we will now resume on which roll call votes were ordered. it looks like we have ate. filming numb per 181 on climate change. conoway on alternative fuel facilities, rodgers 188 on pistol transfers. broadstein, 225 revised on un'companied children. 248 on land wraufl. bishop 184 on utah test range. brine stein 138 on prairie chicken and a beetle. kauffman 194 on military land act. so i think we'll go ahead and start the roll call. we may a little paw and give members a chance to come back, but the issue before the committee is a roll call vote on dr. fleming's amend on 181 on

the climate change. the clerk will call the rorn. >> mr. thorn bury. aye. >> mr. smith? mr. smith voice no. mr. joens? mr. jones votes aye. ms. sanchez. ms. sanchez votes no. mr. toeshs. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady votes no. mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis. ms. davis votes no. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. longman votes no. mr. lo biando votes no. mr. larsen? mr. larsen? mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner?

mr. turner votes aye. ms. berdaio? she votes no. mr. klein? mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mr. rodgers? mr. rodgers? ms. tsonag votes no. mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster? mr. schuster? mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. mr. conoway? mr. conoway votes aye. ms. speer? ms. speer votes no. mr. lamborn? mr. lamborn 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. vissi? mr. vissi votes no. mr. kauffman votes aye. ms. gabbard? ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes no. mr. walls? mr. walls votes no. ms. hartzler? ms. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck? dr. heck votes no. mr. nor cross? mr. nor cross votes no. mr. scott? mr. scott votes aye.

mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai? mr. takai votes no. mr. nuj envotes aye. ms. graham? ms. gram vogt no. mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes no. mr. briden stein? mr. briden stein votes aye. mr. molten? mr. molten votes no. dr. win strom votes aye. mr. ailing we lard votes. miswolorski votes aye. mr. byrne? mr. byrne votes aye.

mr. graves? mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinki? mr. ziismt inki votes aye. ms. still panic votes no. mrs. mcsally? ms. mcsalary? mr. knight? mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur? mr. mcarthur? mr. russell? mr. russell votes aye. mr. larsen? mr. larsen votes no. mr. courtney? mr. rodgers? mr. rodgers votes aye. mr. schuster. ms. mcsally? mr. mcarthur?

the clerk will report the result. >> mr. chairman, there are 29 aye votes, 30 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. the issue is on the amendment number 279 by mr. conoway of texas regarding alternative fuel facilities. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thorn bury. >> aye. >> mr. smith? mr. smith votes no. mr. jones? mr. jones votes aye. missanchez? ms. sanchez votes no.

mr. forbes? mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady? mr. brady votes no. mr. miller? mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis? ms. davis votes no. mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes aye? mr. long i van votes no. mr. lo biando? mr. lo biando votes aye. mr. larsen? mr. larsen votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes aye. >> mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner? mr. turner votes aye. ms. bordiao votes no. mr. klein? mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. courtney?

mr. rodgers? mr. rodgers votes aye. ms. tsongas votes no. mr. franks? mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster? mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway? mr. conaway votes aye. ms. speer? ms. speer votes no. mr. lamborn? mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. castro? mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman? >> aye. >> mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth? ms. duckworth votes no. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes aye.

mr. peters? mr. peters voice no. dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes eye. mr. advici votes no. mr. kauffman? mr. kauffman? mr. kauffman votes aye. misgabbard? ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson? mr. -- son votes no. mr. walls? mr. walls votes no. mrs. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes no dr. heck? dr. heck votes no. mr. norcross? mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott? mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks?

mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai? mr. takai votes no. mr. nugent? mr. nugent votes aye. ms. graham? ms. graham votes no. mr. cook? mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes no. mr. bridenstein? mr. briden did not sometime votes aye. mr. molton? mr. molton votes no. dr. win strom votes aye. mr. aguilar? mr. aguilar votes no. ms. vilorski votes aye. mr. byrne votes aye. mr. graves. mr. zinki. mr. zinko votes aye. mismcsally?

mismcsally votes no. mr. knight? mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur? mr. russell? mr. russell votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mr. schuster? mr. schuster votes aye. mr. mcarthur?

>> the clerk will report the result. mr. chairman, there are 29 aye votes, 32 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. question occurs by mr. rodgers of alabama, the clerk will call the rod. >> mr. thornbury votes aye. mr. smith? mr. smith votes no. mr. jones? mr. jones, ms. sanchez votes no. mr. "forbes" votes aye. mr. brady mr. miller? >> mr. miller votes aye. misdavis. mr. wilson? mr. millsen votes eye.

mr. lo biando. mr. larsen? mr. larsen votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner? mr. turner votes aye. ms. bordio votes no. mr. klein? mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mr. rodgers? mr. rodgers votes aye. mistsongas. ms. tsongas. mr. franks? mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi votes no. mr. shuers votes aye. mr. johnson?

mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway? mr. conaway votes aye. ms. pierce. ms. speer votes no. summer castro votes no. mr. whitman. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth votes. mr. hunter votes aye. believesh dr. fleming. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. visi? mr. visi votes no. mr. kauffman? . ms. gabbard? ms. -- mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls? mr. walls votes aye.

mr. orock. mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott votes aye. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai votes no. mr. nugent? mr. nuj envotes aye. ms. graham? ms. gram votes aye. mr. cook? mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes aye. mr. briden din stye. mr. briden stein votes aye. mr. molten? mr. molten votes no.

dr. win strom? dr. win strom votes aye. mr. aguilar? mr. aguilar votes no. mrs. velorski votes aye. mr. byrne? mr. graves? mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinki. mr. zinki either and ms. still panic votes aye. ms. mcsalary votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur. mr. mcarthur? mr. russell? mr. russell votes aye. mr. courtney? ms. tsongas? ms. tsongas votes no?

mr. mcarthur. >> the clerk will report the results. >> mr. chairman there are 40 aye votes, 21 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. the question on curse on amendment 25 as revised reply bridenstein of oklahoma regarding un'companied alien children. mr. thornbury. votes aye. mr. smith votes no. mr. jones votes aye. ms. sanchez votes no. mr. forbes votes aye.

mr. brady votes no. mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. long i van notes no. mr. lo biando votes aye. mr. larsen votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes aye. mr. -- >> misbordio votes no. mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney mr. courtney mr. rodgers.

mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. and mr. conaway? mr. conaway votes aye. ms. speer? misspeer votes no. mr. lamborn? mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. castro? mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth? mr. hunter votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. visi votes no.

mr. kauffman votes no. ms. gabbard? ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls met walls votes no. mrs. hartzler? ms. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke. mr. scott, mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai, mr. takai votes no. mr. nugent. mr. nuj envotes aye. ms. graham?

