Process, making sure that when we are making changes to our military members lives, that it is this body and his bodys worst responsibility that we are there to make sure we are providing the oversight to see if the changes that we made are doing what we intended them to do. And this deals with the commissary. Many in this committee might know, but our colleagues might not know, that is the Grocery Store and the military. Is nothing predictable in the military and it is very stressful. Grocery shopping should not be stressful. Is not a business. It is a benefit to the tune of about 300 per family member. Haveof those same families people working at the commissary. And the money from the commissary goes back into morale , welfare, recreation, and things to make military life improve. What we are doing, to be clear on this is, we are changing the way the commissarys work. Suggestion and i ask you to think of this from a. Oldiers perspective the mandate was to modernize the military, the volunteer force. Nowhere in their mandate in fact, it was explicit it was about cost savings. If we can modernize and provide our forces with what we promised and save money, that should be the goal. But it should not be predicated on the moneysaving first, then delivering to the troops, and improving quality of life. I am not saying that the changes to the commissary will not be just what we need, save money, modernize, and give the troops what they want. That is possible, but we wont know and we wont get another say in it. We are going to implement this and keep in mind, changes to retirement pay, changes to the changes to. I. Bill, try care, changes to copays, all of those things are coming down without being digested and without a mechanism in there for costs to be arbitrated. So, what this amendment says is, monthsd longer than six to evaluate the changes we are going to make and then have them come back here and report, what are the effects of that that we dont come back in a few years and say, morales better, families are spending more, we have a retention problem, none of that may happen. But i am not willing to risk it and send this thing out the door lets hope it works. My heard somebody else they earlier, hope is not a planners strategy. To support our military family, give them some certainty. Let them know that their members of congress are going to watch that we keep the authority to out of this, not of bureaucratic dod. With that, i yield back my time. The gentleman from nevada is recognized. And you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the concerns. We have had a lot appearing in this subcommittee regarding this issue. And you are right. I believe it went too far too fast. The provision we put in place, it has safeguards necessary to make sure congress does have oversight, which is why we added the provisions after each milestone is being met. Mentioned wasou to modernize the commissary operations. It has come down to three basic practices that are going to be required to do that. One is conversion to Nonappropriated Funds. Dod to come back to congress and submit their findings prior to moving forward with every milestone. That way, congress has the ability to review what they are about to implement and if we decide it is not right, to intervene and stop it. We put in place the safeguards for the current appropriated workforce, appropriated workforce, to make sure that nobody who is currently working at the commissary of the converted involuntarily or see any change or decrease in their paper benefits. He tried to make sure that we took all current employees and protected them, while giving dod the ability to move forward in modernizing the commissary benefit, while decreasing reliance on appropriated funds. If we dont, this will truly impact every Service Members access to commissary. The only option will be to start closing commissary, changing hours of operation, or changing days of operation. We take all of that into consideration. We felt this was the best way to allow dod to move forward, to modernize the benefit, to maintain access, and sure savings, makes her that the benefit is valued by the beneficiary and put in place the safeguards, so we do have visibility and the ability to impact any changes that may come down that we dont like and protect the current workforce. I yield back the balance of my time. Ms. Davis . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I really want to identify with the comments of my colleague on this one. We are grandfathering in individuals, employees into their positions. I think this is one of those typical moves where it is so hard to make change, but we work through this and to delay it now, to basically stall what we are doing, to require us to come back again and legislate this after two years, i think we are going to be able to monitor this pretty well and it is by virtue of that that i think we can move forward on this and we really have got the buy in as a result of these awful way that it is proceeded. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Orif i can yield to myself just a second. Just for a little context here. We have faced numerous proposals, especially from the other side of the capitol to privatize commissaries. And i have no doubt that is going to let up. And so, i think the hope. Is that we can put commissaries on a selfsustaining basis, so they can stand on their own two feet eventually and deflect this effort to basically do away with them. I think that part of the underlying goal of where we are trying to get, as both of the chair and Ranking Member of the subcommittee have a set the commission made some recommendations, but they did not think there were enough safeguards in that. So, they have added the safeguards, but they have got to prove the changes in the commissary do not reduce the benefits to the consumers of the commissaries and every person who works at the commissary is , benefits, as long as they are there, so there are no voluntary changes at all. The only other thing i would add is, we always have a chance to go back and fix something. Ndaa, we canl always go back and fix it, but i do think it is important to take these steps to get the commissaries moving towards a more selfsustaining posture and think that best protects our Service Members, but also helps deflect some of the arguments that have been going on the other way. Mr. Courtney, were you seeking recognition . I was, mr. Chairman. The gentleman is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The yield to mr. Walz. You, gentlemen. I want to say i do not disagree with anything the braking member has said and the commitment to getting this right is not questioned. I want to be clear about that. My concern comes with the length of time and am i correct, mr. Chairman, that it is six months that this will come back and then they will put the changes and to affect and my question was of trying to get a little more time until the data comes back over a larger dataset. That was really the purpose of the amendment. No, the six months is the time at which they are supposed to come back with the initial plan of how the calculated out the Market Basket value, with the percentage of savings is going to be, but even after that, they have to come back to us. If they are going to go back to a nonappropriated workforce, they have to come back to us and give us an Implementation Plan at each phase that we have the ability to impact upon. If i could reclaim my time, what has our ability then, to exercise a veto power or change power on that . What is the mechanism to make sure that happens just from the reporting back before the implementation. Am i getting this right, that they come back six months later . There is a clause where they have to provide us with the information. We have 30 days to then go in and question them and ask for further information, give them further guidance. If we do nothing, they can proceed. But we have that 30 day period to impact upon what everything limitation is that they bring forward through the subcommittee process. I reclaim my time. Said, i donte i disagree on this. I guess for me, this may be this one. It is a key militant effect of what breaks the camels back. I understand the safeguards you put in and that is very much appreciated. I still think i would like to offer this up and see what people think and get a little more time, but i think the gentleman and the Ranking Member for their commitment to getting this right. I yield back. And i yield back, mr. Chairman. Im sorry, mr. Lawson. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in support of mr. Waulds amendment. I hear that the home as well who have concerns about rising prices for the consumers here at the commissaries, concerns about cuts to pay and benefits for an already moderately compensated workforce at the commissaries and the concept here of congressional review of this benefit, one that is a clear benefit to military families is important. I appreciate the work of the subcommittee. It is not beyond the subcommittee. I know how difficult it is to get our work done and bring it to the entire committee, but this is something separately i also hear from folks at home. I would encourage folks to support mr. Wald. I yield back. I would like to add my support for this amendment. I think for many of us that have lived on basis overseas lived as, commissaries are very much an integral part of us being able to have connections back to our home. And anything that is going to try to put market value on some good, it is going to be by nature, it is going to be overpriced. Gets not that easy to americanmade products when you are in okinawa. Is by nature, it is going to be overpriced because it is not that easy to get the products there. I also know many of the military the department of defense have consistently been trying to get rid of the commissary system as we know it. And because of that, i dont trust that they are truly looking out for the interests of people that care about commissaries. I would like to have this check, at least available for us. Especially considering six months from now, where will we be as a country . Where will we be as a committee . We may not have the ability to be able to check, put a check on the dod. Should they make a decision that we believe would work against the best interests of our members of the Armed Services. With that, i strongly support the gentleman from minnesotas amendment. I yield back. Thank you, yield to the chairman. I think the gentlelady. I appreciate everybodys comments and concerns. I want to make sure we point out some of the things in regards to the safeties and concerns. We are going to need appropriated funds overseas, where we dont have the same opportunities that we have in the continental United States. This is not going to impact overseas commissaries. Haveso, as i mentioned, put into place the safeguards for the workforce, so that the current workforce will not be ily converted to a Nonappropriated Fund for employees. More will they see any change, they have been working on it for over a year. This gives them the authority to roll it out and then report back to us so we had the oversight necessary to make your that prices are not skyrocketing, that the beneficiaries see this as the value that it is, i do believe that if we are going to get our arms around the commissary benefit and not see closures of underused commissaries, that we need to move forward with modernizing the benefit now. I yield back. I yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. I do appreciate the chairman of the subcommittees hard work. We Start Talking about benefits for our military, it always gives me great pause. Just because i happen i get bombarded sometimes from folks in the military. Particularly from my own family and their families. I am concerned when we Start Talking about modernization because i dont know if that is a code word for cutting benefits or if that really is about doing things more costeffective across the board. I believe that the chairman of the subcommittee is being very stored straightforward with regards to dod having to come back to him, back to the subcommittee to make sure that we are not doing something that sounds good on paper, i know it was in the movie somewhere, but then we end up hurting real people. These are men and women that are serving their family. It is not just them, but their family. We have Service Members living in areas that they do not get paid the same rate of wages, not just in d. C. , that the commissary is a lifeline for them. Actually them to provide for their families and do things that are necessary. I would just caution the committee, i am leaving at the end of this year, but i really do believe this committee has the best interest of our Service Members at heart. I do believe that. I am torn with regard to what is the best action. I am confident though that the chairman of the subcommittee, dr. Heck is not going to allow dod modernize at the expense of our Service Members. And with that, i yield back, mr. Chairman. Questions on the amendment. The nose have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments the gentlelady from california . Distribute thell amendment. Without objection, the amendment get is considered red and the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. We just finished the discussion of the commissary. One of the most precious benefits of any g. I. When they leave the military is a g. I. Bill of rights. The g. I. Bill has such extraordinary value that we should do everything in our power to make sure that they get the biggest thing for their buck. Forprofit colleges have sworn have swarmed in and preu yed on our veterans. Billionornia, over 600 goes to College Assistance for veterans of the iraqi and afghanistan wars. Two forprofit colleges. California has imposed accountability standards by Governor Brown in 2002 and they are not eligible, many of these forprofits are not eligible fortress of grants because they do not meet these accountability standards around Graduation Rates and job placement rates. Under the current law, it is tired that 10 of their total revenues, from nonfederal sources. 90 can come from federal sources and 10 from nonfederal sources except ironically and in defensively, the g. I. Bill and d. O. T. Education funds count towards that federal funds. Doublethis has been referred and as a result it has got to be withdrawn but i really think members that we opened a responsibility to these veterans and his somehow say that this is a double referral is something we will not take. We need to take this seriously and make sure that the 10 is not eligible for g. I. Bill dollars and four dod education funds. And with that, mr. Chairman, i yield back. The gentlelady withdrew her amendment. I am sorry. I could not hear. The gentlelady withdrew her amendment, correct . There areanding is other referrals to other committees that have not waived jurisdiction so we are not able to consider this amendment. I dont know if anyone really has something they need to get in, right now. The amendment is withdrawn. The gentlelady from california, ms. Davis . Thank you mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. The staff will distribute the amendment. Without objection, the amendment is considered to be read and ms. Davis is recognized. A my amendment would strike provision that was included in the chairman sparks that would prohibit the president from changing the military pay raises as authorized in section 1009. Although i continue to support pay raises for our Service Members, i am concerned that by increasing them above the requested amount and removing the discretion of the president and our military leaders to adjust military compensation that we could be setting a dangerous precedent. Docourse the pay increases matter and they do count to our Service Members but when we are then saying there is less money available and otherranges, things. If you ask our troops, what is more important, the message from them is clear invest in our readiness, in training. Get us the parts we need to maintain our equipment. We all know that it is difficult to make these decisions but we need to give the president , this president , the next president , the authority to be flexible with the pay raise. Changesthe situation dramatically between now and january 1 of next year . This smart puts us in a so it situationputs us in a beyond the first five months. That is a concern and it should be a concern for all of us. Unfortunately, my amendment was referred to several other committees and they have not waived their jurisdiction, so i do withdraw my amendment but i hope we will Work Together to consider these points into the future. Thank you, gentlelady. The context the gentlelady makes is important. The pay is also significant as we have been discussing. Further amendments the gentleman from nevada . