the amendment is basically twofold. one is these are functions that should be carried on by the undersecretary. we have already assigned into the undersecretary and we should not have this competing power center with a mandate from congress to do the same thing that we asked the undersecretary to do. my second objection to mr. nigh 's amendment is this. this is a good example of how we contribute to the problem. the air force was not doing what they should done to what was our answer quick suite created new agency to do what the air force should have been doing. rather than holding the air force accountable we are doing their job and that happens over time and as it grows and grows and these agencies cannot be moved we are partly responsible for the sclerosis at the department of defense. now i do not say to get rid of

the resource management center but the only thing i do is i removed the provision in the law that tells the secretary he has to have it. that way if they want to put those duties under the undersecretary for research and engineering they can do that. they want to leave the separate they can do that too although i will point out there's a whole other separate agency that is responsible for test and evaluation their reports to the secretary and so we get a number of these things going. i don't say you have to get rid of it that i just remove what we did. the statutory requirement that requires the separate entity do this job rather than as we should have done in my opinion and so i'm probably responsible rather than hold the air force

accountable they should do it. again i just want to emphasize to everybody are natural reaction when something goes wrong is to create a new mandate or a new agency to try to fix ft and that's often not the right answer. i have no doubt these people do good work and i have no doubt they did good work in mr. nye's district and they will continue to do good work there but my point here is that requiring by statute that the separate organization exists especially lonely just created an undersecretary to do the exact same thing is a mistake and we need to rectify our past mistakes. does anybody else want to talk about this?

mr. yates. >> thank you mr. chairman. are those who care about the tei will yield to you to answer it. there are some who might believe that the underlying mark would suggest a movement towards consolidation of the test mission in its entirety not just the bureaucratic overlay although the reports due regard meeting metrics but the research that is conducted among the various branches. can you give us comfort that if mr. knight's a memo or not adopted there would be the diverse testing that exist now because i don't want a world where we limit innovation that we have all seen great benefits from and as a consequence of the desire to have appropriate peer credit -- and i yield to you to respond. >> i would just say and i thank you to the gentleman for

yielding. i agree totally. the purpose is to have more tesd that's the reason we created a new undersecretary to push that mission because it was getting lost in the old at&l. they are simply responsible for some of the testing facilities and it is my view that all of us ought to hold either the appropriate service or the undersecretary for research and engineering accountable for the appropriate testing facilities whether that is in cyber to keep pushing for cyber range or in any of the domains of warfare. we need more testing, more experimentation. what we don't need is three or four different agencies with overlapping responsibility to do that. >> i yield that. >> first of all i say this only

slightly for she's asleep at a greatly enthusiasm before this committee. it's not easy to pick up for most of us but it is very very important. you are right everything you just said about how we wind up spending money for the sake of spending money of how we stumble each other over the way is very accurate and getting out that is important. i don't support this amendment could i will say just for the record the underlying bill so you understand still has a requirement or an overall 25% cut over two years, is that? >> at the gentleman would yield. by 2021 it's a 25% reduction all many in the identified services like personnel and i.t. in the back office functions.

>> it is not a 25% cut of all six. >> now, it is not. only those back office functions that are duplicative. that's why i want to squeeze money out of the tail him put more money into the tooth. >> i do agree with the general direction. we will talk about the terms of how we get there. it's very important and we still have things to argue about further but i agree on the opposition to this amendment and i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i wanted to check in on the issue as well because there's somehow a 25% reduction across-the-board and the problem with that is what is the purpose of the program to begin with and what does that program need to be successful in order to do the

job for the military. i think that's what seems to be missing here and if we can identify that better that would be very helpful. it may be very selective but it doesn't sound that way and i can assure you the projection out there is where off the board just/and burn. i don't think that's your intent but i want to make sure we are notifying one another when there are issues. >> if the gentlelady would yield on the point. i can take responsibility for not explaining it very well at the beginning. it was never my intent or the language did not say we are going to take a 25% cut across-the-board. the language and again i should have explained it better, identifies a specific number of functions, personnel management the logistics with an agency, i.t. and so forth where between

now and 2021 those costs, those back office functions by 25%. the truth is the new chief management officer will come to us and say i can't do that, can't do that and that's part of the reason it's not out until 2021 but it's only those back office functions of the agency, not the mission of the defense agency or any of them. >> i understand that at some time back office functions are important to the mission and we want to be clear. >> we are looking for efficiencies across-the-board. just to repeat briefly when mr. devine talks about the three different agencies that have to negotiate which other in the pentagon there is a problem and they need to get on the same page some number when they can hire somebody faster number two

we don't spend all that money with three different agencies doing all these personnel functions. >> mr. brown. >> thank you mr. chairman. i certainly have no question in the chairman's confidence in the undersecretary of defense who is assumed the duties regarding te. i have two major testing facilities in maryland. at the time the at&l was acknowledged the deity witnessed an alarming trend of too many programs that were dedicated operational testing testing witt completed test evaluation as a

result the services were conducted on immature systems and the results reflect the consequences. we are supporting both the fiscal year eight team, fiscal year 19 and major increases in modern programs so this work is going to be very important. my concern is that you have facilities that are funded via services that are supporting other services. my concern is that the army doesn't underfund a place that has more air force testing test. most of the testing there's anything there other services that participated and i certainly want and want to see the navy -- that may support air force army or any other service.

the sierra and c. was created for that purpose. i appreciate your enthusiasm and confidence in the undersecretary. and i would prefer to see more data and analysis on the effectiveness of transit of this transition of those responsibilities to the undersecretary and i yield back mr. chairman. >> i yield myself briefly to say one as you may recall we created the 809 panel to look at creating efficiencies in one of the recommendations they gave us in january was to do this so there has been a fair amount of study done in support of this recognition. mr. knight is there somebody -- mr. russell for five minutes. >> mr. chairman thank you. i mailed my -- yield my time to my colleague. >> thank you mr. russell. thank you mr. chair. let's get back on track here. this is a back-office situation.

this is a test evaluation. this is where the services to work together. we have many programs and a platform that are operational throughout the service and this is how the services work together. i appreciate the chairman's thought in moving forward and i appreciate really believe this undersecretary is going to be that person to way that magic wand but the fact of the matter is the experts in the field combined with the services make this work. i yield back the balance of my time mr. chair. >> that there is no further discussion of questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california mr. knight number 371. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the nose have it. the amendment is not agreed to.

