tv 2019 National Defense Authorization Act Part 2 CSPAN May 14, 2018 2:01am-3:59am EDT
of the white house is. trump to as asked tweet the bill. catherine, we'll keep following you on twitter and website, thanks so much. thanks, stephani. copyright national cable satellite corp 2018] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, for its responsible caption content and accuracy. ncicap..org]
i have dr. abraham, mr. bacon. dr. abraham is recognized for five minutes. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. mitchell. thank you, doctor abraham. mr. chairman, i know i obviously am new to the committee. i'm confused with some that are concern we don't have the document from ats saying we can move a machine gun from one contract to another. if that's a concern of this, is there any other technology we need to be worried about that we need to get the atf to join us before we can do our job here. i'm confused and maybe you can help me or maybe i can have mr. russell help me. >> i yield the remainder of my time to mr. russell of oklahoma. >> and with regard to the document that i was pointing
from, mr. chairman, dated for september of 2014. it clarifies a previous ruling 004 and all the things that i quoted earlier are in it. we can enter it into the record if so desired. to point out, mr. i, we an, my staff and just had a conversation with michael j. sullivan, the former director and he stated the following. e said that he has read over the legislation, and that there is absolutely no risk to the public. stated that this has been a constant issue and that they for been trying to fix it some time. i understand, given the current chairman, climate, mr. that any time the word "gun" is could have hat that some emotional ties and people's but these are not the droidz that folks are looking for. completely thing
different. this is plain and simple, where you have contractor to contractor, attorney general and approval to do transfer, and i would invite you amendment,the actual and if you look at the section transfer to or possession by licensed manufacturer or licensed to rter with respect to transfer, such transfer has been approved by the attorney general accordance with the law. it further states joint a weapon. of lawful possess so, so all of those concerns that people have addressed in the language of the amendment, but this is why needed. f i were a weapon manufacturer and i'm taking the weapon to also is a defense contractor or government contractor that makes weapons, but in this case they are making airplane, and i want to put that weapon system on that
currently, i cannot transfer it to them on government-to-government entity. that's all we're talking about. the language is crystal clear amendment, this is government contractor to contractor. this does not mean that bubba me as lahoma can walk to the manufacturer an buy this machine gun that we would put on the aircraft. the attorney general would never approval such a sale and two, anything doing anything would be unlawful and they would spend a long time in transfer.r such a it does not eliminate anything with regard to atf regulations, ith regard to the accountability of such, the tracking numbers of such, way ande weapons must be stored inventoried. it changes none of that. 4, 2014 the september document lays out that they occur. that this should unfortunately, we can't do that without the amendment which
what i thought as going to be a pretty innocuous and simple amendment has turned into something that it's not. the concerns of that other subject or whatever it might be that people are oncerned about but that's not this and so i urge my colleagues, set that aside, look of the amendment and then allow us to do what's so we can make these lawful transfers with the epartment of defense and save the taxpayer a lot of money and hassle. >> will the gentleman yield? up to dr. abraham. >> you have 35 seconds. >> i don't fundamentally see a problem with this. i think there's some concern on our side about whether the language truly restricts it to government contractors. can the gentleman clarify that for me. sure.
stay i.t. -- to a federal, state, or local government agency to another qualified manufacturer for any manufacturing processes provided the manufacturer has specific government contract or official written request. the time is up but it would allow us in statute to back what their ruling was. i yield back to dr. abraham. on the list i've got bacon. gentleman from california seeks recognition on this amendment? >> yes. >> okay. >> no, i don't, mr. chairman. >> okay. he does not. gentleman from nebraska.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate for the clarification of the question there. i think the facts seem clear. we're not a changing the requirements for civilians. those standards are staying the same. we're protecting our society just the same. there's no other more lax standards. that has to be clear. two, we're talking contractor to contractor. that have been approved to work on this. i think this is the bottom line, we're saving money for the taxpayer. we're reducing costs for the contracts. i think that's a good thing. i like to yield the balance of my time to mr. russell. >> we've worked on a lot of good things together. like i said, these are not the droids we're looking for on some gun issue. this is clearly about lawful government contract able to transfer lawfully to another manufacturer who has all the same controls approved by the attorney general, approved by the atf, approved by defense contract and then they're able to possess it. and by them doing that, then you don't have to have the added tax dollars where people come in and camp out and hotel fees or specialists or whatever they have to set up some shop inside a shop. all that have gets passed down to the contractor.
not to mention it creates an inordinate amount of bureaucracy. that ands to eliminate save tax dollars. i would hope my colleagues would support this amendment because it is good government, as i quoted from michael sullivan, the former atf director. he's read the legislation. he stated there is absolutely no risk to the public and this is a constant issue they've been trying to address. that's what we're doing today. i hope that you will support the amendment and with that i yield back to the gentleman from nebraska. >> if there's no further discussion, this amendment the question occurs on russell amendment 328. those in favor of the amendment will say "aye." opposed say "no." the ayes have it. raise your hand. sufficient number. a recorded vote is ordered and that vote will be postponed.
chair now moves to the gentleman from south carolina. >> i ask consent to call out bo blank package number 2 consisting of amendments that have been worked on and approved by the minority. >> without objection. and so ordered. if the clerk would please distribute the amendments. without objection there considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> package number two is comprised as amendment 24 to convey 40 acres of department of navy property which has been carefully delineated with amendment number 34 r-1 of virginia concerning anti-terrorism training. amendment number 85 concerning adversary air capabilities for f-22 squadrons. amendment number 151, concerning the border security on military installations. amendment number 181 r-1 concerning secure fuel
initiatives. amendment number 216 concerning army national guard aviation training sites. amendment 234 concerning security clearance reinvestigations. amendment number 244 r-1, concerning fielding of security forces brigades. amendment number 268 concerning hiring of astronomers. amendment number 306 concerning work force decisions in the department of defense. amendment number 387 concerning sale of energy proceeds from geothermal sources. is there any further discussion
on package number 2? if not, the question occurs on the package. those in favor of the amendment say aye. opposed say no. gentleman wish to be recognized? >> yes. >> recognized for five minutes. thank you very much. i appreciate that. ensure taking steps to installation and energy -- for critical mission and infrastructure, an area that will further approve readiness approve e country to water security by phasing ways to reduce water. would like to thank chairman wilson, ranking members and staff for working with me, to nclude report language that would direct the secretary of defense to report on innovative
to reduce water use across identify ons and to opportunities to replicate the tactics l water saving already being deployed at installations. across y multiple bases the nation including california army bases are already doing in this area. such as planting more native use of and increasing gray water systems. i'm sure my california colleagues on this committee agree with me that our military installations, not of ated from the impact drought. as we continue to focus on readiness we must also look nother strengthening the resiliency of our military's infrastructure. by looking at strategic use of water resources at military canallations the department avoid added unnecessary costs that can be used on other priorities. back.ld
>> questions. no, the favor say yae, aye's have it and the amendments are adopted. ext up is the gentleman from arizona. mr. o'hal erman. >> the clerk will district the amendment. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chairman. i know, as we're all strong proponents of increasing and ethics across our government. i'm offering an amendment that both, when it comes to reasonable stewardship of dod taxpayer dollars, military air travel has long often valuable and necessary resource for senior executive branch officials including cabinet sent. are indeed rightfully required to travel exclusively midair for national security purposes. but for everyone else, there are
rules. we have strong and clear regulations and policies that exist to guide agencies and those who serve our institutions n responsible usage of these critical resources. directive on the use of government air, and air travel could not be more clear states that government aircraft transportation is a of travel involving high costs and limited resources. resources.limited that's why i and many other outraged at e been report after report surfacing that senior administration officials are abusing ethics improperly using military aircraft for travel. secretary former price and his wife took a by dod am c-37-b owned for multitrips to europe, africa asia that summer. travel allegedly cost taxpayers $500,000.
