Skip to main content

tv   House Armed Services Committee Reports Out Defense Bill 60-1  CSPAN  July 2, 2017 4:44am-7:01am EDT

4:44 am
>> on wednesday, the house armed services committee met for more than 12 hours and voted overwhelmingly, 60-1, to report the 2018 national defense authorization act onto committee and to the full floor for consideration by the house. this portion of the meeting is just over two hours. >> our president said he does not have a conflict of interest. i want to ask the committee what they think of the situation. in addition to the foreign delegation, this requires the presence of hundreds of u.s. government personnel, from policymakers to security
4:45 am
officers to communications technicians to officer carrying the nuclear football. time, those people are spending money, meals at the resort, parking at the resort, golf carts to follow the president around at the resort. maybe even rooms at the resort. because the president refused to the vest himself of his business interests, that money is left to be held at his property of the first place. and that's how like a conflict of interest. this is not just a hypothetical. meetings party been held that mar-a-lago. since february, i have been tried to figure out whether department of defense dollars are finding their way to the president's pocket through government expenditures at trump
4:46 am
properties. i asked secretary mattis and deford earlier this month. although we have not been provided definitive answers, pentagon officials have not ruled out that the president is profiting on taxpayer funds. this amendment would prohibit the department of defense from paying expenses at property owned or operated by the president or an immediate family member if those payments would result in a net profit. the president has a choice of any number of governmental properties at which he can host meetings, such as camp david. meetingss have held with dignitaries at other private parties with no issue of conflict. the constitution is clear. no public official should be using their office to make a profit.
4:47 am
this situation should be alarming to all of us who represent ourselves as stewards of the taxpayer money and i urge us all to take action against these abuses and vote for this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas, mr. conway. >> we have been considering meaty issues for the past seven hours or 10 hours. this is not one of those. sponsorpoint out to the that secret service has been building a security fence around the private property of former president barack obama. a chain-link fence, razor wire, and ross and her block would have done the job of protecting the compound, which my guess is
4:48 am
the secret service spent a lot more money than that, making sure that fence sit with the rest of the duck or in the circumstances of that community. that is on private property. when president obama sells that property and all of that taxpayer pay for funding will in order to his benefit. the election is over. during the that, eight years of president obama's tenure, many on our side wind and grabbed about the president's many vacations to martha's vineyard and hawaii and others. the truth of the matter is that those are inane subject matters. -- we serve on other committees together and i respect her, but this quite frankly is embarrassing to have this kind of committee like this. it is a gotcha kind of thing and i would urge my colleagues to
4:49 am
resume only vote no on this issue that basically tries to relitigate this last election. ofthe president has conflict interest, than there are entities in the federal government to deal with a better than the department of defense and better than the system. i would urge a no vote for this ill-advised amendment. i yield back. of course the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. the nose have it. >> i request a rollcall vote. >> a rollcall is requested. that will be postponed. next, mr. o'halloran and. >> i have a memo on the table. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
4:50 am
>> i am offering an amendment that i believe strengthens responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars in presidential travel. the air force has professionally and honorably carried out presidential airlift. we must continue to support our airmen who support this proud mission. however, we l it to those airmen to make sure that dod staff and resources provided by the american taxpayer are not being exploited for personal gain in potentially diverting valuable dollars in the purpose of protecting national security appeared according to the new york times, president trump spent 44 days, roughly a month and a half, in total of his presidency, traveling to and staying at a property he owns. tripsseveral of these have included official state business, they include several rounds of golf and other unofficial business. this committee ought to be
4:51 am
concerned while conducting appropriate oversight over the cost to dod for these lavish trips as well as ensuring transparency. it is not limited to the current president. the gao estimated that a day trip by president obama to illinois and florida, a visit that included official and unofficial business activities ago --fense $2.8 million alone. as a private citizen, i supported these efforts. i believe the american public has a right to know how their taxpayer -- tax dollars were being spent. now as a member of this committee, i am more concerned about the nature and degree to which valuable resources are being spent to subsidize travel habits. that's why i sent i -- sent a
4:52 am
letter to secretary mattis requesting more information on how much a dod has spent to date of president trump's travels. in response to my later -- to my letter, i received two week ago, it reported the total cost for movement of the president and required equipment from generate 20th to may 18 of this year was $15 million -- in excess $15 million. amendment sense limi requires reporting on a quarterly basis to support a presidential travel. these reports must include information about any cost incurred for travel to properties owned or operated by the president or immediate family. it does not say they can or cannot go to those locations or any other location. whether a democrat or republican
4:53 am
is president, the historical increase in travel in recent years, including by president trump and president obama, warrants closer oversight by congress, including by the communities with -- the committees with jurisdiction. representatives gallego, walton, shea-porter, and resin for their support of my minute. on behalf of american taxpayers, i urge my colleagues to approve the amendment. i deserve the balance of my time. >> mr. o'halloran, you would yield back my right? >> i reserve your >> we don't reserve. >> thank you. then i yield. [laughter] >> i have a substitute amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the substitute amendment.
4:54 am
the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate the gentleman's interest in making sure we have transparency in government. my amendment would broaden the score -- the scope of transparency that did -- that is amendment seeks but does not achieve because it is exclusively focused on the president and his immediate family. requires a report at the time of the president's budget request on both direct and indirect travel costs to support the president am a the vice president and all numbers of the president's cabinet. by broadening the scope of the department of defense reporting, congress can decide appropriate oversight, rather than debating the legitimacy of the president's lifestyle. again, my substitute amendment will achieve the full
4:55 am
transparency while the o'halloran amendment is not. i yield back. >> mr. o'halloran is recognized on the substitute amendment. >> i appreciate the interest in this important issue. however, the substitute amendment falls short and i must oppose it. the focus of my amendment is directed at the cost of presidential travel, including travel of the president -- to the president's personally owned property. ensures proper transparency and accountability. secondly, it clouds the clarity we are seeking by including statistics on the entire executive branch. lastly, it limits the oversight of this committee. quarterly reports will provide current statistics that will
4:56 am
account -- which will allow for accountability of american taxpayer -- tax dollars. it will provide ongoing and regular transparency of the way this president and future presidents conduct themselves is -- as good fiscal stewards. substitutee amendment and i urge my colleagues to reject it as well. >> i want to support the amendment i think it's important that we raise the bar and try to avoid. the initial amendment i say this respectfully to my friend from arizona. the commander in chief regardless i would know they are
4:57 am
immense and i would reject the premise to be politicized and all have done a lot of travel to include previous with $100 that is the latitude that we give our presidents. with that in mind, i support the substitute amendment and think it is a race to the bar and it is less partisan. >> thank you mr. chairman. there is no way to avoid what partisan.ing somewhat
4:58 am
it always goes back and forth. i want to take a brief moment to say that this is different. this is unprecedented. this is not just about how often the president travels. . we have all the complaints about how often president obama played golf i will not complain about how often president trump plays golf. what is entirely different here is that we have a president who owns a lot of properties. he owns a number of them where foreign visitors have come because the president has asked to. on more than one occasion, the president has not been shy at all insane that is being president is "good for his business." there are laws in the constitution where the president is not supposed to make money off of foreign governments while
4:59 am
he is president. maybe some of my colleagues can tommy where i am wrong and tommy that i and just being partisan. i am simply trying to be factual. we had the government of saudi arabia come to the trump hotel and, according to documents obtained, spent $275,000 at the hotel. the president has not to vested himself from his business. he and his family are clearly making money off of that. mar-a-lago. after he was -- he has hosted more than one
5:00 am
delegation. it is not about what we as taxpayers pay for american travel. i assure you, as long as we have those he will always have that argument. resident, a democrat the republicans will complain. if there is a republican resident, the democrats will complain. that, this isout about a president who is making money personally off of that travel, off of the foreign governments, off what the pentagon will spend. i will give mr. conway mr. makes spend, however that -- but it does not come within millions of dollars of the amount of money that has already been spent by foreign governments going directly into
5:01 am
the hands of trumps property. there is a painfully simple solution. put it in a blind trust. release your tax returns. transparent. unfortunately, there is so much over the top. on the democrat and republican side. it all gets blurred. it is all just noise. one size criticizing the other. this is different. i have sure my republican colleagues will not have to be given this offered to tell me why it is wrong. white there is not something uniquely rhonda about a hisident profiting from family's travel and the traveler for governors. this is a problem. i know we will not address it in this bill that it is something we should address more broadly.
