peters regarding installation reed readiness. >> are there other members who wish to discuss the amendment, the unblocked package? if not the question of the amendments offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. other amendments to this section of the bill. gentleman from texas mr. conaway. >> may i have an amendment at the desk? >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment.

>> without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this reminds me of the movie "groundhog day." this is probably the seventh or eighth time i've offered this amendment. i will stick with it till we get her done. amendment would strike the d.o.d.'s responsibility to comply with a misguided requirement out of the 2008 energy -- 2007 energy bill which prohibits all agencies in the u.s. government but particularly the department of defense from the purchase of synthetic fuels derived from unconventional highydrocarbons that have a life cycle emissions greater than whatever whatever. section 526 prohibits that range of technologies that have been developed and are already being used in existing transportation electricity markets. this amendment will enable the department to purchase domestically sourced fuel from any source that fits its operational and strategic needs including the fuel from

conventional oil coal shale oil or heavy crude. the technologies like coal to liquids, in situ recovery of oil shale in oil sands and extra heavy crudes are technology heavily researched. many of these technologies are being used commercially in the united states, canada at cost competitive prices but section 526 prevents d.o.d. from purchasing fuel provided by them. section 526 artificially restricts the sources of fuel our military can draw on. and has made military more relienlt on -- this amendment ensures our military has the flexibility we need to meet tactical and operational needs and bolster our national security. synthetic fuels often burn cleaner than their conventional counterparts because the refining process greatly reduces the particulate matter mercury and released combustion. the subject added at the 11th hour in 2007 it was misguided not debated just simply stuck in as a bad idea. we've passed it in the last two

sessions and added it to the house version. following just before last year's ndaa i asked for a study to see where throughout this vast array of government agencies that are particularly green oriented this law is being observed. and you'll be surprised to find that they can't find anywhere that section 526 is being observed. the only place anybody's made any effort whatsoever is the department of defense in 2009 issued some interim rules that said we're going to try. and obviously we'll issue final rules. best of our knowledge they've not issued any final rules because the terms are undievd and there's no way to comply with it. we've got a law no one's complying with. fleet guidance system can't comply with it. mr. speaker -- or chairman i would ask my colleagues to support eliminating at least for the department of defense a misguided restriction on their ability to find fuel to fuel our jets and tanks and trucks and

ships and whatever sources we can get it from at competitive prices. and with that i yield back. >> gentleman from california mr. peters recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am opposed to this amendment. this amendment would exempt the department of defense from compliance with section 526 of the energy independence security act of 2007. d.o.d. says section 526 has never interfered or restricted the d.o.d.'s ability to purchase fuels necessary for military operations nor do they expect it will adversely affect their ability to procure fuels needed to operate in the future. and moreover diversifying our military's fuel supply is a national security impe pertive given the serious new threats we face as a company. the amendment would send the signal that the military is not serious about developing alternative energy sources including biofuels. that would put our military down an outdated path that puts our

men and uniform at risk. the smart forward-looking approach would be to make every attempt to increase fuel diversity, particularly in ways that improve efficiency, enhance our range and agility and better prepare our forces for future security environments where logistics may be constrained. this amendment is unnecessary and not supported by the pentagon. it would hurt the development of alternative fuel technologies and reduce the number of fuel option that's our military would have to power ships, planes, and tactical vehicles. this is not a smart direction to move. now more than ever at a time of global uncertainty and dynamic new threats we should be signaling to the military and to the world that congress will help them meet their energy efficiency goals. that's the kind of pragmatic approach we need. more than 3,000 men and women in uniform have been killed or wounded sints september 11th 2001 in attacks on fuel convoys in afghanistan. delivering technology to our troops that improve efficiency so they depend less on traditional sources of fuel is both a life-saving strategy and

has tactical benefits on the battlefield. i pose the amendments and ask my sclaegz to do the same. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. in my district i represent a company, one of the largest in the world, who does research and development, who started as an oil company. if they strictly looked at oil and what it has done over the last century, they would not be where they are today. they diversified what they're looking at. and i think that's exactly what we want to encourage our military to do. we have come from the odd-even days of restricted gasoline to now becoming the largest producer of not only energy but of oil. however, that's not always going to remain that way and we need

to leave our options open. and that's why i oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to vote with us in voting this down. i yield back. >> are there other members who wish to be heard on this amendment? the gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield my time to the gentleman from texas mr. conaway. >> i'll only take a couple of minutes. i want to congratulate both my colleagues for making the case for me. they wris understood the actual intent of 527 in the bill. it restricts the decht defense to certain issues. it does not -- what my amendment would do would be to unshackle the decht of defense to use resources from whatever source could be found. it would arow them to use all manner of fuel and would not restrict them the way 526 currently does. this argument about hauling fuels on the battlefields. the fuel that would be available

under whatever plan they've got still has to be hauled across battlefields. we're not talking about electric generation and those other kinds of things. but you still have to follow dees sxl gasoline and algae-based jet fuel, whatever it is, to the sites. the argument this would help save lives is misplaced. my amendment would unshackle the department of defense from this misguided restriction on their ability to find the fuel they need for tactical and operational purposes from their source. i yield back. >> if there's no further -- the gentleman from virginia yields back. if there's no further discussion the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye opposed say nop the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. are there further amendments to this section of the bill? the gentleman from texas mr. conaway. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment.

without objection the amendment is considered read and the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. >> this amendment would be -- it's interesting. it's coming in direct conflict today with the va bill on the floor today. this would restrict the department of defense's ability to build refineries without those refineries being authorized by some committee somewhere. they just couldn't -- out of wholecloth decide they want to build a refeenry, which i wouldn't even give that direct thosht to the department of energy let alone as capable as our department of defense guys the ability to build a multimillion-dollar refinery without congress specifically

authorizing that. all of the things in the mill con construction bill on the floor today have been authorized and are being scrutinized by congress. this bill would simply require the same thing. the d.o.d. lacks sufficient funds for its core national security abilities. d.o.d. is reducing commitments in support of combat commanders and an era of guidelining budget d.o.d. should not be spending adigsal funds on biofuel plant construction. biofuel plant is not a core of the department of defense. such efforts are led and perhaps better funded by the department of energy. this was included in last year's ndaa that was signed into law. this would be simply continuing that restriction on the department of defense's ability to build refineries without congress specifically saying -- looking at it and agreeing with them that it needed to be done. with that i yield back. excuse me. i urge adoption of the amendment and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back.

gentle lady from illinois ms. duckworth is acknowledged for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment to consideration but i'm speaking in opposition to it and any other amendments that would restrict the d.o.d. asability to improve our energy security. thankfully this amendment won't impact current biofuel refinery projects that have already been authorized under the defense production act and would do nothing to stop the 2014 contracts. however, the more troubling aspect of this amendment is the impact it would have on the future development of these facilities and it would severely hamper d.o.d.'s ability to enter into other contracts with fuel production zpilts is that offer tactical and strategic benefit for military operations. it's these kinds of investments that get mischaracterized. what gets lost in the conversation are the national security implications of what the department has tried to do. it's not about going green or trying to achieve some larger environmental goal. it's about developing technologies that will allow a platoon of soldiers or marines to push further into enemy

territory because they aren't dependent on a huge logistical tale and footprint. it's about enabling greater persistence persistence, range endurance, and time on station for vehicles, ships, and airplanes. it's about being able to project greater and more lethal power. anything thaen ables us to do that i'm all for and i think it should be embraced. this kind of amendment will prohibit d.o.d. from making those critical investments that will ultimately enable power projection. between 2003 and 2007 d.o.d. put out numbers that said that 80% of all supply trucks on the road in iraq and afghanistan were fuel convoys. in that same time period over 3,000 americans, troops and contractors were killed in fuel supply convoys. having served as a systems operations officer on a task force in iraq i saw firsthand how risky and expensive it is to maintain diesel fuel supply lines in a combat zones. i saw fellow soldiers risk life and limb for this precious battlefield resource. if we can develop the capability of generating fuel on a military

base and keep even one or two trucks out of the roads and keep the men and women safe, then i'm all for it. you know, we can generate biofuels using food scraps off a base as large as balad was, the lsa, then that's a good thing. the department of defense recognizes this. it is the largest consumer of liquid fuels in the world, purchasing more than 100 million barrels in 2014 alone. the volatilities of global markets is a huge risk to d.o.d. and our taxpayers' dollars. in fact, just last month we heard from secretary maybis on the ability to use fult as a weapon for what the -- biofuel refineries that have been built. the navy was able to partner with private industry to develop drop-in military compatible biofuels each year at an average price of well below $4 a gallon.

