but you don't know whether it's a mode median or a mean? >> i not even going to try to answer your question. you are going to have to just decide whether not you are going to be for it or not and again i would offer you should probably googled. >> not a math major are you? >> this bill --. >> i don't have enough information for me to be able to vote yes or no. thank you mr. chairman. >> i think if somebody commits a crime they ought to serve some time. is there further debate on the amendment? mr. johnson. >> yes i do have a question on this. i would like to have the floor for five minutes. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. does this amendment mr. turner specified -- it doesn't appear to specify the sexual assault charges that would be subject to a mandatory two-year minimum. am i correct about that? >> it does. by reference and as indicated before it is the most egregious in that of rape and we can certainly is my staff has had offer you the citations of the definitions if you would like to step over me. >> all right thank you. i yield back. >> the questions on the amendment offered by mr. turner. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. are there other amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> ms. speier has in them and that the desk. with a chair please pass out the amendment? without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> mr. chairman and members when young men and women raise their right hand and swear they will uphold the constitution and that they will protect our country they do so knowing full well that by donning those uniforms they may in fact lose their lives. they expect that they could in fact be in combat in a setting where they can become wounded. they do not however believe or expect that they are at greater risk of being a victim of violence within their own ranks banned from the enemy but that's basically what has happened in recent times. so this amendment and the one that follows deals with the issue of the chain of command. the system in place right now falls well below what is the standard that we would it expect in civil society. the current system gives commanding officers rather than trained and independent military prosecutors outside the chain of command the power to decide whether not to try case. the perception reality is that commanders with a built-in conflict of interest with no legal training are deciding whether to move forward to trial not solely based on legal reasoning but on a myriad of other factors like how well the defendant flies a jet or is liked by others or is a good husband or father or mother or spouse. a systematic lack of trust in the system is borne out by the numbers. this year safra report revealed that some 5061 reports of sexual assault in 2013. these are reports that were filed. 3700 unrestricted reports and the rest being restricted. but of those 3768 unrestricted reports, only 10% resulted in convictions. so what does that mean? does that mean that only 10% of those that have the guts to come forward and file a complaint who know full well that the system sometimes doesn't work on behalf of the victim, that oftentimes it's a career and her if you do file a complaint that you are labeled with having a personality disorder to become a pariah within your unit? does that mean that 90% of the victims that have the guts to file a complaint are lined? i don't think so. in fact most studies that have been done suggest that false reports amount to some two to 5% some argue that it can mean argue that a community and authority relies upon their staff judge advocate to make this decision so it's not really the convening authority that's making the decision. it's actually the j.a.g.. well that is not really the case. in fact if you look at the obey on a case general franklins staff judge advocate tried to persuade franklin not overturn the charges but when he came to putting them in writing the staff judge advocate balked and concurred with franklin. i have no interest in the innocent servicemember going to jail anymore than i'm i'm interested in a guilty perpetrator going free. and the general sinclair case there was in fact a negotiated agreement that was agreed to by both parties before trial but the convening authority cut off negotiations and in fact under political pressure evidently made the case move forward. many say the commanders need to own this issue. the truth is the status quo isn't making them on this issue. so this first amendment is quite simple. it basically is very similar to legislation introduced on the sun aside by senator gillibrand which has been cosponsored on the house side by my colleagues. it basically provides that all nonmilitary serious felonies be taken out of the chain of command and that a chief prosecutor in each service would have the discretion on whether to prosecute a serious nonmilitary offense. a jagged or in 06 or higher outside the chain of command would convening carry out the court-martial. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. any other? mr. turner. >> mr. chairman i speak in opposition and with all due respect i appreciate the hard work on the issue of sexual assault that ms. speier has contributed. this review was correctly described taking the issue of prosecution out of the chain of command which has already been previously rejected by this body and is recently been subject to a vote in the senate. this amendment is different from the actual one that was before but the concept is similar. specifically, we do have the response systems to adult sexual assault crimes panel that is currently ongoing. that panel is looking at the uniform court of military justice before we do something to restructure the uniform code of military justice it really needs to be done on a full-scale basis and just one footnote from my ranking member the sentence in california's three years. i yield back. thank you. >> is there further debate on the amendment? ms. tsongas. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank congressman spierer for raising this very important issue. obviously it merits attention that she is bringing to at this meeting. this committee has made a number of changes over the years making sure that every victim of military sexual assault receives an attorney, making sure jury verdicts can't be overturned and ensuring that those that are convicted of sexual assault will absolutely be discharged or dismissed reid and there are still more important changes that we are enacting in this year's ndaa. these changes give the military and its leaders additional tools and resources to demonstrate that when these crimes occur justice is served. and i want to thank you chairman mckeon and ranking member smith congressman wilson and congresswoman davis were including these provisions in the bill and obviously congressman turner and the many others who have worked on this over the years. however there are still many more questions that deserve and demand our attention such as should a commander have this authority to make a the final decision on whether a criminal case should recede to trial? will that change have a significant impact on the military's ability to confront and eliminate this all too pervasive crime? ultimately we have to get this right. this is a multifaceted challenge and it requires efforts on all fronts and i think we all agree that by itself simply changing a commanders authority will not get rid of this scourge of military sexual assault. and yet an institution defined by the chain of command and the dictates of deference inherent in that command structure commanders have played a crucial role and it is clear we need much more change. we need a change from a culture that allows the general to be promoted after he perpetuates a toxic military -- that accepts harassment and criminal behavior as the norm. a change from a culture where servicemembers can be more afraid of their fellow soldiers than they are the enemy. we need a change in an organization and last year dod estimated that 26,000 active-duty servicemembers experience some type of unwanted sexual contact in the prior year. military commanders must understand