members in high-demand fields. in effort to address the persistent pilot shortage, the mark requires the air force to evaluate all pilot staff requirements to maximize pilot's time in the cockpit. the mark extends the pilot program which is designed to use retired senior enlisted members to fulfill recruiting positions, to fill recruiting positions so that current national guard soldiers can focus on their primary missions. we also included a provision that substantially improves the tran sticks assistance program to ensure that service members who are leaving the military receive training and resources tailored to their post military career plans. the subcommittee mark would require a comprehensive review of two crucial military health
care issues, the wondered warrior care and mental health care services. in addition the proposal would require the department of defense to establish a prescription drug monitoring program and share information with state prescription drug monitoring programs. finally, the proposal continues to provide oversight of critical issues including improvements to the department's process for reporting crimes to the fbi database, improvements to how department of department schools track and share juvenile misconduct. and additional protections for sexual harassment victims. in conclusion i want to thanksgiving ranking member speier for her support as well as all of the other members of the subcommittee. >> gentleman yields back. ranking of the subcommittee miss spheres recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i too would like to commend the chair of the subcommittee for
his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion. i think we accomplished a great deal. the subcommittee includes provisions that will provide the military services flexibility to manage and retain quality force by authorizing responsible end strength increases, supporting 2.6 pay raise, extending bonuses and special pays. improves tran sticks assistance for service members and their families and continues our commitment to taking care of military families. once again, authorizing $40 million of impact aide for assistance to local education agencies with military children. the mark increases transparency for the department of defense by requiring dod and the military services to publish on a public website, redacted reports of substantiated investigations of senior leader misconduct. the mark also includes requirements to improve crime reporting by requiring dod to establish a central oversight
system to ensure data is transmitted to the fbi database that would prohibit the purchase of firearms. the mark also provides support for victims of sexual assault by authorizing expedited trans terms to another military academy for cadets, requiring standardization across the services for expedited transfer when a family members is a sexual assault victim and requires dod to establish a comprehensive oversight plan for the implementation of the department's new harassment and prevention policies. i'm pleased that the mark continues to ensure that the department continues to focus on the treatment and research of traumatic brain injury, chronic traumatic enexcept pal op think, post-traumatic stress dpis order and other mental health issues. also prescription drug monitoring program and share information with the states to reduce military beneficiaries dependency on opioids.
lastly, i want enthusicly acknowledge the staff's efforts, craig green, jamie jackson, dan senate, dave, and daniel stiets who continue to work in a bipartisan manner to develop the mark. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> is there any further discussion of the personnel subcommittee mark before we turn to amendments? gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to speak on my amendment on the table. >> gentleman is recognized five minutes. >> directs the secretary of defense to contract with independent research center to conduct study and submit to committee report on the health agency plans to adequately prioritize mental health care during the planned transition as the over all care manager for both physical and mental health care. study will have two goals. first, determine if the agency will be placing the right people in the correct positions to
properly manage and oversee mental health care with clearly accountable leadership. second, it will assess if best practices and research efforts are properly integrated and utilized. this study is the first step we can take in ptsd and veteran communities today. we must bear in mind the shocking fact that the number of post 9/11 veterans who have committed suicide now exceeds the number killed in action. early screening and treatment are imperative to reducing veteran suicide ratsd and we have an obligation to improve mental health care for our service members while they are still serving before their conditions progress. finally, the study brings independent researcher with the expertise in behavioral health to complete the study and tell us that we have the proper organizational structure and policies in place when the transition is complete.
i'd like to thank miss saugus for her report for this amendment. and with that i yield back. >> is there any further discussion of the mark before we turn to amendments? i'm sorry, mr. turner, then mr. larson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to take a moment to thank yourself, mr. chairman, adam smith, prior chairman, and my cochair for the sexual assault prevention caucus on nick can i saugus. and i want to thank mr. kaufman and miss spaers for their effort on sexual a sauchlt as you know over ten years ago our committee helped form the sexual assault prevention caucus for the purpose of allowing us on a bipartisan basis and substantive basis to handle sexual assault provisions in this bill. we work throughout the year in holding hearings and briefings. we work directly with the department of defense. we vet our provisions that we are proposing for the bill
through the department of defense to make certain we are not doing unintended consequences. and the effectness of our intended will occur. it's the result of the bipartisan leadership we have that gives us as committee to not have political fights and not have ineffective legislation but real legislation that addresses sexual assault. there are a number of provisions in this bill. i want to thank mr. kaufman and miss spears for their work in allowing the provisions. and once again want to thank nick can nicky for the great work she's done. she's dedicated herself to this and her and her staff and my staff have worked in concert. susan davis has agreed upon nicky retirement to take the position. but it is through the leadership of this whole committee that we are able to handle this topic, not only noncontroversially but highly substantively.
