Transcripts For CSPAN2 Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act Part 3 20170711

One of the things we heard those that were separated during basic training one of the witnesses the or a slut or a lesbian rand i forget what the third one was. So we need to look at is whether or not it is feasible to integrate basic training and what they need to have the renovation so the women are trained some distance away so what that would be needed if we attempted to into the integration . And that is a good result in terms of finding a way to live together and Work Together and be respectful of each other. I yield back. Any other members wish to debate the amendment . The gentleman from colorado. So certainly to integrate so i oppose the amendment. Further discussion . In to the maximum extent possible and long before we go to congress with the challenges and rationale tarasco it will take in further the discussion. Questions on the amendment offered from the gentle lady from california . Those in favor . Oppose . The amendment is agreed to. The amendment says that the desk. The clerk will distribute the amendment and considered as rest as read. I appreciate the time in discussion purpose spending 23 in the military we should pick the best man for the job even if she is a woman and were moving in that direction. Also tackling issues of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault and united marines how we need to address and where women are fully respected and then if we take this approach that we are not inadvertently giving our troops and the resentment towards women because although wellintentioned policy can actually send a subtle message that women are not equal warriors are not treated equally differently youre given a break pedal think that is on purpose but i was asked if we treat everybody the same we asked to take a fresh look any double standard they have said in a friendly to have a resentment towards women were the not equal approach that festers these root issues of women not being fully respected that could lead to Sexual Harassment and others. I have thought about this over many decades but if youre going to rask to be treated as individuals. End taking a fresh look if there is any double standard that would create resentment. I would ask my colleagues to support the report people make the enemy dead shark about basic training in most cases women dont have to cut their hair at all. So the counterpart to break you down and the women are over there putting their hair in a bun. I dont get it we dont shave the womens heads . That when we went through basic training and lose our identity and cut our hair short and that needs to be looked at to make sure to say why a day getting a break on day number one . Seven you are not really that equal warrior. Maybe things have changed when asking for a fresh report on any of these issues that may increase resentment. I yield back. Further discussion on the amendment . Those in favor . Oppose . The amendment is adopted. Further amendments this section of the bill. I have an amendment at the desk. It is considered as read and you are recognized for five minutes of. My amendment would amend section seven 02 with the defense held agency this provision was included to have administration of control away from the Services Within a larger bureaucratic defense held agency. Through those respective component canadians. As a representative in the North Country were that Organization Provides health care to this Service Members one of the only military installations instead we have an Incredible Health care ecosystem in this Health Care Model is beneficial to soldiers and families and surrounding communities with greater flexibility and to have a deeper understanding and anita of the installation and tueber have the quality of care i am concerned to have the potential of other communities across the nation with a one size fits all the provide military so in my district i watch them struggle that ongoing issue for upwards of 10 million for rural hospital that is significant over one year we are still waiting for answers and there has been and will call or note transparency. And then to reduce across the of Services Without a plan of transfer control to affect the hour loved ones they risk their lives we should not risk the quality of care we must insure the medical facility in my district and others across the country can operate despite a centralized model. I am concerned it does not account for what we have half for drum perot in the final report on march 1st and i will continue to closely monitor the Fort Drum Community for going closing in a 16 star memo where they stayed the collective transition to a Single Agency that has a well planned out plan and then be executed with a complete understanding without any impact of the readiness of personal. I encourage the department of defense specifically how they can improve care in reduce cost while controlling all aspects of the facility. To to help them succeed with the successful model to spread with the committees commitment to have a unique Health Care Model into work with the Health Agency on that try care reimbursement issue and with that i look forward to working with the committee on this issue. I yield back. Does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition very briefly . American views remaining 25 seconds . I applied you for doing this and i agree with the extension it is very important to look but the issues raised by the hot by the chief of staff and with combat medicine all these are lost under the seventh to retool i yield back. She withdraws her amendment. Snacks to the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. Mr. Chairman i ask unanimous consent for the amendments. Is so ordered and will distribute the amendments without objection are considered read and your recognized five minutes. Number 152 which directs the secretary of defense love those rates and report the findings. Amendment number 154 with the methods add resources on the suicide risk factors with special emphasis on those of that were diagnosed with ptsd also with the since of the civilians under section 717 with the International Terrorism and amendment to 34 of direct reimbursement and rising from the Armed Services amendment to 83 to direct the director to brief the committee to have complex Statistical Analysis the requires the deity to those specific blocks an amendment which is the essence of congress of those ideals and then to submit their report on Sexual Assault prevention and with victor recovery amendment 333 the requires the education on certain members of the year forces and i yield back. Any discussion . Those in favor . Opposed . The amendment is adopted. Deal have an amendment on the table . Distribute number 18684 being flexible it is considered as read a. And would first like to thank my colleagues and active Service Members. Admitted to the United States for permanent residence to be informed of the ability of naturalization preserved service to the United States military. This amendment is about providing information any more effective manner to Service Members who have committed their lives to serving this nation. Mr. Chair, i. E. In one of those individuals and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. The gentleman from alabama. I recognize that people that are in the United States from other nations have joined our Armed Services have the ability as indicated in this amendment to be naturalized and at the same time i question if we wanted to as a body force even more regulations on the army, navy, air force and the marine corps mandates that require them to make sure they notify every Single Person who is lawfully in the United States but is not a citizen of the United States of what they would need to do to become naturalized. Additionally, the amendment has proposed and requires the army, navy, marine corps or to help pay for whatever systems are required for the individuals to navigate the process. I would prefer if people want to become american citizens that they take the initiatives themselves to do what is necessary to become american citizens without requiring a further expenditure of taxpayer dollars to do so, and without mandating that the Army Navy Marine corps teach them how to do so with whatever resulting penalties there may be for the air force marine corps if they fail to follow the mandate that is in this amendment. That having been said, i would ask that we both know on this amendment. I will give myself briefly just to say it makes sense about what the law is and i take the e gentle mans poignant i mans poe requirements in the amendment are onerous, maybe we need to look at it but if it is telling them about what the wall is now to me it makes sense and my inclination is to support the amendment. I want to associate myself with your comments. The men and women support the best of wha of the nation has t. We owe every one of them a debt of gratitude. My father was an officer in the United States army and when i was growing up with him, he told me that the only thing a soldier asks for is americas best. That is all this amendment is asking us to do is do our best by those that are permanent residents to decide to put on the uniform, stand up and defend the nation, give them information on how to be a citizen. I would hope that this amendment was passed unanimously and i will yield. I was mobilized for Operation Desert Storm and i will tell you that there are a thousand such planes that military personnel we have with our Administration Processing in and processing out. Example opportunity to get a piece ogive apiece of paper to t those opportunities. It just means find a piece of paper or go that extra mile to inform people when you give them that exit interview give them that extra piece of information. The expedited process is informing the personnel of that and usually it occurs i know in iraq and afghanistan is a big deal to process people fast. Permanent residents can go into the military that they are restricted in terms of access to classified information and in terms of their ability to become officers. For this issue certainly informing than a process. As someone that has served on the front lines with many of these brave warriors, i also want to associate myself with the remarks. This is a very simple step to make the excuse that its too much government bureaucracy as a way that is ridiculous given some of the extra costs we are forcing on the department of defense. This is what we should do by those that put their lives on the line for the country. Thank you and i will yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. I think i agree with you as a requirement here is limited and shouldnt be hard to do. Im reminded of the sailors that just gave their life on the collision and thcoalition and tf them were immigrants and i think that we give them a hand to become citizens. I dont know if i can add anything more than the men and women that served in the military alongside men and women who were not citizens o at the time they chose to serve. This is really something important and we should give every opportunity to become citizens. Thank