tv 2019 National Defense Authorization Act Part 4 CSPAN May 22, 2018 2:59am-6:18am EDT
and two is workforce because we are growing so rapidly, we just don't have enough people to build and to fill the jobs. >> the biggest issue going on in our state is poverty. we need to add more jobs so these people can work and make money for their families and have a good life. >> for the most important issue, i would say keeping our environment clean and safe for all organisms and species. >> voices from the state, part of cspan's 50 capitals tour and their stop in carson city, nevada. tuesday, the house begins debate on the defense authorization bill. earlier this month, the house services committee met to mark up that legislation. members debated amendments on the iran nuclear agreement, deployment of national guard troops on the u.s./mexico border, and the listing of the sage grouse as an endangered
species. this is a little more than three hours. >> next on the list is miss spear. >> i have an amendment to the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. the general lady from california is recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. live tissue training is the practice of shooting and stabbing live pigs so combat medics can learn trauma skills. the anatomy of goats and pigs is similar to but does not replicate that of a human. they've been trying to reduce the use of live animals in favor of medical simulation technology. the department's research has concluded there is no objective benefit of animal training, unquote. the defense health agency stated in 2017 that live tissue
training is outdated and cost prohibitive and not anatomically correct. both the coast guard and the uniform services university have stopped using ltt. the vast majority of programs in the united states that train trauma care use simulators exclusively. despite advances, the department has been slow to phase out live tissue training. the provision included require the pentagon to formalize plans to transition from animals to simulators and other non-animal training method, but this has not yet happened. required a transition in 2015. this also hasn't happened. it's time to set an explicit timeline with reasonable exemptions. this amendment does three things. it provides the resources needed to complete the military's transition to
simulator-based training. it requires a plan and timeline for the secretary for how the military will use modeling and simulations. three, it will end all live tissue training starting in 2025, unless a waivers granted by the secretary of defense or his delegate on a case by case basis. this means a simulation or other techniques are not sufficient to meet training requirements and would degrade care on the battlefield, live tissue training can be continued as long as it's needed. balancing the needs with the critical need to ensure our service members have the best medical care in the most dangerous of circumstances. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> dr. westrop, i have a substitute amendment by miss spear. >> the clerk will distribute
dr. westrop's amendment for miss spear. that objection is considered as read and the gentleman from ohio is recognized for 5 minutes on the substitute. >> i served in the military at this point for 20 years and have had exposure in training with simulation and live-tissue training. that's why i want to speak on this. i will tell you that simulation training has gotten better in the last several years. i'm in a difference place as far as what our simulators are capable of doing. they are much more interactive. they have much greater capabilities, but there's still the need for live tissue training as well as simulation training. in my amendment, i offer people go simulation training before they use live tissue draining. the chain of command on the medical side will decide who needs live tissue training and that will be based on the healthcare provider involved and the mission they may be
assigned to. it's a fairly graphic description that was given here, but it's not the case what i have seen. the animals that are there, they're american heros in my opinion. the current training programs that include live animals have contributed to the lowest killed in action fatality rate in the united states military history. these are our troops. those animals are heros because they gave people the capability to save american lives in the field where they need it. this bill also increases the use of simulation training. it is easier to get these new simulators out to reserve centers of combat support hospitals, get your people trained up in a far better way than we've ever had before, and i advocate for that. there are some instances, some environments where you need to have that capability and only live tissue can give you that. even when i went a couple of weeks ago over to uniform
services university to see the latest and greatest of what they have, which i will tell you is great as far as simulators, they said we can't give everything someone may need to be trained for. there are some people who don't need to go to simulator or live tissue training because of their experiences. that's why those decisions should be made on a local level by the command. the trauma scene on today's battlefields is much more severe than you'll get in a civilian medical center or in a simulation center. and sometimes the skills you have to have can only come from working on live tissue like deep vascular access. it builds the confidence of the healthcare provider. no one enjoys the fact that you're using live tissue, but you understand this is for the betterment of our troops, and it's saving our lives. and you talk to special operations forces who are
sometimes with very minimal healthcare capabilities, if any, except themselves, they undergo these types of trainings when they're going to go to an environment where they may need it to save each other's lives. i think this amendment, this substitute amendment really will drive more simulation training, will get more people trained up, reduce the need for live tissue training, but there are still those instances where we have to have it. and it's based on experience. so i hope that you will consider this amendment in substitute for the spear amendment. with that, i yield back. >> thank you, member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is an important issue. we have made significant advances in simulation. i think we should get to the point where that simulation is used. i've been down to fort bragg where they do the live tissue training. i don't have a full
understanding of it. if you've never been in that battlefield position, you don't. i suspect no matter what you do, working on an animal, a simulator situation, it will be different when you're on the battlefield dealing with one of your colleagues or friends in a life or death situation. it's different. it's impossible to totally recreate it. i'd like to get to the point where we don't rely on live tissue training. we're trying to get the language to improve that. i look forward to continuing that process and working with you. i know we've argued about this before, so i will not belabor the point. i'll yield back. >> dr. abraham. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have both a degree in veterinary medicine and in human medicine, so i'm an animal lover first. but i've also worked in many yards where i've done chest tubes, tracheotomies, anything that comes through an
emergency. room. i can tell you through very vivid experience, you cannot replicate some things. i've seen the simulators. i've worked on simulators. there are like the doctor said, they are excellent, and they're getting better. but when a patient's in shock, the anatomy of a simulator dummy has no -- there's no equal in a human tissue as so that vessel, whether it retracts, whether as to that lung functions, whether that breathing apparatus is performing accurately. there are thousands of variables that simulators cannot replicate and certainly when we're talking about our troops in a combat setting where shock is inevitable, i would say probably almost 100% of the time, you don't know what you don't know until that
combat surgeon or that combat medic goes to that troop where not minutes are important but a minute can be important. if you don't have training in live tissue of accessing live tissue -- arteries, veins, chest cavities -- it will cost lives. so look, i want to do this as humanely as possible, certainly from my veterinary medicine time where i practiced 10 years. i understand what those animals do sacrifice. and dr. winstrop is right. these are american heros, but these are american soldiers we're saving. if the simulators get better, i'll be the first in line to say let's put the animals to the side and do something different, but we're not there yet. i yield back.
>> question is on the substitute offered by dr. winstrop. awful those in favor say i. all opposed say no. the substitute is adopted. now the question is on the amendment offered by miss spear as substituted by dr. winstrop. those in favor of the substituted amendment say i. those opposed say no. the is have it, and the amendment is adopted. next is mr. kanna. the clerk will distribute the amendment. with that objection, it is considered as read, and the gentleman from california is recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment is very simple. it would stop the united states
government from providing fuel to the saudis in their bombing campaign against the hutis in yemen. i want to clarify. it would do nothing to restrict our actions in yemen against al qaeda. the enemy that has attacked our homeland. and i would ask members on this committee to think about this very simply. as we talked to our constituents back home and ask them, do you think your tax dollars should be going to support saudi arabia because we need a different regime in yemen, is that really where you want your tax dollars going? and i would argue republican, democrat, or independent, 90% of constituents would say what are you talking about? and the other 10% would say no.
if you said do you want your tax dollars going to fight terrorists who attacked us, then i think you would get overwhelming support. i think everyone in this country believes we should be on the offensive against the terrorists who have attacked us. but no one believes that we should be engaged in a civil war against a regime that 99% of americans cannot pronounce. and the issue here is our founding ideals. john quincy adams warned us about this. he said if america wants to chair for freedom and human rights around the world, we should. we should give our prayers and our blessings and stand up for our values. he warned when we go overseas to seek monsters to destroy, that when we go there as liberators, we will be seen as a dictatorial force.
not because of our values but because we won't know who the good guys are. we won't know who to support. that's what's taking place right now in yemen. we are being held liable and responsible for the actions of saudi arabia and for the united arab emirates. they don't have the high standards that the united states have. i have so much respect for my colleagues on this committee, so many who have bravely worn the uniform for the united states. we in the united states have the highest ethical standards. we don't take action lightly that has civilian casualties. does anyone believe in good faith that the united arab emirates or the saudis share our values? how does it feel that they are killing yemenese civilians and they're blaming us because our fuel is supporting that?
why would we want to be associated with acts that our military would never stand for, that no one on this committee would stand for? so my hope is that this will be a bi-partisan issue. , that we can all agree on a strong offensive war against al qaeda or terrorist groups that threaten us, and i certainly would support any such effort in yemen or elsewhere. we can all agree that we should not be involved in a civil war. and we should not exaggerate the threats of iran, which have been proven that iran was provoked after the saudis and our bombing started in yemen, and we should extricate ourselves from this mess and focus really on the enemies that threaten our homeland.
mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> miss cheney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong opposition to my colleague, mr. conners' amendment. i think it fundamentally misunderstands the situation on the ground in yemen. while we've been sitting here in this hearing in the last 5-6 hours, in addition to the malign influence we've seen iran influencing across the region, we've seen for the very first time it appears according to news releases, the iranians have launched attacks against the israelis. the notion that somehow this isn't about iran is just fundamentally wrong. what's happening in yemen today, the hutis are backed by the iranians. the idea that their activities
are not a threat to us, the obama treasury department imposed sanctions, and they talked about as they imposed those sanctions on officials in iran, on individuals in iran, this is a quote, that those individuals are being sanctioned because they had allowed al qaeda to operate a core facilitation pipeline through iran. so this isn't just a civil war, this isn't a situation where the united states doesn't have an interest. in fact, by enabling the refueling and providing the refueling for the saudis, we are supporting an american ally. it would be the wrong thing for us to do, particularly today, particularly tonight as we've seen more brazen attacks than we've ever seen against our strong ally israel by the iranians, for us to adopt this amendment and send the message that we don't fully understand what it's going to take to
counter iranian influence across the region. so i would strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to make sure that the united states continues to do everything possible to make sure that we're supporting our allies and recognizing the reality of what's happening on the the iranian backed hutis are doing everything they can to help iran expand its influence across the region, which is counter to our national security interest. i urge no vote on the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. >> ranking member. >> i first of all want to thank mr. conner for bringing this issue to the attention of the committee. i think it's an incredibly important issue that much of the country doesn't pay much attention to. three quick points. to dismiss what's going on in yemen is a simple iranian proxy war is a big misunderstanding of what's going on.