>> mr. chair i asked for a recorded vote. >> there's a request for a recorded vote. a sufficient number have indicated. a recorded vote is ordered. mr. gallagher. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment could without objection it is considered as read. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment addresses threat posed by recruitment programs and the superiority that dives their military advantage. it plays an indispensable role in driving innovation in developing technology central to tomorrow's military. the deity funded research particularly the responsibility to ensure american servicemembers of the future reap the benefits -- for years experts have been sounding the alarm about foreign talent recruitment programs in the role in facilitating technology

transfer. for instance the chinese thousand talents program participates in cutting edge resource -- research becoming the legal leedle in leading science and technology. how advanced china is becoming and how we are losing her age. a report on china's technology explicitly calls out the chinese thousand talents program is a core component of the goal of overtaking the united states in technological superiority. the recruitment programs aren't only technological superiority. i've heard concerns of the office of undersecretary or intelligence about these programs. keep in mind individuals participate in programs from these countries are paid by an adversarial foreign government to conduct oftentimes defense

relevant research with that said i want to talk about what this amendment is and what it is not the let me be clear this is not a prohibition. my language gets six months to develop a certification process that individuals applying for defense funds for academic and similar research has not participated in the recruitment programs of china russia north korea or iran through the certification process would go into effect after one year and at that point applicants for defense dollars cannot provide such specifics the secretary has the ability meaning is not mandated to terminate funding. let funding. let me be clear this is not a blanket prohibition but rather targeted attempt to increase transparency and in the power dod to address potential concerns as it sees fit part of some academics may decide not to apply for dod related programs i would hope given the new certification process and a

greater awareness of the risks for a talented program experts will -- we need to have a paradigm shift when it comes to protecting sustaining and enhancing our national security innovation base them protect king researched and keeping the resulting research here at home instead of us all simple step towards achieving just that and i urge the committee to support this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the ranking member. >> thank you mr. chair and i certainly agree with the overall goal of this. there's no question they have made efforts to come into our country. that's probably not just these four countries engaged in this effort to advance technology in the u.s.. the problem is it will have a very strong chilling effect in our universities.

basically what it does it gives the secretary of defense dod veto power over who can come in and study at our universities. i guess it's the lack of specificity that is concerning about this. in my case it's not my district at the university of washington they also participate in defense programs and to the benefit of the department of defense and the united states in general. they are quite likely to walk out of this because the certification process is not the right at all. it's left up to decide what the certification process will be. suspect the department of defense will say we just rather not have people coming in and out. i'm not a posed that this is going to need some work in one of the biggest areas we need to work on is it can't just be dod.

there have got to be other points or pr going to cut off our universities from a lot of talent. i don't doubt for a second that people have spy programs trying to steal information i'm very much aware of my district between china and russia there a large number of very smart and talented people in both of those countries who would come to the united states and study at the university of washington and stay here and contributed greatly to the growth of our economy and the strength of our technology so to cut off the pool is what i'm worried about. can i ask for a vote on this? again just turning this over to the dod and the certification process. this amendment didn't say a

single word about what that's certification processes except that the department of defense gets to do it. that's a blanket authority to give the department to read to get a certification process that is more broad and a little bit more involved. i yield back. >> mr. wilson. >> thank you mr. chairman i want to thank congressman gallagher for his work on this very important issue. it is critical to the preservation of our military technological edge that we take steps to increase transparency on foreign talent recruitment programs. these programs have continued to be leveraged in research and development conducted within the united states. the program poses a counterintelligence threat and it is a -- unreasonable for acquiring dod to develop a certification process to verify

the credentials of individuals applying for defense funding for academic research. academic research is a blind spot by foreign nations which is why in today's the intelligence transparency a.c.t. which on fort -- unfortunately was not able to be included. i commend congressman gallagher and his work on the issue and strongly support his amendment. i yield back my time. >> mr. turner. >> thank you mr. chairman peter want to congratulate chairman gallagher on an excellent amendment and in the issue on working on language for this i think it's the strongest language that we have heard on why we should vote to pass this to the ranking member said i don't doubt there are spy programs that are absolutely targeted towards the students in these programs. that's why this is so important and part of our whole process of ingenuity is based on research at universities, the individual

and their creativity, our adversaries that looked to steal the intellectual property and infiltrate our processes trying to advance technology for national security defense and that's why it's so important and i strongly supported. >> mr. gallego. >> thank you mr. chair. i actually do agree with mr. gallagher's spirit and idea behind this. i was just in taiwan and spoke to some of their military and defense intelligence officials there. they explicitly were telling me about actions that the chinese government have taken to undermine their own institutions whether it's number one spending at taiwanese universities so they can infiltrate some of the student groups and democratic groups or work their way into

some of the tech groups and figure out how to take intellectual property and send it back. the opposite where they are sending taiwanese to china and being converted into resources. .. during the cold war were graduate students that came into work and the united states, got their phd and then went back and

with intellectual leaders against communism and socialism all over the world and at this point whether it is through the confucian institute or whatever actions for example that the republic of iran is doing for the russians. i do think our way of life and our mode of governance still will win out in the end so when we have the opportunity is to accept some of these future potential leaders of the countries there certainly is going to be some available opportunities for us to be able to have them as allies late lean the world and if we even look at what happened in south america, many of the south american leaders in terms of democracy are or were graduate students in the united states.

i think that mr. gallagher is on the money and is moving in the right direction and i would gladly work to get more clarity in a parameter t for this and somethinto the sunsomething thae department of defense or not abuse thnotabused but potentialg accidentally used in an incorrect manner would be comforting our values especially the values we try to espouse the universities, so with that, i would yield back. >> mr. larson. >> thank you mr. chairman. first, looking at the points our concern is improvement and foreign talent of the countries that list might not belong and only includes folks that show up on the death list.

there may be other countries on the list and if the concern is expert recruitment as it is described in the amendment a second as other countries on the list the question i would have is there might have been a time when we were encouraging students from russia say post 1990, 1992 and so how far back then does the university to be concerned about being punished if they accept students that are part of this and tha the third t is maybe some students come from some other countries and the value of having them in the united states seeing transparency and experiencing democratic values and experiencing something they are

not going to see at home and what we lose when we don't encourage students from some of the countries to study in the united states. just a few things to think about as we are considering this amendment. i will yield back. >> ms. cheney. >> i support the amendment strongly. we are not talking about preventing foreign students from studying in the united states. this amendment specificall specy because of the applicant is seeking funding from the department of defense and specifically focuses on china, russia, iran and north korea. if we are not willing at this point at a minimum to say the secretary of defense has got to have some sort of a program to protect our nation, to protect beef programs from that kind of influence, then we are not up to the task of protecting ourselves particularly against chinese, and we know the chinese are

