world and we will need that air superiority. we need to treat the expeditious flow of data to those planes as an urge that matter and i think the reprogramming of that $71 million away from this crucial aspect of the program was a mistake. ..

>> the program is important to both people and political parties. i believe this is an important addition to that program -- a restoration of the program. i would urge a yes vote. i yelled back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes mr. turner from ohio. >> thank you. i appreciate mr. andrews and his great description of the opportunity to me. i do want to note that in considering this, no additional funds are required for the b-2. unfortunately, other airports everts, because they were access to the ehf program requirements, i do agree that there does need

to be increased. we need to focus on this. i object primarily to this is a result of the offset of the missile defense system. period. will the gentleman yield for just a moment. i certainly am aware of the representation by the air force that they could not have spent this money and this goodyear 13. i think the chairman shares my view that we sometimes can't spend money because they don't want to spend the money and they are not given the priority patient. frankly, the gentleman he said, runtimes makes the argument that statements from the command needs to be critically examined. i think that the mere fact that the air force says they don't

have use for this money is not the spawn of issue. >> that is why i was commending your description of the need, although we do have the funds at this time. you certainly did describe the increase of the role and the need that would be here. my primary objection, as you know, is the fact that with the rising threat of north korea and iran, our are defense system that you propose cutting is her only defense to emerging ibms. in the committee's concern about the president's secret deal with the russians -- the. >> we are not going to rehash this. just for the record. i would disagree with the characterization that this is our only means of missile defense. i think that her other defense as we talked about earlier, are quite superior. second, we don't think there is a secret deal. but we will not rehash the

debate. >> thank you, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes ms. bordallo. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as the cochair of the long-range strike caucus, i do support this amendment. the extremely high frequency radio is a necessary component of the b-2 modernization program the request would be detrimental to the program. the radio is a necessary system. i do remain concerned that we are not doing enough as a congress to provide the necessary investments to sustain our long-range strike capabilities. until a new next-generation bomber can be developed. and that is why i support this amendment. we need to ensure our long-range bomber fleet has the system in place to sustain itself into the future by not providing these

investments we take significant risk in our long-range strike capabilities. i believe the offset is reasonable, and coming from a program that has funding beyond its requirements. with that, mr. chairman, i support this amendment. >> and i yield back my time. >> the gentlelady yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? >> if not, the questions on the adoption of the amendment are offered by mr. andrews from new jersey. those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. the roll call has been requested. we will call this at the end of the chairman's mark. any other amendments? >> guest, mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> will de klerk police pass at

the amendment. will de klerk police pass out the amendment? >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> and i do intend to work with the house foreign affairs committee -- and we hope to have an agreed-upon amendment, hopefully before the floor. but i want to bring this issue to the members attention. this has to do with our export control regime. we have had this debate. i have had this debate for at least one dozen years. the fact that our aggressive restrictions and the ability of u.s. companies to export any component piece of the satellites are doing great industry damaged and it is doing great damage to our national security.

the way this debate has already is gone for a dozen years come and i will confess that i have lost it a dozen times, but i believe we are making progress and we can move forward. people say that national security should be clear. the need to change our export control regime is critical to our national security. it is a national security argument. the restrictions on domestic companies to export anything having to do with a satellite has caused us to fall back from her leadership role in many different segments in the industry that are critical to the component parts of building satellites into a variety of other technologies as well. i'm sorry, it got a little noisy in here for a second. we have lost her leadership. when the u.s. loses leadership and technology, it harms our national security.

we get to the point where we have to rely on foreign companies. we can no longer depend on domestic u.s. industry. in europe, if years back, they try to come up with a i-tar satellite. the idea was to bring a satellite depression that had no single u.s. part in it. the damage it is doing to our national security is overwhelming. the current regime divides into two lists. you you have the list of the department of congress and do have the list that has to go through state. the missions list is more restrictive. it is restricted on every single component. if there is a screw that goes into a satellite, that screw will no longer be able to export it without first going through a rigorous examination and approval process. it is unbelievably cumbersome to

the industry to make this work. we are working on a bill, mr. berman and some others, are putting together a bill to allow the president to move things off of the missions list and onto the commercial list. it aggressively restricts any exports to china or north korea or iran or any other country that we see as a threat. it does protect us in that regard. and it also requires the president to certify a whole series of certain things to make sure that this is being done safely. but the current regime is really damaging us in terms of national security. it is damaging our technological leadership. our technological leadership in space, that bleeds over into technological leadership in the lot of other areas. as i have said, we have had despite a long time. i have explained all of this. people stand up and say yes, this could wind up in the hands of someone we don't like. therefore, we have to keep the regime. and we keep the receipt exactly as it is.

it continues to burden us come and it does not protect us. the european partners do not have these restrictions. a whole lot of other countries do not have these restrictions. those parts are getting out through them and we are hamstringing ourselves in harming our national security. this issue means that we cannot do this here. we are going to have this debate on the floor. we are trying to get an agreement on this. we have made a considerable amount of progress. we will keep trying. it is critical that we lift the restrictions on our export controls right now. it is something the administration has made a priority. dod and secretary panetta has made it a priority. they understand the impact this has on national security to drive our industry down and basically build up foreign competitors to the point that we are no longer able to provide the best quality products here in the united states, and therefore, it makes it harder for our defense and our intelligence community to get access. i will urge members to support

this. >> gentleman withdraws the amendment. >> i will hold off because i think mr. -- i think he would like to make a comment. >> i withdraw. >> it has been with john. >> mr. chairman, that's. >> the chairman is recognized. >> we depend on the expertise of a satellite to mutations in the street to give our intelligence professionals the most innovative technology available for better, faster and cheaper solutions to protect our national security. one of our country's military and intelligence dominance, one of the reasons is that effective partnership we have between business sector and the government. because of current export control in place over satellites and satellite parts come in this industry has been declined. in 1999 when i-tar was passed by congress and satellites were moved to the missions list, we

held 62% of the world satellite infection. two years later, he became 40% in two years they became 30%. this quake stricken with a loss of $20.8 billion in u.s. satellite manufacturing revenue and job loss of 27,893 jobs. his ranking member of the intelligence committee, i am aware of how our sensitive technology is not to end up in the positions of foreign countries like china. however, export control is not asking for sensitive technologies to be removed from u.s. missions list. it is requesting that only certain satellite components be removed, for instance, direct broadcast, cellular mutations in others. the heritage foundation's said come at a time when art national defense needs a boost, it's time to shed rational regulations. we as a country need to get this