ms. gram votes no. mr. cook? mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes aye. mr. bridenstein? votes aye. mr. moulton? mr. moulton votes no. votes aye. mr. aguilar. mr. byrne votes eye. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinke votes aye. misstefanek votes aye. ms. mcsally? ms. mcsallie votes aye. mr. knight? mr. knight votes aye.

mr. mcarthur? mr. russell? mr. russell votes aye. mr. courtney. roll kay.

mr. thorn bury votes aye. mr. smith votes no. mr. jones votes aye. ms. sanchez. ms. sanchez votes no. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady. mr. miller mr. miller vote aye. ms. davis votes no. mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes aye. mr. langevin votes no. mr. lobiando? no, mr. lobiando votes aye. mr. larsen votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner? mr. turner votes aye. ms. bordayo votes no.

mr. klein votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mr. rodgers? mr. rodgers votes aye. ms. tsongas votes no. mr. franks? mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster? mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway votes aye. ms. speer votes no. mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. castro. mr. whitman votes aye.

mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. peters. mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming. doctor phlegm i votes aye. mr. vissi votes no. mr. kauffman votes aye. ms. gabbard ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson votes no. mr. walls, ms. hartzler? votes aye. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck. dr. heck votes no. mr. norcross? mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott? mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes no.

mr. brooks? mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai? votes no. mr. nugent? mr. nugent votes aye. ms. graham? ms. graham votes no. mr. cook. mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford? mr. moulton? dr. wen strom votes aye. mr. aguilar votes no. mr. walorski votes aye. mr. byrne? mr. byrne votes aye.

zinke votes aye. ms. stefanik votes aye. ms. mcsally? votes aye. mr. knight? mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur mr. russell. mr. courtney? mr. mcarthur the clerk will

report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 33 aye votes, 28 no votes. >> and the amendment is adopted. i might just note both mr. courtney and mr. mcarthur have talked to me about circumstances that make it hard for them to be here at this particular moment. i don't want to speak for them, but they both have very good reasons at this moment. unfortunately the committee's got to proceed. the question occurs on amendment number 184 by mr. bishop regarding utah test range. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thornbury votes aye. mr. smith votes no mr. jones votes aye. ms. sanchez votes no. mr. forbes votes aye.

mr. brady votes no. mr. miller votes aye mrs. davis. ms. davis votes no. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. langevin votes no. mr. lobiando votes aye. mr. larsen votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner votes aye. ms. bordallo votes no. mr. kline votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mister rogers votes aye.

mistsongas votes no. mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway votes aye. ms. speer votes no. mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth votes no. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. vissi votes no.

mr. kauffman votes aye. ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls votes no. mrs. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott vote aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai, mr. that kyle votes no. mr. nugent vote aye.

ms. graham votes no. mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford votes no. mr. bridenstein votes aye. mr. moulton votes no dr. wen strum votes no. mr. byrne votes aye. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinke votes aye. misstefanik votes aye. ms. mcsally votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur? mr. russell?

mr. russell votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. mcarthur?

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman there are 35 aye votes, 26 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. the question occurs on amendment 28 by mr. bridenstine on the lesser prairie chicken. the clerk will call the roll. mr. thorn bury. >> pass mr. thornbury passes.

mr. smith votes no. mr. jones votes no. ms. sanchez votes no. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. brady votes no. mr. miller votes aye. misdavis votes no. mr. wilson voice aye. mr. lobiando votes no. mr. larsen voice know. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper votes no. mr. terner votes bordallo votes

no. mr. kline votes aye. mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mister rogers votes aye. ms. tsongas votes no. mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway votes aye. missystem peier votes no mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman vote aye. ms. duckworth votes no. mr. hunter votes aye.

mr. peters votes no. doctor fleming votes aye. mr. beesy? mr. kauffman votes aye. ms. gabbard votes no. mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls votes no. ms. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck votes aye. mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks votes aye.

mr. takai. mr. takai votes no. mr. nugent votes aye. ms. graham votes no. mr. cook votes aye mr. ashford votes no. mr. bridenstine votes aye. mr. moulton votes no. dr. wen strum votes aye. mr. aguilar votes no. ms. walorski votes gyre. mr. byrne votes aye. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zin keismt e votes aye.

ms. stephanic votes aye. ms. mcsally votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur? mr. russell? mr. russell votes aye. mr. vissi votes no. mr. courtney votes no. mr. thorn bury votes aye.

the clerk will call the roll on the land act. >> mr. thorn bury votes aye. mr. smith votes no. mr. jones votes aye. ms. sanchez votes no mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson votes aye. mr. langevin votes no.

mr. larsen votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner? mr. turner? ms. bordallo votes no. mr. kline votes aye mr. courtney votes no. mister rogers votes aye. ms. tsongas votes no. mr. franks votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. schuster votes aye. mr. johnson voice no. mr. conaway votes aye. ms. speier votes no.

mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. castro votes no. mr. whitman votes aye. ms. duckworth votes no. mr. peters votes no. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. visi votes no. mr. kauffman votes aye. misgabbard votes no. mr. gibson votes no. mr. walls votes no. mrs. hartzler votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. dr. heck votes aye.

mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. takai. mr. takai? mr. nugent votes aye. ms. graham votes no. mr. cook votes aye. mr. ashford votes no. mr. bridenstine votes aye. mr. moulton votes no. dr. wenstrup votes aye. mr. aguilar votes no. mrs. walorski votes aye.

mr. byrne votes aye. mr. graves votes aye. mr. zinke votes aye. ms. stefanik votes aye. ms. mcsally votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. mr. mcarthur. mr. russell votes aye. mr. turner? mr. takai? mr. takai votes no. mr. mcarthur?