attempting to do this and the extent they are attempting to exploit our openness and system in order frankly to overtake us. so i strongly support this amendment and i think it is the bare minimum of what we need to do and it is an important first step and mr. chairman i would like to yield the balance of my time to mr. gallagher. >> i want to foot stomp on what my colleague said it is and no doubt my fault we are not talking about foreign students. it's only those that participate in the programs that have to be crude and people in our country to go over there that's why we talked about the program and there are americans of chinese heritage that are deliberately targeting the chinese government for these programs and i associate myself very much inside the remarks that we do

want them to come here and learn about the value of democracy. that is a separate debate to be had in terms of how many visas we have, but that isn't what we are talking about here. they are always wrestling with the amount of prescription versus the amount of latitude to the dod. all i'm saying is we are trying to start the conversation by saying we should know whether or not somebody applying for the research has participated in these programs they should certify that and then have the latitude because they believe they would have a better understanding of the individual case. the emphasis of my opening remark is the certification process that you are talking

about is wide open at this point and with the universities are concerned about is not being able to meet the certification process. since they don't know what it is or might be coming as a justifiable fear. we should do this but the work is to make sure the certification process works and what i am concerned about in the villas that ivillage but it bass the department of defense carte blanche to deliver whatever certification process they want. and absolutely if they are a part of the recruitment efforts, we need to stop them from coming here. the question is the universities think if we don't need the certification process we can't take the chance of losing the money so it's the certification process i most want to clear up. >> >> i don't want is a simple, simple becomes often difficult for the dod to have a certification that simply determines whether or not someone applying for funding has

participated in one of these programs that is what it's aimed at. we tried to thread the needle between and forcing them to go ththat direction without being overly prescriptive and i would say i instructed the members over the last year to listen to testimony about how some of our adversaries are in this space and if nothing else i think we need a transparency. we have all heard reports of how much intellectual property theft costs with the greatest transfer of wealth and nothing else so this starts the conversation and i just would yield the balance of my time. >> i have a few questions i generally do support the idea that the adversaries would

benefit from our learning and discovery and technology i think we ought to be rightfully concerned neither the amendment nor have i seen what they recruitment program is that a defined term i'm willing to deal with maybe 30 seconds. >> the chinese contract is basically the government has to deliver a plan that drives innovation and growth in the economy so the national provincial transfer goes out and targets individuals in our country that have specific expertise and cutting-edge technology that have prominent positions in academia and then they recruit them for projects on china or the chinese government and often times we don't have an understanding of

what that program was or whether there was a quid pro quo. >> if they have a robust engineering program we have a lot of international researchers coming in and working in partnership with the university. we have the researcher engineer from china working on some stuff and he goes back to china maybe someone from maryland follows him back. i don't know. what the university be in jeopardy that they wouldn't be able to see the future federally funded research dollars? >> if that individual applied for the grant, the educational grant, they would have to certify whether or not they have participatehadparticipated in ae program in the past and from there they can decide. is that person to us-based

researcher working with the chinese researcher? >> it's a us-based person as a part of their program. >> not to pummel a dead horse here but that is a problem the certification process if it was as simple as mr. gallagher said then why isn't it in the bill? it doesn't say a word about the process except the dod has developed it so they could develop a process that says. all i'm looking for is some sort of a parameter around with the certification process is so they know what the rules are. the concern i have again i support the goals of what happens with that engineer or researcher but also for examples

the university we do say what do you guys do to the culture they even do some things in the elementary and middle schools and i have no doubt even though i don't know, i'm not certain but it's probably that the participants go to china to visit the cultural exchange and what are the assurances that the evidence be swept into the definition of the expert recruitment program. >> they actually publish every recipient of the program so that should be relatively simple to certify whether it's someone that will have participated in the official program now we left some flexibility because there could be things underneath the threshold that were not published but nonetheless they would have concerns about and there is no perfect way to

dictate in advance that's why i think it's good policy to give some flexibility but we will wil know based on what is publicly available in that case. >> i often see amendments and additions that define what we are talking about and maybe you list the thousands and whatever we know from iran or any other country and similar programs, but at least in what you are proposing we have a sense of types of programs that are intended to be captured and certified or not by what you're trying to do. this is wide open and maybe we can bring it to the floor as an amendment we can get around.

mr. gallagher mentioned the testimony over the course of the last year or so, cyberspace weapons development technology and what's going on. but i don't believe we can wait another year to start this process. i would hope mr. gallagher and others work with the ranking member to make sure we have a process that is going to be something that moves forward quickly, but we do need that type of input from the universities, and i am concerned also that we mentioned the programs. i think we need to have a little more flexibility if i were one of these countries i would stop doing the programs and start doing something else. so a little more thought and i just want to thank mr. gallagher for putting this forward because

i think it's about time. this discussion is a pretty good example of why committee work is important. there'there is a massive amountf confusion as to what i it's tryg to be accomplished or how. i don't think any of us are opposed to what would be the general goal of the proposal that is to limit the loss of the intellectual property. however it isn't at all clear how this would work and who would be affected by it. so bringing it up at this hour without the work by the appropriate committees i think is not wise.

there are going to be some significant unintended consequences as i try to understand what it is that will happen here. for example, sometimes it is a bad idea to read the actual proposal to ensure applicants beast must be funds from the department of defense. so that could be a colonel seeking funds to go to china to study or work with the chinese military on their defense strategies or learn their language or whatever. i would recommend that we take some time to make this work well

because right now it doesn't seem to me that it could work. however, i think all of us would like to make sure that we do not fund spies, either americans who are engaged in a foreign program that are those that would be targeted here who may or may not be patriots or someone from another country who is advanced in a program here in the united states and would return home. this is confusing at least to me and i would suspect from the conversation to all of us i would recommend that we put this aside and maybe take it up on the floor or have invented by staff and members that are interested in it. i like the concept that i don'tt think it's going to work in creating confusion at the universities and probably within the military also a.

i think you have a good proposal and it reminds me a lot of what little we understood about the program when it started and then love and behold many years later we find out that the only person coming into the country to become u.s. citizens immediately upon entering boot camp or persons from russia and china and they are shrewd and smart and they will use every opportunity that we give them so what you are trying to do here is very important. my only concern, and i'm going to support your amendment, but my only concern is that we get the institution, the university notice before we yank the

funding. are you listening? [laughter] in all seriousness, did you hear what i said? [laughter] of me try again i think you are onto something important and i'm going to support your amendment what i am concerned about is that we make sure the institutions of higher learning are put on notice before we yank their funding because they hired someone they didn't know was part of who had come here and

paid for their own education and then was invited to do your research at the university so i'm going to support it but it does need to be refined. they haven't been good actors as arofhow they take advantage of r openness and steal so much from our country and of their operation is so much more sophisticated in that regard. if i could just summarize what i've heard over the last 45 minutes or however long it's been i think everybody agrees there may be some refinement and she was to work out but it looks like everybody is headed in the same direction.