passed. we need to get this passed in the house two years ago, it went to the senate and it was killed. that happens a lot. we have to redo it. we have to make sure that we get this regulation was also that our country can be stronger and we can protect our national security. i yeild back. >> the gentleman yields back. i withdraw the amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. we will now recess for the floor votes. these are the last votes on the floor for the night. and we will resume immediately at the end of the last votes. the committee stands for recess.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] the house armed services committee are taking a break so members can go to the house floor. this markup got underway at 10:00 o'clock this morning. and they are finished voting, we will have more live coverage. while we wait, here's a portion of the markup from this afternoon.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> committee will come to order. we will now recognize the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. bartlett, for any comments you would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank my good friend and ranking member for all of his help. and a very special thanks to a first-class man. thank you so much. the members have before them the highlights of the land forces subcommittee mark. it is the tradition of the subcommittee by providing equipment to support our forces in the active guard and reserve. over 2 billion in the president's budget requested to

be put towards urgent needs of the war fighters to include counter ied activities. the president of defense did not request funding for the national guard and reserve equipment counted we are recommending $500 million for that account. four major programs include issues related to body armor, the armies heavy armory industrial-based, the air force aircraft fleet, and the multi- service at 35 aircraft program. body armor provided to the fighters continues to meet all current survivability performance standards, however, we remain concerned over the impact on the soldier of the weight of current body armor and gear. the committee report highlights the need to continue efforts to reduce the weight of soldier equipment and assess options for providing body armor specifically designed and fitted for the female soldier.

the army budget request for fy 13 would result in a reduction for -- a break for heavy modification programs are including the bradley fighting vehicle and the hercules recovery vehicle, beginning in 2013. it could last from anywhere to three to for years. the analysis to date does no

>> essential to the national security and no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost. the global hawk aircraft provides something that no other aircraft can provide. we are currently providing support to the combatant centers in the central and european commands. regarding the f. 35 aircraft, there continue to be major concerns with the program. 187 f-22 fifth-generation stealth fighter aircraft may not provide the capability required an acceptable level of risk, and prior to the committee, which has expressed concern, the f. 35

leading technology and development, insufficient flight testing and design instability. the pentagon has now done with the committee advocated several years ago, by reducing the annual procurement until the issues are better resolved. u.s. production is scheduled to stabilize proximally 30 aircraft per year for 2014. ideal back, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the tactical airmen and forces subcommittee has a history of working in a bipartisan fashion to complete the portion of the germans mark for the national defense authorization act. i am pleased to say that chairman bartlett has continued that tradition, and i echo his comments about the appreciation that we both feel for the staff on both sides of the aisle. we want to thank them for their hard work. first, the subcommittee's portion of the chairman's mark

supports all the high-priority acquisition programs in the president's budget. for example, the german smart fully funds the army's ground combat vehicle program at $639 million. it provides 9 billion for the f. 35 joint strike fighter program, provides 5.8 billion for the army helicopters uav platforms and upgrade, and provides 3 billion for the 38 s. 18th and 1.6 billion for the other provisions. included is also the 2.2 billion for upgrading the army's tactical upgrades. and provides $346 million for strike vehicles and upgrades. in addition, the chairman's mark increases funding for some parts of the dod budget where are committee does not feel that an

adequate funds were provided. it increases funding for the continued global operations by 260 million. it increases funding by 181 million. in increases funding for bradley fighting vehicles by 140 million. it also increases funding for the unmanned systems by 180 million. increasing funding for the electronic attack aircraft, and finally, it's your chairman, the german smart includes important oversight legislation. most importantly, legislative provisions is legislative motions requiring air force to continue to operate the unmanned aerial system, which just reached operational capability in august 2011. shoving them when they are almost brand-new at a time when

the demand for intelligence has never been higher, or more important to us, it made no sense. the mark will be air force to its plan for muster to continue to operate both global hawk and this through the end of 2013. chairman bartlett has developed an excellent proposal for members to consider, and i urge the members to support the tactical air and land forces subcommittee of her chairman's mark and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> the general gentleman from ohio. >> i want to thank the chairman for his work with the issue. this administration has planned to close down production facilities for perhaps a period

of three to for years, and in doing so, we would lose both the intellectual -- and electoral capital, the people that work there would move onto other things, and the production capability techniques that the chairman is protecting, one of the facilities commonly known is very concerned about what would happen to their long-term capabilities of the administration's position was allowed to stand. so i appreciate the chairman supporting our industrial base and our capabilities. thank you. >> any other discussion? are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass up the amendment? >> without objection.

>> the chair now recognizes the chairman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my an amendment is the one in the f-35 that everyone has told you that you were supposed to vote against. i want to say at the outset that i am not against f-35. i am an engineer by training. i understand that it takes time to develop good technology and i'm not against the builder. but i am quite a bit concerned about project management, which should be the concern of the people on this committee.

also, i am on the budget committee, and i have to try to fight there for the defense budget. we always hear that there is a lot of waste in the defense budget, and i believe we are setting ourselves up for a lot of waste if we don't crack the whip on this program. now, the project should give us pause. this is why. first, it is the biggest acquisition program in the dod history. at $1.5 trillion, this is a massive program for us. and it is the only program without an ioc day, that his initial operational capability date, has a milestone decision, but it is the only one that has no ioc day. the problem is that this is something we have found over and over. whether it is shipbuilding or anything else, we start building a product and we don't have a final design. that means you go back and have to rework everything, and that runs the costs through the roof.

this amendment that i have is about transparency. it is about accountability. and it is about project management. it is the idea that we ought to be careful when building something we don't know what it is that we are building. there are two parts of the money. the first is the development and the design -- the design and development money. this leaves that completely untouched. the second pot of money is the picture meant dollars. what this does, it freezes half of the procurement dollars until we get an ioc day. the ioc date should have been given to us right after it passed the milestone letter v. even if we got a date sometime this year, this is not to affect the program at all. if you cut have to procurement money out, that would take effect in march of 2013. all we are saying, sometimes in the next year, we want some kind

of an ioc date. this also affects other programs, because of you plan what you're going to do when you don't know what the date is? that is the purpose of the amendment period is to simply say, we want the pentagon to really let us know, to tell us when it is that we really know when we have a finished product that could be delivered. it doesn't make a lot of difference to me how people want to approach this thing. we have ourselves one big project management problem that is about to zap us if we don't take some kind of corrective action. i think promises from the pentagon, they could've given us the ioc date at the same time as before, but they don't want to tell us what it's going to be. it is about time that we say we need to have the ability to know if you have an ioc date on it.

this is only about getting that date and getting it before march of next year. that is the purpose of this amendment. mr. chairman, i am aware that there might be a little opposition to the amendment, on the other hand, we do need to deal with project management and take it seriously, especially on the biggest project that we have ever spent money on. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. for what purpose do you seek recognition? >> i have a secondary amendment. >> an amendment to the amendment, if you will. >> will the clerk please pass the amendment? >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed.