their work is why the u.s. has secured private sector investments of more than $4.9 billion since 2007. these alternative fuels provide good return on investment for the taxpayer dollar creating a new and vibrant sector of america's economy fostering jobs businesses widespread economic benefits in districts all across this country as well as my own and many of my colleagues' as well. i urge my colleagues to oppose this on the diverse energy base that will strengthen our military, keep our men and women in military safer. i oppose this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentlewoman leads back. the gentleman from california mr. peters. >> i too am opposed to this amendment. whereas the last amendment disincentivized alternative energy this does unquestionably put the shackles on the department of defense. we should not be limiting the fuel options for our military.

particularly in a national security environment that's constantly changing and has new emerging threats to our country. biofuels and other new fume technologies are the way of the future providing a smart alternative to pet rotium-based fuels. the price is volatile and can undermine our ability to protect the military provide our troops with the tools they need to succeed in their mission. biofuel refineries under construction will make our military better praerpd because we aren't bound to a single source of fuel. we've heard numerous times that alternative energy sources like biofuel sources improves mission effectiveness. secretary mannis stated in this committee energy fuel can and will be used as weapons. it is krit kohl we continue to use alternative fuels on our ships and aircraft to ensure operational flexibility. diversifying our energy supply for our ships our aircraft, and our bases helps guarantee our presence and ability to respond to any crisis. increasing our energy efficiency

ensures we can remain on station longer or extend our range without the delays and vulnerability of refueling. this committee should not make our military obsolete by recklessly standing in the way of innovation that will better serve our mission. i strongly oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to join me in opposition, and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california mr. garamendi. >> thank you mr. chairman. i really don't quite understand why we keep coming back and playing groundhog day on this issue. there are many, many different kinds of biofuel refineries. some of them are quite small. maybe the size of, i don't know, half a container you that might find on a ship or truck.

they're perfectly capable of generating diesel fuel or methane from a large military camp that might be seated someplace in afghanistan. and maybe that would save that one tank truck and the soldiers that are bringing that truck into afghanistan. these are readily available at the university of california davis. a new biofuel refinery was nut place at a cost of around $2 million. that was the first one. the next ones are going to be quite cheaper. and they are generating methane and diesel from the food waste from the cafeterias. could that fit on a military base? yes, it could. either domestically or at some remote site. i don't understand why we would stop the military from doing things that are in place today, technology that is readily

available. this totally prohibits all that. why would we do that? it makes no sense. and i think we ought to listen very very carefully to what representative duckworth said about the reality of the transport of fuel in combat zones. listen carefully to what she said. 3,000 of our soldiers were killed protecting the transport of fuel. maybe that would be one fuel truck or maybe ten fuel trucks that would not be necessary. so this amendment makes no sense whatsoever. i oppose it. >> further discussion on this amendment. the gentleman from virginia mr. whitman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield time to the gentleman from text ex-mr. conaway. >> i thank you for the gentleman yield. my colleagues have entirely missed the point the point has absolutely nothing to do with what they're talking about.

this simply reinserts congress into the oversight and the approval process the authorization process that is quite frankly the basis of this entire 14 or 15-hour day we're going to be spendsing. all this said is if the army -- military, department of defense wants to do something like this it needs to get it authorized. if my colleagues are arguing that department of defense secretary of defense, the president of the united states should have unfettered access to whatever moneys are out there without oversight of this committee, i understand it. i personally don't believe that's the right way to do it. i think congress has a specific role in how the department of defense spends its money. so this bill would simply reinsert our authority to look at these projects and to approve them before the money gets spent. that didn't happen on the one that's under construction right now. $200 million was spent unauthorized because it could go through a back door process of an antiquated financing program. we should have been at the table to decide on that deal. and we weren't. if you don't want congress in

the mix on these fights i got it. but all the other arguments you're making about what the fuel's used for, all those kind of things, i got it. i just think this committee particularly ought to have a dog in that fight and we don't right now. this amendment would give us that. and i urge adoption and i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. if there's no further discussion, the question the gentle lady from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield my time to mr. garamendi. >> the gentleman from texas may be right but also wrong. there are very few projects that come before this committee big or small that don't initiate from the military. think about it. members of this committee. very few earmarks that don't initiate from us. sometimes from private sector but most often from the military. this amendment would prohibit them from even think about a biofuel refinery somewhere.

and i think we ought to allow the military to do -- at least get started with it. and then if you're worried about a $200 million project put in a limitation but don't stop them from beginning to even think and and plan and putting together proposals for us. unless you're going to dream up everything the military has to do which i don't think we have much of a record of doing. i yield back. >> if there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas mr. conaway. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentle lady from illinois requests a roll call vote. and that roll call vote will be postponed. if there are no further amendments to this section of the bill the committee will now resume proceedings on those amendments on which roll call votes were ordered.

and they are amendment number 89 by mr. bishop on land withdrawal. amendment number 92 by mr. wilson on the national historic register. amendment number 6 by miss stongas on the sage grouse. amendment 61 by mr. rogers on surplus firearms. and amendment 293 by mr. conaway as we just debated. the question is amendment number 89 by mr. bishop on land withdrawal. the clerk will call the roll. >> chairman thornberry. chairman thornberry votes aye. mr. smith. >> no. >> mr. smith votes no. mr. jones. >> aye. >> mr. jones votes aye. miss sanchez. >> no. >> miss sanchez votes no. mr. forbes. >> aye. >> mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady. >> no.

>> mr. brady votes no. mr. miller. >> aye. >> mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson. mr. wilson. mr. long vin. mr. longevin votes no. mr. lobe yondo votes no. mr. larson. excuse me. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. larson. mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper. >> aye. >> mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner. mr. turner votes aye. miss bredaio votes no. mr. klein. mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rogers.

mr. rogers votes aye. miss songas. miss songas votes no. mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway. there conaway votes aye. miss spear. miss spear votes no. mr. lambourne votes aye. mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth. >> no. >> ms. duckworth votes no. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. peters. >> no. >> mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. vici votes no. mr. kaufman. mr. kaufman votes ayes.

ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes no. mr. walz. mr. walz votes no. mr. hartsler votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. that ki votes no. mr. nugent. mr. new jentd votes aye. ms. graham votes no. mr. cook. mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes no. mr. bridenstein. mr. bridenstein votes aye. mr. moulton votes no.

dr. wen strop. >> dr. wenstrop votes aye. mr. agular. mr. agular votes no. miss wolorski votes aye. mr. burn. mr. burn votes aye. mr. graves. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinci. mr. zinci votes aye. ms. stephenic. ms. stefanic votes aye. ms. mcsally votes aye. mr. knight. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur. mr. mcarthur votes aye. mr. russell. mr. russell votes aye. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes aye.