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Two consisting of amendments that i been worked and approved by the minority. Without objection. The staff will distribute the package. Without objection the amendments are considered to be read. The derailment from nevada is recognized for five minutes. This is comprised of the the article to implement the recommendations to assist veterans in obtaining commercial licenses. A Pilot Program to share the successes of three state programs in providing low cost and help in job placement programs. Shouldretary of defense retaliation. Amendment by ms. Sanchez the expanded Service Opportunity for women in the military. Amendment by ms. Ear which directs the dod to release public reports of substantiated misconduct. By mr. Peters which directs the secretary of the navy to review the circumstances that may have courtmartial following the explosion at the port chicago california naval magazine in july of 1984. Amendment by mr. Turner which requires a minimum confinement. T period amendment by mr. Turner to be adequately trained to meet the survivors of sexual,. Further discussion . The gentlelady from california, ms. Sanchez . I would like to thank the staff for my amendment in this package which honors the service of women in the military. ,000 women201 in the military. Servicewomen have served in iraqi freedom and enduring centennial,freedom you don and continue to serve in operation inherit result. I dont believe that there is anyone that would question the Invaluable Service that women have made to the security and defense of our nation. Summary people have doubted and question the value of having women in the military but repeatedly these brave women have proven they are indispensable. Last year, we get the first three women to graduate from army ranger school. They were all from west point. I was there because i sit on the board of visitors. It is amazing to see these women. They are conquering new challenges every day. They are proving that restricting them is shortsighted. The secretary of defense officially announced that all itary occupancy occupations and positions would be open to women. Breaking the barrier that has been a long time in coming. Sure that these women are being properly outfitted and equip in order to ensure optimum safety. If more women in said in list, we need to encourage the secretary of defense to develop initiatives that will help retain these talented Women Leaders to ensure that our Armed Services committee the greatest fighting force in the world. We have been it during an incredible asset for far too long. With the defense secretarys announcement, we have ushered in a new era that will make us stronger and more capable. This amendment ensures that we continue on the right path. I ask all to support it. Thank you, mr. Chairman and i yield back. Further discussion on the unblocked package. Those in favor, say i. The amendments are adopted. The gentleman from nevada. I ask unanimous consent to call on unblocked package number three. Without objection. With the staff please distribute the amendments. Without objection, the amendments are considered to be read. Unblocked package number three, amendment by mr. Kittitas which would require a briefing on joint Research Requirements at the military health services. Whichent by mr. Duckworth authorizes an epidemiological study on the Health Effects of helicopter pilots. Amendment by mr. Peters which authorizes the secretary of orense to provide financial nonmonetary support to nonprofit organizations carrying out programs that support the attendance of children to grieve camps. Mr. Ashfordt by which requires a study concerning veterans access to commissary and exchange facilities. Amendment by mr. Smith which directs the secretary of defense to conduct a study on open your prescription use and its effects on readiness. Amendment by mr. Hunter which requires a briefing requiring the activities tricare coverage. Fordment numbered 258 Health Affairs on the administration of tricare coverage for medically necessary foods. Amendment by mr. Turner which the gsa per diem lodgings with one premium rate. Further discussion on the unblocked amendment. I would like to speak on my amendment in the unblocked package. Thank the committee for working with me to provide some critical oversight on decisions being made by the Defense Health agency. The decision to close the Pacific Joint Information Technology Center was one that was made on an illadvised effort to show cost savings without considering the value the facility adds to the Defense Health enterprise. Over the years, it has leveraged toding from dha and dod produce important advances in the field of information technology. Far away from the bureaucracy of washington, d. C. Has been one of the main drivers of its innovative success according to many involved. The decision to consolidate the facility back to the mainland runs counter to this. What bothers me about this process the most is the failure with anyoneo engage in the community on maui or at the state level before making this decision. The dod continues to say it is under the pressure to find efficiencies within the workforce but these type subprojects are the ones that drive innovation and efficiency that it is looking for in the first place. When the delegation was briefed back in november, i was told that the outlook for new projects for the center was good and that past successes would all but ensured the dha that dha would work on a new contract to continue to engage with the businesses. I want to thank the committee for putting the brakes on this to we can fully evaluate the situation and find ways to keep the joint research going. Is there further discussion on the unblocked package . Questions on the package . The amendments are adopted. Further amendments, the gentlelady from illinois . I have been amendment at the desk. The staff will please distribute the amendment. Without objection, the amendment is considered to be read. Bothis amendment modernizes and simplifies military parental leave to create a single 12 week paid parental leave status for all new moms and dads regardless of their gender, marital status, or whether a child is biological ideological adopted or fostered. Reduced removes discrimination and ensures fair and equal treatment for all the lee terry treatment. I won everyone to remember two things children are children and they cannot choose their parents. Three months ago when secretary carter announced down breaking changes to the parental leave policies i was cautiously optimistic. Here was an acknowledgment that the needed to do more to super or those who have made a solemn commitment to assert their country but also to start a family. Proposals reinforce these a system that discriminates against children raised on their parents Family Planning decision and sexual orientation. I dont think the Department Needs to tell kids that are adopted or fostered that they are less worthy of Parent Bonding time then biological. A newborn infant adopted by two bail Service Members would only get 10 days. That newborn needs their parents as much as the child of a hetero sexual couple. Departmentsthe proposal, we will preserve a system that breaks children up into groups. Some kids will be considered less deserving of their parents time. That is truly troubling. We all allow a samesex couple to fight on our behalf that we turn around and tell their children they do not deserve the same bonding opportunities given to biological children. We pledge to care for our Wounded Warriors but when those are struggling with infertility, and they are forced to adopt because they cannot have their own children, we do not give them the same. Ting opportunities as birth parents. I worry about the children of these Wounded Warriors. We should not discriminate against these families. My amendment takes a final step and offers a parent policy truly worthy of a 21st century force. I know many of my colleagues on this panel can speak to the same or greater sacrifice. We expect our troops to be at the right place at the right time in the right uniform at all times. We expect them to defend our nation here and abroad. We expect them to do all of this in a way that honors them and the American People. So we dont have to. Wanting a Stable Family life with military service is a difficult task. Operational and training requirements will office will often take president. Parental leave is one mechanism that can restore balance to that relationship. Modernizing military current elite policies would strengthen the departments ability compete with the private sector, it will also enable Service Members to fulfill two of the most solemn commitments they can ever make, a commitment to serve their country and a commitment to start and support a family. An children need and deserve opportunity to bond with parents and that includes our military families which routinely make sacrifices to serve our nation. If we are to recruit and train the best, Congress Must lead and take action to make sure that our military has a fair parental leave policy. Yields back. Lady the gentleman from nevada. I appreciate the gentleladys efforts to make sure that every child has bonding time with their parents. Thecurrent policy is that birth parent gets 12 weeks of parental leave and the nonbirth to 14 days of paternity leave which is also in addition to the possibility of taking 30 days of leave. The idea of providing the same amount of time to both parents was considered as part of the fourth of the future. It was rejected because of the Services Push back regarding readiness concerns. Negative impact on force readiness. Because of that, the department of defense in the most recent review and where secretary carter normalized the varying degrees of leave that were present among the Different Services settled at 12 weeks plus two weeks for paternity leave. They felt that would be the level where readiness could be maintained. In the market, we do extend that to adoptive parents due to a provision that was resented. We allow the same 12 and two for adoptive parents. I appreciate what youre saying but i do think that in this case the department is creating different groups of dependent children and creating groups of halves and havenots. That is being docked it or being adopted by a samesex couple of two mail Service Members even now only get 14 days with ch parent. A newborn needs their parents. When we made the decision to allow samesex couples to serve openly, this is one of the consequences. We are on a dangerous path to creating a whole series of inequalities among dependent children, our most vulnerable children. I think we will lose members of our military and i think we will get fewer people reenlisting and that will adversely affect readiness. Ms. Davis. Top greatly appreciate my what my colleague is trying to do. I would suggest perhaps and i would love to work with her as well to in an unblocked amendment we actually are doing a study to look at dual military families and sharing parental leave in some way. I think the concern here is that if you have a full 12 weeks, nondeployable 12 weeks for both parents, than that could create some readiness problems. There may well be a way to do this that is fair and that people can make those decisions as parents together in terms of how to divide up the time. We will be doing a study to look at some of those possibilities. Perhaps, that would be something to look at as well. I dont want to oppose this but at the same time, i think there may be a way to move forward and we can Work Together on this. Other discussion . Questions on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from illinois. The nose have it in the amendment is not agreed to. Further amendments the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Russell . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment. The staff will distribute the amendment. Without objection, the amendment is considered to be read. Is the amendment provisions of it are actually very simple. Ist it allows is the year of theserved at the rank Service Members at the time of ofaration of a final decree the termination of a marriage to be used in calculation and division of disposable income. Let me give you an example. Constituent who ascended all the way to the chief Master Sergeant of the air force. Early in that individuals career, for whatever reason, their marriage at two years, at the first two years of the service, terminated. Two years later, the remarriage of occurred at a sergeant rank. 31 more years were served, several wars, several deployments. When he retired from the air force at 35 years, the original spouse was able to claim 50 of a 35 year retirement. This is not a gender issue or a spouse issue. This is a Service Member retirement issue. Numerous members in a bipartisan fashion combatlly to the veterans on both sides of the aisle in this conference. The application is simple. It just says that the number of years that you serve at the time , then divorce at rank that will be the calculation for of the disposable income and how that would be determined. This has over 19 organizations now in support to include the veterans of foreign wars, military officers association, the enlisted Association Among many others. Of the Unitedn States navy, gold star wives of america, Vietnam Veterans of america, etc. That do toething vague interpretive challenges over the decades has created a diminishment of Service Members retirement and the families that sacrificed for them. Thatis a means to correct with simple language. It is fair. It provides the shared experiences that the years and time at separation and will protect our Service Warriors regardless of who they are, male, female that have put themselves in harms way. And with that, mr. Chairman, i will yield back my time and happy to answer any questions that there may be. Further questions. I would like to speak in support of this amendment. Theuld like to note that course of a military career is very different than the course of some other professions such as lawyers or doctors where so much of your final earning power rests with your ability to successfully complete and pass training at the very beginning of your career when the first spouse may be involved. If you dont pass the bar exam coming you cant become an attorney. In the military, it is different. The spouse that is there at the beginning when you first graduate from officers basic course and officers advanced course in the first couple of years of your service is not there for all of the other trials, tribulations, and benchmarks in that career. You have to have a decent command. You have to go to additional education. Have to be successful at brigade command, significant milestones which are just