>> the chair now recognizes the chairman for the purposes of offering and explaining his substitute amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, let me agree with mr. todd akin on the challenges that have been presented by the f-35 program. it is an enormously expensive program that has slipped repeatedly and had problems. this committee has taken a variety of steps to get it under control. we have tried to force the dod and force the manufacturers to get back on track. it is hugely problematic. both because of the struggles that we have had with it and because it is so important. it is intended to be somewhere, i think, over 90% of our fighter attack aircraft fleet -- at some point. we need this program. mr. akin recognizes this.

the problem with the amendment by creating the possibility that we will not, in fact, by half of the gentoo's, it is possible that we will not ultimately support the program. the reason that is a problem is another aspect of the program is that we have a number of foreign partners. i'm sure that everybody on this committee has read about the foreign partners and their angst about the future of the f-35. we want them to buy it. because if they don't, our costs will go up. and if they see us stepping back in this way, there is a distinct risk that they will reduce or delay, or in some cases, completely lemonade biz and caused further problem untrimmed problems for the program. the second thing that is worth noting is what is being asked for here. the department of defense to defense function set a date. the deity shouldn't center and set such a day.

my amendment requires them to do that. i think it is important that we keep pushing to that extent. to do it to the extent that mr. akin suggests, as i said, jeopardizes the program or they could potentially drive up costs, and further undermine our foreign partners confidence. the final thing i will say is that the f-35 has had dates before. even if we force the pentagon to this, does not necessarily solve the problem. at a great risk to the program, in terms of the message that sends for it sends to our foreign partners, we are not accomplishing a great deal with the underlying amendments. this is a way of saying that the committee is focused on getting to the initial operating capability, but hopefully will do so in a way that does not send the wrong message about the program. we are, for better or worse, committed to the program because frankly we have no choice.

it is critical to our national security needs. we have to keep up the pressure and make sure that it actually gets delivered and it needs the capability, but an amendment like this does not move that forward and does create greater problems for the amendment. i offer my substitute. we need initial operating capability. i further urge that we actually get initial operating capability, and not to set a date. this substitute amendment limited the threat to the underlying amendment poses to the program entities to make clear that we on the committee want this program to move forward and get done and get back on schedule. i urge support for the substitute amendment and i yield back. >> let me just say how i agree with everything but the ranking member has said. this is a very critical program for us a very important program. at some point in the future, this plane will be 95% of our air fighter force. it is important that we get it right and that we move forward.

is there any further debate on the amendment? >> mr. chairman, yes, i would like to talk about good amendment. >> you are recognized for five minutes. >> well, the substitute amendment essentially, if you take it into the sake of value, it is saying that we are going to get an ioc date not later than december 31. what i am requesting is that the ioc date is given by march. this is in a sense more strict. the only trouble is there is no teeth in this one. there is also no guarantee that the pentagon will do what we say. we have been talking with them on all in all kinds of different things. we found a helicopter problem with our medevac helicopters. you can talk to them and said he want to report any want them to do this and that and they don't do it. this thing has no teeth. the proposal i had was simply saying that by march if they don't have something by march of 2013, this is 2000 and 12 --

then it is going to start cutting into their funds. when you are doing is effectively saying, well, we want this and you really should do this, but there is no teeth in it. as far as hurting the perception of the program, i forget what your phrase was, that it is undermining confidence in the program. it is saying that we need to have some specific dates so we know how to run what the requirements are for the joint strike fighters or different fighter aircraft -- we need some kind of things to plan him. you're not doing that. anyway, i understand of this memo probably pass. i just don't think that your amendment will do anything at all. but if that's what the committee wants to do, i will live with that. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? the question is on the adoption

of the substitute amendment offered by mr. smith. as so many are in favor, say aye. those opposed to say nay. the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i ask of you unanimous consent -- the. >> just a second. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the question is now on the adoption of the amendment as amended, those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no.

the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up a package of that has been approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk please pass up the out the amendment. without objection, the amendments will be dispensed. the gem and is recognized for five minutes after we hit the amendment and pass out. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to explain his blocked amendment. >> thank you, i call up the block package number one comprised of the following, the amendment by mr. frakes. it would regard improvements to army vehicles and an amendment by mr. courtney that would regard aircraft survivability equipment and an amendment by mr. enters that would require a report on the vertical construction and an amendment by mr. enters that would demonstrate technologies and an amendment by myself to clarify that would clarify section 214 in the subcommittee mark regarding ground. it does not moving target indicating air force air

aircraft to a manned systems, and an amendment by mr. enters that would report language regarding the joint tactical radio system. >> any discussion of the amendment? >> the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. >> no further amendments? the chair recognizes mr. bartlett for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the tactical air and land force as amended. >> so many in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to.

we will now hear and then hear from the senator from ohio, for any comments you would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i want to thank also my ranking member, ms. sanchez for her coworker on this mark we have worked hand-in-hand with the minority at a time when we open the newspaper and we hear everyday of the threats of north korea and iran, and the increased concern that we all have of the ability to place our homeland at risk. our bill takes up the issue of the defense of our homeland, and also the issue of sustaining the

deterrent and the important aspects of missile defense. the bill also authorizes the cleanup and mark directs us to seek a cost analysis and estimate by the dod office to cost assessment and program evaluation for nuclear warhead life extension and new silly construction. it limits the availability of a portion of funding to launch vehicle program on the acquisition strategy and maintains that achieves such a cost savings and provides opportunity for competition. i want to thank again my ranking member and her support and her past statements at the hearings and briefings on the subject. we both agreed that this needs to happen. there are opportunities for large efficiency savings that we can place right back into the important issue of protecting our national security. under the administration has been slow in trying to figure out its path forward, but i understand that strategic forces

mark are accelerating the process. our effort is to initiate a discussion and dialogue and we can find real solutions and maintain our important infrastructure. the national academy of strategic efforts have done that the nsa is broken and we cannot afford to leave it on fixed. the agency responsible for ensuring that liability and credibility of the deterrence and they are not able to tell us what will cost to that. something has gone horribly awry. last time congress looked at this subject, it was fully bipartisan. ms. sanchez and i have worked very hard on this issue. we all need to recognize that this bill is not going to solve the problems within nsa, doe and will take leadership in capitol hill. very important. i want to feel that my time.