there are layers upon layers in terms of the different factions fighting each other in yemen. this is started long before iran had anything to do with it. the hutis and i'm going to forget some of the names here but be former prime minister and the current prime minister were switching sides and moving back and forth. this is about a civil war in yemen. a whole lot of actors in the region have looked at that civil war and tried to figure out what their interests are and how best to pursue them. there is no question that iran has given to the hutis and they are part of the problem in yemen. there's no question that there is a strong al qaeda presence in yemen that we are fighting. yemen has become one of the least-known and larged humanitarian crisis in the world because of the approach
that saudi arabia took to it. andy, in most instances saudi arabia is our ally. certainly not in all but what they did in yemen i think undermined our interests. the bombing campaign, i'm at a loss for the word, but basically they closed off a port so basic food and supplies couldn't get in, so that hundreds of thousands of people are starving in yemen. there was one particular instance where the group of people that were most trying to resolve the dispute in yemen and the dispute in yemen is primarily a yemen civil war. other people started playing in it, but it started long before iran had anything to do with it. there were people trying to negotiate peace and they won't a funeral of one of the leaders and the saudis bombed the funeral killing pretty much two- thirds of the people who were trying to find peace. and the civilian casualties in
yemen from the saudi bombing campaign had become a huge humanitarian crisis. i have met with the saudi foreign minister, and he's explained their targeting efforts and all of that, but the bottom line is statistics don't lie. the statistics are that saudi arabia is indiscriminately bombing in yemen that is undermining our interests. it is turning people in yemen and the broader region against us to the extent that they think saudi arabia is our proxy. simply to say yemen, you're bad luck, you're right in the middle of the iranian/saudi thing, whatever happens, that's just the way it goes. i don't think that's in our best interest. it's not just iran, it's the extremists on the sunni side,
which nobody with the possible exception of pakistan, nobody did more to light the fire under al qaeda and isis than saudi arabia. there's now evidence that they're trying to reverse that, but it's not as simple as saudi arabia versus iran, we have to be with saudi arabia. i think this amendment is carefully crafted to say further destabilizing yemen by furthering crisis is not the way to gain the upper hand on iran, it's doing things we shouldn't be a part of. >> i'll try to be brief. at least five times in the last five months, missiles have flown toward the saudi capitol. those are not rebels, tribesmen
fighting a civil war. they are getting those missiles from iran, and we've found fragments of those missiles with iranian writing on them. this is a proxy war, no matter what anyone says. it's entirely appropriate that we help a country that is becoming an ally, an ally of ourselves and an ally of israel. i'll talk about saudi arabia as well as the united arab emirates in their effort to fight back this iranian proxy threat. i rise in opposition. i would ask for no vote. it would handcuff our ability to give aid to a country that is basically defending itself against a serious threat. and it's entirely appropriate that we do so. i yield back. >> mr. gallagher? >> i too oppose the amendment.
i want to concede to mr. conner that our allies in the region are not perfect. i've worked with our allies in the middle east. for all those concerned about the fact that the saudis or imrats emirates are not as precise, we'll have less influence on what they do if we end our support entirely. we need to work closely with them. i agree with what the ranking member said about this not being simple. it's a very complex conflict. i would add that many of the worst humanitarian tragedies are occurring in controlled areas. they've received sophisticated weapons technology from iran. they've fired on the u.s. and ships in the strait. i would remind everyone that
over 80,000 u.s. citizens live in saudi arabia. i think this is entirely consistent with current dod authorities. this takes place in international air space over the red sea. at no point are u.s. personnel at risk in entering into hostile territory. as complex as it can be, we have an opportunity right now because there's a historic alignment between israel and the sunni arab states. we are the leader of that alliance block. unless we want to ping-pong back and forth, the only option we have is to work by, with, and through our allies on the ground and assure some semblance of stability. i yield the balance of my time. >> mr. orourke. >> i support mr. conners'
amendment. i think he makes a strong, compelling case that we are a party, though undeclared to this civil war, that we are complicit in the bombing and the people who face starvation in that country. we can own it, declare it, and do it out in the open or continue to try to deny our culpableity. we shouldn't allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. if we don't work with the parties involved, we'll have no control what so ever. this war continues to rage without end. civilians continue to die. iran continues to be strong in that area. if our stated goal is to
cripple iran's influence and capacity in that region, i don't think we've achieved it. i think we either declare and be out in the open about this or we withdraw from our help of the saudi war in yemen. mr. chairman, i'll yield the remainder of my time to mr. conner. >> thank you, representative orourke. i'll be very brief. i want to acknowledge mr. gallagher's point. even though we disagree, i hope there can be consensus that we ask our secretary to at least hold the saudis and the united united arab emirates accountable for human rights and that we have have that conversation with them. and i would just say to representative cheney and
representative conway, we have a genuine difference of opinion. i appreciate, actually, your honesty. there is a genuine difference of view in which way foreign policy should go in this nation. you are absolutely right to the extent that i appreciate your acknowledging the motive to be there to have iran and be fighting a prophesy war in aiding our allies the saudis is an acknowledgment of what you think american interests are, and that is one approach to foreign policy. i would argue that approach to foreign policy over the last 15 years has led to terrorism spreading and has made the united states less safe. and i think there is a new emerging consensus on both the left and the right that we need to be far less interventionist around the world, that we need to be restrained in our foreign policy, and we ought to be exercising military force when there's a direct attack on the
homeland. and i look forward to having that debate. that's what this congress is all about in this committee and going forward. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the one thing i want to commend mr. conners on, he's absolutely right about saudi human rights violations, and the united states should not stand for it. i'm not sympathetic to them in any way shape or form with regard to the human rights issues. i will tell you in this case, the saudis are actually trying to protect the current government of their neighbor from people who are trying to overthrow the government of their neighbor. if it were on the opposite side where the saudis were participating in trying to
overthrow a government, i would absolutely agree with your amendment. i will tell you that in this case, i think that we are doing what we need to do with regard to supplying the air refueling, and i oppose the amendment. but i hope we'll hold saudi arabia accountable for human rights violations. >> i associate myself with his mr. there have been reports that nearly 65% about from the bombs that we have sold to saudi arabia. coming from the planes that american taxpayers are fueling. we cannot ignore this fact.
saudi arabia's involvement in this civil war caused the worse outbreak in history. the economic blockades have worsened. humanitarian crisis, my colleagues have talked about this world between iran and saudi arabia, and how we are involved with this. why has congress completely advocated our constitutional responsibility to get involved in these wars in other countries? you can pick and choose and turn a blind eye when it's convenient. the fact remains. this debate has not gone on in congress. i appreciate my colleague bringing this important amendment before this committee because at least at this point, we can have this conversation and debate on behalf of our constituents. i support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the
same. >> just briefly on this, i think the ranking member and others are exactly right. yemen is a mess. it's been a mess for a long time. iran's intervention has poured gasoline on the fire in a way that it has not seen, again, since our lifetime. the defense intelligence agency brought a number of specific weapons, which i know some members went to see, that are iranian supplied weapons that were going into yemen, as tangible evidence of how iran is aggravating the situation. there are horrible humanitarian situations there. but to only blame us and the saudis, i think does not represent the true picture there. my understanding from the general's testimony, when the
department of defense refuels an aircraft, they cannot tell whether that aircraft will participate in a counterterrorism mission, or force a protection mission of ours and others in yemen. as a practical matter, the effect of this amendment would be, we don't refuel any of those aircraft. it hasn't been that long ago, when the most serious terrorist threat to this country imenated from yemen. some of the most sophisticated bombs on airplanes buried inside human bodies originated in yemen. and so the notion that we would walk away from the situation there, or that we could neatly divide counterterrorism versus this when it's all mixed together, i think is somewhat wishful thinking.
last point i would make is, we are working with the saudis to target their strikes as carefully as possible. that intell collection is helping make their strikes more precise, especially against isis and al-qaeda elements there. but walking away from yemen would not aide in that situation. so, i joined those opposing this amendment, acknowledging, the humanitarian tragedy and the political mess that is in yemen, and yet also understanding the significant national security interest the united states of america has there as well. if there's no further debate, the question is on the amendment number 310. those in favor of the amendment say aye. those that oppose, say no.
request a recorded vote. those in support of the request, a sufficient number, a recorded vote will be postponed. number 101. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment, without objection, it is considered as read, and recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. this amendment would formally condemn the actions of the military in light of the mass atrocities they committed against the rohingya people. it would also state what steps must be taken before further military engagement can occur and increase congressional scrutiny of future engagements. this language is very similar to language introduced by senator mccain in s-2060. it draws attention to the fact that thousands of women have been reported to violently be
raped. children have been murdered. entire villages have been burned to the ground. and the government simply says that this is all quote, fake news, unquote. and the refugee camp in bangladesh, where the majority of rohingya people live is biggest in the world. we have not received a waiver from the foreign affairs committee, so i am offering this and withdrawing it, but let me just say, too often we wait too long to take action against human right abuses, only to look back later to say never again. we must act here before it's too late. with that -- >> general lady withdraws her amendment. next is gentleman from texas, number 160. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> clerk will distribute the amendment. it's considered as read, and recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this amendment touches on an issue
that we have worked on together, republicans and democrats on this committee, which is to make sure that we have proper oversight and accountability for the wars that we have waged for now more than 17 years. touched upon this in the last amendment that he issued. we can continue to do the same thing over and over again, and expect a different result, or we can, i think, change the conversation and how we approach these issues. one of the challenges that we have in doing this is just knowing who it is, that we are fighting right now. if i can read from this amendment, it says not later than 30 days after date which a change is made to the list of entities associated forces, affiliates of al-qaeda or the taliban. the secretary of defense shall provide notice to the appropriate congressional committees of such change.