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were 36 aye votes 27 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. next will be a roll call vote on amendment number 92 by mr. wilson regarding national historic register. the clerk will call the roll. >> chairman thornberry. >> aye. >> chairman thornberry votes aye. mr. smith. mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. jones. mr. jones votes aye. miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes no. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady. mr. brady votes no.

mr. miller. mr. miller votes aye. mr. davis. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. longevin. mr. lobiono. mr. lobiondo votes aye. mr. larson. mr. bush p. mr. bush p votes aye. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner. miss bredaio. miss bredaio votes no. mr. klein. mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes aye. miss songas. miss songas votes no. mr. franks. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. shuster. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes no.

mr. conaway. mr. conaway votes aye. miss spear. miss spear votes no. mr. lambourne. mr. lambourne votes aye. mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes no. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. veesi. mr. vici votes no. mr. kaufman votes aye. ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson votes no. mr. walz. mr. walz votes no. mrs. hartsler. mrs. hartsler votes aye. mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke votes no. mr. heck. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross votes no.

mr. scott. mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takei. mr. takei votes no. mr. nugent. mr. nugent votes aye. ms. gramt. ms. graham votes aye. mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes aye. mr. bridenstein votes aye. mr. molton. mr. molton votes no. dr. wenstrop. dr. wenstrop votes ayes. mr. agular votes no. mrs. wolorsky votes aye. mr. burn. mr. burn votes aye. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinci votes aye. ms. stefanic votes aye.

ms. mcsally votes aye. mr. knight. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur. mr. mcarthur votes aye. mr. russell. mr. russell votes aye. mr. turner. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman there were 35 aye votes, 27 no votes. >> and the amendment is adopted.

next is a roll call vote on amendment number 6 by miss songas regarding the sage grouse. the clerk will call the roll. >> chairman thornberry. >> no. >> chairman thornberry votes no. mr. smith. mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones. mr. jones votes no. miss sanchez. >> ayes. >> miss sanchez votes aye. mr. forbes. mr. forbes. mr. brady votes aye. mr. miller. mr. miller votes no. mrs. davis. mrs. davis. aye. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes no. mr. longevi snchlt votes aye. mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. larsen. mr. larsen votes aye. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner.

mr. turner. ms. bredaio. ms. bredaio votes no. mr. klein. mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney. >> aye. >> mr. courtney votes aye. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes no. miss songas. >> miss songas votes aye. mr. franks. mr. franks votes no. mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes no. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. conaway votes no. miss spear. miss spear votes aye. mr. lambourne. mr. lambourne votes no. mr. castro. mr. castro votes aye. mr. whitman. mr. whitman votes no. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes aye. mr. hunter. >> no. >> mr. hunter votes no.

mr. peters. >> aye. >> mr. peters votes aye. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes no. mr. vici. mr. vici. mr. vici votes aye. mr. kaufman. mr. kaufman votes no. ms. gabbard. ms. gabbard votes aye. mr. gibson. >> no. >> mr. gibson votes no. mr. walz. >> aye. >> mr. walz votes aye. miss hartsler. miss hartsler votes no. mr. o'rourke. aye. dr. heck votes no. mr. norcross. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. scott. mr. scott votes no. mr. gallego. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes no. mr. that ki.

mr. takai votes aye. mr. nugent votes no. ms. graham. ms. graham votes aye. mr. cook. mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes aye. mr. bridenstein. mr. bridenstein votes no. mr. moulton. mr. moulton votes aye. dr. wenstrop. dr. wenstrop votes no. mr. agular. mr. agular votes aye. miss wolorsky votes no. mr. burn. mr. burn votes no. mr. graves. mr. graves votes no. mr. zinki. ms. stefanic. ms. stefanic votes no. ms. mcsally. ms. mcsally votes no. mr. knight. mr. knight votes no. mr. mcarthur. mr. mcarthur votes no. mr. russell. mr. russell votes no.

mr. turner. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman there were 26 aye votes 36 no votes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. next is roll call vote on amendment number 61 by mr. rogers regarding surplus firearms. clerk will call the roll. >> chairman thornberry. >> aye. >> chairman thornberry votes aye. mr. smith. >> no. >> mr. smith votes no. mr. jones. >> aye. >> mr. jones votes aye.

miss sanchez. >> no. >> miss sanchez votes no. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady. mr. brady votes no. mr. miller. mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. longevin. mr. longevin votes no. mr. lobiondo votes aye. mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper. aye. mr. turner votes no. ms. bredaio votes no. mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes aye. miss songas. miss songas votes no. mr. franks votes aye.

mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway. mr. conaway votes aye. miss spear. miss spear votes no. mr. lambourne votes aye. mr. castro. mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes no. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming. >> dr. fleming votes aye. mr. vici. mr. vici votes aye. mr. kaufman votes no. ms. gabbard. ms. gabbard votes aye. mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walz. mr. walz votes aye. ms. hartsler. ms. hartsler votes aye. mr. o'rourke.

mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross. mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott. mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego. mr. gallego. about brooks. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai votes no. mr. nugent votes aye. ms. graham. ms. graham votes aye. mr. cook. mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes aye. mr. bridenstein. mr. bridenstein votes aye. mr. moulton. mr. moulton votes no. dr. wenstrop. dr. wenstrop votes aye. mr.ing aguilar. aye. miss wolorsky votes aye.

mr. burn votes aye. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinci votes aye. ms. stefanic. ms. stefanic votes aye. mr. mcsally votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur votes aye. mr. russell. mr. russell votes ayes. mr. gallego. mr. gallego votes no. >> the gentleman from colorado wish to change his vote? if the gentleman would say it so the clerk can hear, please. >> [ inaudible ]. >> noted aye.

>> clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 42 aye votes 21 no votes. >> and the amendment is adopted. the question now occurs on amendment number 293 for mr. conaway on biofuels. the clerk will call the roll. >> chairman thornberry. chairman thornberry votes aye. mr. smith. mr. smith votes no. mr. jones. mr. jones votes no.

miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes no. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady. mr. brady votes no. mr. miller. mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. longevin. mr. longevin votes no. mr. lobiondo votes aye. mr. larson. mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes aye. miss bredaio votes no. mr. klein. mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes aye. miss songas. miss songas votes no. mr. franks. mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi.

mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway. mr. conaway votes aye. miss spear. miss spear votes no. mr. lambourne. mr. lambourne votes aye. mr. castro. mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth votes no. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters. >> no. >> mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. vici. mr. vici votes no. mr. kaufman. mr. kaufman. ms. gabbard. ms. gabbard votes no.

mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes no. mr. walz. mr. walz votes no. mrs. hartsler. mrs. hartsler volts aye. mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott. mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego. >> no. >> mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai. mr. takai votes no. mr. nugent votes aye. ms. graham. ms. graham votes no. mr. cook. mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes no. mr. bridenstein. mr. bridenstein votes aye. mr. molton. mr. molton votes no. dr. wenstrop. dr. wenstrop votes aye. mr. aguilar votes no. miss wolorsky votes aye.

mr. burn. mr. burn votes aye. mr. graves. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinci. mr. zinci votes no. ms. stefanic. ms. stefanic votes no. ms. mcsally. ms. mcsally votes aye. mr. knight. mr. mcarthur votes aye. mr. russell. mr. russell votes aye. there kaufman. i'm sorry, mr. kaufman. mr. kaufman votes aye.