>> the gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez, for any comments you would like to make. >> they do. i would like to thank mr. turner. and all of our subcommittee members for their leadership and contribution in this new session of congress. it is a pleasure to work with all of you. especially in such a bipartisan manner. overall, i am pleased to support this strategic forces mark. i would like to comment on the importance of protecting national security in a constrained budget environment. the bipartisan view on the national nuclear security administration program, particularly in light of the ratification last year of the new start treaty and missile defense. first, i would like to know that this mark contains important provisions while also promoting fiscal responsibility. such as improving satellite

operations and supporting the air force said acquisition strategy by supporting a block by the contracting approach. by ensuring efficient development, production and sustainment, for missile defense and the nuclear enterprise. by conducting oversight of large-scale construction programs and building on good progress, related to improving efficiencies that are nuclear sites. and also implementing the new reductions. secondly, the subcommittee mark recommends full funding for it the atomic energy defense program, reflecting our bipartisan partnership that led all the members -- all members of the strategic subcommittee to sign a letter to the budget committee chairman in march, emphasizing the national security importance of supporting nuclear nonproliferation efforts, as well as maintaining a reliable, safe, and effective nuclear

deterrent. the mark also supports much-needed progress for environmental cleanup. in washington and other contaminated sites. third, we agree on the need for effective and proven missile defenses based on operational testing to defend our homeland. also to deploy troops. but make no mistake. we do have our policy disagreements. we disagree on the need for $100 million of funding increasing over the budget request for ground-based midcourse defense, which was included in the mark. i intend to offer an amendment to proposed increase. i am also concerned about certain funding cuts in the mark. i look forward to having engaging debates with my colleagues on missile defense provisions and nuclear weapons policies. these are important national security issues on which we have differences, and we must have an

informed and merited debate. i reiterate, mr. chairman, what a pleasure it was to work with the members of the subcommittee. >> gentlelady yields back. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee report? the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. shuster is recognized for five minutes. >> i just want to thank you and chairman turner for preventing wasteful spending of $400 million for it the program, which the president requested in his budget. as most of us recall, dod cancel that program back in 2006. lester, we put in $400 million to be the final obligation and close-up of the program. but again, the president did not see that way and put it in the budget. again, i want to thank you for not including the 400 million in

the bill. the gaf estimate that we are very spent $3.2 billion on missile system that we are never going to buy. the state department and the dod says that because of the staining, we need to proceed and continue this program. that memorandum is with germany and italy, and includes an escape clause. an amendment that allows them to draw if congress does not authorize or appropriate the program, which we are doing. once again, i think it is a wise decision on our part to make sure that this funding is not in there. we have a system that we need to continue to advance, and that is the patriot system. the department of defense needs to focus and modernize the patriot system, which we will be utilizing and putting into service until 2040. again, i want to thank chairman turner and chairman micky on for making sure that we did not include that in the bill. >> thank you, gentlemen. he yields back. any other discussion?

okay, mr. turner is recognized for the purpose of introducing an amendment. >> i ask unanimous consent. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk please pass out the amendment to be offered on the block. the amendments will be dispensed. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose

of offering and explaining his amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the package is comprised of the following. an amendment by mr. larson regarding changes to the director for port language. amended by mr. rivers berger regarding the section 3119. for amendments by myself, one regarding insertion to the direct report language, a second to amend section 1234. a third regarding titles ii. and a fourth regarding title ix. an amendment by mr. larson guarding title x and an amendment by mr. ruppersberger regarding the language and by mr. brooks regarding an amendment to the directive report. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> gentlelady from california is recognized. >> mr. turner, i would like a clarification on the purpose of amendment 138 on exports and missile technology.

>> mr. morrison, did you provide a summary to ms. sanchez that the amendment approved? >> mr. chairman, the amendment deals with a report by dod on u.s. defense assistant and the exports of technology related to missiles and space technologies. >> let me just clarify. it is a compliance report? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you very much. thank you. i would also like to thank the chairman for working with me on a 27 million-dollar increase were a nuclear nonproliferation efforts to secure vulnerable materials from the global threat reduction initiative, which will help reduce the risk of nuclear

terrorism. this brings this program back to fiscal year 2012, and i am pleased to offer this amendment with mr. lynch event, mr. larson, mr. garamendi, i am grateful they put it on the block them and i think thank you again, and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. >> very briefly, i noticed in the amendment that there didn't seem to be the language that we have been told that we were told would be on that. i want for clarification to yield to mr. turner to give a perspective on that. >> that is her second package. >> and forgive me.

never mind, as the lady said. thank you mr. chairman. >> any other discussion? the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. >> i would like to thank you and the chairman and ms. sanchez. i want to engage with a short colloquy. mr. turner, i'd like to thank you for including language and the strategic forces of committee that provides critical oversight of the joint space operations center mission program. i think it is very important that the department meets the requirement of the war fighter and includes the program's current capabilities, while maximizing cost effective by leveraging readily available government and commercial capabilities to the fullest extent practical. i would like to ask my friend, the chairman, for his commitment to continue working with us on oversight activities of this important program. i would yield to the chairman. >> mr. injures, you do have my

commitment to work with you on the oversight efforts of the joint space operate stations. i look forward to future work. >> as july. mr. chairman, i yield back the. >> is there further debate on the unblock amendment? >> so many in favor will say aye. those who are opposed will say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there further amendments? mr. garamendi. >> i think you, mr. chairman. i do have an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass up the amendment. without objection. the amendment will be dispensed

with. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of those offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman, this amendment deals with the question of a missile defense site on the east coast. at a time when we hear so much discussion in these halls and run the nation about the deficit and the need to address the deficit, the question arises why we would will want to initiate a program that would ultimately spend well over $5 billion on a program that at this point the u.s. military does not believe is necessary. general jacob e. in testament to

the senate armed services committee, straight stated unequivocally that the missile defense is not necessary on the east coast. yet, the bill before us, would provide that by 2015, a missile presumably deal with iran. iran does not have an icbm. there is considerable question as to whether they would or could produce it, and that they would come in they would have to have a nuclear weapon unless they are going to develop marshmallows to the east coast.

so we need to be very careful how we spend our money.

i yield back my time. >> at him and yields back. the chair now recognizes someone from ohio, mr. turner provide minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in opposition to the amendment. i first want to begin by thanking mr. garamendi for being the spokesperson for opposing an east coast site, being one of the few members of the armed services committee that lives with less than 300 miles -- lives less than 300 miles from a missile defense silo that has three missiles in it. i'm sure people on the east coast would like to enjoy the protection that exists near mr. garamendi's district.

those muscles, i think you would not say are unnecessary. >> mr. chairman -- mr. chairman, may i come up for a moment -- >> everyone knows that the emerging threat from north korea and iran is emerging threat. we see an emerging threat, and we need to respond to it in the future. this is a provision that would provide for our having the capability in the future. you mentioned general jacoby and his statements. he said that today we do not need this capability. he did not say that we do not need this capability in the future. the national academy has per then present its report. this is about geometry. i think everybody who lives in the united states understands that the east coast has a threat from iran, they don't want to

wait for a missile to come from mr. garamendi's district all the way across the united states to try to respond to the threat. they want someone who's going to be there quicker and will have an opportunity to respond. all of our open source intelligence indicates that iran will have the capability by 2015, ergo, the link to that we have in the bill that has the preparation for this site, to meet the threat of 2015. i don't think anybody wants to gamble the united states security by saying that our adversaries who have clearly stated the intention of having this technology for the purposes of reaching the mainland in the united states, are going to be so slow that we can just wait. we can't wait. this is a rolling time. in which to get things done. you cannot flip a switch. we need to get started. ..