you mr. Chairman. With all due respect for the committee and its members, if you die while in service to your country, and you were serving as a legal resident, you automatically become a citizen. What better way to say you have love and respect for this country than willing to give up your life . Im shocked that we are even having this discussion when entering the military willing to give up your life. I am a u. S. Citizen. I didnt serve, but you know did . My daughterinlaw who came from mexico serving in the chemical response units willing to give up her life. This isnt only the right thing to do, quite frankly it is immoral. I yield back. The question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. All those in favor, oppose . The amendment is adopted. Further amendments to this section of the bill the clerk will distribute 1531 without objection it is considered as red and the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. Thank you for the opportunity to increase officer diversity. My amendment will direct the secretary of defense to evaluate the effects of military officers if 2012 beneficiaries were permitted to apply to the u. S. Service military academies. The report by the military Leadership Commission found while the pentagon has created a force whose lower ranks mirrors the ethnic and racial diversity of the public, the same cannot be said. According to the report, they are much less than the graphically diverse than the truths they lead. The report stated while i away h makes up 66 of the population. African americans account for 12 of the population that represent just about 8 of active duty officers. Latinos make up 15 of the population and only about 5 of the officer corps. The officer class should be concerned from the members of the Armed Services committee and while the scope of the obligations remain uncertain, the force with diverse cultural backgrounds can only increase operational capacity to address future threats. The military relies on military Service Academies as an avenue for talent, and yet despite the need for a diverse officer class, a particular group of young men and women are barred from even applying the institutions like west point or the u. S. Naval academy. And regardless of your thoughts on immigration or the president s executive actions on immigration, the beneficiaries present a pool of diverse men and women to draw talent from. This doesnt make any judgment or assert any opinions on the litigation policy that only requires the Defense Department to objectively evaluate how changing current policies could affect the future diversity of highranking officers in the armed forces. Furthermore, my amendment does not add any new direct spending. I urge the committee to accept this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman. He said reserve i just want to make sure we are tracking. Let me yield to myself for just a second and maybe group a couple of things together. We had a vote on a similar amendment last year. My view is getting into the military academies as we all know as extremely competitive, a limited number lots of folks want to go who are not able to go. For those people that are not in the country legally, there are walls that limit their ability to access the military and certainly to get a security clearance. So, my view is that us trying to force in some way expansion into the military academies before these broad issues are decided willingly puts more pressure on the academies and deny others who might have an opportunity to go and serve because generally, these folks do not have the opportunity to serve. Now, having said that, for people with unique capabilities, the secretary defense has a way to get them into the military and as a matter of fact, more than 100 individuals have served in the military because they have certain skills but forcing through the Academy Method doesnt work. The rest of the story is i completely support what he just did. Those people that are serving legally ought to know every aspect. However, for us i am getting ahead of myself to the next amendment. For us to try to debate immigration in this film, it doesnt work very well. Lots of issues need to be sorted out and i hope that we can have a conversation about what makes sense for immigration law. I do not believe however that it happens in this bill. Therefore, i do not support the amendment and i will have a substitute in just a few minutes to try to keep the focus of this bill on military. Other comments . Mr. Brooks . What this amendment does is allows or encourages the allowance of illegal aliens to compete for the bar already highly competitive positions that are being filled by our own american kids. If we have to make a judgment, my judgment is we should be protecting the military service for americans over illegal aliens and i would ask that we both know on this amendment that directly or indirectly encourages the secretary of defense to allow illegal aliens to take the military Service Opportunities in our military academies from lawful immigrants and american citizens. Thank you mr. Chair. One of the things we need to focus o on his disservice to the academy is not a right that any american has. And what we wanted to produce out of these academies are the best military officers. If youve ever served in the military, you would understand you want to be with a person that can either shoot straight or get the byt byte orders, andt population is found within our u. S. Citizens or recipients, not illegal aliens. They can be the best officers to keep the men and women alive and why did we not at least explore that because we should be looking at focused on creating the National Security apparatus and office in this country, not to try to stop the smartest, strongest and hardest working americans minus the fact that they came here without permission, but at least at this point we said they could stay including your President Donald Trump who said they shall stay and shall be protected. Will the gentleman yield. Just curious by with Legal Standard for the gentleman suggests that the recipients are not illegal aliens had they not committed the crime of unlawful entry . We can debate the status issues but i am focused right now on the status of whether or not they are going to be helpful in terms of creating the military in the future. If you would like a side conversation on this we can do that, but the fact is we are here to talk about the best military in the world and we want to continue to have the best officer corps being a part of that potential recruitment in the future and i yield back. Thank you mr. Chairman. I certainly want to associate myself with. In the spirit of that my task force that i command was 36 or 38 hispanic many of them received his citizenship. There is no allegiance that agrees to certain things. Even with the program where its supposed to meet the Vital National interests, the program has been replete with problems to include before and infiltration so much so the department of defense is seeking to suspend the program due to those concerns. There are major issues when it comes to vetting and even permanent officers are not allowed to become so why are those that have no status or allegiance or an ability to be vetted into the Service Academies and as the point has been raised, the head of those that are american citizens and can be vetted to create the future leaders for the defense of the republic. Its vital that we continue to be one nation out of many backgrounds. Three out of five thoughts in france were either not born in the United States or they were not born to parents that were born in the United States and yet they faithfully served the country. Weve always been a nation with these types of heritage and immigration has certainly been crucial when it comes to the defense of the republic that isnt what we are talking about here there is no legal status of any kind of the military has never allowed the legal status. For that reason, i agree with you mr. Chair man that there are other ways we can address this and we should not support these amendments although well intended, there are a lot of complications and i urge my colleagues to vote against it and i will yield back my time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. If there is no further discussion on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas, the question is on the amendment offered. Those in favor . Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the nos habi habits and the opinions not agreed to. Thank you mr. Chairman. The clerk will distribute the amendment without objection it is considered as read in the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. Thank you mr. Chairman. When it came to serving in the military commander patriotism was more important than your papers and in the past immigrants fought and died on behalf of those whod been here for generations. Not all of them came here legally but they earned their citizenship in th and the best y serving the country in uniform. Even if this divisive moment in time i hope we can come together to renew this proud american tradition. To enable people to get back to the country that was known by serving in our Armed Services. They cannot voluntarily enlist. That doesnt make any sense and in this room tonight we have the power to correct this obvious injustice. They honor their patriotism all the time and grew up in our communities and attend their schools and theyve probably sang the National Anthem and pledge allegiance to the flag. To defend the country they love and call home donald trump said hes going to make America Great again but one of the things that makes America Great already is people are willing to risk their lives to come here to this country and once they arrived many are going to risk a second time by serving in the Armed Services. Give the dreamers but love america the opportunity to enlist in the services and i yield back. I had a substitute amendment at the desk and ask the court to distribute. Without objection considered as red. I yield briefly for explaining the substitute as i mentioned a while ago many of us have sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the gentleman in arizona by the folks who came to the United States as young people and are still here. The secretary can bring them into the military and so my substitute amendment reaffirms the position that says the secretary can enlist anybody who does not otherwise meet the citizenship or residency requirement of enlistment at the secretary determines that is important to the national interest. I think thats reaffirming that is the thing to do at this point. About immigration in general, thats where data should occur, i think not here. Is there a further debate on the substitute amendment . Thank you mr. Chair in the spirit of bipartisanship i support the amendment and defend this on the floor if it gets stripped out again. This is a question of how this might be implemented. It speaks directly to the secretary. Could the secretary issuthe secm and order basically saying that those who have an appointment could be entering the military and instead of a person by person blanket authorization. My understanding is the secretary has the authority to waive. How broad a category he has the authority to waive. There is out of 10,000 people serving for whom and he is not examined each of them individually now the other challenge that we are funding for some of the noncitizens is vetting as difficult and i think mr. Russell mentioned it earlier. Let me just state my position. I think that these individuals who have been cleared for unemployment have been vetted and there are some questions about exactly how this works down to the process. If it is your intent to allow the secretary to set a program or policy position to allow people to serve in whatever position the military thinks is useful, then i think youre amendment is important and i support it. The question is on the substitute amendment offered by any. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Is there any further discussion on the amendment as substituted by amy and if not, the question is on the amendment those in favor, those opposed . The amendment is adopted. The gentleman from colorado. I ask unanimous consent to call the amendments that have been worked out and approved into the minority. Without objection, so ordered of the clerk would distribute the package number five without objection and if the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes to explain the package. Amendment 089 directors the Sexual Harassment incidents of private sexual images shall be included in the annual reports. Amendment 090 which requires the annual Sexual Assault prevention and response reports to include the data on Sexual Assault committed by servicemembers against their spouse or other defendants in addition to the data included in the annual Family Advocacy report amendment 115 by mr. Davis that requires a secretary of defense to review restrictions on the service from a number of pills to the u. S. Supreme Court Amendment 011 by mr. Larson which directs the department of defense to brief on the status of force of the future presentation pilot program. The question is on the amendment offered those in favor . The amendments are adopted further amendments to this portion . I have an amendment that the desk. It is considered as read. To make thank you for the opportunity for those that serve in our country to establish an office of naturalization to be responsible of that our reach for a new noncitizens services to be sure there provided with every opportunity into of Training Facilities with those Processing Centers recently those reports from the aclu share that the noncitizens Service Members for those minor infractions to make those immigrant Service Members in despite these changes in the not complete the naturalization process today the latest information is they were serving on active duty from 2008 and regardless of the immigration status to receive all the benefits they earned including naturalization benefits and with no new direct spending ill learn there are jurisdictional issues however i look forward to working with the committee in department of defense to continue working on this important issue so i withdraw my amendment to any yield back the balance of my time. In this place the nation in this very controversial and also members of the military i am sorry this will be withdrawn because it might have solved a serious problem we found in one of those air bases that represent the Master Sergeant into play a Critical Role that these are maintained in returning from duty on the United Kingdom the passports were expiring in they were required to go to the consulate to have those passports reviewed the surgeons passports was renewed by his wife was confiscated and was told she could not return to the United States as a very young child and the notes to her her mother had used an older daughters birth certificate to obtain a passport or another birth certificate. Spending 35 years of her life believing she was an american citizen now she is in mexico for children are in the United States with her husband and i think this committee can understand the dilemma of how they have talked passionately about family and the role that spouses play she served side by side next to her husband nearly 20 years and cannot return to the United States. Presently the solution is a new assignment in japan to join her family. Something is terribly wrong and we need to find a solution. These amendments that have been offered speak to the larger erasion issue and i would suggest there are many military family situations that i would describe that they were in during and we must find a solution to all of this of the Naturalization Office had the woman known she was not a citizen and she thought she was. It turns out thats not the case. So i yield back. We will now proceed to the vote on those amendments were the rollcall vote was ordered. Number 96 on selective service. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] its been neck mr. Graves has not recorded zero though now he is recorded as no. [laughter] there are erred 28 aye. The amendment is not adopted. Next we have a rollcall vote number 95 in the deals with contraception and tricare. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] mr. Chairman 30 aye and 31 no. The amendment is not agree to propose their no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. The subcommittee on personnel as amended. Those in favor . Those opposed the ayes have it the motion is adopted. Ended in consultation we will postpone those recorded events until consideration has concluded in the chairman of the recognizes the gentleman from alabama. Mr. Rogers. Thanks for your continued leadership and to make that as successful as the alabama football program. It has been my honor for mr. Cooper setting the bar for by partisan can corporation. A bipartisan cooperation. So this addresses the storage chip temperatures asian with this base organization. I have been disappointed saying those proposed reforms will actually stepped back efforts let me be clear that as of the case. And to streamline that acquisition to prioritize the base and with that department of leadership to help restore and increase the benefits of want to thank the subcommittee with those Strategic Forces which includes those key provisions to ensure parterres station this will be a separate as part of the civilian leadership. Also with the u. S. Space command and with those Satellite Services and that they are provided by satellite. What me be clear but it doesnt unspecified which one anybody needs to use. End to apartheid is the specific requirement to end the reliance. And then to build new launch vehicles for those companies. With some strong oversight process to make sure the Nuclear Command control are reversed and secure. And be authorized the funding level for a National Nuclear Security Administration and then to modernize that stockpile. This authorizes new is a dollars for coproduction and including the iron dome. And finally one last chance to modernize the schedule with the of legacy to support the legislation to do so. In view of the late hour we look forward to that amendment process thank so i yield back my time. I appreciated is there any further discussion of the subcommittee . Are there any amendments . I am concerned about the current balance of the funding levels of the purpurin for the israeli Missile Defense program. Seven just ask the gentleman from alabama and from the Strategic Forces subcommittee to personally commit the issues to shift the funds from procurement and work with me to insure that happens and we do right by our allies in israel. Linkage of the man from arizona with the israeli Missile Defense carrying 705 million to be fully funding those threats from our allies. Since i have been chairman be provided 1 billion for Missile Defense these resources have saved lives to make a more stable middle east now there is a question of funding in procurement i will be happy to work with you to make sure we get a right. You have maya word. Reclaiming my time i sincerely thank the gentleman from alabama for his continued commitment to israel and i appreciate his assurances and working with him on this tremendously important issue moving forward. Mr. Rogers is an honorable man and i have no doubt with this process and i yield back. Is there further discussion on the subcommittee merck . Any amendments . I want to begin. Yes i forgot the process i apologize i have an amendment at the desk. Distribute the amendment it is considered as read your recognize for five minutes. Rabil begin again by commending the chairman of the forces to balance reported suit important issues and certainly as was just highlighted with the importance of a the Missile Defense system that chairmanship of the Strategic Forces to be one of the most knowledgeable members that i know of his dedication and to offer this amendment to remove those provisions of this is asking us to do something we have not done since 1947 to have those various Service Branches to add another just like the Marine Corps Department of therefore sorry United States and my concern and then to put another seal up there i have a friend who wrote their thesis on the formation of the airforce and i read it and it was a compelling story because it talks of the president of the administration for congress and the dod all the work that went into the formulation. With the work we have done so far you cannot write your pieces it would have to be a memo that we had several discussions so when it came down to the debate that we had a meeting. Even though i am a member i was not even aware so how can i not know that this would happen to establish services . That we had a meeting and you missed it. Certainly a meeting is not enough. But to say that this is not right maybe we do need is mbb would be the father of the Space Corporation but the issue of what information do we need in a precedent to rise to the level of the subcommittee mark is my concern. And obviously the main new shot that is going to be required is also burdensome and something that we need to be considered and the emblems, uniforms, how people report to each other. These are issues that bear more than demeaning and just discussions in the subcommittee of the Armed Services. Weve not had a secretary to tell us what this means. Weve not had that the secretary of the air force. In addition if you read the ballot requires a person that joins to be the joint chiefs of staff expanding the joint chiefs of staff certainly we should hear from the secretary defends. But any event i agree this is an important issue. To move forward and establish a Service Branch i can tell you secretary wilson. If i had more money i would put it into the legality, not bureaucracy. I dont need a mother chief of staff and i recognized the chair man has put in to remark she wouldnt have to come she gets to design it. It. I notice it was the fact that this is a bureaucracy. The air force chief of staff that would then because this doesnt report to him says this. If you are saying the word separate and space in the same word, you are moving in the wrong direction. The secretary and i are focused on how to integrate space. I want to commend the