5:02 am
the president can be transparent, he can release his business records, divest himself or go into blind trust as all have done before him. he has refused to do that and plunges does it us and said, nobody cares. i can do this. right hande has been i think that is very, very dangerous. to allow any president to profit off of that presidential power is run. this won'tcan i know go anywhere and we will lose, i hope we will take it more seriously than just dismissing it as normal partisan stuff. and goesnprecedented way beyond any sort of petty partisan concern. it is a concern for legitimacy and transparency for our government.
5:03 am
i yield back. haveain, elections consequences. and while i disagree with the results of 2009 and 2013, nonetheless we went through that. go over theo previous election gets us nowhere. this has nothing to do with the for governments spend and whatever they come to the united states for. i would argue that is beyond the reach of this committee to require foreign governments to report to anyone with a spend coming to the united states. this will simply tell you what the government spends going to and from the property, not necessarily what they spend at the property. it is not lost on anyone that people are showing up at mar-a-lago or wherever the president goes. whether it is a dollar five or
5:04 am
whatever might you want to put the same. issue is you are overly mad about it, you already understand it, it will be a campaign item three years ago for whomever is campaigning against the president but this is the house armed services committee. we do not oversee the federal bureau of ethics. so if you have a problem with the president, i got it. i had a problem with the last one, you have a problem with this one. at this is now we should be spending our time on. this is not about defense in the country. we are the department that defense. we should be spending our time figuring out how to best defend the country. this is trying to load the system. even my good colleague does the same thing. i have been working like a wild man to audit our own books and records.
5:05 am
one more strike to that camel to try to come up with this whether it is annually, quarterly, whatever it is. we are going to spend in we do not have anything to compare to. we don't have a clue what president obama spent. these numbers will be meaningless except they will be used in a campaign. we should abuse the department of defense accounting system. we are without the mark. i understand you are angry at are to -- but there consequences. there is another election coming and there will be an appropriate time for anybody to complain about the president. all of those things aren't legitimate campaign issues but that is not what we are doing tonight or what we should be doing. i would request and encourage all of the members to say no to both of these.
5:06 am
of to the important work defending this country and protecting the men and women who do that. the meaningful things. getting away from the presidential politics this smacks of. >> with the gentleman yield? >> mr. larson, do you still seek recognition. still seeko you resignation? >> yes, i do. ] runting noise -- orry if you find that crimes this seems to ignore the constitution of the united states. readse one, section nine, no title of new ability should begin ended by the united states and no person holding any office
5:07 am
themofit or trust under shall, without the consent of congress, except any president, mru meant, office, or title of any kind whatever from any friends or foreign state. so the previous discussion concerning the role of congress totally missed the mark. in fact, we totally do have a very significant role with regard to presidential use of his facilities for the purposes .f engaging foreign governments whether those governments are involved in providing something of value to him that is something we could discuss. but clearly the meetings that took place at mar-a-lago are of interest to this committee because of who attended those meetings. the head of the chinese government. discussionsed in
5:08 am
without and about the relationship between the department of defense and china. also, saudi arabia. most recent arms sales which i believe is the jurisdiction at least in part of this amity. said there is a very clear to his between what the president andoing at his resorts quite probably receiving an emolument or something of valuable from the foreign government. that is our business as members of congress and what to base agreements or not, apparently the issue of north korea was discussed and i would suggest that is something we have engaged and at length in this committee. so it is to the direct interest of this committee and a direct of members interest
5:09 am
of congress and to simply blown away as if it were of no caucus -- consequence totally ignores the responsibilities. we had a discussion about the authorization of using force and we too often ignore that responsibility. are we going to ignore this comment to with regard to extension -- with regard to section 169? there is a clear conflict of interest and a clear violation of the emoluments clause. >> with the gentleman yield? >> yes of course. >> i love that. eloquently put. but, i have not been aware in my 12 place year of any interests i would argue that your argument must be -- would be better said in front of the judiciary committee.
5:10 am
thank you, by the way. >> i think of your counsel but i think -- reclaim my time -- that your argument ignores responsibility that we have individually. and therefore collectively wherever we may sit and whatever we mightt committee beyond. it brings us as members of congress the responsibility of , monetaryor not gifts or otherwise, i do not think -- no, i'm not sure what the president -- what president xi of china offered in the way of alsos but maybe he did offer a title to the president. in any case, going back to money and the like, read the monuments clause. it is our responsibility -- it is the imo humans clause. moluments clause.