over the things we have accomplished in ten years has been accomplished because of the way this committee has handled this topic in leadership and i want to thank the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee for allowing us to continue that in this mark. i yield back. >> mr. larson. >> yeah, i'll be brief, mr. chairman. thank you. i want to recognize the subcommittee leadership for not just the 40 million mark on impact aide but additional 10 million for students with disabilities and the help that can provide to school districts. and as well as recognition of the exceptional family member program and the request for the briefing on that. as many of us do, but i have one base in particular that is recognized as one of the more advanced bases in dealing with and working with family members with exceptional family members. i just wanted to appreciate the
recognition from the subcommittee for the important role that that program plays and efforts to continue to improve it. thank you. >> miss saugus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a great honor to it be able to work on the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military. it's an egregious crime and those who seek to serve on our behalf should not suffer harm at the hands of their only. many on this committee have worked together to address it. easily enjoyed working with congressman turner but the fight is far from over. just several weeks ago i had several members, a new grown woman who was a child of an officer who was assaulted by her faelt ov father over a number of years, a mother of two twins assaulted by an officer as they were quite young this is issue that remains
and i know this committee will continue to address it so we get it right not just for the military but send a strong message across this country and all the other places where unfortunately these crimes are taking place. thank you. and i yield back. >> we will now turn to amendments to the military personnel section of the mark, chair recognizes mr. kaufman for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> to call up block package number 1 consisting of amendments that have been worked with minority. >> without objection, it is so ordered. the clerk will distribute the unblock amendment. without objection, those amendments are considered as read. and the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. end block package number 1 is compri comprised of the following amendment 010 by mr. moulton
clarifying assessment criteria in the mental health care, in the military system. amendment 012 by mr. molten assessment to be completed by an independent ffr dc. amendment 047 by ms. davis which directs the secretary of defense to report on improving delivery of mental health services. amendment 063 by miss sphere which asks for a report on ctetbi research gaps. amendment 091 by miss gabbert which directs the government accountability office to conduct a study of the defense health agencies oversight of the transition of tri care managed care support contractors. amendment 126 by ms. davis which directs the secretary of defense to report on the total number of
severely injured veterans no longer enrolled in tri care because of their enrolt in medicare. amendment 200 by mr. bacon, which directs the secretary of defense to submit a report containing a plan to accelerate development and delivery of treatments for tbict and ptsd. amendment 224 by miss hanna boost sew which establishes the tri service dental program at the uniformed services university of the health sciences. amendment 250 by dr. winstrop which revises subcommittee on military personnel mark up regarding the administrative alignment of paidediatric surge >> any other discussion on block package number 1? if not, the question is on the block offered by gentleman those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it.