the clerk will report the results. mr. chairman there were 33 aye votes, 28 no votes. >> and the amendment is adopted. if there are no further amendments to this portion of the mark, i recognize the gentleman from virginia mr. whitman for the purpose of offering a motion. >> i move to adopt the subcommittee record on the subcommittee on readiness as amended. >> those in favor say aye, those opposed say no. the ayes have it a quorum being present, the ayes have it, and the motion is adopted. let me give everybody kind of where we are. we're supposed to have votes on

the floor in the next 15 minutes or so. we're going to proceed to personnel and get as far as we can before votes. based on a bit earlier. we have stanalone amendments. that just gives you a road map of what we've got before us yet this evening. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on personnel pursuant to rule 17 in consultation with mr. smith wee postpone recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee until the end of the mark. chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, dr. heck for any comments he'd like to make. >> the market in front of you is a product of an own bipartisan

process it provides the care and support they need, deserve and have earned. as always, the guying consideration for our work is the viability and readiness of the force, while we do not break faith with the retirees, family members and survivors. we have studied ways to inform and improve. we aplochd this through the reform and the effects that change could have on the value and sustainability of the benefit. whether it was the commissary system or the delivery of quality health care. additional we focused on as the modernization. are not expert opinionsened research on these issues, we're appreciative for everyone as input. the military service orgzization department of defense, the military compensation and retirement modernization commission, and many others. we seriously considered all views and concerned before deciding on a way forward. i want to express my appreciation to ranking member

davis and the rest of the submitt bee for their -- specifically this year's proposals hash a -- reel reverses the reductions lessening the strains. reforms the commissary benefit while improving the system on it remains an excellent value for shoppers. expands leave for dual military adoptive parents, including the house-passed bill that -- active duty service are eligible for in arlington. and modernizes the code of justice to address issues identified by the justice review group. this group of provisions will improve the system's efficiency and transparency while also enhancing victims' rights. finally i want to express my precious for the hard work of the staff and or gao detailee. i encourage all members and

yield back the balance of my time. i recognize the gentle lady from -- >> thank you for collegiate fashion work, and the staff that have worked also in a bipartisan manner to develop this mark. i think the chairman would probably agree, sometimes we agreed with one another more than we now and then. we worked well together. . and to enter our commitment to taking care of military. it includes reforming that will put the core sear on a sustainable path while retaining benefits. and as dr. heck mentioned.

we have included extensive reforming and these provisions are the result of two years of work with the group that was tasked by modernizing the justi. the mark also improves child abuse reporting by stat torely requiring the defense to provide for the annual family advocacy program report to congress at the same time as the annual result from the sexual assault prevention and response office. as i have stated in our subcommittee markup, i support continued pay raises for service members, but i am concerned, i will reiterate that i support certainly this portion of the mark, but i am concerned that by increasing them above the requested amount, we are taking funds from other critical priorities, including and specifically readiness. i find it equally concerning that we would restrict the president's ability to make changes to the pay raise as

authorized in statute. any additional money in a military family's budget greatly matters. just to give you a sense of scale involved, this additional half percent pay raise will provide an e-4 with an additional $11 a month but it will cost a total of $330 million which must be taken out of somewhere, somewhere else in this budget. as my colleague mentioned earlier, you may have seen the fox news segment highlighting aviation mechanics in the marine corps who have to skroung for parts because they do not have the funding to purchase them. that's readiness money which keeps our troops ready for flight. this would further raid those accounts in order to fund a pay increase again of about $11 a month for an e-4. when i speak to our sailors and marines, the message to me is

clear. the lack of these parts creates a service morale problem. the chairman spoke as well about looking into the eyes of pilots, mechanics, commanders who don't have necessarily what they need. so we want to be concerned and compensating as fully as possible, but at the same time, this directly impacts our ability to keep our troops safe. i'm also concerned about the committee's increase of 20,000 soldiers through the active army as well as the increases it includes for the reserve component by requiring this number of soldiers without providing the money or support to pay for it in the base budget. the committee is offering an unfunded mandate that would result in a larger but more hollow force. the world we all know is a very dangerous place, in many places. and the pace of combat operations will most likely not diminish in the near future. so in light of these dangers, i

don't disagree that the army may need more soldiers, but the army has not provided us with the requested number, nor have they told congress how they would create the appropriate force structure to use these additional soldiers. the mark already removes $1.1 billion from military personnel accounts for overseas contingency operations, applying the money to cover a base budget increase of 20,000 troops for army. as a result, there will only be enough funding for contingencies to last seven months and that assumes current operations don't increase. worse than that, we could end up in a situation where congress, having required the army to increase its end strength, then ends up forcing the army to draw down by 30,000 soul zeldiers wi this course of action. mr. chairman, i bring this all forward because it's important for us to keep it in context and keep it in perspective. as i said earlier, i do support

the mark, but i continue to think that we have to be focused on these concerns as well. i look forward to continuing with the chairman to ensure that we resource our military services in a responsible manner. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentle lady. other discussion regarding this portion of the mark, i yield myself just briefly. i would just say, i do not disagree with the concerns that the gentle lady and the ranking member before her have laid out regarding what happens in the future. i think those are all valid points that we do need to keep in mind. at the same time, what we have before us right now is the fy -- fiscal year 2017 national defense authorization act. and we do not add new people to the army, but we prevent it from being cut any further. and hopefully new congress and a new administration will take a different view as far as

permitting further cuts in the army and of course in the other services. the only other point i would just mention is i take the gentle lady's point that the pay raise is $11 a month for an e-4, and yet, that's a co-pay to take a kid to the doctor. that's what the formula says it's supposed to be. if the formula is wrong, maybe we all need to look at that and redo the formula, but for several years now what the formula says they're supposed to get they have not gotten. and so i think that's part of the reason that many of us think that we ought to have the full formula which is admittedly not much. it's 2.1%, $11 a month, but that $11 a month when you're taking a kid to the doctor still adds up. so i think having the full pay raise this year is the right thing. preventing further cuts in the

army is the right thing, but i fully take the gentle lady's point. we have issues to deal with in the future, and those do not go away by the action we take this year. is there other discussion on this portion of the mark? if not, are there amendments to this portion of the mark? the gentleman from nevada have an amendment at this point? >> mr. chairman, i ask to call up on block package number one consistent with amendments approved by the minority. >> if the court will please pass out end block number one.

>> without objection, the amendments are considered as read, and dr. heck is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on block package number one it's kpiezed of the following, amendment 14 by mr. larsen to require a briefing concerning the availability of service members and combat armed specialties. 148 by ms. davis to conduct a feasibility study of dual shared parental leave in the case of one member giving birth to a child. 149 which directs the secretary of defense to develop a plan of action to address overpayments and student loan interest by eligible military borrowers. amount 155 requiring a briefing on potential reduced funding for stars and stripes.

171 by mr. o'rourke which places responsibility for m.i.a. individuals for current conflicts understand the secretary of defense instead of defense p.o.w. m.i.a. accounting agency. the amendment by mr. forbes to account for manpowerincreases necessitated by ndaa requirements on cruiser and carrier wing force structure. amendment 243 by mr. gibson which updates title ten, hiring authorities for military education. 265 by mr. walz which is a sense of congress that an adequately full time support of military technicians is essential to maintaining readiness in the current size of the support force as the minimum and the amend by mr. walls which amends authority to direct the secretary of defense to identify manpower and associated costs for the year of execution and

provide a 30-day notice to the congressional defense committees. >> the gentleman yields back. are there others who wish to discuss the on block package? if not, the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from nevada. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. further amendments, the gentleman from florida? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the staff would please distribute the amendment.