how key they are to changing this culture and held accountable when they do not serve the interest of decency professionalism and justice. i do have concerns over this particular amendment and how it will be logistically implemented and what collateral consequences there might be for the ucmj. however i feel this amendment is an important step to continue the conversation about authority and i will support its passage. i think congressmcongressm an spierer for raising this issue. >> any further debate on the amendment? mr. longo then. >> this is a very important issue and i know how much time is spierer's put into this issue and i'd like to yield the balance of my time to miss beer. >> i thank the gentleman for rum rhode island are being so generous. let me just say that we have never had a vote in this committee on this topic. we have never had the chain of command before us for us to vote on it. that's why it is so important for us to do this tonight. so to those that think we have already taken care of this we have never had a recorded vote and yet it is an issue that is on the front pages of every newspaper in this country. i read two editorials today from papers around the country. we have not fixed this. when you double the number of reports that people within the military are willing to file but you still have only 10% tur into convictions there is a fundamental problem. and let's make this very clear. there are more men than there are women who are sexually assaulted in the military. so this is very important to men and women. it's very important to their families. it's very important to the mental well-being of people as they spend the rest of their lives trying to cope with this haunting experience. for us to put this somehow on the back burner again makes no sense. i yield back the balance of my time mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady yields back. any further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on the amendment on the adoption of the amendment offered by ms. speier. so many as are in favor will say i go. those opposed, no. the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlelady asked for roll call vote. that will take place at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any other amendments in the subcommittee's report? ms. speier has an amendment at the desk. the clerk will please pass of the amendment. without object and the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the gentlelady for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> mr. chairman as i it would have related to all serious crimes. this carves out just sexually related offenses so it's even worse. instead of just taking the issue of how do we reform the uniformed code of military justice it actually takes this particular crime and treated differently. as you know in most of these cases there are multiple items in which people are charged. also as we know in 2012 the department reported that the community authority took action and 60 cents -- that is now up to 77%. but in addition we do some very important things in this bill. we limit the use of the good soldier defends require the commanders the assist of their ability were a victim can report a crime without on -- we ensure changes in the provisions apply to military service academies. we ensure an independent panel to look at the mental health records of victims and helping mental health records are entered into evidence at trial and again we have this ongoing response to adult sexual crime. this is not something we should do lightly. this is not something without significant review from people who are experts in this field. undertake a piecemeal change of the uniform code of military justice. again i do believe we have taken this up. in the last ndaa debate there were amendments that perhaps represented the position certainly the armed services committee and the senate has most recently defeated efforts to take us out of the chain of command. for us at 8:20 at night to suddenly spend five minutes on an issue and said we have the answer and should take a knife to the code of military justice is not appropriate. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> the chain of command command responsibility is at the very core of functioning in our military. and it always has been. so what we have seen in these amendments is to take things out of the chain of command when we should be looking to hold commanders in the chain of command responsible we are relieving a fact responsibility by taking this out of the chain of command. in my judgment and a lot of years of experience this is exactly the wrong thing to do. let's hope those generals who foster a climate of misconduct accountable. let's relieve them. let's prosecute them if necessary. we need to hold the chain of command more accountable not less accountable. i yield back. >> i am looking at these two amendments that you have offeren this one. can you explain the difference between the two? >> yes mr. chairman. the first amendment takes all nonmilitary serious felonies out of the chain of command. this amendment takes all sexual assault cases out of the chain of command. >> got it. okay. mr. smith. >> thank you mr. chairman. i appreciate the work that not just ms. speier but to ms. sanchez tsongas and must ms. davis and a lot of other folks who have done this. we have a very serious problem in the military was sexual assault then it can be best described a think as deep and cultural. i believe sincerely that the military leadership now recognizes that. it is trying to change it. it's not an easy thing to do. there've been a lot of bad examples in recent months and we have changed the law and a number of ways and the need to address this. the problem i have with both of these amendments is that they make a huge change to the existing judicial structure. one of the biggest problems we have had his victims coming forward. will the victims feel like they will be fairly treated if they come forward? changing that culture has been significant and i think there is benefit challenge in the significant increase in reporting last year oddly is a positive. it shows they were willing to come forward. as ms. speier correctly points out that is but one step in the process. number one even if you take the commander out of the equation you are not going to change the pressure that a victim is under. that commanders still the commander. that victim is still part of that unit. just because the ultimate decision is taken back someplace else you are still going to have the exact same work to make sure that unit makes it an open and available place for a victim to come forward. it doesn't change that at all. the thing that it does change as it takes a whole new group of people and creates on the system and quite possibly could create uncertainty and a lot of people in the victim and other folks. i don't know what this new system is. i don't know how it's going to handle it and maybe after couple of years working out the and figuring it out that problem is eliminated. it just doesn't improve the overall situation significantly enough i think to justify this radical change. believe me we are all looking for the switch to flick to fix this trouble and for you know the silver bullet answer with a piece of legislation. i don't think it exists. i think we are going to have to work tirelessly to keep the pressure on the military to make sure that they address this cultural problem and i think if we make this radical change the way we prosecute cases it's going to be more harm than good in getting to where we need to be. so i appreciate all the work and there are a lot of good things. ms. speier these amendments i will oppose them because i don't think they moved the ball forward in confronting the very real problem of sexual assault. >> mr. copp. >> i commend my good friend representative spierer for her leadership on tackling the problem of sexual assault which plagues our military and while i do not support removing all nonmilitary crimes in the chain of command i'm proud to have worked with her on this amendment and i believe it deserves bipartisan support. this amendment will change the way article cxx cases are handled. this amendment is a fair compromise leaving a vast majority of the ucmj unaltered and only focuses on a particular type of crime. a particular type of crime that seems to be far too prevalent in our military through this amendment by removing the prosecution of article cxx crimes out of the chain of command and placing them in the services office of the chief prosecutor sends a message to the victims of sexual assault. that message is that there are very real concerns regarding reprisal. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. i yield back. >> ms. sanchez. >> thank you mr. chairman. as you know mr. chairman i began this effort with respect to sexual assault when i was sitting way down there at the beginning of the committee, so i have gotten to see bank god a change in attitude especially by the congress about how we have to go after what is a crime and what is really a cancer in our military. but i was just like to say a couple of things. the first is that when you are talking about the commanding officer you are talking about our officer corps. this congress has spent a lot of money to educate our officer corps. not only did they go to their different war colleges and everything but most of our officer corps have ph.d.s or master's. these are not people who do not understand or cannot bring something to the table when they are making these decisions. my husband is a former j.a.g. out of the army. and he tells me all the time that -- and he was a prosecutor. he was in charge of going after these people and when he felt that there was evidence and the information and the crime, of course he was for pushing that. he said a lot of times he didn't have the evidence. these were some of the things that were changing in some of the works we have done in the last couple of years to have the chain of evidence there, to have the things to be able to convict people with. but he said that when he walked in he had to have his game on to talk to the commanding officer because the commanding officer would do the give-and-take to think about this. two heads are better than juan and generally they would come back with a better idea of what type of the case they had. many times he would tell me even though he would recommend because he didn't have the evidence to not take this to court more often than not the officer would say this person wants their day in court and gosh darned we are going to give it to them. so i would just say that i think it is much better as mr. kline said to keep them responsible for this issue and not give it away and i yield back. >> thank you. ms. duckworth. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank representative spierer for her leadership as well as my other colleagues on the committee including representative davis and representative tsongas as well as rep turner for their tireless work on this important issue. i love the u.s. military with every bone in my body. the lessons that i've learned as an officer the challenges i face in the camaraderie i experience are at the core of who i am as a person trait that is why i'm devastated to see how sexual predators are treated in the military. just a single case of sexual harassment or assault is unacceptable. the military as a place of discipline technical proficiency and personal sacrifice for the greater good. for too many becomes a place of fear and intimidation. unfortunately many potential recruits and young leaders are being turned off from joining due to the cancer that is military sexual assault. i don't want parents of bright young men and women to be fearful for their children and conversations about them listing. a self-inflicted wound is resulting in a readiness and morale crisis on national security and our standing in the world and most importantly our men and women in uniform. yes, the military has implemented a host of new programs and educational courses to help stamp out sexual misconduct but with rising reports of military personnel being investigated for rape domestic abuse allegedly forcing soldiers into prostitution the reversal of jury convictions into sexual assault cases i'm convinced the military cannot now and it was epidemic own. i commanded an army unit. i am a former military commander. i have often been the only woman in an all-male unit. i've served in combat conditions. i have served all over the world i served in peacetime. i've served in wartime. i place the highest priority on the commanders authority to lead, manage and discipline the men and women under his or her command within the ucmj. however in the case of sexual crimes the military has shown it is not able to uniformly, and i say uniformly because there are many great commanders, so many more good commanders than bad ones but it has shown it has not been able to uniformly implemented as occasions and punishments within the chain of command. so i find myself going through a process where i have gradually, painfully come to the conclusion that military sexual assault cases should be taken out of the chain of command. that being said i am not in agreement that all nonmilitary crimes as is proposed in the previous bill should be prosecuted simply. a commander's ability to punish those under his his/her command is integral to unit cohesion and morale and overall discipline. however in the case of sexual crimes it is evident that the military is not doing all that it can quite fast enough. the dod is doing more to eradicate this cancer mostly due to pressure from our respective colleagues on this committee. requiring training response is more extensive than ever however it simply is not enough or fast enough. just last week i had breakfast along with some of my colleagues and general odierno who told me that even though the report rates are up they still can't get men to report sexual harassment and being victims of sexual crime. men are to afraid to report male on male crimes. it's my belief that this is because they are afraid from retaliation from the chain of command and the negative stigma associated with sexual assault. when our warriors face combat they must be able to focus single-mindedly on the mission at hand. they cannot do that if allegations of sexual assault are not taken seriously. that is why i'm supporting this amendment. i urge my colleagues to do the same. i yield back. steam is davis. >> thank you mr. chairman and i've certainly listen to all my colleagues here. i feel like we have spoken about this on so many occasions and i can tell you that if i believed khan and i've tried actually very hard to do that, to find that we have perhaps there is a parallel system or there is an option, there's a choice which actually we have created a choice between the military and civilian system that a victim can choose in new legislation. but nevertheless we still have this major perception i think that the military is not capable of handling these issues. it's not that i think that they are or that they have done everything right. i absolutely agree with my colleagues that that's not the case. but how hard i have tried to see whether creating a new system with chief prosecutors where cases would funnel down to them and would be a limited number of prosecutors prosecutors in that case, and we don't even have a chief prosecutor within the army that necessarily is going to make the situation better. as everybody has said we have a big cultural problem. we have a problem within our communities. we have a problem in our colleges. there is a lack of sometimes respect but it's the ability of people to really be able to understand and see ahead to the situations that they find themselves in. so i just don't think this is the silver bullet. i wish it were frankly because i think then we would or haps say good we found it and we can move on. there are so many areas that we have tried to change and i think every meaning that we have had with people who are reporting to us on what's going on suggest that we need to kind of let things come together rather than trying to change it. i think this is a very honest effort on the part of my colleagues and as i said we are changing enough things and interviews and how we get to the heart of the situations but at this particular time and i know it makes some people unhappy i feel like all the changes that we have made would not move to create a new prosecutorial system that would perhaps have unintended consequences that none of us would want to see. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. the debate on this issue has gone on for a long time and much has happened in the last year. so much of what has been said here tonight i think is true. i think that there have been changes made. they there will continue to be changes made but the voice that i don't hear very often, people talk about commanders and the chain of command and good order and discipline all of which i believe strongly in. i have served as an enlisted private. i have served as a platoon leader and a company commander and believe in the institution that we have that makes our military strong. but through this whole conversation about this epidemic of sexual assault in the military the voice that is not often heard enough is the voices of those servicemembers who have been through this, those who when you speak to them one-on-one they tell you that the number one change that will make a difference -- it won't solve this complicated issue but it will make a difference -- is taking this decision-making authority outside of the chain of command. i had a chance to meet with a couple of survivors about a month ago and heard some of the incredible, incredibly horrible experiences that they have gone through. evidence is often brought up saying there's not enough evidence. i heard a story from this female sergeant who had gone to a new unit, was working with a fellow soldier who continuously inappropriately and indecently exposed himself to her over and over and over again. she reported it to her command. they said oh no he would never do that. the next time he did it she snuck and took pictures with her phone. she went back and said look, here's my proof. they said grades give us the memory card so we can actually do something about this. within the next few days somehow mysteriously that memory card disappeared. there was no other evidence there. there are so many different stories in an those on both sides of this issue but i think it is crucial that we also put on equal footing the stories of those who have been victims. the stories of those survivors who are seeking to empower others who have felt completely powerless not only from this horrific experience but from what they have had to go through whether they have gone through the military justice system or not. and this is why i feel so strongly that with the issue of sexual assault and understanding and living in appreciating the culture that exists in the military having that fair transparent system of the military prosecutor takes away much of the influence that is there that intimidates those who are victims from coming forward. this will not solve the entire problem. this is not the silver bullet. there is not one that exists, don't leave that but this will create a significant change. to this problem that we have faced for decades. my concern is that when congress shifts its attention to another issue will we have a system that is in place that will hold people accountable and that will maintain this fair transparent and independent system that will bring about justice? i yield back. >> is there any further debate on the amendment? mr. johnson is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have pondered this issue many times and have tossed and turned about it because i do respect the fact that the military is a society in and of itself and the chain of command is so important in military affairs. so as to maintain discipline and for other reasons. i deeply respect that tradition. i cannot -- and i cannot stand silent however while there is a raging storm that has been exposed now and that is undeniable and irrefutable and that is the prevalence of sexual assault in the military involving both male and female victims. the system is not working ladies and gentlemen as it is. and so i respect being a lawyer myself i respect lawyers, professional lawyers who are trained and employed by the military and they have respect for the rule of law and also for the traditions of rank and chain of command and that kind of thing. i believe that those military lawyers, the prosecutors are professional enough to be able to make the call and make a call that is rooted in probable cause as they determine it to be, which a lawyer and a prosecutor, a trained prosecutor can make based on their experience and training which is lacking with nonlawyers, senior command officials who tend to make decisions based on factors other than probable cause to believe that the offense, the alleged offense did in fact occur. and so i think it's time for us to recognize that we must make some changes. this change in is not revolutionary though it is different. we need to give it a chance because the way we are going right now is not working and with that i will yield back. >> is there any further debate on the amendment? the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have listened to this debate with a great deal of interest and very conflicting thoughts on it. i'm probably unique in this room in that i have served as a military attorney. i've been a prosecutor and defense attorney. i've been a staff judge advocate and i've been a commanding general so i have served in every one of those roles. many years ago defense attorneys were taken out of the chain of command because of the concern over the appearance of impropriety. the concern of the possibility of command -- and after debating the issue in my own mind i have come to the conclusion that we need to do the same thing but the prosecution. i don't state this lately because as the commanding general, a former commanding general i value very highly the ability to have control over the ucmj. but i think that we need to set the office of the prosecutor free from the possibility of command influence. the commanding general rights the officer efficiency report, that controls the promotion of that staff judge advocate and so even if you have the most honest aboveboard commanding general in the world, the staff judge advocate may well feel as though he or she is being influenced by that committee june -- commanding general. it is with reluctance i have to say because i understand all of the rules roles that every one of them play in that and i believe that the news stories that we have seen about general's gone wrong are the aberration. the vast majority of military attorneys and military commanders and military person now are of the finest caliber. unfortunately we have had incidents of people who had no right to serve in the positions they served in. i'm going to vote for representatives be your's amendment because i have been convinced after listening to the debate and particularly representative gabbard's remarks that we need to take military prosecutors out of the chain of command. i yield back. >> any further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on the mamet offered by ms. spierer. those in beirut said aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it. the amendment is --. >> i roll call vote has been requested. i think that was the last -- one more. one more. we will hold the roll call after the conclusion of of the subcommittee mark. are there any other amendments to the subcommittee mark? >> mr. chair i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection the admin it will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman we have men and women in uniform who are sworn to defend and protect the united states constitution. we have men and women at the service academies who are preparing themselves to defend and protect the united states constitution and yet there have been regrettable instances where these men and women have had their own constitutional rights infringed upon. military regulations must protect freedom of religion. recently a controversial event took place at the united states air force academy. it could have