>> i want to thank the representatives for bringing this forward. i think it certainly has merit. i am positively intrigued i think we need to pursue this but i also have a number of universities and i want to make sure this is something that is fully developed that we don't shoot from the hip in terms of having any inadvertent consequences so i'm reluctant to support it but i'd love to see this further developed. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. >> i was just checking on the multiple jurisdictions that have given waivers. >> there were no objections.

>> the question is on the amendment offered by mr. gallagher of those in favor? in the opinion of the chair, the amendment is adopted. let me give everybody a status report. we have got 24 more amendments to debate and that does not include offer and withdraw and all that sort of stuff. 922 i'm just telling you that's where we are. can we ask for unanimous consent because we are coming up to 12 hours where we cut the time to an individual from five to two minutes. i'm not opposed to that but what happens is people start yielding to one another. i know these games, they've been around. but they do this package and you

all be thinking about it and just remember where we are. i ask unanimous consent to call up number four consisting on the minority without objection it is so ordered. the clerk will distribute package number four without objection they are considered as read and consist of the following number 41 by mr. wilson expressing a violation of the chemical weapons convention and number 74 would increase the cap on the small-scale construction for security cooperation. 173 would expand eligibility for payments for damage to include somalia, libya and yemen and 145 would add a certificate should reclaim it on the return of certain veterans memorial objects amendment 205 would allow the secretary defens secro seize the obligation of 135 and it was they pose a risk to the t group personnel and 354 would require the report on casualty

estimates for the potential conflict with north korea. is there any further discussion on package number four? >> you are required because of treaty beyond others with resistance to procuring new aircraft because the folks here don't think it has a big payoff but if they are required to fly into the air force would like to replace these with business objects that are cheap to operate but we keep holding back to do that. i think we need to let the air force replace and what you're having ayou're havingas they arn russia with broken jets for weeks at a time and put in awkward situations so the amendment is to give them a chance to push back and say

we've got to stop we need to replace them. thank you. >> any further discussion? if not the question is on number four. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes habit and the amendments are adopted. next is the gentle lady from california. >> the clerk will distribute and the gentle lady from california is recognized. >> the training of shooting a so combat medics can learn treatment schedules however the anatomy is similar to but not replicated with that of the human that's why the department of defense has been working to

replace the use of live animals in combat training courses in favor of medical simulation technology. the department research has concluded that there is no objective benefits of animal training. the defense health agenc defensd in 2017 dot the tissue training is outdated and cost prohibitive and not anatomically correct. both the coast guard and the services stopped using the vast majority of the programs in the united states t are trained for medical workers and trauma care exclusively however despite the advances of the technologies it's been slow to phase out the training. the provision included in the fiscal year required the pentagon to formalize the transition from animals to other non- animal trading methods but this i has not yet happened.

if assistant secretary for health affairs requires a transition in 2015 and is also hasn't happened. it's time to set a timeline with reasonable exemptions. this amendment does three things. it provides the resources needed to complete the transitions. number three april and all training starting in 2025 unless a waiver is granted by the secretary defense or his delegate on a case-by-case basis this means other techniques are not sufficient to meet the requirements of and it can continue to be used as long as it is needed. a fair amount of the balance is needed to end the practice to ensure service members hav serve best medical care and most

dangerous circumstances. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment. >> i have a substitute amendment to that offer. the clerk will distribute. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman as many of you know at this point for 28 years we've had exposure and training with simulation and life tissue training and that's what i want to speak on here. i will tell you simulation training has gotten better in the last several years i'm in a different place than i was a few years ago as far as what the simulators are capable of doing. they are much more interactive with greater capabilities but they are still in the need for life tissue training as well as

simulation training and i offer to people in the training before they use life tissue training the chain of command on the medical side will decide who needs life tissue training and that will be based on the capabilities of th the healthcae provider involved and it will also include commission that they may be assigned to. it's a fairly graphic description of what was given but it's not the case to what i have seen. they are american heroes in my opinion and the current training programs that include live animals have contributed to the lowest killed in action raised these are our troops. thithis bill also increases thee of simulation training and it is easier to get these out to

reserve a to get people trained in a far better way than we've ever had before and i advocate for dot where only life tissue can give you that. when i went a couple of weeks ago over to the university to see the latest and greatest of what they have which i will tell you it's great they said we can't give everything someone may need to be trained for. there are some people that don't need to go to the simulator or her life tissulife tissue trainf their experiences. that is why those decisions should be made on a local level. the scene on today's battlefield is much more severe than you will get in the civilian medical center or you can get any simulation center. and sometimes the skills you have to have can only come from working on life tissue.

it builds the competence of the healthcare provider. no one enjoys the fact that you are using life tissue, but you understand that this is for the betterment of the troops and saving our lives. you talked to the special operation forces that are sometimes very minimal health care capabilitiehealthcare capay except for themselves. they undergo these type trainings when they go to the environment where they may need it to save each others lives. so i think that this amendment is a substitute amendment to a. that i will yield back.

>> mr. ranking member. this is an important issue we have made significant advances and i think that ultimately we should get to the point. it is going to be different on the battlefield with your colleagues or friends in a situation it is impossible to be totally re-created and i would like to see us get to the point where we don't have to rely on the life tissue training. and i want to thank the congresswoman for working with us to get the language to improve that and i look forward to continuing that process and i know we argued about this before so i will not belabor the point. i will yield back.

