The following has been proposed as a second degree amendment has been seconded

Striking Section 5-1 and 6-1 as follows
Stricken Parts in bold

Mr. Speaker,

This amendment should not have been recognized, as it renders the bill an unfunded mandate. How else should we create an entirely new division for the Army without money??

The number is perhaps too high, so let's fix that. But taking away the money for the bill seems to me nonsensical.

And yes, the training should be sex-segregated. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never been in the military.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker

The right honourable gentlemen raises a valid point regarding cutting the funding necessary for this bill. Although I would not be adversed to examining ways to cut the cost of the expansion to not provide any funding would be a fruitless action by this body.

However on the point of sex segregation, many may be well aware of the status of Fort 'relaxin' Jackson in South Carolina. At this military installation the basic training program is co-ed. While this policy does bring with it a number of problems and issues itself I have found that it is a necessary policy for our modern co-ed army. Although this is not the time or place to discuss the role of women in combat branches or units the reality of modern warfare show that regardless of gender there will be hostile action against them. To me, if women and men both share the risks of modern warfare then the training program designed to teach basic soldiering skills needs to be co-ed. There is a saying in the army from which I remember, 'train as you fight.' If men and women are going to be fighting alongside one another in combat situations, a reality in our current military, then they should also train together.



I yield

This post has been edited by weekendwarrior on Dec 3 2004, 06:18 PM

Mr. Speaker,

The Congressman from Tennessee refers to the amended bill as an "unfunded mandate". However, it is important to point out to the House that unfunded mandates only apply to the states, NOT to federal departments. Normal DOD budgeting processes would appropriate the necessary funds. If you want an example of an unfunded mandate, a bill such as No Child Left Behind would be a prime example, as it mandates new programs and goals for the states, but provides no funding, resources, or other means of achieving stated purposes.

That being said, I do object to the amendment on the following grounds:

A. Since units in the field aren't segregated by gender, segregating personnel during Basic training would ultimately fail, because the troops would not have the opportunity to work alongside the opposite sex until they reach the field or their first duty post.

B. By requiring all Army elistees to train as infantrymen, you overlook the importance of the calvary, which led the charges into Iraq in both 1991 and 2003. When we were watching live footage of CNN/FOX/other reporters riding with Army personnel, they were riding with Calvary units, not infantry units. Furthermore, basic training is just that - basic. Training in one's speciality does not occur until AFTER basic training has concluded.

I yield,

Mr. Speaker,

We ask men and women to get into the trenches with each other, fight side by side, and die together. Exactly how are we going to promote unity in our armed forces on the front line when men and women train seperately? We cannot have doubts in either genders' minds about training when the bullets are flying.

I strongly encourage the members of this body to vote this amendment down.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker

I am a bit perplexed by the comments of the right honourable gentlemen. First and foremost, I believe that he is mistaking the mobile nature of our armoured and mechanized units by qualifying them as 'calavary' units. The units that he refers to were in fact units that are infantry and armour divisions, although some Cav units were also involved and should be commended. The main point though is that BCT (Basic combat training) is designed to teach basic soldiering and combat skills to enlisted men. It is designed so that if needed each and every soldier of the army can pick up a rifle and become an 11 bravo. While mechanized warfare is important, the hallmark and basics of soldiery remain that of the foot soldier and that is where logically the basics of combat must begin. One must learn how to fire a rifle and manuever as a squad before one can move up to operate armoured vehicles, as is taught in some MOS AIT's and individual units.

I yield

This post has been edited by weekendwarrior on Dec 3 2004, 04:39 PM

Mr. Speaker,

Women do not engage in armed combat except in defensive measures. The gentleman from Indiana is sorely mistaken about the nature of our armed services.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I was concerned with the tremendous amount set aside for this bill. If the gentleman would offer a more considerable figure I would be willing to entertain that figure.

On the other matter of sex segregated training I do not think I am willing to budge. I think it is time for a co-ed army to have men and women training side by side. It may even cause the men to resepct the women to see them performing the same tasks as them.

I yield.

Mr. Speaker,

I rise to discuss my support for part of the amendment and my partial support for another part of the amendment. I fully support the portion to delete the same sex rules, and encourage passage for that reason. On the financial side, I believe we should appropriate some fund for this bill, but I think that the amount appropriated is not high and needs to be lowered.

I will be voting yes on this amendment, but I do ask if it is in order to offer a third degree amendment?

Rep. Dave Anderson
Republican
11th District
New Jersey

Mr. Speaker,

I motion to seperate this amendment and have seperate votes on each section. The motion will allow for a vote on removing the sex segregation provision and for a vote on removing the funding, which will be seperate from each other.

Rep. Dave Anderson
Republican
11th District
New Jersey

Mr. Speaker,

I second the gentleman's motion to divide the question.