and the amendments are adopted. gentle laid from california is recognized. >> i have an amendment. >> the clerk will distribute amendment. without objection, it is considered as read. and california is recognized five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. last year u.s. armed forces court of appeals overturned the rape conviction of coast guard second class john rise beck. it was over turned because the appellate court, rightly i might add, that they were stacked with women, most of whom had worked as victim ac toe vits. so the panel was ten women and two men. they were there because the court martial put them there. the sole responsibility for choosing channel members creates two main problems. first, it can lead to unjust
outcomes for both victims and the accused. panels can be stacked in either direction depending on the desired result. and so unfairness and the perception of unfairness is built into the system. secondly, commanders involvement creates grounds for copious motions and appeals composition of the panel. for instance, last three years the armed forces court of appeals has weighed in on five cases stemming from perceptions of unfair panel selection. that's a significant percentage of their case load. they only handle about 60 cases a year. more importantly, these cases are the tip of the appellate ice berg. during trials and lower level appeals, government lawyers spent countless hours offering and countering motions based on unfair jury choices. this is not a responsible way of using taxpayer resources. so this amendment just increases fairness and decreases opportunities for unnecessary
motions and appeals. the amendment does allow commanders to choose a pool of qualified applicants based on rank. so their authority and influence is part of that process to a point. it then randomizes who is selected within that pool. the amendment does not apply to theaters of operation. the service secretaries are responsible for crafting a plan on how to roll out this new system. the amendment is carefully tailored to increased fairness, remove the perception of undue command influence, and reduce la tig news within the justice system. and i would encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. i yield back. >> any discussion? mr. turner of ohio. >> i'd like to speak in opposition to the amendment. without diminishing at all my
thankfulness to miss spaers for the fact that we have been able to work through the caucus, i'm in opposition to this amendment. sometimes we do the same thing every year, even though we have addressed it before. this is one that we had taken up last year. but what's important for the members to understand not only do we take up this issue, but we took up the entire issue on the doing judiciary reform and convening authorities. in fact, this is the text of what we passed in 2017. it's not even all adopted yet. so we should not -- while it is being implemented, make further changes to work we have spent time on. also, difficulties and problems with this legislation. the case that miss spaers mentioned united states versus rise back is an example how this process works. the court found that the rules had not been properly followed.
that doesn't require that we throw out the rules. it required that the court enter a court order that the rules be followed. once those rules were followed, i'm certain that justice prevailed. now the current selection was reformed in 2017. but the convening authority has to take into consideration a number of issues that random ages would takeaway from them. as you know, in any court system there is also voir dire, the ability of those on both sides ability to pick pick a panel and object to them. that is still preserved. so it is not as though the convening authority is the only authority with respect to these panels that are put together. they shall detail members that are in their opinion best qualified by reason of age, education, training, experience, length of service, judiciary
temperament. they have to take into consideration deployments, just as miss spears said in her provision, they have to take into consideration more than just combat, they have to take in major training events, whether or not in the navy, whether ships under way, effects to over all missions, all of these things are not detailed in the legislation and that would severely restrict the commander ability in making selection process. so in short, this is a solution looking for problem that doesn't really exist right now. it's workingment and for those areas where it wasn't working, we have adopted extensive legislation that we have to a wait and at least how it's impla end med to see if there are any other problems for us to take action for. with that i yield back. >> mr. brown. >> thank you, madam chair, i speak in support of the amendment and i appreciate the subcommittee chairs reminder of the steps that congress is taking to improve the military justice system. i see this amendment as part of
that ongoing process. uniform code of military justice, you know is enacted in 1950, major revisions made in 1968, 1973, and recently in 2016. in 2016 what congress did was improve the jury composition, which we call a panel in the court martial system, requiring a minimum of 12 for capital cases, 8 for general court martials and four for special court martials. also in sentencing congress required judges no longer the jury unless it's a capital case or the defendant requests that. why do i point this out? because this has been ongoing effort by congress to improve the justice system. and what we have done is aligned it with the procedures you see in the federal courts and what you see in many state courts.
by randomizing the jury selection process, as this amendment does, you do not takeaway from the commander the current authority they have. and this is what i mean by that. today the commander can choose the panel by virtue of look at criteria age, length of service. with this amendment, the commander can still do that. but instead of doing it for each individual panel, the commander if the service sets out procedures that allow for this will do it for the entire military community within that convening authority's jurisdiction. from that selected pool, then you would randomly choose a member. in fact, the dod does not oppose this amendment. i'm not saying that they support it. but what the dod says is that, look, anything we can do to eliminate unlawful command influence we'll support. when we talk about unlawful command influence, we are not
talking about a commander that has malicious intent. often it's benign. it's a bias. so what randomization is doing is trying to eliminate or reduce the impact of that bias. representative spear mentioned the case from the court of appeals fort armed forces. i happened to clerk for the chief judge of that court many, many years ago. and this is what they were wrestling with in that case. the court martial was originally ten members, seven of whom were women, this was disproportionate of women. of those initial ten members, voir dire revealed that five had served as sexual assault victim advocates and two more had training or experience assisting victims of a sexual assault. the defense challenged three member and they granted two of those challenges and defensed use one per em try challenge on the third. the prosecution made no challenges. seven members remained after challenges. five of them were women. all of whom had victim advocate
experience. unlike the federal system where you get ten peremptory challenges, that's a challenge where you don't have to state the reason why you want the juror eliminated, you only get one in this system. so it's that much more important when you have random system so in community you are not getting disproportionate number in this case women serving on a panel. you can have disproportionate members in other demographic areas serving on panels. we don't want that. so i wholeheartedly support the amendment. and i have kfd confidence when we pass the amendment that the services will be able to establish procedures where the convening authority is fully engaged in the selection. they can continue to rely on the criteria already in the military code of military justice. and we will continue along that path making it more fair system. i yield back.