so, here we are 17 years after the authorization for the use of military force passed in 2001. after the 9/11 bombings. in afghanistan. but we're also in syria, we're also in iraq, we're also in libya. alts also in yemen. in niger, part of the problem is, that this war continues to ma tas matastasis as we continue to name new adherence. new affiliated forces. most of the members here could not name all of those associated forces. i am going to be forced to withdraw this amendment as the chairman reminded me last year, the jurisdictional issue with the house foreign affairs committee, they refused to grant this waiver. i'm hoping i can work with some member of the committee. the members of congress and the people they represent will know just who it is we are fighting around the world.
where we are putting lives on the line. and whose lives we are taking the names of the american people. so with that, mr. chairman, i withdraw this amendment. >> chairman withdraws. missspeier, for one minute. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. you know, the idea of genocide is something that we live with a lot and yet we oftentimes don't do very much. i have a long personal history of genocide in my family. my family comes from armenia. many lost their lives in the genocide in early 19 00s.
this particular amendment basically establishes the sense of congress that the united states is seeking to prevent new war crimes against humanity and genocide against christians, muslims, kurds, and other ethnic groups in the middle east. i think that unless we help other countries understand the consequences of genocide and how it can be prevented. our moral leadership is challenged. i'm offering this amendment, mr. chairman, and i am going to withdraw it at this time. but i thought it was very important for us to at least make note of this tonight. i yield back. >> general lady withdraws the amendment. okay. all right. we're going to skip mr. veasy
for the moment. ready with number 413. >> thank you, mr. chair. i have an amendment. the court will distribute number 413, without objection, considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. i -- brave men and women in uniform from being stolen to build a border wall that we don't need and can't afford. to make the case for this amendment, i'm going to quote some that no one in this room respects and admires. asked about president trump's proposal to use funding to fund the border wall, we don't need to rob the military.
very wise words. similarly, it was reported that secretary mattis strongly opposes the military resources for the wall. arguing that those dollars would be better spent rebuilding the forces after almost a decade and a half of war. mr.thornbury and secretary mattis are right. i think the wall is a waste of money. especially at a time when unauthorized border crossings are at a 45 year low. but even if you think america needs a border wall, we can all agree that stealing from our troops isn't the way to get it funded. there's other appropriation matters do that. there's other clear ways we can do that, through an up or down vote, through a debate process, so the american public knows exactly how we're using our funds and for what reasons. my republican friends control the house, the senate, and the
white house. they can't get money appropriated for the wall through normal order. they should blame their own leadership. not go along with the president's deeply misguided plan to strip funds from the d.o.d. this is the house armed services committee. it's not the house service committee of president donald trump. our job is to stand up for our armed forces, not for a campaign promise. let's approve this amendment and tell administration to look elsewhere for their money to build that wall. our military, its funds are off limits. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i have a substitute amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. the clerk will distribute the substitute amendment. without action, objection, it
is askerred as read. and mr. burn is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the committee dealt with this issue last year, just like last year, there are no funds to construct the border. none. members won't have to debate this again about something that doesn't apply to the department of defense mission. my substitute emphasizes the department in support of the mission to secure our borders. these amendments could have impact on infrastructure improvements and changes that department of defense installations and sites near the u.s., mexico border, including fort bliss and air station yuma, and some other sites as well. so i think there would be unintended consequences here. let me say very plainly and clearly, i support president trump in building a border wall. but this bill that we're considering today doesn't have anything in it that would
authorize that wall, that wall was authorized during the george w. bush administration, that authorization still exists, what needs to be done is for the money to be appropriated. we cannot appropriate money through the national defense authorization act, there's no attempt to. so, what my substitute amendment does is allow our committee to commit securing the u.s. border, is a national security impairtive. border security is national security. the department of defense should support other u.s. lead agencies, such as the department of homeland security, to achieve safety and stability at our u.s. borders. and i believe my substitute more accurately states what the position of this committee should be and i think it's in line with what i heard the gentleman from arizona say at the end of his remarks. i have traveled in latin america from arizona. i know of his commitment to that region. i certainly share his
commitment to that region and we worked on together there. i don't think his amendment gets to the nature of what we should be doing here today. in good faith and in that spirit, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. let me alert members, if there is a recorded vote on the burn substitute, we'll have to take it in real time. we cannot roll a vote on a substitute or second degree amendment. we'll have to go ahead and do it. so, just so members are alerted to schedule. gentleman from rhode island, recognized for five minutes. we're going to have to take a
brief pause, because it not scanned into the system. so, even with the best technology. we're just going to hold tight for just a minute. >> for the recorder, my mic was not on. i have an amendment to offer to mr. burns amendment. >> we're just going to have to hold for a second, because it's not in the system.
okay, my understanding is that the clerk is now able to distribute the langevin perfecting amendment to the burn substitute. does everybody have it? the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes on his perfecting amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i offer this amendment, given the in-depth discussions we've had tonight and over the many months, in fact, years we talked about how under resources in many ways our military is right now, with the readiness and the need to rebuild our equipment from neglect over many years, we would send appropriate and funds to the department to fund the construction of a new fence or barrier along the border of the united states in mexico. i will yield the balance of my
time to yield now to mr. o roark for comments. >> mr. chairman, i am getting text updates from my wife, amy, our son plays with 11u team in the same baseball team i played on as a kid. it's the largest community in the world, if i thought their lives were in danger, their younger brother, henry, i would be the first to call for a wall or send in the national guard, or raiding raising the alarm. if i thought for a moment that anything in the amendment would compromise the ability for fort bliss to be the leading army installation in the united states, i wouldn't for a second support the amendment. of course, it doesn't. what we know is that eel el
paso are among the safest in the united states of america. there is nothing to be afraid of. given the fact, as he points out, we have the lowest northbound apprehensions on the southern border since 1971. we have 20,000 border patrol agents today. you and i and the american taxpayer are spending $19.5 billion on those agents, on the blimps, on the towers, on the towers that are on that border. we are as vigilant as we have ever been. we are as successful as we have ever been. we have the lowest levels of security challenges on that border that we have ever had. given the real threats we had around the world. we talked about many of them tonight, in afghanistan, in syria, in north africa, near threats in china, why would we even for a second allow a penny of our resources in our defense budget to possibly be used to
construct a wall that we do not need? for that reason, i support m r. langevin's perfecting amendment. take it from us that live on the border, represent constituents, understand the u.s., mexico border. we do not need a wall on the u.s., mexico border. i ask for my colleague's support in getting behind the perfecting amendment, with that, i yield back to the gentleman from rhode island. >> i thank the gentleman. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. burn is recognized on the perfecting amendment to his substitute. >> i appreciate the gentleman's perfecting amendment. i wish i considered it to be perfect. i don't. in fact, i won't say that mine is perfect, but i think the wording that i have in mine is better than what's being offered by mr. langovin. i would request the members of
this committee vote no on his perfecting amendment, so we can get on to mine. i yield back. >> ranking member. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'll make one point. as mr. burn pointed out, you know, the wall was authorized back in 2007, something like that. i don't know for sure if that authority would still carry over to today. but if it does, that argument makes it clear why we need to have a vote on making sure that nothing comes out of the budget to go to the wall. and that's basically what we're trying to do. what the amendment enables us to do as a committee, to actually vote to say, no. we are not going to take any money out of d.o.d. to build a wall. and as mr. burn pointed out, our committee needs to act, in other words to make sure that doesn't happen. and even if you do support the
wall, despite, i think the incredibly compelling argument, and he lives on border, can't make it any better than he did, then you should absolutely be committed to the idea that nothing should come out of the defense budget for a border wall. this is your opportunity to take that vote. i urge us to vote in favor of his amendment. >> let me yield to myself. we could spend the next several hours debating walls and border security and a whole variety of things. the basic situation is, that there is nothing in this bill that authorizes, changes the situation with regard to a border wall. now again, we can debate it back and forth and i understand that. but as i understand it, the
perfecting amendment takes out the section of the burn substitute that says we should resource homeland security and it adds a section that says it would be unwise to do anything at the border, where as m r. burns says, well, there is a range in arizona that is d.o.d. equity, that is important to protect. so, my view is, or my position would be that we not support the perfecting amendment, support the substitute, and then move on to the many other issues. i realize it may be a futile hope at 10:20 p.m. but i just, to emphasize, this is not an issue that really we're going to affect one way or another, except for expressing opinions about and maybe there's another time and place to do that. i just offer the thought.
okay, who has to talk now? we good? all right. question is on the perfecting amendment to the burns substitute. those in favor of the perfecting amendment by the gentleman from rhode island will say aye. >> those opposed say no. >> the nos have it. we have to do it now. alert anybody who is not in the room. the clerk will call the roll. >> chairman thornbury. >> no. >> chairman thornbury votes no. >> mr. smith. >> aye. >> mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones. mr.jones. mr.brady. >> aye. >> mr. brady votes aye. mr.wilson. >> no. >> mr. wilson votes no. mrs.davis. >> aye. >> mrs. davis votes aye.
>> mr. libiando. >> no. >> mr. bishop. >> mr. bishop votes no. >> mr. larson. mrs.larson votes aye. mr.turner. mr.turner votes no. mr.cooper votes aye. mr.rogers. mr.rogers votes no. missberda llo. >> aye. >> mr. shuster. mr.courtney. mr.courtney votes aye. mr.conway votes no. aye. mr.lamborn. >> no. >> mr. lamborn votes no. >> mr. baramendi votes no. >> mrs. speier.
