vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 45.

the nays are 54. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment the amendment is not p agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: thank you mr. president. as we discuss the iranian nuclear agreement the president is pursuing and the administration is attempting to negotiate i come to the floor to remind americans and coloradoans about some of the actions and activities that have taken place in our relationship with iran over the past several decades. following the islamic revolution in iran the mullah's held american diplomats hostage for 444 days releasing them only on january 20, 1981, the day president ronald reagan was sworn into office. two years later on april 18, 1983 a truck laden with explosives rammed into the u.s. embassy in beirut killing 17

americans. in 1983 a similar comploation in in -- implosion in beirut killed 271 americans. overall evidence held hezbollah as the perpetrator of these attacks. several weeks ago we had the opportunity to visit with prime minister netanyahu in israel to discuss the negotiations that were taking place and the details of the negotiation negotiations, those details that have emerged in documents from the white house still lacking in great detail the specifics of the framework. what prime minister netanyahu described the negotiations to be a dance of porcupines in the middle east, concern about the negotiations where they would lead, and indeed the prime minister made the comment that iran is now putting its finger on the jugular of the world.

and over the past 24 to 48 hours we have seen that jugular the strait of hormuz and boarding by iran of a cargo ship that falls under the protective umbrella of the united states of america. and so we continue to see in iran a regime that has not changed in more than 30 years hasn't changed in the last 48 hours, has targeted and killed americans during the iraq war supported shiite militias and supplied targets that have been used to kill our troops. iran continues to prop the assad regime in syria. they regularly it threaten to wipe israel off the map and abuse the human rights of its own people. imprisoned americans reporters and refused to release them. we must avoid a nuclear iran, no doubt, and do everything in our power to make sure that iran doesn't possess a nuclear

infrastructure. but the questions that we have today lead more and more to a conclusion that they will continue to maintain a nuclear infrastructure. and what secretary schultz and secretary kissinger made it very clear in an op-ed they wrote in the "wall street journal" several weeks ago is we have entered this negotiation and somehow siloed off or bifurcated the issue of political restraint with nuclear restraint. that we have somehow decided that we will tunnel vision on one issue without acknowledging or admitting or negotiating the other acts of violence, of death, of destruction that the iran regime has pursued. not just 30 years ago not just 15 years ago but what is happening around the world and in the middle east today. and so i hope that we can emerge from these negotiations with a strong deal, a deal that allows us the inspection of military

bases, without question, upon demand. the fact that we will remove their nuclear infrastructure, that we can assure that they are no longer a regime that is leading state-sponsored efforts to wipe israel off the map. that we can indeed protect americans from the reign of terror that has been state sponsored. there's nothing less that we should ask of this administration or any administration, is to protect the american people and at a negotiating table when we sit across two three feet from the people that we're negotiating with and to ignore what is happening through state-sponsored terrorism to ignore the cargo ships in the strait of hormuz that have been stormed, to ignore what is happening in yemen hezbollah that is ignoring the reality that we face today of an iran

that hasn't changed in 30 years. the fact is our sanctions have worked and increased sanctions could work as well and i hope before this negotiation is signed off that they will realize those that made the negotiation possible, that more needs to be done to protect americans, to protect the world from an iran that simply doesn't have a dangerous threat posing us from nuclear weapons posed to us from nuclear weapons but poses a danger through state-sponsored terrorism that they continue to pursue today. mr. president, i thank you for the time, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes

each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. thursday april 30. following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of h.r. 1191. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator brown. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: i thank the majority leader. and i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i appreciate that.

it's been a year since, more than a year since the food and drug administration issued its proposed tobacco deeming regulations. these regulations would give the agency the same regulatory authority it currently has over cigarettes traditional stick tobacco cigarettes to other unrelated tobacco products like e-cigarettes. these regulations are critical for public health, especially for children. yet they've languished within the administration for more than a year. a year is too long to wait because we know what's been happening. according to a report from the centers for disease control the f.d.a.'s own center for tobacco products, in the past year e-cigarette use has tripled -- tripled -- among teens. absent any regulation, more and more of these potentially dangerous products have found a way into the hands of our children. after just a few years on the market children's use of e-cigarettes has now surpassed the use of traditional

cigarettes. think back when the first time you heard about e-cigarettes. i didn't know what people were talking about. and now we see more children are using e-cigarettes than traditional cigarettes. this is in large part because we failed to regulate these addictive products. until these regulations are finalized, mr. president e-cigarette companies will be able to freely advertise their products to our children in juneau our children in cleveland. what many people fail to realize is often e-cigarette companies and big tobacco companies are now one and the same. marlboro maker altria group the nation's largest tobacco company, is making up for its loss in revenue as cigarette smoking has declined and among children too making up its loss revenue from combustible tobacco products by marketing its mark 10 products. loralard acquired blue e-cigarettes.

there's also a new cigarette called vuse. much of big tobacco's behavior is driven by one giant and irrefutable fact -- tobacco in the united states kills 400,000 people a year. think about that. 400,000 americans die prematurely from tobacco-related illness every year. that -- what does that mean? that means mr. president that the tobacco companies need to find 400,000 new customers a year. they're not going to people like the presiding officer or me or the people staffing the senate floor. they're going to people like the pages. they're going to people 16 and 17 years old to addict them to cigarettes. people my age rarely start smoking. people their age so often do. so big tobacco's got to find these new customers. it used to be they preyed on children with highly-paid sophisticated tobacco executives who spent their days figuring out how to entice teens to start smoking. think joe camel think some of those -- camel number 5, some of

the things they d allowed to advertise traditional tobacco products to kids -- and parenthetically, mr. president that's one of the great public health victories in this country what this body did what the house of representatives did what presidents have done to -- to alert public health and to the change young people's behavior so young people did not start smoking in as large of numbers. that was an effort by government and consumer groups and children's groups. these tobacco companies now though, are taking advantage of the new unregulated world of e-cigarettes to advertise their products directly to children because they can. joe camel's been replaced by celebrities -- celebrities smoking e-cigarettes. these companies sponsor youth-oriented events. they air ads on tv and radio aimed at teenagers. they're using new advertising platforms on social media to get to kids where parents typically are not looking. the shameful e-cigarette marketing tactics employed by tobacco companies are aimed at