>> mr. bacon. >> thank you, madam chair. i want to say thanks to congresswoman spear for the great work and great advocate. in fact she has another amendment that i will strongly support that goes after collateral crimes on the victim, and goes after victims that would i think have the victims less reluctant to come forward when assaulted. so that's an example i would work strongly with her. but in this case i have to oppose. i have been a five time commander. i have three i selected jurors or put them forward for the pool. and then two of the commands i had i actually selected them for the juries. and i follow the process to the t and never had one time where our juries were questioned by the defense or overturned because of that, because we followed the process. and i wanted to make sure that our jurs were fair and they
would be protected. i think if we do random selection of jury, you could end up with a nondiverse jury where it's unfair, then you are in a jam. i think the commander that follows the processes, this process works. soy think it's important to protect our commander role in the military. every time we chip away at that we hurt our military in the end. and i think it's our commanders that are responsible for justice and discipline and accountability. and i just think that this undermines that and it could have unintended consequence if you ended up with random selection that was nondiverse and you could have that just as easily. when the processes are followed, the system works. madam chair, i yield back. >> miss gabbert. >> thank you. i'm speaking in support of congresswoman spears amendment. i'll be brief. this issue has pointed time and time again to the problem with
undue influence that has made the uniformed code of military justice system in many ways not transparent and not fair, and particularly as dealing with victims of sexual assault. this amendment preserves that command authority in being able to provide input into these jury pools while providing transparency and fairness by randomizing the jury selection. while i fully have full faith and confidence in my colleagues service as a commander and his own experience, unfortunately that is not always the case. and while we must preserve command authority, we must balance that ought to make sure we are providing fairness to our troops who are going through this process. for that and for the reasons that have been stated earlier, i support this legislation. >> mr. kelly. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
hi too thank miss spheear for a these done, but too i disagree, not what she's trying to get, but i think we have a process in place that works. i think we have to get the 2017 changes the opportunity. there are qualification of jurors, voir dire, i say voir dire, voir dire. you have challenges. i have never tried a jury trial that was a criminal jury trial, civilian practice, that was not challenged, the jury makeup was not challenged. so just because they are challenged doesn't mean there is something wrong with that. every defense lawyer doing his job probably gets sued for incompetence if the jury is made up wrong. but they always say that but when the jury is wrong and rules in place, that's what the courts are for. that's what happened here. they used the wrong -- they did not follow the rules. and it was sent back, as it should be. because when the jury is made
up, whether it's because of a challenge in civilian courts, it gets sent back for retrial or doing it again. so it worked. so we shouldn't punish people because people challenge the rules. and we can't change the rules for individuals doing wrong. when people do wrong, you don't change the rule, you punish the wrong-doer or hold the wrong-doer accountable. you don't change the entire system every time something doesn't work out. i say the major ucj reforms in 2017 haven't even been implemented. let's give them a clans to work. it would eliminate commanding members ability to age, and even when they are in combat. so different rules for people in combat and people who aren ot home front. there should never be different rules of judiciary systems, they should be the same rules whether
you are in combat or peace time. i think it is likely to arise the good discipline of the military. there are things outside of court of law and a rule of law that apply in military organization that do not apply in the civilian organization. and they will have to do that. random does not work because majority of the service members in the military are junior enlisted guys, many under the age of 22, many under the age of 22, and in the civilian world it is not just random every citizen. you don't just get the right to be -- if you are not a registered voter, you don't come up on a panel so you have a more mature civilian. but you make every person, even if they don't take affirmative action, ability to serve on jury. and what you don't want is lack of experience in random jury. so i think this would also. again, i think let's see if the rules from 2017, let's see if
they are working. and i show they are, would go. and i asks my rise in opposition of this haemt but i do again thank miss spear for her help. i yield back balance of my time. >> mr. geiago. >> thank you, mr. chair. i know there has been some back and forth. i think many of us are trying to say in support of miss spaers amendment, this is different than what we debated in the last year. we think it's more narrow now. race back is general waste of time. voir dire is insufficient. only one peremptory challenge. therefore i support this amendment. thank you. i yield back.