>> to defending united states. i hope the privity would vote against this amendment and the staid missile the fed's even if the president

does not provide well-heeled sometime. >> it does not need to be personal. north korea is still with with the alaska facility. with regard to the east coast, it would take of missile from iran which is sealed the reason, the russian icbm cannot be defended with the system. so look gained only at iran. today? no. can they? north korea? no. i read have a warhead presented a threat to us? and no. this president has been clear. i assume if he is not

president the next president says the same thing. >> i am reclaiming my time. you would argue closure of missile defense site within 300 miles of your district. people on the east coast believe we should have a robust protection cahal looking to iran. i hope people will defeat your amendment and not diminish our capability. >> the chair recognizes mrs. sanchez. >> i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment by representative garamendi. he is correct there is no current board near-term

threat to from my man or north korea. remember that. their current plans with russia bollenbach to my colleague from ohio said, and nothing to do with the east coast. russia is worried about europe and having missile defense in europe. they are not worried about to our homeland. to suggest reintroduce that issue is of fair and very personal. it is not necessary.

>> consuela. >> no objection so ordered. >> any amendments? >> yes. elbaradei please distribute the amendment.

the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama to explain his amendment. >> this is after the authorization act introduced blast year. sources have reported the administration may share our defense secrets with the russians. this could be accurate since obama publicly stated his willingness to violate in congress passed to prohibiting it to kill and technology with fresh up. this establishes the two-tier approach i would ask the committee to share with me the russian

federation concern named missile defense capabilities in europe. from the associated press reports, but their top military officer will carry out of pre-emptive strike on nato defense facilities

>> is important to the nato allies the remember have is the provision to the russian

and federation where there reciprocal exchange improves the united states the played forces and allies. disinformation goes through the nato russia data hoping it would improve it raises constitutional concerns for the times go and international negotiations of diplomatic discussions and hinder discussions with the russian federation bilaterally so i asked my colleagues to oppose the amendment. i yield back. >> recognize the gentleman

from colorado. >> i commend representative brooks. we'll considered. a two-tier approach the most sensitive and permission is kept to ourselves and less sensitive could be shared if conditions are met to. the president has opened some of this as he spoke into the microphone talking about? ability. what does that mean? there may be secret agreements or a desire to enter into that is not being disclosed to the american public.

we have to have an amendment so our precious secrets are kept and consider anything beyond that. i urge the adoption. >> mr. chairmen? >> mr. garamendi is recognized two minutes. >> tire some. how many times do we have to hear about a secret agreement and deal with reality? this amendment goes beyond what is stated. do we know the other two sections? dave prohibit the administration from prohibiting what is the understanding of the brady

of the issues. it is critically important the president can negotiate the business of getting back what he is up two is fine. there are three other sections. they'd do impinge on his authority to engage in international negotiation. police, it is a new day. put away the talk of secret agreements. >> any other discussion? the gentleman from ohio for two minutes. >> this is incredibly important. the president was caught on

the microphone saying after the election and i have greater flexibility. we have asked the president to tell us what he meant talking about the message to vladimir putin. he has declined to tell us. that is why it is a secret. this is to ensure wide it is not common not about sharing secret data and technology that is why it is so important. we would have less concern and all the operate on what it should not be. >> any further discussion? >> all those in favor?

those opposed? say no. the amendment is agreed to. any other amendments? >> the clerk please pass out the amendment. >> that will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the chairmen. >> the state department restricts exports of been bred technology. cryogenic coolers, the

unintended consequences is the international competitors market. and number of manufacturers using technology with little restrictions hence abbas areas enjoy technologies that we had a major competitive advantage. but to reinvest profits resulting and technological innovation. with products produced we need to stabilize the baseline to maintain the as pro this ensures duty awards contracts to u.s. manufacturers preserving the industrial base line. agreed talk all the time maintaining industrial base and export controls.

if we restrict you for exporting it to we will not go through the back door to buy a from somebody else. i yield back. >> the gentlemen from washington? i offer an amendment in the form of a substitute. >> the clerk please pass out. this is a second-degree amendment. now recognized for the purpose of the explanation. >> with reluctance and regret i offer this provide think mr. trigger is headed down the right road. the amendment the offer is is competition for increased cost of weapon systems we should not have

ground-breaking technologies' produced by allies. i & special components and delivery platforms infrared technology is where the available. the stipulations restrict acquisitions to only domestic users were paying our ability to innovate and along term. we have to nurture our base to make sure there is competition. but i think the legislation is premature. we don't have a handle on the industrial base and the basis of my amendment is simple. to ask the department of defense for our manufacturing and industrial

base policy with the analysis it is doing currently that it looks at this specific area reporting back to the committee's we have a better idea what we are impacting. there are examples that would have hampered our capability most technology came brazil and objects and aircraft are made in great britain. i asked to study this 90 days and i offer that and good spirits. i yield back. >> anybody else to speak? >> bid gentlemen from new jersey. >> i would like to yield my time to mr. turner's prevent this committee has one

bill/one year. intuitively we understand you can not restrict and industry subjected to unrestricted competition to remain by toll. we do not need to study that. by the time we get to take action we have lost the competitive edge. >> the gentlemen yields back. >> mr. smith of washington. >> i would like to point* out to the discussion of export controls making it difficult to compete but they will have the better technologies. if we have export controls

but dead have examples our ability to develop the products of israel and agreed to britain. this amendment prohibits us from doing that and by restricting had to the time it may be elsewhere. read need to understand this the most national security equipment. i yield back. >> and the other discussion? >> of those in favor? apolo's?

the amendment is not adopted now on the underlying amendment those in favor? popozao? the amendment is agreed to in the other amendments? >> please distribute the amendment for without objection the reading is dispensed. the gentleman can explain his amendment.

>> this is close to me and also 27 years and textiles. in this day simple situation. in afghanistan those uniforms made was american made as it should be. recently someone made ad decision and to outsource to another country. we could not find who did that. it is not about reinvests or material. cut and so is afghanistan. if you make bad decisions it is our job. we have scorers are hundreds

of americans paying taxes, a fully expect us to make the right decision about trust trust, doing the right thing. how ironic for someone to make anonymous decision and with the history of the amendment notwithstanding after we talk about protecting small jobs and a growing this type of business to lead to hundreds of jobs these people pay their taxes. >> the gentleman from texas.