5:11 am
>> maybe we should move along, have a boat or two. we're not going to resolve this tonight. but, get moving. there's someone waving his hand furiously. mr. chairman. would like to disagree with my good friend from alabama and speak in support. of the commonort sense of amendment of mr. o o'halloran. one, to be clear, winning the election does not give you an excuse to waste taxpayer money. , sometimes even on thursdays, he gets off with his manyrage to one of his properties. those responsible for this transportation and getaways? our air force. who puts the bill for these
5:12 am
junkets? the american taxpayer. we pay almost $200,000 for every hour air force one is in operation, and today we're fed 44 tribes. you want to compare that to president obama's tenure, it is not even close. anthe past, this was expensive american taxpayer haply except a but there is never been a president who spends 40% of his time hopping from his own properties back and forth. thecan see that across country here. this is a man who said in 2016, i'm going to be working for you, not have time to contemplate golf." 200 rounds of golf for donald trump after only one term in office. due to this unethical type of travel, the very least we can do as members of this committee is to maintain visibility over the money our military is spending
5:13 am
to make sure trump meets his teatime. one who claims to care about this will join us to support this may amendment. we have the right to oversight. we have the right to oversight and expenses of the air force. we certainly have a right when the president as abusing taxpayer money. look at the dates. $200,000 a trip. this is about making sure there is proper oversight, right now, in keeping the public informed. thank you and i yelled back. >> i would like to point out if you don't think this is politics at its worst, they are asking for indirect cost. you would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just trying to come up with the definition. >> direct -- indirect cost. it is the handgun. as far as using the office to
5:14 am
make money, barack obama made $85,000 a year prior to being elected them between getting elected and leave novice he made over 20 one may dollars. i would say if mr. trump's network is up by the same factor that president obama's did, we have got something to worry about. job.t, let the man do his >> ok. the question is on the substitute amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama, mr. brennan. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. >> the eyes have it. mr. heller on us for a recorded vote, is that true? take it in real-time. call the roll. call]
5:15 am
[voting]
5:16 am
5:17 am
5:18 am
5:19 am
5:20 am
5:21 am
>> telly. otes and --e 25 aye v no votes. no.here's opposed say -- we can enroll that one to the end with the others. ok. next, we have another. the gentleman from texas is recognize. >> mr. chairman. christ the church -- the clerk disseminate. >> thank you for the opportunity -- to count the children
5:22 am
under the elementary education act. elementarymend the and secondary education act to include children of reservists and state elementary and secondary school reporting requirements. currently because of the way the lot has written, they only can't the children of national guard and acted military duty children and resource allocations, does not include the children of reservists. the children of reservists are just as important as those of active-duty and national guard forces and they face the same challenges as those kids when their parents deploy. we'll it to them to make sure they have the resources they need to succeed in school while one or both parents are deployed and service to the country. after speaking to members of the committee i have learned there are jurisdictional issues. i work look forward to working
5:23 am
with the committee to continue working on this important issue. i respectfully with drop my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. [indiscernible] >> the clerk will distribute the amendment.
5:24 am
without opposition, the amendment is considered red. >> i want to be truthful when it comes to children and widows who have lost spouses. it might be widowers as well who have lost spouses in our wars. the effect of the matter is we have expressed in the past a anse of the congress having survivors and their minty allowance to assist the family. there has not been enough in this area. i said to congress or he must do something about it. there will not be enough money in sf i ate by next year for this account. there is no plan to replace it except one i'm going to offer this evening. haveut that plan, we will widows in here that only you can imagine.
5:25 am
they can't buy groceries or by children's issues for the fall in school. as sia overd double the next three years from $310 two $620, critically closing the gap in payments. since there is mandatory payment we also had to find mandatory offset for that. i raising generic pharmacy co-pays by four dollars of the next nine years for a total of $14, we can pay as sia 463,000 widows for an additional three years. 63,000 widows for the next additional three years. sometimes with to do things in a way they cannot be seen in the same light depending upon what group we are talking about. the department cannot spend $10 billion on the pharmacy program in fiscal year 2014 alone. if we raise these generic
5:26 am
pharmacy co-pays by four dollars over nine years, we will be essentially doing so at the request of the department of the defense. i do not think this is breaking faith with our retirees for the au not -- with our retirees. we need to look at these benefits as a team. i've spoken to many of retirees. tonow they do not object helping the widows of other service members and retirees for a small increase in our mercy co-pays of 90 -- and pharmacy co-pays over nine years. this is a tough issue and that is why they ask us to try to solve them when we can. the senate will be making provisions for as sia and their bell and i think we should be prepared to find the best
5:27 am
solution for this issue as well. i can assure you i thought about whether or not we need to have a proposal and put our faith in it to turn over to our chairman. in many ways within the conference to do the best we can and stay as true as i can with those who suffer the losses and really need to receive these allowances, which by the way, they have paid for. so mr. chairman if we can have a you, call and i can ask did you see there's going to be move toortunity as we the congress to try to resolve this issue or do we need to try tonight.e it here >> if the gentlelady will read yield and of time runs out, i will yell. the gentlelady has clearly identified to problems we have to resolve. one of them is the ssi widows
5:28 am
package expires next may. we cannot and we we'll not allow that to happen. gentlelady rightly noted, we have to find mandatory programto continue that and we will. the second issue is this reserve.issue with the everybody and knowledge is that is not fair. we talked about that before. the pentagon is working to change those categories to ensure that problem is solved. i understand they're going to come to us with the luminary thoughts this summer. that needs to be solved as well. i think the gentlelady makes a good point that we do not have many options on it comes to mandatory savings. it is basically other retirement or some of the fees and cope
5:29 am
easier and so all of those issues are going to be in play. the one other thing to put into the mix as i expect the budget original loosen from the -- the budget resolution will also demand the committee come up with the original savings. so my point is, what rather than lock things and now we need to look at all of these demands for mandatory savings and try to work our way through without unduly burdening active duty and retirees with drastically higher co-pays, which could be one option. to repeat myself, the widows tax absolutely has to be fixed and will be. discard hand reserve issue has to be fixed. we will work with and want to
5:30 am
see that in this and has the gentlelady points out, we're going to have a lot of opportunity over the course of the conference to neal dunn those details as well as deal with whatever instructions we may get if the house passes a tax budget resolution. a yield to the gentlelady. >> and want to thank you for your concern about this because i know it is real. i remember some of the first discussions i had when i came to congress were around this issue and they are still out there and we are still dealing with them. i hope everyone has heard your commitment as i have and that you will try to do everything can to the fullest extent possible to resolve these issues and in particular, to take care women.-- >> and, it is not just me. to deal with these issues it will take all members of the committee on both sides.
