Host we are talking now with leo shane, Capitol Hill Bureau chief of the military times. Thend us first about what senate is up to now. Is their big policy measure that sets the priorities and focus of the budget next year. We have a wide range of things in here. We have military pay raise, bonuses, troop levels, a wide ange of issues for the defense on capitol hill. Host how different is the senate bill . Almost 700 billion. We saw the house version is slightly less. All of these have a base Defense Budget well over 650 billion, which is what sequestration caps on us at. One of the things that has to be resolved is how to pay for this. So far we havent seen anything. Democrats say this is a great exercise, but it is ridiculous. We are not getting anywhere with this bill because if we were to pass this, we would see budget cuts across the board. They have not really presented a path on how this will become loaw. Host the senate was in session last week on this bill what are some of the
Were talking out with leo shane, a capitol hill sheath the future of defense programs is the topic. Remind us of first of what the senate is up to now. What is the Defense Authorization bill . This is their big policy measure. This is in conjunction with the appropriations bill. This is for the purpose of the budget for next year. We have a military pay raise, all sorts of bonuses, equipment a wide range. Measure forthe key defense on capitol hill, ill as well as with the appropriations bill. What else does the Senate Version have in it . At 700 billion. We saw the house version thats havetly less, all of these a base Defense Budget of over 600 billion, well above what the caps on are for the fiscal 2018. One of the things that had to be resolved is how to pay for this. We havent seen anything so far. Democrats are saying, this is great exercise, but its ridiculous. Were not getting anywhere. This, wee to pass would see budget cuts across the board. Pathreally presented a here on how t
Good afternoon the commission will control to order and the secretary will call the roll. Commissioner chow. Present. Commissioner loyce. Present. Commissioner sanchez. Present. Commissioner pating. Present. Approval of the minutes of january 3rd, 2017. The minutes are before you for approval. I heard a motion for approval. Is there a second, please . Second. Are there any corrections . I would like to make one correction, if i could . First i would in the page 5, after the formal report of the director, then i would have a space in between for after the item on the faces for the future, and as you do, you have a paragraph, but it looks like it belongs to the previous topic and i think i might put in there a topic called the tom waddell incident. Or something . Yes. I see, commissioner. I can add a line, too, so it breaks up the space. If you could do that . Then under the last page, page 8, i think the intent that commissioner singer was reporting on item 11, which was the sf general
First i would in the page 5, after the formal report of the director, then i would have a space in between for after the item on the faces for the future, and as you do, you have a paragraph, but it looks like it belongs to the previous topic and i think i might put in there a topic called the tom waddell incident. Or something . Yes. I see, commissioner. I can add a line, too, so it breaks up the space. If you could do that . Then under the last page, page 8, i think the intent that commissioner singer was reporting on item 11, which was the sf general joint Conference Committee report was that they deferred the medical staff report action items, because it was felt there should be a physician to review the medically oriented rather than myself being specifically mentioned there. Oh, sure, im happy to make that change. The issue there being that there were medicallyoriented issues, but no physicians at that time on the j cc from the commission. So i think that would be clearer. Those
First i would in the page 5, after the formal report of the director, then i would have a space in between for after the item on the faces for the future, and as you do, you have a paragraph, but it looks like it belongs to the previous topic and i think i might put in there a topic called the tom waddell incident. Or something . Yes. I see, commissioner. I can add a line, too, so it breaks up the space. If you could do that . Then under the last page, page 8, i think the intent that commissioner singer was reporting on item 11, which was the sf general joint Conference Committee report was that they deferred the medical staff report action items, because it was felt there should be a physician to review the medically oriented rather than myself being specifically mentioned there. Oh, sure, im happy to make that change. The issue there being that there were medicallyoriented issues, but no physicians at that time on the j cc from the commission. So i think that would be clearer. Those