and i yield my remaining time to the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you. mr. guy aeiago. that pool could be smaller. so that's why it retains the convening authority commander to select panel by panel. so i did want to make that distinction that my good friend from i think it's mr. kelly. the other thing that i think is important to point out is that the distinction between the quality of the juror or the panel in the military versus civilian, in the civilian context anybody can serve in a
jury pool. not just registered voters. in most states they'll take voters over the motor vehicle register. whether you are registered voters or not. if you are motor vehicle licensee they'll take it from there. so, again, i support the amendment. i think it addresses the questions of military necessity. it gives the services ample flexibility. and it continues to keep the commander or convening authority in the process. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> and the gentleman from arizona yields back. miss mcsally. >> i yield back remaining of my time. >> thank you, chairman. i strongly oppose this amendment. i do appreciate congresswoman spears leadership on these issues. i share them on only former commander on the committee here. we still need to put the reforms
we put in 2017 work themselves out. this court case was convening authority not doing their job. and the court case identified that. so we need to work to make sure that we have convening authority that is are more like general bacon and maybe those who make a mistake. and this does not address the issue appropriately. and i am concerned that there is a different standard. those in combat could still be providing that decision by the convening authority. but what you don't understand is when you are back home sometimes you are busy or more when you are in combat training to get ready for combat with all the responsibilities and requirements. so still a limited pool. we are not cross section of society. sometimes you need experience, specific flying issue or something else. so the process right now is one that i believe is adequate. this court case identified where there was one flaw, but we shouldn't be throwing out the whole system. i strongly oppose the amendment and strongly encourage everyone
to vote against it. >> mr. panetta. >> i strongly speak in favor of the amendment. knowing that jury selection is important part of the process. yes, because you want a conviction as a prosecutor, you want a jury that's fair and impartial, but you also wants to protect that conviction. you want to make sure that the jury that gets that conviction is fair and impartial. you do that by making sure that the jurors can actually say that and are that. but you also look at what they are going to do as a jury and how they are perceived as a jury. and all this does is provide one more layer of protection, which is very important. and i understand the appellate process well. but i also know that when that case comes back, it's very difficult, you waste time, you waste money, and the victims
having the victims and the witnesses come up on the stand, testify again, can have ta toa on them as well. so i believe instituting this one more layer of protection by having the commander pick the pool and then have the pool, jurors from that pool be random, is enough to basically uphold these types of convictions and provide fairness in our military justice system. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. bishop. >> thank you. i yield to mr. turner. >> as i was stating earlier, the sexual assault prevention caucus was convened for the purpose of being a clearinghouse of these issues so we could deal with them on a substantive basis and bipartisan basis. three goals being prevention, preventing sexual assault, protect those who are victims who come forward allege aing an assault. and prosecution. we collect all year long evidence and issues where there
has been wrongdoing and also where there are things that ideas to benefit the victims. this proposal is neither. it is not arising out of issue of wrongdoing. and there is no evidence that this will benefit the victim. but i wanted to speak again because with all due respect to mr. brown, dod, he stated something i'm going to paraphrase, certainly not going to be very accurate, but dod is not opposed to this. that is not the case. what we try to do in the sexual assault prevention caucus is look to things we study. because we don't want to knee jerk take opinions that might fix things. we actually look at what substantive information we can gather together. on this particular issue in dod the military justice review group was convened. and they looked at panel selection and determined that random selection was not workable and would not measurably benefit the judiciary
system. another one of the caucus of benefiting the victim. second, they researched and found no benefit to random panel selection. in fact they found this would prepresent substantial difficulties in deployed environments and any system must recognize that competency and ability and desist making are critical command functions. what we are going to undertake issues that effect the due process in the criminal court system, we have to have higher level of scrutiny, not merely our opinion, this has one that's been studied tan rejected. no evidence presented this is a problem that needs to be remedied. i would ask everyone to vote against the amendment. >> would the gentleman yield? >> the gentleman from utah yielded back his time at the moment. >> okay. ms. shea porter is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to miss spear.