encouraging this new -- this next new generation to use tobacco. the c.d.c. study shows their tactics are working. triple -- triple the use triple the number of kids -- young people smoking e-cigarettes. another recent study revealed that teens were able to purchase ce-cigarettes on-line inspect 94% of the attempts they made. none of them are required to show proof of their age when the cigarettes were delivered. a study published in the "new england journal of medicine" examined the use of candy flavors in tobacco products found that -- no surprise here -- flavors drive increases in tobacco use among kids. e-cigarettes and their refill liquids come in thousands of different flavors, as we see. gummy bears sweet tarts fruit loops. this is a bottle of gummy bears. just look at this photo. it's -- they -- it's gummy bear flavored e-liquid. the bottle is about this big. as the president of the american academy of pediatrics, dr. james parent said, because liquid nicotine comes in bright colors

and in flavors appealing to children cotton candy and gummy bears, for instance, it's no surprise that these products have found their way into the hands of children. i don't think they're making gummy bears to get -- to encourage people the age of the presiding officer to get them to start smoking or my age. they're getting young children to start smoking. gummy bears fruit loops sweet tarts -- those are candies that young children receive at halloween. they're also flavors of highly toxic liquids. the bottle in this photo again about this much, the bottle in this photo contains two teaspoons of liquid nick nicotine. a single teaspoon of this e-liquid even if it's highly diluted, can kill a small child if it's ingested. this is totally legal. you'll see this in drug stores. you'll see this sold all kinds of places. children are likely to pick it up if they see it around the house. there is a chance, there always is in a country of 300 million people that some child will -- attracted by this, looking at this, the pictures, the cute

little bottle, will drink it and that child can die. it's past time for f.d.a. to regulate these dangerous products before more children and more teenagers get hooked on e-cigarettes. my colleagues and i a number of us led by senator merkley also senator broom that will and a number of others -- blumenthal, senator durbin and others, have called on the f.d.a. over and over again to finalize this proposed rule and reject efforts to weaken these proposed regulations. every day the f.d.a. waits is thousands of more children getting addicted to nicotine, thousands of more children exposed potentially to drinking this awful -- this very toxic liquid, thousands of more children smoking these e-cigarettes. tobacco companies are pushing to allow more products to be grandfathered out of the new rules. they want to exempt a huge age of e-cigarettes from anyone to determine whether they're a threat to public health. that would mean, mr. president these products would never be subject to review by the f.d.a. how stupid as a nation could we

be? we've been so successful in the last 40 years as public health officials, as members of congress as responsible adults as consumer groups and advocates for children, we've been so successful in reducing the age of -- reducing the incidence of smoking, especially among young people, it's changed the whole next generation. now we're letting this happen. e-cigarettes are still tobacco products they're used by the tobacco industry and i haven't talked about this yet as a gateway cigarette for kids to start. this he see this, they start smoking -- they start smoking these e-cigarettes a year, two years, five years 10 years down the road they're smoking traditional tobacco and they're addicted and we know what addiction to cigarettes is for so many of our fellow americans. my colleagues and i mr. president urge the food and drug administration to strengthen and finalize these regulations before any more of our children get hooked on potentially dangerous and addictive tobacco products. thank you mr. president.

mr. president, on behalf senator leahy, i ask unanimous consent that aaron locke an intern on his personal office staff be granted senate floor privileges for thursday, april 30, 2015. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. on thursday, april 30, 2015.

>> >> i appreciate the amendment offered.

has made have seen those of not getting a return on their investment but i don't think it is how they use their recruiting dollars and it is very difficult to assign a specific lead to somebody who was at the hot rod race. it is about a brand that generates interest for someone who walks in from the recruiting center. we have crb and other services that have not seen a return of investment. i think we should give the air force the same opportunity that they get value for there dollar we give them a budget to

recruit their best determined i yield back. >> any further debate on the amendment? if not the adoption of the amendment offered. those in favor? those opposed say no. it is not adopted. any additional amendments? >> i have an amendment. >> the clerk will pass up the amendment. without objection will dispense with reading the gentlelady is recognized for the purpose to explain. >> this is a companion to the recommendation not offer this amendment and withdrawing it but i felt very strongly that we need

to address this. this is the issue of for-profit colleges preying on those in the military. they charge fivers six times more than comparable programs and the for-profit schools leave students in debt with the degree with the and accredited program that does not give a job after graduation. and over the past years in california $600 million with the wars in iraq and afghanistan under the gi bill. to receive state student financial aid with pell grants because they failed the accountability standard in 2012.

the rule that the department of education can up with if you could receive 90% of your revenue from federal sources you have to generate 10 percent of the revenue from non federal except they could slip into the role the fact that the gi bill department of defense and education program could count as part of the 10% which is ridiculous because those are the several sources of money as well so as a result they will pray on those of the military one of the things i just became aware of with no predatory lending is a problem but the regulations created as a result for the delay of these rules to go into

effect and we have heard ample examples of how members of the milli tilt -- military takeout payday loans and end up paying 4,000 after taking -- taking a 2600. that is another example of how they are preyed upon by the for-profit entities and a pair. with that i will withdraw the amendment and deal back. >> the gentlelady withdraws her amendment. is withdrawn and shields the balance of the time. >> i have an amendment at the desk. . .