5:31 am
as this lady pointed out, these are difficult trade-offs that have to be made to fix these problems. we'll say we want to fix the problems but we will also have to contribute to the solutions. i yield back to the gentlelady for anything else. >> thank you. i look forward to that. >> i will be brief. i wanted to associate myself with the comments by my good colleague ms. davis. i want to underscore to all of us went this widows tax is really all about. these are families that buy life insurance, then the service members in the military, that military service member dies and there is a widow. rather than getting the total benefit of the life insurance policy, it is reduced because she is also getting a veterans benefit. now, it is a debate and switch,
5:32 am
pierre and simple. the fix web and providing is a small fix. under the widows actual life insurance policy, she should be receiving about $1500 a month. but correct me if i'm wrong but when she is receiving us $250 or $300 a month. so even our fix is inadequate. we should fix it or get a further the life insurance policy because it really is a to say you have a policy but when you need it you can't use the benefit thisse you are getting -- insurance policy really is a fraud because you cannot say you have a benefit if when you go to use it you cannot afford to. so i would like to withdraw the
5:33 am
amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. mr. amendment, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk will distribute the amendment, without exception the amendment is considered red. the gentlelady is available for comments. >> thank you. this is a madman to repeal the policy instituted last summer by then-defense secretary ash carter without any input from members of congress which allow .ransgendered recruits this is contrary to our goals of increasing troop readiness and investing tax dollars into addressing budget shortfalls of the past. i've recruiting and allowing transgendered individuals to serve openly in our military, we're subjecting taxpayers to hide medical cost including an average of $137 per transition
5:34 am
surgery, lifetime hormone treatments, and potential additional surgeries to address the approximate 25% of individuals who experience complication in addition to potential mental health issues. the surgeries alone are estimated to cost 1.3 5 billion dollars. that's over the next 10 years and that is with the assumption of only 30% of individuals choosing to transition. that is equivalent money could find 13 hornets, and long-range winge bombers, all replacements, or increase the troops. this policy suggests tri-care for hormone there p member members for families. it covers 16-year-old answer 70-year-old dependents.
5:35 am
costly,apy is not only but it will cause the inability morale.y and decrease every military member must undergo a day-long training on the policy which translate to lost time in the car it, or in the simulator. hit hard by the training is time is limiting one members on duty. it is not just time away that is concerning. it is also the lack of the playability of the individuals transitione sex process. 238equires between 210 and workdays where a soldier is not available after surgery. --s equates to 1.4 men fire million manpower days where gender personnel cannot fight in
5:36 am
wars. this is not address the due to ongoing military treatments are required refrigeration and other long-term care. a soldier cannot be deployed to the mountain of afghanistan with the need to refrigerated medicine. also, the diagnosis and treatment of gender dysphoria renders service people on available for -- ineligible for flying the order jobs recurring clearances.rity why would we recruit people to serve her we know cannot serve? is it fair for us to change our standards for this one we unite, knowing when military service to others with less competition conditions --
5:37 am
complicated conditions like flat feet or sleepwalking. is it fair to regret our sons and daughter to fight for the nation and instead of serving issuesion have to suffer -- military service is a privilege not a right. predicated on the goal of winning wars and defeating the enemy. all decisions on personnel and funding should be made with this and mind. high entry and retention standards are required because failure on the job costs lives. is costlys memorandum on dollars and short on common sense. it is imperative our nation taxrse this to ensure dollars are spent wisely, fairness is insured, and military force can succeed on the battlefield.
5:38 am
i plan to his job my memorandum after discussion tonight and in hope of having the dod be able to address this problem internally. if the dod fails to act decisively on the policy, future action must be taken by us, the guardians of national defense. it is imperative the policy, which stood the test of time, be reinstated to ensure the men and women serving our nation can write and when our nation's wars. i yield back with the intent to a straw this amendment after discussion. >> further discussion? mr. chairman. mr. chairman, no clear existsion of dysphoria
5:39 am
to support this policy of -- this year. in the manual, it lacks clear up your goal support and ranks amongst the lowest of the scores in the interrater reliability standards. yet the armed services are being provide medical recommendations on unproven criteria without regards to their right. with regard to fully club will withservice members -- regard to fully qualified service members, should we accept the definition that says a service member would be profoundly disturbed, anxious, and agitated and has a high risk of suicide. this is not sound like an otherwise wholly-certified service member.
5:40 am
this policy does not even diminish the readiness of dysphoric service members. a --aces the priorities of one setting estimate at one in 20,000 individuals and it sidelines the readiness. it sidelines the morale, welfare, and rights and privacy concerns of 29.99 nine percent of the armed forces. for example, in the current training manuals that have been implemented to both soldiers and commanders for guidelines, this -- listen to the following in yet. following her transition from male to female which did not include sex reassignment surgery, the transcends and -- the transgender begins using
5:41 am
female facilities. this is from the army training annual. the guideline should be that they should be respectful by transgendered soldiers are not required or expected to modify or adjust their behavior based soldiers.t that -- here is another one that goes to commanders. completed an army gendered transition from female to merit. -- mail. they did not have sexual reassignment surgery but recently started take, and treatments. today, the soldier discussed his commanding officer to discuss is duly confirmed pregnancy. his. pregnancy. theseender soldiers under vignettes are not required or expected to modify just there behavior, but everyone else is.
5:42 am
violating their privacy, rights, morality, and unit cohesion. and, we are elected to believe that when the soldiers violate all that the other service percent --99.9999 , when we leadership oppose the to construct of pregnant men and how this possibility will make -- i suggest we've lost our way as a nation. as that, i yield back. >> ok. here onting a long list an amendment that is to be withdrawn.
5:43 am
been good.e i don't want to cut off the i also want to keep perspective in mind. ms. tsongas? >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to remind us of the year-long review process that led to secretary of defense ash carter and in the non-transgender service. "we doster, he stated not want barriers on related to a person's qualifications to serve preventing us from , soldier,the settler airmen, or marine nick cannon rest complete the task assigned her coat
5:44 am
analysis by the dod working group and rant corporation concluded there would be minimal ready knows impact from allowing transgendered member services to serve openly. the service chiefs signed up -- off on a policy because they concluded on the basis of the research that inclusion would readiness.ise secretary mattis indicated he will not revisit decisions of the previous administration absent concrete impacts to ready and at this moment. -- two readiness at this moment. i urge my colleagues to not rely on unfounded figures and facts. this is meant to open service to all who can meaningfully contribute to the territory and their country, particularly given the rigorous process used to write it. i respectably oppose this amendment.
5:45 am
>> mr. lamborn? chama.k you mr. i think the gentlelady from missouri for bringing this amendment and mr. chairman, and -- wroteey you what secretary carter in 2015 and 2016 raising serious questions about what would happen to transgendered individuals coming , issues suchtary as housing, medical costs, limitation on the ability to be deployed, and my understanding is that you or the committee never really got satisfactory answers. i think it is incumbent on secretary mattis to inform this committee with straight answers on the serious questions many of us have. should not go forward
5:46 am
with the previous administration's policy until we get answers to issues like housing, medical costs, limitations on deployment. with that, i yield back mr. chairman, given the lateness of the hour. >> i would note right now we have transgendered individuals deployed in our armed services and to answer one of the specific reservations, you do not refrigerate the testosterone, you switch over to requiredch is what is if you're going to be deployed. what is troubling to me as i can imagine, not my colleagues to my right, but the congress 70 or 80 -- ran at thesaid first sight of battle and that of african americans could not serve.