chair because he has worked diligently and hard to try to integrate space and to try to hold the air force accountable and get this accomplished two things we are not accomplishing. But i just think that as a committee, there is a whole lot of work we need to do before we go to the extent of establishing another Service Branch and at least one of those steps should be a study in conjunction with the department of defense and with that i would yield back. The gentleman from alabama. I appreciate th i appreciate the gentlemans comments. But i would say there has been nothing short sighted about this. Weve been incredibly deliberative. The fact is, we started working on this last september as a committee vigorously. We have had countless meetings. This idea for the space corps is one of the solutions to the problem with air spac for forcee that came from the commission in 2001 as one of the options that would be a solution. It came again as a part of the commission several years later. The gao has done three studies on this, all of which have said you cannot maintain a current organizational construct and solve the acquisition problem, the operational problems that we have. This has been studied. This is my 31st year and one thing i know as a legislator is if you cant beat it you try to slow it down and delay it. The air force is like any other bureaucracy. Both russia and china on the path to surpass us soon we have a real sense of urgency in the committee. The members of my subcommittee here in the democrat and republican have heard this and know there is a sense of urgency and to delay this would be irresponsible. It would be legislative malpractice to delay this. What we are doing is directing the language for the air force to start designing this next year. Its to design the structure to facilitate the efficiencies and effectiveness that we need. I mostly want to let the russians and chinese pass us in capability and with that i would go back. I would like to enforce the chairmans remarks whether we like it or not it is a new domain and has not been given adequate. This is not to criticize the air force. They do many things well in things that the court would help us. Weve never faced such threats in space. Its the chinese and the russians in particular have been aggressive, so we must meet this challenge and space corps is a good way to do it. The chairman has been gentle but firm in his approach and has had countless meeting over ten months. This is an appropriate step to defend america because we could wake up one morning and we could be blinded and defend by adversary powers. So much of our precious asset or in space. We have got to do more to protect them and develop other capabilities. I would urge my friends on both sides of the aisle to take this initiative to heart. This is a historic moment. Im proud and think that it will serve the nation well. I yield back my time. I want to associate myself with the remarks of mr. Rogers with just two points about this. Number one, the committee has done a great deal of work on this and has thought about this for a great deal of time and pulled it together in a conference and also it is not just saying do it right now. Its saying you need to get this set up over the course of next year so its being done in an intelligent manner and space has changed. We took for granted that we mentioned china and russia and north korea launched a satellite. We need to be ready to come from this and guess buried deep within the air force you could do that, but it doesnt get the priority that it deserves given how it impacts everything that we do so by thinking for his leadership on this and i urge support for the amendment. With me yield to myself briefly. I want to commend the subcommittee. They have spent a tremendous amount of time on this and they have done it together in a bipartisan way. As i recall the first event was a daylong seminar on this topic on space and the options. This is a big change. But i also believe just like it was congress that created the air force when it became time it was congress that created the department of defense and forced the army and the navy together and congress that did goldwater nichols. There are times the issue becomes developed and bright and it is our responsibility to act. And personally, i think space, both with the adversaries are doing and our failures, those things lead me to believe that this is the time to act. It is dangerous to keep track of ones speeches. Back in the late 90s, i argued that the system and that we ought to look at, and something whose time would come, and i think it has. So ive been interested in watching this, but the key is mr. Rogers and mr. Cooper talked with an endless number of people the past year or so, looking back at study after study over the past 15 years plus. I think theyve done the work and i think it is time to move forward even though i recognize that the gentleman from ohio said as a significant change. And i suppor supported the subce is doing. Other comments about the turner amendment. I support the chairman, and i dont think that its a matter of if, it is a matter of when and i dont think this is a reflection of what theyve done here. They have worked hard and do the Due Diligence and provide the best possible. I think weve gone from a time when space was supporting ground, air and sea. We are now transitioning to where it will be done in space and i think that changes the game and we need to grow with us a sculpture and people in the service dedicated toward space control. I think we are at that point we need to move in this direction. It will help us to consolidate the offices in the multiple services and the acquisition resources we have to put it under one space service, so theres also some chances for an opportunity for savings. With that i will yield back and support where the chairman is going. Thank you mr. Chairman and i appreciate your thoughts. This is the first time that ive heard about a major reorganization to the air force and department of defense and i think something this second, if it was at that point in the committee that we would have some hearings were discussions here are from the secretary defends just as mr. Turner said, they would be deployed running the search and rescue. He learned and integrated them off they shall be in this tremendous capabilities in targeting and other elements from the further integration of separation of bureaucracy so i want to associate myself on this and appreciate the leadership but this is sort of the shocking first time weve heard about the reorganization and i think that it deserves a couple of hearings. Mr. Russell. Thank you mr. Chairman. We certainly understand the threats and space and we know that is where everything is heading. I would like to associate myself with what was said this is the first time on reorganization weve heard this and i would like to pride myself a little bit on staying informed, yet weve not had any type of full Committee Hearings on this issue, that or i have missed them. I would like if i can than the limits of my time to ask mr. Rogers, whom i have Great Respect for why would air force, which handles one third of their mission in space and they see it as a future lifeblood of the air force not be able to handle the mission . The Number One Mission when they come to work every day is to be the best air dominant force on the planet. You cant have two Number One Missions. The fact is space is one of several collateral missions and will always be subordinate as long as they are in the air force. That is the problem i have if you want to make the space professionals the best that they can be a need to com baby to coy knowing that its the Number One Mission. If they segregate them and properly resourced amanda develop them so they can meet the new challenges the fact is when i first came here with mr. Turner 15 years ago, space was bought out and integral. If you have a handheld phone come if you put your debit card you are using space. Its an integral part of our lives and the military. Unfortunately, with the organizational bureaucracy theyve not been able to fix the problems that exist in space. Abraham lincoln said nothing good can be frustrated them time and i perfectly understand if you want to do a study or committee, but there are times when it is necessary for us to look and examine an issue. So my question is what was the harm be otherwise weve been digging into this for 31 years. Two thirds of this committee and congress has been elected since 2010. Many of us veterans that have been accounted on the user end of the things we discuss on this committee. What was the harm be to have full Committee Hearings to hear from the secretary defends, to hear from the air force what would be the harm of doing that . Is nothing that prohibits us from doing that and while they are designing the space corps to have different people come before the committee bungled the processes going on because you keep in mind they report back to us. Thank you for taking the time to do that. I guess my own thinking on it and again i have great admiration. Because of that i will be supporting mr. Turners amendment because how do we know that the air force is not capable theyve gone from ground attack transitions to different support transitions and logistics and we are even talking about reentry and outer space so we are going to cross some and with that i will yield back. I guess im talking about that again right now. Mr. Chairman i could ask you a question is the addition of Going Forward on this to establish a core with over 300,000 of us would have less than 50,000. Is that a done deal at the end of the day. How would you envision that Going Forward . My understanding is the vision would be for the space corps under the air force and in a similar sort of relationship to the marine corps under the navy so you have the civilian overseers and it would be a separate essentially a. If you support this amendment or not saying that we dont need a space corps. Youre saying we dont have enough information to do that. I am a very active member of under designing the space corps. On the space corps before we legislatively command. With respect to mr. Rogers statements about the air force and air dominance, you cant accomplish without space and everything we do that includes space and the question is whether it can do it or not. Its the same organization. My only concern is there is a whole lot more information we should have before we go to that level and that is why i offered the amendment and ipod appreciate your attention on the needs we have in space. But i think we should be well informed of both the negatives of doing this and the positives before we undertake in posing this. If i could reclaim my time i think all of us are saying the same thing. We need to move into space significantly. We all want to do that. With a little bit more input coming from the air force i would feel much more comfortable with that, so either with the turner amendment we are still going to move in the direction im assuming. But how far we go into that kind of commitment we go is the question that we have here and i would air on this side on the