>> aye. >> miss speier votes aye. mr.hunter. mr.hunter. mr.veisi. votes no. mr.kauffman. mr.kauffman. mr.kauffman votes no. missgabbard. votes aye. mrs.heartsler. votes no. mr.o'roark. mr.o' o'roark votes no. mr.scott. mr.scott. >> no. >> mr. scott votes no. mr. norcross. mr.norcross votes aye. mr.brooks. mr.brooks votes no. mr.giago votes aye. mr.molten votes aye.
dr.wenstrip votes no. misshanna votes aye. mr.burn votes no. mrs.shay porter. missshay porter votes aye. mr.graves votes no. missrosen. missrosen votes no. missdephonic votes no. mr.mckeaton votes no. mrs.carbehol votes aye. mr.knight. mr.knight votes no. mr.brown. mr.brown votes aye. mr.russell. mr.russell votes no. mrs.murphy. >> aye. >> mrs. murphy votes aye. >> dr. desjarlais votes no.
substitute say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the substitute is agreed to. now the question occurs on the amendment as substituted by mr. burn, those in favor of the amendment will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. >> the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. gentleman from arizona, m r. gallego. do we want to go back? okay. we'll go ahead, mr. gallego, number 337, if that's good. >> thank you mr. chair, and i will be withdrawing the rest of
the gallego amendments. i want to thank congressman o'roark, and mr. burn for allowing us to have a debate and an up or down vote on the border wall, that was the aim of our legislative attempts here. so there's no need for me to continue with the rest of these amendments. i greatly appreciate all your efforts. thank you very much, i withdraw my amendments. >> i appreciate the gentleman's approach. mr.o'roark. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. and without objection, considered as read. gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit the national guard from enforcing immigration laws during their deployment along the u.s.,
mexico border. while it is not been the stated intent of the president so far, there has been a member of his administration, john kelly, who earlier last year, explored this idea in a memo, which read, i'm directing the commission of cbp and the director of ice to -- and those states adjoining such border states to authorize qualified members of the state national guard to perform the functions of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, and detention of aliens in the united states. i don't think there's a person on this committee that wants u.s. service members who are not trained for this work to be doing the jobs that border patrol agents, customs officers, and ice agents are trained for. for which as i mentioned earlier, the u.s. taxpayers already spending $20 billion a year. i don't want members of the guard put into a precarious
position, a position that could turn to tragedy as it did during another administration from a president of a different party who in 1997, sent the military to the border, where an 18-year-old high school student, u.s. citizen, e seek ezekial was killed by a u.s. marine. it r i don't think we want members of our national guard put in that same position. we do not need to militarize the border. we do not need to militarize immigration enforcement. this amendment would keep us from doing that. i yield back. >> mr. kelly. >> yes. thank you mr. chairman. i just first want to say that members of the national guard are trained to do these aspects. they are written clear orders
with specific guidance in what they can and cannot do in these type of actions. the governors of several states agreed that calling up the guard to do this is the right thing. this reduces the border deployment and the d.o.d. i visited the border patrol in your district, el paso last month. spent a full day on the border. i know you spend a whole lot more. i spent the prior week at fort bliss, which is mobilizing through fort bliss. and i have to be opposed to the amendment. it prohibits the commander in chief from protecting the homeland as they see fit. it limits the tools of the president, based on personal feelings towards the current president. it fundamentally changes the structure of title 32 status, which is what guard members are for the national guard, which
could have further implications in other se scenarios. every president since president reagan used the national guard to sure up and provide support to other u.s. agencies leading the border patrol effort. having spoken to the border patrol agents, mr. of -- many of them, i can tell you they are supportive of the support that the national guard gives. the national guard, due to the act, is not allowed to do direct action in border patrol. so they are in support roles only. we are sending mississippi air guardsman to support this mission and they will be briefed and they will be given the rules that they have to comply by and they will follow those or be in direct violation of those military orders and they will be only in a support role and aviators, on the
border in an approach of securing the border. president george h.w. bush assigned general coleen powell -- for military assistance in 1989. this later became a joint task force north and still it works supporting law enforcement today. president clinton had active duty, armed military paroling the border. president bush ordered national guard to the border for operation jump start from 2006 to 2008, deploying 6,000 national guardsman to provide aerial assistance and engineering assistance. most recently, president obama ordered 1200 national guard to the border and from 2010 to 2016, national guard troops, and intelligence assistance. this operation lasted six years and recovered thousands of pounds of illicit narcotics, individuals illegally come into
the united states. i strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and say that our national guard troops and our governors of most of the states involved support this. with that, i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you, i yield my time to mr. o'roark. >> thank you. mr.chairman, i'm glad he visited the border, not enough members of this body do that and i think with that experience comes some wisdom that can be applied to these issues. i appreciate his perspective, and if i heard him correctly, he may believe that i'm opposed to the guard's deployment to the border and this amendment would stop the guard from going to the border. this amendment does not do that. this amendment specifically prevents the guard from enforcing immigration laws for which they are not trained to
enforce immigration laws. border patrol agents are. they undergo a very rigorous training program, in order to make sure that they effectively and by the law enforce our immigration laws. i don't want to see those guards men and women put into a position to do something for which they are not trained, which we have experienced, can lead to tragic outcomes. we don't want to put them in that position. we are grateful they are there. we are grateful for those from mississippi, want them to do a good job. want to be in a job for which they are trained. for which they are not trained. i want to clarify what this amendment does and does not do. i yield back to the gentle lady from hawaii. >> pointed on recovery from mr. kelly. i yield my time to mr. abraham. >> i yield my time to mr.
kelly. >> thank you. i will be very brief. i understand what the amendment law is already -- what the guard can and cannot do. we don't need indivisible confuse people. so i understand the purpose of the amendment, but i'm still opposed because i think it is deplicible. i yield back to mr. russell. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> okay, question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> the nos have it. the nos have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. next mr. brown. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute
brown number 25r1. without objection, it's considered as read. gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment requires a shortened report be submitted to the congressional defense committees when the national guard is deployed to the southwest border. i want to begin with and state that i have no issues whatsoever with deploying the national guard to the southern border. my concerns will always be whether or not it makes sense from a national security and a readiness standpoint. i have no objections, primarily because and as was pointed out during the discussion of the last amendment, administrations from both parties over the years have deployed the guard to the border. under the obama administration, june 2010 to september of 2011, title 32 status. we deployed the national guard. president george w. bush, from
june 2006 to july 2008, we deployed the guard. perhaps in response to those two, i don't know, i wasn't in congress. congress and its wisdom said we have to take a look at this. in 2011, we said take a look at the deployments, they came back and said it cost $135 billion on these two separate operations, but there are a number of things that we learned. there were challenges for the national guard and for active duty military forces in providing support to law enforcement missions. for example, under title 32, national guard personnel are permitted to participate in law enforcement activities, however, at least then, the secretary of defense had precluded national guard forces from making an arrest while performing border missions because of concerns raised about militarizing the u.s. border. all of the arrest and seizures at the southwest border were
performed by the border patrol. the g.a.o. also reported on the varied availability of units to support law enforcement missions. some are regularly available to go to the border, others aren't. for example, ground base surveillance teams, which are often deployed or engaged in other domestic operations, making it more did difficult to fulfill law enforcement results. officials in response to the j.a.o. investigation and research. they express concerns about the absence of a comprehensive strategy for southwest border security and the result challenges to identify and plan a role. d.h.s. officials, who were engaged during the report, they express concerns that border assistance is in that d.o.d.
has other operational requirements. the d.o.d. assist when legal authorities allow and resources are available, a continuous mission to ensure border security. mr.chairman, my proposed amendment does not prohibit the use of a national guard on the border, but rather requires the d.o.d. to report to congress when such deployments exceed 60 days. and just tell us, you may recall, i ask secretary mattis about the reports this committee. he was unable to respond to my question. so, the amendment says if you're deploying them for more than 60 much does it cost? what are the authorities? what are the law enforcement roles and restrictions and what is the um pact on readiness and what are the training benefits
that occur to the national guard? mr.chairman, thank you, i yield back. >> mr. kelly. >> just very briefly, i'm in opposition to the amendment. although i agree in concept and theory with what my friend from maryland has said, mr. chairman, i just can't support anymore reporting requirements of d.o .d -- there's plenty going on. here's what i know about reporting requirements from spending 32 years in military. those are downgraded to every level. in mississippi, for example, we have about 50 soldiers or airman going to texas to do this. and whether that 60 days or not, they will be the guys tasked, which has half our force going to operation spartan shield. we have the 184th, which is also deploying this year to kuwait. and so we're going to add to the reporting requirements to do something that should not be
done. i just ask that we oppose this and not move forward on this amendment. >> mr. o'roark. >> mr. chairman, i yield my time to mr. brown of maryland. >> mr. chairman, i do agree and i have spoken to a number of d.o.d. officials. we do ask for a lot of reports. we also appropriate a lot of money. and when the g.a.o. comes back to us and tells us that the two lead agencies, d.o.d. and d.h .s., both say that there's no coordination, there's no strategy, we don't understand the roles. we're not clear on the benefits. we haven't really evaluated the readiness. i have no doubt representative kelly, that when that mississippi guard unit goes to the border, there is good as they are going to be. and they are going to do everything they are trained to
do. they will come home and feel real good about that deployment, and they should. but they are not being served as higher levels in the overall, how does that fit into the mission of the mississippi guard? sure, it's a good assignment, but does that fit into the long- term deployment? some people said, are you going to write a letter to maryland's government? i said no, i'm not going to do that. we have military police units in the national guard. they need the repetition. they are trained to do law enforcement work. they can do arrests. they can do interviews and interrogations. there are a lot of things -- i want them to. i want them to understand that this is in the context of a broader strategy. that's what the g.a.o. came back and said we're failing here. so look, we're spending a lot of money. i get the reports, they are burdensome on the pentagon. i get that. and maybe we shouldn't do g.a.o. reports anymore.