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were 32 aye votes. 31 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. if there are no further amendments to this section of the bill the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia mr. whitman for the purposes of a motion. >> mr. chairman i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the subcommittee on readiness as amended. >> question's on the motion of the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. a quorum being present. the ayez have it. and the motion is adopted. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee

on military personnel. pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member we'll post poent recorded votes on amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of this portion of the mark. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the he gentleman from nevada dr. heck for any comments he'd like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the military personnel subcommittee report before each member is the product of an open bipartisan process. the mark provides our war fighters, veterans, and their families the care and support they need, deserve and have earned. specifically this year's proposal continues to define the department of defense sexual assault and response program by addressing shortfalls in the program identified in the judicial proceedings panel initial report. in particular the mark would -- and a plan to improve sexual assault, prevention and response when a victim is a male member of the armed forces. in addition the mark reflects the subcommittee's rigorous oversight and consideration of

the recommendations on military compensation and retirement offered by the military compensation and retirement modernization commission. specifically, the mark would require the secretary of defense and secretary of veterans affairs to english a joint uniform form lary that includes medications critical for the transition of an individual undergoing treatment related to disorders, pain control and mental health conditions. it requires the secretary of defense to establish a unified medical command to provide medical services to the armed forces and other health care beneficiaries of the department of defense. it modernizes the current military retirement system by blending the current cliff vesting retirement plan with the defined contrib plan allowing service members to contribute to a portable thrift savings plan account including a government contribution matching program with an implementation date of october of 2017. it consolidates the current number of reserve components status categories under which reserve component members may be called to dprut 30 to 6 with an

implementation of october 2017. it also requires the secretary of defense and military service chiefs to increase their frequency and strength in the financial literacy and preparedness training of service members by establishing a more robust training and education program for financial literacy, for service members and their families. in conclusion i want to thank mrs. davis a ranking member and their staff for their contributions to the mark and support in this process. we're joined by a dedicated and active subcommittee members. miss james, mr. green, mr. kedy mr. bossy and our gdo detailee ms. bates. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentle laid gary california ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank dr. heck and the committee staff for working in a bipartisan manner to develop this mark. i'll be very brief because i think dr. heck covered the ground. i'm pleased the mark includes some of the recommendations from the military compensation and

retirement modernization committee and that key provision is the modernization of the military retirement system that maintains the 20-year defined retirement while adding a deferred benefit not just retireees but for all service members. this will positively impact the 83% of the force that leaves prior to the 20 year mark. wisely the implementation of this is delayed to allow input from the service and the administration as well as most importantly from our service members. i certainly look forward networking with dr. hack and with all of you all of the committee members to thoughtfully discuss and implement the remainder of the commission's recommendations in ways that best serve our brave men and women. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. is there further discussion of this portion of the mark? are there amendments to this portion of the mark? gentleman from nevada.

>> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consents to call-up an unblocked package of amendments. >> without objection so ordered. will the clerk please distribute the unblocked package.ñd k without objection the unblocked amendments are considered as read and the gentlemanjagentleman from nevada is recognized for explaining the unblocked package. >> thank you. package number one comprise of the following p.m. amendment number 002 by mr. klein to require financial literacy training under the modernized retirement system. amendment number 004 r 1 by mr. cook to provide a blueprint for

higher placement program for veterans. requiring a brief on dod's ability to meet the needs of female members with pros they ticks. directing the secretary of the army to develop a comprehensive policy regarding breastfeeding by female members of the army. i'm number 016 by mr. klein that requires dod to provide a briefing on efforts to assure access to affordable health care due to reduction in prime service areas. directing dod to evaluate efforts to increase minority representation in military service academies. amendment number 027 by mr. jones supporting efforts to improve academic achievement and transition of military dependent students. require congressional briefings on warrior wound recovery care. protect the commissary benefit

by a review of asia-pacific produce supply. and 038 r 1 by mr. hunter that upholds the commissary benefit to maintain existing methods. >> is there further discussion of the unblocked package? gentlelady from florida is recognized. >> thank you. i would like to thank you chairman thornberry chairman hack and ranking member davis to ensure this amendment was included in this unblocked package. i like to thank my florida colleague jeff miller for his help in bringing this amendment today. my amendment is very straightforward. it requires the department of defense and department of veterans affairs to jointly brief the house armed services committee and the house veterans affairs committee in advance of and after any changes to wounded warrior recovery care coordination.

congress deserves to be in the loop as the administration tries to bring these two very important programs together. i would also like to thank the chairman and ranking members for their inclusion of my language in support of designating 2015 as the year of the military diver in the chairman's mark and i yield back my time. >> thank the gentlelady. is there further discussion on the unblocked package? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. there further amendments to this portion of the bill gentleman from florida mr. nugent. >> thank you, mr. chairman i do appreciate it. mr. chairman this is a simple amendment -- >> the gentleman wants to offer his amendment. >> yes, i do. >> if the clerk will please distribute the amendment.

>> without objection the amendment will be considered as read and the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes to discuss it. >> thank you mr. chairman. once again this is a very simple amendment that would permanently treat national guard as personnel for the purpose of furlough. dual status technicians are full time guardsmen but get paid out of different accounts on week days versus drill weekends. the dual status technicians work two hats. they are trained to perform a particular job in the armed forces and they drill in that role like all other guardsmen.

oftentimes these dual status technicians are the maintainers of aircraft and vehicles. they are the lynch pin of readiness and are critical to first response mission. to correct this problem congress has had to pass an annual fix two years ago we led an propositions amendment from text these troops that passed by voice vote. once again mr. chairman in my state of florida dual technicians maintain helicopters that interdistrict drug trafficking, rescue my constituents in emergencies and deploy to iraq and afghanistan. we just can't lay off these technicians who keep our equipment running and expect it to work when it's needed. florida can't hope our helicopters will fly when a hurricane threatens our state or other states along the gulf coast or east coast. once again, mr. chairman, my simple amendment today just makes that protection permanent.

and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> thank you. i would like to thank the gentleman from florida for this amendment and in full disclosure as a younger man i was one of these dual status technicians and what the gentleman is talk about is exactly right. i went to the armory each morning opened it up as a one man armory. prepared training areas, everything that needed to be done so when the guardsmen came in on the weekends that part was taken care of. i was required to meet all military requirement, testifying military had to do from pt test to schooling and wear that uniform for rank but when it came time to being paid i was a gs level on that. so what happens is something happens, a furlough or in the case of a government shutdown those technicians were left without pay which meant the armory was unmanned unready and our national readiness was

decreased. the gentleman's amendment is exactly on spot. it's exact italy right thing to do. it doesn't cost us anything but ensures our readiness and gives the status to those dual status technicians that wear two hats and do it well. with that i yield back. >> other discussion? gentleman from nevada dr. hack. >> thank you. i appreciate the gentleman from florida pointing out the important role that dual status technicians play both in the guard and reserve and the service of the sergeant majors. however, the issue with the amendment is that it singles out a specific group of civilian employees within dod for preferential treatment while ignoring all other dod civilians. dod has authority to exempt categories of civilians for furloughs to include technicians in the reserves. while the individuals working during the week they are a civilian and when they show up on drill weekend they are in

uniform and a military member. so we should not confound what they do during the week with what they do on the weekends and i need to rise in opposition to the amendment. >> further discussion? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida mr. nugent. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> hmmm. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. further amendments on this section of the bill? gentlelady from california, miss davis. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment.

>> mr. chairman, i can start, if you want. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i plan to offer this amendment but i'm going withdraw it after i have a moment to speak about, for profit schools and how these disproportionately target our young servicemen and women and their spouse. there are a number of us that are on the education and workforce committee as well as this one and this is a tough issue but it's really one that i just don't think we can ignore any longer. over the last few years we've seen the percentage of veterans enrolled at for profit schools skyrocket. 2012 report from the senate health committee determined the amount of gi bill, of ta, tuition assistance and my career advancement education benefits

going to 24 profit colleges has sky roberted by 683% over a four year span. from 66.6 million in 02006 to 521.2 million in 2010. between 2009 and 2010 alone revenue from military education benefits at those 20 for profit schools increased by 21%. for profit schools held the top eight of ten posts for gi benefit recipients. no coincidence it started after the number of nonmilitary students at for profit institutions started to dramatically decrease. spending on military education benefits has shot up to 10 billion and for profit schools share of that money has gone up 600%. what's going on here, folks? for profit schools receive 1.7

billion in veterans benefits during the 2012-'13 academic year. 41% of all gi bill dollars and almost as much as the cost of the entire program just for you years earlier. according to the followup report by the senate health committee last year. while overall enrollment in for profits has decline nationally enrollment of veterans in those schools have soared from 61% to as much as 657% at the eight top for profit gi bill beneficiaries and those eight schools receive 23% of all gi bill benefits last academic year. now, mr. chairman i really want to work with the committee and all members here because i met so many of our men and women who serve our country and we know there have been a number of reports on this issue.