subsequent political report iscussing this travel quoted a former hs official who said, he's trips -- the trips gone on make total sense. there. just how he got similar questions have risen for cabinet officials who have used it for travel. paid scott pru with it and staff for a jet from ohio to new york so he could catch a flight rome. raising additional serious ethics issues. flight, of that short $36,000 to the taxpayer. ast may, the secretary and his wife used a military aircraft to travel to norway and then on to alaska. nd secretary minuchen, according to recently revealed documents, has cost taxpayers a million dollars in military air travel including a
fort knox. in all of these cases this type of travel was pre-approved as by the white house, which raises the question. being extent is dod asked to support unnecessary and lavish travel for high ranking officials? on occasion this type of travel has been found by agency nspector generals to be appropriate, many of those same reports raise concerns about a standard in the required for approval and the actual amount of evidence rovided by agencies to justify this type of expensive travel. but largely we don't know how dod and cost taxpayers. the think congress and american people deserve greatest transparency. today we've heard time and again how funding is needed for readiness and other important dod, and not to mention the appropriate salaries personnel.ervice we owe it to our brave service embers and to taxpayers to
ensure that dodd resources are abused.g exploited or my comments are simply directing the dod to report to this each quarter on direct and indirect costs to the department to support this type for senior executive officials. any required use of travel is exempted from these reports. must include information on whether spousal travel furnish was reimbursed to the federal government. to note that currently dod is required to report this semi annually to the gsa. reports are only available upon request under the freedom of information act. so i'm sympathetic to the question of burdening the dod is burdened when they are given these documents. hat's exactly how we've been able to find out how much these trips have cost.
groups, dod -- [inaudible] think it's a burden for dod to have to send lawyers to court to deal with this litigation and respond to these instead of roviding copping with the sail information on a quarterly basis. whether a democrat, a or anyone else, president, taxpayers, should not lavish to subsidize travel habits of senior officials who are there to serve the american people. behalf of the american taxpayers, i urge my colleagues o adopt my amendment and i yield. >> mr. wilson, thank you, mr. chairman. > i oppose the amendment which requires the department of defense to report costs of senior executive officials for military aircraft every 90 days. his provision would apply to all dod military aircraft traveled by executive branch appointees including spousal travel and would not apply to the president and the vice president.
sadly this does nothing to address the underlying issue of excessive travel. it requires burdensome reporting n several thousand appointees across the federal government and it will be difficult to compile. necessarily requires a report every 90 days in perpetuity. subsequently, dod administration is opposing the amendment as it to an open ended report as they have tried to resist. and the fact, this also statednes the previously effort by chairman to reduce the number of reports. opposition to ge amendment. >> mr. -- >> thank you, mr. chair. amendment.he i think so far this year we've outrageous corruption has taken place for military planes in private use and
and ng around the country we, the american public, have the right to know. i think it's interesting that dod and even some members of this committee say it will be burdensome. it's more burdensome to have the press trying to track down every abuse.e of this we could have one process where a know at least would have check on abuse, at least be able to know what the reasons are for this travel. to look at some examples, let's talk about the on ion dollars spent so far seven military flights by treasury secretary, including a wiferip to ottawa with his and a $27,000 military flight to august, which just the ned to co-incide with solar eclipse. price spent more than $500,000 personal travel. some of them, some places close o new york city and philadelphia. mr. chairman, all this type of abuse, we can't ran it
all in. but that's why this amendment is so critical. a right to know why it's being spent, how it's being spent and what the reasons are for it and not just offer a blank check to this use our ation to military for their personal vehicles. on that, i urge everyone to vote yes on the amendment. time.d back my >> mr. scott? > mr. chairman, it's widely reported that secretary pompeo right now. korea i certainly don't expect him to anything other than a military aircraft with his detail into north korea. nd i guess, my question is, on things, ports and other the demands of these reports can ssentially get out of hand and
expose where some of our people are traveling to, that we may where they arewn traveling to. so i understand the political that's being taken right now. and certainly i will tell you hat in every administration there, have been some abuses, but i have very serious concern this potentially exposing to locations like north orea, by senior executives, hat we need to be going to try to help bring peace. i'm opposed to the amendment. it's a cheap political shot with very serious consequences for the people of country. >> mr. -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. to mr. haller >> thank you. >> as indicated in my statement before, any required use of explicitly exempted
from these reports. secretary of the defense and others, that must use military aircraft for reasons, would be exempt from this report. his has nothing to do with politics. it has everything to do with making sure that the american their taxpayer money spent.ng wisely that we're making sure that the oldiers that we, we make sure their salaries -- we can find the money for those salaries, for not only this but many other areas that need to be looked at, so that we can save dollars for and other purposes within the military, as reported. this is something that's clearly identified, these travels, as omething that's outside the scope of their normal need. i just, i just can't understand how time and
we talk about saving dollars, and making sure that people have a transparent government, and the citizens of country know we talk about sav doing, and then to have this not be put in place. this is about people that using military aircraft. it's about the ability of us to dollars and it's exclusively there for the that e of making sure we -- whether it's democrats or republicans, and i mentioned statement, have to follow the rules. it's that simple. that i wasn'tpens here when mr. obama was president. if i had been, this would have forward at that point in time. i believe that these type of thical standards and transparency in government are required, and i yield back. is on the, the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr.