i can tell you, if you haven't noticed a trend in every set of comments i made today, i have reports, but when they come back and tell us we have a systemic problem in coordination, we're not doing any favor to the men and women who we deploy to the border just because they have been asked to go and we don't want to ask for a report. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> i just say briefly, i highly recommend the gentleman from maryland read the reports on the fourth estate, duplication and waste. they have been writing over and over again about how there's too much duplication and waste and for some years now. and so i highly recommend the gentleman look at those. i would just say briefly, secondly, i would feel better about this report if it were all deployments of the national
guard, rather than those only to the southern land border, etcetera. so, i'll just leave it there. the question is on the amendment number 25, r1 by mr. brown of maryland. those in favor of the amendment say aye. those opposed say no. the nos have it. request for recorded vote. those in support of the request for recorded vote will raise a hand. somebody, okay. and a recorded vote is ordered. okay. back to mr. veasey, 83. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> without objection, considered as read, gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to offer an
amendment to honor our nation's veterans on veteran's day this year. as a strong supporter of our military and their families, i know with are all grateful for the sacrifices our military make on behalf of our country every day. they deserve to be honored and my amendment is designed to make sure we have a parade that honors them on veteran's day, rather than a military display that we have seen in countries that we don't wish to emulate around the world. my concern is that the provision is written, would allow a military parade any time the president likes. more over, the provision as written contains a loophole that would allow the use of any military equipment, unless secretary mattis, who works with donald trump, decides it would hurt readiness. the majority has drafted the existing language in a way that
looks reasonable, while also keeping donald trump happy. and letting him get what he wants, but that is not reasonable the way it's drafted. it's literally a loophole that you can drive a truck, a tank, or a plane through. therefore, my amendment would simply close that loophole to make sure the bill allows what we all say we want. a parade to honor our nation's veterans and no tanks, no tanks or missiles rolling down pennsylvania avenue. it would specify that the parade is to honor veterans and held on veteran's day, or the observed 100th anniversary of the end of world war i, which gave birth to the veteran's day holiday that we know today. it will also close the loophole that could allow for participation of armored vehicles and other operational units and makes the prohibition on tanks rolling down
pennsylvania avenue ironclad. we all have the utmost respect for our veterans and their sacrifices and we want to honor them with a parade that is focused on them. this amendment would address concerns with the underlying language and ensure veterans are honored. the i urge the committee to accept this amendment. >> i yield myself five minutes in order to oppose the amendment. i don't know how many of you were here a couple years ago when they had an amazing display of world war ii aircraft that over flew washington, d.c. what mr. veasey would do, take out the underlying mark, that i f -- that says if the secretary determines that operational units would undermind readiness
and ban motorized vehicles, aviation platforms, and all operational military units and platforms. i think the idea here is to have a parade that honors those who have served the nation in, especially the last 100 years. to do that, it may require some motorized vehicle. i can reassure the gentleman, according to my understanding, there can be no tanks rolling down pennsylvania avenue, but there may be a truck, maybe a car, maybe a jeep. say a vietnam era jeep that would be appropriate to honor those who served in vietnam. so, gentleman is right, we tried to write this language in very specific ways to focus on
those who have served in america's wars, including those who did not get a parade when they came back. and to do so in a way that does not, in any way, undercut our ability to rebuild readiness or to use any sort of equipment or units or operational platforms, but to do so in a way that truly honors those who have served. so, i think that the underlying language does that without undermining readiness. if you can't have any cars, any planes, etcetera, then i don't think that's an adequate job of recognizing those who have served in world world war i, world war ii, korea, vietnam, or the fight against terrorists over the last 17 years and we have an opportunity to do that on the 100th anniversary of the
end of world world war i and i hope we can do that for their benefit. they're the focus. that's the way it aught to be. >> just two quick points. first of all, operational units. now i know we have some very, very old equipment. but the world war ii ones could still fly, if they wanted to. he wants to make sure that nothing that is currently operational is used. maybe that's okay, but he's not prohibiting, if you want to bring out vietnam era, he is talking about, the point of that is to make sure we are not undermining what the military's most important purpose is right now, to have operational units being used for operational purposes. that's one, two, this amendment, unlike the underlying mark requires that the parade be on veteran's day. so, it will do what the chairman says. it will honor the 100th
anniversary of the ending of world war ii, in which led to veteran's day, so it is clearly about the veterans by doing it on that day. those are the two things that are important to us. take the politics out of it, and make sure that you're not undermining the operational aspects of the military. so, with that, i yield back. >> yeah. gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to speak on amendment as well. you spoke eloquently about what our troops will want and too often, i believe we don't think enough about our troops and what they truly deserve. we should honor our brave men and women. no idea what our troops do every day and no concern they or their friends will be called to serve, which leaves them divorced from our foreign policy and the sacrifices our troops make. when i return from iraq, i returnedded to a grateful
nation. but still found few friends understood what i had just done. it was at that moment, i thought to myself, why would i want to see my family return to my hometown, or even start training for my next deployment to come just seven months later, when i could march in a parade. indeed, isn't this what our troops truly want? almost every marine in my platoon signed up in the wake of september 11, how presumptuous of parade critics to think these brave young americans signed up to fight terrorism, defend our country, or spend time and resources training to do these things so they were adequately prepared. no, indeed, on september 12, 2001, thousands of brave young americans stood in lines outside recruiting stations around the country, hoping to be in parades. now to play devil's advocate for just a moment, we could spend millions of defense dollars required for parades on equipment and gear for our
troops. military pay, military family benefits. veteran suicide prevention. or investments in the research and development of advanced weapon systems that encounter china or russia. forgive me for such crazy thoughts when we could have a parade instead. mr. chairman, this parade is such a great idea. truly, one of the greatest ideas that it's hard to imagine that is coming from anyone that better understands the truth about what our troops want, a man who took five deferments to avoid serving himself. i yield back. >> here, here. >> miss shea porter. >> so, i come from a military family. my grandfather served in world war i, one was wounded. my father was on a ship that was hit by germany's first radio bomb. my uncle flew daylight bombing
missions over germany and fought three wars. three wars, because he was career. my husband's father fought across world war ii, across germany, and then continued on service and my husband served and i was military spouse. i think i have a fairly solid military background and i think i've known a lot of veterans. i have brothers who served. it's been a family tradition and great honor and privilege. i have to say, i never heard anybody say where is my parade? i did hear about respecting those who served our country. i did hear about saying prayers and remembering them and my father's ship was hit on 9/11, and 200 of his members died in that. my father would always talk about 9/11. but very briefly, this was a generation that didn't ask for parades. didn't dwell on this. i'm confused about how we've lost that sense that we think
that showing off all of our military might is somehow going to honor the men and women who served our country. we have it mixed up there. i think our communities have these parades. on veteran's day, we have parades. if we are going to do this, if you don't do it on veteran's day, there's going to be suspicion whether this was about the veterans. each community has a veteran's day parade parade already. and it is a very i participate in them. question don't was a child, but my dad used to say to me know who we are. other countries we don't need to do that, we already know who greatest country in the world. i yield back. >> mr. banks, thank you, i will be brief. it has been a long day but i have yet to say a single word in this committee and i don't
want to feel guilty for not speaking up now. mr. chairman, i expressed my skepticism to you earlier this week about the parade, but i give you a great deal of credit for planning a responsible way to layout to layout the groundwork for the parade within the scope that you have and the underlying mark, but as i read and thought more about this issue over the last week, i found a number of veterans groups who weighed in on the subject to be particularly compelling, those especially the remark that this isn't just about honoring our nation's veterans, this is about inspiring a generation that we are losing to serve our country today, when we need them more than ever, 71% of our young adults between 18-24 years old are ineligible to serve in our nation's military, so many more are not inspired to do so to begin with. if a parade can inspire a new
generation to serve our country, than the cost-benefit analysis is definitely worth it, and on par with what we need in defense of our nation, with that i yield back. >> mr. brown? the mac thank you. everybody loves a parade. for various reasons, i can think of 2, one, we love our military. and we genuinely, authentically, and sincerely love the men and women who serve and the parade and coming out to the parades reflect that, we also like parades because they look good. young men and women, some of you older, marching, left, right, making the turns, column turns, etc. they sound good, we'd love parade. but let me tell you from one soldier, and i will not speak on behalf of the other marines and soldiers and sailors, we don't like parades. soldiers don't like parades, and why is that? because they take a lot of work. we look good when we are in
parades and ceremony formations because we spend an outside amount of time preparing for them. we stand on parade grounds, we practice that. drill and ceremony is something you learn in basic training. it is something that cadets do at the academies and once you make it out to the operational unit, you will never do serious good-looking drill and ceremony again. and the larger the parade, the more time you have to spend to look good. you will be on national television. it will take days and days of preparation, now you put equipment into it, that equipment has to look good. we are going to make that equipment look good. beyond its usefulness, we are going to make it look good. this will have an impact on operational units, it certainly will. the amendment makes sense because the amendment says let's limit the ceremony units, who are the ceremonial units? those are the units that day in and day out there job is to look good.
it is the third infantry regiment, the old guard, we have all seen that. it is the first cavalry division, horse cavalry detachment, it is the blue angels, if you want airplanes. it is the drum corps, and it is the various military bands, they look good and sound good, they do this every day, let's bring them out. mr. chairman we can bring the stuff out because there are a lot of nonprofit organizations that participate in parades around the country, and if you invite them to washington, they will not only bring out vietnam era, they will bring out world war ii, world war i, korean, they will roll out stuff that looks like it came out of the civil war, we will have every era represented and that probably won't cost us anything. let's have a parade, let's have a ceremonial parade so we can address the two reasons why i think people come out. we can show that we love our men and women in uniform, and we can see a parade that
actually looks really good and doesn't require soldiers to put in outside amount of time in looking good because i can tell you from one soldier, we don't like preparing for parades. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> okay. hold on, i couldn't tell. let me cut through, if i can for just a second. i actually this will disturb you all, but i think we are probably largely in agreement. we are in agreement that the best way to honor our service members and veterans is to adequately take care of those who are serving the country right now. secondly, i think of all of us agree that it is appropriate to honor those who have served the country, including those who did not have a quote on quote
victory parade when their conflict was done. i hope we agree with mr. banks keypoint that this can be an opportunity not to be about a person, but to inspire others, next generations, to serve our nation. if we can make it, about service , about those who have served, and those who may want to serve in the future, then that will be a very good thing for the country. if it becomes politicized in some way, then obviously it will not be able to serve that benefit. the language that we have tried to make sure that this was a ceremonial units, nothing that would affect readiness in any way, and basically it puts trust in secretary mattis, i admit, to make that distinction.