>> i thank the gentle lady and i'll yield a couple of minutes. >> thank you. i wanted to clarify. and thank you for giving me the opportunity. the department has generally supported efforts by congress to eliminate unlawful command influence. and my point is that -- >> do you yield? >> no, i won't at this time. >> because you know that's not the case in this instance. >> let me continue, please. >> mr. brown has the floor. >> and that unlawful command influence is not limited to malicious intent by commander. unlawful command influence appears as bias whether it's recognized by the convening authority or not. if you look at the appeals in the military justice system, and you compare it to the federal court system, you will see a higher percentage of appeals based on the jury selection process in the military justice
system than in the fell fridera system. i'm not talking about individual challenges, that will always happen. but in the federal criminal system, you don't see challenges to the jury selection system because the random system. but you see it in the military justice system because that selection by the convening authority even when there is not malicious intent, is often riddled with bias. and that's what you have in the case that was presented in the rhyser case. you had a commander, not necessarily malicious intent, but had a bias, and put a number of people on the panel who had a background in sexual assault and the court found that wrong. it happens all the time. it happens frequently. it's an unknowing bias. and this is an effort to just once remove that convening authority to reduce, if not eliminate that bias. i yield back, mr. chairman.
>> ms. shea porter yields to miss spear. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you miss say porter. will et me conclude by saying this has been a really healthy discussion and i applaud all those who participated in, both the commanders who have served and all of the attorneys who have represented persons within the military. i would suggest here that maybe -- this is really an important amendment, and i want to make sure we totally understand what we are saying here. we are saying the commander still has the authority to determine the pool to the extent that they decide experience, rank, judgment, and dis correctio discretion. but it's a big pool. when you are going to pick person by person those serve on a jury as commander, it's going to be subject to the charge of
bias. whether it is or is not. and that's why these cases then get elevated to the appeals court, go through that process, it costs time and money, and resources. and i think mr. panetta's comments that then the victims and the defendant go through that whole process all over again. why not make it appropriate, fair, balanced, from the get go? and that's what this amendment does. and with that, i yield back. >> ms. shea porter yields back. mr. russell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think one of the reasons that i'll oppose this is not for the reasons of the intent of what it's trying to get to, but it assumes that there is an unfairness in the uniform code of military justice, yet there is no clear evidence that that is the case. in fact, quite contrary uniform code is one of the remarkable
systems of justice in the united states. i've been a former commander of the i've had to serve on courts marshall. i've even served on war tribunals. and the problem i have with the language particularly where it's stated online 6 and 7, with regard to convening authorities, is that it would not allow them to select a balanced construct of people with rank and experience. for example, in a particular case on a war crimes tribunal, you had a serious charge that could have resulted in a capital offense if the individual was found guilty happened in an environment, and as such there had to be a strict experience level and a porchment that would be the makeup of the court martial. and the convening authority had the ability to do that random selection of that would not have provided that mix.
and so i think we can continue to work the issue, but for these reasons i'll be against the amendment. and thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. lobando. >> i'd like to yield to mr. turner. >> i just want to clarify exchange of mr. brown and i were having. i wrote down his words. he's very trained harvard lawyer. i respect both his education and skill. he said in clarifying dod position, they are obviously in opposition to unlawful command influence. and my statements that i was making is dod does not believe in the current system that it results in unlawful command influence. and i just want today maed to m clear. i yield back. >> question on gentle lady from california miss spaers. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. according to the chair, the nos have it.