o'hallerran, those in favor say the chair, no's have it. the gentleman from arizona. a mr. chairman, i request recorded vote. >> those in support of the request. raise your hand. sufficient number. vote is ordered which will be postponed. south carolina. up pack airman, i call number three consisting of amendments that have been approved. without objection, so rdered, the clerk will distribute the block amendment number three which, without objection, is considered as read south gentleman from carolina is recognized. >> package number three is of the following. amendment number 27 by mr. brown maryland, to amend a provision concerning simulators. amendment number 39-r-1 by myself concerning engine establishment. 114 by mr. mber
hunter of california, concerning arctic strategy. 144 r-2, by -- leasing concerning military lands hawaii. 20601 by mr. er of nebraska concerning the energy source of a medical center in germany. mendment number 250 by mr. courtney of connecticut concerning procedures for using civilian ersonnel for functions. amendment number 238 by ms. florida concerning the modeling and simulation. amendment number 258 by mr. of georgia concerning communications on military number tions, amendment 84-r-1 concerning a construction project at travis air force base. amendment number 386 by mr. cook of california concerning public schools on military installations. and finally, amendment number
by mr. thornbury of texas concerning household goods weight allowances. >> is there any further discussion? nebraska.eman from >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank the majority and minority staffs. however, we're in europe because initially the soviet union, now russia ere because of and yet some of our facilities russian ly reliant on gas for power. and we know that the russians cyberenergy heir grid to shut us down. tensions are high but in europe they don't have to do cyber. turn off the gas and some of our installations will not be operating so i appreciate to start step building some resiliency in our we cany installations so survive and deter in a time of crisis. we don't need the russians gas to turn off our operational capability.
'm grateful for this first stop. thank you. >> any further discussion? if not the question is on. readiness package number three, those in favor say aye. no.e opposed say the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina. call up block ackage number 4 consisting of amendments that have been worked approved. >> distribute the package the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from recognized foris five minutes. >> package number four is following.of the amendment number 3 by ms. -- of concerning temporary workers in the beautiful territory of guam. 251-r-1 by ms. r fur if i of florida concerning management tial fellowship program. amendment number 184 concerning an yaca mountain project
finally amendment number 237 by mr. courtney of connecticut, the amateur radio act.ty >> further discussion on package 4?mber the lady from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman. want to thank you for including this amendment in the package. it seems that most members of congress who are intent in storing radioactive waste at yucca are not aware of the potential threat to our national security. yucca mountain is located right on the nevada national security to the it's adjacent nevada test and training range. he nevada test and training range is the largest training space in the contiguous united to 75% of it's home all state side air force live munitions. want to ask everyone here, have think it's safe to
our nation's nuclear waste stored right next door to our supply?'s munition not to mention that getting the radioactive waste there would it across nsferring the mountain range which the air force secretary herself said testing and training. my amendment request for dod and detail the impact that the yacca project will have nevada.rity sites in time. you, i yield back my >> further discussion on this block package? if not, the question occurs on package number four. those in favor say aye. aye. > the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. >> we're now going to proceed to vote on those amendments where a roll-call vote was ordered. regarding command
and control in the pacific. ussell 323 regarding financial institutions on bases, russell machine guns and use leran -- on executive of dod aircraft. occurs on the w amendment offered by the lady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, 301, a recorded vote has been ordered. the clerk will call the role. thornbury.n >> no. >> chairman thorn bury votes no. mr. smith? >> mr. smith votes aye. jones? >> mr. jones? brady. mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson in >> no. mr. wilson votes no. mrs. davis? aye.davis votes votes no.ms. --
>> mr. longiven? logniven? mr. bishop? votes no. mr. lawson. aye.lawson votes mr. turner. no. turner votes mr. cooper. cooper? mr. rogers. >> no. >> mr. rogers votes no. padayo. aye.otes >> mr. shuster. mr. shuster votes no. courtney. >> mr. courtney votes aye. >> mr. conoway. >> no. conoway votes no. >> ms. -- aye.tes mr. lambborn? lambborn votes no. >> mr. garamendy.
votes aye. mr. whitman. >> votes no. aye.sphere votes >> mr. hunter. hunter? mr. vesy. aye.r. vesi votes mr. kaufman. no. kaufman votes >> ms. gaborik. aye.otes >> mr. hartzler. no.votes >> >> mr. o'rourk votes aye. scott? mr. scott votes no. mr. norcross? aye.orcross votes mr. brooks? >> no. >> mr. brooks votes no. gayago. aye.r. gayago votes mr. cook. mr. cook votes no. mr. molten?
aye. aye.r. molten votes dr. win strop. votes no. aye.anaboosa votes mr. burn. burn votes no. >> shay porter. aye.s. shay porter votes >> mr. draifs? votes no. ms. rosen. aye.rosen votes no.mr. phonic votes >> mr. mceachern. >> mr. mceachern votes no. salley. ms. sally votes no. aye.. carbo -- votes mr. knight. no.knight votes >> mr. brown. >> mr. brown votes aye. mr. russell? >> mr. russell votes no. mrs. murphy.
aye.rs. murphy votes dr. dayle votes no. connor. mr. connor votes aye. abraham votes no. aye.- mr. o'halleran votes mr. kelly? mr. kelly votes no. swaze? votes aye. mr. gallagher. mr. gallagher votes no. >> mr. panetta? votes aye. mr. gates. >> mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon. mr. bacon votes no. mr. banks. no. >> mr. banks votes no. ms. cheney? cheney votes no. mr. heiss? mr. heiss votes no. him. >> no. mitchell votes no.
report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were 26 votes, 34 no votes. >> the amendment not adopted. occurs on tion now tosell amendment 323 related financial institutions on military bases. recorded vote has previous list been ordered. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thornberry. aye. >> mr. thornberry votes aye. mr. smith? votes no. mr. jones? jones? mr. brady? mr. brady votes no. wilson?
aye.wilson votes mrs. -- mrs. -- votes no. -- votes no. no.mr. longman votes mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. larson. mr. lawson votes no. turner? mr. turner votes aye. cooper? mr. cooper votes no. rogers? mr. rogers votes aye. -- votes aye. mr. conoway votes aye. votes no. mr. lambborn. lambborn votes aye.
mr. geramindy. >> ms. sphere. ms. sphere votes no. mr. hunter. aye.hunter votes mr. vest se. mr. vest se vets no. kaufman. mr. kaufman votes aye. ms. gaborik. ms. gaborik votes no. mrs. hartzler. votes aye. votes no.k scott? mr. scott? mr. scott votes no. norcross? mr. norcross votes aye. brooks? mr. brooks votes no. giago?
votes aye. mr. brook? votes no. win strop? votes aye. votes no.bossa mr. burn? mr. burn votes aye. shea porter. votes aye.rter mr. graves votes aye. rosen. ms. ms. rosen votes no. mr. mic -- votes no. csally. votes aye. mr. -- votes no. mr. knight. mr. knight votes aye. mr. brown. votes aye. mr. russell.
mr. russell votes aye. murphy. mrs. murphy votes no. dr. -- votes aye. no. -- mr. -- votes dr. abraham. aye.s mr. o'halleran. votes no. kelly. mr. kelly votes aye. mr. swayze. aye. mr. gallagher. mr. gallagher votes aye. panetta. mr. panetta votes aye. mr. gates. mr. gates votes aye. mr. bacon. aye.bacon votes mr. banks. mr. banks votes aye. ms. cheney. cheney votes aye. heiss. votes aye. mitchell? mr. mitchell votes aye.
the question now occurs on 328 ll amendment number regarding machine gun transfers, has been vote ordered. the clerk will call the role. thornberry. >> mr. thorn berry votes aye. mr. smith? mr. smith votes no. mr. jones. jones? mr. brady. mr. brady votes no. wilson. mr. wilson votes aye. davis. mrs. davis votes no. mr. -- votes aye. mr. -- votes no. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. larson. larson votes no. mr. turner. aye.turner votes mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. rogers. mr. rogers votes aye.