many of these trainees are 17, 18 and 19 years of age. many of them my daughter's age

the victims contended that they

felt intimidated and had no choice but to comply with the orders to have sex with them in the environment. now, there is lots of history where you have what's called reliability -- liability were in fact having consent doesn't change the fact that there was a crime committed. there certainly is that kind of situation in the law where you deal with someone who is under the age of 18. if strict liability. you cannot say that was part of it. the military justice system has been handling many of these cases. a few months ago an army drill sergeant was found guilty of assaulting multiple trainees. during the trial his defense counsel was able to argue always exhibits a certain degree of success. clearly this argument is reprehensible and absurd but it's particularly nonsensical and a luxury training environment where trainees

cannot consent to sexual relations with their direct supervisors. from the day trainees enter this exciting they learned that their their -- are as good as law. they learn to obey every command they are given an even orders that make no logical sense. according to the report by the panel released this past february the basic reality is not currently recognized in article xx of the ucmj when force or threat of force is not over it which is frequently it is not. some argue the military regulations ban sexual contact between trainers and trainees and to some extent that is true. for example in air force instructor prohibits trainees from engaging in non-professional relationships however the instruction goes both ways. when a trainee has taken advantage of by their instructor they can face disciplinary actions. it has a chilling effect on victims as i pointed out and that lackland's not a single victim came forward.

the airport some return i'll report on lackland quote trainees -- will be construed as consensual and they themselves will be charged with violating the ucmj. in connecticut ohio illinois kansas north carolina is a felony for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student even if the student is above the age of consent and in fact consented. this amendment would update article cxx of the ucmj to acknowledge the power imbalance between trainer and trainee and recognize sexual contact between them for what it is. and i think without mr. chairman i will yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the john from ohio chairman kerner is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i first want to congratulate ms.. >> your for her work in sexual assault that has been in the active member of the caucus that

we cochair. very active in the bipartisan and bicameral work that many of us have done with loretta sanchez susan davis joe wilson and myself and i appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member and ensuring that many are provisions that apply apply.n.. i do believe on the bicameral basis that they will be supported. this is one in which we do disagree and the amendment that she has offered stands alone. and i think we need to backtrack a bit because the descriptions of ms. speier are in support of the amendment are all actually issues where there is clarity under current law. let's talk about what the current law is. it is a crime to assault anyone so orders given by a superior like all those still fall within

the area of sexual assault. lack and was a sexual assault. whether people reported it or not or later came and reported it it is sexual assault. and they are a crime under our criminal law. as a result of lack and and what occurred there we also went back and amended are provisions to require that even consensual sex between an instructor and another member of the armed forces or anyone in a position of authority of a person is that result in expulsion. even if there's voluntary consensual, not the consensus that ms. speier was talking about but voluntary consensual. it is compulsory that the person is discharged that they are sent out of the military. what this amendment would do which is why i think we should oppose it criminalizes even in circumstances of voluntary consensual.

the circumstances that ms. speier mentioned are egregious and are awful and our crimes. they are not the issues that would fall under this amendment through what falls under this amendment is criminalizing voluntary consensual sex. we are dinner statute made an automatic -- prohibiting contact and preventing action and in addition to being prohibited it results in administrative separation and the person being punitively discharged from the arsenal -- armed forces for that violation. what this does is the next step and it makes that itself a sexual assault akin to rape and is simply not something that we should do. we have addressed the issues of where there is a sexual assault to hold accountable for these crimes and we have addressed the

issue that those who are in supervisor positions administrative positions instructor positions that it is prohibitive contact with anyone below them and they will be punitively discharged from the armed services under section 1741 which i have before me. i would encourage voting no against this. it goes too far and it would actually make it i think undermining some of the work we have done so far. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. is there any debate on the amendment? the chair now recognizes -- from california for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and there's no question when you are dealing with an imbalance in a situation like that that i think we have to act forcibly in that situation. what concerns me a little bit is that we have a number of changes

and i think we have to allow many of those to move forward. i think we have dealt with it on one level. one way in which we didn't deal with that i think is about how it's registered the person is registered as sex offenders for having what i wouldn't call a consensual either but it is the issue. so that is one that we are not sure on the grounds of how that might move forward. so i would love to work with the author on this and see if there is a way that we can find, if there's a way to strengthen what has been done already in this recruit trainee area i think we have to do that because we witnessed that i've hope it never happens again as it did at

lackland but there are other ways in which we might be able to deal with that and that is my concern that we are making a lot of changes. one of the things that i have been pleased to hear as i have gone around to a number of bases where i've i have heard very different comments in the past and i really want to commend ms. speier here and others are pushing so hard in this area is some people have even called it a sea change but at the same time i think we need to continue to be as vigilant as we can be and to provide additional laws that are going to have an impact. i just have questions about the unintended consequences and putting it in this area and i think we want to make sure we don't necessarily go in an area that people would perhaps not taken as seriously as they should.

>> would the gentlelady yield? >> certainly. >> maybe i can make this a little clearer. we are talking about a six weeks period of time were military training instructor can't have sex with their trainees even if there is consent. if after the six weeks is over they want to have a relationship of some sort that's okay but during the six weeks period of time and mpi has sex with the trainee consent cannot be a defense. i just wanted to clarify it. >> ms. davis would you be willing to yield for a moment? again back to 1741 already it is not okay. i appreciate ms. spears your concern in this area but i don't want to leave any misimpression you are arguing for this penalty that there be an assumption that

there is no penalty. already in 1741 which we adopted in response to the instances that came to light it is automatic absolutely punitive discharge dismissal from the armed forces if you violate the policy even if it's consensual. there can be no contact. matt. 1741. >> would the gentlelady yield? maybe i'm wrong. i'm not a lawyer but it seems to me like we have the judicial process to go after people when they are sexual predators or they have assaulted etc.. we certainly have administratively as ms. turner noted with respect to instruct your and trainee. so i would be loath to put to

just dismiss that any situation at all would be a sexual assault in would be deemed that without a gathering of the evidence and the fact-finding and a judicial review etc. and i would in particular find it to be actually abusive to put somebody on the sexual predator list if they hadn't been tried and convicted of something. i have seen how difficult it is for these people who get on these lists and by the way ms. speier i'm all for putting these people on who come into the military if they have been convicted of that particular crime they should be on the list and we should be notified in our neighborhoods etc. but just to

say we are going to put anybody on their without a process is wrong. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair now recognizes mr. kaufman for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i having been through basic training with officer candidates in the marine corps the trust between cadre and recruit is just so important to maintain that. i really thank that though we have to send a message and i think those who violate that with consensual sex ought to be criminally prosecuted first so i support the amendment. >> will the gentleman yield back? >> i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back adults of this time. mr. johnson is recognized for five minutes. >> yes, i rise in support of this amendment.