they are not getting what they pay for. and quite frankly mr. chairman, the taxpayer is not getting what it pays for. we need to address this. i know this is not is going to go very far today but i certainly hope that enough people will be interested in taking a look at this seriously. >> would the againstle woman yield? >> >> i will yield. >> first of all, thank you, miss davis for bringing up this issue. it is a very important issue. mr. chairman we might consider doing some sort of real look at this. i happen to be one of those people that understand that veterans come out, maybe they don't want to go a four year type of university, there might be an older student they are looking at something where they can take the skill set where they think they got from the military and maybe the for profit school is the better place in which to deploy in and

add to that. so i'm not necessarily, you know ganging up on these for profit schools i think they have a real place and certainly in my district i have many, many very good ones. so rather than, you know, see this fight in the newspapers what we need to do is just ensure that the monies that we are given are given to schools that are actually doing well for our active and our veterans and so i think it is an issue that we might want to take up in a much more in depth way than just amendment and withdrawal at this point. thank you. and i yield back to the gentlelady. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time is just about up but i do hope that we can follow up and this would be something that would be double referred and we understand that but i think it's important that we move forward. thank you. >> as i understand the gentlelady withdraws the

amendment. the amendment is withdrawn. next, the chair recognizes the gentleman from nevada dr. hack for the purpose of offering an unblocked package. >> amendments have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection so order if the clerk would so distribute the unblocked amendments. >> without objection, the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from nevada is recognized to offer and explain the package. >> thank you. i call unblocked package number two comprised of the following. awarding the purple heart to six armed forces personnel killed in

the oklahoma city terrorist attack. requiring dod to submit a study to determine the feasibility of using the defense eligibility reporting student as a military student identifier. ensuring female service members who use contraception receive a sufficient supply prior to deployment as well as receiving counselling. ensuring that every military treatment facility has a sufficient stock of a broad range of fda methods of contraception. add six military occupational specialties to the civilian credential piloted program. directs the ig to prepare a report on separation of service members who have made a report of sexual assault. that allows veterans to change their maim on disharrington documents to reflect a change in

gender identity. gao recommendations on the cost general and flag officer costs. ensuring the special victims council are able to advise and represent service members in retaliatory proceedings. provides access to special victims council for former dependents of service members in cases involving service members. and requires gao report on federal voting act program. >> is there further discussion on the unblocked package? gentleman from hawaii. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to speak on log 91. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment would require the secretary of defense to conduct a study on using the defense enrollment eligibility reporting

system to track where the military dependents are attending school. ten years ago i had a conversation with members of the department of defense and everybody is very concerned about educating military children. educating children in general but specifically educating military children. what's interesting to note is that every effort so far, whether it's the military interstate children's compact, or whether it's the usa for military families initiative out of the department of defense or the most recent military compensation and retirement modernization commission the focus on educating military children have always rest on the backs of the local school districts. i mention this because in hawaii not only do our public, local public schools educate our military children, but our private schools do. and some military families choose to educate their children through home schooling.

unfortunately, when i asked about eight years ago through the department of defense if they knew who their, where their children were attending school the answer was no. it is disappointing to note that the department of defense knows who the children are through the deers program but does not know where these children go to school. they can ask the local schools the local public schools who in their school are actually military children, but those children that go to private schools or those children that go to home schooling there's no information. so what i'm trying to do through this amendment is ask the department of defense to look at a way to identify their children so we can better address their needs and better track things like attendance, academic progress and graduation. that's what this amendment will hopefully do. i had originally suggested we

just do it through the deers program but i understand there's some concerns and i do support this amendment and encourage members to do so as well. thank you. >> thank you. is there further discussion on the unblocked package? gentleman from ohio. >> i have a question on the log number 144 rl. i was just talking to dr. hack, the chairman on it. if we could have just some clarification. we had some concerns about what until applications of this might be. special victims council is something we have concerns about. it's been launched for very excited about the outcomes but this seems like a substantial expansion. i wonder if perhaps miss spear could provide us some background on how this amendment would apply.

i would be willing to yield her time. or staff. if she's not in attendance. we'll go to staff. my time is expiring. special victims counsel for former dependents of members. this language in here for example if the perpetrator was believed to a member of the armed service. i don't understand until applications of this. several of us up here were reading it. if someone could explain how it applies, when it applies. the special victims council is a new program and launched service branches are struggling with it. with an amendment like this i'm concerned as to how it would be interpreted. several members up here had questions also. would you like to respond?

i guess you weren't here. >> i'm sorry, i was in a side conversation with a colleague. >> we were just asking you to explain your amendment 144 rl because of its implication. we don't want to disadvantage the special counsel victim's program which is newly launched and we're looking for your description of the application of this amendment. >> so this particular amendment, i think this was actually -- are you talking about 142 r 1 or 144? >> 144. it's your amendment -- >> right. >> 144 rl. the clock don't tick. otherwise there were members who were concerned that perhaps they need object to have it removed. can you give us an example. >> an example would be someone who was an intimate partner with a member of the military who was

sexually assaulted and there was an action brought and this would allow for special victims counsel. so special victims counsel have historically been for the military member. so this would also be available to others including divorced spouses and former dependents of military members. >> i would like to yield the remainder of my time. >> so from perhaps staff or miss spears in this case you have a spouse divorced say 20 years ago and that spouse man or woman is assaulted or perceived to be assaulted by a military member,

even though the divorce took place 20 years ago they get special victims counsel? >> i think i can respond to that. >> sure. anybody. >> no. it would have to be a situation where the assault happened in present time not 20 years ago. >> no, no. so the assault happens in present time to a spouse who was divorced 20 years ago that's what i'm asking. does that spouse get special victims counsel even though the divorce took place 20 years ago or 30 or 10 or five? >> so if it's -- you're divorced but then the last sexual assault that took place by your former spouse is that what you're suggesting? >> i'm just trying to understand the language here and i admit i'm reading the summary. it sounds to me like if you're a service member, and you get a divorce, and 20 years later the

person you're divorce -- you divorced gets sexually assaulted you get special victims counselling. >> no. no. it would apply -- it only relates to those circumstances in present time. >> ah-ha. >> where you may have been sexually assaulted by your -- let's say your spouse is a member of the military. >> ah-ha. >> you are now ex-spouses there's a sexual assault. by the person who is in the military. you would be able to get special victims counsel. >> further members who wish to discuss the unbloc -- >> i'll trust it can be cleaned up in conference because this does not make sense to me. the special victims counsel isn't a new concept. we've been battling with it already in the reserve component about whether or not the actual serving member in the reserve component in the national guard,

for example, can get special victims counsel, been trying get that sorted out and now this looks like an amendment that says that you got a service member, spouse they get a divorce years later years later the divorced spouse was sexually assaulted by somebody in a different state, different time, different place but they get special victims counsel. is this what this says? maybe we can get an answer from staff. >> mr. klein, what the amendment would do would allow for a special victims couldn't stole be provided if there's a sexual assault that took place while a member was in the military and the individual that was assaulted was a dependent of someone who was in the military at the time. >> judge from utah mr. bishop. >> yes. now there are more questions. could i yield and i'll take the last minute-and-a-half as part of mine to mr. turner to the

purpose of asking staff specific questions. >> perhaps you could clarify for us because it hasn't been well clarified. what's the status of dependent spouse if they are subject to a sexual assault with the special victims counsel program? >> currently a spouse who is a spouse of an individual who is a member of the military is afforded a special victims counsel if they are a victim of sexual assault. >> so i don't understand what the difference is with this then. because this says -- i mean miss spears is saying that if you're a dependent and you get special victims counsel, if you're sexually assaulted, there's nothing that says if you subsequently become divorced that you lose that special victims counsel currently. correct? any circumstances that have arisen where this has occurred. >> not that i'm aware of. >> if she's accurate she says the sexual assault occurred

while they were dependent but while they were dependent they are afforded special victims counsel. >> the amendment would allow someone who is no longer a dependent of someone who is no longer in the military to receive special victims counselling services if the sexual assault took place while the member was in the military and the victim was a dependent. >> i yield to mr. bishop. >> so it's not just for somebody who is divorced it's for somebody who is no longer in the military. that's what your signing? >> yes, sir. >> yield back. >> what we know is the victims counsel has made a difference for those who survived assault and willing to come forward and this san effort to just make very clear as to who else might benefit from it who does have ties to the military.