-- votes no. shuster votes aye. mr. courtney. no. courtney votes mr. conoway. conoway. mr. conoway votes aye. ms. -- votes no. mr. lamb aye.votes mr. whitman. votes aye. ms. spear. ms. spear votes no. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. vest se. mr. vesey votes aye. mr. kaufman. aye.kaufman votes ms. gaborik. ms. gaborik votes no. hartzler. mrs. hartzler votes aye.
mr. o'roark. mr. o'roark votes aye. mr. scott. scott votes aye. norcross. mr. norcross? mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. giago. giago votes no. mr. cook. aye.cook votes mr. moulton. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. winstrop. votes aye. hanabusa. no.es mr. burns. mr. burn votes aye. shea porter. -- shea porter votes no. ms. rosen. ms. rosen votes no.
the e clerk will report tally. >> mr. chairman, there were 36 votes, 24 no votes. the amendment is adopted. he question now occurs on did amendment offered by mr. 282, eran, number regarding reporting executive branch travel. the recorded vote has been rdered the clerk will call the role. >> mr. thornberry. no. mr. thornberry votes no. mr. smith? mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones. jones. mr. brady. aye.brady votes mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes no. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. -- votes no.
aye.- votes mr. bishop. no. bishop votes mr. larson. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. cooper. mr. keeper votes aye. mr. rogers. rogers votes no. -- votes aye. shusher votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. votes no. ms. -- votes aye. lambborn. mr. lambborn votes no. germendi. aye.s mr. whitman. no. whitman votes
ms. spear. ms. spear votes aye. hunter. mr. hunter votes no. vesey. aye.vesey votes mr. kaufman. no.kaufman votes ms. gaborik. ms. gaborik votes aye. mr. hartzler. mrs. hartzler votes no. o'roark. votes aye. mr. scott. votes no. mr. norcross. norcross votes aye. books. votes no. mr. votes aye. mr. cook. no.cook votes mr. moulton.
>> aye. moulton votes aye. winstrop votes no. aye.anabusa, votes mr. burn. burn votes no. ms. shea porter. votes aye.rter mr. graves. no. graves votes ms. rosen. votes aye. mr. -- votes no. mr. mceachern. mr. mceachern votes aye. ms. -- sally. votes no. carbohol. votes aye. knight. mr. knight votes aye. mr. brown. votes aye.
mr. russell. no.russell votes mrs. murphy. votes aye. no.-- votes mr. conha votes aye. abraham. dr. abraham votes no. o'halleran. o'halleran votes aye. mr. kelly. kelly votes no. mr. swayze. votes aye. mr. gallagher. mr. gallagher votes no. panetta. mr. panetta votes aye. mr. gates. mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon. votes aye. mr. banks. mr. banks votes no. ms. cheney.
if there are no further amendments, chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina of offering a motion. mr. chairman, i move to adopt sub mmittee report on the committee on readiness as amended. >> questions on the motel from gentleman from south carolina. say aye. opposed. no. motion have it and the is adopted. onll postpone recorded votes the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the consideration of all he amendments to the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from colorado, mr. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the military personnel was adopted mark unanimously last week reflecting and participation by all members of the subcommittee.
-- employee visions found in adopted are the full committee mark to provide our war fighters, ilitary families and retirees the necessary benefits and support they have earned. i would like to highlight just a the tems included in subcommittee mark. in addition it would, tend pay and bonuses for service demand fields in an effort to address the persistent pilot shortage. to equires the air force evaluate all pilot staff pilots'ents to maximize ime in the cockpit, the national guard recruiting pilot program which was designed to se retired senior enlisted members to fulfill recruiting
so that current national guard soldiers can focus on their primary missions. included provision that substantially improves the transition assistance program to ensure that service members who are leaving the military receive tailored nd resources to their postmilitary career plans, the subcommittee mark a comprehensive review of two crucial military issues.re the wound warrior mental services.e in addition, proposal would require the department of a ense to establish prescription drug monitoring program and share information prescription drug monitoring programs. continues e proposal to provide oversight of critical issues including improvements to department's process for reporting crimes to the f.b.i. how ase, improvements to the department of defense
schools, tracks and reports uvenile misconduct and additional protections >> and yields back. -- gentleman yields back. >> i would like to commend the subcommittee for his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion. i think we accomplished a great deal. it includes provisions that will provide military services flexibility to maintain a quality force my authorizing responsible increases, supporting a 2.6 pay raise, extending bonuses and special pays. condition -- it improves service members and their families. once again authorizing $40 million in impact aid with military children. the market increases transparency for the department andefense i requiring dod
military services to publish redacted reports of substantiated investigations of senior leader misconduct. at also includes requirements to improve -- improve crime recording to allowing dod to establish a system to ensure data is submitted to the fbi database that would prohibit the purchase of firearms. requires the dod to establish an thesight plan and department's new harassment and prevention policies. i'm pleased the market continues to ensure the department continues to focus on the treatment and research of injury,c brain
post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health issues. the dod touires establish a prescription drug monitoring program and share information with estates to reduce dependency on opioids piercing -- opioids. i want to acknowledge the staffs effort. who continue to work and a bipartisan manner to develop a market. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> is there any further discussion of the personnel subcommittee mark? joan from massachusetts. >> mr. chairman, i would like to speak on my amendment table. >> five minutes. >> the contract with an independent research center to submit to our committee a report on the defense help agencies
plan to prioritize mental health care during the plan transition to dha as the overall care manager for physical and mental health care. the study will have two goals. if a defensemine help agency will place the right people in the right positions to receive mental health care for leadership. it will sense its best practices across research efforts are improperly utilized. this is the first step we can take in adjusting the alarming rate and suicide persisting in the active duty in veterans today. we must bear in mind that shocking fact that the number of post-9/11 veterans that have committed suicide now exceeds the numbers killed in action. we have an obligation to improvement of health care for our service members while they are still serving before their
conditions progress. finally, the study brings in an independent researcher with expertise in behavioral health to complete the study and tell us and ensure we have the proper policies and place for when the transition is complete. i would like to thank -- for her support and with that, i yield back. mr. turner and then mr. larson. yourself,to thank adam smith, prior chairman, buck mckeon, and my cochair for the sexual assault invention caucus. thank mr. kaufman and ms. spears for their effort on sexual assault. 10 years ago, our committee helped form the caucus for the purposes of allowing us on a
bipartisan basis on a sensitive basis to handle sexual assault provisions in this bill. we worked throughout the bill and holding hearings and briefings and we were the department of defense. we vet our provisions that we are proposing for the bill to make sure we are not doing any unintended consequences and that the effect of our intended consequences will occur. it's a result of the bipartisan leadership we have that gives the ability to not have logical fights or ineffective legislation but real legislation that addresses sexual assault. there are a number of provisions in this bill. i like to thank mr. kaufman further help and i want to thank her for the great work she has done. she has dedicated herself to this and her and her staff have worked in concert. susan davis has agreed to take