>> without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd first like to recognize the 12 co-sponsors of this piece of legislation. mr. bishop, mrs. bar dell low, mr. miller, mr. walz, mr. jones, mr. gibson, mr. gabbard, mr. bridenstine, mr. cook and ms. zinke. this amendment would guard technicians as personnel for the purpose of furlough. they're uniformed full-time guardsmen but paid differently. the technicians essentially wear 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 duel status technicians are the maintainers of aircraft and vehicles. they are the linchpin of

readiness for the entire unit and are critical to first response missions. however, these are currently subject to furlough. we found this out the hard way in 2013. for florida this was particularly dangerous because of a potential hurricane that was brewing off the coast and the national guard helicopters couldn't get off the ground because the maintainers were furloughed. our state representative faces similar natural disasters. to correct this problem, congress has had to pass an annual fix. three years ago mr. palazzo and i led an amendment that protected mill tax and that amendment passed by voice. last year we debated this exact same amendment in this committee during the ndaa markup and it passed by voice. so it's safe to say if you were here during the markup last year, you also voted in favor of this amendment. i urge you all to support this simple amendment, and i yield back. >> the gentleman from minnesota,

mr. walz. >> thank you, mr. chairman. briefly, i'd like to thank the gentleman for putting this forward. in full disclosure, i was one of these technicians. you wear your uniform to work. you're paid as a gs. in my case i was a one-man armory. all the readiness, training and administrative duties for that unit, preparation for drill, deployment and state and natural disaster callups was done by that person. as the gentleman said, all my technicians, all my mechanics, when they're furloughed, that entire guard unit is shut down, the readiness is reduced to zero and i don't think anyone intended that. this is a smart thing to do. these folks need to be there to make the unit work and it's a great fix. i yield back. >> mr. gibson. >> i just want to add my voice to this. due to the peculiarities of the way we shape the force, we have this duel status. without these maintainers, without the folks who keep our

vehicles and our aircraft moving and flying, we're not going to be mission capable and then the governors don't have that response as well. i know that we've done this year to year but i think it's very important that we actually put this in law. so i strongly support it. thank you, mr. chairman. yield back. >> the chair yields to himself briefly just to say i agree with everything y'all have said. i also believe it's a dangerous precedent to start exempting groups from see questions trags. we had this discussion last year, we went ahead and adopted it. i'm sure we will again, but just a warning, this is a dangerous territory to be starting to exempt groups. i think the better result is to fix sequestration as we have talked about that, it definitely needs to be done, and that will get us past that. the gentle lady from california, briefly? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to echo your thoughts because we are exempting only one group in this

and actually the d.o.d. has the authority to exempt civilians from furloughs and has done so for life, safety or mission critical positions. we have that in statute and i think we're better off to proceed in that way. thank you. >> i agree. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. we've got votes on the floor. ten minutes remaining. i suggest everybody get over there. i think we've got three votes and then we will resume with the amendment by mr. walz as soon as votes are over on the floor, please hurry back. the committee stands in recess.

the house armed services committee marking up a $6 million defense programs and policy bill today. the committee taking a break for a number of votes on the house floor. jeremy herb of politico is joining us just outside the hearing room during this break in the meeting.

thanks very much for joining us today. >> thanks for having me. >> tell us in broad strokes what this annual defense authorization bill provides for. >> this is a big pentagon policy bill. it sets policy for the military and the pentagon, ranging on everything from personnel and the pay raise to guantanamo and detainees there. it authorizes the $610 billion in spending for the pentagon. so we're getting bids on all kinds of amendments today and we will continue to into the late hours of the night. >> what are some of the key amendments the key is looking at today? >> so far some of the heated debates have been on immigration. there was one amendment that would prohibit the pentagon from housing uncompanied migrant children. there's also talk about guns. going forward we're going to look at amendments on russian rocket engines, on guantanamo, on the size and scope of the

pentagon budget, given that there still is the budget control act and that budget uses a scheme of taking $18 billion from the budget that's dedicated for war funding and moving it into the base budget. without getting too complicated, it effectively is going to require another supplemental funding measure next may if this were to go through. >> saw in some of the your writing in politico a couple of other issues that amendments are involved with. one is women in combat. how about that? >> that's correct. we haven't gotten into that yet. next up is going to be the military personnel subcommittee where that's likely to come up. congressman duncan hunter has a bill that would require women to register for the selective service. he's opposed to this and he's using it to spark a debate about the pentagon's decision to allow women into all combat jobs. he thinks that's a bad idea, particularly when the marine corps expressed reservations about this.

i think that could spark a fiery debate. >> any surprises so far today? >> well, we had one debate about a world war ii museum that took up a lot of time and the chairman had to negotiate. so far it's been pretty calm. but there's a lot of time left. we've only gotten through three of the six subcommittees and a lot more amendments on the full committee so i would expect a late night. last year they ended at 4:30 a.m. and it wouldn't shock me if it went longer. >> does the committee bring in food and beverages for the members that stay until 3, 4, 5:00 in the morning? >> they do. they have snacks and food and there is dinner, but the numbmes start to get cranky past 10:00 or so. >> where do democrats on the armed services committee stand on support for this bill? >> it's still unclear. generally this bill does pass with a pretty wide bipartisan

majority, but democrats have expressed some concern to the way the bill moves money from the war budget into the base budget to get around the current budget caps. congressman adam smith who's a top democrat on the committee said he didn't know yet if he's going to support this bill. last year he voted for it in committee but against it on the floor. we're going to see if he does the same thing again this year. >> the funding level for the defense programs bill is the amount proposed by the president, but has the white house weighed in on any of the particular programs and policies in the authorization bill? >> the white house hasn't weighed in yet. but defense secretary ash carter today said he was opposed to the way that the bill funds the military, and so that's a good sign that the white house is also going to say that they oppose it. there's plenty else in here that the white house also is going to be against. look at guantanamo, the bill blocks the president from bringing detainees to the u.s., something that he wants to do in the last year of his presidency. that's likely going to get a

veto once the bill goes to the floor. >> once work is completed on the markup and could be a lengthy markup session, what is the timetable for getting this bill to the house floor for debate? >> it's supposed to be on the floor next month in the middle of the month once congress gets back from recess and at the same time the senate armed services committee is going to mark up their version in committee. so we could see this bill moving quickly. there's always a question of getting the bill done and through the floor. typically it isn't finished until november or december and it's unclear whether or not it's going to drag out that long too. >> are you in it for the duration tonight? >> i am not. i took the morning shift and i have a colleague who will be relieving me in a couple of hours for the night shift. >> thanks very much for the update on today's markup. >> thank you.

we're live from the house. we're in an office building. the house armed service committee marking up the $610 billion defense programs and policy bill for fiscal year 2017. the committee in a break right now so members can vote on the house floor. while we wait for the markup session to resume, we'll show you opening statements from earlier today as well as the first part of today's meeting.