>> gentlelady yields back. no further discussion. gentleman from oklahoma mr. russell. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i'm not sure who this question should be directed to, mr. chairman. miss spears or perhaps a member of staff. but in the broad range of methods of contraception on that section that would be made available would this include the ru-486 or morning after pill? >> mr. chairman, i don't believe we're on that amendment yet. >> the question is this an amendment in the en bloc package. >> it is. >> and that is one also by ms. spears, 109 r1. okay. 108 10r9 r1.

i'm not sure which one. if miss spears can answer or if there's a clear answer. >> and the question is there is a subsequent amendment i have in which there may be an amendment offered about the efforts of a medical professional not to inform a recent sexual assault victim. these two amendments deal more specifically with active duty members of the military who oftentimes are deployed with not having ample amounts of the contraception they need and either go without or have to use a contraception that they have not been accustomed to. >> but mr. chairman i reclaim my time. the specific question is would this include the ru-486 or morning after pill as a part of this broad range of

contraception approved by the food and drug administration? >> mr. chairman, i believe that we're talking about contraceptive pills and iuds. and whether or not ru-486 is include is something we would have to check. i'm not certain. but we have a separate amendment on that particular issue. >> mr. russell if i may. it would include all of the contraceptive methods that dod is currently providing through military treatment facilities. >> so does that include ru-486, morning after pills? is that part of the current -- mr. chairman, is that part of the current things that are provided? by department of defense. >> i can't answer that question at this point, sir. >> so, unknown.

>> further discussion on the en bloc amendments. >> mr. chairman is it possible to get that answer before we vote on this en bloc? >> probably not. >> could i attempt to answer it one more time? >> yeah. gentlelady wants to respond to the gentleman. >> this covers contraception. it does not cover any kind of drug that would be identified as an abortive. >> okay. thank you. >> further discussion if not the question is on the en bloc package offered by dr. hack. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. next the gentlelady from california miss sanchez is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk if they would please pass it out. >> if the clerk would please

distribute the amendment. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. without objection the amendment will be considered as read. and the gentlelady from

california is recognized for five minutes on her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. over 15% of our country's active duty service members are female service members. in 2013 then secretary panetta and joint chief of staff dempsey rescinded the 1994 direct combat definition and assignment rule. and i think that it's important to acknowledge that this decision was unanimous, and it was agreed upon by all of our service chiefs. so currently we all know that the service are in the process of validating gender neutral standards and are looking at how to effectively integrate women into the u.s. military fully and i hope that in all moss and all classes that may or may not happen depending on what we find out in the next few months.

by october 15th of this year, each department will have validated its gender neutral occupational standards and completed all the studies that we asked it to do in order to decide what would happen with respect to women being integrated to these last few moss. again, i hope that by january 2016 we'll see an ability for women to be able to if they are fit, if they fit the criteria and if they can and if they wanted to be able to have all positions in units open to them. so earlier this month i questioned all the service chiefs whether they would meet these deadlines and they all stated yes. what does this amendment do? it simply codifyies what the dod has already done which is to eliminate the exclusion policy. mr. chairman we owe to it all the service women who have served this country and to the

many that have given their lives in combat. and to the ones that will come in the future. dod decided to rescind this policy because commanders finally realized that service women were and continue to be an integral part in today's mission of the military. we can no longer deny the fact that service women are on front lines and at this time they are recognized for it. a number of women have been recipients of the combat action badge and far too many have died on the same front line as their fellow service members. on this committee alone we have three service women who can testify to why the passage of this amendment is pertinent to the success of women in the military. the work of this body should not focus on providing effective oversight and accountability in an effort to ensure that unnecessary exceptions to the policy are not accepted and that

ultimately female service members are provide the same opportunities in the military as their male counterparts. so i would hope that you would all vote for this amendment and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. if i could ask the staff a question right quick. the amendment says repeal section 562 of title 10. what does that do? >> mr. chairman, 652 establishes a notice and wait to congress if a position that was closed at the time that the law was adopted, the provision was adopted either opens or closes to women. >> so it's a notice provision to us that there is a change in one

of these positions? >> yes, sir. >> okay. thank you. members wish to be heard on the amendment? gentleman from oklahoma mr. russell. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman i've been working this issue for some time although i'm a late comer to the house armed services committee. i've worked across the aisle with many. it may be assumed because i'm a combat infantryman i may take an unrealistic view on this. i'm the only person in this chamber that has fought as a combat infantryman taken human life buried two female members of my task force and decorated a third for valor. i don't pretend to know anything about flying jets or flying helicopters but i do know something about infantry combat and watching human beings do horrible things. as you know we had secretary

panetta that opened the door for these things to be studied in a methodical manner so the armed forces could then conduct training and do the types of things necessary to make sure that we are able to meet those measures and there are many, like myself that have come to a broad view as we look at the role of women that participate in close quarters combat. i wear the names of two of these on my wrist. this is not a gender issue for me. they also will be included on an infantry monument at fort bening that we're going to dedicate on june 23rd. but we can't make this a gender issue. we have to make this the issue that it is. the short term medical studies that are required that we look at this deal with muscle skeletal injury and can we train up and do the gap and get

to these type of things in our programs. yes, we can. i just returned from fort bening, georgia a week and a half ago. i'm one of three ranger qualified members of both houses of congress. another member is here in this chamber and the other one is in the senate. the standards are being metaphor entry, the armed forces are well on their way to looking at this issue. this is not something that they are trying to hide or ignore. but what this amendment would do and the reason i oppose it today is it circumvents the deadlines that were set for 1 january 2016. now we have all of the armed forces and we've heard testimony that people will be able to lay this out for us at the proper time. if this amendment were to subvert that process it's not only unfair but also taking a short sighted view that as we train these female warriors to meet these tasks we don't want

to break them. we want them to succeed in the future. we want them to become future leaders. we want them to be available for combat readiness. what we don't want to do is place some political game where we don't allow the armed fors to take the time necessary to deal with the cruelties and brutality of close quarters combat and so i urge my colleagues, this system is in place. it's on track. it's going to 1 january of 2016 and we a potential to muck it up today. while i respect my colleagues and i understand the motivations here, we're not that far apart on the issue but we can make it worse with this amendment today. mr. chairman i would urge all of us in this chamber today to take these things into account. like i said i don't pretend to know much about flying jets or flying helicopters. i do understand the brutalities of killing human beings at arm's

length and we have to take these things into account and let people do this through the armed forces as we go to 116 or 1 january 2016 as we see the armed forces trying to meet these requirements. i believe it can to be done. i believe it can to be done in the right fashion. i believe we can get to that with bipartisan methods and i'll be the first in line for that. but please i urge you do not support this amendment today. it will throw a wrench in all of the things that have been done in the last year. thank you mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back. chair yields to himself. i think there may be some confusion here because there's been a revision to this amendment and i've been trying to double check my understanding. and i would invite miss sanchez or staff or anybody to correct me if i'm wrong but that's why i asked staff the question. this amendment repales section

652 and section 652 just says the military has to give us notice every time they open or close a specialty. i just don't understand why we would want to not get notice. so that we could do the oversight. it doesn't say more or less it doesn't say faster or slower, it just says if you make a change you got to tell us. we've had so much discussion in this committee over the years about this broader issue we got to do our oversight and we ought to have them tell us if they open one, if they close one any decision they make they ought to tell us. if i'm missing somebody i invite somebody to correct me. i don't know why we wouldn't want to do that. what i under that's what this amendment does. gentlelady from illinois, miss duckworth. >> i thank the chairman. i want to thank my good friend the gentle woman from california

bringing this amendment forward. i'm proud to co-sponsor it. as we debate this issue it's important to remember what women in combat already have done and accomplished. even though we've been excluded from certain positions women have served in this nation's military whenever possible. they are already in these combat positions. yes we're talking about officially opening up new combat positions but frankly it's already happening. you have infantry units. you have ground units that have female medics attached to them. you have females out there carrying 80 pounds and wearing the gear and stressing their pelvic muscles. it's already happening. i think that by adding more hoops to make the department go through would simply slow down the process. and removing this language allows us to reflect the current realities twin military. it allows to us move beyond words and confinements of antiquated.