the position, but it is through the leadership of this whole committee that we are able to handle this topic not only non-controversially, but highly substantively all the things we have accomplished in the past 10 years in changing the rules and laws have been accomplished because of the way the committee has handle this topic in leadership and i want to thank the chair and ranking member for allowing us to continue that in this market. i yield back. >> mr. larson? >> i will be brief. i want to recognize the leadership for not just the 40 million mark on impact aid, but the additional 10 million on students with disabilities and help that that can provide to school districts, as well as the recognition for the family member program and the request and have oneing
base in particular is recognized as one of the more advanced faces in dealing and working with family members with exceptional family members. i want to appreciate the recognition from the subcommittee for the important plays andprogram continuing to improve it. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been a great honor to work on the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the military. it's an egregious crime and those to seek to serve should not have to suffer harm at the hands of their own. many on this committee have worked together to address it. i especially enjoyed working with congressman turner and for the progress we've been able to make. but the fight is far from over. several weeks ago i had several
members, a young now grown woman who was the child of an officer who was assaulted her father over a number of years, a mother of two twins who were assaulted by an officer as they were quite young. remainsan issue that and i know this committee will address it so we get it right, not just for the military, but so we send a strong message across this country and all the other places where these crimes are taking place. thank you and i yield back. >> we will now turn to amendments to the military personnel, section of the mark. forr recognizes mr. kaufman the purposes of offering an amendment. >> i was going to call up in block package number one, consisting of amendments that have improved with a minority. >> the court will distribute the unblocked amendment without objection.
ande are considered as read the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. package number one is comprised 010he following amendment, by mr. moulton, clarifying criteria in the mental health care in the military system. amendment 012, which would require mental health care in the military health system assessment to be completed by an independent ff rdc. , which directs the secretary of defense to a court on delivery of mental health services. amendment 063, which asks for a report on research caps. that directs the government accountability
office to conduct a study of the defense help agencies oversight of the transition of tri-care managed-care. which directs the secretary of defense to report on the total number of severely injured veterans who are no longer a reward -- no longer enrolled because of medicare. 200 that directs the secretary of defense to submit a report to accelerate development and treatments for tbi cdn ptsd. which establishes the research program of uniform services, university of health sciences. 50, which revises the subcommittee on military personnel, a markup on military alignment and surgery across the joint force.
>> any of the discussion on block package number one? all in favor say aye. all in up -- all opposed say no. and thes have it amendment is adopted. >> i have been amendment at the desk. distribute thell amendment. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> last year, the u.s. armed forces court of appeals overturned the rape conviction of coast guard inmate second-place john rice back. his conviction was overturned because the court found, rightly , that the panel had been stacked with women every -- with women.
most of whom have been worked with victim advocates. the panel consisted of 10 women and two men. the women were on that jury because the commander put them there. the commanders sole responsibility for choosing members create two main problems. it can lead to unjust outcomes for both victims and the accused. panels can be stacked in either direction depending on the desired result. so that perception of fairness is built into the system. second, it creates grounds for copious motions and appeals, challenging the compositions of the panels. in the last three years, the court of appeals waited on five cases stemming from perceptions of unfair panel selection. that's a significant percentage of their casebook. they only handle 60 cases a year. these cases are the tip of the iceberg. during trials and lower-level
appeals, lawyers spend countless hours countering motions based on unfair jury choices. this is not a responsible way of using taxpayer resources. this amendment increases fairness and decreases opportunities for unnecessary motions and appeals. the amendment does allow commanders to choose a pool of -- [noed based on rank audio] so their authority and influence is part of that process to a point. it then randomizes who is selected within that pool area the amendment does not imply -- apply to theaters of operations. they are responsible for crafting of plan on how to roll out the system. it's supposed to remove the perception of undue commitments and reduce litigiousness within the military justice system. i would encourage my colleagues
to support the amendment. i yield back. >> any discussion? mr. turner of ohio? >> i would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. without diminishing at all my faithfulness for the fact we have been able to work through this sexual assault prevention caucus. i am in opposition to this amendment. sometimes we do the same thing every year even though we addressed it before and this is what we have taken up last year. what is important for members to understand is that not only do we take up this issue, but we took up the entire issue during judicial reform and convening authorities. this is the text of what we passed in the 2017 nda. it's not all adopted yet. , while it is being implemented, make further
changes to the work we have our he spent extensive time on. there is difficulties with this legislation. the case she mentioned is actually an example of to how this process works. the courts found the rules had not been properly followed. that doesn't require we throw out the rules, it requires the court iterate court's order that the rules be followed. once the rules were followed, i'm certain that justice prevails. the current system for selection but thermed in 2017, convening authority has to take into consideration a number of issues that randomization would take away from them. as you know, in any court system, there is also the ability of those on both sides to question those who are being picked as part of a panel and object to them. that is still reserved, so it is
not as if the convening authority is the only authority with respect to these panels that are put together. they shall detailed members that are in their opinion, best qualified reason of age, education, service, and judicial temperament. they have to take into consideration the deployments just as she said in her provision, they have to take into consideration more than just combat. major training events, whether or not in the navy, ships are underway, the success of overall missions. all of these things are not detailed in the legislation and would restrict the commanders ability in making the selection process. in short, this is a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist right now. it's working. for the areas where it wasn't working, we have adopted extensive legislation and we have to wait to see if there are
other problems to arise. for that, i yield back. >> mr. brown? >> thank you. i speak in support of the amendment. i appreciate the reminder of the steps congress has taken improve the military justice system. i see this amendment as part of the ongoing process. uniform, code of military justice was enacted in 1950. there were major revisions made and recently in 2016. what congress did was improve the jury composition, which we call a panel in the court-martial system, requiring a minimum of 12 capital cases, eight for general court-martial's, and four for special court-martial's. also, in sentencing, congress required judges impose a sentence and no longer the panel or jury unless it is a capital case with the defendant requests that area -- and that.