as important as the initial training where the first spouse may have been a party. This goes both for officers and enlisted as well. It is especially important for the enlisted ranks where someone does that become a Sergeant Major if they didnt have a successful First Sergeant time. None of those things are determined by his graduating rank out of basic training. God for bid that how well i did as a Second Lieutenant would affect how i did as the rest of my career. Realisticis bill is by making the calculations based on the rank in the year at the time of the divorce. We create a far more just and edible system. I want to quickly register my support for this amendment as well. Inequity and an injustice in the system for far too long. I complement my colleague here in congress and in iraq, mr. Russell for bringing this to our attention and pushing it forward. To voice mynt support for this amendment. While the original intent of the whowas to support spouses are important, this clarifies and makes it fair to the Service Member to avoid situations like you described. Constituents who have been in similar situations. I support this amendment. To be more fair in its application and intent. I encourage others to support as well. I have a question for the author. You gave an example that was very eager just. This is about equity. On the other side, if a spouse is with the Service Member for 25 years and the Service Member. Ets 21 ranked they then divorce. There is another spouse that is with that particular Service Years and he or she moves on to a general, it would seem the more recent spouse would get a much greater benefit. Ofhough the years involvement and years of service are much less. Is that somehow addressed in your . In here . It is a situation that does occur. I is important to note and can give you an actual example a 31 year marriage, a senior. Erson comes back that spouse who was faithful on that deployment, the marriage ends. That particular spouse would not have any diminishment of the that they mayces in all 31 years, as it should be. In the case of multiple, it is possible for multiple retirements to occur. I believe the record is a person in the interior part of the country, i wont say where, that holds three such draws of retirement. This is what we are trying to fix in combat. I appreciate the question. It needs to be equitable and fair. This is the first step to try to do that. Briefly, i would also like to express my support for this amendment because it really is about fairness and equity. There is nothing at all that diminishes the sacrifice and service of a military spouse. This simply makes sure that if for whatever reason that marriage ends, that a settlement is come to that is equitable of the marriage and the length of the sacrifice in that relationship. We have seen how there have been different examples of quite unfair financial obligations that dont have anything to do with whether a person was in a marriage for a year or 30 years. This amendment has been able to address that directly. If someone is there for 30 years, they are taking care of for the years that they put in for that service. Further discussion . I yield my time to mr. Russell. And i think my colleague from ohio and thank you mr. Chairman. For the record, i have been happily married for 30 years and the entire time was with my lovely bride. Not personally apply to me. It is not an ax to grind. And unfairness that i think quite frankly all of our warriors that have served, we immediately get it and understand it. I cannot tell you mr. Chairman how grateful i am to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and i hope we can have support. Questions on the amendment offered from the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. Russell. The amendment is adopted. Further amendments . The gentlewoman from california. The gentleman from california. The staff would please distribute the amendment. This discussion will not be as loving as the last one. This is pretty simple. It lists the exclusion of women from registering from the Selective Service very here is why i think this is. It does not matter right now in this debate whether you think that women should be in the infantry or special operations. I personally do not. Would vote against women being in infantry and special operations. The marine corps did a study on this. Many of us have been to these meetings. We have spoken to the marine corps and seeing the studies but this is not about women serving in the imagery. The administration has made that unilaterally, disregarding what the marine corps and special Operations Communications communities have said. Right now, the draft is sexist. It only drastic young men. It only drafts young men. War, and i mean not counterterrorism or counterinsurgency. Frankly, a war my generation has not seen. We have not been to vietnam or korea were thousands of people are dying every day. Where you have mass tank units rolling through peoples lives. We have not seen that. That is what a draft is for. Like tonistration would make this decision on their own. I think we should make this decision. We should be the ones talking about it. It is our families that we represent who are affected by this. This should not be a unilateral decision made by the commanderinchief. From my personal point of view, i have talked to coffee liberals in San Francisco and conservative families who pray retyped a day and neither of these groups want their daughter to be drafted. Not to do a draft is motor transport or supply or finance. It is they are to put hotties on the front line to take the hill. That is what it is therefore. It is to get more people to close with. That is what a draft is for. The draft is there to get more people to rip the enemies throats out and kill them for our nation. Is what a draft is for. Now, i may vote no on my own amendment. If you vote yes on this thedment, your voting with chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff testified to the senate that if the combat exclusion for women is lifted for infantry and special operations that she that they should be drafted. The combat exclusion for women is lifted for infantry and special operations he said the draft should be implemented and include women. If you vote for this amendment you are voting with general full general dunford. In 1981, the Supreme Court upheld the differential treatment where women were excluded from the draft because of purpose of the registration was to prepare a draft of combat troops. Since women were excluded from combat, they could be asked loaded from registration. That is no longer the case. I would add that if you vote yes, to send american daughters to war, drafted, the cbo said it will reduce federal spending because you dont have to figure out who is a man or a woman. Everyone at 18 gets drafted. I regretfully introduce this amendment. My daughters talk about serving and so does my son. But i dont want to see my daughters put in a place where they have to be drafted. To say that a big or will never happen and there is no need for a draft, that is not this debate. I think that is a shortsighted point of view. We will have a big war again. America will be in a conventional war again. History tells us that. We dont just prepare to fight in syria and iraq. That is what we are preparing for, to fight in russia and elsewhere. The question of drafting american daughters is making the American Voter consider the real implication of real integration into combat arms. Let this committee make the right decision. It could be one way or the other but that is our job, not the administrations job. I would ask for a rollcall vote. I yield myself briefly to make two points. One is the president will not decide Selective Service. The only ones who can decide this are us because it is in law or the courts. There is a court case that is ongoing through the process that challenges Selective Service being male only. I dont know how that will come out but that is on the way through the court system. Second point is this. In the underlying mark, we have a study that requires dod to come back to us about the Selective Service system. About what the benefits are, about what alternatives there may be, so we have a fuller picture of the draft and what it would mean to keep it, to do away with it, to include females in it to have the broader picture. Getiew is that we need to those answers, follow the court case, and take this some further steps. I dont know what all the answers are personally. Us, think that it is up to it is up to us to decide and secondly, we need to explore the various options. That is what we have in the underlying market. Other discussion on this amendment. While my good colleague from california seemed to take a very bellicose direction in offering this amendment, i would suggest to him that thinking liberal coffeehouse liberals from San Francisco, not that i am going to take umbrage of that because i am proud of it, actuallys report that. I support universal conscription. I think that if we want it holiday in this country and we want women to be treated precisely as men and they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription. This you may be offering as a gotcha amendment, i would suggest that there is great merit in recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in time of four. Timeframe where we do some kind of service whether it be on the battlefield or in support in the background. I support your amendment. And would be delighted to vote for it. You for accepting my language. Think we need to update ourselves as to whether or not it is practical, it is an effective tool in time of war. If we look at iraq and afghanistan, during the height of those conflicts, there was never a discussion in the department of defense to resort to conscription. I can to you that i am very opposed to the draft, to conscription because i think in Donald Trumps works, words, the system is rigged by virtue of the fact that when a war becomes unpopular, for those with the political connections, those families of influence, not to serve. We know in vietnam, it was thenally sons of workingclass families that fought and died in the jungles of vietnam. I think the gentleman from california is right in referencing a Supreme Court decision that essentially said ok not to have, not to draft women or require them to register for the draft because women at that time did not serve in combat roles. Now, they do. The Selective Service as it stands today is by that case law unconstitutional. Theso, but i think Selective Service system is unnecessary. There was a Previous Report by the department of the army by the recruiting command that said 75 of draft aged young men are ineligible, they dont need the standards to enlist. They are overweight. They cannot get a high enough score in the entrance exams. They do not have a high school diploma. They have altercations with the law. They have drug and alcohol or emotional issues that preclude them. The bar would have to be dramatically lowered if we reverted to conscription again. I served in the united dates army when there was a draft. That is not something i want to people to forcing into military service that dont want to be there. We have the most elite military that we have today in the history of this country and i want to keep it that way. I think what is necessary is for the United States military, the department of defense to update the reserve component. , as ithose individuals think mr. Hunter was called up, during the afghanistan, i think that is the reserve of qualified personnel that we require. War,me of a conventional and with that, i yield. Number one, i would love to have that debate. We should have that debate here in this room a year from now. It should be debated and decided by us. We are the experts. But this is not that debate. Number two, this is not a gotcha amendment. This is a let us talk about this amendment. You have the combat exclusions that are no longer valid, we would not be talking about this. We would open things up to everyone that then say in a big war, where you had to go in and draft people because you need bodies, it would be unconstitutional. That is why i am bringing this up with so we can talk about this. So the American People can talk to us about this. This is an important debate we are having. The issue about the draft per se is one that whether or not the lifting of the combat seclusion is a separate one. Former army chief of staff once said that we cannot have the best army in the world if we exclude 50 of the population. The lifting of the combat exclusion was in part a recognition of that fact. Today,he nature of war women are virtually always in the fight. Ave visited after afghanistan and iraq a number of times, i have met talented servicewomen who are serving sidebyside with their male counterparts. We have to remember that women are serving not just on the front lines of our countrys war efforts at at military installations across the country and the world. Women serving as military scientists, engineers, Lab Technicians are among many other roles. When menequality is and women enjoy the same rights, opportunities, and obligations across all sectors of society including military service. Behaviors andrent needs of women and men are equally valued. I do agree with women in the draft is a step towards the quality. As congressman duncan said this. S a position that is shared let me begin by saying that it is definitely in my view our responsibility as the peoples risk representatives to weigh in on this. I do support the amendment. Combat tours, nothing would make the happier than if the current set of teenagers never had to see a shot fired in anger. I would include my daughters and my son. We have a standardsbased force now and we do not have a standards taste Selective Service and i think it needs to change. I plan to vote for it. I would like to echo the comments of my colleague from new york who just spoke. The whole question of this conversation is misguided because the real conversation is widely have the Selective Service and the draft in the first place. All we look at our volunteer professional army, i can speak as a soldier, that i would much rather have someone i know who wants to be there, who capable, and a professional warrior, and knowing they have my back rather than someone who has been forced to be there and does not have the commitment for themselves or throughout their training and capability. That is the conversation we should be having which really gets to the core of this issue. Will the gentlelady yield . Everyone to understand that this is about a big war. You have tens of thousands of people dying. That is when you have a draft. That is why we have a draft. When you have tens of thousands of people dying and being wounded. Where there are literally not enough people to fill the ranks. This is not about iraq, afghanistan, or the wars we have fought in our different careers and the military. This is about when something really bad happens and goes wrong and america has to mobilize as a nation. That is what the draft is about. I want to get in behind that but i will say this let us not lose sight of the fact that what we have now is standard space. If we need hundreds of thousands of folks to serve, that has not changed any reality that we will be standards taste as to who will be in the infantry and who will be supported. We have a situation now where we but standards based mos i we dont have standardsbased Selective Service. I dont think we should leap i think what you are suggesting, might be suggesting is that somehow we will draft individuals whether they be male or female and we will put them in a situation where they cannot perform. The chairman and the general would not stand for that and i think that is what all of the Service Chiefs