whenever you have a person who is in a position of control over another regardless of the age of the people involved consent is mitigated and even extinguished and so i think that this is a good amendment and it's something that we should support and i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> is there any further debate on the amendment? the gentlelady from california. >> thank you mr. chairman and i would yield my time to the ranking member. >> i see the confusion here because the language itself doesn't speak to whether or not someone has actually gone through a criminal proceeding.

you may just have maybe some clarification from sap on this? after being convicted that's the question that i'm hearing. >> they would have to go through the normal ucmj proceedings. >> if i could -- it would not need a determination that a sexual assault had occurred. it would only be a determination that sex had occurred and most of the parties came together whether this had been a real sexual assault and said that it was voluntary they could subsequently depart the military and marry each other and it would be a crime and they would be registered as a sex offender. this is so over-the-top. when we had this very concern of instructors using their influence where we were concerned not only with consent given up with overcoming someone's informed consent by influence that's when we put

this provision. it is currently absolutely prohibited for that to occur a sexual interaction to occur and someone remained in the military. under 1741 they are thrown out. >> will the gentlelady yield back the balance of her time? >> just to clarify in the instances where relationship continues on a voluntary fashion, that person would have to be registered as a sexual offender if in factre convicted. is that right? >> yes maam. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i will yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back a balance of her time. is there any additional debate on the amendment? at not the questions on the adoption of the amendment offered by ms. speier. so many years in favor was a aye. those opposed, no. the nose habit. the amendment is not adopted.

a roll call vote is ordered. are there any additional amendments to the subcommittee mark? >> i have one more amendment. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment and without objection we will read the amendment and ms. speier is recognized for the purpose of offering and explaining her amendment. >> mr. chairman members like others on this committee there are some issues that require us as individuals to reintroduce them year after year because we feel so strongly about them. this particular issue is the issue of sexual assault in the military and the issue of chain of command. with this particular amendment would do would be to when a complaint is filed of a sexual assault, but that complaint he reviewed and investigated

independently by a unit within the military but a separate unit of prosecutors and investigators that would be trained and would be absolutely skilled in handling these kinds of cases. right now the decision is made through the chain of command. it is without question made by someone who has not had any legal training whatsoever. last year as a result of our survey was found that 20,000 members of the military had been raped or assaulted. these are men and women and i might point out that there are actually more meant that are raped or assaulted than women by virtue of the numbers of men in the military. but a vast majority of our citizens outside the military the criminal justice system works like this. after a crime is committed is reported to local law enforcement. the police investigate and based

on the evidence they gather the prosecutor decides whether or not to press charges. and almost all cases needed the victim or the accused know the prosecutor. they are not co-workers friends or claimants with the prosecutor and when a professional connection between the victim or the defendant and representative representative -- we rightfully grow concerned about bias and conflict of interest. that is not the case in the military. in fact and 30% of these sexual assault cases the perpetrator is in the chain of command. now one of the things we have heard over and over again is that there is a conflict of interest. either the chain of command is part of or is the perpetrator or a friend of the perpetrator or there is a concern that may be a not be forthcoming because it was found that they have allowed the rape to go on under their command.

the issue is more dramatic in that of those 20,000 cases, only about 5000 of those cases actually it's more like 4000 of those cases actually get reported. 4501. of those 4501 cases that are reported 62% of those servicemembers say they are retaliated against. so it's no surprise that three-quarters of those who are assaulted never report it for fear of retaliation, for fear that somehow the career they have chosen will be lost because they will be discharged from the military. and of those 4000 cases that are reported only 174 turn in conviction. that is less than 310 of a%.

the predator faces a greater chance this sexual predator faces a greater chance -- to actually be a servicemember who reports a sexual predator faces a greater chance of losing their career than seeing their assailant brought to justice. now i understand that we have placed many amendments into the ucmj. i'm pleased that so many of them have gone into effect that frankly most of them would not have gone into effect unless these grievance cases have come forward. i would suggest that the time has come for us to do the right thing. take these cases out of the chain of command, place them with prosecutors and investigators who are experienced. take the conflict of interest out of these cases and allow for us to have them reviewed appropriately.

this is a situation that is not getting better. for all the cost case after case, day after day i get alerts of another case coming forward. so for all the talk that this has been fixed it really hasn't and without i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. two other members wish to discuss this amendment? mixed -- mr. turner is recognized for five minutes. >> like the previous issue that we dealt with i know ms. speier is well aware that this issue at the last one are issues that as the committee has discussed them we have put in place measures to address them and everyone who has been here for more than one term, this committee and fy13 of the defense authorization act passed adult sexual crimes panel to conduct a thorough 12 month review to investigate prosecute

and adjudicate crimes involving adult sexual assault and related offenses for the purposes of developing recommendations regarding how to improve the effectiveness of the system. the panel was specifically passed with examining the role of the commander and his ms. speier said one of those that we took of to eliminate the issue of bias that wasn't in the grievance cases and even in the support act today we have dealt with the issue of retaliation with a provision in this very bill before. the panel concluded that congress should not limit the convening authority under the ucmj to refer charges for sexual assault to trial by court-martial. after reviewing the practices of allied military and available civilian statistics and hearing from many witnesses the panel determined the evidence did not support removing convening authority from senior commanders

to reduce the incidence of sexual assault it or improve the quality of the investigation of the prosecution of sexual assault cases in the armed forces. systematic changes to the military justice system should be considered carefully in the context of the many changes that have recently been made to the military justice system. that is that quote. acknowledge the changes we have made and they save when he time for these to be implemented. the numerous changes recently enacted required time to be implemented. i would hold up the report that came out in june of 2014. i want you to read it i know ms. speier has. the report of the response to adult sexual crimes handled and this report which our committee spent time having a prepared for is recommended again ms. speier's amendment and i also would recommend people do not support the amendment, that it would in fact -- a system

that is currently working under a number of amendments that we have made in a way that we think is advancing the cause of sexual assault prevention and persecution the protection of those who been assaulted and i yield back paid. >> the gentlelady from california ms. sanchez. >> thank you mr. chairman. too will be opposing this amendment. i have been at this longer than i think any member on the committee, way back to the very -- i had been in the committee 19 years working on this issue including major reformat the ucmj many years ago so we have redone some of the laws with respect to prosecution. we have done evidentiary change changes. we put special prosecutors and special evidence collectors and we have done something about victims rights.