gentle lady asks for recorded vote sufficient members support that recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed. let me just give everybody a brief update. we are going to have votes at 3:45. we are going to have three votes. it will take us to nearly 4:30. let me encourage everybody to come back right away so we don't lose time there. we have more amendments ahead of us than we have behind us. so just ask members to keep that in mind when we get off into some of these debates. let me recognize the gentleman from colorado mr. kaufman for the purpose of offering end block package number 2. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up block package number 2 consisting of amendments tworkd and approved with minority. >> without objection, it is so ordered.
the clerk will distribute the amendments, which without objection are considered as read. and the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> end block package number 2 is comprised of the following, amendment 009 by mr. moulton requiring dha to brief the committees on the mhs transition. every six months until the transition is complete. amendment 0111 by mr. moulton requiring dod to include questions concerning gambling addiction in and you'll physical health assessments. amendment 045 by ms. davis which directs the secretary of defense to report the best practices for prevention and response to sexual assault. amendment 092 are one by miss gabbert that conducts the secretary of defense study race covered health care providers. amendment 106 by mr. carbajal
which increases number of appointed directors of the henry m jackson foundation for the advancement of military medicine. amendment 222 by mr. bishop which directs the director of dla to submit a report outlining the potential for incorporating ct ang owe graphy and tomography into dod fa imt ises. amendment 226 are won by miss spear which requires secretary of defense report frequency of sex you'll assault for collateral misconduct. amendment 271, by dr. winstrop which requires a briefing regarding the benefits of prescribing and issuing orthotic it inserts for new recruits based on input from orthopedic and pediatric consulteds within
each ser virt. amendment 281 by mr. holland which recognizes and honors the legacy contributions and sacrifices native american of the aermd forces. amendment 241 by mr. russell that requires the report of the athletic trainers. let's see. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> further discussion on personnel end block package number 2? if not, the question occurs on the amendments offered by gentleman from colorado, those in favor say aye. say no. the ayes have it. and the amendments are adopted. gentleman from colorado. >> let's see, end black number
1. >> 3. >> 3. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up block number 3. >> that objection is so ordered. clerk will distribute the amendments. without objection, they are considered as read. and the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> on black package number 3 is comprised of the amendment 061 by mr. deharass directing the secretary of defense to provide briefing on the feast abltd of expanding alcohol sales to include the sale of distilled spirits. amendment 50 secretary of defense to provide service members authority tive assessment of their gi bill prior to retirement or release from active duty. amendment 068 r 1 by mr. larson requiring a briefing on collaborative efforts to
synchronize credentialing programs and effect of credentialing unemployment. amendment 183 r 1 by miss stefanic which requires support of changes of members of the armed forces on employment among military spouses. amendment 220 by miss hanna boost owe halts implementation flt 2014 per diem policy. amendment 228 by mr. courtney regarding when a geographic combatant commander submits a request to add a danger list and requires the secretary of defense to issue a determination within 90 days. amendment 233 by miss spear which requires report on senior leader outside employment requests and activities. amendment 235 by mr. courtney which requires usd for personnel ready flis to support a report
on the add judd caution and approval process for danger pay. amendment 270 for mr. o'halleran which requires the dod to require briefing on interagency efforts in the transition assistance program to provide education on federal wild land ffg careers. amendment 325 by mr. russell regarding the program to assist members of the armed forces in obtaining professional credentials. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> any further discussion on black package number 3? >> gentleman from utah. >> can i change them for their amendment and yield back. >> i like the brevity. if there is no further questions, the question occurs on military personnel on black package number 3. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have t and the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. choik. >> next, the gentle lady from
california, miss speier. >> i have an amendment on the desk. >> it is considered as read and recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you, and my colleagues. we now have 4.6 million women who receive health care through the department of defense. and i don't think any of them want them to be second class citizens. but in fact they do have inferior health care to civilian plans. access to contraception is absolutely central to women's health and well-being and the d.o. d should give service members and dependents same options that women in the civilian world receive. the number of unplanned pregnancies in the military is so much higher than it is in the general population. in fact, it's 60% higher. now, we already know that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned. but beyond that, the unplanned
ones in the military are at 60%. this has a negative effect on readiness since nearly 13% of active duty servicemen were unable to deploy as a result of pregnancy according to a 2016 dod report. and we need to recognize the fact that more and more women are joining the military. i was at one of our academy recently. 30% of the cadets at one of our academies will be women in the coming years. so under the aca civilian women are required to have access to fda approved contraception and counseling free of cost. however, active duty service members and nonactive family dependents cost barriers to care depending on the type of contraception they use and if they fill that you are prescriptions outside of ntf. for many of these women getting to base is simply not possible.