i'm willing to put that trust in him myself. so i know we can talk about this a bunch more, maybe we don't have to. okay, thank you. the question is on the amendment , those in favor of the amendment will say i, those opposed will say no. the nose have it. -- the amendment is not agreed to. the ranking member number one four nine. >> thank you mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, the clerk will distribute the amendment without objection is considered as read and the ranking members recognize on his amendment. i >> i will be unbelievably brief because we debated this issue already, this specifically goes toward the low yield nuclear weapon that there are 65 million dollars in our bill to fund,
and specifically for the sub -- submarine fleet. i think putting developing low yield nuclear weapons is a bad idea, why the nuclear posture idea is wrong, this is a big part of it that i argued against, having already made those arguments, even for those of you who were not present for those arguments, i will spare all of you having to hear it again and simply say that developing will yield nuclear weapons is a very bad and dangerous idea, i would urge us to vote to remove the $65 million, it goes toward readiness, $65 million. we would spend beginning the process of building a low yield nuclear weapon can be taken out, actually go toward readiness and toward something that will help us instead of making the world a more dangerous play, i would urge that option to the amendment. >> mr. rogers. >> i have to oppose this amendment knowing that this is getting laid out, i will try to not repeat the arguments you
have heard earlier tonight. there's no sense in going back over all of them, this community knows that russia is up to with its nuclear weapons program, we have been briefed many times, it is sobering and horrifying, we also know that russia's doctrine is to use low yield nuclear weapon early in a conflict to make the u.s. back down. russia secretary mattis said quote russia has been upfront with the idea that they could escalate to de-escalate, what that means is to use a low yield nuclear weapon in a conventional war to compel surrender. and there are existing lower yield nuclear weapons delivered by airplanes as you have heard earlier tonight. but still, airplanes are not magical. to be certain our weapons will penetrate even the most heavily defended airspace come we should send them by ballistic missiles from thousands of miles per second. that will require us to make
these investments. so with that i would oppose this amendment and over urge a no vote. >> question is on amendment number 149 by ranking member smith, those in favor of the amendment will say i. those opposed will say no. then no has it. the recorded vote is ordered, that will be postponed. number 285. >> members of the committee, this is -- that is a good idea, offer an amendment, it is right there. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment 285, the objections considered as read. >> mr. chairman, this is the same nuclear weapon, but handled a different way. the low yield nuclear weapon is proposed in the presidents
nuclear policy review. it calls for the weapon to be used on a submarine. and instead of the normal high yield weapons, this would be a lower yield weapon that is held extraordinarily more powerful than anything that was dropped in hiroshima. it creates a completely different purpose for our nuclear submarine force. a purpose that would eliminate or jeopardize its principal purpose. of hiding somewhere in an ocean and being the ultimate retaliation. when you launch a rocket from a submarine, two things you can count on.
one thing is that it is likely to succeed in getting where it is going and secondly it would be immediately observed and the question arises what the submarine be in jeopardy, quite possibly. a lot of questions arise for the use of this particular weapon. and what we are trying to do with this amendment is to fence off the money until we have clarity about all of the issues that are created by first of the development of it, the deployment of it, then what does it mean to the principal deterrent force that we have, which is our nuclear submarines . so that is what it is, we think it is a wise thing, there is plenty of time to develop it if the report comes back and says there is no problem that the submarines will be perfectly able to carry out their current task of deterrence. and it is a very fast
turnaround on the report, we would have plenty of time to deal with it this time next year and nothing is lost except the ignorance associated with where we would currently go in the language of the current bill. i ask for a yes vote so we can study what is an extraordinarily important change in the use of our nuclear deterrent, or summary deterrence force. i yield back. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you, i hate to oppose my friend from california, but i must. i will keep this brief because we have been discussing this a few times now. the nda is already on authorized funding for individual development extension programs, they are individually listed in the funding tables, each year regardless of the yield, current statue already requires you to deal with pacifically requested funding for all individual nuclear warhead programs, low yield, high yield, or whatever.
this bill does not change that, the revision from 2004 section 31414 says it is unnecessary for how we already do business with nuclear weapons regardless of yield. we know russia has many thousands of low yield weapons and does not seem concerned that they may lead the u.s. to miscalculate when they are flying at us, many of their weapons can either be conventional or nuclear, they don't seem very concerned if they know ahead of time whether the boom will be very large or very small, i would urge a no vote on this. >> the question occurs on of the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, those in favor say aye. opposed, say no. the now has it. the amendment is not agreed to. miss davis, 127. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute
the amendment. >> my amendment will move $154.4 million from additional overbudget funds for nuclear weapons to increase funding for aviation readiness. additional funds and authorities are provided in the chairman's mark, we are aware of that mandating an acceleration of the long-range standoff and ground-based strategic deterrence programs, and increase funding above the budget request. but with the readiness crisis that we have been discussing today, the funding i believe would be better spent on aircraft maintenance and readiness. mr. chairman, this is not about supporting or opposing those two programs, as this amendment would leave full funding for them at the budget request levels. this amendment does not cut the program, it is in line, that has not identified a need for the additional funding as was well articulated in the letter that general height and sent to you on february 20.
while i understand the need for a strategic deterrent, i don't believe that at this time it is appropriate for us to accelerate funding for these programs. it is time, however, to adequately resource our service members who take risks every day, flying aircraft and support for our national defense. the amendment adds to several accounts that support air force readiness that would directly support the air force's unfunded priorities and support much-needed readiness improvement. in the support of national security. the critical needs right now, and we should support them right now. i ask support for that amendment and i yield back. >> mr. rogers? >> thank you, i regret that i have to oppose the gentle ladies amendment, our friends on the other side of the aisle agree that aviation readiness is a serious issue, but it's amendment is not the way to tackle it. this amendment is trying to structure a false choice attempt to undercut our nuclear deterrent. i read my colleagues -- urge my
colleagues not to take the bait. three successive secretaries of defense have said the nuclear deterrence is the high-priority mission. this committee has been told time and again that our nuclear monetization program is on the edge of being delivered on time. that they cannot be delayed, and really they must go faster. on the need to avoid delays, president obama's last secretary of defense bob work said quote now that this modernization, we have delayed and we cannot do further any delays without putting the safety security and effectiveness of our forces at risk, so the choice that we are facing quite frankly is modernizing or losing deterrent capability into 2020 or 2030, that is the choice that we are faced with. regarding the need to go faster, general height and click commander strategic said that we are concerned that the nation has lost the ability to go fast and that we have adversaries that they are going faster than we are, faster than
we are on nuclear moderates -- modernization. and to tell you, when you have threats like i have talked about earlier that are going faster than you are, it is not just because it is the right thing to do, it is because for the securitization, we have to go faster". this takes general heightens advice and requires the air force to create and implement a plan to implement a two key modernization program, this funding asked -- enables that acceleration. with that, i would urge a no vote, thank you. mech mr. brady? >> thank you, i would like to yield my time to the gentle lady from california, miss davis. >> thank you. mr. brady, i wanted to point out to the gentleman and i appreciate the work that mr. rogers has been doing, but in reality, what general height and is saying is that they have the ability to use the funds
that have been proposed through the presidents budget, and in the bipartisan budget act. the funds are there to do what they need to do at this particular time. and all of that supports his priorities across nuclear space and missile defense enterprises. i am in a disagreement here in terms of a general -- in terms of the general but he is pointing out that he can use the money that has been given to him, but when you go above that, when you add that within this budget, it is not necessary, and in fact there are other needs that are far greater. >> the gentleman yields back. i would just say briefly my understanding is clearly that we do plus up the air force and international guard owing them accounts beyond the presidents request, we are also able to take on these accounts at the gentle lady is talking about from the air force unfunded
priorities list to speed up those programs, so what we have gotten the underlying mark actually advances both causes above what was originally requested in the administration. is there any further discussion , the question is on the amendment offered by the gentility from california miss davis, those in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the no's have it , the amendment is not agreed to. ranking member has amendment number -- i'm sorry. the generally asked for a recorded vote. those in support will raise their hand, the recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed. now, ranking member number 419. >> thank you, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment without objection it is considered as read, and the ranking members recognized. >> thank you.
i will offer and withdraw this, i will not require a vote, it is a point that i want to make. originally this was language that i offered to put in the market. on mill to mill dialogue, the goal is to make sure that our military is in communication with other militaries. in particular, hostile militaries. russia, north korea. iran. the biggest reason for us wanting to offer this was because there has been a breakdown in the communication on how to avoid stumbling into a nuclear war. at the height of the cold war with the soviet union, we had conversations to try to avoid that, and if you read the history and actually -- there is a really good book on it, my life on a nuclear brink, i think. talking about all of the times we very nearly had a nuclear war, that everybody knew about when it was going on. but the channels of
communication that were open to say i'm looking at my screen, it looks like you lost a bus -- bunch of missiles at us, they were able to confirm that they didn't, and avoid a nuclear catastrophe. we want to have that sort of dialogue, and that is the express purpose of it. now, the majority negotiated with us on that, it is hard to negotiate when you are in the minority. you just don't really have that many cards to play. but you do your best. so, we came up with a generalized statement that said yes, it would be okay for the militaries to talk to the militaries in russia and china and other places and there was a variety of different stated purpose is for that, but there was one sentence that they insisted on taking out. and that was that one of the purposes of mill to mill dialogue would specify the capability of reducing the risk of nuclear and conventional war. and this sort of gets back to the whole argument that i was making about why i am not terribly fond of the nuclear posture revealed. i am very concerned that we have thrown away all notion of
concern about how do we avoid stumbling into a nuclear war, what steps do we take to make sure that doesn't happen? well, admitting that we have to have a deterrence, and i have said this in my previous debate, i'm not one of those, i don't even agree with the stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons. i don't think it will ever happen, and i don't think it would be a good idea. we need to have a deterrent, you cannot on ring that bell. somebody somewhere can make a nuclear weapon and if we don't have them as well to make sure they don't use them, that increases the risk of it happening. we need that, but we also need things in place to make sure that we don't engage in a nuclear war. and whenever you start having conversations about low yield nuclear weapons, as i read the quote from former secretary of state scholz earlier, you start having those conversations, you say well, if we launch all of these, they would launch as
well. sure, we would lose half the population, but we could win. it is not type of conversation that is deeply alarming. make no mistake about it, it may seem common sense to do this, but back to the cold war, there were a lot of people who thought we could win a nuclear war, it took a long time to drive that notion out of ventral policy and to some extent it is still there. i have a bill right now that says no first use of nuclear weapons that cannot get any ground. even though nobody can give me a plausible scenario. it would be in our best interest. we have launch on warning law, which says if we make something happen, we have to launch. we are not doing anything to try to prevent an accidental nuclear war. i bring this up because the fact that i couldn't get the majority to agree that one of the goals of the mill to mill conversation, and i quote reducing the risk of nuclear and conventional war, why wouldn't we want to do that?