there has just been one thing after another that we have tried to put in and i think we need time for the combination of things to play out for us to see the true outcome of where we are. but i will say something to this whole idea that somehow there is some guy in a room, a commanding officer making a decision and the comment was made they are not lawyers etc.. that's not really the way the process works. the process works with a lawyer. my husband is a retired j.a.g. from the army and he told me over and over he would take a look at the case and because he had to take it into the commanding officer he had to be on top of his game to be ready to discuss this at length with the officer who is making the decision on this. and he said many times and remember what we do with our military especially our

officers. they are better educated than the rest of us. they have masters or ph.d.s or law degrees. this is what we have done with our professional officers in our military. so they are not people who don't understand or don't have an education to get what's going on here. that's the first thing in the second thing two heads are better than one. so the j.a.g. walks and talks to the commanding officer and they go at it. they talk about it and many times my husband would say there just wasn't the evidence to prosecute. you know when you'll are ada on the outside you choose what you prosecute and you see -- keep your conviction rate high because that's how you get reelected but he would say that so many times this office would say that woman wants her day in

court and even if the evidence is there we are going to give her that. so they would go the other way and that's why sometimes the conviction rates are lo outside. so i would like us to take this time to see how all the interlocking pieces that we have passed over the last couple of years, what it will do to help us, to help us bring down this scourge which really is a crime of sexual assault in our military. ..

report insults. servicemen are still afraid to report male on male crimes. this seems to support that observation. it is it is my belief that they are afraid of retaliation from the chain of command. this is why i have come

gradually to the conclusion military sexual assault cases should be taken out of the chain of command. having been a military commander i respect and have absolute confidence in commanders to do their jobs. however, the military has shown it is incapable of attacking the problem is it is. i've been proud to serve. the military with the background can join have an opportunity to become a leader receive equal pay for equal work in this addition i love with every bone in my body and i want others to love as much as i have. should not be should not be places where men and women have to fear becoming prey to sexual predators.

there is my colleagues to do the same. >> thank you, and i rise in opposition to this amendment , the 9th class of women of the air force academy, dealing with sexual harassment and assault and fighting against it for basically my entire adult life. escorts impacting military readiness discipline, and it must be stopped. much has been done, but much more must be done. but we need not do is take the chain of command out. it must be held accountable and responsible for the mission, their lives in

degrades the readiness. free of assaults they need to make sure they are cared for a crimes are not committed against the the way to do that is not to take it out. i've taken the guide on any of the saturn a responsibilities to go with that. we will step outside this issue and it will become less responsible instead of more responsible. allowing harassment and crimes to be committed. chain of command is held accountable and crimes committed in double down on them.

this is not the time to take it out of the chain of command. we work together to set -- stop sexual assault the military. >> recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i commend the congresswoman from california for continuing to bring up this issue year after year after year and is because of the efforts of her as well as many other members on this committee and others within our body who continue to talk about this persistent problem that we have seen the progress that we've seen i am supporting her amendment today because at the end of the day it is our responsibility to make sure that victims have a transparent, fair, independent, and objective process and there is a path forward. for those of us who serve in

the military and we have served with good commanders commanders who lack ethics and integrity. we have to create a system that protects our servicemembers from that whether congress is talking about this issue whether congress moves on to another issue from the military this is what we are trying to accomplish that does not allow for the good. even the best are placed in a situation where there is an inherent bias. i have heard directly from servicemembers to turn who turnover evidence to the chain of command and it was immediately destroyed and then that service member has no case that can be pursued.

commanders must be and will be held accountable. what this amendment does is allows an independent and objective process free from the inherent by -- bias and give that victim an opportunity to move forward. my colleagues have spoken eloquently. eloquently. we all want to do what is best for servicemembers in the military. what makes me sick is because it is happening within our ranks built upon the structures of serving our country and protecting each other and if we do not have that trust within our servicemembers ranks this violates the core of what our military is about an makes a military we cannot stronger. >> the gentleman from georgia.

>> i will say that in order to -- there is a way to hold the chain of command accountable in making criminal justice decisions. there is no way to hold them accountable. that is where these situations and command when they decide it is not going to go any further it does not go any further. the problem the problem with that is that that function often times is not a professional. this amendment is professional to the military justice process bringing professionalism. when you have a nonprofessional it is hard for that person to judge the other things that the jag may present to them. if they have no history of

education in that area they are bound to look over something significant command when we factor in the fact that a good old boy type situation often times where you know the people involved professional or nonprofessional military guy making the decision command it is always a guy often can put aside what the evidence shows and steer his decision-making to what is best for the unit. and so the end result is the victim suffers again. and so i see absolutely no reason why we should not move forth with two professionalize this criminal justice process.

we we do know that there were a lot of cases coming in. we know that the failure to bring justice to these situations causes victims to refrain from using the process. and that encourages the predators no that they can get away with what they are doing. and so it is time to stop this. it is time to move forward. the time is now. i am in support of this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from oklahoma. >> there have been several comments about commanders can somehow prohibit a servicemember from getting a fair hearing. i would like to apply the comments with regard to

these issues because they have not formed them accurately. they have formed the division outside of the chain of command which can immediately result in a commander a commander having no say of any kind of investigation that will be done separately. they can go to the inspector general they would do an inquiry at the highest levels of the chain of command that would serve a general officer. there is also the chaplain who can take these investigations and queries and all of these things are available the servicemembers they can result in an article 32 investigation or commander inquiry. with regard to commanders not having legal training sanchez brought up accurately that you have

adjunct officers. you always have legal counsel at your beck and call. even considered that you might be trying to hide something any servicemember can go outside of the chain of command. while we are all in agreement that this needs to be solved it is important to establish that there are inaccuracies due to lack of understanding of how these other vehicles work and i want to echo always said. if we further erode the chain of command it will have implication is so many levels. the uniform to have uniform code of military justice exists to uphold cohesion. if we continue to erode it and pushed aside it will have implications that could result in servicemembers lives. i will not be supporting this amendment.