>> doctor abraham. i have a degree in medicine. i'm an animai am an animal lovet i'm also working in many areas where it could in chest tubes and do tracheotomy is and is and anything that you can imagine that comes in through an emergency room and i can tell you from very limited experience you cannot replicate some things. i've worked on these and they are excellent and they are getting better, but when the nation is in chalk, a simulator dummy has no equal in the human tissue as to whether it retracts or whether it functions or whether the breathing apparatus is performed accurately.

there are thousands of variables that the simulators cannot replicate. and certainly when we are talking about the troops in a combat setting where chalk is inevitable i'd sa i would say at 100% of the time, you don't know what you don't know until about combat medic or surgeon goes back wher wherein it can be im important. in accessing life tissue, artery games, chest cavity, if well cost lives. i want to do this as humanely as possible certainly from the time which i practiced ten years i understand what those animals to sacrifice. and he's right they are american

heroes tha but they are american soldiers. we need to tissue and i will be the first to get in line and say let's put them aside and do something different, but we are not there yet. i will yield back. >> question is on the substitute offered by doctor wenstrup. all of those in favor? opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair of the ayes have it and the substitute is adopted. now the question is on the amendment offered by ms. spear. those in favor of the substitute amendment? opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. next is mr. khanna.

the gentl gentle gentle lamb iso leave the recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment is very simple they don't stop them from providing fuel to restrict our actiontheiractions in yemen acra that has attacked our homeland and i would ask the members on the committee to think about this very simply as we talk to their constituents back home and ask them do you think your tax dollars should be going to support saudi arabia because we need a different regime in yemen

is that where you want your tax dollars going? and i would argue, the 90% of constituents would say what are you talking about and the other 10% would say no. if yo you say but do you want yr tax dollars going to fight terrorists who attacked us, then it would get overwhelming support. i think that everyone in this country believe as we should be on the offensive against the terrorists that attacked us. no one believes that we should be engaged in a civil war against the regime but 99% of americans cannot pronounce. and the issue here is the founding ideals. john quincy adams warned us about this. he said that if america wants to cheer for freedom and human rights around the world, we

should. and we should get our prayers and blessings and we should stand up for our values. but he warned that when we go overseas to seek monsters to destroy, when we go over as liberators, we will come to be seen as a dictatorial force. not because of our end tensions, not because of our values, but because we won't know who the good guys are. we won't know who to support. that's what is taking place right now in yemen. we are being held liable and responsible for the actions of saudi arabia and for the united arab emirates. they don't have the high standards of the united states. i have so much respect for my colleagues on the committee. so many that have bravely worn the uniform of the united states. you know that we in the united states with the highest ethical standards. we don't take action likely that

has civilian casualties. does anyone believe in good faith that the united arab targets or the saudis share our values and how does it feel that they are killing the yemeni civilian and blaming us. why do we want to be the fact that the military would never stand for and no one on the committee would stand for. so my hope is that this will be a bipartisan issue that we can all agree on a strong offensive against al qaeda or against terrorist groups and i certainly would support any such efforts in yemen or elsewhere. but we can all agree that we should not be involved in a civil war, and we should not

exaggerate the threat of iran that have been proving that iran was provoked after the saudis and the bombings started in yemen. and we should extricate ourselves from this and focus on the enemies that threaten the homeland. i think that it fundamentally misunderstands the question on the ground in yemen. in addition t to the maligned influence that we have seen expanding throughout the region we've seen for the first time it appears according to the newest releases they've attacked the positions and the forces in this

area launched attacks against the israelis. what is happening today they are back and somehow the activities is not a threat to us and the te obama treasury department imposed sanctions. and they talked about the sanctions on the officials and this is a quote those individuals are being sanctioned because they have allowed al qaeda to operate at the core pipeline through iran. this isn't just a civil war or a situation where the united states doesn't have an interest. and enabling the refueling and providing the refueling for the saudis we are supporting an american ally. be the wrong thing to do,

particularly today, particularly tonight as we have seen with the more brazen attack than we have ever seen again a strong israel to adopt this amendment and somehow send a message that we don't fully understand what it's going to take to counter the influence across the region. so, i would strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment to make sure that the united states continues to do everything possible to make sure we are supporting our allies and recognize the reality that's happening on the ground which is the iranian backed giving everything they can t to drink e health of iran to frankly help iracrinkly healthiran extend its the region, which is fundamentally counter to the national security interest. i would urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to thank mr.khanna

for bringing attention to this issue. it does have an impact. three great points about it. to dismiss what is going on as a simplthey simply iranian proxy s a big misunderstanding of what's going on in yemen. there are layers upon layers in terms of the different factions are fighting each other in yemen coming into this started long before iran had anything to do with it. i'm going to forget some of these names here, but the former prime minister and current premier mr. r. switching sides moving back and forth. a whole lot of actors in the region have the best of the war to figure out what their interests are. there is also no question that there is a strong al qaeda presence in yemen that we are

fighting. and mr. khanna's amendment goes to say nothing in the amendment will restrict us from continuing that particular fight. but the third point is yemen has become one of the least known and largest humanitarian crises in the world largely because of the approach that saudi arabia took to it. and yes, in most instances, saudi arabia is our ally. certainly not in all. but what they did undermine their interests. the bombing campaign, they basically closed off the port said the basic food supplies couldn't get into the hundreds of thousands of people are starting in yemen and there was one particular instance where the group of people that were most trying to resolve the dispute in yemen and again that the dispute is primarily a [inaudible] other people started playing and there is no question, but it

started long before iran had anything to do with it. there was a group of people trying to negotiate peace and they went to the funeral of one of the leaders of the effort who have died, and the saudis bombed the funeral killing pretty much two thirds of the people who were trying to find peace. the civilian casualties in yemen from the saudi bombing campaign has become a huge humanitarian crisis. now, i've met with the saudi foreign minister and he's explained to me that targeting efforts and all that. the bottom line is that statistics don't lie if they are to saudi arabia it is indiscriminately bombing in jenin in a way that i think is undermining our interest. it is turning people in yemen and the people in the broader region against us to think that saudi arabia is our proxy. now, if we can work towards negotiated peace and do something to bring greater stability i am all for that, but simply to say you are bad luck,

you are right in the middle, work with the saudis, not the iranians, then that is just the way it goes. i don't think it is in our best interest in terms of ultimately winning the hearts and minds that we need to win in both incidentally, isn't just iran. it is the extremists on the sudanese side, which nobody with the possible exception of pakistan but i don't think that's true, nobody did more to light a fire under al qaeda and isis. there is no evidence that they are trying to reverse that it's not as simplbutit's not as simpi arabia versus iran. so i think this amendment is carefully crafted to trick is a further destabilizing by creating a humanitarian crisis is not the way to gain the upper hand on iran is also doing things that we frankly should be part of it with that was about,l yield back.

these are not tribesmen that are fighting a civil war. they are giving those missiles to iran and we found fragments so this is a proxy war no matter what anyone says and it is a country that is becoming an ally of ourselves and israel in the efforts to fight back this proxy threat.

to give aid to a country that is basically defending itself against a serious threat it's entirely appropriate that we do so. i oppose the amendment. i do want to concede to my good friend mr. khanna that assuming the alliebut assumingthe alliest perfect and working with our allies in the middle east, we don't have a choice unless we want to do everything ourselves and i would say for all of those concerned about the fact that the saudis.