>> the committee will now mark up hr 4909, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2017. we all take pride in the fact that for 54 straight years congresses with majorities of both parties have passed and presidents of both parties have signed an annual ndaa. i believe, however, it's more important this year that we do so than at any time since i've been on the committee, which, except for mr. jones, is longer than anyone else. there are several reasons i think it's particularly important this year. one is that we live in a -- is the mic not working?

can y'all not hear out there? okay. all right. i'll try to speak better into the mic. several reasons i think it's particularly important that we do our job this year. one is that we live in a dangerous, complex, rapidly changing world. second is that we're nearing the end of an administration when there are a lot of questions and doubts about u.s. policies and where america is headed in the future. third is that cuts in defense spending in recent years coupled with government shutdowns and standoffs over spending have created uncertainty even among our own service members about how well they will be supported when they are called upon to help defend the country. and so, the importance of

upholding the obligation that the constitution places on congress, the importance of making a clear statement to friends investigator sarys, the importance of reassuring the men and women who serve our nation that they will not be sent on a mission without being fully prepared and fully supported means that we have to do our job and pass this bill, even an imperfect bill as undoubtedly it is and will be. of course, we're going to have differences on various provisions but after we work through them i hope and trust that we can all work together to pass this bill for our service members and for our country. it may also be true every year that we have difficult fiscal choices presented to us. this year something is going to be short changed, but the bottom line for me is that it is

fundamentally wrong to send service members out on missions for which they are not fully prepared and fully supported. for that reason i think it's essential that we begin to correct the funding short falls that have led to a lack of readiness and led to a heightened sense of risk that we've all heard about in our hearings and that we have seen first hand. for years many of us have talked about readiness, but i hope each of you has the opportunity if you haven't already to look into the eyes of a pilot who is getting far less than the minimum number of training hours he or she is supposed to have in order to stay proficient in his or her airplane. or the eyes of a mechanic who is working longer and longer hours with no days off to try to get

the planes flying but are increasingly boding with their feet to leave the military. or of the commander who has been tasked with deploying his unit overseas but does not have the functioning equipment that he is supposed to have and he's not sure when or if he's going to get that equipment. as the committee heard in one of our meetings, the bill payer for a lack of readiness is dead service members. now, to fix readiness takes time, and i've come to realize it's also more than just putting money into operations and maintenance accounts. for example, cuts in end strength can get us to a place where we can never fix readiness because there's not enough people to get the job done, and those we do have are getting worn out. and however good our maintainers are, there's only so much anybody can do to keep 30 and 40-year-old helicopters and

airplanes flying. so that means end strength and procurement are a part of the readiness equation. starting to turn around our readiness short falls while staying within the total dollars requested by the administration means that there's not enough money to fund fully the oco activities proposed by the president for the full year. there will be enough for roughly six months. but there will be a new president who undoubtedly will review the operational activities proposed by president obama as well as the funding for those activities, and the new president and the new congress will have the opportunity to make adjustments. by the way, that is exactly what occurred with the last change of administration. in 2008, this congress, under democratic leadership, passed a bridge fund that funded

operations in afghanistan and iraq into part of the year 2009. then the obama administration came into office, reevaluated what was going on, requested a supplemental, congress passed it and the activities continued. i think the best thing for us to do now is to ensure that whatever operational deployments president obama or the next president sends our military out on, that they are fully prepared and fully supported for those missions. the good work of the subcommittees coupled with the full committee mark accomplishes that goal, i think, and helps ensure that our military capability has both strength and agility, the two characteristics i think best summarize what is essential for protecting our country. it stops more cuts to the size of the army and adds small numbers to the air force and marines. it restores the full pay raise of 2.1% for all service members,

which is what they should get under the statutory formula. it puts more money into facilities. it puts money into readiness accounts for depo and other maintenance and for training and for exercises. it responds to unfunded requirements of ammunition and a variety of weapons and equipment. now, i don't mean to overstate, we are not going to fix readiness or the other problems we face in a single bill, but i will quote churchill to say, this is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, but perhaps it is the end of the beginning if we can turn it around. this bill also contains a number of other reform items which we'll discuss in more detail later. at this point i just want to thank all the members who have contributed to the efforts to improve and update our acquisition system, military healthcare, commissaries,

uniform code of military justice, and to improving and updating the organization and responsibilities of d.o.d., including updating the 30-year-old goldwater/nichols act. those are five major reform packages that are before us today, all of which make significant adjustments. i think our job is not just about allocating money. it's also about continuing to work to see that the taxpayers and our service members get more value for the money we spend, and that updated technology is fielded faster, and that our laws and institutions meet the challenges of the times. we're the largest committee in congress, and i realize some members may view their responsibilities differently, but i feel the weight of two duties which the constitution places on our shoulders. one is to support our nation's security in a way that's consistent with the hopes,

dreams, and sacrifices of generations past, present and future. the other duty is to support the men and women who volunteer to serve in the armed services. if we can do our duty with the same kind of dedication and commitment and strength of purpose that they do their duty, then we will have done our zob. i yield to mr. smith for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the chairman and the members of this committee as well for all the hard work that they've done in putting together this bill. every single member of this committee has contributed to it and contributed to it exactly in the spirit that the chairman just closed his remarks with, to meet our duty to make sure that the men and women who serve in the military have the equipment they need to do what we ask them to do and are as best prepared as possible. and i think we are genuinely trying to do that in this bill. i also agree with the chairman that the threat environment has perhaps never been more complex for the united states.