but i wanted to express that there are often is out there that have not been considered. i felt it was important to bring that up. >> further discussion? if not the gentle lady from california. >> thank you and obviously briefly. i don't think any of us have not been sickened and angered by what we have seen over the last number of years. "we have to remember, i think, is that as we move forward and have the special victims counsel which is made a difference in helping to steer victims not necessarily to the chain of command. i have had the opportunity to steer them in different ways command i think that that is a change that has occurred, but none of us believe this has been

steady, and if steady command if any of my colleagues -- i do not think it is fair to repeat that. we understand that in dealing with retaliation and trying to make that part of the training, not just for commanders because they have the training but for others we are reaching mid-level officers are no longer can make these decisions because they have to bring that up to a more -- more up the chain of command command those officers should be and are held accountable. if we continue to work with this issue as closely as possible and do it in a personal way i know i have had that opportunity and think others have as well and we can continue to learn from how this is working better in some areas and not in others. people have to make certain that they provide every bit

of information to victims. that the change. if we if we can continue to work on that we will find they going in a different direction for the consequences i once thought we don't necessarily no. this is a good path to go on and i will be the 1st to say that if we do not see another year or two it has made a significant a significant difference that i am willing to ent that and always have been. i have also been wanting to make certain that we do not do the wrong thing in trying to do the right thing. i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. back. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from california. the nose have it. the gentle lady from

california requests a rollcall vote which will be postponed. further amendments on this section? >> i have an i have an amendment at the desk. >> the ranking member is recognized to rebuild the clerk please distribute the amendment? >> this, again, will be one that will draw to sequential referral issues which is important as we finally removed the misguided don't ask don't tell policy that allowed the lg bt community to serve in the military openly one of the complications was to make sure that partners and spouses received the same benefits as partners and spouses. the department of defense did an excellent job of this making sure they provide is benefits.

however, there are some states that have not follow that guidance and provided benefits. obviously particularly a problem with our national guard. this amendment would require those states offer equal benefits as they do to anyone who serves in the military with a spouse or partner. this this is sort of our last vestige of discrimination within the military after a lot of hard work to get rid of it, and i no that we have had the don't ask don't tell debate in this committee. we have settled that. the lg bt community is now finally end rightfully allowed to openly serve and we need to make sure they openly receive the same benefits as everyone else. we have had challenges for states to nine is benefits. this would make it clear that states must provide equal benefit.

sequential referral sequential referral to a number of different committees, so i will not be able to fully offer it on this committee and ask for a vote, but it is something that we will bring to the floor when we have the opportunity and something i think is important to make sure we provide equal rights and protect everyone who serves in our military. with that, mr. chairman, i we will withdraw the amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. further amendments under this section. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please distribute the amendment? >> i don't need it.

>> without objection the amendment is considered as read and the german from california is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment states simply that a combat valor award and award you would get from the situation in combat close and with the enemy may be revoked by a service sec. or other authority only if a servicemembers conduct during the exact time of the distinguished act has not been honorable. the reason i bring this up, there is a gentleman major matt goldstein. he has not had any formal charges filed and has been kicked out of special forces they revoked his special forces tab. they said they said he allegedly killed an unarmed bomb maker that had just killed two marines. they revoked his silver star. i say they they, i mean secretary john mchugh,

the secretary of the army a distinguished member of this committee in congress took away a silver star that it took one year of research for major goldstein to get one year of research. one to three years to get any award. he revoked the award without due process. there has not been a single formal charge. secretary mccue revoked his silver star which was in the process of being upgraded to a distinguished service cross. i don't want to read the entire citation, but it is pretty damn inspiring. laser sharp focus and emotionless decision-making kept his combined patrol a step ahead of the skilled and prepared enemy and his

decisions prevented the loss of aircraft in vehicles and save the life of an afghan national army soldier. casualties, contingency planning known ied and sniper threats and the opposition of over 50 enemy fighters he led a mission that handed the enemy and devastating loss of fighting positions and personnel. if on one may 1st you commit a gal an active gallantry and on may 3 you do something a political appointee does not like, like, they should not be able to revoke that award. should general betray us can secretary mccue revoked his awards that he got for

valor. andrew temporary see. he had a dui a couple of months ago. should his combat awards be revoked if a service secretary see so fit? if an act of misconduct was accomplished during the incident, find. if it is at a separate time i i don't think the political appointee of any administration should be able to revoke. it it is critical that servicemembers are not stripped of valor awards. it does not change the fact they conducted themselves in and heroic way and saved comrades lives.

you can't take that away from them the matter what they might have done afterwards. this is happened to matt goldstein. with with you are on the battlefield we will stand behind you. we will stand behind you and support you. i understand this amendment might not sit well. i appreciate this being what that. secretary mccue is in direct chain of command. i understand why this was not included and appreciate the chance to tell everyone about it and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. ranking member.