this is a very complex conflict but one of the worst tragedies are occurring they've received sophisticated weapons in the street and i would also just remind everyone that over 80,000 u.s. citizens live in saudi arabia and the launched rockets on a near daily basis. it is entirely consistent with the authorities engaged in these operations that take place. as complex as it can be, we have the opportunity in the store because historical alignment of israel and if the alignment builds in opposition to iran and we are the leader of the bloc and unless we want to ping-pong

back and forth between the attempt of the withdrawal to do everything ourselves the only option that we have is to work by, with either through some semblance and i will yield back the balance of my time. >> i support mr. khanna's amendment. i think that he makes a strong compelling case that we are declared to the civil war and we are complicit in the indiscriminate bombing of civilians hospitals, schools, 8 million people merely who faced starvation in that country and we can either understand or declare it or it is out of the e open or we can continue to try to deny our culpability and the work that we are doing with the saudi government right now. i think that there are very good arguments on the other side. we shouldn't allow the perfect become the enemy of the good and if we don't work with the

parties involved, we will not have control whatsoever but it's hard for me to see our effort so far produced the desired result and this work continues to rage without those that continue to die in iran continues to be strong in the area. if our stated goal was to cripple their influence and capacity in that region i don't think we have achieved it. so i think that we either declare and be ou him to be oute open about this or withdraw from our hope of the saudi war in yemen. i will yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you, representative. i won't take up all this time. i will be very brief. i want to acknowledge the point and even though we disagree on this issue, i hope that there

can be the consensus that we ask our secretary to at least hold the saudis and united arab emirates accountable for human rights and that we have a that conversation with them and i would say to the representative cheney and conway we have a genuine difference of opinion. i appreciate actually your honesty there is a genuine difference in which way the foreign policy should go in this nation. you are absolutely right i appreciate you acknowledging the motives to be there to have iran as an acknowledgment of what you think american interests are and that is one approach to foreign policy. i would argue that approach over the last 15 years has led to

terrorism spreading it has made the united states less safe. and i think there is a newly emerging consensus on both the left and the right but we need to be far less interventionist around with it if we need the former restraint and we only ought to be exercising the military force a look forward to having that debate thi that is t the congress is all about the. of the united states shouldn't stand for it and i'm not sympathetic to them in any way, shape or form in the human rights issues. i will tell you in this case

they are trying to protect the current government of their neighbor from people who are trying to overthrow the government of their neighbor and iandeffort were on the oppositee where they were trying to overthrow then i would agree with your amendment but i will tell you we are doing what we need to do with regard to supplying the refueling and i do hope that we will hold them accountable for the human rights violations in with what i will yield back the remainder of my time. >> i speak in strong support of the amendment and associate myself with his. 65% of the deaths have come

about because of the bombs that we've sold to saudi arabia. coming from the planes that american taxpayers are fueling. we cannot ignore this fact. the involvement in the civil war caused the worst outbreak in history for this incredible humanitarian crisis we talked about a proxy war between iran and saudi arabia and how we were very much involved in this. why has congress completely abdicated our constitutional responsibility to get involved in these wars and other countries. you can pick and choose have turned a blind eye when it is convenient, but the fact remains this debate has not gone on in

congress. i'd appreciate my colleague bringing this important amendment before the committee because at least at this point we can have the conversation on behalf of our constituents and the american people. i support this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same. >> but we yield back just briefly. i think the ranking member and others are right it is a mess and it has been a mess for a long time with the others but the intervention has poured gasoline on the fire in a way that it has not seen again and they brought a number of specific weapons but some members went to see that our iranian supplied weapons before going into yemen as tangible evidence of how iran is

aggravating the situation. there are horrible humanitarian situations but to only blame us and the saudis doesn't represent the true picture. >> my understanding from the testimony is when the department of defense refuels an aircraft, they cannot tell whether that aircraft will participate in a counterterrorism mission or force protection mission of ours and others so the effect hasn't been that long ago when the most serious threats emanated from yemen some of the most sophisticated bombs on airplanes. inside human bodies originated in yemen.

so the notion that we would walk away from the situation were that we could neatly divide counterterrorism versus this when it's all mixed together i think is somewhat wishful thinking. the last point i would make is we are working with the saudis to target their strikes as carefully as possible. that intel collection is helping make the strides more precise especially against isis and al qaeda elements. but walking away from yemen bought into the situation. so, i join those opposing this amendment acknowledging the humanitarian tragedy and the political mess that is in yemen

and also understanding that significant national security interest the united states of america has as well. if there is no further debate, the question is on the amendment number 310. those in favor, those opposed. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. those in support of the request from a sufficient number of the vote ithose is ordered. which will be postponed. mr. spear number 101. the clerk will distribut distrie without the objection considered as read. the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment was formerly condemned the actions of the military in light of the atrocities they committed against people. it would als also states the sts that must be taken before the further military engagement can

occur and increase the scrutiny of future engagement. this language is very similar to the language introduced by senator mccain in 2060 individual's attention to the fact thousands of women have reported to be violently raped, children murdered, villages burned to the ground and the government simply says that this is all, quote, fake news. and the refugee camp with the majority of people is now the biggest in the world. we have not received a waiver from the foreign affairs committee, so i am offering this and withdrawing it, but let me just say too often we wait too long to take actions against the abuses of me to look back later to say never again. we must act before it is too late, and with that i will yield

back. it will change the conversation and how we approach these issues. one of the challenges we have in doing this is knowing who

it is that we are fighting. if i can read from this amendment, is has not later than 30 days after the date on which it changes made to the list of entities associated, affiliates or adherents of al qaeda or the taliban as maintained by the department of defense, the secretary of defense shall provide notice to the congressional committees of such change. here we are 17 years after the authorization for use of military force passed in 2001, after the 911 bombings in afghanistan. we are also in syria and iraq and libya and yemen and some ali up. we didn't know you we were in niger until we lost for service members. the work continues to metastasize as we learn of new affiliated forces and most of the members here could not name all of those associated forces. i am going to be forced to

withdraw this amendment as the chairman reminded me from whom we've requested a waiver. they've refused to grant the waiver. the members of congress and the people they represent will know who we are fighting around the world and where we are putting the lives on the line and losing servicemember lives and whose names we are taking. with that i withdraw this amendment. the gentle lady 4100. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment. the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> the idea of genocide genocide is something we live with a lot. i have a long personal history

of genocide in my family. my family comes from armenia. many of them lost their lives in early 2000's. this particular amendment basically establishes what the united states is seeking to prevent new war crimes against humanity. i think that unless we help other countries understand the consequences of genocide and how it can be prevented, our moral leadership is truly challenge. i'm offering this amendment and i am going to withdraw it at this time.