>> there is an exception to the very minnesota demint pro procurements not cited u.s. during combat. i don't know of zero who made the decision but our purpose is to let them stand on their own feet to buy their own uniforms, by their equipment, we provide the training and it would make the job more difficult and if there is anything we don't want to do is make the job of the troops, trading troops, trading, but make their job harder. it is best not to change the amendment by of the baby

baby -- eliminating those procurements. i yield back. >> the gentlemen from mexico? >> i yield my time to mr. kissell. >> i have no problem with the materials cut and sewn in afghanistan. i promise they are not being hit or died. it is a complex operation. it has then by american workers. that cannot be done there. it goes to another country. americans losing jobs by have a problem with the bidding taking place in another country. i yield back.

>> any further discussion adoption the amendment those in favor? >> the no's have it we will call robocalls quote at the end. in the further amendments? >> will the clerk please distribute the amendment? reading will be dispensed. we recognize is the gentleman from washington to explain his amendment. >> the base bill has a comment on afghanistan about

the status of the war and where we are at. under subsection 11, in order to reduce the uncertainty, a promote further stability and security the president should maintain a force of at least 68,000 troops through december 31st of a 2014. still almost three years. and maintain incredible troop presence afterwards. the underlying bill to vote on requires a substantial troop presence almost three years. that is not a wise strategy at this point*. our troops have done amazing

work to beat back the taliban, the fundamental point* it is time to transition to have the requirement 68,000 troops is unnecessary veba prescriptive in the wrong direction that is not in the best interest of the hour national security. i offer a substitute that congress and the president should accelerate responsibility to the afghans and drive down as quickly as possible to the venerable forests local to conduct counterterrorism missions and trade and equip the security forces.

that is the direction. not the underlying bill. >> the question is if this is in order. the chairmen will make ruling and referral is not required it isn't certain number of troops were linked the time. but smear lead to drive down the troops does require that. increasing troops does not the increase does and that does not make sense. we will wait for a better explanation how the

underlying words don't. [inaudible conversations] >> both the underlying language and the amendment require a referral. they wait for the underlying language, not the amendment. does not make sense but is slightly better explanation of. i withdraw but have another on the same subject. >> the gentleman withdraws this amendment. he has another one at the best -- desk please distribute to it by the clerk. for the purposes of offering and explain his amendment.

>> this strikes the language i just described in its entirety i do not offer a substitute and i explained why. i urge support i did not believe the american public want us to have a long term troop commitment minimum 68,000 troops in is not the best interest of national security. i urge adoption. i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas? >> i will speak against this amendment. we have low approval ratings the president has said that

it is a complete failure to sell his vision. he was almost absent from the field of play having the language lays out a better explanation and the president did my a view has failed to his own bully pulpit that he uses outwardly and has dropped the subject from his conversation that would be derelict in verity to do that as well. i yield back. >> recommending the dump the man from california. >> we should carefully read the

underlying base bill that this amendment would strike out. it augment the american presence in afghanistan and require we take sides in this level for to protect indefinitely of the karzai government significasignifica ntly danger american troops by giving us the task to protect and definitely into the future of the karzai government. >> will you healed? >> one of these issues is the confusion minder standing. >> i do not believe that i yield. >> i did not. >> you have your own time.

you have taken some of mind. >> language in the base bill has a enormous challenge for the united states to intervene directly and continually in a civil war but does not have the purpose of which we enter the war. to get al qaeda. we succeeded. taking out the bases, leader, and yet another. the president has been very successful to carry out the intention of the government. we now enter a completely different purpose and afghanistan. nation-building on steroids and a way that this the

protection. they took my time i would like another 15 seconds. >> go ahead. >> where are we? will we inject the nation further into the war or say wait? this language is inappropriate? the language strikes and leaves us where we were. >> the gentleman from texas. >> this is a requirement the president explain the troop reduction. why would people be so opposed?

there is the timetable to force troops out of afghanistan before the dance are ready. -- afghans are ready but to explain the risk associated and give the assessment of how security forces are coming is not too far. because of the concern the language makes good sense. with the afghan government and other things, regardless if it seems this should be the minimal amount of informational expect to do our job.

i don't completely and a stand the opposition require ring that information. >> anybody else? >> thank you. the argument i am hearing i spent two years in afghanistan. at the tactical level we have a lack of strategic phase-in and clarity and objectives. we continue to narrow our four -- focus with al qaeda or taliban. we did not go into rolled word to after the german tinker regiment but nobody

knew about the haqqani network a couple years ago. the taliban and dockside it can change their name. we need to define the end of the. if we don't do anything about the sanctuaries across the border there will never be secure environment in afghanistan. you are passing up a rope for military language. you need clear guidance. we don't need to strike it all. it could be refined better so we have a vision to have five basic tasks. find the enemy, engaged, destroy and pursue. that is what we do that the ground level we need that at

the strategic level and that is what is missing the last 11 years. >> i support mr. smith's amendment and airline bell asks for something asked and answered and will be again. the tide has turned. we broke the momentum to build a strong security force taking out over 20 leaders and one year-ago the troops lost the operation but those who built it to was 10 last week. >> will you yield?

ten seconds? >> the taliban gave us a clear response within 90 minutes of the president taking off. >> reclaiming my time. we're not done. when did general was asked about the time line, quote matt congressmen i will be honest with you and the next administration embargo this strategy will work for good is general allen. not force is fighting to the end or to barry -- bear the burden of the campaign. you can disagree with the vision. said to say there is not the strategy ought to is incorrect.

and the amendment is correct it fixes the problem in the bill. i yield back. >> anyone else wish to speak? >> mr. hunter. two minutes. >> disagreed with my friend from new jersey he did not articulate his vision but spiked the football away after on the one-year anniversary with the speech what has happened recently in afghanistan. section 1216 this is what it says. clearly states the west should not maintain indefinite combat mission and into the assist mission and as soon as practical. to address the capacity of

the forces to it is consistent with his position of you will have the recommendation on the core structure but this says that asks the president to consider the recommendations and requires the administration to in the defy us but those of not bad thing is. we do this because the of administration has since. the only reason we do this is to explain what we're doing over there. the president goes over one

time per year i am happy he did as. >> mr. chairman? >> the chair recognizes mr. johnson. >> we have had. >> if you will yield? >> we had a lot of armchair generals of how things used to be. i believe there was no clear strategic vision. if you served bear, that is clear. but everybody supported

that. and the president promised to -- end of a quagmire but has stepped up to afghanistan with the strategic region to eliminate al qaeda and bring stability to afghanistan. and said he will bring the troops home. we have to transitioned out of iraq. that is the responsible thing to do but as quickly

and as reasonable. i yield back. >> the gentlemen from colorado. two minutes. >> i was said afghanistan with my colleagues. we had met to but both said the same thing in a separate mail and death with the precedents of 68,000 but

through 2014 come with a good thing is to achieve the objectives but convincing them to cooperate with the united states if, did it to win it. no weighing would be killed to cooperate with us if the insurgentsh the united states if, did it to win it. no weighing would be killed to cooperate with us if the insurgents took back that river valley.