element of caution. I will yield back. Ive seen chairman rogers bring more attention in the media on what is happening in space and since my time in congress and quite frankly my entire life chairman rogers has been making sure everybody is as well aware of this in the media and everything else. So the idea that this is new is absolutely not true. This is a recommendation of the Donald Rumsfeld commission. Its not new. It hasnt been a secret. Its been publicized in the media. Chairman rogers was given plenty of speeches on this, so i would like to go on the record supporting the chairman o chairs and oppose the amendment. With a specific regard to the amendment, it is going to be a study that speaks to the secretary of air force deciding if it is an interim report on a strategic need to establish a space corps. We already heard from a secretary that she thinks not. There is no need for it. Those of us that served with mr. Rogers on the committee and have gone to multiple committees on the various pieces of the air force that deal with space, i dont know if they share my conclusion, but my conclusion is there is mass confusion and therefore, in inability to focus on the overarching need and i also recall in some of the hearings that the Chinese Government has totally reorganized its military in one of the sections of space. I see mr. Rogers confirming what my memory told the end is accurate they did it for a very special reason as i recall. He recognized it is the critical frontier of the next or if it it is to be one. Or the next piece. If we fail to recognize the strategic importance of space, but we put it the other way. If we recognize the strategic importance, there probably wont be a war but we would leave ourselves vulnerable and it is lost. Unfortunately, the amendment is all too often the way of avoiding a necessary issue. I dont know that this would become the law at this point. If we accept the proposed amendment, it would be buried and it would tend to not be addressed so i would oppose the amendment in the hopes that the space corps would continue and cause us to focus on something that is critically important. I suspect i am probably misinterpreting the intent, but we have seen a lot of studies, and its a great way of avoiding the reality is so i think mr. Turner is a very important issue. We had a daylong meeting on the challenges of space. I personally dont know what else we need to study to go forward in the space command. I had to laugh to myself when mr. Bishop quoted 1776 and said i will share with you my quotation from 1776 that one useless man is called a disgrace. To order more are called a law firm and then john adams goes on to say all we do is never resolved. Lets not do that with all due respect to the patron of the amendment, lets reject the amendment and get on the establishment of space command. Thank you and i will go back. If there is no further discussions with the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio mr. Turner. Those in favor . Those opposed . In the opinion of the chair, no. There is support for that. First proceedings on the amendment for mr. Turner will be postponed. Next they will turn to the gentleman from alabama. Package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved in a minority without objections ordered if the clerk will distribute the package number one without objection the amendments are considered as red and the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes to explain the package. Amendment number 26 concerning the. Its regarding an increase in the minor construction threshold. Amendment number 188 regarding the report on nuclear proliferation. Amendment number two regarding an assessment of the design trade options of the warhead and amendment number 67 with annual selected reports on hardware proliferation. Now in favor. It is adopted. Next amendment 251. Do you have in amendment . The clerk will send it to everybody in the world appear to you. You are recognized for your amendment. Im sorry i didnt respond more quickly. There was a change in the voice and i didnt know exactly what was going on. We are more efficient now. It has been debated over and over again and i suppose im going to continue to cause a debate about it. Its been very controversial. There are many that suggest including the former secretaries of defense and other that it creates an unnecessary risk of miscalculation, lowers the threshold for nuclear use not necessary to preserve the u. S. Nuclear deterrence, and it will cost over 20 billion in the years ahead, money that we could use for many other things. There are those that say that is not true and that say we have had a Cruise Missiles that have been used for a long time with a chemical attack and the russians have also used them and nobody thought that it was going to create a question about whether it is a Nuclear Cruise missile or not. This amendment tries to deal with the controversy having just argued that we dont take time by now on the other side of the question to please forgive me. Because obut because of the cony involved about the Cruise Missile. When specifically asked about the need for one, he said i need to look at that. It makes sense that i have to look at it in terms of its deterrence capability. Ive registered loud and clear some of the people see this and im taking that on board and ive got to do more study and he will be doing more studies so what this amendment does is simply set saying the spending for the Cruise Missile that is in the market and says it is not spend until the Nuclear Review is completed and number two, the secretary of defense certifies that it is consistent with its necessary to meet requirements in the Nuclear Posture review. All that seems to make an awful lot of sense to me invite over to the committee so that given the concerns this particular missile has and what the new administration offers us in the new Nuclear Posture review which is supposed to be done on an accelerated schedule and assuming that it is actually done on an accelerated schedule the secretary then it would move forward. I think we ought to do it for this moment and i offer the amendment began to yield back the remaining one minute and 30 seconds. Is there further discussion backs mr. Rogers. I think the chair man and that the gentleman. You have been thoughtful but im going to have to oppose this amendment. They have described the urgent need and the declining reliability of the outcome. In fact they testified before the committee in march on this room on this exact issue. Here is the nations second highest ranking military officer as vice chairman. Outcomes were designed and built in the 1970s with a ten year lifespan. We know today they remain relevant, but we cannot continue to maintain them. A decade from now these weapons will be able to penetrate the defenses and therefore there is an urgency to the replacement. At the same hearing the commander said the aging outcome is several decades past and facing increasing viability and survivability challenges. Its the first Missile System developed in unison with a Nuclear Warhead in mind for many decades. Limiting resources and funding the components will disrupt the concept capability timeline. The amendment would do exactly what the generals are warning us not to do. It would limit funding for the missile in the warhead. In fact this since 78 of the funding for the warhead. Some argue we should slow the program down a bit because it may propose to cancel it. Last week the general responded to this question. Heres the exchange. On the Cruise Missile, do you think we should be further Funding Program until the posture review is done . I wish we had a schedule that allowed this to happen but we dont. Because if you want to see an ancient weapons system, go look at the Cruise Missile. Its a miracle it can even fly. We cant be sure it. He went on to say i would urge congress not to slow down any element of this administration makes a decision on the npr then we are going in a different direction and people understand what that is and adjust. But because of the place that we find ourselves in a coma the entire program we cannot slow down anything at all. We need to accelerate them, not decelerate them. But its not just me and the entire leadership. Its the Obama Administration. Heres the assistant secretary of defense testifying before my subCommittee Last year. The administrations decision is essential to maintain the outcomes unique contributions stable and effective deterrence. It is an important element of the Modernization Program to support the policy objective and maintain strategic stability with russia and china and finally, here is the last whose nobody idea of a hawk testified before the Senate Last Year and she said first it is consistent with the commitment and the agenda. It supports strategic stability and does not undermine and third, its important in the eyes of our allies. There is no evidence that its promoting in action or a reaction cycle. Its valuable in maintaining strategic stability. Pursuing the plan is endorsed by the terry. Sloughing the program down is up to the plate urged the advice of the military officers and vote no on this amendment and yield back. Thank you for the discussion. I would support the amendment. This delay is the program but i will make one that ive made before if we are going to properly fund the military, we have to make choices about what to fund and what not to fund. I agree we need a strong and robust determined for a wide variety of reasons. Rush being primary among them. However, it is a trillion dollars is the estimation. We have to make some choices how we put together a Nuclear Deterrent force that meets our needs. Our adversaries particularly china are able to have a credible deterrent for less money than we spend so the more we spend on the nuclear side is the less money we are able to spend on a lot of the other items we are talking about here today. At some point we have to make a choice. If you take any one piece of the Defense Budget in isolation and say is this important, you would make an incredibly powerful argument, but again it does not add up. We dont have enough money to do all this which again is why we dont have a fiveyear defense plan because if you just want to stick fingers in our ears and pretend the future isnt coming we have to start making choices. So to believe if it gives us a chance to look at the Nuclear Modernization and figured out what we need and what we can afford i think makes the most sense and the other point i will make later is where russia truly threatens us right now. It isnt even in conventional forces. Forces. Its in hybrid and their efforts to meddle in elections across europe. It is in a Disinformation Campaign where they put out stories to advance their interests that are not true. The most recent example we know of this, there is a split in the world between qatar and saudi arabia, united arab emirates, lots of causes for that that one was a speech to the foreign minister credited with giving which was highly complimentary and fled to saudi arabia and others to be more concerned about how closely it is connected and to sort of kick this off. The