why do i point this out? this has been an ongoing effort by congress and the dod to improve the military justice system and what we done is we have aligned it with the procedures you see in the federal courts and what you see in many state courts. by randomizing jury selection process as this amendment does, you do not take away from the commander the current authority they have. and this is what i mean by that. today, the commander can choose the panel by age, training, experience, length of service. with this amendment, the commander can still do that. but it's of doing that for each and visual panel, if the commander sets of procedures that allow for this, do it for the entire military community within that convening authorities jurisdiction. from that selected pool, then you would randomly choose a member. oppose, the dod does not
this amendment. i'm not saying they supported, but with the dod says is, anything we can do to eliminate unlawful command influence, we will support. we are not talking about a commander who has malicious intent. often it's benign, it's a bias. so what randomization is doing is try to eliminate or reduce the impact of that bias. revs of the spear mentioned the services, thised is what they were wrestling with. the court-martial panel was composed of 10 members, seven of whom were women. this was a disproportionate percentage of women considering the composition of the command. of those initial 10 members, five had served as sexual assault victim advocates and two more had training of assisting
victims of sexual assault. they challenged three members and the judge granted two of those challenges and the defense used its peremptorily challenge on the third. seven rumors -- seven members remained after challenges, five of whom were women. unlike the federal system where you get 10 challenges, that's a challenge where you don't have to state the reason why you don't want the juror aluminate, -- eliminated, you only get one in the system. that's why it's important you have one so you have a random selection. you have a disproportionate number of members in other demographic areas serving on panels. we don't want that. so i wholeheartedly support the amendment and i have confidence that will make pass the amendment, that the services will be able to establish procedures where the convening
authority is fully engaged in the selection. they can continue to rely on the justice in the military and we can continue along that path of making the justice system a more fair system. i yield back. >> mr. baker? >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to say thank you for congressman spear for the work she does on this. she's a great advocate and she's made a lot of progress for the military. another amendment i would strongly support today goes after collateral crimes on the victim. i think it goes after victims and away that would have them come forward after they are assaulted. that's an example i would work with her. in this case, i have to oppose. i have been a five-time commander. i have selected jurors. i've put forth from the pool. two of the commands i selected them for the jury. i followed the process to a t
and i never had one time with the juries were of fieldwork western or overturned because if all of the process. i want to make sure the juries were diverse and fair, that justice would be protected. i think there is a possibility if we do random selection of jury, you can end up with a non-diverse jury where it is unfair and you are in a jam. a commander that follows the processes, the process works. i think it's important to protect our commanders role in the military. we are a commander oriented station. every time we checked away from that, we hurt the military in the end. it's the commanders responsible for justice and again ability. it could have unintended consequences if you had a random selection that was non-diverse. you could have that just as easily. when the process is followed,
the system works. i yield back. >> thank you. i'm speaking in support of congressman spear's amendment. i will be brief. has pointed time and time again to the problem of undue influence that has made the justice system in many ways, not transparent and not fair, particularly as we are dealing with victims of sexual assault. this amendment preserves that command of authority and being able to provide input into these jury pools while providing the transparency and fairness by randomizing the jury selection. -- have full faith in my colleagues confidence as his service, unfortunately that is not always the case. while we must reserve command
authority, we must balance that out to make sure we are providing fairness to the troops going through this process. for that and for the reasons stated earlier, i support this legislation. >> mr. kelly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to thank miss speare r -- for all she's done, but i have to disagree. not what she's trying to get, but i think we have a process in place that works. we have to give the 2017 changes the opportunity. there are a qualification of jurors. you have challenges. i've never tried a jury trial that was a criminal jury trial that was not challenged, the jury makeup was not challenged. just because they are challenged, doesn't mean there is something wrong with that. every defense lawyer is probably sued for incumbents if he does
not say the jury is made up wrong. but they always say that. when the jury is wrong, that's what the courts are for. that's what happened here. they did not follow the rules and it was sent back, as it should be. when the jury is made up, whether because of a challenge or anything else, it gets sent back for re-child or doing it again -- retrial or doing it again. we should not punish people week as people challenge the rules. we can't change the rules for individuals doing wrong. when people do wrong, you don't change the rules, you punish the wrongdoer. you don't change the system every time something doesn't work out. i-17 the major reforms in haven't and implemented -- in 2017 haven't implemented. let's let them work.
even except when they are in combat. we have different rules for people in combat and people who are on the home front. there should never be different rules for judicial systems. it to be the same rules whether you are in combat or peacetime. i think it is likely to erode the good order and discipline of the military. there are things outside of the court of law that apply in the military organization that do not apply in a civilian organization. random does not work because the majority of the service members in the military are junior enlisted guys, many under the age of 22. many under the age of 22. and in the civilian world, it is not just random every citizen. if you are not a registered voter, you don't even come up on the jury panel. but if you make every person, even if you don't take into
affirmative action -- what you don't want is all lack of experience and a random jury. again, let's see if the rules from 2017, the ncaa that we just did, let's see if they work. i think they have shown they are working and i arrived in opposition to this amendment but i again thank miss speare for her help. i yield back. >> mr. gallego? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i know there has been back and forth on this. i think what they were trying to say in support of her amendment is it is different than what we debated last year. we believe it is more narrow than what we have done before and there are clear reasons to act now. it's an example of a waste of time waiting to reach the court of appeals, which is a greater waste of time.
there is only one preemptory challenge and we should retain the temperament and right considerations in all other existing conditions. this would add one more rebel -- one more level of randomization and therefore we should act. i yield the rest of my time to the german for new and went. -- gentleman from new entrants. >> when a commander of convening authority is in a theater of operation, the military pool could be considerably smaller. that's why it retains from the convening authority to commander to select panel by panel. i want to make that distinction that my good friend from, i think it's, no, mr. kelly. -- the other thing i think
is important to point out is that the distinction between the quality of the juror or the panel in the military, versus civilian, and in civilian context, anybody can serve in a jury pool, not just registered voters. they will take voters off the motor vehicle register, whether you are a registered voter or not. if you are a motor vehicle licensee, they will take you there. again, i support the amendment. i think it addresses the questions of military necessity, gives services ample flexibility, and continues to keep the commander or convening authority in the process. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> and the gentleman from arizona yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
i strongly oppose this amendment. i do appreciate her leadership on these issues. i share them as the only former female commander who is on the committee here. we still need to let the reforms we put in 2017 work themselves out. this court case is an example of the convening authority not doing their job and the court case identified that area we need to work to make sure we got convening authorities more like general bacon and those making their mistake. this does not address the issue appropriately and i am concerned that there is a different standard. those in combat but still be providing that decision by the convening authority. when you are back home, sometimes you are as busy then when you are in combat. there is still very much a limited pool. we are not a cross-section of society. sometimes he specialized
experience, whether something specific to some flying issue or something else. the process right now is one i believe is adequate. this court case identified where there is one flaw but we shouldn't be throwing out the system. i yield back. >> mr. panetta? >> just briefly, i speak in favor of the amendment. as a veteran and former prosecutor that has taken many jurors, i know jury selection is an important part of the process. yes, because you want a conviction as a prosecutor. you want a jury fair and impartial, but you want to protect that conviction. you want to make sure the jury gets that conviction is fair and impartial. you do that by making sure the jurors can say that and are that, but you also look at what they are going to do as a jury and how they are perceived as a jury.