it recognizes efforts that the department has made and cosmopolitans to make in expanding the service capabilities of women. i've heard these arguments time and again about the reviewing medically whether or not women can do this. when i was flying helicopters people were saying you know, maybe the female uterus can't take it. we said the same thing about marathon runners before we let women run marathons. it's antiquated. we are there. the military is already doing this. and we're simply allowing these women who are competing in places like army raininger school at successfully complete the course and are able to finally proudly wear that ranger tab to actually be eligible to join a ranger regiment. they are sisters in marine corps going through the school of infactry but even though they passed enlisted course they will not be allowed to serve anyone factry. by striking this section perhaps

we can take a step in the right direction. it always strikes me you know, when i was wounded and i was come through the halls of congress talking on veterans issues i was stopped by members of this house of representatives who asked me how i felt about women serving in combat. and i looked down at the stumps that were left of my legs and wonder where did they think i had been in a bar fight? i was in combat. women are in combat now. some woman can't handle it as infantrymen and some men can't handle it. but let them compete. the ones who can make it will make it and let them proudly do the jobs that they want to do to defend this great nation. we need to stop being surprised that americans daughters are just as capable of defending liberty and doing their jobs as well as her sons are and with

that i yield back mr. chairman. >> ranking member is recognized. >> thank you. we need to know what we're voting on here because it seems to be two entirely different things. miss sanchez as i one it intended to off end an amendment to basically open up you know, pretty much whatever women are capable of doing open it up to them whatever men are capable ever doing which we tuned military is looking at and slowly progress and miss sanchez's amendment is go ahead dynasty you have our blessing. that's what she wanted to do. now we're told the actual language of this is simply a notice requirement. so which is it? and how did we get mixed up and if miss sanchez intends to offer something different then we ought to unwind this process and let her offer what she wants to offer. so staff, you know what have we got? >> if the gentleman would yield

maybe one suggestion is if the gentlelady would withdraw this amendment -- >> let me withdraw it. let me see why staff came up with this. >> then we'll come back to the issue while we're still in this section of the bill. we'll come back to it. i any we're on two different wave lents. >> this is not what i intend to put forward. >> i appreciate the efforts of the ranking member to help straighten this out, this amendment is withdrawn at this point. further amendments? gentleman from new york, mr. gibson. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment.

without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman, and let me just begin by expressing my gratitude to the chairman and the ranking member for their work. my amendment does strike the section of the underlying bill that deals with the military retirement system but it's really because of this central point that i think we need to do more education on this. we were talking about a complete overhaul of the military retirement system and my initial read of it there are some things in there that i think are exciting and things i think that our troops and families will really like. but i also think there are some aspects in this that are not fully understood and i do expect they will pose some aspects of it. for example, you know, we're looking at the potential of a cut in retirement pay. now could it be offset as well

with tsp. but, you know, when you look at the language here and i have sampled, like the previous gentleman that spoke mr. russell, i spent 29 years in uniform before i came here and i still have relationships all throughout the military and die a sampling and it was anecdotal and a lot of people aren't tracking this major change. with all the changes in military it would behoove us given the language in the underlying bill doesn't move to implementation date until 1 october of 2017. i strongly urge us to instead of putting this into law at this moment, what we should do instead is strike that and put a sense of the congress in that urges members to reach out to troops, veterans and their families to get their feedback. ultimately i think if we spent some time on this i think we have a good chance of gaining their support for what we're trying to do.

i believe this that in my time in uniform, you know, it was so important to listen to my noncommission officers, my subordinate commanders and my paratrooper. this was very important to the knit that we got a shared sense of the vision of the organization before we moved forward. and, you know, i think that it's incumbent upon us now to listen before we put this into law and i'm certainly very understanding how this has been expressed is that we'll put it into law now and then we'll listen and then we can always adjust it if we find changes going forward. respectfully, i think that we're in no rush to do this. i think we're better off listening first before we implement this and let me just invoke a little bit of history here. the last time we did a major change of the retirement system was in 1986. and/or in the 1980s. what we said then after a

certain date i believe it was in the summer of 1986 that, you know, we were going to go to a 40% of base pay at 20 years. now we kept that in law from 19 -- the mid-1980s to 1999 because in 1999 what we found out is that we were atrophying. we were losing mid-career soldiers and they were being impacted by that change to the retirement system. now, whether or not this commission's recommendations will lead to that is unknown i think, and i do think what we should be doing instead is really expressing our gratitude for the commission because they've done tremendous work i think and really going over this in great detail and now pointing to my amendment which strikes the implementation and moves to a sense of congress. expresses gratitude to the commission and urges members to engaging listening sessions with troops, veterans and family

members to solicit their input, gain consensus and support for what they're doing so this time next year we can legislate from a position of strength and understanding where our service members and their families are. then in this amendment we keep the requirement for the department of defense to come back to us before that process starts next year so by next 1 march the dod comes back with their official position and how they would implement it. i would say, mr. chairman this amendment i'm offering still achieves the intent of our subcommittee chair but it doesn't require us at this moment to put into statutory language the commission's recommendations until such time that we've listened to our service members, veterans and their families. and with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from nevada. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i appreciate the gentleman's concern from new york. it's a change to the currents retirement system. i would point out the commission itself spent two years of listening sessions multiple town halls across the country thousands of hours, multiple surveys before they came to this recommendation. in fact informed by the very history that you laid out about the loss of mid-grade officers when the last change was made which is why they have a component of continuation pay offered somewhere between the ten and 12 year mark to try to keep people in longer, to entice the home stay until 16 and then feel the pull of 20. the administration and the department of defense was suppose freezing drizzle provide their comments on the proposal to congress by march 30th not surprisingly they missed that deadline and they will now hopefully get it to us by april 30th. it won't take to march 1st of next year. administration's position was due to us by march 30th. hopefully they will be here by

the end of this month. but what the provisions in the bill state is that we take into consideration the concerns that many of the dsos expressed about losing the e8s and e9s after 20 years of service because there's no continued match. we tell dod continue the match past 20 years of service unlike the commission. we talked about taking out the lump sum payments that would put retirement funds at risk after somebody leaves. but what we're saying to dod is take recommendations as we spell them out in the bill, come back to us with an implementation plan and identify any challenges that you may see by march 1st of next year before the nda season begins so that if we need to redirect course we can but we continue to march towards an implementation date of march 1st, 2017. if you read the commission's report look at the various they

condubtd, this hybrid or blended retirement system is overwhelmingly supported by younger troops, those who normally leave after four to six years with nothing. keep in mind that everyone who is currently serving is grandfathered and will not be put into this new blended retirement system unless they opt to do so and because of the concerns about the changes made to the retirement system and based on the amendment of mr. klein which we just adopted this will be included in the robust financial literacy programs that will be instituted to make sure that members newly assessed members of the military to whom this would apply are counselled at multiple phases during their career on the retirement system on the continuation pay on the tsps that they are making the right choice for themselves. we want to move it forward to delay anything for another year. we would still be further out in

implementation. we struck a balance addressing the concerns of the dsos along with the commission's recommendations and laying out a path forward in trying to get implementation within a reasonable period of time and i yield back. >> gentlelady from california, miss davis. >> thank you. i want to back up dr. hack on this because this does not preclude any of us forgoing out to our constituents forgoing to the bases, or anywhere we might choose to go to talk to people about these issues who are affected by them. and, i really do believe that of all the commissions that i've had a chance to listen to over the years that we had a very thoughtful group of folks who are engaged in this and they really did some exhaustive work. it's important i think after people do that that we begin to take a step and this is not a leap, this is really a step forward so that we can be assured that we actually have a