have stated. Let us not mix apples and oranges. But we are talking about in clarity is Selective Service. To my colleague from california i recognize the conflicts that you are referring to and what it would take which is one of the reasons why i and mr. Gibson, i cosponsored mr. Gibsons bill, the posture act to recognize the need for us to have a professional, ready military that can deal with both the conventional and unconventional conflicts in addition to the need to protect the homeland. This is a conversation that has been happening and will continue as we work towards an increase in our country and our militarys capability. Indeal with multiple fronts the scenario that you are describing. I want to echo my colleague from new york and hawaii, some of their concerns. This is an important discussion. This is our role. Is an important first step to discuss the issue but i do want to correct my colleague in california as you painted the picture. The picture of the only reason having the draft. We all know many people who were korea, in world war ii, the at served in other positions, not the imagery. If we had to do that and if our nations interest work at the place where we needed to call up the Selective Service, individuals would put into positions that they are qualified for. They could be medical positions. We could need cyber warriors. I think we do need to make sure that people understand the intent of the draft is not to fill 100 of the positions for frontline infantry. There are other positions needed to run all of our services in a need of extended conflict. We dont need to turn this into an emotional discussion. We want it to be factbased. The chairmans mark language is an important first step. Ms. Davis. I appreciate this discussion as well. Think that this particular time, the department of defense has not adjusted that they need to really analyze our needs for massive mobilization. That is really not where we are. We have been talking about what we can do though to be in a far better prepared readiness position. I would like to extend the conversation. One of the things i think we is theze in our country have many young people who are interested in serving in multiple ways, not necessarily the military. We have the teacher corps, we have all kinds of ways. It may be that after some real thatsis, we might see given a time span of a number of years and developing an infrastructure that some kind of universal service for our country would be appropriate and that could include more people thinking about how they will serve. This is a different conversation but i do think it is something that we could hopefully, perhaps as we are looking at how do we get there . What do we need to do . What kinds of questions need to be asked . I think some of that is included in the market. As a huge supporter of national service, i want to support the gentlelady from californias remarks. I also want to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from arizona. She makes an important point. The fact of the matter is that the department of defense under the secretary of defense has made some major changes in just the last year. H gender integrated integration. Congress has punted its role in its supervisory role as the changes are made. We have not had a single hearing on this issue. Although i would not have chosen to advance this issue or this discussion in the way that mr. Hunter has done, i want to thank him for bringing it up and forcing this discussion. Ourmaking sure that we do duty as the oversight arm of government the question is on the question from the gentleman from california. The nos have it. Asked for a roll call vote which will be postponed. Further amendments. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I i ask unanimous consent to call up enblock amendment number 4. Without objection, staff will please distribute the mendments. Without objection, the amendments are considered as read. The gentleman from nevada is ecognized for 5 minutes. Authorizes up to 25 million to be used for grants for chronic traumatic enseff lop thy. Allows Service Members who have changed their name to receive amended discharge documents. Requires a briefing on the policy of limitation planned for the military apprenticeship program. D. O. D. To develop a mets oddology which develops patterns and trends for units highest at risk for suicide. Authorizes a Pilot Program for breath liesers. Requires the National Guard bureau to give a brief to hask forced mula for allocation. Leave for a spouse of someone who gives birth to at least 14 ays and allows dual military couples to split time off. Directs the secretary of defense how to have new recruits identify a network of support. To brief the Armed Services committee on its assessment and estimated costs integration of the network of support into existing efts. Recognize and provide a briefing on Community Partnerships between local schools military and the community. Provides active oscillating negative pressure treatment for Wounded Warriors. I yield back the balance of my time. Further discussion . Thank you. I just want to speak briefly on my amendment which is aimed at ensuring the department of defense takes the most effective approach for reducing suicides in our Armed Services. Since 2012 suicide has been the leading cause of death in our miltrifment over the past three years the rate has been nearly 50 greater than the civilian population. Of those almost two thirds are among those who have been deployed to either Operation Iraqi freedom, Operation Enduring freedom or operation new dawn. The department of defense needs to take an aggressive approach to solving this crisis. My amendment would identify patterns and trends, and develop a methodology to assess which units will see circumstances which will lead o such incidences to provide Mental Health care among active personnel. Many factors that impact instances of suicide are not currently tracked. By collecting all Services Data and facilitating information sharing among the Services Best practices can be exchanged and high risk units locations and deployment locations can be identified and targeted for increased attention. I thank the cosponsors of this amendment. I yield back. Further discussion . If not the question is on the en bloc package offered by the gentleman from nevada. The ayes have it. The ayes have it. He amendments are adopted. The gentlelady from california ms. Spears. I have an amendment at the desk. The staff will distribute the amendment. The amendment is considered as read. Members this is a very important amendment. I know on this committee as we do in our house have varying views on abortion in this country. There is nothing that changes the fact that abortions will not be paid for with federal dollars. But this issue is important because so many of our Service Members who get pregnant who need an abortion are finding themselves in really dangerous situations. Dangerous for their health, well. Us for others as i just want to read to you two real life stories that put this in perspective. The first is from a Service Woman serving in south korea who has requested to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation. I am in the military and got raped and became pregnant. I would like to just move on without military intervention. Im stationed in south korea and abortion is illegal here even for rape. Ically not go home on leaf at this time. I dont know what to do. What can i do . The second comes from dr. Janet jacobson, an md in california and former Lieutenant Commander in the u. S. Navy. The name of her patient has been changed to preserve the privacy. I walked into the intensive care unit when i was a second year resident to meet my new patient. Sami had been transferred overnight. She couldnt talk because she was on life support and had a tube down her throat to make her breathe. Sami was an airmen. She was five months pregnant and became ill. At the hospital the infection spread and she almost died. Ending the pregnancy would have improved her status but the Military Hospital where she was getting care was not able to do an abortion for her because no one on staff had been trained in the procedure. She lost her pregnancy, her feet, as well as multiple fingers but did survive. Its really ridiculous that Service Women may be less able to exercise their Constitutional Rights than civilian counterparts who they fight to protect. In order for this amendment to meet the standards in the law, the Service Member would have to use her own private funds in order to get the abortion. So this is not changing the law as it exists. It does not change the hide amendments. It just provides some health and safety to our Service Members who are in the position to request and need an abortion. I might also add that in some situations these Service Members are in, for instance, in south dakota at eelsworth air force base Service Members have to remain within travel boundries of 300 miles round trip but the nearest Abortion Provider is actually 300 miles from the base one way. Additionally, challenges both domestically and internationally include disclosing personal Health Information to their Commanding Officer in order to travel off base, approval by the unit commander which might take days or weeks, the need to seek approval of mileage path, limited or no access to a car and local facilities abroad that are substandard unsafe or have language barriers. This is just the right thing to do for our Service Members. We should not be placing their lives at risk. Theyre going to use their own money. You are not taking a position on abortion by supporting this amendment. Youre just making sure that a woman who is a Service Member has the ability to use the military base hospital to seek out the service. Any woman in this country what has had a miscarriage whether at 10 weeks or 20 weeks a miscarriage is an abortion in this country and our providers need to be in a position to provide that service. Ith that, i will offer my time to. The cosponsor. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any other debate on the amendment . Dr. Fleming is recognized for five minutes. First of all, it is my understanding that in case of danger to the life of mother or the result of rape or incest women are already able to access abortion on military facilities, Military Hospitals. So were really talking about elective abortions. Of course a miscarriage is not an elective abortion. Miscarriage is something that happens in nature. Know that most miscarriages result having to do with nonelective options. So when it comes to cost, we know that Many Health Care providers on military basis, active duty military Health Care Providers will opt not to participate, which means that you will have to hire civilians. They will have to be an investment of equipment, additional equipment. So there will be cost to taxpayers. Is will in effect create a governmentrun planned parenthood on all the military bases. So for this and many other reasons it makes no sense to go down this road. Again, there are abortion facilities in every state. We have great transportation. If a young woman wants to go off base to a private facility the option is available to her. If she is going to pay for it anyway she can pay for it there. And no one is preventing her from doing that. So for that reason and many more i think it is a very bad idea to do this. I know it has been attempted for 20 years now and defeated each time and i think we should defeat it once again. I yield. The gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I am glad to join my colleague in introducing this amendment. Of course federal law has banned the department of defense from providing Abortion Services at military Treatment Facilities except in the cases of rape, incest, or if the womans life is in danger. The facility ban imposes hardship on Service Women and compromises and their privacy and does nothing to improve our nations military readiness. All this amendment would do is raise the unnecessary ban without providing public funds for Abortion Services which is consistent with federal law. And lift the ban to refuse to provide abortions because of their religious belief which i know is something important to conservatives that theyve talked about over the years. While i believe that provision is unnecessary we are trying to strike a balance here. I want to counter something that the gentleman just mentioned a second ago. He said that states already allow women to have abortions in every state in the union. And i can tell you in the state of texas where im from in many places in the state it is all but impossible for women to be able to have access to Abortion Services because of the draconian law passed by the texas legislature. And texas is a very large state. It can take literally hours and hours to be able to get from one end of the state to another. And because of the law that was passed in texas this burden would be huge on military women in the state of texas which there are a lot of them. So all we are asking is that women not have to face these barriers just because they are trying to receive the medical care that is constitutionally provided to them. So i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this very commonsense amendment which does the right thing for women soldiers. The gentleman from arizona s recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, sometimes i think it is easy for us to argue the answer larry issues whenever this subject comes up. I think all of us are a little uncomfortable. Sometimes those of us who speak forth rightly to it. Sometimes people think were not uncomfortable with it. We are. But it is of consequence to look at the underlying issue here. Those lying out in Arlington National cemetery died for a principle suggesting that we hold certain truths to be selfevident. That all of us are created, that the image of god is stamped on every soul. And that every little child has that image stamped on their souls. So when the gentlelady that introduced the amendments suggests that there is an intensity and kind of contention surrounding the debate, she is precisely correct but it is something to do with our collective conscience in that Ultra Sound Technology and modern ability to see into the womb is beginning to demonstrate to all reasonable minds, to all people of good will, to all people of compassion the humanity of the victim here and the inhumanity of what is being done to them. And it is always difficult for me to understand that the fact that we take the life of over 1 million children a year in america that that is somehow not enough for my friends on the left. That they not only want abortion on demand for any reason at any stage of development, or for no reason up until the moment of birth. And they want the government to pay for it. Now, i would challenge them to suggest what part of that statement isnt true . And now we come and we want to our make a basises for military abortion clinics. I think it dishonors those who gave everything they had for this country and what it stands for. I think it is time for all of us to ask the real question, as hard as it is, and that is does abortion really take the life of a baby . If it doesnt, im glad to stop talking about it. But if it does, then those of us living here in the seat of freedom in the greatest country in the history of humanity alts find ourselves in the midst of the greatest genocide in the history of humanity. And i dont want us to miss that foundational point. Our job here is to make sure our men and women that defend this country are capable of doing so, and giving them every opportunity they have not to politicize military bases and to overlook the notion that what we are doing here is talking about something that hurts little babies and hurts their mothers. And i