and all that this does is provide one more layer of section. -- layer of protection, which is very important. i understand the process well, but when the case comes back, it's very difficult. you waste time and money and the victims having the victims and witnesses testify again can have a toll on them, as well. i believe instituting this one more layer of protection by having the commander pick and have the of jurors from that pool be random, is enough to basically uphold these type of convictions and provide fairness in our military justice system. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. bishop? >> i yield to mr. turner. >> is unsteady earlier, the sexual assault prevention caucus was convened for the being a clearinghouse so we can deal
with this on a bipartisan basis. the three goals being prevention, promoting sexual assaults, protection, protecting those who come forward alleging an assault, and prosecution. we collect all your long, evidence -- all year long, evidence with her is wrongdoing and where there are things to identify the victim. this proposal is neither. it is not arising out of an issue of wrongdoing and there is no evidence that this will benefit the victim. i wanted to speak again because with all due respect to mr. brown, dod -- something i will paraphrase. dod is not opposed to this. that is not the case. what we tried to do in the caucus is look at things we studied we don't -- we studied. we don't want to take knee-jerk opinions.
issue in dod,ular the military justice review group was convened and they looked at panel selection and determined random selection was not workable and would not measurably benefit the judicial system. theof the other aspects of caucus. the joint service committee researched jury selection and found no benefit to random benefit -- random panel selection. in fact, they found it would present substantial difficulties and in any system that recognized competency and the availability and decision-making are critical command functions. it will affect the due process in the criminal system. we will have to have a higher level of scrutiny, not merely our opinion and what that will benefit the system. this has been studied. it's not a problem that needs to
be remedied. i will ask that people vote against this amendment. >> the gentleman from utah yielded back his time at the moment. >> miss shea-porter's recognized for five minutes. >> i yield my time to miss spier. >> i think the general lady. -- the gentle lady and i yield. >> the department has generally supported efforts by congress to eliminate unlawful command influence. my point is that -- >> do you yield? >> you know that's not the case in this instance of it >> -- instance. >> let me continue, please. >> mr. brown has the floor. >> is not limited to malicious intent by commander. unlawful command influence appears as bias whether it's
recognized by the convening authority or not. if you look at the appeals in the military justice system and prepare it -- compare it to the federal court system, you will see a higher percentage of appeals based on this jury selection process in the military justice system than in the federal system. i'm not talking about challenges to panel members. that will always happen. in the federal criminal system, you don't see challenges to the jury selection system because it's a random system. but you see it in the military justice system because that selection authority, even when there is not malicious intent, is riddled with i.s.. -- riddled with bias. that's what you have in the record case. -- riker case. it had a bias. and put a number of people on the panel who had a background in sexual assault and victim
advocacy. it happens all the time. it happens frequently. it's an unknowing bias and this is an ever once removed the convening authority to reduce if not eliminate that bias. i yield back. >> miss shea-porter yields to miss spier. >> thank you to miss chairman, thank you to shea-porter. this has been a healthy discussion and i uploaded all of those who participated in it, of the commanders who have served and the attorneys who served in the military. i would suggest here that this is an important amendment and i want to make sure we totally understand what we are saying here. the commander still has the authority to determine the pool to the extent that they decide judgment, andnk,
discretion. but it's a large pool from then there is a random selection. when you are going to pick person by person those who serve on a jury as a commander, it is going to be subject to the charge of i.s., whether it is or is not. that's why the cases get elevated to the appeals court. i go through that process. it costs time and money and resources and i think mr. panetta's comments that neither the victims nor the defendants go through the process all over again. why not make it appropriate, fair, balanced from the get-go? that's what the imminent does. with that, i yield back.
>> one of the reasons i oppose this, it assumes there is a code of unfairness and there is no clear evidence that is the case. in fact, quite the contrary. uniform code is one of the more remarkable systems of justice in the united states. i've been a former commander and i've had to serve on courts-martial and even war tribunals. the problem i have with the language particularly, where it stated on lines six and seven, with regards convening authorities, is that it would not allow them to select a balanced construct of people with rank and experience. for example, in the particular tribunal, youimes had a serious charge that could have resulted in a capital offense. if the individual was found guilty, it happened in a combat
environment and as such, there had to be a very strict experience level and apportionment that would be the makeup of that court-martial. and the convening authority had the ability to do that. a random selection of that would not have divided that makes -- provided that mix. to workwe can continue the issue, but for these reasons, i will be against the imminent. thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> i would like to yield to mr. turner. clarify thent to exchange mr. brown and i were having. i wrote down these words. he's a very trained harvard lawyer. he said in clarifying the dod's position, there is an opposition to unlawful command influence. and my statements i was making, dod does not believe in the current system that a results in unlawful command influence and i
wanted to make that clear. i yield back. >> question occurs on the amendment offered by the senate of from california. the nose have it. gentle lady, the vote is sufficient number of members support that. recorded vote is ordered and will be postponed. let me give everybody a brief update. we are going to have votes at 3:45. we will have three votes and it will take us to nearly 4:30. let me encourage everybody to come back right away so we don't lose time there. we got more amendments ahead of us than we have kind us, so -- have the hind us, so ask embers to keep that in mind for lamy get off some of these -- behind us, so ask members to keep that in mind for when we get off some
of these. package number two. >> i ask unanimous consent to call up package number two, consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with minority. >> it is ordered that the court will distribute amendments that are considered read an adjustment from colorado is recognized for five minutes. dhamendment 009 requiring to brief the committees on the mhs transition every six months until it is complete. amendment 011 requiring dod to include questions concerning gambling addiction and help us in. by miss davis was direct the secretary of defense to report the best practices for prevention and response to sexual assault. 2 by miss gabbert to
conduct because study the impact of established rates to cover mental health care, providers on ,he ability on amendment 106 which increases the number of appointed directors of the jackson foundation for the advancement of military medicine. amendment 222 which directs the director of dha to submit a report outlining the potential for incorporating cte and andraphy -- angiographic topography into dod facilities. requires 226 which secretary of defense to report the frequency of honest men of victims of sexual assault for collateral misconduct. strucknt 271 by dr. when
that requires a briefing regarding the visits of insertsng and issuing for new recruits based on input from orthopedic and podiatric consultants with service. holleran,281 by mr. which recognizes and honors the legacy of sacrifices of american indians and natives of the armed forces of the united states. amendment 241 which requires the --ort of athletic trainers let's see. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> further discussion on personnel on board package number two. if not, question occurs on the amendments offered by the
gelatin from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. memsye's have it and the -- amendments are adopted. the german from colorado. >> -- the gentleman from colorado. >> en bloc number three. i ask unanimous collect -- consent to call up block number three. >> without objection it is so ordered the court will distribute amendments. they are considered as read and the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. 16r1, directing the secretary of defense to provide everything on the feasibility of expanding commissary alcohol sales to include the sales of distilled spirits. that requires them to
provide service members the authority of assessment of their earned a g.i. benefits prior to retirement, or release from active duty or demobilization. requiring a8r1 briefing of collaborative efforts to secure as chilling credentialing programs. requires a report on the assessment of frequency of permanent changes of stationary members of the armed forrces. which halts0, implementation by 2014 pretty and policy. amendment 228 by mr. courtney requiring when a commander submits a request to add a class -- which requires a
report on senior leader outside of woman -- outside employment. which requires ust of personal readiness to submit a report on education and approval process for danger pay. doddment 270 which requires to provide a briefing of interagency efforts in the transition assistance program to provide education on federal wildland firefighting careers. amendment 325 by mr. russell requiring men to obtain professional credentials. i yield back. >> any further discussion on black package number three? joan and from utah? -- gentleman from utah? >> thank you for including it. i yield back. >> no further discussion, the
question occurs on military en bloc package number three. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the aye's have it and the amendments are adopted. an amendment. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment and the lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you and my colleagues. we have 4.6 million women who receive health care to the department of defense and i don't think any of us wanted them to be second-class citizens. haven fact, they do inferior health care to civilian plants. access to contraception is essential to women's health and well-being and the dod should give service members and the dependence the same options women in the civilian world receive.