had a bible verse written on the whiteboard outside his room. i've seen these white wards in the u.s. air force academy. they are about the size of this piece of paper and yet such a small space led to a large controversy. after the cadet he raised the bible verse and outside agitator claimed falsely to have pressured the air force academy to force the erasing of that label verse. we need to have regulations that allow cadets and those in uniform to live out their faith without pressure to stifle or compromise their faith. and let's take away the opportuniopportuni ty of outsiders to interfere in the spiritual lives of our cadets and those in uniform. this amendment mr. chairman requires the department of defense and the air force to rewrite the regulations to clear up confusion, remove ambiguity and protect constitutional rights. air force regulations appear to be more restricted than those of the other service branches so this amendment is focused on air force instruction 11 in particular and says it must be rewritten within 120 days of the enactment of this law as well as the rewriting of the department of defense instructions. let's allow the men and women who are protecting our constitution and putting their lives on the line to fully enjoy their religious rights rites contained in that same constitution. thank you mr. chairman and i yield back. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? c. is there debate on the amendment? mr. forbes. >> mr. chairman i would like to first of all say that i don't know anyone that has fought harder for religious freedom than congressman lamborn and dr. fleming and trent franks and many of the people sitting here and i recognize the frustration that we have. we had a hearing where we discussed many of these issues however i would say that the air force in my opinion now is making huge strides to try to address this problem. and i would hate for us to subject them to the old adage of no good deed goes unpunished by passing a provision like this right in the midst of why they are trying to correct some of these situations. so i would respectfully request that the gentleman consider withdrawing this amendment at this time, giving the air force chance to finish the work is undergoing right now and taking a look at it or the next couple of weeks before this bill comes up for the full house at which time if you are not satisfied the air force has addressed some of this you can consider putting this in as an amendment by the full body. but i'm concerned that if we pass it now it will stop some of the good work that they have been working on literally this week and last week. so that would be my request to the gentleman and i'd be happy to yield to him. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would be happy to yield. >> i've a lot of respect for the gentleman from virginia. you're in the judiciary committee as well as the subcommittee chairman reed on this issue you deal with the issue a lot. you are totally sincere and committed to doing the right thing so if you are assuring all of us that the air force is moving forward on this and that a couple of weeks might make a difference in seeing some good progress than i would be willing to withdraw this amendment with the option of reintroducing it in a couple of weeks when this ndaa comes to the floor if there hasn't been any progress. and i think that if that leads to the best result which is regulations that surely protect constitutional rights than i'm happy to go in that direction. >> let me just clarify mr. chairman reclaiming my time i can assure you the air force is working on that very diligently i think with very good intention and time will tell us but certainly within the next two weeks that gives you a chance to evaluate that and reach your own conclusion. i am optimistic that they are headed in right direction and we have a good opportunity to fix many of these problems. >> would the gentleman yield? or my colleague yield? mr. chairman i will withdraw this amendment at this time with the option of re--- reintroducing it but based on the end assurance of represented forbes and the hope of seeing progress i would be willing to do that make that withdrawal at this time. i yield back to my colleague. >> the gentleman withdraws the amendment. with the reservation of being able to reintroduce it to the full committee on the floor. we don't control the rules committee but i think that we would have something we would be able to help them with in that regard. proceeding to vote on those amendments were roll call vote was ordered. the amendment offered by mr. mr. rigell. it was amendment number 14 and we will now resume those proceedings. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. rigell. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> mr. chairman? how am i recorded? 's been mr. conway you are reported as a no no. >> i need to change that to an aye. >> does everyone else have the opportunity to vote? anyone wishing to change their vote? [inaudible conversations] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman bair 28 aye vote's and 34 no votes. >> i could not hear you. >> mr. chairman there are 28 aye vote's and there are 34 no votes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the next amendment is the hunter amendment number 201r1. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] .. [roll call] [inaudible conversations] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 53-9. >> so the amendment is barely agreed to. very good. the next amendment is ms. spier, number 264. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] one -- [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> anyone wish to change their vote? has everyone had the opportunity to vote? the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 13-49. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the final amendment in this section is based spear 125 part two. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> i would like to vote yes. >> mr. chairman, i wish to change my vote to yes. >> does anyone else wish to check their vote? the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 28-34. >> the amendment is not agreed to. that concludes the subcommittee's. not quite. there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for the purpose of offering a motion. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report on the subcommittee on military personnel as amended. the question is on the motion. schists. >> chairman, sorry, can i speak for a quick moment? yes, i just want to recognize deborah lewis served on the committee for 15 years and has just been appointed as the assistant secretary to the army for manpower and reserve affairs. first of all, want to congratulate her on that appointment. [applause] second of all, express my deep regret that she will be leaving us. she is an incredibly capable staff member, intelligent, knows the issues, and valuable to our staff and has been a huge part of our team for a long time, dunn and outstanding job for this committee and our country. thank you for your service and good luck in your position. hopefully the senate what did you appointed senate and later. good luck in the new job. as been great working with you. >> congratulations. good luck. you will be working with a great secretary. >> mr. chairman, to join in in a bipartisan manner i want to congratulate the leeches been helpful dollar bus. congratulations and a quorum being present. the motion is agreed to. let me say, i have given up on getting done by 6:30 p.m. been. [laughter] i am a realist but so that it does not go until 6:30 a.m., i move that we ask unanimous request that we limit debate to two minutes. is there any objection? along the sea who had the courage to object to that. thank you all very much. let's move expeditiously. the committee will now consider the chairman's mark pursuant to committee rose 17 in consultation with the ranking member birgit we will postpone all the recorded votes on amendments until the end. i now turn to my good friend and colleague for a kid -- opening said i don't see him. did he have any remarks? before entertaining amendments