from russia to iran, to the threat of various violent extremist groups, to north korea and on and on is a very, very complex threat environment out there. it's complex in part because the u.s. has been, since world war ii, the guarantor of security for much of the globe. certainly for south korea and japan and for other parts of the world. and i know there are some who say why are we out there, you know, taking on responsibilities for other nations. i actually think it's worked quite well. if you go back in history in world war i and world war ii, before those wars we took an isolationist approach, we don't want to be out there. we both know how those ended. we wound up in wars that were very costly. being the guarantor of national security across the globe since world war ii has worked out reasonably well but the threat environment is complex and the largest problem that our community faces is we do not

have the money in the short term or the long term to meet all of those complex threats. that's why -- sorry, i should say we are unwilling as a congress to provide the money that is necessary to meet those complex threats. and that is why we have a bill that takes, as the chairman said, and only funds half of oco. five, six months from now in iraq and afghanistan our troops will run out of money. the chairman is quite correct, this was done in 2008 with the new administration coming in and a supplemental was passed. unfortunately the times are different now because in 2008 we did not have the budget control act and the unwillingness to get rid of the budget control act which we have now. not only five months, six months into the new fiscal year will we face a short fall, we will face the return of the budget control

act, which will place severe restrictions on what the department of defense can spend. there has been very little appetite for changing that. even as we make changes in the short term like the agreement that we got last december to get through two years, the long term continues. the budget control act is in place. and what we have still not done is sort of accepted that reality, accept the fact that this is the money we have and therefore we have to adjust our plans and live with them. we continue to hope that the money will appear. and this time, this bill is placing a very high stakes gamble. will there be the votes in congress in april to overturn the budget control act? if there aren't, we're going to have troops committed in iraq and afghanistan who are going to suddenly run out of money. if there isn't, the proposal by the department of defense to reduce our army and our marine corps to levels that even they

admit they would rather not go to, that they are living with the money that they have and if we prevent them from doing that now and all of a sudden in april or may of next year they have to do it in the blink of an eye, that's even worse. so i think this bill is an excellent effort to try to get around this very difficult problem, but i hope some time soon congress will make a decision. you can go one of two ways. one, you say you know what, we're going to either raise the taxes or live with the debt to spend the money we need to spend to meet what we think our defense priorities are. or two, we're not, so therefore we have to readjust what our defense priorities are. we haven't done that. what we've done is we've continued to maintain a belief that we're going to have this amount of money when we have this amount of money. and that could potentially wind up being more harmful to our troops even than not passing a bill. while we're trying to make sure we support the men and women who serve in the military, we have

to do it not just in the short term but in the long term. so i hope we'll get rid of the budget control act. i hope we'll get to a more sensible place. but as the military always says, hope is not a strategy. this bill is based on a lot of hope for what's going to happen next april or may. so while it's a good, solid bill, it spends more money than we have and that's a problem that we're going to have to wrestle with throughout this markup, on the floor and once we get to conference. with that i field back to the chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. before proceeding any further, i have a few announcements to make about today's proceedings. the order of consideration for today's markup of hr 4909 will follow our subcommittee structure. we will begin first with the subject matter that follows under the jurisdiction of a subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, then move to the subcommittee on tactical and

land forces, then the subcommittee on readiness, personnel, strategic forces, and finally the full committee matters. just so members know, my intention is to continue working straight through until there are votes called, which i understand are somewhere around 2:00 to 3:00. so we can get as much done as possible before that time. second, let me remind members that any amendment offered must be in writing and 80 copies must be available at the desk for distribution. for anyone who met the monday deadline, those copies have already been made by the committee staff. in addition, if a member has an amendment that involves the jurisdiction of other committees, we request the member before he or she offers the amendment to have the letter from a respective committee chairman to indicate their waiver of the referral. i impose the same requirement before including language in the

underlying mark. this has been the practice of the committee for many years so we can proceed detectiirectly t house floor. also, it is the practice of the committee that amendments involving additional spending should identify suitable offsets. members must not offer amendments in a point of order on the house floor during its consideration, and i want to remind members that house rules prevent consideration of a bill reported by a committee unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks or a statement that there are none. since it's also the policy of the house republican conference, no member shall offer an earmark. we will not permit it for fiscal year 2017. we operate under the five minute rule in order to allow all interested members the opportunity to speak in an orderly member. members have five legislative days in which to submit written

statements into the record. that objection is so ordered. finally, i want to remind people i tried to use this slide last year as a motivation. unfortunately, this is how some of us looked about 4:00 as we were departing. i'm trying a different approach this year. when i was recently overseas with the speaker, one of the people on our trip recommended this book and then i come home and realize it's on so com's recommended reading list. it's called "brief, make a bigger impact by saying less." one of the recommendations it has for the military is don't use power point. if that's not an advancement of civilization, i don't know what is. i'll just encourage this. the point of the book is we've all got limited attention spans and so make your point right up front, make it quick, and move on. if we can do that over the

course of the day and evening, we will be out a lot quicker than we were before. >> mr. chairman, are you also willing to throw that book at the person who speaks too long? >> um, it's not a very thick book so i'm not sure how much of an impact it will make but it will be available here at my desk if anybody wants to consult. before beginning with the subcommittee reported and following consultation with mr. smith, i ask consent that the provisions contained in the reports of the subcommittees and the chairman's mark which includes full committee provisions be considered for the purposes of this markup as original text of hr 4909 and these provisions be considered as having been read and that the bill be open for amendment at any point. is there objection? without objection it is so ordered. without objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. the committee will now receive

the report of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. that's the way we'll proceed throughout the course of the day. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for any comments he'd like to make. >> mr. chairman, first of all, you and the ranking members were very gracious in thanking all the members for their work on this bill and we were like to thank you and the ranking member for the work that you've done. it's good work and this committee has done good work on this bill and it's because of our leadership and we appreciate that so much. i'm pleased to present to the full committee the sea power and projection forces mark that passed unanimously out of subcommittee. this is the definition of a bipartisan mark and i want to recognize and thank my ranking

member, joe courtney, and all the members of my subcommittee for their help. they've been instrumental in developing what i think is a truly historic mark. over the past year, this committee has heard about the need to choose between presence and posture, capability and capacity. the sea power and projection forces mark rejects that false choice and provides more of both. it authorizes the highest level of shipbuilding funding since the reagan administration. it authorizes three ships more than the president's budget. it protects 1-12th of the fleet and 1 of 10 carrier air wings from deactivation and authorizes procurement of new capabilities that will increase the navy capability and capacity. in total, our mark represents a downpayment on the 350 ship navy needs. it provides critical investment in the air force bomber, tanker and tactical air lift programs, all of which are critical to the ability of our nation to project

power. i also want to emphasize what the subcommittee mark and full committee mark accomplish in tandem. it prohibits the administration tr doing away with cruisers and signals strong congressional support for carriers and carrier air wings. i'm pleased that the readiness military personnel, tact air land and full committee marks provide the funding needed to operate and man the elements of structure that we are protecting and to invest in 20 additional strike fighters. i'm grateful for the efforts to achieve the vision of a stronger military and stronger national defense. there are many items in the subcommittee mark that i would like to highlight, but in the interest of time i'll conclude by reiterating that i believe that this mark constitutes a turning point. for many years we have turned lines going in the wrong direction. with this mark, however, i believe we are bending those curved lines in the right direction and taking some early, important steps toward a