the number of unplanned pregnancies in the military is so much higher than it is in the general population. in fact, it's 60% higher. we know 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, but beyond that the unplanned ones in the military are 60%. this has a negative effect on readiness since nearly 13% of servicewomen were unable to deploy as a result of pregnancy. we need to recognize the fact more and more women are joining the military. i was at one of our academies recently. 30% of the cadets at one of our academies will be women in the coming years. under the aca, civilian women are able to have access to contraception and counseling free of cost. but active duty service members and all non-active duty service members and dependents
experience cost related barriers to care depending on the contraception they use and if they feel prescriptions outside uts. for many women, getting to this is not possible. military families have all the access to make decisions. tri-care does in fact provide standard birth-control coverage that is offered similar to the health insurance plan, that they have a cost-sharing armen. -- requirements. this would remove that cost-sharing from contraceptive care and it would also remove the cost-sharing associated with insertion and removal of contraceptive methods like iud's. service members deserve the same level of care as civilians. it's only fair we stand up for them. i would like to yield some time
for my colleagues who are co-authoring this limits. due to last-minute issues, i'm offering and withdrawing this amendment and hopefully we can fix the problem as it moves forward. i yield back. >> the general lady yields to miss davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. by virtue of the fact it is withdrawn right now, i just wanted to say, for all the times i had a chance to talk to women in the service around quality of life issues and the decisions they make, this one barrier really does create a problem for them. we don't want to be in a position where they are treated differently. absolutely. and they have the opportunity to move forward, look at this, and figure out how we can make the numbers work so women in the service making these decisions will be free of that issue when it comes to whether or not they
stay in the military, continue to be active in their careers and contribute to our country. many make a decision not to do that for these reasons. i think the gentle chairman and i think solve these issues. >> i believe she yields to mr. khanna as well. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank representative spear for her tireless leadership on this issue. it's telling we are debating this on may 9, may 9 9060 was the date they approved -- 1960 was the date they approved of the pill. here are three basic facts. since thetudies show birth control pill was approved, one third of the wages women have gained our attribute to the introduction of the pill. 86% of the decline in teen presidency -- teen i can see this because of the pill.
the birth control pill has resulted in six times women completing college since it was introduced. if we believe we should make decisions based on facts, this is really a no-brainer in terms of what the right course of action is. i thank represented spear for her tireless leadership on that. i yield back. >> the church understands the gentle lady withdraws the imminent. just to give everybody an update, votes have just started 141et's see if we can do and i want to encourage everyone to come back right away at the conclusion of votes. gentle lady from hawaii? >> i have an amendment at the table. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. mobilization for preplanned mission support under article 10
authorizes the pentagon to involuntary activate up to 60,000 reservists and national guard members to support a planned operations of combatant command. we currently have had garden reserved troops serving in this status all over the world, serving shoulder to shoulder with active-duty troops but without receiving the same pay and benefits during their title x activations as their title x active-duty counterparts. this is wrong and must he fixed. language in the 2012 and the aa did not allow g.i. bill credit. reduced age for retirement based on active-duty service, and other pre-and post mobilization benefits. language in last year's ndaa did correct benefits, but hey and remaining benefits
inequality remain on fixed. -- remain unfixed. it's unfair to read -- to rely on these people to support our active-duty troops and not provide them the same benefits. we have troops from our national guard who have mobilized overseas. more will deploy it from my home state and across the country. we must take care of our troops equally whether they serve as guards, reservists, or active-duty. i will offer and withdrawal the amendment and ask the chairman to work with me to address this issue and how best to fund it. i will ask my colleagues to note that we scored this at $27 million per year, or one third of the cost of one f-35. i withdraw my commitment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. haveoks to meet we might
five more commitments that wired debate in the personnel -- require debate in the personnel section. so that gives everyone a heads up of where we are. i think the best thing to do now is to recess. please come back immediately after votes. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ,> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, yahoo! white house correspondent hunter
walker and bloomberg congressional reporter and edgerton join us to discuss the week ahead in washington. then u.s. geological survey's charles mandeville off hawaii's kilauea volcano your option. watch c-span's washington journal coming up at 7:00 this morning. join the discussion. >> tonight on landmark cases, regions of the university of california, alan baci, a white male, was twice rejected from california davis medical school. he claimed he was passed over in favor of less qualified minority applicants and took the system to court. the resulting decision struck down the universities specific admissions program and upheld the constitutionality's affirmative action under the 14th amendment. acting attorney
general in the obama administration, and randy barnett, professor at georgetown law center, libertarian, and legal scholar and commentator. watch landmark cases tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span and join the conversation. hashtag is #landmarkcases. to the interactive constitution and the podcast. securityhomeland secretary kristen nielsen testified on her departments 2019 budget proposal. she's asked about the construction of the barrier along the u.s. mexico border and the policy for detaining pregnant women and minors across the border illegally every this subcommittee