explain that anxiety. we should have bet and afghanistan -- first place. to bring it to adjust the way it is written but his response? i yield back. >> your time is expired mr. smith is recognized two minutes. >> i a agreed nicole day school is two responsible end. but the part about 68,000 troops. does save they can achieve objectives but that is the strong statement and then

the incredible troop presence after that. my concern is the ability to force stability on afghanistan. the president on many occasions has articulated his vision blurred we have to stop the taliban coming back. until he can train the forces there now 300,000 trained but keep in mind the limitations of the u.s. military in that part of the world. to force stability on the region. it will not happen. the responsibility pass to shift. that is a dangerous point* but it would if we went 20

years. the problem is it is a strong permanent i encourage support for the amendment. i yield back. >> a few weeks ago i met with general allen. he had not decided yet it seems that the language rehear i did the poll in my district producing should we've follow the counsel to

bring them out over a period of time? sixty% said follow the counsel. we have not received that yet because because it is not completed. we maintain a force at least 68,000 troops he needs 68,000 troops through 2014. we already made the equipment. >> i don't see consistency. >> he signed an agreement

with president karzai to have another 10 years. this gives him flexibility. a maintain troop but it is proper and it gives flexibility for a general and what fried chain of command. we will see what he has to say. >> this gives us that flexibility. any other discussion en? >> the adoption of third by a mr. smith. favorable? those oppose the no's have

it. the amendment is not agreed to. the ranking member asked for their will call book. we will do that the end. any other amendment? >> i have one at the desk. actually the next two i will withdraw in the interest of time. >> will the clerk we will consider them then the ranking member would withdraw all. >> these are perennials, and three years. of the underlying portion of the bill restricts the president's ability to transfer inmates out of

guantanamo and any effort to build facilities to accommodate those prisoners in the united states. i know of that i do not have the votes to change it but just raise the objections and i think it is the wrong policy to limit the president's flexibility. at some quaint we have to deal with it. 171 is a member. even now all of them will be there forever limiting the alternative that is not a sustainable practice and we will have to make a decision i hope the committee will consider that going forward. this has been attached to everything would is excepted policy bent i want to go to

the objection and urged the committee to go forward with some time we have to figure out what to do with those folks in guantanamo. so i will withdraw the amendment. >> will the clerk pass out the amendment? the reading is dispensed now we have mr. hunter for explaining his amendment. >> last year this committee required 30 days' notice prior to releasing the detainee just ask the where that detainee was going

broke a weekend improve on the sectionmprove on the section it makes the 30 days, nine days and secretary of defense not only where they go but what they did wrong, but the secretary of defense of that person doing bad things to america. that allows this committee to exercise jurisdiction and oversight who is released and i urge the yes vote to. >> any further discussion? >> barranca in a labyrinth

is recognized.a labyrinth is recognized. >> i have problems with many restrictions we put on 10 transferred and the department of defe transferred and the department of defense to make transfers. i don't know this is fundamentally authorizing. i will not raise an objection at this time. i may not support it long term but i will not argue with the objection. >> any other discussion? >> the question is offered by mr. hunter. those in favor? those oppose? the amendment is agreed to.

any other amendments? the chair recognizes mr. garamendi to explain the amendment. >> [inaudible conversations] the gentleman is a recognized? >> thank you. this issue due rose with the celebrities that we should pay attention to.

with last year's apprehension and indefinite detention of persons within the united states to become a critical issue but an effort to clarify the language to make it clear within the united states, a person cannot be held without access to the article three court. that if this but we need to make it clear united states constitution is clear. this amendment when kid is debated. i will see where it goes.

i will not bring this to a boat to but between now and when the bill comes to the floor, there will be language to deal with the issue and hopefully we will clarify in the united states we do not apprehend and hold indefinitely without access to a lower court to. i will withdraw and hold if they want to take it up. . .

>> digital manuals back. any other discussion? pajama man withdraws his amendment. any other discussion? and the other amendments clack de klerk please distribute the amendment. without objection from the reading of the amendment will be dispensed straight and ranking members and it recognized to explain the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to have to raise

because they have a sequential referral problem. this debate will happen on the floor next week however in this test it with the indefinite detention issue. the first thing i want to clarify is another piece of this amendment is to strike the underlined portion of the bill that mr. conaway schist reference. there was a considerable mass controversy over the nba last year and how it handles indefinite detention smi everyone on this knows. there is a part of me deeply troubled because the problem people were pointing to predated last year's nda a and somehow all kind of criticism were heaped upon not. in 2000 when congress passed the au and match and it was interpreted to allow for the indefinite contention in for the military custody of people all over the world at the president if they are considered to be a covered person. in other words, if they are found to commit certain acts in support of terrorism, they can

be held indefinitely by our country, or put in military custody and put up for a military tribunal. that existed prior to last year's ndaa. we also had last year some house ndaa suspended habeas corpus. it did not. and every day. the underlying bill attempts to address that fictional problem by saying, well, if you think we did this, we really didn't tend furthermore it will emphasize habeas corpus applies to everybody. that is not really helpful overall because habeas corpus does apply to everybody. now that was the whole purpose of setting up guantánamo bay in the first place because it is considered to be outside of u.s. control and therefore not subject to habeas corpus requirements. supreme court case along and

said no. you know, guantánamo bay is effectively under u.s. control. at the mouth, sunamerica kvs. settled law. we didn't touch a and this year's bill doesn't help anything. because if you couldn't convince them usher based on the law come you're not going to convince them because if the language in a bummer time. but my bill does this goes at the substantive problem created in 2001 and that is the indefinite detention power given to the president is an enormous amount of power. basically if you declare someone an enemy combatant can take and hold that person indefinitely and not that person gets in terms of processes that habeas corpus. habeas corpus is a minimum finding when they say do you have the right to hold this person under the law? it does not have any of the due process that the adversarial, lengthy trial come everything contained in the normal article iii constitutional

process. it's an enormous amount of power and the people raising concerns about the nda last year were right to raise concerns about these issues. it's very rare in this country to give the amount of power to the president, to take away any person's fundamental freedom and not enough without the normal due process of law without all of the civil liberties protected in our constitution. to take that away is an enormous step. we have to ask ourselves the question. is it necessary? did we need to do this? we have to take this step because it is necessary to protect the terror threat that al qaeda and associated forces present. the only trouble with that argument is there's very little evidence that it's true we have to have no power. but my amendment does is takes away the ability to indefinitely detain her place in military custody anybody captured or