5:47 am
african-american serve them wrong. a yield back. seek. kelly, did you recognition? x i do, and i would yield my time. >> thank you gentleman. there's a huge difference between what was changed and policy several years ago and a person with this medical condition. it is a medical condition that requires additional expenses and this policy was flawed from day one. secretary carter initiated this policy and he said the assumption that trances gendered persons -- transgendered persons conserve openly, how can you say be accurate you can when we are recruiting people cannot serve. who if they go through the transition process need to recover from the server he -- surgery between 210-230 days and
5:48 am
that does not includes the percent that would have complications and have to have a secondary surgery. that does not include their, arabi and health treatments. that is just the physical reality of this situation. yearsad an internet a few ago who wanted to 70 military. she went to law school. she applied. she was denied because she had a bunion on her foot. that is ridiculous that we are going to consider changing the standards for an entire military if most of the places and ways to invite people to come in if you have serious medical conditions that cannot serve and yet we denied someone who had a onion from serving? we need to return to common sense. the policy before was one that ensured people had to pass
5:49 am
certain parameters or could not serve. that is what we should continue to uphold with our standard to make sure that people are able wasteht, that we do not precious dollars overtime on individuals not ready to fight. i yield back. thank you. >> to expand on a point made there was ary time new group of americans beyond weight males that originally served, the sky appeared to be falling. in each case we learned that everybody treated with respect who were given a chance to serve did us all proud. we know well that those transit jen showed service commanders --
5:50 am
transgendered soldiers were widely praised by commanders. they had no problems with readiness. we know because it has been studied. we know the numbers, with all due respect, that ms. barker are using our egg rate to virgins and overblown from what we have studied and what has already been determined. so i would ask to stick to the facts. to stick to what the military commanders have reported back to the full continue with integration of the u.s. military and and shined that everything the president's country is treated with dignity and respect and offered the chance to serve. that will make us a stronger country and military. i yield back. >> i will make this quick.
5:51 am
the military is not the job corps. the military is not some group where you conserve or everybody concerned. the military is where they kill people and execute the will of our government. this does not make a more effective, does not make it more effective, does not make a more deadly, what it does is make it everybody.tracting i cannot imagine having to share showers with somebody who was a girl and did not have the surgery to become a man but kept the girl stuff and now she is with a bunch of guys or vice a versa. this is one of the most ridiculous things that our commander in chief has done in his storied eight years of doing lots of ridiculous things. with that, i would urge the that i would support the amendment if it were not
5:52 am
withdrawn. i yield back. withdraw the, amendment. >> with the understanding and plea to secretary mattis to take the steps needed to restore readiness and make sure we do not waste precious tax dollars. if that does not happen, understand we need to take action. so, i withdraw. >> withdrawn. mr. hunter? >> thank you. i have an amendment. >> at the clerk would distribute objectionent, without considered as read. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment i blew past last year was put up at the senate, and made some changes and am reintroducing it. here's what it does. it officially recognizes deeds. currently, that --
5:53 am
[indiscernible] -- means ifially that they were awarded the silver star, that could be subsequently stripped away from him or her for reasons that have nothing to do with the burning of that -- earning of the award. that is not acceptable. no matter what poor choices they make returning home, that does not mean they did not earn the award from the battlefield. there are two exceptions. hijack, rape, murder. the valor award can be revoked. if newond exception is information comes to light on the deed itself. what this also does, the change from leicester, it also looks at ptsd or dramatic brain injury. we look at case after case.
5:54 am
the minimum kicked out of the military because of the bureaucrats back here that actually had issues. we talk about the most important things. says this.ce chief except when those people do 15 towards an eight years, especially for special ops where you have a brain injury or post-traumatic stress disorder. possibly then to do something. we all hear these stories and that is why we put so much money into preventative care and why the v.a. is working so hard. this is a valor award only. you have to commit an act of valor. colleaguesourage my to support this. i think it is the right thing to do and with that i yield back.
5:55 am
>> of their discussion? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman by california. those in favor say aye, the supposed no. the amendment is adopted. >> miss rosen. >> thank you, i have an amendment on the table. exit the clerk went distribute the amendment. without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i urge my colleagues to support increase to add cyber workforce capabilities. secretary mattis said, we have to bring in more troops. with you something to expand where we already have gaps and cannot simply repair our way out of it.
5:56 am
i propose the cyber scholarship program for five by dollars. students receiving the funding will owe dod time when they are to wait to pay back the country for investment in their education. the second the is cyber training $15 million. greatadvances will pay events and help to ensure our readiness. programs consisting of a cyberlio called the product line which provides cyber capabilities and directly supports command. a rapidlysupports developing operations-ready cyberspace capability from laboratories, industry, and academia. short, as general dunford
5:57 am
stated before the committee, we need to continue to build the cyber force to be able to deal with the threats and russia, north korea, china, and iran. i believe this will serve to move the workforce forward to take on the threats wherever they may originate. but mr. chairman, is it is my understanding this amendment indy --referred to the intelligence and select committee and they would not do for these programs. i must withdraw my amendment though i am disappointed. >> amendment withdrawn. mr.leman from arizona, franks. >> to prime minister chairman. -- if the gentleman would distribute the memo as long as -- s
5:58 am
without objection it is considered as read and the gentleman is now recognized. >> i agree with the recent comments. our adversaries will never be less capable in space than they are right now. the chinese and the russians every really nice their strategic force command structure to incorporate space. the north koreans and iranians have both successfully launched satellites in orbit. this amendment recognizes what this committee has recognize, that space is a war-fighting domain. ther. chairman, we said in strategic forces subcommittee some tenures ago, when someone across the aisles refuses because they did not want to unfortunatelye, our adversaries had done such compunction and proceeded to do just that. whether we like it or not, hours
5:59 am
competitors consider space a war-fighting domain. this recognizes space is the ultimate military had ground from which to defend the united states of america. it directs our missile defense -- identify the most cost effective technological solutions. it further directs the engagement and development of a five-year plan to develop a space-based missile defense layer. this letter will be regionally -- to ourd provide .verall military architecture mr. chairman, the threat from the world's most dangerous weapons has indeed never been greater. now is the time to finally build
6:00 am
a space-based military defense layer to cover the the gaps in our military defense architecture and discontinued further discussion on the amendment. >> i strongly opposed this amendment and would ask my colleagues to do this, as well. mr. franks has very legitimate concerns on a couple of points. number one, space is not a war fighting domain. the subcommittee is responding to that in the strongest possible way with the space core . something we have are ready discussed tonight. to be ontir-fry thomas top of the technology, and that is great.