would oppose the amendment. I hope all of us would look to the underlying issue. With that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from georgia mr. Johnson is recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, i rise in support of the amendment at the desk. Once again we find ourselves debating about the ability of a woman to have access to safe and legal Abortion Services. In this case, it is our brave Service Women who find themselves facing insurmountable obstacles that prevent their access to abortion care in addition to comprehensive pregnancy care. Since 1996, d. O. D. Medical Treatment Facilities are banned from providing abortion care. To make mearlingts worse, try care is also restricted in its coverage of a broad range of pregnancy related medical care including abortions. The combined effect of both a facilities ban and insurance restrictions makes it nearly impossible for Service Women to receive an abortion, especially when they are overseas. Instead, they are forced to seek potentially risky and dangerous treatment off base. Alternatively, women find themselves forced to make the choice of careying to term an unwanted pregnancy. Of course the other alternative is to use a back alley Abortion Provider. The obvious risks are compounded when a Service Woman is stationed in a country where their reproductive rights are nonexistent. There is the practical issue of affordability as most Service Women do not have the means to cover the outofpocket costs associated with seeking an abortion off base nor do they have the Time Resources or capacity to travel far distances in order to find an Abortion Provider. This is ulterly acceptable in a under n abortion circumstances laid out in the law is the law. Our soldiers deserve access tot best comprehensive health care and services we have to offer and this should include access to safe abortion methods. This amendment moves us one step closer to lifting the ban on abortion care in military Treatment Facilities. For that reason i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. With all due respect to the views of those who oppose bortion. Yeeblet. I thank the gentleman for ielding. This amendment is not going to give anything more the opportunity to pay for an abortion at a military facility. It also is important because, as i pointed out, in south dakota a woman will have to avel 300 to 500 miles to get to the closest clinic. She cannot do that based on her responsibility to be within 150 and 250 miles from her post. Give them the right to have the abortion at a military facility in which they pay for it physicians nd the know how to do the procedure because they have done delations and evacuations for women who are there on base or the dependents of members who are on base when it is a miscarriage situation. I cannot believe there are members who o dont want to provide this service to women. I yield the balance of my time mr. Miller is recognized for five minutes. Would the gentlelady yield for a question . I dont have time left. I yield. Its my time. The gentleman from florida is on his time. Will the gentlelady answer a question . Of course. If the female military person pay force the abortion using their own money, can the perform the use to abortion based on religious grounds . Yes. Thank you. The gentlelady from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. I believe a womans access to safe, affordable, Reproductive Health care should not depend on where she lives, her financial status, or the fact that she has chosen to serve in the United States military. Military women serving overseas and military dependents stationed outside the u. S. Do not have the same access to basic health care that other american women do or that it is ensured by the laws of the country they are fighting to protect. While i believe that we must work to reduce unintended pregnancies, the restriction on abortion care in Military Hospitals is unfair, and places our Service Women and military dependents at risk. This unfair policy leads to delay in care and unnecessarily increased health and safety risks. This amendment would alleaf yate those issues and allow Service Women and military dependents access to abortion care. Women would use their own money to pay for procedures just as they do for other types of care. And i urge my colleagues to upport this amendment. No taxpayer funding can be used for abortion thats the law. D. O. D. Facilities are built and funded by all americans. An unborn child also should have access to life. As the father of five children, three of whom are adopted, we can destroy human life and call it a relief of hardship. We can make the killing of children legal and pretend it is beneficial, we can cover acts of bar baret with the ven near of civility. But we cannot escape our accountability before the creator of life. Mr. Chairman for 20 years i have watched this amendment be put forward. Before i came to the committee, when i was on the committee. 20 amazing to me that in years we could have gone from voting women out of the military as i said this morning to seeing women advance into any position to serve their country and to fight put their lives on the line. For our freedom. R all of our freedom in this country. And yet all of our freedom. Our constitution and our Supreme Court has said that abortion is legal. And yet we deny this set of women the women who serve all of us to protect our freedoms and our rights we deny them their rights. This is about accessibility. This is about affordability. This is about being in the country outside of there, here, in a country serving us, in a time of war, and not being able to get that service in our own hospital. I would hope that this ommittee would consider that it is time to pass the amendment. Thank you. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california ms. Speer. Those in favor say aye. No. The nos have it. I request a roll call. The gentlelady from california requests a roll call vote, which will be postponed. Further amendments. The gentleman from nevada. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number five. Without objection. If the staff would please distribute the en bloc mendments. Without objection the amendments are considered read. The gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Amendment by mr. Larson authorizes the continuation of try care for the National Guard following the period of full time guard duty. Requires report on d. O. D. Efforts to provide timely review of separation characterization of former members of the armed forces who were separated by reason of sexual orientation. Creates a hazing report data base. Directs the secretary of each military department to conduct hazing surveys of Service Members. Establishes the burden of proof applicable to whirps in the military. Whistleblowers in the military. Body mass index Test Procedure for revision. Offers Service Members the option to opt into donating their brain for research after death for research into tbi and cte during discharge rocessing. Is there further discussion . The question is on the question by nevada. The gentleman from nevada. The ayes have it the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. Further amendments . The gentleman from arizona. I have an amendment at the desk. The staff would please istribute the amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered read. The gentleman from arizona is is rec sniesed for five minutes. The time has come for america to own up to a troubling legacy when dont ask dont tell was finally repealed more than 1050,000 were issued other than honorable simply because of their orientation. We know these were contrary to our values and national interests. More importantly they have been an incredible disservice to bray americans who have worn the uniform. However, thanks in part to the outstanding leadership of members of this committee dont ask dont tell is finally a thing of the past. It took decades but the pentagon recognizes who you love has no bearing on how you fight. Unfortunately, the task of repairing the damage of these policies inflicted on tens of thousands is far from over. Specifically the repeal of no t ask dont tell offered relief. They continue to be denied the v. A. Benefits and they city carry the stain of a tarnished military record. Thankfully the Obama Administration has established an administrative process to enable members to correct this injustice. My amendment would put this process into law ensuring that no matter who wins the presidency veterans will be able to clear their names. Unless this committee acts theres no guarantee that the next president citing some imagined drain on resources or some invented bureaucratic burden wont eliminate this. Unfortunately this version of the amendment had a scoring issue but i am hopeful that we can Work Together as the process moves forward to ensure it will not result in any additional spending. I am going to withdraw the amendment at this time but i do look forward to the moment when all veterans receive the espect they deserve. I yield back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california number 224 regarding Selective Service. Oik call. Roll call. Who seeks recognition . May i change my vote . How is mr. Tacki recorded . Mr. That kye voted no. How would you like to be record snd a yes vote for me. Mr. Tack kie votes aye. The clerk will report the results. 32 aye votes, 30 no votes. The amendment is adopted. The question now occurs on amendment number 99 by ms. Spear. He clerk will call the roll. Roll call vote. The clerk will report the results. 25 aye votes, 37 no votes. The amendment is not agreed to. If there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada dr. Heck for the purpose of offering a motion. I move to adopt the subcommittee report on military personnel as amended. The question is on the motion of the gentleman from nevada. Thea quorum being present the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. The committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on Strategic Forces. Pursuant to Committee Rule 17 and in consultation with the Ranking Member we will postpone recorded votes on the amendments in this particular portion of the mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. The chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from alabama mr. Rogers for any comments he would like to make. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I thank both you and the Ranking Member smith for your leadership again this year as we move forward with another bipartisan ndaa. I also want to thank my friend and colleague from tennessee jim cooper. We have traveled together across the globe braving minus 40 degree temperatures venturing into crumbling manhattan crumbling project facilities and visiting Missile Defense systems overseas. We have spent countless hours in brufe of briefings gotten to know each others lives and worked together for this mark and our previous marks. His thoughtful input and seriousness with which he approaches the subcommittees business is beyond measure. I also want to thank the subcommittee staff for their hard work. At this point i would usually turn to a description of the subcommittee mark but in the interest of time i will ask unanimous consent to introduce my full remarks into the record. And i will just summarize and say it is a great mark and beautiful mark the best mark ive ever seen. Its a hurege mark. Huge mark. And i thank you and i yield back. Without objection the gentlemans request to extend s granted. The Ranking Member of the subcommittee mr. Cooper is recognized. Thank you the its been a genuine pleasure to work with my friend and colleague from alabama mr. Rogers and with the other members of the subcommittee including the all important staff. They all deserve a tremendous praise and recognition. With all the amendments that are likely under this section you would think there would be strong bipartisan disagreement. But the mark indicates otherwise. There is strong bipartisan agreement on almost all of these issues. So we will be arguing over hose 2 to 5 instead of on the 95 . On the fife major areas under the subcommittees jurisdiction, space, Nuclear Weapons nonproliferation and Nuclear Cleanup, it is amazing the degree of consensus. For example under space the mark fully funds our space assets. Thank goodness. Under Missile Defense the mark more than funds Missile Defense. On Nuclear Weapons the mark more than provides enough money to provide a safe secure reliable arsenal. On no proliferation the mark funds the programs. And finally on Nuclear Cleanup the mark authorizes nearly full funding for defense environmental cleanup. On the whole thats a very good record. I know the section of the mark is still an amendment magnet. So i hope we can get through those in an expeditious fashion. But we tried to work at the subcommittee level to clean up much of the debris. At the subcommittee level we had some five amendments largely report related. Relatively minor issues in comparison to the larger ones. But thank you. I look forward to getting through the amendment process. I thank the gentleman. I look forward to that as well. Any further discussion on this portion of the subcommittees mark . If not, we will turn to amendments to this portion of the mark. I will note just because an amendment has been filed does not mean it has to be offered. The gentleman from colorado the do you wish to offer an amendment . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment on the desk. The staff will distribute the amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered as read. And the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The United States government as approved by the Company Created the cooperative Threat Reduction program. It essentially gives is a grant that gives money to foreign governments so that they participated in nonproliferation activities. So china is the peoples republic of china is the recipient of that. But yet theyve not been compliant in two ways. Number one theres a private citizen who in fact has been in china that has been indicted in u. S. Courts and that the f. B. I. Has put a 5 million reward out for who was operating a number of Front Companies that were providing missile Ballistic Missile technology to iran. O that is one aspect is to get chinas cooperation in detaining him. And then the other one is to get china itself as a government to comply with the provisions of required under the cooperative Threat Reduction program. So essentially what this does is requires quarterly reports to the congress and suspension of these payments until it has proved that they in fact are cooperating with the provisions of nonproliferation and are not supporting Missile Technology in the countries that are part of this legislation which as i think pakistan, and iran. And i think there is one other country. But essentially that is the amendment. And it is focused on the eoples republic of china. Are there discussion on the amendment . Gentleman from alabama. Thank you mr. Chairman. This may be the easiest decision the members have to make tonight. Mr. Coffmans amendment simply states if we cant certify isnt proliferating we shouldnt be spending funds on china. What this means is we wouldnt be borrowing money from china to spend money in china while they are engaged on proliferation. I urge a yes vote. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have its. The amendment is adopted. The gentleman from arizona. Do you have an amendment . I have an amendment at the desk. The staff will please istribute the amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. This amendment would update the language of the National Defense act of 1999. It is clearly necessary to update this outdated and inadequate language. Since 1999 the threat posed by Ballistic Missiles has grown precipitously and it is the appropriate thing to do that our national Missile Defense policy reflect that growing threat. In 2015 alone there were over 300 administrative launches and more missile launches. Our adversaries have begun to further develop Missile Technology which intentionally exploits gaps in our existing Missile Defense framework. From direct missiles and hyper sonic boost glide to maneuvering Ballistic Missiles. The language adopted in 1999 calling for defense against a limited Ballistic Missile attack seems wildly out of place in todays threat environment. Nuclear has two satellites orbitting the earth. China and russia are developing complex Missile Technology designed to exploit our weaks ins. And iran continues with no concern for international opinion. The language from the 1999 gill simply does not match the at. The National Defense act must be amended to reflect both the substantially greater and more diverse threats and the reality that our National Defense capability our national Missile Defense capability is a much more Mature Program than it was at the time. The law should establish that our national Missile Defense should be robust and capable of count erling a growing threat rather than simply defending our territory our policy should be to establish Missile Defense policy. In the face of complex threat environment, we must make sure that this amendment to adjust our Missile Defense posture to meet and defeat those threats is adopted. I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment. Other discussion on the amendment . The gentleman from alabama. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Is entlemans amendment long overdue. That laces an amendment was written a long time ago. The u. S. Was a party to the treaty of 1974 which thankfully no longer is the case. Think about this. Under the current ballistic Missile Defense policy we will defend the homeland against russian cruise missiles but not sea launched Ballistic Missiles. Put another way we will defend a sailor on an Aircraft Carrier but not on the homeland. When we consider russia and china are both developing ballistic Missile Defenses to counter u. S. Capabilities. I urge support and call for its passage. Further discussion . If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona mr. Franks. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The chair recognizes the entleman from alabama. Im sorry. I was jumping ahead. Im definitely not the gentleman from alabama. Sorry. I was jumping ahead too fast. The gentleman from washington. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Although the gentleman from alabama and i are good friends, i do want to i have ab amendment at the desk number 158. If the staff would please distribute the amendment. Consider it as read mr. Chairman. Lets wait for just a inute. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, last week in the Strategic Forces subcommittee, we adopted an amendment by mr. Franks that would convert a plan for space based Missile Defense to the actual deployment of space based Missile Defense. This amendment would strip that amendment made last week in the subcommittees mark. The reasons for my amendment is that this provision that was introduced and adopted into the subcommittee mark disregards the advice of our top military and Missile Defense commanders. As a for instance, in response to a question at our april 14 hearing on Missile Defense budget on whether space based interceptors would give the u. S. A leading edge our director if it was technologically feasible and affordable which i think in both my mind are no the answer would be yes to your question. I have serious concerns about the technical feasibilities and serious concerns about the longterm affordability of a program like that. I would also note that north come commander stated at the same hearing this does not mean the department is not looking at another alternative to go after that problem set, the problem set that exists that could otherwise potentially be addressed by space based interceptors but there may be other mechanisms another way to do that sometimes one overarching system may be very hard and expensive but we could talk about mechanism that is we are using. I would also note as well that the amendment adopted in the subcommittee is premature. The fiscal year 16 ndaa which we voted for last year asked for a concept definition of space based defense and to report back no more than one year later. I think it is certainly reasonable to at least wait to see what that report says and it has not been a year. Rather than rushing forward and letting a duplicate requirement for a plan for deployment we should wait to get the recommendation of this on this concept development. As well there is no military requirement for this. We should be united on this and largely we are in the subcommittee and full can he. And make sure that we have a system that works and that we are making smart investments. Past studies have concluded that space based interceptors are costly and impractical. I would also note and i would like to at some point get an answer to this that the amendment that we that was put into the subcommittee mark last week did not provide a way to fund this additional cost to the budget but rather was left wide open. According to Committee Rules no doubt about that. But to date so far as i know we have not received a mark on what this would cost to implement since it is a full deployment of space based interceptors as opposed to merely the plan that we had asked for. So for those reasons i would ask that the committee take a step back from space based interceptors and mda. Let the Missile Defense entity move forward on what they have. And let the Missile Defense agency finish the report that we asked them to do last year we give them a year to do that. The year is not up. I would ask the Committee Support this amendment which would replace the amendment that we made to the subcommittee mark last week. With that i yield back. Thank you. The gentleman from alabama. Thank you. Unfortunately i am going to have to oppose my friend and colleague from Washington States amendment as members of this committee know well since 2011, technology and commercialization of space have increased dramatically. For example, under the eeov blocked by and with the new, we have seen the cost of launch come down. I think we should direct an update of the study and i think research and development of a space based Missile Defense system that could provide us a global boost mid course and possibly terminal defense capability while also potentially defense of our National Security space assets. I cant see why any member of this committee would refuse planning to do research and development of a potential Missile Defense improvement and that is what we are here to do in any event. I urge a no vote to my friends amendment. I yield back. While i agree with my colleague from alabama on many issues, i think that the subcommittee made a mistake when they adopted the fraveragese amendment. For those who are not regular attendees at our subcommittee meetings, one of the most respected leaders is admiral seering of the Missile Defense agency. D let me repeat what was reported here his testimony. This isnt outdated. This is of april 14 of this year. He said i have serious concerns about the technical feasibility of the interceptors in space and i have serious concerns about the longterm affordability of a program like that. Two thoughts. One will it work . We should be for anything that protects america that will work. We should not be for a pipe dream and science fiction. And no one is better positioned than admiral seering. Second, it is second because the first thing whether it will work and he was at the cutting edge. The cost. It is pretty presump shs for this congress that still hasnt lifted the burden of equestration that still hasnt for our military to be embarking on this. Cost estimates are upwards of 300 billion. And we should be for that if it would work. But lets listen to admiral sering. Lets ready aim fire not ready fire aim. Weve got to aim first. And this is a momentous step that the subcommittee took on very little discussion, very little information, in direct contradiction. So i support the gentleman from washingtons amendment to strike that subcommittee mistake. Of r. Chairman, in memory some of the same arguements made many years ago when Ronald Reagan proposed the initiative they called it science fiction, star wars, and yet today because of his insight, because of the willingness to consider what we could do, we have a limited Missile Defense capability in this country that in my judgment and the judgment of many protects my children and all of yours. Perhaps from a north korean launch at some point that they want to at least put us under threat and some of the discussions about price let me just say robust yet limited constellation would cost about 26 billion over 20 years or 1. 3 billion per year. According to hudson study we could get the cost down further if we get serious. It should be noted this is a plan for research in a space test bed not actually build the system at this time. Its always wise for us to consider looking ahead. Finally, before i give a little clearer picture of this i dont think there is anything in this amendment that directly conflicts with admirals perspective. We dont know. And this is a means of trying to find greater insight to it. No one respects the admiral more than i do. He is caught many times between the congress where we ask him to take Critical Systems to pay for other Critical Systems and i think he would like to try to avoid that. But this is certain our near peer adversaries are now capable of attacking our critical space assets. This debate is no longer academic. And the question now before this committee is what shall we do about it . These adversaries have taken note about the immense force multiplier it provides our military and observed the defenseless nature of our space assets. If we are to abandon without a fight, it will be our military who suffers the consequences as they find themselves cut off and fighting blind in an ause tier environment far from home. China has demonstrated an antisatellite missile capability and proven that it can reach from geosink nuss orbits to low orbit earth orbit. Russia has also tested a direct ascent asat and north korea and iran have launched satellites into orbit. Iran just tested their space launch vehicle earlier this week. The threat is outpacing our technology. A recent Hudson Institute report coauthored by over a dozen leaders and u. S. Missile defense arms control and space policy including two former directors and northcom commanders said this, a spacebased layer will dramatically augment u. S. Trest rally and seabased defense capabilities. Reduce demands on current systems and provide the United States with optimal advantage point for destroying enemy missiles. Most significantly a space based layer provides the agent to destroy many missiles during the boost phase while over enemy territory. There are no treaties prohibitting space based interceptors and concerns about debris are overstated. Enemy missiles cannot produce long lived or ital debris. They are signaling their strategy working to assault our space assets and exploiting the gaps in our network. Iran and north korea though less advanced are much less predictable and continue to work feverishly to enhance their Ballistic Missile capabilities. If we wait, the cost to rapidly develop an ability to counter will whether grow. This will lay the groundwork for future space based layer of our Missile Defense. In the face of growing threats proposed by unstable actors and increasingly belligerent great powers it is our moral duty to oppose them on every front and now sir that includes space. And with that i yield back. Mr. Gare mendi. First i want to commend the chairman and the Ranking Member and the other members of the committee and staff for an extraordinary subcommittee that deals with some of the most advanced technologies and most dangerous Weapons Systems ever created by human beings. The Ranking Member in his opening remarks spoke to the full and beyond funding for all elements under the authority of this committee. The issue at hand i think is a bit of a misrepresentation of two problems. One problem is the satellite Defense Systems or lack of defense of our satellites. The other is the Missile Defense. They are quite different although both might be in space. There is two types of programs that are now under way and moving forward. One is a ground based Missile Defense system and another system would use directed energy. Neither of those are what is continued plated by the amendment that the subcommittee adopted. Which deals with a space based missile. Not satellite but Missile Defense system. We have been advised by those who are knowledgeable who spend their entire working day and career on this matter suggesting to us not suggesting but very clearly stating that it is not appropriate to spend money on a spacebased system. The other two systems are in the National Defense authorization act would undoubtedly be in the appropriations should that ever happen and those should move forward. But this one is not ready now. There is a report that will be due soon that may further enlighten us. In any case we should be focusing on the two systems under way one in directed energy and the other is the ground based Missile Defense system. So with that i would support mr. Larsens amendment. Allow us to spend what is a vast amount of resources on things that are here and now. I yield back. The gentleman from rhode island. I yield my time to the gentleman from washington mr. Larsen. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thauverages very much. I would just note that in this conversation were having here there was in fact a recognition that this amendment has an additional cost beyond what we have otherwise what we are otherwise debating today for the overall budget. And yet not accounted for and how to pay for that. I am not certain under Committee Rules whether that is a violation of Committee Rules. But i would address that general question to the full committee and the staff and the chairman and Ranking Member as we move along. With the second point, i just want to reemphasize that there is a study to exist that we approved last year to do a for the mda to report back to us within a year about space based interceptors. Not a study i supported but it is in fact the law. And that year is not up. So we are jumping ahead of ourselves. We are presuming an answer to the study by allowing the existing version of the bill to move forward. I merely suggesting that we remove what the subcommittee did a few weeks ago. And let the study move forward. And finally i would also note at there are actions mda and our entire department of defense can take otherwise to address the serious concerns that many of us share and have about space and about Missile Defense issues perhaps we cannot get into here and we cannot get into into the subcommittee but it is not as if this is the answer and the only answer to addressing the issues that we face with regards to Missile Defense. I would note that my mendment despite perhaps the unintended implications of some statements made does not mean the United States this committee or this amendment is giving up any fight. Any fight with regard to any presumed current or future enemy. And i want to make that note because im frankly kind of tired of hearing that argument from folks on this committee when it is made at times. We are all in this together. We all believe we are doing the right thing. We are sincerely doing the right thing. And this amendment does not give up any fight being made against current presumed or future enemies. I yield my time. The gentleman yields back. Let me just say with regard to the gentlemans question about spending. There may well be instances where we adopt amendments that if carried out may have future spending implications but the question before the committee under the Committee Rules is does this direct specific spending . And so i think certainly it is an argument one can use as far as the affect it has on the future but it does not violate Committee Rules at this point. The gentleman from colorado. Mr. Chairman you answered my question. I was just going to point out that the last time a study like this was done it was roughly 5 million. Their total budget is 10 billion. So for that reason also i dont think theres any violation of the rule here. And the remainder of my time i will give to the gentleman from arizona if he wants to use any of it. I will just be very brief in closing. Opponents of sbi argue that deploying a space based Missile Defense layer will either provoke an arms race or be outrageously expensive or somehow is unnecessary. But it is important to keep in mind that our near peer enemies are investing heavily in systems which exploit our gaps and vulnerabilities. They dont challenge our strengths. They exploit our vulnerabilities. And we must close those gaps and our capabilities in order to deter future investment on their part. And for those who also argue that the technology is out of reach and remains cost prohibitive, both a 2011 ida study and this forth coming report by the Hudson Institute disspell those charges. It is important given the additional dimension for battle space that the space frontier offers us to be competitive in that area for the sake of keeping the arsenal of freedom the strongest in the world. With that i yield back. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington mr. Larson. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. The nos have it. The gentleman from washington requests a recorded vote which will be postponed. Now we will look to the gentleman from alabama for the purpose of offering an amendment. Mr. Chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and amproved with the minority. Without objection the staff will please distribute the en loc package. Twousm amendments are considered read and the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. The en bloc package number one is comprised of the following. 10 million of d. O. D. Support to the executive branch of the president until the president smits an updated plan on nuclear proliferation. Amendment regarding authorization of directed energy Research Development testing and evaluation between the u. S. And israel. Amendment regarding direction to the sec deaf to provide a briefing on hosted payloads. Amendment which would provide the sec deaf the authority to mitigate Unmanned Aircraft to the d. O. D. Missile defense and space assets. Amendment regarding a requirement for semiannual notifications to provide oversight and tracking of Missile Defense test result changes and costs. Amendment regarding modification to change the lead combatant command to conduct debriefing on north come to strat come. Amendment regarding additional radar improvement requirements. And radar asset in hawaii. And amendment regarding d. O. D. And g. A. O. Briefings on the use of excess icbm motors in commercial space launch activities. Is there further discussion . If not the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from alabama. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. The ayes have it. And the amendments are adopted. Further amendments. The gentleman from rhode island. Mr. Chairman i have an amendment at the desk. If the staff would please istribute the amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered read. And the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I offer this amendment today to ensure the mda is equipped with fly before you buy capability. So that it may make the most Cost Effective Mission Driven decision possible when procuring the redesign vehicle. I had the privilege of chairing the Strategic Forces subcommittee a few congresses ago. I am very comfortable with these issues and i believe that this language is both helpful and necessary. Not only does the Missile Defense agency concur with the need to institute this type and quality of testing but i believe many members of the subcommittee concur as well. And i am hoping this will be a bipartisan amendment and vote. The amendment does not require any specific number of tests. I want to repeat that. This amendment does not require any specific number of tests. What it does do is drastically improve Missile Defense acquisitions, a topic i know has been at the forefront of many of our discussions here in this committee this year. A lack of fly before you buy capability has cost us dearly in the past as many people recognize. For example, according to the g. A. O. The cost to demonstrate as well as fix the currently deployed de 2s has increased from an initial 236 million the cost of the first flight test to currently over 1. 9 billion. The need for failure reviews additional flight tests Mitigation Development efforts and retro fit program have increased the demonstration costs by over 1. 7 billion. We must not let this problem continue to plague our National Security. Clearly there is the need for the policy provided by this amendment and mda agrees i know that many members of the subcommittee know that im a strong supporter of Missile Defense. I just want to make sure that we are doing this the right way that we are both guarding taxpayer dollars and getting capability before we actually worked before we buy it. So with that, i ask my colleagues to support the amendment. And i will yield time to mr. Cooper. Thank you. This is an excellent amendment. I would urge my colleagues to realize that as he said he is not an opponent of Missile Defense. He wants this to work. This is not a proposal to test this thing to death. This is a proposal to do exactly as admiral sering recommended. I asked him this question. Do you support successful flight testing of the redesigned keel vehicle before making a final decision . Completely. Chairman rogers asked him a very similar question. This is actually a more relaxed requirement for successful testing than what the admiral was advocating because he did put a number on the specific number of tests that should be required before we knew it was successful before we know whether were helping our warfighters. So nothing could be more common sensecal than this. People never want to buy a pig in a poke. We shouldnt buy a kill vehicle that isnt going to work. That would be the greatest disservice we could possibly do. So lets make sure it works. Thats all the gentlemans is trying to do. I thank the gentleman for his comments. I concur. And i hope my colleagues again will support this amendment in a bipartisan way. I yield back my time. The chairman yields back. The gentleman from alabama. Thank you. Mr. Langevin is a very valuable and thoughtful member of our subcommittee and i know his heart is in the right place. Unfortunately, as this amendment is drafted i would have to oppose it. I know we were very close to a compromise with mr. Langevin. On a deal that i think would meet his desired goal but we arent there yet. So i urge him to with draw this amendment to allow us to continue to work on it. At our april 14 defense hearing this year i asked admiral, about the risks of legislating testing requirements in the way mr. Langevin would do and he said, i would ask that you let us go through where we are in the early stages of design and some of the testing of the components all of it very methodical and laid out in terms of the ground testing before flight test. Before we legislate that it needs to be three or four or five flight tests. Consequently i would urge a no vote unless the gentleman would withdraw and allow us to work on this language. I yield back. Further discussion on the amendment . If not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island mr. Langevin. Those in favor say aye. Hose opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. I ask for a recorded vote. Which will be postponed. The gentleman from tennessee. Mr. Chairman i have an amendment at the desk. The staff will please istribute the amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered read. The gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We have been at this for about 11 hours now. So it is quite a burden to explain an amendment whose summary has three negatives in it. Let me try to put this in plain english. One of our war heads w 84 was scheduled to be dismantled by 2022. The proposal is that it be dismantled by 20 21. That is accelerated dismantlement. Some people are worriedbout that. That can be made to sound like unilateral disarmment or something. That is not the intention. As we move toward more sensible Nuclear War Heads, safe secure and reliable Nuclear War Heads some lines are being discontinued. And that is very important for Workforce Management issues because you have to train these people years in advance to make sure the work is done right. This work is done primarily in two places in the United States. One is in the chairmans district of pan tex and this amendment involves some 40 jobs there. The other place it is done in oak ridge, tennessee, which is in my state but not in my district. It is about 0 jobs there. The chairmans hands are completely cleaned on this. He has not lobbied us. But for the Nuclear Enterprise it is very important that workers be hired now and be trained adequately in these very sensitive matters so that we can use this talented workforce for the vital life Extension Programs that will preserve and enhance our nuclear capability. So it is like the cycle of life. Some weapons, the bad old ones need to be dismantled so we can use their parts and components to keep our remaining Nuclear Arsenal fresh and viable. Workers have to be hired to do that. For us not to be able to hire the 60 odd workers partly in texas, partly in tennessee to do that work would be a serious blow to our National Security. The total amount involved is only 14 million. But that 14 million will be used to keep our nuclear man power workforce in tiptop shape. So i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which would allow the regular cycle of dismantlement of some unneeded Nuclear Weapons so we could keep our needed Nuclear Weapons on their scheduled weapons. This is not a piece amendment this is a Strong Nuclear force amendment and i urge my colleagues to understand it in that light. I apologize for the triple negative because it makes it almost impossible to understand 11 hours into a markup. Note that i only took three minutes. I note and appreciate that and while the subcommittee chairman is under discussions down there i will say from my standpoint as you correctly put the folks at all of these facilities do very important work to keep our Current Nuclear deterrent safe and reliable. I support dismantlement but i do not support dismantlement at the cost of the vital work theyre doing for the weapons that keep us safe now. Sometimes in the past thats been a tradeoff. And so i am not sure how the exact numbers, the gentleman from tennessee and the subcommittee chairman are know that better than i do. My view though is that first job is to defend the country we will dismantle as we can but first we have to keep these weapons safe. So i yield to the gentleman from alabama if he wants to does he need to break up the conference down there behind . Were trying to speed things along, mr. Chairman. I dont want to break that up. My understanding is the gentleman from tennessee still has his amendments pending before the body. Correct. I would like to thank my friend and the Ranking Member for his bipartisan work on the ndaa. We agree on so many things including the need for a Strong Nuclear triad. But even friends disagree every once in a while. This amendment is one of those disagreements. It strikes section 3119 which is all about setting priorities in defense spending. Arbitrarily accelerating is not a priority. Getting our Nuclear Modernization is a priority. Nuclear modernization efforts such as the life Extension Programs and deferred infrastructure maintenance are obviously higher priorities. The secretary of state john kerry announced last year at Nuclear Nonproliferation treaty conference of all places that the u. S. Would accelerate dismantment of retired Nuclear Weapons by 20 . This would conclude the schedule of dismantlement a year earlier and it is entirely arbitrary and a terrible prioritization of scarce resources. These retired weapons are safe nd secure and no need to accelerate dismantlement. John kerry doesnt get to set priorities and this committee does. I urge my colleagues to vote no. Further discussion on the amendment . If not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee mr. Cooper. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. The nos have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman from washington mr. Larsen. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk. Staff would distribute the amendment. Without objection the amendment is considered as read. And the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. I think we can move quickly on this. I am hopeful that we can. Simply add would e new text to the section on groundbased strategic deterrent. That the incremental costs associated with missile designs which include the flexibility to develop mobile variance as well as the strategic doctrine which will inform the decision on whether to include mobility requirements in future procurement. Thats the language that is added to this. The issue of mobility as part of the next version of gbse and i believe that i believe that we have an agreement that we can move forward with this language in the committee and would ask for the support of the committee on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Washington State is correct. I urge the committee to accept his amendment. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington the ayes have it. The ayes have it. And the amendment is adopted. Next gentleman from alabama. Mr. Chairman i ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package number two consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. Without objection. Would the staff please distribute the en bloc mendments. Without objection the amendments are considered read. The gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. The package number two is comprised of the following. Amendment to limit funds to extend new start treaty and prior to receipt of certain reports. Amendment directing a report on commercial space based capabilities. Amendment by ms. Gabrd directing a briefing on plans for Missile Defense in hawaii. Amendment directing mda to develop a program of record for defense against hyper sonic boost glide weapons and maneuvering ballistic milssles. Requiring to issue a request for proposal of the medium ranged discrimination radar for the defense of hawaii. Further discussion . If not the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from alabama. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. In the opinion of the chair the ayes have it the ayes have it nd the amendments are adopted. Ms. Sanchez. Did you work something out . We did. It is a little up in the air right now. Can we come back to it . Were just trying to get the language right. Will yield. Can we do them out of order . Or maybe in another en bloc. Were trying to save time. Were planning to accept the amendment as tendrd. So number 84 is accepted, i believe. Do i need to bring it up . Yes, please. Ok number 84. Staff would please distribute 84. Without objection the amendment is considered read and the gentlelady from california is recognized. I will be very brief. This increases the funding for defense nonro live ration by 20 million. It helps to address current threats and stay ahead of merging threats. It increases funding to improve Nuclear Detection technology, to prevent diversion of Nuclear Weapons grade material. It helps with detecting illicit underground explosive testing. It is all about r d. It helps with the 3d printing that may come along with respect to emerging threats and technologies in the nuclear area. And it also helps to detect efforts or diversion by nuclear terrorists. And i the chairman will say it is accepted. I will end there. Mr. Chairman i urge the committee to accept the amendment. The question is on the amendment by ms. Sanchez. The ayes have it the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Next i believe we have the gentleman from california. Mr. Chairman i have an amendment at the desk. If the staff would please distribute the amendment number 6. Without objection, the amendment is considered as read. The gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. My amendment would modify section 1643 of fy 2015 ndaa, the cbo review of cost estimates for Nuclear Weapons instead he time period of 10 years. The arsenal is a foundational part of our security and is often said it is essential this arsenal be safe secure and reliable. However, the age of our forces have become a concern. Currently the Nuclear Capable bomber fleet contains 76 b523s with the first year models entering service over 50 years ago when continuing to fly only after numerous efforts. The life spans have been extended to 42 years with the end of the 42 year life span approaching in 20e7. The first icbms were deployed 40 years ago. With the provocative actions of north korea and the increase in activities takes place a deterrent is vital to the National Security of the United States and if one of the basic tenants says one must appear to have the capability to carey out said threat it must be a priority. Over the past few years there have been a good amount of debate about the modernization process and what it will cost. Over the next 30 years not only will all three legs of our triad have to be replaced but the sustainment and Modernization Program for our Nuclear War Heads will be takes place at the same time as well. Even after all of that this still does not factor in the necessary updates to our command and control systems and the creation and fielding of a Long Range Standoff weapon. With little evidence that the demands of our conventional forces will decrease a proper accounting of the price of our Nuclear Modernization process must be made if we are to plan for these investments and to provide proper oversight. Numerous organizations have attempted to gauge the price of this modernization from the center for nonproliferation studies. The results have varied from csbas 704 billion between fy 15 and 39 to the 1 trillion estimate between 2014 rand 43. Cbo is mandated by law currently produce as projected cost of Nuclear Weapons report annually however it only covers ten fiscal years into the future. My concern is that the cbo current time frame does not encompass when costs are projected by many to increase significantly. This is not an unreasonable request. Reports covers f covering periods of time have been done before for other items. A perfect example is the 30 year estimate for the ship building plan which was just released this past october. If Congress Hopes to provide proper oversight of these efforts more information is needed as early as possible. That is why i i wish to make the time period for the cost estimates 30 years instead of 10 years. With that i yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from alabama. Thank you. I regret having to oppose the amendment. He is a fine very valuable member of our subcommittee and i really lee spect him. But in all candor a multidecade cost estimate like this wouldnt be worth the paper it was written on. This amendment would not result in good effective and transparent oversight just false and unreliable data. For that reason i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment. Mr. Air mendi. Actually he is quite correct here and i want to commend him for at least attempting to inform us and congress and i suppose the American People about the full cost of the complete revamp of our entire Nuclear Security program. Estimates range in the trillion dollars over the next 25 to 30 years. Testimony from various heads of departments at a hearing said were going to have to make some tough decisions. Apparently this committee ought to be part of that tough decision process. Were going to spend an incredible amount of money in what amounts to a new Nuclear Arms Race and it will take money from other programs we went through all the readiness issues here a while ago. Concerned about readiness, concerned about the size of the army, concerned about naval ships and all those elements of our military that are essential for at least the next several decades you had better be concerned about the total cost of this Nuclear Enterprise. And the fact that we are in a new Nuclear Arms Race involves the submarines, new airplanes, new cruise missiles. New ground based rockets. Icbms. And almost every conceiveable Nuclear Weapon that would be on those. Not only that, it is extraordinarily dangerous. All of this new stuff is steltsy. The rules of the last cold war are not going to apply. So we had to be aware of it because we will be robbing money from other critical elements of our Nations Defense if we proceed blindly which is what opposition to this amendment will provide. We will be blinded by the total cost. A word that is often used is a wave. The current expenditures are significant. Very, very significant. They amount to tens of billions. The bow wave which is about five to ten years out, you can add another three 0s and talking about hundreds of billions. And we set in place today the process that leads to those expenditures. The hen those come in, future committee will be very, very hard pressed to maintain all of the other thing that is we must be doing in our Nations Defense. Many of which weve already been talking about. So i think this is an extremely important amendment. We have to think beyond the near term. Because these decisions that were making with regard to all the elements of the triad and all the weapons associated with them, all the command and control, will be put in place. They will either be done in a manner that will rob other essential programs or they will be abandoned at an enormous waste of money. So i would urge acceptance of this. Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, before i came to the congress i financed large infrastructure projects. And i cant think of a larger investment that we as america are making than the deterrent that is the triad of our Nuclear Weapons arsenal. And as mr. Garmendi said, we are renewing and reinvigorating the whole thing. And it is an extremely expensive piece proposition. Its about 35 billion a year. And in fact, we have a chart right here. It shows the bump. This is where we are right now. It shows the amount of the president s budget of what were going to spend on our Nuclear Arsenal. So we can see its a mountain right there. And what mr. Aguilar is is asking, he is not asking about how much were funding. Thats the president s budget there. Hes asking about whats the time line really look like . How are we spending those amounts of money . And, yes, youre right. 30year projections asked, maybe not worth the paper theyre written on. But youve got to have a map. Each of you have a map, i hope. Each of you have some sort of budget if your own household. An operating budget for the next year of what youre going to make and how youre going to spend that. And you probably have at least a 5year plan of where youre going. So i dont think its such a bad idea for us to make some sort of a plan of where were going. Certainly we know that the top 3 of the most successful people in the world are the people who actually write down their plans. So if were going to be spending 35 billion a year, we might try to at least grab what that is for and how that is and what the time line is. Were not going to hit it exactly. But it will give us a roadmap so that we as the care takers of americas pocket books can look at our constituents of the people we represent and say we have a plan. We have a map of how were spending this money. And e i would yield back. Chairman, first of all, i agree with all three of the parties who have spoken on this eafment unfortunately, the chairman is exactly correct as to why it wont work. We would love to have those 30year projections. They would be great. In fact, we thought we needed them for ship building plans and aviation plans. And so we put into the law that we would have a 30year ship building plan because as the gentlelady from california said it just would make sense that we have a plan and projecks of the costs. The unfortunate thing is when the secretary of defense has come before our committee they have testified really that anything beyond five years is a fantasy world in their own words. So while data would be wonderful if we could get it that far out, what the chairman of the subcommittee has said is exactly true. We dont need fantasy data. We need the closest thing we have to accurate data that we can get. And i think this 10year time period is a good compromise. So i hope we will go with the chairmans recommendation and we will reject the amendment. Ith that i yield back. Mr. Chairman i yield my time to mr. Aguilar from california. I thank the gentlelady from hawaii. I appreciate our subcommittee chairmans comments about my contributions to the committee. I will be sure to share those at home. Thank you very much. D with respect to both of my chairmen, if it is not worth the paper that it is printed on we have the ship building cbo estimate that you just referenced. We asked for this. We asked cbo to do a 30year estimate. I look forward to the time that this body then requests that this plan not move forward or that we not do 30year estimates. If were not going to do longterm planning as ms. Sanchez said lets be honest. What im trying to offer is commonsense transparency measure that is honest with all of our colleagues, here on the committee, about what the true cost of this are going to be. This is manageable. Our military leaders have told us these costs are manageable. But we have to plan for that and we have to be honest about the effect that is this is going to be on our readiness and on other activities. So what im trying to offer is a transparency measure for 30 years. I realize that these bodies sometimes have a difficult time planning longer than 5 years. As the chairman mentioned. But i think this is a reasonable estimate to look out when were talking about as important as our nuclear triad. I dwreeled back. The question is on the amendment offered. Those in favor aye. Opposed no. In the opinion of the chair the nos have it. The nos ask for a recorded vote. Which will be postponed. Further amendments the gentleman from california. I have an amendment at the desk. Staff would please istribute the amendment. Just a second. Without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. I dont believe i will take five minutes here. Virtually everything we do in modern life, whether its the cell phone and the Text Messages that most of us have been sending rather than listening to the testimony thanking thinking driving jps all of those. All of it is dependent on gps. Those g. P. S. Signals are corruptable and numerous ways. Radar along the antiradar device or along the highways and freeways there interrupt a g. P. S. Weve seen incidents of g. P. S. Interruption and is the problems. This amendment simply advances a backup system to the g. P. S. By requiring that a report be developed by the department of defense that would give us the full opportunity to establish a backup system for the g. P. S. This is called the elore rain system, a trestral based system. A very high powered radio low frequency radio wave that would allow for tranglation and timing positioning and navigational purposes. The systems, once were in place in the United States theyve been dismantled they can be reinstalled. Other countries are using the legislator rain system in advanced lor rain system. It could be done in a Public Private partnership and thats what this amendment would attempt to have a full study that would allow for us to move forward should we decide to dependings upon the study for that backup system to the g. P. S. We can go into great dept about why the gms system that is we have are vulnerable. It has been studied since the early 90s all of which say that the g. P. S. System is the single point of failure for virtually everything we do now. Including most of the good portion but not all of the military navigation and smart bombs and the rest. There are some backups in those systems. But the system could be built at a very modest cost and could be a Public Private partnership in which the government would be set up an opportunity for private company to use the existing sites within the United States. That is what it is. It is simply advance it is study and moves this thing one step closer to being in place and providing with a backup. Yield back. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. Unfortunately i have to oppose my friend from californias amendment. The committee worked in a bipartisan fashion and across multiple congressional committees throughout the markup process to have a fair and reasonable position in the chairmans mark. The analysis sis is currently written is broad and would not restrict the study leads from analyzing identified in the gentlemans amendments. Further by adding this could create an undubai yassed toward particular solutions and Service Level agreements. Therefore i oppose the provision and urge a no vote. I hate to disagree with chairman rogers and be in agreement with mr. Garme andi but this is an important necessary. We have a backup system in my district. I support him and i think it is important that we do. I yield back. I just have a question. And that is certainly i understand how critical position navigation and timing is in the space assets. The question is when you think about what we are striking, it says strike subparagraph b and replace with this what are we striking . I think the chairman described it as a general statement. The statement here is more specific. And it does lead to a specific analysis of the potential of a Public Private partnership does not remove what was the general report about the utility or the ecessity for it. Thai the Cato Institute looks at federal land management. Thats live at 4 00 p. M. Eastern. Madam secretary we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the United States. Announcer this week on q a, democracy now host and executive producer amy goodman. She talks about some of the stories over the past 20 years. Brian amy goodman, 20 years of democracy now. You say going to where the silence is is your motto. Amy unfortunately the Corporate Media leaves such a gap to cover the majority of people in this country and around the world. When you turn to a network, they have the small circle of pundits who knows so little about so much, explaining the world to us and getting it so wrong. The idea of democracy now starting 20 years ago, it really hasnt changed. Bringing out the voices of people at the grassroots in the United States and around the world. They very much represent the majority of people. I think people who are concerned deeply about war and peace, about growing in equality in this country, about climate change, the state of the planet