i'm not saying that we will not go to war under any circumstances, we will not defend ourselves, just as a general principle we would like to avoid it if we could. that language has been stripped out. i don't want to have a prolonged debate or vote on this but i wanted to make that point, and i have. i yield back. i withdraw the amendment. >> i will yield myself just on this issue because i think the ranking member was slightly unfair in his characterization. i want to talk about this because i have no doubt about his sincerity on these issues, and i share his concern, but it is also true that we, together, have been working on the joint staff to put in and they repeatedly asked the joint staff about any sort of language that they think would be helpful in mill to mill relations, and they came back
physically with two points, don't do anything that makes it look political because we need to stay away from that, number two, we need maximum flexibility. the senate is talking but reducing the language of nuclear conventional war, absolutely. sometimes they need to have mill to mill just to avoid an accident. or some unforeseen circumstance. so, the reaction we got back was don't limit us too much in anything you put in there so that we can deal with whatever circumstances we face. just in fairness, this was not really me saying no, i am not for reducing the risk of nuclear and conventional war, this is trying to work with the military leadership on what would be helpful in mill to mill conversations, and not be harmful. and that is the way we came to this one. >> i appreciate that and i
don't doubt your sincerity. i don't know 100% trust the joint staff. that is part of our oversight. there is a lot of military leaders that are conjuring up the idea of what to do about a nuclear. second of all, this language doesn't say that is the only reason that you can have a mill to mill conversation, it doesn't even come within 100 miles of saying that. so how you could argue that this limits them, it doesn't. it just says one of the things that you can talk about. i don't buy that second argument, they can talk about whatever they want to talk about. i did not mean this language in any way to limit his ability to talk about anything else, i think the language is very much making that clear. i yield back. >> they have paranoid lawyers just like we do. >> okay. will the gentleman withdraw the amendment, we are on to -- the
consent to call up amendment -- package number five. the objection is so ordered, if the clerk would distribute the package number five with that objection, the amendments are considered as read and consist of the following. amendment 88 -- require secretary of defense on the department of defense's assistant to pakistan, 1361 by ms. gabbard at a report requirement of ways to enhance our operability with india. amendment 246 one by mr. gallagher a minute to allies south korea, japan, and australia. amendment 294 by mr. conaway expressing sense of congress for georgia. mr. conaway 251 a statement on policy of naval transfers to japan, amendment 299 on mr. conaway ensuring i.t. systems are audits compliant, amendment 302 by mr. conaway
directly part -- department of defense to provide senior defense and leadership. compliance with any service amendment 303 by mr. conaway expressed a sense of -- eminent 359 by mr. larson concerning the new start treaty, and amendment 384 by mr. wilson would extend existing limitations on support dough sheet this coalition support fund, is there further discussion of block number five? if not, the question arises on the unblocked package, all of those in favor say aye. those opposed, say no. the amendments are agreed to. gentleman from mr. -- tennessee, mr. cooper. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the mac will distribute the amendment without objection, the amendment is considered as read. but he is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this amendment would shift $115 million away
from a project in south carolina that makes an oxide facility and devote that $150 million to army, readiness. the hundred $15 million is over and above the pentagon's budget request, and what it does is try to keep the project alive that really should have died many years ago. that project, the box project is this committee's bridge to nowhere. we were able to kill the bridge to nowhere fairly easily, this one keeps on coming up almost every year, that is why i have called it the zombie earmark. i have nothing against south carolina or anybody from there, but they already got about $18 billion a year in federal help for various projects, which are worthy, this is not one of the were the ones. what we want to do is working with others, shift the use of that facility that has been in
construction forever, that is 10 times over its original cost estimate, which really is -- has no purpose anymore, and shift the money to a more productive purpose. many amendments offered here tonight have asked for the use of some money for various work, the military projects, >> will the gentleman yield? >> you are talking but the wrong amendment. this is not the marksman met. -- box amendment. >> i couldn't think of any other way to do that. the committee staff wants me to talk about the open skies project, which -- could i defer for a while and come back to it?
>> we are withdrawing this amendment. >> gentleman withdraws this amendment. let's move to the next unblocked package and we will regroup. they have consent to call up the package number six consisting of amendments that have been working approved with the minority. the clerk would distribute unblocked package number six, with that objection they are considered as read and comprise the following. amendment number 146 by miss janie, would provide for reporting on the threat posed by chinese telecommunications technology. amendment 181 by mr. rourke would require a -- amendment 198 directs a report and public
notification of china's maritime and air activities in the indo pacific region, in the mid-203 by mr. lodge one. security communication with haiti. expresses a sense of congress for senior level engagement with taiwan. amendment 266 by dr. winthrop directs the production of a national intelligence testament on russian and chinese interference in democratic countries. amendment to 91 -- 291 requires a report on military security between iran and russia. amendment 293 by mr. scott regarding the vetting process for gross violations of human rights, amendment 316 by mr. turner technical correction to section 1621, the roles and responsibilities of the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. amendment 340 by mr. gallegos serving a great -- requirement for withdrawal of forces from
korea. commitment 405, the amendment makes technical corrections regarding government communications. is there further debate on unblocked package number six? hearing none, the question is the amendments unblocked, those for it say aye. opposed say no. the amendments are adopted. gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher? >> we have the amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. the amendment as though she is considered as read. the mac mr. chairman, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of our amendment which closely tracks with language support and overwhelming bipartisan basis last year, in- house pass and the aap are the committees on record noting the state department found in 2014, 2015, and 2016 that russia has
been in violation of its obligations under the inf treaty. at the same time, china which is not a party to the agreement has been invested in thousands of ground-based missiles designed to deny u.s. forces freedom of access and movement in the event of a conflict. as admiral harris has testified, about 95% of rocket force missiles fall under inf ranges. this puts us on the wrong side of the competition, no matter how capable or affordable our ships, fighters, and bombers will never be cheaper than ground-based missiles. at the risk of stating the obvious, and a long-term strategic conversation where the military balance in asia is the best defense to prevent chinese aggression, this is not a good situation to be in. as admiral harris put it, i have used inf as self-limiting to the u.s. arms agreement can be of course effective avenues to advanced security interests but when we are the only side that plays whether welcome these agreements sees advancing our interest, our amendment simply acknowledges this reality, it gives russia one year to return to inf compliance
or finding the inf treaty as no longer binding. every member of the community -- committee voted for nearly identical language in last year's nda and i urged the committee to provide simpler and overwhelming judgment this year as well and i yield the balance of my time. >> ranking member. >> just briefly on this, my thing mr. gallagher makes a very good point in terms of russia, not being compliant and in terms of what our interest might be in terms of dealing with china. but, the problem is, i am not sure congressionally we can simply pull out of the treaty, first of all. second of all, i think we should take some steps towards russia first to punish them for violating the treaty. we certainly within the treaty have the right to sanction the and do other things. i'm not in favor at this point of pulling completely out of the treaty, which this amendment would have us do. and again, i'm not sure legislatively how we would go about doing that.
so i think rather than that, we should at least first try to push russia into compliance, then renegotiate if necessary. i don't think this is the right approach although there is clearly a problem to be addressed, i yield back. >> mr. kelly? >> i yield my time to mr. gallagher. >> the ranking member raises what is a very interesting and contested subject for debate, the constitution obviously sets forth a definitive procedure for the president to make treaties for the consent of the senate but it is not describe how it should be terminated. there has been some legal precedent here both after bush pulled out of the abm treaty in 2002, but also in goldwater v carter, congress channeled -- challenge the constitutionality of jimmy carter's unilateral to determination of the defense treaty, the supreme court never heard the case but the majority of six justice ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an argument
holding that the issue at hand was essentially a political question and cannot be reviewed at -- by the court. so, it is clearly an area where congress has a voice, and since treaties with foreign nations become a part of u.s. law, congress can repeal or modify them through federal action, notwithstanding the provisions agreed upon. there is no case, had money case that found the congress commanded fees for noncitizens at ports of entry in the u.s. regardless of treaty operations. as someone who is deeply concerned about congress surrendering its responsibility to the executive branch, i think this is the best way to be heard on this issue while at the same time, i think getting to where we all want to get, which is to not rush into compliance, while not limiting ourselves and hampering our defensive in the pacific. i will yield the rest of my time to miss cheney. >> thank you. i am proud to cosponsor this amendment, with mr. gallagher. i would note that it has been now nearly 5 years since the
u.s. first made the case that the russians are not in compliance with this treaty, so the notion that somehow we are rushing this issue, in fact we have moved far too slowly. this amendment gives an additional year, we are not saying that this will happen immediately, but we are now in a position, mr. gallagher talked about the fact that the treaty is self-limiting, what this means is that the u.s. is the only nation in the world now that is bound by the terms of this treaty, at a moment when we are facing grave and growing threats to our security. when we find ourselves in a situation where the process the types of capability that this treaty is preventing us from obtaining are in fact being obtained by our adversaries. so, i think this is very responsible, it gives us one year, gives the department a year, gives the russians a year to come into compliance, and this is not a new issue, it has
been over five years since we first formally raised concerns about lack of compliance. i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and i yield back to mr. gallagher. >> mr. chairman i yield back the balance of my time. >> i often speak perhaps too often speak, and i suspect all of you would like me to speak less, but i think this is a rather important issue and i think we have to have a better understanding of what it is that we are doing here. first of all, the inf treaty is principally european issue. and also in this bill that we are putting forward, we are developing alternatives to medium-range missiles that are within the bounds of the inf treaty. these are basically missiles that are launched from ships or submarines. it is not that we are without some sort of response.