6:01 am
outstanding. this amendment goes beyond that. these are what i would characterize as illegitimate concerns. when you talk to the real , who just the field completed a tour of duty, his -- whetheris, faith-based -- would give us the leading edge. he responded, "if it was technologically feasible and affordable, the answer is no. the answer would be yes to your question. i have serious concerns about the technical feasibility of the interceptors in space and i have serious concerns about the long-term affordability of a
6:02 am
program like that. " no one is all seeing and there is a possibility that the technology could be true. but rather than humoring mr. franks, there are three fundamental reasons we should say no. one, by hitting up all of the other services, that hurts legitimate defensive need. begrudgeice will giving up the nine or $10 million. number two, it undermines the real consensus we have on the subcommittee and on the full committee supporting real missile defense. that is been a long time coming but now it is here. you have seen the harmony. i do not think we have ever had a harmonious time. that is good for national defense to be bipartisan and strong. this undermines that.
6:03 am
third, if you really care about this topic and be a man, raise milk -- real money and pay for. they were already using oco deployedo pay for our soldiers overseas. that is asking the chinese to fund the deployment of the u.s. military. not even fullyo fund our own existing soldiers overseas. it would be wrong to just pretend, 30 million we will do this. it is not enough money to make the technology go anywhere but it is enough to aggravate the other services. this amendment is counter is to what we should be doing. it is counter to what all of the experts say we should be doing.
6:04 am
the space core could help develop these concepts. opinion,dment, in my is operative -- so i would as my colleagues to oppose it. briefly, irman, think the gentleman -- thank the gentleman. the harmony that we have today was not always so. there was a time when my friends rolled their eyes and called -- star wars. this notion of hitting a bullet with a bullet was just her fantasy. now we hit a dot on the side of a bullet consistently. i would suggest you some of the things that are advancing and coming toward our country, it is time for us to look ahead and leave the target .
6:05 am
it is always important to point -- if you were in subcommittee some time ago, you also know that it is time to assume that north korea can range the united states with a nuclear warhead. with some of the things that are coming in our direction, we are going to have to get to launch and get into boost phase. space is our opportunity to do that. , ifuld encourage everyone they are concerned about weaponize in space, you do not have to be concerned at all. the question is whether america will reap main -- remain arsenal free 10 or 15 years from now. that is going to be dictated by what we do today. with that mr. chairman, i will
6:06 am
yield back. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would acknowledge that much of what my friend and colleague in tennessee says is accurate. however, i would urge us to be thoughtful about the future. one of the reasons i support mr. that itmendment, it is does that. it urges nba to conduct some -- rnb.to conduct some are in we know this is a long-term challenge. while i hate to disagree with my friend, we disagree with very little, on this, i think we should support this amendment. >> question is on the amendment
6:07 am
offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. those of -- those in favor say i . >> i. >> those oppose satan no. ed say no.ppos clerk will distribute the amendment. that objection is considered as read. gentleman from california is recognized. >> is unfortunate that so late at night so many of these important issues of the future to coming up. and part of the way we structure our hearings and the voting on this particular amendment deals with the nuclear enterprise. specifically, a piece of it that is in question. weapon -- new nuclear twouclear weapons --
6:08 am
nuclear weapons, that is supposed to be used on at least two different missile systems. it appears as though those parts of the military do not want to use these weapons for a variety of reasons. they are not excited about it. nevertheless, it is in process of being developed at a very , not just fornt the weapon itself, but for the development of plutonium pits that would be used in the weapon. that would be a very expensive infrastructure project at one of our nuclear labs. this amendment could delay the process and to delay this .rogram, not to kill it
6:09 am
removing delay it by some of the money that has been programmed for this development of the plutonium pits. it would remove $15 million from and process -- that program instead use that money for something that is thought to be very necessary, which is the effort that we have had for many thes to reduce proliferation of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons. that particular program is underfunded. bywould add, we would reduce -- and transfer 11 million of that to the nuclear account, which deals specifically with this account of loose material out there.
6:10 am
another 4 million to the weapons dismantling program and that would maintain that program at the same level of we presently have. the nuclear weapons dismantling program takes place somewhere in texas. nonetheless, it is underfunded tothe moment and we ought get about the business of dismantling these nuclear weapons that are no longer to be used by our military. that's what it is. simple. that, i yield. i think i will keep my remaining time. >> the gentleman yielded back. >> mr. rogers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> on forcefully, i have to oppose my friend.
6:11 am
tounfortunately, i have oppose my friend. the military agreed that 50 to 80 bits per year was necessary ensure we the -- and could respond to failures or geological events. the agreement was enshrined in a joint memo in 2010. the memo said the obama up --stration would ramp that was 50 to 80 requirements revalidated in a letter four years ago. as the obama administration were on, we saw the debates that from 2027, and in 2031. qualified a bit production schedule that requires in as a to meet certain production
6:12 am
milestones. in 2027.its no more slips in this critical national security function. the trump administration has endorsed this schedule. documents say the plutonium can tame an account is increased. the amendment we are now considering would cut the funding from this account and endanger in essays ability -- ns a's ability to meet this requirement. this essential to the credibility of our nuclear deterrent. i yield back. >> further discussion on the amendment? the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. all of those in favor say i?
6:13 am
those oppose say no. no's have it.-- mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> the court will distribute the amendment. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. anmr. chairman, i have explosive topic. i have an amendment to address the audit backlog. this section is part of the chairman reform package that i am very supportive of. provided his objectives in , to reallocate resources, to prioritize high risk audits, and to help ensure the private sector capacity exists in case there is ever a search again in context that
6:14 am
require more auditing and certainly to roll out ways of abuse in the defense department. i disagree with section one of 802 that requires there be a mandate for 25% of the contracts to go to the private sector. i support the idea of using private sector contracts, i do not think it should be mandated. i think it should be under discretion of defense contract audit agency. it'll to also creates a 2 also creates a committee. in effort to try to provide an incentive for the defense contract audit agency to a cop which the project -- objectives of getting rid of the backlog, of reallocating resources, the high risk audits, i suggest that
6:15 am
we include a trigger of october 1 of 2019. if the backlog is not done by , i hereto, then section 802 as it is currently written could take impact. that is my amendment. i am required to get a waiver from the house oversight reform committee. i do not have that. i'm sure we can work together to get this amendment on the floor. >> let me just say, i really appreciate -- i noticed that the press really picked up. now we are getting into the sexy stuff. i really appreciate the gentleman's from new york's interest and commitment to working with me to try to make
6:16 am
this whole audit situation better. i wantutely agree that to work with the gentleman because of his background and expertise, as well as the gentleman from texas because of his background and expertise to try to find tune these provisions dealing with audit in the way that best fits the taxpayer and the war fighter. that is the goal. i fully acknowledge that there may need to be some tweaks in this and some changes. i want to work with both gentleman to do that. it is important. if you look at part of the reason that is causing the department of defense and defense industries such problems, it goes back to audits and audit practices that have
6:17 am
not kept up with even other government departments. i appreciate very much both gentlemen and their interests in this and i do think we can work together on this. >> the amendment is withdrawn. >> yes, sir. >> doll get a load of this. y'alld unanimous this -- get a load of this. without objection it is so ordered, the clerk will 5,tribute and block packages 6, 7, without objection, it is all considered as read. in block package number five, amendment thomas.re three by mr. 78 by mr. knight. when hundred 20 are three by mr.