fascinating part about that you can go to the conference and its been traced back again. If we are concerned with deterring russia we have to spend money on cyber and our own information campaign. Its about those choices. Does it give us a capability . Everything does. We keep spending the money and keep hoping that at some point it will appear. I support the amendment to give us a little more time on how to spend money on our upgrading of our Nuclear Posture. Thank you mr. Chairman. I will yield my time. On a discussion about making choices i would urge all of the committees to begin the process of making choices. We are well into a chilean dollar upgrade of the Nuclear Arsenal without really thinking long and hard about exactly what it is we want it to accomplish and we absolutely need to do that. If we continue down this path it is but one of the elements here we are going to find ourselves not having money for a variety of other things we must do. The Ranking Member spelled out an area that we know we are vulnerable and we are not taking the adequate defense or offense. So i think i will let it go at that. But over the work we are going to do this year and next year and beyond to think seriously about what is the purpose of the Nuclear Enterprise and the new columbia submarines and missiles that will be on them and those warheads wil that were beyond t, what is the purpose of the bombers presumably that will also carry a new stealth Cruise Missile. What is this all about, is that for conventional warfare or Nuclear Warfare and is it a strategic or tactical . We havent gotten into the that discussion. We will have a new review from the administration and if it is necessary to know where we are going to go into a Nuclear Enterprise. This is simply a delay until such time as that comes forward. But i would hope that this committee on a whole does what we have been debating vigorously in the subcommittee and that is what is the Nuclear Enterprise all about. What is its purpose and if the purpose is conventional war that leads us down one path. If the purpose is deterrence, that is another path. Or is it the in which case we are going to spend a pile of money on the Nuclear Enterprise because both conventional as well as strategic. So i would offer that and let it go and realize we are probably going to lose this amendment. I would like to remind my colleague from california but choices have been needed. Made. The train has left the station. President obama promised we wouldnt modernize the Nuclear Forces which the stockpile is deteriorating and we are starting to build a new sub means a soul of this is taking place and the amendment is addressing another piece of it. These are and should be moving forward. The reason president obama made this promise is to pass the new treaty. I see it as a tactic we shouldnt give in to. You talk about deterrence, that is one purpose of the enterprise but theres another purpose and that is th is we provide a nuclr umbrella for other countries and we have to have a reliable Nuclear Stockpile enterprise for that umbrella to not develop leaks. We would see all kinds of expensive worldwide and we dont want in the arms race and so on. Its so important we continue with what we have decided on until today. Lets reject this amendment. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. All those in favor . It is not agreed to. We will now turn to mr. Smith. As most of you know russia has been in violation. I hate to do this to you. Call up the amendment. The amendment will be sent to everybody. This has to do with the intermediate. Its part of a larger bill that i have two try t tried to countt russia is doing to threaten us. I know we are having a larger discussion about how to best deal with a violation of the treaty and i think the sanctions are an option we should put on the table but for the purposes of the promise i will withdraw. Do you have something . You aryou are recognized for yor amendment. I am going to offer and withdrawal this amendment. This particular decision on that standard interceptors until the cause of the test failure is identified. When it was released the system was an important component of the defense against Ballistic Missile threats. The development was japan with shared funding and engineering responsibilities as a model cooperation and something the Department Needs to be doing a lot more of. It shows the system still needs more work before the final production and this amendment would delay the decision until after the Missile Defense agency in coordination with the director of the evaluations identifies and fixes the cause of the failures. This is a commonsense amendment and im not going to go any further and i will withdraw. I ask unanimous consent. Is there any objection . Thank you. So order. Staff distribute it. I ask unanimous consent to call the amendments that have been worked in the minority. Amendment number 99 concerning the program until there is a certification that the risk from the foreign object debris has been minimized. Amendment 130 by visiting this to declare a briefing on the commonality between the programs. Amendment 156012 required to include an assessment of the affordability consistent with the recommendations and the Chinese Defense policy and how it relates to u. S. Missile defense policy. Amendment 252 by dirk cooper concerning modification to the reporting requiremen requiremene classification of nuclear waste. Amendment 269 by mr. Brooks to include the acceleration of the Global Strike program to permit by 2022. Amendment 275 are won by mr. Frank to require to plan for and carry out a Nuclear Weapon design competition. Amendment 286 or two by mr. Kaufman regarding limitation on the availability of funds related to the dhs program. Amendment 29, 294 are won by ms. Stephani to require a full spectrum of contributing factors to be a included in the decision for the next continental u. S. Interceptor site. Amendment 320 are won by mr. Hunter regarding the restriction on funding for an alternative solid rocket force until after an independent study. Is there discussion about number two . If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. All of those in favor . All of those opposed. The amendments are adopted. If there are no further amendments to this section of the mark the chairman recognizes the gentleman from alabama for the purpose of offering a motion. A move to adopt the subcommittee of Strategic Forces as amended. Questions on adoption of the motion the gentleman from alabama. In the opinion of the chair of the eyes have it and the motion is adopted the committee will now consider the chairmans mark which includes full committee provisions pursuant to Committee Rule 17 and in consultation with the Ranking Member to postpone recorded vote on the amendment until a mutually agreed time. In my Opening Statement for the full bill i pretty much highlighted this and i dont intend to talk more about it. I dont see mr. Smith, so im not sure if he does either. Does anybody else . Anybody else like to talk about the full committee portion of the mark . Are there any amendments to the full committee portion of the mark . I would ask unanimous consent to call up package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority. Without objection, it is so ordered into the clerk will distribute the package without objection they are considered as red. I would yield myself to describe the package number one as comprised of the following amendment number 42 to avoid overreliance on the technically acceptable source selections. Amendment 58 to assist Small Businesses seeking contract opportunities, amendment number 61 by mr. Byrne to require the gao review of contractor Business System rules. Amendment 113 by mr. Larson regarding the Standard Guidelines for evaluating service contracts. Amendment number 17 170 to exted the spending cap on service contracts. Amendment number 311 by mr. Gallagher to include federal Prison Industries products and online marketplaces. Amendment number 314 are won by mr. Lamborn to require the briefing on the canceled contract solicitations. Is there any further discussion about the package number one . If not, the question is on package number one so many in favor . Was supposed, no. In the opinion of the chair, the speedy love and have it and the amendments are agreed to. Further amendments to the full committees section of the mark. The gentleman from wisconsin. The gentleman from california is recognized. You can buy a weapon of the state and it works in just about every state. This causes most of which are women dont have the same ability. They are not able to purchase a weapon or able to buy a dime and so this simply gives the same rights as the activeduty sponsor when they are at a permanent duty station. Thats about it. I yield back. How does this interact in the current California Law. Does it override by California Law that is rather extensive . It views you as a resident of the state further discussion. Those opposed . In the opinion of the chair, the ceo of them have it and the amendment is agreed to. The gentle lady from florida. I have an amendment of the desk. Without objection, the amendment is considered as a threat. You are recognized on the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. I offer an amendment that would establish a Defense Commission that would be comprised of u. S. Security officials and counterparts in the region. The purpose of the commission is to establish a usled security coordinating body that would serve as a signal to the allies and partners that the commitment is credible and enduring. I had the opportunity to travel to the region with the chair man and my colleagues on the Committee Last month and we the heard concerns from our allies and partners about what the future of u. S. Economic diplomatic and security engagements would be in the region. We are also seeing bilateral and multilateral relationships between countries in the asiapacific. Abandoning the security of the asiapacific region as an opportunity we cannot afford. So the asiapacific Defense Commission wouldefensecommission finding ways to strengthen counterterrorism operations, improve regional Maritime Security and bolster Cyber Security cooperation and enhanced readiness to precipitate exports among our allies. We heard from to pay calm command about the importance of investing in the security alliances and when i raised this idea she said it in the legislation who described i think is excellent so i understand this amendment refers to other committees which is why i would withdraw the amendment but first i would like to yield to comments she may have. The department of navy as the department of navy and marine corps. Number 36 require a briefing on direct commercial sales of firearms. Number 57 to honor the Fallen Heroes of world war war i, number 59 for the anticorruption in strategy. And to reaffirm support and to reform support to the the we need a. Into increase funding to the Estate Partnership program. Also true require a of a briefing on the Unmanned Aerial Systems and with en bloc package number to the gentleman from north carolina. And with the real effort to rename the