is there any discussion? >> i would like to. >> ms. sanchez. okay. are we ready? >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, down here. >> mr. cooper. >> open for discussion. i am curious. i thought i knew the rules. i know that you opened this session by saying there would be no earmarks. i am curious out of a hundred and $20 million for the facility in south carolina and even though it has been declared dead by the department of energy, why is that not an earmark? >> and going to give some expert advice here. [inaudible conversations] >> i'm going to come back to that. the staff went over this with them. so much stuff as gone through, and it does not to call. let's go back to mr. smith's opening statement, and then i'll answer your question. >> i apologize. i made my opening statement 11 hours ago. don't need to repeat it. i have nothing to say. >> back to mr. cooper's question about the 120 million projects. >> the facility in south carolina. >> a longstanding policy that the administration has not decided on an alternative. the administration needed additional money before shutting it down. >> there are already under $96 million in the bill for that this is an additional 120 million. wind is this not an earmark? >> the of ministration came back and so they're not shutting it down. >> it was a request of the administration. >> i think we are confusing. i'm only asking about the extra hundred and 20 million. it's my understanding this committee has added to five. >> they need that additional money because they are not shutting it down. >> avenue. s. unanimous consent to call up and on blocked passage. without objection so ordered. package number one is comprised of the following amendment. develop a strategy to prioritize the united states interest. requiring a study of the joint analytics. department of the armed services contract approval. amendment number 046r1. limit the availability of funds. specific certification requirements. amendment number 050. amend section 1221. demint number 079 no. require an annual report on military and security developments involving the russian federation. requiring the secretary of defense to develop a plan to identify the capabilities of capacity is required to enhance the presence, capabilities, and readiness posture of the u.s. military. requiring additional updates. require certification that no funds will contribute to russia's nuclear weapons program. amendment number 252 been reading corporate eddy of the legislative proposal to make with some amendments perform the "aerial defense review by modifying their review and reporting elements. requiring a new national quadrennial threats and trends report. without objection, the amendment as before members. if there is no further discussion -- the question is on adoption. the clock is agree to. are there any other amendments? >> please pass out the amendment. >> without objection. reading of the amendment will be dismissed with. now recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a bipartisan amendment. i am grateful to be joined. what this is is actually largely a restatement of h.r. 3930 which has 198 co-sponsors. relative term army national guard force structure. the amendment provides for strengthening the army national guard active-duty strength of 490,000 personnel. it freezes the transfer of army national guard ah64 apache helicopters. requires the gao to submit a report to the house armed services committee by one march march 2015 that evaluates first the force structure ma used to make a determination in the current budget. next, the cost analysis models regarding aviation and platforms in the components. next, a comparison of the operational readiness rates of aviation brigades of the regular army and army national guard and finally the levels required for aviation a the army and army national guard. additionally this does not limit aviation training. finally, and restores funding for the army national guard. by three in an $63 million. 70 million for the national guard combat center training, 99, the army national guard critical operations tempo. the 50 million for the national guard critical level depot maintenance and 38 million for the uhf 608 conversion. fixed wing modifications and 98 million for the procurement. i really am -- it's my view that the army national guard has proven itself over the years with the combat the we have had. we need to be interchangeable, and this will achieve that. i urge the adoption of an imminent. >> any discussion? >> sent you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to co-sponsor this. i think this is a critical moment that is necessary. would like to focus my remarks briefly on the apaches. the amendment as proposed would allow the army to proceed with its restructuring initiative for army aviation. it could do everything they wanted. we need to keep the apaches and the guard. the do not need attack helicopters because it does not serve any purpose while the governor does not need apaches. well, frankly, we have to remember that the guard and reserve components primary mission is to serve as a combat reserve force. at times during operation iraqi freedom the guard provided over 51 percent of the army's total combat power. with the loss of the apache to the active army the guard would no longer have the strategic step of the surge capacity in that critical area of attack in the asian. additionally active-duty apache pilots and maintenance would have no place to use their skills if they decided to part from active service the wanted to remain in the guard, wanted to join the national guard did we, as a nation, would lose those critical, not to mention expensive schools. that demonstrates a major one is to compromise and be flexible while taking a new account. sit. >> the german yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am speaking in support of the amendment which would help ensure the army national guard and reserve from an operational combat ready force. i understand we would not be able to afford the force we have maintained, and the last one to advocate for all of force. want to ensure our great nation maintains the first cross combat experience and institutional knowledge of our war fighters in the guard and reserve. i've spoken up time and again that the guard is a battle tested cost-effective force capable of providing the surge capacity we need in times of conflict. eighteen the cost of our active duty and twice the citizens. imperative that are in strength attack aviation assets in combat training funding continue to fund this, i reserve force the we have spent precious blood, sweat, and treasure developing. equally concerned in the last several weeks in my conversations with the army, their proposal to remove the apaches from the guard, this fundamental changes when you move the attack capability, especially with the combat aviation brigade that is co located. when i asked about this he said that this would be compensated by allowing active duty apache unit to train with the guard division. the $0 to get a train and are combat training centers. i don't see how they can turn on $0 be left out of the training that happens. of the harmony to have apaches. this amendment will preserve the guard attack aviation capabilities. >> i think the chairman. i start to far strongly support this amendment. bravely fought alongside the active army in two wars and many other operations. so many have sacrifice as much as a regular army. as these wars hopefully wind down it is important and national guard maintain a high level of readiness and parity to defend our nation. we must have the resources that fit the mission. it's not realistic of these units will only have the missions are responding to the governors. it will most likely be responding to a national mission i support the call to evaluate the important role the guard plays in our national defense. have a couple very important units. we found that the air force commission that came out earlier recommended a greater reliance on the air guard, and i believe the study would find the same result. we must ensure that the guard has all the resources it needs to defend our