6:18 am
moulton. 161 by mr. bacon. mr. -- 208 r one by mr. gates. 183 by mr. hunter. 212 r one by mr. gabbard. 241 by mr. turner. walsh.two by mr. 322 r one by mr. lamborn. 325 are one by mr. carbajal. 33501 by mr. gates. 338 by mystic sally. hunter.r. --block package number seven 142 r one by mr. bishop. by mr. is 78 r two
6:19 am
hunter. 193 are two by mr. norcross. 202 r four by mr. moulton. 241 by mr. smith. three to 15 are won by mr. lamborn. 342 r one by miss gabbert's. 346 by mr. smith. o'rourke -- by mr. 3 by mr. or work. it and the have i's have it- the and the amendments are adopted. >> does the gentleman from florida seek recognition. >> i do not, mr. chairman.
6:20 am
[laughter] >> now we are going to proceed to vote on those amendments were a roll call was ordered. how many do we have? five.ch we have i'm sorry? all right, the first rollcall is ,n amendment 151 by mr. vesey regarding creating a report on a cyber poor. corps. >> mr. smith? mr. smith vote no. mr. jones? mr. jones votes no. mr. brady? mr. brady votes no.
6:21 am
mr. david? mr. david votes no. mr. biondo? mr. the biondo votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson? mr. larson votes no. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes no. mr. franks? mr. franks votes no. mr. courtney? mr. courtney votes no. mr. shuster? mr. shuster? mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi votes no. miss beer? beer --
6:22 am
mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. kaufman? mr. kaufman votes no. mr. or work? by -- votes i. mr. scott? esther scott votes no. mr. cook? mr. cook votes no. mr. brad &? mr. brydon sign -- mr. branning? -- mr. byrne votes no. mr. graves?
6:23 am
mr. graves? mr. carbajal? mr. kobolds i. mr. brown? esther brown votes no. -- mr. brown votes no. mr. o'connor? mr. o'connor votes i. mr. russell? mr. russell votes no. mr. swazi? mr. swazi votes i. dr. abraham? dr. abraham votes no. mr. gallagher? mr. gallagher votes no. mr. gates? mr. gates says no. mr. bacon? mr. bacon says no. ?s. cheney ms. cheney votes no.
6:24 am
mr. shuster? ms. gabbard? mr. shuster votes no. mr. graves? mr. graves votes no. [inaudible] mr. chairman to our 13 i votes, there are 48 no votes.
6:25 am
>> the amendment is not agreed to. >> the clerk will call the roll. german thornberry? -- german thornberry? german thornberry votes i. mrs. davis? mrs. davis votes no. mr. launch them in? mr. lodgment votes no. esther bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes i. mr. rogers? mr. rogers votes i. mr. frank? mr. frank says i. mr. courtney? mr. courtney?
6:26 am
mr. courtney votes no. mr. shuster? mr. shuster votes i. mr. conaway? mr. conaway votes i. mr. lamborn? mr. lamborn votes i. mr. whitman? mr. whitman votes i. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes i. ms. gabbard? ms. gabbard? mr. kaufman? mr. kaufman votes i. mr. o'rourke? mr. or work votes no. mr. norcross? mr. norcross votes no. mr. scott? mr. scott votes i. mr. brooks? mr. brooks votes i. mr. moulton?
6:27 am
mr. vote -- moulton votes no. mr. brydon stein? mr. brydon stein votes i. dr. winthrop? dr. winthrop votes i. mr. byrne? mr. byrne votes i. mr. graves? mr. graves votes i. mr. brown? mr. brown votes no. miss mech sally? sally? mech miss mech sally votes no. mr. connor? mr. cotter votes no. dr. desjarlais? dr. desjarlais votes i.
6:28 am
dr. abraham? dr. abraham votes i. mr. kelly? mr. kelly votes i. mr. gates? mr. gates votes i. mr. bacon? mr. bacon votes i. gabbard? [inaudible]
6:29 am
mr. chairman there are 305i votes. there are 26 no votes -- 305i votes, 26 no votes. >> -- if payments result in their financial benefit three the clerks will recall -- call the roll. mr. smith? mr. smith votes i. mr. brady? mr. brady votes i. mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes no. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no.
6:30 am
mr. larson? mr. larson votes i. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. mr. franks notes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. should servers no. this song is that -- mr. conway vote no. votes aye.i lamborn votes no. mr. whitman vote no. vote no.r kaufmannthat -- mr.
6:31 am
vote aye. mr. o'rourke vote aye. vote aye.s mr. scott votes no. mr. gallego vote aye. v mr. brooks vote no. mr. cook vote no. vote no.n stein vote no.rol is rosen vote aye. mr. burns vote no. mr. mceachin vote aye.mr. graves votes no. phonic -- .r. brown votes aye
6:32 am
aye.s murphy votes no.knight votes mr. russell votes no. mr. swazi votes eyes. dr. abraham votes no. mr. walls votes aye. mr. kelly votes no. mr. gallagher votes no. mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon votes no. mr. banks votes no. ms. gabbard? recorded? gallego
6:33 am
gallego is recorded aye. >> with don't have to do this too long. we will take a pause. i got it. [crowd noise]
6:34 am
[applause] how is ms. gabbard recorded? aye.s. gabbard votes e >> clerk will report the tally. votes, 32 no votes. >> next, they put occurs on -r1, a quarterly report detailing cost in support of presidential travel, including travel to property owned by the president or his immediate family. clerk will call a role.
6:35 am
--jim mcdermott very votes chairman thornberry votes no. mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson votes no. this is davis votes aye. -- misses davis votes aye. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. rogers notes no. votes no. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. schuster votes no. connolly -- conaway votes no. mr. lamborn votes no.
6:36 am
notes no.n veci votes aye. mr. hunter votes no. ms. gabbard votes aye. mr. coffman votes aye. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. scott votes no. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. brooks votes no. cook votes no. mr. brightonstein votes no. winstrop votes no.
6:37 am
ms. rosen votes aye. mr. burns votes no. graves votes no. mr. carbajal votes aye. .r. brown votes aye missed mick sally votes no. misses murphy votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. no.russell votes .r. o'halloran votes aye swazi votes aye. dr. abraham votes no. mr. walls votes aye. mr. kelly votes no.
