On the recordJune 14, 2013
I thank the gentleman for his comments. I understand that you do view the motion to recommit as procedural. We disagree on that. The motion would make a substantive difference in the piece of legislation. It would have set up a different scenario. To that extent, it was clearly substantive and not procedural; and it would have, I think, comported with, from many on our side's perspective, a better process to protect women and men from arbitrary and perhaps, at some point in time, unfair treatment and would give them a choice of what avenue they would pursue to protect themselves. And as Ms. Duckworth, Captain Duckworth, Congresswoman Duckworth so aptly stated, would give more confidence, particularly to women, but men and women entering into the service that they would be protected. We don't need to debate the substance of the issue, simply to say that giving us the alternative, and the MTR gave us the alternative, but it was not considered, on your side, as a substantive alternative. Therefore, my point being, on the bill that we're talking about, the Pain Bill, referred to shorthand as the Pain Bill, that we be given substantive amendments that are not perceived as procedural, so that the House, not 20 percent of the House--the Armed Services Committee is less than 20 percent of the House--not the Armed Services Committee, or any committee, for that matter, dispose of the issue and preclude the other 80 percent of us from participating in making that decision.…