nation. now is not the time to equivocate our strong support. i yield back the balance. >> for of discussion. if not the questions on the adoption of the human. the amendment is agreed to. other amendments? the clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona for the purposes of offering in explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman and ranking member for airiness. as you all know the underlying bill would allow the air force to retire the hn. while the bill clam's of the fighters could be put back into service with the military needs them, it is not that simple. we will be shrink wrapping the pilots nor will we shrink wrap them it -- men's crew. the years of service and experience will be gone. this is not a compromise to keep the aircraft viable. this is a proven platform to protect our troops in battle. in afghanistan the troops told me keep the kayten flying. no other fixed-wing aircraft as the job. we really mr. chairman must take a look at this. just two days ago in front of the senate armed services committee spoke highly. he said, ," they can see it, here it, have confidence in it. obviously we prefer. while i support the efforts to modernize the air force it cannot be at the expense of the only proven closer support we have. we cannot create a gas because it will put ground troops at risk. this bipartisan amendment i am offering would prohibit the divestment of the 810 and fully fund the operation. it would not create an imbalance the amendment would further require to conduct a study evaluating the platforms the air force used and whether the air for and in the air force are able to provide close air support. i found a way to keep this line. i hope you will join with us in supporting the amendment. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate your help. the thing that's different, this weapon system is flying in combat today. we're talking about an immediate drawdown. it is an extremely efficient plan that costs about 1/4 per hour were it costs to fly the b-1 bomber. i agree with my colleague about the concept. the training of the pilots as one of the most important things and we cannot send parlance in the combat that are not trained. i would ask you to give us this amendment of men and women of a down there on the ground fighting the fight, this plane is flying right now oversees protecting our men and women. were talking about drawing down 400 almost immediately and have no system to replace it with. the idea that when it comes off the assembly line and starts being based everything will be okay. that's great, but that seven to eight years from now. was just be honest. the idea that the u.s. is not want to be in combat for the next 70 years, it's a dream. we all hope of peace and want peace, but we have an obligation to protect the men and women on the ground carrying out the mission and infantry and the of the men and women need this. i would ask every your support. this is a small price to plan to protect the men and women that are out there serve her country. >> thank you. this is a major proposal from the air force. to divest an entire fleet. will we are asking today is that we stop for a least one year and to others a study done a shows that our men and women on the ground will be able have closer support. as my colleague said, there are -- these platforms are over in afghanistan right now. i'm proud of the unit whatever reason which was just a ploy the month ago to be there. why would we want to divest this week when they're serving lines as we speak tonight? this platform has saved thousands of lines. in desert storm there were responsible for the destruction of 4,000 military vehicles and artillery piees. in operation enduring freedom that performed nearly one-third of a combat. it's the best close air support platform we have today. you talk to any person on the ground, and the army or any marine soldier and they will tell you that the platform, the airplane they want to see coming over that hill is the kayten. it is saving lives. this will save it for at least another year so that we can continue to save lives. i ask my colleagues to please support this with a get of our troops. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i to strongly support the barber amendment. a couple of weeks ago i received a message on my facebook accounts. that message was from command sergeant major the illinois and army national guard infantry brigade combat teen. command sergeant major bone of ask me, save this airplane. tell what the big guys take this plane down. excuse me. the reason that he wanted that plane still up in the air is because the witness to save soldiers' lives in afghanistan. i understand we don't have all the money in the world. the f35 our share will be a wonderful, but it's far from being operational ready. it is years away, as mr. scott pointed out. as he points out, we can't afford to have that get bit capabilities for the next seven years well our infantrymen and marines are out there. >> with the gentleman yields? >> double finish my remarks. of got 30 seconds left. so in support of command sergeant major in all those soldiers, i urge the you voe yes. thank you. he'll be back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there is no doubt it does a splendid job in that closer support role. the question is not about the aircraft the where we go to get the dollars to make this happen. this comes from the overseas contingency operations fund. my big concern is these funds go to fund our retrograde, getting our equipment out, but also bringing the equipment back and making sure it's ready for those men and women that are ready to serve on the next mission. it also goes to an enduring mission within the military it covers in during missions that will be continued to be the difficulty is if we take money away we are affecting critical areas within other areas of the department of defense. we will be a decrease in the budget without really knowing what the request is the the leader kind of flying blind here we can't even estimate what the impact might be. even if we don't have a bilateral security agreement we still are going to need those funds, at least until the end of this year and possibly after that. i have concerns about as to and that from the operational funds would go directly to reset and richard gray and no making sure the we get that right is problematic. and a hearing we had recently, the vice chiefs were very focused on saying the concerned about taking dollars away. these are enduring mission dollars. reservations, i am about to drop opposition to this amendment. >> i'll be brief. listen to those arguments, that makes sense, but until another aircraft can be proven to do the mission, close air support, right environments, potentially the enemy is closed. i just on see how we can retire. the extraordinarily concerned many need to find some other different place to pay for it. i don't want to lose the forest for the trees. obviously we have to worry about the future and the present. >> we have two missions. one in korea and the other in afghanistan. if we draw down we put our troops to risk. we have a crazy man in north korea. you never know what he's going to do. he said he had to have close air support in afghanistan post the drawdown of most of our troops. i really respect the concerns. i think have to spend as best we understand it. >> with the gentleman yield? we will make a lot of decisions of this from the hundreds of millions and over the course of the decade trillions of dollars. >> the time has expired. >> mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to echo what the chairman was the language but to the office of the evidence certainly want to commend the gentleman for bringing up the issue. overlapping jurisdiction with respect to the 810. what i thought was a very informative briefing with the subcommittee. i have great concerns about what is happening. my concerns go to the topic line number we're giving the department of defense and what has been happening within the apartment of defense as a result of that. within the constraints that we have at think the chairman. i certainly hope the weekend it and didn't have come. going to be looking at this. but we really don't have the options and the flexibility to undertake what really would be a massive shift in to afford this outcome. so even though i agree that the aspect is this is absolutely and curve we capable and provides the unique ability that certainly is highly praised and needed, our problem is that we're not spending enough on the part of the fence, but that we need to rob a we are spending with this bill for this. again, i have served with our message is clear. these are real bad decisions of we're having to make as a result of a bad topline number. although i agree of support what the gentleman is begging for ethier, i can't support this amendment for the reason that mr. wooden said wickes the gentleman's time has expired and. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have spoken out about my concerns with spending on military equipment that is over budget, underperforming, and long overdue. that is not the case. this aircraft falls into the same category as i conduct military equipment that is more than paid back the taxpayers for the cost of its to build, not just in dollars but and lives saved. this aircraft also the same category. there is no doubt that it's a great aircraft, but most import this aircraft is good for ground troops. as a former pilot i know alan poured close air support this. pilots must be old and gray situational awareness. some troops need to know that the close air support the colonists capable of delivering the kind of deadly firepower with precision, especially in danger close situations. i am concerned with the funding mechanism for this meant. let me tell you, would rather make sure we bring our troops on before i worry about bringing the equipment on. i urge my colleagues to support ths amendment, and let's keep the aircraft flying so we can save troops lives. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, some of this jurisdiction was under the air tactical committee's subcommittee where mr. turner and nine were present the two sides. mr. barbour has presented an important amendment that would preserve the best close air support platform in the air force inventory. he has never wavered in his support, and he has intensely fought for its chairman and missions. i want to thank him personally for his lead. he, and patented a special session briefing to talk about the critical capability. i said earlier that i am married to a retired colonel from the army. he was a jack. we will import the, he was an infantry jumping out a perfectly good airplane speed is one common about the 810 is that the army infantry, the man on the ground love the ten. he says, one of the things they feared the most were tanks, but he said that the a tan shoes up and spits out and the tanks. and so it definitely is a chosen platform by the men who are in combat when we send them out. so i just want to reiterate the support that mr. barbour has had in trying to save this kayten command i yield back. >> the lady yields back. >> thank you very much. an uproar soldier, military police. very proud to support his amendment. i think mr. barbour has made a very strong case, and i commend his work about basically how practical, successful, and necessary the kayten is because of its low speeds and low flying altitude. it is not another aircraft a day that performs his missions. the war are provides an enormous amount of firepower that are serviced by resolve the ground depend on a look to to have the back of the battlefield. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yells back. >> i yield two minutes to mr. scott. >> thank you. we spend, appropriate to authorize billions of dollars on weapons systems that we hope will work seven, eight, ten, toward the years in the future that we hope we don't ever need to use. quite honestly, sometimes i agree with it and sometimes i don't, but i do think that we have to prepare for future threats. wheels of a clear and present danger. are not talking about billions and trillions. we're talking about millions. this system is missing the zeros from the cost of most of the systems that we have. the other thing is we are using the system right now. we know it works. working right now, a system that we need. i would appreciate your support. i appreciate your help. i yield the remainder of my time . >> i have listened carefully. this is -- mr. nugent, two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just got back from fort riley, kan. this tuesday. in speaking with one of the battalion commanders about his experience with the workout, in speaking with my son who is a combat veteran in afghanistan, they swear by that aircraft. that gave them the greatest sense of safety ever. you can lighter over a position for a long time, put accurate fire on the enemy and have to walk away from a platform i think is a dangerous precedent that we make. i understand of a friend's are concerned about the pay plan is it it it is -- you can't put a value on a soldier were on marine life that are in, and a few calling for how. and so when we think about all of this way to put that in perspective and say, you know, maybe the pentagon can't come up with the way to pay for this without sacrificing readiness. yield back. >> let me just state a couple of things. all of our decisions are not between good and bad. there are between could and could. and the problem is paying for them. we have very limited funds. and so what we did, the air force game and with the proposal my feeling was, don't talk to the air force. talk to the infantry. but i just came back from afghanistan, and i was told that we -- our troops are no longer engaged in the fighting. we are not providing close air ground support at this point. and the kayten cannot go into a congested area. we have to have control of the skies before the kayten is able to be used for close air caboclos ground support. now i cannot support the offset provided. we do not have the ability to take a half a billion dollars from operation and maintenance out of the o.c. font. it just is not there. will we did instead of doing the air force's proposal to basically mothball these we said , no when you have told them to where we can bring them back if something happens next year and we get the money and are able to pick me up so you, we have 62 members on this committee, the largest committee in congress. if we would each kopeks two or three or four members and do the same thing that mr. turner just talked about, we need to drive more money to the top line so that we're not having to choose between good and could there is nothing bad to say about this plan. it has been vital to us. the problem is, we just don't have the money. to come up with enough money to do what would need to be down, you're talking a lot more than this money taken out of here now. so the funds, we have been short the last couple of years. we have been put in the bills forward. we don't even know what it is. we put a $79 billion of your help that it will cover the needs, but as the pullout of afghanistan we're spending -- we will be spending more to come out and to maintain, plus we don't know what the ongoing mission will be. we also use this in the gulf to try to keep an eye on a rod and see what they're doing opinions so i am reluctantly going to have to oppose this very laudable amendment based on those grounds. is there any further debate on this amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment. the gentleman from arizona. so many as aren't as a post know. the nose have it. the amendment is not agree to. .. that's basically the same elements sns 15. someone better prepared on the panel could probably answer that made. what can an f-15 kerry? any pilots here? i'm not a private. i'm a ground guy. >> they can carry 1,002,000-pound bombs. i think a reaper would be limited to around 500 pounds. >> you can carry 2500 pounders?

Related Keywords

United States , Beirut , Beyrouth , Lebanon , Arizona , Iraq , Germany , South Carolina , Afghanistan , Colorado , Rhode Island , Illinois , California , Virginia , North Korea , Russia , Iraqi , German , Sanchez Tsongas , Trent Franks ,