i thought it was very important for us to at least make note of this tonight. i yield back. >> the gentle lady withdraws the m amendment. okay, we're gonna skip mr. vesey and if you're ready with number 413. >> thank you mr. chair. the clerk will distribute number 413 without objection. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chair. want to prevent the border wall that we don't need and

can't afford. to make the case am going to quote someone that i know everyone respects and admires and that's our chairman, mr. thornberry. when he was asked about president trump to fund the border wall he replied that he was opposed to doing more at the border but that he didn't want to rob the military. very wise words. similarly it was reported and used that century matus strongly opposes military resources for the wall. arguing that those dollars would be better spent rebuilding the readiness of our forces after almost a decade and a half of war. mr. thornberry and century matus are right. i think the wall is an enormous waste of money that will make us any safer. especially at a time when border crossings or other forty-year low. i hope we can all agree that stealing from our troops isn't

a way to get it funded. there's other clear ways to do that. we can do it through a debate process. my republican friends control the house, the senate and the white house. they can't get money appropriate for the wall through normal order than they should blame their leadership, not go along with the deeply misguided plan to strip funds from the dod. this is the house armed services committee. it's not the house armed services committee. our job is to stand up for our armed forces, not for campaign promise. let's approve this amendment and tell administration to look elsewhere for their money. our military, it's funds are off-limits. i yield back.

>> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk will distribute the substitute, in the middle, they will distribute the substitute amendment without objection it is considered as read in the gentleman from alabama, mr. byrne is recognized for five minutes. the committee dealt with this issue last year. there are no funds to construct on the southwest border. my substitute in support of the mission to secure our borders. these amendments could have impact on infrastructure and changes at the department of defense installation and sites near the us-mexico border,

including four lists and some other sites as well. i think there would be some unintended consequences here's. let me say very plainly and clearly that i support president trump in building a border wall, but this bill doesn't have anything in it that would authorize that la wall. it was authorized during the george w. bush ministration. that authorization still exists. what needs to be done is for the money to be appropriated. we cannot appropriate money through this act so there's no need too. it is a national security imperative, border security is national security. department of defense should support other agencies such as the department of homeland security to achieve safety and

security at our u.s. borders. i believe my substitute more accurately states what the position of this committee should be and i think it's in online with what i heard the gentleman from arizona say. i will say this but i have traveled in latin america, i know of his commitment that region and i share his commitment to that region and we have a lot of things we worked on there. i don't think his amendment gets to the actual nature of what we should be doing here today. the german yields back. let me just alert members that if there is a recorded vote on the substitute, we will have to take it in real time. we cannot roll a vote on a substitute amendment. we will have to go ahead and do it. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for five minutes.

we have to take a brief pause because it is not scanned into the system. even with the best technology we will just hold tight for just a minute for the recorder. i have an amendment to offer to mr. burns amendment. >> it was not prefiled. it is not in the system.

the committee will be in order. my understanding is the clerk is now able to distribute the perfecting amendment to the substitute. everybody got it? the gentleman from rhode island is reckone recognized on his perfecting amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i offer this amendment given the in-depth discussions we've had tonight and over the many months and years. we talked about how under resourced our military is with

i will yield the balance of my time to mr. or rourke for comments. >> thank you for yielding. mr. chairman, i am getting text updates from my wife amy in el paso. our son ulysses plays with an 11 you team on the same baseball team i played on. it's the largest field in the world. if i thought they were in danger, i would be the first call for a wall or send in the national guard or raise the alarm. i just had dinner at the commanding generals house, if i thought for a moment that

anything in the amendment would compromise the ability for fort bliss to be be leading army installation in the united states, i wouldn't for a second support the amendment, but of course it doesn't. what we know is that el paso and the communities on the u.s. side of the us-mexico border are among the safest in the united states of america. there's nothing to be afraid of, they are nothing too. [inaudible] even the lowest northbound apprehensions since 1971, we have 20000 border patrol agents today. you and i in the american taxpayer are paying $19.5 billion on those agents, on the towers, on the drones that fly all 2000 miles of that border. we are as vigilant as we have ever been. we are as successful as we have ever been. we have the lowest levels of security challenges on that

border that we've ever had, given the real threats that we have around the world, and we've talked about many of them tonight in afghanistan, in syria and the middle east and north africa, near threats in china, russia, et cetera. why would he be even, for a second allow a penny of our resources and our defense budget possibly be used to construct a wall that we do not need. for that reason, i support mr. landrigan's perfecting amendment. take it from those of us who actually live on the us-mexico border, represent constituents on the us-mexico border, understand the us-mexico border, we do not need a wall on the us-mexico border. i asked for my colleague support in getting behind the perfecting amendment. with that, i yield back to the gentleman from rhode island. >> i think the gentleman. with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. byrne is recognized on the perfecting amendment to his substitute.

>> i appreciate the gentleman's perfecting amendment. i wish i considered it to be perfect. i don't. in fact, i won't say that mines perfect, but i think the wording that i have in mind is better than what's being offered and i would respectfully request the members of his committee vote no on his perfecting amendment so we can get on my amendment whic which, while not perfect, i consider to be better and i yield back. >> ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll just make one point. that is as mr. byrne pointed out, the wall was authorized back in 2007 or something like that. i don't know for sure if that authority would still carry over to today, but if it does, that argument makes it clear why we need to have a vote on

making sure that nothing comes out of the dod budget to go to the wall. that's basically what we've been trying to do and what the enabl amendment allows us to do, to actually vote to say no we are not to take any money to build the wall. as mr. byrne pointed out if there's already authorization out there, our committee needs to act make sure that doesn't happen. even if you do support the wall, even giving the compelling argument he made, then you should absolutely be committed to the idea that nothing should come out of the defense budget for a border wall and this is your opportunity to take that vote. i urge us to vote in favor of the amendment. >> let me yields myself. we could spend the next several hours debating walls and border security and a whole variety of things. the basic situation is there is nothing in this bill that

authorizes, changes the situation with regard to a border wall. again, we can debate back and forth and i understand that, but, as i understand it, the landrigan perfecting amendment takes out the section of the burn substitute that says we ought to adequately resource homeland security, and as a section that says it would be unwise to do anything at the border whereas mr. brown says there is a range in arizona that is a dod equity that is important to protect. so, my view is or my position would be that we not support the landrigan protecting amendment, support the burn substitute and then move on to the many other issues. i realize that may be a futile

hope at 10:20 p.m., but to emphasize, this is not an issue that really we will affect one way or another except expressing opinions about. maybe there's another time and place to do that. i'll just offer the thought. okay. who has to talk now? we good? the question is on the landrigan perfecting amendment to the burn substitute. those in favor of the perfecting amendment by the gentleman from rhode island say i. those opposed to know. the no's have it. the vote is requested, we have to do it now and will alert anybody who is not in the room. the clerk will call the roll. >> german thornberry. >> no he votes no.

mr. smith mr. smith votes. mr. jones. mr. brady. mr. brady votes outside. mr. wilson. mr. wilson votes no. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes eye. [inaudible] he votes yes. esther bishop. mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson. mr. larson votes yes. mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes yes. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes no. mr. schuster. all mr. courtney votes yes.

mr. conway. mr. conway votes no. mr. lamborn. mr. lamborn votes no. [roll call] [roll call].