>> i'd like to speak in opposition to this nothing to do with the individual case being talked about. certainly i don't want to get into that. tab key cases make bad law. this is not addressing just this individual case. this says, under no circumstance once a service award is given can it be taken away which sort of opens up a hypothetical universe situation where you might ask, when we want to take that service award away? one, one it occasionally comes to like the facts on which the award was given turn out to be incorrect upon further review something comes up maybe

some things that were not true. the basic fact pattern that led to the award is simply wrong. sorry,. sorry, once you got it no matter how you got it under no circumstances can the military change its mind. is taking one case. but to make this service wide -- in the 2nd thing is let's say you have a member nothing changed the fact that led to there receiving the award and less this person goes crazy thing goes and joins isis and fight against our country there does any number of horrible thing, murders a number of people in that situation do we want an option to say maybe we should revoked that award? i think taking one case and

applying it to absolutely everything thing under no circumstances once the award is given can you go back and say, well, gosh, there's more information and we made a mistake. becomes in your revocable mistake. it may be a horrible decision but to make a law that a law that applies to absolutely every future possible case based upon one is almost always a mistake. i oppose this amendment and yield back. >> the chair recognizes doctor hector for five minutes. >> thank you. certainly, i understand the situation that my colleague from california has brought forward and have read the citation and review the files. the acts were certainly valorous.

but just to but just to go over a couple of things i believe were misrepresented in this particular case while no charges were filed a reprimand was placed in the file and there is an appeal process in the army regulation for someone who has had an of war -- and award revoked. was the notification of the revocation, the ability to provide a statement. then can appeal through the commander. the regulation states once and award is presented it may be revoked by the awarding authority. that was the situation in which this particular report was revoked. understanding that this will not impact in goldstein's award but as the ranking

member stated, this is changing how awards are revoked not just in this case were similar cases, but across the board. also, it is in conflict with another section, code section 344 that addresses the issue of time of service being taken into consideration after the award is presented. i cannot support the amendment but appreciate the intent and the valorous acts of the captain and his service. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> gentleman has so much time left. number one, there is a process to appeal the revocation of an award.

there is a due process and revoking that award, but not a single formal charge has been filed so there is no appeal and no charge. the politicization of being able to take an award earned income that and revoke it without formal charges which there is no way to appeal, that is what the stops. to the ranking members points we change this. originally it said a valor award cannot be taken away. we changed it. it now says they valor award cannot be revoked from any instance that occurred other than the incident in which the valorous acts took place. if something bad to place you can revoke it if it took place on that day or during that firefight. if it took place two weeks later i don't think it should be allowed to be revoked. what he did for his brothers and sisters in arms is forever and it does not

matter what happens later. that is -- once you do something like this once you allow for political appointees to take away something of which they know nothing whatsoever you are politicizing the award process. four years ago we made the military do a medal of honor review. the tick goldstein one year to get his silver star, one year of investigations investigations, questions, improving what he did, every single person in his unit. >> and reclaiming my time. >> you ate up more time than i used. the appeal process is for the actual revocation of the award.

whether charges are filed, there is no need a requirement that charges are filed to revoke an award for whether or not the characterization of service is known at the time of the award. and there is an appeal process for the actual revocation, not due process for whether or not there were charges but the revocation of the award itself. texas. >> listening to the back-and-forth, you can tell there are strong arguments on both sides. i i would like some clarification. both gentleman mentioned an appeals process. is there -- do you have a description of what can lead to the revocation? >> i do not at this time. >> is it just done by the discretion of one person?

>> there is a process called the board for corrections of military records for anyone who feels like there record has been inappropriately altered or does not reflect their service can appeal to the board for them to consider changing the record >> will the general manual? >> yes. >> speaking from the army army regulation once an award has been presented it may be revoked by the awarding authority. also section 344 nothing may be awarded.

>> i see. will the general manual? we are going back and forth here. goldstein board is coming up it is in the future. special forces silver star taken away prior to an actual board being convened that is politicization.

>> just checking. the amendment is agreed to. the amendment the amendment is agreed to. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment. >> will the clerk please distribute the amendment? [inaudible conversations] >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. recognized for five minutes.

>> thank you. this would reverse the decision by the dod having negative effects. on on november 1 the department of defense instituted reduced per diem rates for federal employees who travel for longer than 30 days. the dod policy now creates a three tiered rate structure to compensate the workforce for official travel. members of the military who travel between 30 and 180 days. the knew deal 25 percent and 45 percent. and the members of the military receive below 30 30 days. this threatens to erode the morale of the workforce. it also results in civilian workforce having to pay

out-of-pocket to travel on official business. we may hear an argument about an offset but the dod said $22.5 million. this is fully offset $1.3 billion. if you wonder why it is because they are the ones who implemented this reckless policy. a spot where they are required to work, to travel for work but have to pay out-of-pocket. civilian personnel the per

diem market. this amendment has support from a variety of unions to travel associations hotel associations because they understand how harmful this policy is to personnel. using men and women of civilian workforce is a political punching bag is a disservice to ensuring our nation's security, prosecute criminals and ensure our infrastructure. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. further discussion? >> the german from new jersey. >> i thank my colleague from bringing this up. billions of dollars cost

overruns. it creates disruption that only for themselves but their families. we talk about protecting assets the best and brightest. and the day that we talk about who can afford at least getting cut the ones who will keep things running and this is just about making sure we protect our valuable assets those in the military certainly those who helped keep the military running command i urge our colleagues to think about the disruption that goes on and it makes it more powerful. i urge your support.

>> further discussion. the question comes on the amendment offered. the amendment is adopted. next recognize the gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman to my no one is happier than i. >> without objection the gentleman has unanimous consent. the clerk will please distribute.

>> without objection the amendment is considered read in the gentleman is recognized to explain. >> thank you. amendment number 055 encouraging the use of alcohol prevention monitoring programs and request an update on the effectiveness. amendment number 88 are one requesting a briefing on medical readiness. better define the burden of proof. amendment number 120 are one in efforts to create a clinical research network. 141 are to ensuring victims of crime are able to

participate in administration separation proceedings. amendment number 209 which would add combat readiness. amendment number 217. amendment two to six supporting efforts to increase advertising to minority communities amendment number 234 are one briefing on procedures and policies. amendment 245 codifying the modular airborne mission as it currently operates. amendment 260 are one.

amendment number 271 requesting a report on selection criteria broadening the law prohibiting female service members successfully completed training or entry-level skill training and performing a six-year commitment. amendment number 323 providing for a tenure transition for mental health counselors criteria to newly mandated accreditation standards.