pathway to make a change that's going to work for the greatest number of service members and i think that if we do this in this way we'll still have that opportunity, we'll still have the opportunity to hear from the service chiefs and from all of our services from our reserves as well and that that will be helpful as we discussed with the senate and go conference and as we make this decision. i think the fact that we really tacked this into 2017 is very clear that we're not jumping immediately, but we're going forward and we look for the input of many, many people in this realm. i do believe that it's a decision that at this time we feel is a thoughtful one. it's not, you know just let's change it for change sake. this is something that i think can make a difference for the men and women who serve our country and with that the kind of support and help that they

will get to be able to make these decisions in what is best for them and what is best for their family. i yield back. >> chair recognizes himself. i rise in opposition to this amendment. and i think it's important for everybody to remember that this proposal did not just spring out of this commission as true as everything that the gentlelady from california just said is. there has been concern for some time that a system where you don't gate dime of retirement unless you stay in the military 20 years is going to enable us to attract and keep the kind of top quality people we need in the military. 83% of the people who serve in the military leave without a dime of retirement. and if you serve for 19 years and you leave you get not a dime of retirement. and so the idea that we need to not save money and the commission focused on what we need to do to recruit and retain

people in the way that labor force is changing. and, you know, we could study and we could could do all sorts of things indefinitely as has happened before, or we could take a step, build on what the commission has recommended, improve it i think in two substantial ways and then continue to listen to the service chiefs to the military -- to the veteran service organizations and others about how to fine tune it and make sure it works. and we can do that all the way through conference, and then we've got a year to make further adjustments before it takes effect, but human nature is what it is. the members of the military are not going to focus in on the best choices for them until it's real. so that's why we need to make it real adjust this through conference to get it right and then there's a year to do this education for the choices that they have ahead of them.

i think it makes no sense whatsoever to delay this further. in effect you're just going to kill it. i think that the gentle lady from is exactly right. this is not a leap, this is a step. it's a step that that applies only prospectively to new people who come in. it is voluntary for the people who are in there now, but i got to say there's a lot of skepticism we're even going to do this step because of the past history on retirement issues. i think this is absolutely the time we have to do it. as we work to improve acquisition, as we work to reduce overhead we must also work to improve our personnel system in the way we attract and keep people, so i think this is really important, and we need to stick with what the subcommittee has done and build on it for the future. i yield back the rest of my time

and yield to the distinguish ranking member for any comments he'd like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mostly what he said. i agree with absolutely every single thing the chairman just said, and i just want to emphasize one piece of it and i have an enormous amount of respect for mr. gibson. i think he's a great member of the committee. i just think he could not be more wrong by saying that, you know, we need to look at this further. and as the chairman and i think some others have pointed out, it's not just this commission a commission, by the way with a ton of very distinguished people that spent an enormous amount of time talking to an enormous number of service members to get their opinion. we have been talking and studying and discussing and theorizing about the retirement system in the military for as long as i have been in congress. so the idea that the reason not to vote for this is that we need more time boggles my mind.

we have looked at it. now, you can always argue that when you do something legislatively, as time evolves you might learn something and learn ways you want to change it, but if that's a winning argument, we should all just close up shop and go home. we should just shut down the congress and never pass anything because you're going to learn stuff as you go along, sure. but on this issue we have looked at it over and over and over again. i just don't see any credibility to the argument that we haven't studied it properly or talked to the service members properly. we've done that, and we've got a proposal that is as the chairman described. i won't restate all of that because i agree with exactly how he described it but it is time, folks, to move on this, so i strongly oppose this amendment. >> chairman yields back. gentle lady from new york is

recognized for five years. >> i would like to yield my time to mr. gibson. >> i thank the gentle lady and with the highest regard and respect for the preceding comments, i'll just say that we are not united right now. this proposal, the vep transservice organizations are split on it right now and if you look at the details of what's in the underlying mark we don't put it into law, in effect until 1 october of 2017. so i don't see why there's such opposition to my amendment because at the end of the day if we spend the next year building the consensus, listening to our noncommissioned officers and listening to our officers, troopers, and families we're going to be in a stronger position to legislate next year with their support with a full understanding of what we're doing. as i have said, there are some things in the commission i think that are going to be popular,

but let's be candid here and for all to know that this vote is a vote depending on what one does with the tsp to cut retirement at 20 years. that is a fact. so now we may end up with a consensus that people feel that if they get into the thrift savings program, that they will be able to make that percentage up, that may be possible. but, you know, i think that there are going to be our colleagues on the floor are, given the busy lives we face, i think they'll be surprised they're looking at a vote that will cut retirement. so, you know, again, i think there are pays to explain this and to try to make it more understanding in many different directions but i think this is premature, to put this in statute right now when we're not talking about implementing it until 1 october of 2017. i will tell you as a guy who led troopers in combat that i never felt like i listened to my ncos too much. i just never had that feeling. i always benefited from the time

i listened to their counsel and the art of decision making -- well, it's an art and a science, and the science is understanding when you have to make the call, and i don't see why we have to put this into law right now given the fact that the time lines don't require that. i think we only get stronger by building consensus, and so with due respect again for the foregoing comments, i would say i think our best move is to accept this amendment and continue to stay committed going forward. and i'll yield back to the gentle lady. thank you very much for allowing me to speak. >> mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. >> i think unfortunately, i have already made my first rookie mistake and not waiting until my chair and ranking member spoke and gave their opinion, but i actually do agree with congressman gibson of new york. just experienced in talking to a lot of former platoon members, some that are still in some that are serving in -- as staff

sergeant and higher, other friends currently in the military. they're very confused what's going on here. i tried explaining to them and i know if they're confused there are going to be thousands of families that are going to be confused, both dependents and current members and sons and daughters that want to join the military. for that reason i really do agree and support congressman gibson's amendment. thank you. >> gentleman from oklahoma mr. russell. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to echo mr. gibson's remarks in support of this amendment and point out that the amendment still honors the 1 march 16 consultation and could still abide by what the base language is. mr. chairman, several have expressed through questioning not being able to see any reason why we would need such an amendment, and i want to thank the chairman for allowing me to

participate in one of the subcommittee meetings that addressed this issue. to date though, i think there's a misunderstanding of what retirement pay is, and as very few retirees of the active force reside in congress, i think it's important to point out that retirement is retainer pay. it is not some transferrable type of collected property. it is retainer pay. it is half pay for half duty. it's also important to point out that as a member that has retired, you never come off duty. you get half rations for half duty, and you are subject to recall for the rest of your life. i recall during the gulf war a world war ii veteran who had a specialty that was recalled to active duty. he was as surprised as everyone else but he held a certain skill that was needed, and he reported for duty. it's also important to look at you will find broad support for

something transferrable so that something could be accrued. that's true even of the military retirees that exist such as myself and mr. gibson but what is important to note here is that you can have great harm come to retention and recruiting if something does not get you past the ten-year point and you have skill sets that if they walk after years of investment and millions of dollars worth of training, then we have lost them, and i know that there are a handful of us i see the retired sergeant major nodding his head on many of these points because we do understand this, and all this is asking -- this is not asking to throw a wrench in the works. it's not asking to alter the time line or kick the can down the road but it is asking to have a report, to get a chance to address some of these issues in consultation with those of us and others or whoever might be able to shed some additional light that we have not heard from the panel. we've not heard from the members. we've not heard from the voss.

when i listen to many of the vsos, there was only one out of seven of them present that was even a retiree to get at some of these issues and i think that's very important to bring that broadly because it will impact so many. so i would just ask for consideration in support of this amendment. i don't see it as a delay or see it as a gumming up of the works. rather, i see it as being able to address some of these legal differences. it's also unknown that as retainer pay there are legal constructs that are different than if it were a 401(k) or something like that. if you had division of property in a 401(k), that's under one set of laws. if you have retainer pay, the sats states have a say in that and how that property would be divided. these are issues that have not come up at all in any of the studies that i have seen to date. i hope that they will, and i