secondly, there are provisions that are contrary to what this bill would achieve. specifically, there is in the bill a section 1233, which imposes a fence funding to the white house until the president imposes sanctions required by the physical 2018 national defense authorization act with which the president has not yet imposed those sanctions. they have been available to the president to put pressure on russia with regards to the inf treaty for a year. secondly, section 1236 in this bill was carefully negotiated with the house of foreign affairs to impose significant additional sanctions on russia for its inf treaty violations. including advanced conventional
weapons systems, providing support to russian industry. we are kind of going in two different directions here. which would leave the inf treaty in place, we are making moves, making very significant moves to provide alternative ways of developing missiles that are within the inf treaty boundaries. we are also having a moral high ground as long as we are in this, secretary mattis deemed it beneficial to u.s. national security to remain in the treaty, and not withdraw. and finally, getting out of the treaty would give russia its excuse to not be in the treaty. i think we all understand that they are all operating outside of the treaty. is not a good idea to be doing it this way.
a better idea to impose distinctions and find what is within the treaty, i yield back. >> thank you, this is an excellent amendment that recognizes reality, our adherence to this treaty is adjusting to the treatment -- one hand clotting. you cannot have a treaty with oneself, that is the situation we are in. russia is not in the treaty, this sets up a process that considers the exit of the treaty. article 5, our bases and our troops, there are no issues from security that are nearly european issues. this amendment does not give russia an excuse to be in, they
are not in. we need to recognize reality, we need to move forward. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. gallagher, those in favor of sai. those opposed, say no. the aye's have it. the amendment is agreed to. gentleman from tennessee, dr. digitally. >> i have an amendment at a desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. with out objection it is considered as read, and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> vladimir putin touted russia's development of new models of strategic weapons, missiles with predictable trajectories, long-distance hypersonic systems, and unmanned water dish underwater delivery systems. as many of my colleagues are aware, russia recently conducted an injection test for
one of these systems, also known as the satan to. as expressed in the 2018 national security strategy, russia's investment in new military capabilities such as these delivery systems remains the most significant, it doesn't dish accidental crests she threat. secretary mattis stated that it is his belief that such systems should be limited under new start. if we are to accomplish the threat reduction objective in the treaty, it is critical that an extension of this treaty ensure coverage of these weapon systems as strategic offensive arms pursuant to the treaty. my amendment propels action on this by making it clear that the coverage of these weapon systems will be a prerequisite for extending new implementation. i would urge my colleagues to support this important amendment. i yield back. thank you. i will not oppose this
amendment, i do worry about the requirement of russia responding in writing, i certainly think it is perfectly appropriate that we put pressure on them to restart the negotiations about what the new weapons mean when we start the treaty, i think it is easily put together. it is late, so i won't. i don't object to the amendment. i yield back. >> questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor, say hi. those opposed, say no. the aye's have it. the amendment is adopted. we are calling up en bloc package number seven. amendment's work and approved by the minority as the objections ordered. the clerk will distribute the package number seven, it is considered as read. it consists of the following. amendment number 30 by dr. digitally limits travel funding for national nuclear security administration until they submit a report on unfunded requirements to contain at least one unfunded requirement. amendment number 26 are one by mr. brown supports ms. her test
and evaluation by the navy. amendment number 44 by ms. tsongas in support of war fighter technology development. amendment 56 by ms. spear requiring shock test results be incorporated to cb and 81 construction. amendment 84 by mr. vesey regarding core sampling at joint base san antonio. amendment 90 by mr. moulton to limit funds to the strategic capabilities office ghost fleet overlord unmanned surface vehicle program until certification requirements are met. amendment 104 by ms. spear regarding report on activities by events, innovation, unit experimental. amendment 108 by mr. carbajal in support of female personal protective equipment. amendment 116 in support of advanced mitigation equipment for the u.s. special forces command.
is there further description though she further discussion of en bloc number seven? all of those -- i'm sorry. >> i would like to speak very briefly. i propose the amendment will strengthen our development of autonomous naval technology and particular unmanned service vehicles, i'm very concerned that our adversaries can leapfrog our development of the next generation of naval warfare because there are defense budgets of that raise incentives for more advanced and less expensive automated technology. we cannot let that happen. german women recently wrote a brilliant article in defense news about how significant this development technology is. and how we must prioritize the navy. i appreciate consideration of the amendment, i yield back.
he met further discussion on en bloc number seven, if not the question is on the block. those in favor, c'est aye. the aye's have it , the amendments are adopted. i will call up en bloc package number eight approved by the minority without objections ordered, the clerk will distribute en bloc package number eight. without objection they are considered as read and consist of the following. amendment 138 by mr. moulton, amendment 175 by miss potter -- amendment 202, madmen 225, amendment by miss murphy, amendment 256, amendment 257. amendment 279 by mr. shirazi, amendment 283, amendment 361 by mr. larson, 377 or one by mr. lamborn.
382 by graves, 390 by turner, 391 by turner. 394 by cheney, 395 by cheney, 412 by garamendi, 415 by ghana, 416 by winthrop, and for 18 by mr. bishop. anybody want to discuss any of that? the question is on the amendments en bloc, those in favor say aye. the aye's have it, the aye's have it and the amendments are adopted. we are now going to proceed to vote on those amendments where a roll call vote was ordered. i think we have got eight of them, do you remember what the first one was?
>> the committee postpone further proceedings on amendment number 406 by mr. gallegos that struck section 1109 which is a civilian hiring authority in the underlying market. the question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. gallego , the reported vote has been ordered, the clerk will recall the role. >> mr. thornberry, no. >> mr. smith votes aye. >> mr. jones. mr. bray, mr. bree votes aye. mr. wilson votes now.
miss august votes aye. miss lamborn -- mr. lamborn votes no. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. whitman votes no. ms. spear votes aye. mr. hunter, mr. vesey votes aye. mr. kaufman . miss gabbard, mr. kaufman votes aye. miss gabbard votes -- ms. hartzler votes no. mr. o'rourke votes aye. mr. scott votes no.
mr. no crust votes aye. mr. brooks votes now. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. cook votes no. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. winthrop votes no. miss hannah brousseau votes aye. mr. byrne votes no. miss shea porter votes aye. mr. graves votes no. miss rosen votes aye. miss stefano votes no. mr. mcgeechan votes aye. miss mc sally votes no. mr. carbajal votes aye.
mr. knight votes no. mr. brown votes aye. mr. russell votes no. mrs. murphy votes aye. dr. digitally votes no. mr. cano votes aye. dr. abraham votes no. mr. o herman votes aye. mr. kelly votes no. mr. swazi votes aye. mr. gallagher votes no. mr. panetta votes aye. mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon votes no.
mr. jones. mr. brady votes no. mr. wilson votes aye. mrs. davis votes no. mr. lobiondo votes aye. mr. long german votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. larson votes no. mr. turner votes aye. mr. cooper, votes no. mr. rogers votes aye. misprint i/o votes no. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. courtney votes no. mr. conaway votes aye.
miss tsongas votes no. mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. spear votes no. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. vc votes no. mr. hoffman -- mr. kaufman votes aye. miss gabbard votes no. mr. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. mr. scott votes aye. mr. norco -- norcross votes no. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. gallego votes no.
mr. cook votes aye. mr. moulton votes no. dr. winthrop votes aye. mr. hannah brousseau votes no . mr. byrne votes aye. miss shea porter votes no. esther gray -- mr. graves votes aye. miss rosen votes no. mr. phonic votes aye. mr. mcgeechan votes now. miss mc sally votes aye. mr. carbajal votes no. mr. knight votes aye. mr. brown votes no.
mr. russell votes aye. mr. -- mrs. murphy votes no. dr. digitally votes aye. mr. cano votes no. dr. abraham votes aye. mr. halloran votes no. mr. kelly votes aye. mr. swazi votes no. mr. gallagher votes aye. mr. panetta votes no. mr. gates votes aye. mr. bacon votes aye. mr. banks votes aye. miss cheney votes aye.
the clerk will report the results. >> sir, there is 33 aye, 28 no. >> the amendment is adopted. now, the vote occurs on brown amendment 53 striking the provision regarding toshiba the recorded vote is ordered. >> mr. thornberry votes no. mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones votes -- mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson votes no. mr. davis votes aye. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. laundromat votes aye. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner votes no.
mr. cooper votes aye. mr. rogers votes no. misprint i/o votes aye. mr. schuster votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. conaway votes no. miss tsongas votes aye. mr. lamborn . mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. whitman votes no. miss spear? miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter votes now. mr. vesey votes aye. mr. kaufman votes no. miss gabbard votes aye. ms. hartzler votes no. mr. o'rourke votes aye. mr. scott votes no.
mr. norcross votes aye. mr. brooks votes no. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. cook votes no. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. winthrop votes no. miss hannah brousseau votes aye. mr. byrne votes no. miss shea porter votes aye. mr. graves votes no. miss rosen votes aye. miss stefano votes no. mr. mcgeechan votes no. -- aye. miss sally votes no. mr. carbajal votes aye. mr. knight votes no. mr. brown votes aye.
mr. russell votes aye. miss murphy votes aye. dr. digitally votes no. mr. cano votes aye. dr. abraham votes no. mr. o'halloran votes aye. mr. kelly votes no. mr. swazi votes aye. mr. gallagher votes no. mr. panetta votes aye. mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon mr. banks votes no. mr. cheney votes no. mr. heise votes no.
knight, striking the language regarding the test resource management center, the recorded vote is ordered, the clerk will call the role. >> mr. thornberry votes no. mr. smith, mr. smith. mr. jones, mr. jones. mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson votes no. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. launch men votes aye. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper votes no. mr. rogers votes no.
misprint i/o -- miss her bio votes no. mr. schuster votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. conaway votes no. miss tsongas votes aye. mr. lamborn votes no. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. whitman votes no. miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter votes no. mr. vc votes aye. mr. kaufman votes no. miss gabbard votes aye. ms. hartzler votes no. mr. o'rourke votes aye.