navy and marine corps. But i have camp lejeune based in my district in the end of the marines being killed to say we are proud to be part of one fighting team of the navy and marine corps. So washington d. C. Some type of navy flight. And that is all they ever said. With 325 house members to sign the bill that we put in that year. A capt. That was some nine Senate Members to sign the bill in the senate. One senator is senator mccain we have grown older lets honor the record for what they have done for this country. And then to preach every senator that was a marine to join in the effort. If not the question occurs en bloc package number two. The amendments are agreed to. I have an amendment at the desk. With the use of military force we have been at war for the full 16 years since then. With the oversight just to know who it is were fighting in Different Countries so with the fed chairman will allow me so everyone understands so that congressional notices that is required not less than 30 days to change those entities of those affiliates as maintained of the department of defense so any such notice shall have that legal justification for such change. And for overseeing the wars that they wage but also now iraq in syria and yemen and somalia. So i ask my colleagues to support this amendment for full transparency and to make the prosecution in to execute that. Does the gentleman from texas withdraw the amendment . I would be happy to tell you why. A happy to listen but as you know, with a referral to another committee so that diverts us from going to the floor set to pass the secretary of defense of the committee of the oversight i am not an attorney greta understand why we should not have the information i of very happy to listen but to ultimately make that decision and take ownership that i refill with all due respect to make sure we have the information. So let me just say it is not our decision to make the parliamentarians of the house that make their referral decisions i am not the parliamentarians but in this case the authorization for use of military force is not in the jurisdiction of this committee but my guess well Start Talking about associated forces which relate to real authorized to use military force again, that gets partially into the jurisdiction of the House Foreign Affairs committee. On the substance of the matter i very sympathetic i believe congress we need to reauthorize the way the of circumstances have changed the regardless of the merits of any particular amendment the practice is the amendment referred to another committee which that committee has not waived don is something that cannot be considered here so im sure given the magnitude of this to haverford also on other committees so maya lawyer tells me it is my determination in that wellintentioned amendment is out of order. He is a compassionate lawyer. [laughter] the gentleman withdraws his amendment. Is debating the amendment without objection to recognize for five minutes. Spirit arab like to speak for the use of military force for nearly 16 years the use hastily constructed has been used to combat operations deployment of american Service Members across the world while appropriate in the months that followed the horrific attack with those operations in 14 countries we have called for open its extensive debate and we as a congress our innermost responsibility to declare war to have a young men and women into harms way. Interested baez of passivity. And one developed and it sunsets a u. S. Death immediately to replace that with the use of force of aumf against al qaeda in the television. And without geographical restriction. And theyre not bound by the conventions. As a special mechanism in the event they deploy a forces with the new reporting requirements as to how the authorities are used in order to restore a measure of transparency and accountability know i yield. Those members have not voted on the aumf. Those members of the house 80 is unacceptable. We decide whether to send their sons and daughters into battle as members of Congress Article one section eight the war powers clause that Congress Shall have the power to declare war. It is our obligation and responsibility in this is what were supposed to do i am not encouraging to vote for or against that. To never have that vote. Is to have this discussion i yield. I will be very brief the point has been made but let me explain very quickly that we put in a bill to create better opportunity to debate for the new aumf it was sent to the Foreign Relations committee it went to the rules committee and then to the Foreign Relations committee. So just because of the comments i want to remind river betty of something that few days after 9 11 but what is also true in 2011 and 2012 the house passed an update to the aumf and i know because i did it so we tried to update the other terrorist organizations using exactly though language the Obama Administration was using to justify what they were doing. The senate would not touch it with a 10foot pole. I just want to say that so nobody thinks we have been doing nothing since 2001. Actually we did passage. But i am pretty sure that we put that updated version of the aumf and the updated that to reflect the Court Rulings that were made by the Obama Administration i could be totally wrong about that but we codified those. Did do everything that needed to be done. But i realize i am on a small point relatively 2. 0 the jurisdiction of the Foreign Affairs committee, we have members of this committee so i support updating in the way described here. That has not been successful yet. But it is not something we can do from the Foreign Affairs committee. And i completely agree that we need to update the aumf though we need to be clear we did update in 2012. But with the bush rand obama the administration went to court to say but they authorize this and couldnt away valine chose to interpret that were the you agree youre not i find that astonishing to expand that with a wide variety of forces but they did and in 2012 because we were concerned because of the continuation we codified all that. So lot has changed since 2012 just like since 2001. With a significant increase of strikes against those terrorist forces. It is way past time for congress to pass of aumf where we are at now all because that is not where we were at the 2012 in to allow the executive branch to conduct war without any say so. And we need to continue to work on that. I yield back that must be entered taken by all of us. We have been at war for a long time in 80 percent of coated on the matter. It is imperative that mr. Jones has introduced a revolution that i am the principal coauthor literally forcing the congress and the senates other constitutional responsibility. That would force us to come to grips with the authorization. So now we are well into a wideranging war. And africom is actively engaged along with boko haram yemen and syria are in play and in response to a Chemical Reaction so somehow those actions that were taken were read this on and clearly contrary to which orders must we conducted betted direct threat to the United States but debated the right or wrong but it was a direct threat to the United States. I dont know what the justification is to shoot down the syrian jet. But whatever it might be it is outside of the current war powers resolution. So apparently we are at war with the government of syria or are we not . , this war on terror and not know how that was stated in any resolution furthermore where will we go in afghanistan . What is the Afghanistan War about . We will soon have a definition from the administration but is seen as important to this committee to see that. Somehow we allow the rules of the house to prevent the committee from carrying out its functions which is a war power function. It is the rules of the house and has divided the responsibility frankly makes no sense to me because this is the committee that deals with the war and all the elements of it. We cannot debate that here but i am delighted that we are. And i will yield to anybody who wants 59 seconds. I yield back. From the Foreign Relations committee i want to tell you what i believe to be there prevailing sentiment with that dereliction on the part of congress. And the questions remain what happened after 9 11 if they can govern to be excommunicated and if this is an open question so i want to thank my colleagues for raising the issue. In two straight day very good balance their very open to having a time restriction i hope we can continue to Work Together to the aumf. We still have one on the of books from the Eisenhower Administration to justify invading the entire middle east if we wanted to. So to demand a serious strategy with a clear authorization for copings for bringing this up. I yield back. Next the gentleman from texas. The clerk will distribute the amendment in the gentleman is recognized. We spent a lot of time talking about how difficult it is to find the resources for the various Service Branches deemed necessary for those words of a raging to defend the country in case of attack we also have serious challenges but the peak year for demand world war i veterans to take the country 40 years to find agent orange for cancer of the country dithered and to fail to recognize for those of us served at that time that they are referred to as gulf war syndrome. That they will cost a the country to fulfill the obligations of nearly 1 billion. So if were going to ensure that were constantly facing to produce these terrific cocoms of 20 veterans today to take their own lives and willing to seek care iran to the scandal that was exposed was known in some form of fashion tenures preceding that in congress with the Inspector General and the gao reports. I introduced a bill with mr. Jones on the committee to create a Veterans Trust fund and those that are excepting those inactive duty it would ensure there are there resources not just a short time on disability claims and appeals to reassure were investing in the Innovative Care to improve the quality of life for those who have served. So there so many members to director abraham and mr. Kaufman and they know every single other member cares about our fate and want to make sure i bring mr. Redis attention and the one to recognize mr. Molten to help to introduce this idea. Thanks to my colleague from texas. The willingness with which theyre likely to serve in any war no matter how justified show be proportional to earlier wars to be appreciated by our nation. When you go to war you expect to be cared for when you come home. Veterans can see these debates and recognize the care will not be taking care of according to the current fiscal state but to raise revenues to care for veterans and they come home we were told to go shopping after an 11 for the young men and women. So to associate myself and i yield back. The four u. S. Drug you wish to be heard briefly . It to signal the onset of this building watching what was going on in the fate and the fact that the issues are still unresolved. Also to talk about the wars that were fought and not paid for in this since we gittin society run we have to strangle the of many to go to so many other places and to reassure those veterans are cared for. And then to come home to a country with this type of a process is the best way to do that. This really strikes a chord i was unsure of washington is aware to the extent of which they prepare and serve today. To think about the role that many young women play to those who have served and comeback it does care givers but the veterans told me very soon after we begin the we are a military or another nation or so that sums up the situation. The gentleman from texas withdraws the of amendment. Ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc package is so ordered please distribute en bloc package number three they are considered as read. This comprises amendment number one regarding narcotics trafficking on the insider attacks by Security Forces in amendment to 39 with joined Weapons Systems and amendment number 247 with a series of reports in on the status of the nutrients for in support of Security Cooperation also by mr. Gallagher and number 313. Requiring a briefing on the Afghan Special immigrant program is ready further discussion over en bloc package number three . O like an opportunity to speak briefly amendment. This concerns that is important to me and others with a continuation so with those afghan individuals the ability to resettle that they face on a daily basis. And those the results of the multiyear extension and subsequently a bipartisan effort we have kept the Program Alive fair and functioning it has continued to issue the visa there are thousands of applicants as of may 5th only 250 remain available. Failing to authorize means others are put into serious danger. Therefore this reaffirms the sacrifice to qualify for the program with a consultation of the secretary of state as the bill moves to the floor working with members of the committee to the visa for the afghans put them on the line in the least we can give them is the chance to stay alive. I yield back. Further discussion en bloc package number three the ayes have it the amendments are agreed to. It looks like we have 35 more amendments to deal with not counting the en bloc package some of those are to be offered in withdrawn maybe spending a fair round of time if we could keep the comments brief and to the point. I have an amendment at the desk spirit without objection and it is considered as read. This has to do with cluster bombing missions. But i will specify in a minute and furthermore to begin destroying them to get them entirely of a stockpile there is a provision to stop the deity from eliminating those cluster bomb shells do to my amendment to allow the dod to continue doing what they intended to do. This is a very important issue post world war ii we saw had chemical weapons lying around we agreed there should never be you so we got rid of it. The live understand the primary reason can fall under the heading of you never know what will happen but i think that misunderstands how detrimental the artur own interest and also how munitions have devolved to a better place so the of cluster bomb is a piece of portents that has more than one bomb. But originally it had a lot of little bombs sometimes those that would indiscriminately sprayed these given the of fight of specific targets reduce see those civilian casualties is enormously important to make sure we dont kill people we dont want to kill not to mention the humanitarian thing to do and with cluster bombs make it very difficult to hit the target you are intending to and worst of all they frequently do not explode on impact but they live there in the ground waiting for somebody to come and say what is this which happens with great frequency there is no legitimate military purpose for these cluster bombs. We have improved significantly i do understand to hit a wide range of targets so now those that we have i believe between 10 and 50 small sardine cans i raised munitions that have little parachutes and airdropped in the direction of the heavy Armored Vehicle they are trying to destroy it they hit the target and taken out if not their rendered inert so theyre not a threat. There is no reason to keep the old style cluster bombs that our inhumane and incredibly devastating to the population whether afghanistan or yemen that is enormously important i casino military reason to maintain these weapons i am quite sure what is in the one at dod would say yes so as they continue to conduct the worse they are engaged in a mass support for the amendment. I rise in an opposition that there is no reason or no purpose. Cluster munitions are ground dropped so the department of defense does view these as a military necessity as an integral part so the majority reside in be Army Inventory neddies meet the policy that there is currently no nearterm replacement so testifying to the impact if we do not include the policy that is in the bill that impact would be the majority of the munitions are cluster musician munitions to significantly impact our ability at the Crimean Peninsula we have the clear need until such time to produce a replacement that meets at 1 so there is a military necessity there resides in the u. S. Army and until this time we should continue the policies that we have and i yield back. I strongly oppose this amendment i a understand the intent to cut down on the deads but if you look at the scenario of correa coming from my experience that is the cluster munitions you could fly over one artillery piece at a time 142005 a piece is in north korea with 25 Million People or 140,000 americans so go one at a time risking the pilots life circling again or you drop the said are more precise that can literally depending on the altitude go after multiple targets hitting multiple targets in one pass. This is a significant capability especially this theater when tensions are rising. Sova munitions cannot replace that capability if we can meet that 1 we take away combat capability and it is cool to risk the lives of 25 Million People to be hit with these other weapons coming out of ruth correa north korea asking the impact is significant because the majority are cluster munitions affected by this policy so then we need to replace these munitions that it is very important very difficult to replicate so that we can produce it in the numbers to meet the needs so if you do not want to go into affect until we can replace it properly. Right now we cannot but combat commanders that they dont have what they need so i strongly oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman i would say it has been almost 32 years as a staffer in the engineer that is responsible for dealing with these types of munitions i will say that we are very fortunate never to have a problem that is coming at us in this will prevent that from happening. So with a two or three star general to authorize the use to shape the battlefield to minimize the u. S. Casualty i think many are created to day to loan those munitions even with these commanders make these decisions we have to go back and occupy so we are very careful to make sure there is any way to do that we dont want to put your own soldiers into danger so i think we should use these as a last resort but we need to decide that we have soldiers who have their lives on the ground to be given the authority to use these as required by law. I yield back. I rise in opposition to the amendment. I just got back from europe from the armys greatest Training Area and i talked to all of the commanders about caribbean and europe and the the fact 2018 is approaching in so far i have not had one that has not said little think we can stop so i asked a question to we need more longrange artillery . And everybody was worried what would happen because their troops if they mention the north koreans from 2018 or any other adversaries so for that very reason i will trust the commanders on the ground and listen to what theyre saying in their concerns in the welfare of the troops not having the capability for those adversaries they may face and i yield back. were doing is countering dod policy. Obviously a number of generals support the policy to eliminate this particular position by 2018 so is all id meeting with the Bush Administration continue with the obama the administration and with the Trump Administration three separate departments of defense have said we need to stop using this. I am not going against the general said his policy that we are reversing. We are not eliminating all cluster munitions storage have to put on my glasses that had a less than 1 exploding rate we do have these second do precisely what was referenced and i agree that is a great thing to have and we have them now that dont laying around unexploded that is why the policy to get rid of the netherlands that are said john menace to the civilian populations. This is not what the military wants the last time i looked the pentagon was the military it is their policy were choosing to reverse it we should go with what the department of defense has said with this cluster munition. The underlying provisions say we cannot destroy the ones we have got from the combat and commissioned requirements so the point is we dont want to be without. Those in favor . The nos have it the amendment is not agreed to. The gentleman from minnesota i have an amendment at the desk in this brief and to the point. The gentleman is recognized in america requires the Defense Intelligence agency completed study on the russian and chinese armies to investigate the presence of combat Training Centers like the joint Readiness Center with those metrics be used to determine readiness. Also Logistics Readiness is amendment is important for two reasons i am not all confident to have a better understanding of this we have many classified briefings and it was suggested we ask for this report because the information is incomplete at best that allows the dia to gather intelligence and with those advancements of russia and china we need to know how will they supply their forces in the military veterans will tell you that logistics win wars we have to understand our adversaries and it goes back to the question how greenough we have our resources in the right place . I will withdraw i was unable to get a waiver from the Intelligence Committee bill would basket ready if you do not know the answer to those questions you cannot vote because there is not a report on it. The. Indulging me i withdraw my amendment. It is considered as read. I will be brief but it takes a look at a judge to lay out our policy the problem is there is some language in your to put those tactical Nuclear Weapons into southeast asia. And they dont want that. Because of that deployment that our fundamental to ensure that position so all be tried to do is that nothing has the shared goal and we had to the language in here and includes not tactical weapons we attempted to work this out but were unable to do so. And with that long stated policy i yield back. We tried really hard to get the language to say that we support the neither blue negative denuclearized peninsula. It doesnt say if we will will will not have a specific Weapons Systems the doesnt call for the tactical Nuclear Weapons you dont want to tell the enemy what you will not do