[roll call]. [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote]

[roll call vote] [roll call vote]

he is recorded as voting no. >> he would like to be recorded as voting yes. [inaudible]

the clerk will report the results. mr. chairman, there were 28 yes votes, 33 no votes. >> the perfecting amendment is not agreed too. the question now occurs on the burn substitute to the gallego amendment. those in favor of the burn substitute say yes, those opposed to know. the substitute is agreed too. now it occurs on the gallego amendment as substituted by mr. byrne. those in favor will say yes, those opposing now. the amendment is agreed too. the gentleman from arizona,

mr. gallego. we will go ahead with number 337 if that's good. thank you mr. chair. i will be withdrawing the rest of the amendment. i just want to thank the congressman for allowing us to at least having a debate and an upper down vote on the border wall. that was the aim of our legislative attempts so there is no need for me too continue with the rest of these amendments protect greatly appreciate all your efforts. thank you very much. >> i appreciate the gentleman's approach. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk will distribute the

amendment and without objection is considered as read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. chairman, this amendment would prohibit the national guard from enforcing immigration laws during their deployment along the us-mexico border. while it has not been the stated intent of the president so far, there has been a member of his administration, john kelly who earlier last year explore this idea in a memo which read i am drafting them to engage with the leaders adjacent of the lamb border mexico. qualified members of the state national guard shall perform the functions of an immigration officer in

relation to the investigation, apprehension and detention of aliens in the united states. i don't think there is a person on this committee that wants u.s. service members who are not trained for this work to be doing the jobs that border patrol agents, customs officers, and ice agents are trained for and for which is a mentioned earlier the u.s. taxpayer is already spending nearly $20 billion. year. i don't want members of the guard put into a precarious position, a position that could turn to tragedy, as it did during another administration from the president of a different party 11997 sent the united states military to the border where an 18-year-old high school student, a u.s. citizen was shot in the back, killed by a united states marine. it was a tragedy for the hernandez family, it was a tragedy for the marine who was put in a position for which he was not trained. i don't think we want members of our national guard put in that same position. we do not need to militarize

the border. we do not need to militarize immigration enforcement and this amendment would keep us from doing that. >> mr. kelly. >> yes. thank you, mr. chairman. i first want to say members of the national guard are trained to do these aspects. they are written very clear orders with a specific guidance and what they can and cannot do in these types of actions. the governors of several states have agreed that calling up the guard to do this is the right thing. this it reduces the cost of border deployment on national guard and the dod. i visited the border patrol in your district, el paso, last month, spent a full day on the border which, i know you've spent a lot more, but i also spent the prior week at fort bliss.

they are protecting the homeland as they see fit. limits the tools of the president to secure the u.s. border based on personal feelings toward the president. fundamentally changes the title 32 status which is what guard members are for the national guard which can have further implications in other scenarios such as humanitarian and natural disasters. every president since president reagan has used the national guard to shore up and provide support to other u.s. agencies leading the border patrol effort. haven't spoken to the border patrol agents, many of them in many different rounds on the border in el paso, i can tell you they are supportive of the support that the national guard gets. the national guard is not allowed to do direct actions in border patrol. they are in support roles

only. they will be briefed and given the rules they have to comply by and they will follow those or they will be in direct violation. they will only be in a support role and they are aviators. president reagan called up the national guard in 1986 and a multi- pond approach of securing the order. george h.w. bush assigned general : powell to establish a joint task force for military assistance on the border in 1989. this task force later became a joint task force and still supports law enforcement today. president clinton had active duty while patrolling the border during his presidency. president bush ordered national guard to the border for operation jumpstart. most recently they ordered

1200 national guard for operation and a condition of national guard troops and reconnaissance assistants. this operation lasted six years every covered thousands of pounds of illicit narcotics and individuals coming illegally to the united states. i strongly oppose the amendment and say that our national guard troops in our governors, most of the states involved support this and you'll back my time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yelled my time. >> thank you. mr. chairman, to mr. kelly's point, first one that he visited the border. not enough members of this border do that. with that experience come some wisdom that can be applied to these issues. i appreciate his perspective and if i heard him correctly, he may be, he may believe i am

opposed to the guards deployment to the border and this amendment would stop the guard. this amendment does not do that. this amendment specifically prevents the guard from enforcing immigration laws for which they are not trained to enforce immigration laws. border patrol agents are. they undergo a very rigorous training program in order to make sure they effectively and by the law enforcing immigration laws. i don't want to see those guard men and women put into a position to do something for which they were not trained which, as we have experience can lead to tragic outcomes. we don't want to put them in that position. were grateful they are there and grateful from those in mississippi and we want them to do it good job and not want them to be enforcing immigration law for which they

are not trained. i just want to clarify what this amendment does and what it does not do. i yield back to the gentle lady from hawaii. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the points on joint task forces were covered by mr. kelly. i yield my time to mr. abraham. >> i yelled my time to mr. kell mr. kelly. thank you. i will be very brief. i understand what the guard can and cannot do. we don't need to put of laws that confuse people. i understand the purpose of the amendment, but i'm still opposed because i think it is duplicative with a law that already exist. with that i yield back to mr. russell. i yield back mr. chairman. question is on the amendment.

the no's have it. without objection it's considered as read. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. i have no issues whatsoever with the.the national guard to the southern border. my concerns will always be the readiness of our troops.

administrations from both parties over the years have deployed the guard to the border. under the obama administration, june 2010 to september 2011, title 32 status, we deploy the national guard. president george w. bush, from june 2006 to july 2008, we deploy the guard. perhaps in response to those two, i don't know, i wasn't in congress, congress and its wisdom said hey, we've got to take a look at this. in 2011 we said take a look at the deployment, they came back and said it cost $135 billion on these two separate operations but there are number of things we learned. the gao found there were challenges for the national guard and for active duty military forces in providing support to law enforcement. for example,