they should have access to all these family planning decisions. tri care does in fact provide standard birth control coverage that is offered similar to the civilian health insurance plans. but they have a cost sharing requirement. by obtaining those contraceptions in mail order programs. this would remove that cost sharing from contraceptive care and it would also remove the cost sharing associated with insertion and removal of contraceptive methods like. >> julie: uds. service members deserve the same level of care. they fight to protect. it's only fair we stand up for them. i'd like to yield to my colleagues coauthoring susan davis. due to last minute issues i'm with drawing this amendment and hopefully we can fix the problem as it moves forward. with that, i yield back. >> i thank the gentle lady to
yields to california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and by virtue of the fact it is withdrawn right now, i just wanted to say for all the times that i've had a chance to talk to women who are in the service around quality of life issues and the decisions they make, this one barrier really does create a problem for them. and so we don't want to it be in a position where they are treated differently. absolutely. and have the opportunity to move forward now. look at this. and figure out how we can make the numbers work so that women who are in the service is making these difficult decisions will be free of that issue when it comes to whether or not they stay in the military, continue to be active in their careers, and really contribute to our country. many of them make a decision to not do that for these very reasons. so i thank the chairman, and hope we can resolve these issues.
>> and i believe miss speier yields as well. >> thank you. i want to thank represent speier on these issues. it's telling may 9th. may 9th 1988 was the date that fda approved the birth control bill. and here are three basic facts. economic studies show that insurance is the birth control pill was approved, one-third of the wages that women have gained are attributed to the introduction of the pill. fact number two. 86% of the decline in teen pregnancy is because of the introduction of the birth control pill. fact number three. the birth control pill has resulted in six times women completing college since it was introduced. in we believe that we should make decisions based on facts, then this is really a no brainer in terms of what the right
course of action is. i thank representative speier for her tire less leadership on this and yield back. >> and the chair understands the gentle lady from california with draws the amendment. the amendment is withdrawn. just to give everybody an update. votes have just started. so let's see if we can go ahead and do. and miss gabbert amendment 141. and i want to ask everyone to come back at the conclusion of votes. >> gentle women from hawaii. >> yes i have a vote. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. mobilization for premission support under authority of title 10, 304 bravo authorizes the pentagon to involuntarily act vite up to 60,000 national guard members to support preplanned operations. we currently have had reserve
troops solving in this status all over the world serving shoulder to shoulder with active duty ee troops but without receiving the same pay 10 active duty counterparts. this is wrong, and it must be fixed. language in the 2010 ndaa did not allow members of the guard and reserves equal post- 9/11 gi credit, reduced age for retirement based on their active duty service and other pre and post-mobilization benefits. language in last year's ndaa did correct the pre and post-health care mobilization issues and education benefits. however, pay and the remaining benefit inequalities remain unfixed. it is unfair to rely on our guardsmen and reservists for missions to supplement and support our active duty troops on their missions and not provide them the same benefit as their active duty counterparts. we have troops from our national guard in hawaii who have just
mobilized and deployed overseas. more will deploy from my home state and across the country. we must take care of our troops equally, whether they serve in the national guard, reservists or on active duty. due to questions and issues related to funding sources, i will offer and withdraw this amendment and ask the chairman to work with me to address this issue and how to best fund it, but i will ask my colleagues to note that the cbo scored this amendment at $27 million per year or about one-third of the cost of one f-35. i withdraw my amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. okay. i think it looked to me like we may have about five more amends that require debate in the personnel section before we get to strategic forces, before we get to the full committee mark, so that just gives everybody a heads up on where we are. i think the best thing to do now is to recess.