6:38 am
mr. gallagher votes no. mr. gates votes no. mr. bacon votes no. mr. banks votes no. missed cheney votes no. ms. cheney votes no. >> clerk will report the tally. nothere are 31 aye votes, 31 votes. >> the amendment is not agreed
6:39 am
to. the question occurs on franks establishing a space test better because of element of a space-based missile-defense later. the clerk will call the role. >> chairman thornberry votes aye . mr. smith votes no. mr. jones votes aye. mr. brady votes no. mr. wilson votes aye. mrs. davis votes no. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. larson votes no. mr. turner votes aye. mr. cooper votes no. mr. rogers votes aye.
6:40 am
votes aye. mr. courtney votes no. mr. schuster votes aye. conaway votes aye. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. lamborn votes aye. ms. spear votes no. aye.hitman votes hunter votes aye. mo.gabbard votes mr. coffman votes aye. -- mr. coffman
6:41 am
votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes no. norcross votes aye. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes no. mr. cook votes aye. dr. winstrol votes aye. ms. rosen votes no. mr. burns votes aye. graves?
6:42 am
mr. graves? mr. brown votes no. ms. mcsally votes aye. murphey votes no. mr. russell votes aye. mr. o'halloran votes no. dr. abraham votes aye. mr. walls votes no. mr. kelly votes aye. mr. gallagher votes aye. mr. gates votes aye. mr. bacon votes aye.
6:43 am
mr. banks votes aye. ms. cheney votes aye. mr. graves votes aye. >> clerk will report the tally. votes, 26 no votes. >> chair recognizes mr. wilson
6:44 am
for the purpose of offering a motion. >> i moved them market chairman's mark is amended. ayes being habit. -- have it. the motion is adopted. three things. one, you have been terrific. they are very few cases are some in taking the whole five minutes and generally we stay on topic. thank you. the laptops of worked great but he cannot take them. leave them there. number three, i want to thank members of the fourth estate who have stayed with us the whole time. [applause] i want to thank the legislative council, even when i make you really nervous. [applause]
6:45 am
i really want to thank the people who were standing around the wall and in some of the seats, the staff. i want to single out one person particular. it was just a few weeks ago i found that we were losing our staff director. one person has stood up and done two jobs in the last few weeks to enable us to get us to this point and i really appreciate what she has done to make tonight possible. [applause] >> mr. smith? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all the people the chairman thanked, the want
6:46 am
to single out a few in particular. jeannette, fantastic job of working with the minority staff. you solved a ton of issues. the reason we got done as soon as we did was because of the issues you resolved and the staff went back and forth. you did a fantastic job of leading the effort. i want to thank paul on my staff for participating to make it happen. on one issue that some of you worked on we do not have to say a word about it. into the path my day. -- it took up half my day. i want to thank them for their outstanding work in cooperation as we argued over four or five different words. finally got the right words and i think we solved the issue positively. it was a fine example of bipartisan cooperation. and lastly, the entire staff. none better. outstanding. thank you for all your great work. [applause]
6:47 am
we have six minutes to finish. jim recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson for the purpose of a motion. >> i move the committee report as amended281 favorably to the house with a recommendation it to pass. >> question of the motion from the democrats south carolina. those in favor say aye, opposed say no. chair calls for a recorded vote and the court will call role. >> chairman thornberry's votes aye. mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones votes aye. mr. brady votes aye. mr. wilson votes aye. misses davis votes aye. mr. bishop votes aye. mr. larson votes aye. mr. turner votes aye.
6:48 am
mr. cooper votes aye. mr. rogers votes aye. mr. frank's votes aye. mr. courtney votes aye. mr. schuster votes aye. votes aye. mr. connolly votes aye. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. lamborn votes aye. ms. spear? .s spear votes aye mr. whitman votes aye. mr. hunter votes aye. gabbard votes no. mr. coffman votes aye. mr. o'rourke votes aye.
6:49 am
mr. norcross votes aye. mr. scott votes aye. mr. gallego votes aye. mr. brooks votes aye. mr. moulton votes aye. mr. cook votes aye. dr. winstrol votes aye. ms. rosen votes aye. mr. burns votes aye. votes aye. mr. carbajal votes aye. ms. stefanic votes aye. mr. brown votes aye. ms. mcsally votes aye.
6:50 am
mrs. murphy votes aye. mr. knight votes aye. mr. russell votes aye. mr. o'halloran votes aye. dr. abraham votes aye. mr. walls votes aye. mr. kelly votes aye. mr. gallagher votes aye. votes -- mr. bacon votes aye. mr. banks votes aye. ms. cheney votes aye. mr. gates?
6:51 am
>> clerk will report the tally. >> there are 60 aye votes,one no vote. --german from washington gentleman from washington? >> i would like to assert the right of to write -- the right to file a civil minority. 2l,ursuant to clause allison to kelly's to file such views in writing. staff weous consent,
6:52 am
authorize us to make an formic and technical clerical changes to remove from the bill as amended provisions that would cause the bill to be referred to other committees or result in additional direct spending or result in earmark. without objection, so ordered. make suchconsent to motions on the floor as are necessary to get a conference with the senate on the bill hr 2810 or similar senate measure. without objection so ordered. if there is no further business, the committee stands adjourned. [applause] [crowd noise]
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
>> next, your calls and comments on washington journal. been newsmakers with texas congress and kevin brady. after that, you and ambassador nikki haley testifies at a house hearings on u.s. foreign all city. -- foreign policy. >> tonight on q&a -- >> anybody in 1962 after the last press conference, 10 years later he would when a 49 state landslide? it all came apart.
6:58 am
>> political commentator pat hean in -- pat buchanan n'scusses his book "nixo white house wars." >> i wrote him a memo saying i testify. ought to i did not think the tapes are going to be that damaging to us. keep the tapes in the foreign policy stuff. the study need you should take. take arrest out and burn it and shut down this special prosecutor's office now before the thing grows into a monster. i did not know it at the time but nixon had called in hague ard.liz first, i did not recommend burning subpoenad tapes.
6:59 am
there was executive privilege. everybody knew it. did he simply got rid of them and just set in effect, kampeter damned, impeach or be think he would've gotten through it. if he had burned the tapes, he would have survived. i think that is right. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. collects discussesllen bringing civility into political discourse. than long time career diplomat james dobbins talks about "foreign service: five decades on the frontlines of american diplomacy." president trump's foreign-policy challenges. later, alexandra pelosi discusses her new hbo film, open
7:00 am
:" the words that built america." washington journal is next. host: good morning. congress is in recess this week. president trump back in new jersey today on this long holiday weekend. thanks for joining us here on c-span's "washington journal" for this sunday morning, july 2. among the headlines from "the washington post," with the health bill looming, senators are not rushing into the fourth of july spotlight. a focus on some key senators, including lisa murkowski of alaska, and the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell. the "l.a. times" says six governors leading the charge against the senate health plan. from the watt steel journal website, president trump joining the fray oth

29 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on