http://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/07...-transgender-surgeries-hormone-therapy-513737 The insanity continues.
Wow... I am not sure how people say that Republicans are moving to the right when you see them support social justice bullshit like this.
Did they vote against it because they agreed with it or did they vote against it because they rightfully believe that it's not the place of Congress to be dictating administrative policy to the military?
Can you use at least somewhat descriptive titles for your threads? You're turning the beeb into a bunch of clickbait. seriously
This entire story is mere click bait. While that amendment may have been the hotbutton issue being considered in amendment 183, it was NOT the only issue. NOTHING is voted on one issue at a time in congress. If there's an amendment on the floor that contains text saying ""We're going to hand out joints in elementary schools"" and other text saying ""We are going to give the military a pay raise"", a congressman has to decide what headline he wants to read... Whether he voted AGAINST protecting children, or he voted AGAINST paying the troops. Government is way too far reaching for every member of congress to vote on every single line item in every amendment to every bill. I can see several solutions to that, but the bloated giant in DC will never vote to kill itself. Which births a thought: Perhaps we should elect more famous musicians & such to congress... I heard Kid Rock was running. https://www.congress.gov/amendment/115th-congress/house-amendment/183/text No mention of : Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Garamendi.... ""Mr. Chair, this amendment facilitates the construction of badly needed icebreakers. The United States does not have any heavy icebreakers that are available all year round. We only have one, and that is used in the Antarctic and, therefore, unavailable in the summer in the north. ..... We need icebreakers; in fact, we need six icebreakers. We need to build the first one immediately and get it underway."" Amendment 2 appears to not exist...??? Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Buck (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense shall not purchase alternative energy unless such energy is equivalent to conventional energy in terms of cost and capabilities. Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Perry This amendment would strike section 336 of the NDAA, which strikes the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on the vulnerability to military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting from climate change over the next 20 years. Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Gosar For purposes of this Act, any determination of the prevailing wage conducted under section 3142(b) of title 40, United States Code (commonly known as the Davis-Bacon Act) shall be conducted by the Secretary of Labor acting through the Bureau of Labor Statistics using surveys carried out by the Bureau that use proper random statistical sampling techniques. ..... as opposed to the current process which determines these rates based on fundamentally flawed surveys within the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor, or the DOL. Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Thomas J. Rooney of Florida Strike section 541 (page 146, beginning line 20), relating to prohibition on release of military service academy graduates to participate in professional athletics..... My amendment supports the flexibility and the discretion that has always been built into the Secretary of Defense's discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis how to deal with his own personnel. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Keating At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following new section: SEC. 725. TICK-BORNE DISEASES. Using funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2018 for the Defense Health program, the Secretary of Defense may authorize grants to medical researchers and universities to support testing ticks for the purpose of improving the detection and diagnosis of tick-borne diseases.
Those amendments are a huge issue unto themselves. I would be completely for a law, all the way up to a constitutional amendment, that required those amendments to be explicitly related to the language of the original bill.
Thank you for your well-thought-out, cohesive, and descriptive refutation... I'll take it under due consideration.
Seeing as they specifically voted to reject this amendment, you can't use the excuse that it was just one bad thing included with a bunch of good things. The provision could have been excised from the bill, but they deliberately voted to keep it in. How's that?