>> just to clarify i think the gentleman said castro one 20 are one and meant castro 120 are two. any other members they would like to be recognized? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have concerns with 272. my concerns have to do with congress now writing a law on uniform standards and it depends upon where you are at. special operations often times orders personnel

whether male or female to conduct operations that are sensitive that are also operations that require uniforms and indigenous personnel. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will. >> requesting current policy and procedures related to this that actually directive in nature. we do have on the books that they are not to be directed are encouraged. that is already on the books this is simply support language that is requesting from the services what their current policies are. you can see the wording. they can do that in an unclassified and classified way. >> thank you. i think my answer is

satisfied and i yield the remainder of my time. >> there has been a revision in the amendment. the gentle lady accurately described that it is report language. the question is on the amendment offered. the amendment is adopted. at this time we will turn to the amendment which was earlier withdrawn. the gentle lady from california is recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> at the clerk would distribute the knew amendment.

>> absolutely. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. original lady is recognized. >> thank you. we go back to this issue of the fact that the secretary panetta before he left and the joint chiefs all unanimously get together and

said women should have a chance to be in combat roles we have been working on this for last few years trying to figure out how we measure what is needed in combat roles. and then we have had women volunteer infantry training training sessions to take a look and see how they would fare. we are going through the process looking at the gender-neutral standard to try to figure out which ones work and are working toward this january 2016 timeframe where i would hope maybe it won't happen, but i would hope all units would be open to women. that will be determined through the standards and

the tests that we are putting some of these women through. so what happened a few years ago was a knew section was put in basically saying that if any would be opened or closed to women there needed to be a notification to congress 30 consecutive days to strike the 30 day required now in law. why do that? we are going through this system through the gender-neutral standards going through the study and the department of defense is going to tell us that they we will open. so by striking this language

they would just notify the congress when they are going to open or close and him are asked to women. under the current language the way that it is written it must be 30 consecutive days of congress being in session which means once the department determines that they we will open or close and mos it could be four or five or six months before they can actually place someone. this would eliminate that lapse. it is still a notification of congress. we still would be able to hold hearings and come back and send notice we do not agree but it would allow them to fill those slots.

it does it does not mean you put a woman in tomorrow or a man in tomorrow. but by eliminating the current language we will not have four or five or six month lag time. that is what this amendment would do. >> further discussion on this amendment. original lady from arizona. >> i fully support our colleagues from california's amendment. this original language was support of compromise after some effort to try to roll back positions of women in the military. i don't think it is reasonable that they would be notification but not that would be unduly delaying the action from happening. i fully support this amendment and i yield back.

>> further discussion? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman along the same line of discussion the amendment suggested by ms. sanchez there were good reasons these rises were worked out. i do not think anyone is suggesting the qualifications or achieved for training is conducted and this would have undue delay and qualification being awarded to male or female if training was successfully completed but there are factors and when it was determined and how it would be implemented. the british study conducted in december of 2014 determined that there were 40 percent more injury rates

of those who had successfully completed training and would have met qualification but many were harmed permanently with medical damage. it has to it has to have determination to evaluate the population of those successfully completing training to see whether or not they could be. this would be like a sports medicine coat on a professional team 40 percent injury rate that coach would be fired. we have to make these allowances. i go back and urge mr. chairman to look at the issue mutually. that will be tantamount

they knew what they were volunteering for. therefore the government has no responsibility to deal with the fallout. there are good reasons why we see these limitations. and it's constitutionally that it would provide for the common defense of these united states. it's vital we have such a notification to duly elected representatives. i asked my colleagues to do the same. it's not that we can't once again get to these issues that we can't ignore things like medicine, physiology

they can be trained up to and overcome and might be implemented with more effective training. we have seen advancement and soldier skills. i personally believe that we can mitigate factors get to them but to waive these things aside the same problem calling in generals and their uniforms and ribbons. we wanted to make sure they would be future leaders in these organizations and instead the same ones that rushed us and will be the same ones with vigor and red-faced demanding answers. in the answers are as right here in this body. let's deliberate, do it with skill possibility, study but correctly. ..

>> female olimic limpic -- female olympic softball teams. i am asking this body to reject this amendment because this question requires careful evaluateion evaluation. the enemy doesn't recognize equal or promotion opportunity. the enemy doesn't recognize men or women in a uniform. the enemy recognizes weakness lack of discipline confusion, and combat is not a pretty scenario. i wish to say war was easy. but war is not. and sometimes it is hand to hand, face to face and breath to breath. and this decision affects the life and death of our service

member. and i don't think 30 days is a lot considering the stakes. right now, there is females going through ranger training. god bless them. there is females that have gone through marine cower officer training. these are not easy courses. and i am confidant there is going to be success and we will be able to evaluate the details observations and studies and come to a conclusion where everyone, regardless of gender, has a role to play in the nation's defense. >> would the gentlemen yield yet? >> not yet. >> 30 days is not a big decision. in the worst case it is six months. we are talking about the life and death of my daughter your

daughter, and our nation's daughter. so mr. chairman with that i will yield. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you to the gentlemen for yielding. i would like to ask the committee staff if we the congress, have ever stopped any of the department of of defense requests over the past years? >> not that the i am aware of. >> that is what i thought. so far we have not stopped any of them. i don't even know -- i could ask our personal people have we had hearings when you mos's have opened up to try to stop or ask what has been going on? >> we have not asked to have those hearing. >> you have not been asked to have them. so again, we have been studying this and changing the standards. this is the last three years

this is watt we have been doing. we are committed to january 2016. the military is coming with different services and i am almost sure some will say we have 11 mos that are closed to woman and we will open five but six we will ask to hold them aside. i don't think every single mos is going to be opened up. i have been following this along and talking to people in charge of doing these things. but once they decided that of the 11 we are going to open up five. they are going to notify us. and under the current law, they have to wait until they are 30 consecutive days of congress before they can put someone into that building and that could be four, five or six months.

we have done all of the studies, the standards, we have gone through all of this. anybody, and i have been holding briefings and things about the whole process so everybody could ask of the professional trainers and of the doctors, of the physical people looking for all of the information. some came and some have not. the reason that this law exist is because we were changing but we didn't have this whole process in place. now we have had this process. all i am saying is once they decided let's open these up let's start putting people in those places, i think we should be notified. if we feel that it is wrong, we want to hold a