stronger military and the 350-ship navy we so clearly need. i want to once again thank chairman thornberry, ranking member smith for their efforts to turn the tide, and i'd urge the members to support the mark. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to summarize my written remarks which i'll ask to be entered into the record. again, i want to salute my chairman randy forbes who our subcommittee again has worked totally on a bipartisan basis in terms of the hearing and record that we built up over the last four or five months to get to today's mark which, as he said, passed unanimously in subcommittee. i also want to salute the hard work of our staff, that again, it's almost impossible to tell whose majority and minority. they work together so

seamlessly. phil, dave and katie who have done an outstanding job of getting us to today's place. i want to again reiterate the general comments of chairman forbes which is that when i first came to congress in 2007, the administration submitted a shipbuilding plan that called for construction of only three ships. today we had the president's budget that came over that called for $18 billion of investment in shipbuilding in 8 ships, and we built on that submission and as the chairman said, we have roughly about 11 ships included in this budget. again, it's happening for very real external forces and reasons that are occurring. the cno, the navy -- >> the committee will come to order. mr. walz, are you good to go? >> i am. i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> if the staff would please

distribute the amendment. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment, twofold, first thing it does, it defines and defends the congressional review process making sure that when we're making changes to our military members' lives, that it's this body and this body's first responsibility to make sure that we're there to provide the oversight to see if the changes that we made are doing what we intended them to do. this deals with the commissary,

and i think most people in this committee know but many of our colleagues may not know, that's the grocery store in the military. there are nothing predictable about the military and it's very stressful. grocery shopping should not be a place where there is stress. the commissary holds a unique place in military history. for one thing, it is not a business, it's a benefit to the tune of about 300-plus dollars per family for e-3s and e-4s. many of those same families have people working at the so macommy and the money goes back to morale and recreation and things to make military life improved. to be clear on this, we are changing the way the commissaries work to nonappropriated funds. this was a suggestion and i ask you to think of this from a soldier's perspective. the report, their mandate, was

to modernize the military, the all volunteer force. fair enough, that's what we need to do. nowhere in the mandate -- in fact, it was explicit, that it was about cost savings. if we can provide our forces what was promised to them and save money, that should be our goal. but it should not be predicated on the money saving first, then delivering to the troops and then improving quality of life. and i am not saying with this amendment that the changes to the commissary will not be just what we need, save money, modernize, and give the troops what they want. that's very possible that may happen, but we won't know and we're not going to get another say in it. we're going to implement this and keep in mind over the next couple of years, change to the retirement pay, the g.i. bill, co-pays, all of those things are coming down without a mechanism in it for us to see if there's changes that need to be made.

this amendment says give d.o.d. longer than six months to evaluate the changes we're going to make and then have them come back here and report what are the affects of that so that we don't come back in a few years and say morale has been hurt by this, families are spending more, we've got a retention problem and frustration as part of this. i heard someone say earlier hope is not a plan or a strategy, so i ask you to support me. give them some certainty. let them know their members of congress are going to watch and we keep the authority to change this out of bureaucratic d.o.d. with that i yeeltd back my time. >> the gentleman from nevada.

>> i appreciate the concerns. we've had a lot of hearings in subcommittee regarding this issue. >> it's come down to three basic business practices required to do that. we required d.o.d. to come back to congress and submit their findings prior to moving forward at every milestone with a notice in wait so that congress has the ability to review what they are about to implement and if we decide it's not right, to intervene and stop it. we put in place the safeguards for the current appropriated

work force, fund work force to ensure that nobody who is currently working at a commissary will be converted to a nonappropriated fund employee or see any change or decrease in their pay or benefits. we tried to make sure that we took all current employees and protected them while giving d.o.d. the ability to move forward and modernizing the commissary benefit while decreasing reliance on appropriated funds. if we don't, this truly will impact every service member's access to the commissary. the option then will be to start closing commissaries that have low through put, changing hours of operation or days of operation. all that taken into consideration ba consideration, we felt that was the best way to allow d.o.d. to move forward, modernize the benefit, ensure savings, make sure that the benefit is valued by the beneficiary and put in place the safeguards so we do have visibility and an ability to impact any changes that may

come down the pike that we don't like and protect the current work force. i yield back the balance of my time. >> ms. davis? >> their, mr. chairman. i really just want to identify with the comments of my colleague, dr. heck, on this one. we are grandfathering in individuals, employees into their positions. i think this is one of those difficult moves when it's so hard to make change, but we work through this and to delay it now, to basically stall what we're doing, to require us to come back again and legislate this after two years, i think that we're going to be able to monitor this pretty well and it's by virtue of that that i think we can move forward on this and we've really gotten buy-in as a result of the thoughtful way that it's proceeded. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> if i can yield to myself for just a second. just for a little context here, we have faced numerous proposals, especially from the other side of the capitol, to privatize commissaries. i have no doubt that is going to let up. and so i think the hope here is that we can put commissaries on a self-sustaining basis so that they can stand on their own two feet eventually and deflect this effort to basically do away with them. so i think that's part of the underlying goal of where we're trying to get. as both the chair and ranking member of the subcommittee have said, the commission made some recommendations, but they didn't think that there were enough safeguards in that so they've added the safeguards but they've got to prove the changes in the

commissary do not reduce the benefits to the consumers of the commissaries, and every person who works at the commissary is protected, pay, benefits, as long as they are there, so that there's no involuntary changes at all. the only other thing i would add is we always have a chance to go back and fix something. with an annual ndaa, we can always go back and fix it, but i do think it's important to take these steps to get the commissaries moving towards a more self-sustaining posture. i think that protects our service members but also helps deflect some of the arguments that have been going on the other way. mr. courtney, were you seeking recognition? >> i was, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield to mr. walz. >> thank you to the gentleman. i want to say i do not disagree with anything the ranking member

said and the commitment to getting this right is not questioned. i want to be clear about that. my concern, mr. chairman, comes with the length of time. am i correct, chairman, that it's six months that this will come back and then they will put the changes into effect, and my question was of trying to get a little more time until the data comes back over a larger data set. that was really the purpose of the amendment. i yield to the chairman. >> no, the six months is the time at which they're supposed to come back with the initial plan of how they calculated out the market basket value, what the percentage of savings is going to be, but even after that, at each phase of implementation, they have to come back to us again with a notice in wait before they can move forward. if they're going to go with variable pricing, they got to come back to us. private label, they have to come back to us. nonappropriated work force, they've got to come back to us and give us an implementation plan at each phase that we have the ability to impact upon. >> what is our ability then to

exercise veto power or change power on that? what is the mechanism to make sure that happens just from the reporting back before the implementation. am i getting this right, they come back six they tell you, what is the mechanism, then, they will start implementing? there is not an opt-out option or an opt -- >> if i -- >> yes. >> so there is a note nice wait clause where they have to provide us with the information. we have 30 days to then go in and question them, ask for further information, give them further guidance. if we do nothing, they can proceed. but if we -- we have that 30-day period to impact upon whatever the implementation is that they bring forward. through the subcommittee process. >> i reclaim -- thank you to the gentleman. and again, like i said, i don't disagree on this. i guess for me this may be this one. it's a cumulative effect of what breaks the camel's back for troop morale that i definitely worry about. it feels like things are on a

really fast pace. and i understand the safeguards put in. and that is very preach appreci. i still think i would like to offer this up and see what people think and get a little more time. but i thank the jemggentleman a the ranking member for their commitment to getting this right. i yield back. >> and i yield back. >> i'm sorry, mr. lawson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in support of mr. wauld's amendment. i hear this at home as well from folks concerns about rising prices for the consumers here at the commissaries, concerns about cuts to pay and benefits for an already moderately compensated work force at the commissaries and concept the idea here of congressional review of this benefit, one that's a clear benefit to military families is important, and i would just -- i appreciate the work of the subcommittee. not being on the subwe but being

on other ones, i know how difficult it is to get our work done and then bring it to the full committee. but this is something separately i also hear from folks at home. so i would encourage folks to support mr. wald's and then yield back. >> mr. gigel? >> thank you, mr. chair. i'd like to add my support for this amendment. i think for many of us that have lived on bases and overseas, commissaries are very much an integral part of us being able to have connections back to our home. and anything that's going to try to put market value on some good, it's going to -- by nature, it is going to be overpriced because it's not that easy to get spaghettio's, cheerios in okinawa when you start adding fuel prices, if you compare apples to apples, it would end up not being quote, unquote, the most efficient way to get it there. and while i truly believe

there's a lot of people that want to save commissaries, i also know and many members of the military have known that there are elements of the department of defense that have consistently been trying to get rid of the commissary system as we know. and because of that, because i don't trust that they are truly looking out for the interests of people that care about commissaries, i'd like to have this check, at least available for us. especially considering six months from now, where will we be as a country? where will he be as a committee? we may not have the ability really to be able to check -- put a check on the d.o.d. should they make a decision that we believe would be against the best interests of our members of the armed services. with that, i strongly support the gentleman from minnesota's amendment. i yield back. >> ms. archler. >> thank you. i yield to the chairman. >> i thank the gentlelady.

i appreciate everybody's comments and concerns. and frankly, as a commissary shopp shopper i have the same ones. i want to make sure we point out some of the things in regards to the safeties that we put into place. first, this won't impact overseas commissaries. d.o.d.'s move has been to try to get off appropriated funds. we told them that's not going to happen. overseas where we don't have the same opportunities that we have in the continental united states. so this isn't going to impact overseas commissaries. we also, as i mentioned, put into place the safeguards for the work force so that the current work force will not be involuntary converted to a nonappropriated fund employee, nor will they see any change, any detriment in their pay or benefits. the goal is to have this be transparent. last year we gave deca the ability to start the variable pricing program. so they've already been working on moving forward with this. it's not something that they're going to start as soon as this bill passes and bring back six months later. they've working on it for

over a year. this gives them the ability to roll it out and then report back to us to ensure that prices aren't skyrocketing, that are beneficiaries continue to see this as the valued and earned benefit that it is. and i appreciate the sergeant major's input, but i believe if we're going to get our arms around the commissary benefit and not see closures of decreasing operating hours or days of the week, that we need to move forward with modernizing the benefit now. i yield back to the gentlelady. >> i yield back, there chairman. >> mr. nugent? >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i do appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee's hard work on this issue. you know, any time you start talking about benefits for our military, it always gives me great pause just because, you know, i get bombarded sometimes from folks in the military. particularly from my own family

and their families. i am concerned, when we start talking about modernization, because i don't know if that's a code word for cutting benefits or if that really is about, you know, doing things more cost effective across the board. and i believe that the chairman of the subcommittee is being very straightforward in regards to d.o.d. having to come back to him, come back to that subcommittee to make sure that we're not doing something that sounds good on paper -- i think that was in a movie somewhere -- sounds good on paper but in real life we really hurt people. and those are men and women that serve and their families. it's not just them, but it is their families that are stuck in places that, you know, i'm glad to hear it's not overseas, but, you though, we have service members living in areas that they don't get paid the same

rate of wages, let's say just in d.c. that the commissary is a life line for them. it allows them to actually, you know, provide for their families and do things that are necessary. so i would just caution the committee, you know, i'm leaving at the end of this year. but i really do believe this committee has the best interests of our service members at heart. members like mr. wals. i do believe that. so, you know, i'm torn in regards to what is the best action, but i'm confident, though, that the chairman of the subcommittee, dr. heck, is not going to let d.o.d. modernize at the expense of our service members. and with that i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no.

>> no. >> being the chair, the nos have it. and the amendment is not agreed to. further amendments, the gentlelady from california, ms. speier? >> chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the staff will distribute the amendment. without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentlelady from california is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. you know, we just finished a discussion on the commissary benefits and how precious that is. well, one of the most precious benefits of any g.i. when they leave the military is the g.i.

bill of rights. and the g.i. bill actually has such extraordinary value that we should do everything in our power to make sure they get the biggest bang for their buck. now, meanwhile, for-profit colleges have swarmed in and prey on many of our veterans. they cost five to six times more than comparable programs, and their outcomes do not compare. in california alone, over $600 million goes to college assistance for veterans of the iraqi and afghanistan wars. to for-profit colleges. ironically -- or maybe not -- california has imposed accountability standards by governor brown in 2002, and they are not eligible -- many of these for-profits are not eligible for receipt of cal grants because they don't meet these accountability standards around graduation rates and job placement rates.

under the current law, it is required that 10% of their total revenues come from nonfederal sources. so 90% can come from federal sources. 10% from nonfederal sources. except ironically and indefensibly the g.i. bill and d.o.d. education funds count towards that 10% nonfederal source. go figure. now, i know this has been double referred, and as a result, it's got to be withdrawn, but i really think, members, that we owe a responsibility to these veterans. and to somehow say since there's a double referral, we're just not going to deal with it is something that we should take seriously and finally do something about making sure that that 10% is not eligible for g.i. bill dollars and for d.o.d. education funds. and with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back.