detained within the qs or its territories within areas the u.s. controls. any person picked up in the situation will go through the normal due process article iii court process. we know this works. it has worked well over 400 times. in fact, since 9/11 only to people captured in the u.s. have been subject to indefinite detentions. subject for a couple years eventually tried in their civilian courts anyway in the most recent one way back in 2002. for over nine years we've been able to keep this country safe, try, convict, interrogate information from the underwear bomber to times square bomber and on and on and on, our constitutional due process process has worked. it does work without having to give the president this enormous amount of power over individuals. i am suggesting we don't need to get that power. leaving it on the books a

dangerous threat to civil liberties. my amendment was stripped out and take it away. the other thing i want to point out is that huge discussion last year about making sure this doesn't apply to u.s. citizens. my amendment applies to everybody because the constitution applies to everybody. the constitutional rights and the constitution, and nowhere will you see u.s. citizen. it says any person deserves that same protection. so i will have that debate on the floor next week and a vote on the amendment. i appreciate your indulgence and allowing me to explain it will have the debate. without it will try the amendment. >> gentlemen i trust the amendment. any other amendments? ms. speier has been amendment. while the clerk please distribute the amendment? without objection come everything that the amendment

will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from california to offer and explain her amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you erato offered with job, but i do think is worth two minutes of our time to talk about service contractors, which is the largest area of cost growth for the department of defense. the american society of military controllers on the contractors for services have increased 187% while the cost for civilians have only increased the percent during that time. 2001 until 2010. reducing cost requires having better data to be able to assess the real cost of contractors. this amendment requires to collect more information on labor hours and costs. improving cost assessments are already showing significant potential for savings. the army has found collecting and using this data resulted in

savings of 16% to 30% improved cost analysis help you rediscover that outsourcing operations research analyst positions, increase costs by 30% with the contractor employee receiving an annual salary of $50,000 more than an employee that would have been employed by the department of defense as a civilian. so we really need to do a better job here. the wartime contracting commission also found for high skill level were, contract billing rates could be 30% higher than the cost of a dod civilian. the answer is to collect information that helps the pentagon make decisions and i hope we will take the issue seriously as they move forward. but then i withdraw the amendment. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations] >> the gentlelady withdraws her

amendment. we have another man at the desk. mr. coffman. was cleared please pass at the amendment. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from colorado, mr. coffman for the purpose of offering and expand his amendment. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. over the last 10 years the department of defense has seen historic rates of growth in number of federal civilian employees on payroll since 2002 the number of civilian bureaucrats inside the dod has grown 20% while the number of uniformed military members has increased less than 1%. pull the curtain at mistry shouldn't slash in the numbers of uniformed military personnel over the next five years additional little indication that it plans to take commiserate cuts to the federal workforce would've been higher to support support the uniformed men and women. now that the department is making tough decisions about defense platforms by retiring

ships and combat aircraft subpoena per se says new weapons systems, it is time we took action to secure the balance. in the summer of 2010 defense secretary robert gates announces series of cost saving initiatives to create efficiencies and face the mounting budget pressures. the civilian jobs at 770,000 recommended further cuts. two years later employment within the department of defense had risen by nearly 23,000 personnel. despite recommendations by the defense business board, the pentagon has been unable or willing to reduce the number of civilian employees inside the department of defense. this is why it is necessary to implement guidance that will force the change. the uniformed service members and civilian contract areas will fill the budget pressures. they can be easily terminated or

forced from service. on the other hand, federal civil servants have the advantage of union protection and a multitude of hurdles that protect their position irrespective of job performance. while the fighting force of the department has been reduced, the bureaucratic overhead continues to grow. this amendment will bring the level of civilian inside the department of defense down to near 20 year average, while still allowing for the increases that have been required to better serve our military and approve the contracting services. in 1929 -- 2003 the civilian workforce is 29% of all uniformed military personnel reserve and guard now is 34%. night and then it will take it down to 30% and it will do that through attrition, to only those

positions that are deemed non-governmental or competitively done in the area. but that mr. chairman, i would ask for the adoption of my amendment. >> gentlemen yields back. the chair now recognizes mr. forbes from virginia for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to mr. chairman, like all the members on this committee, the gentle of his amendment is well intended and is certainly something we need to debate and discuss. i just want to caution the committee as to what we would be doing here. one of the things that we have been criticizing the department of defense so many chances to make decisions without doing analysis. in this situation one of the things we put in our markup is to do a study of this and see what the proper mix should actually be before we make this decision. if we move down this path, we israelis are talking about

118,000 jobs that we would be cutting. so i hope that the committee, with the gentleman has an excellent point, we need to study this coming analyze and look at it. i hope before we take that action, we can get the city back and make sure we move forward so that we are not making a mistake that would be difficult to come back from. a lot of jobs at stake in making this decision about that, mr. chairman can i yield to the gentleman. >> for me just say there's a lot of jobs in the private sector because right now as it answers enough africa would not, where contracts are terminated and prodded to be done by civil service personnel. i know in my community there's private contractors losing their employees for government employees and there is no timeline in this for government to accomplish getting down to 30%. again it through attrition. >> mr. chairman, i have that you

>> jermyn yells back. chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me associate myself with the comments of mr. forbes because, you know, i don't know why we attacked federal employees. if we learned any angle from the iraqi. , is that contracting out is very expensive and part of what these kinds of efforts to demoralize the federal workforce. we've got people that continuously deployed out of the pentagon to all parts of the world. i know that from the intelligence committee and not doing an assessment, not doing a study that actually would give us the reason to even think to do this kind of a cutback of

118,000 federal employees i think is not only not well thought out, that can be the bully could do irreparable harm to our ability. now, my good friend roscoe bartlett is not here, but we talk about talk about our industrial base, title goes to federal employees out of work a lifetime and a courier, defending our country and i think they deserve better. so i would oppose this amendment and i yield back. >> to turn a recognizes the gentleman from indiana, mr. young for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the last thing we need is another study in my mind and have great respect from virginia and texas that we know competition works in all such is that the economy. right now we especially need competition. congress is cutting $487 billion from our defense budget over the next 10 years.

meanwhile we prevent the pentagon from getting more bang for the buck as result of competitive forces. you know, this is something we are looking out across the federal government. we need to outsource more goods and services to private vendors that already offer these goods and services being offered internal to various departments of government. i and several of my colleagues sandy yellow pages caucus for this very purpose in recent months. let's unleash the same market forces within the pentagon. i say if the activity is available from a private company, let the pentagon contract out the good or service to the private company or instead, let's cause those within the pentagon that offer that service to compete with the private vendor. i don't tank a double to more laser federal workforce. i think it will actually

increase their esteem, increase morale. they would understand they are standing on their own two feet and are providing high quality services at low cost. so let's unshackle the pentagon. let's empower those up in the pentagon to get the most bang for the buck and this will be the best thing for the entire federal government for fiscal responsibility and also hope to use the economy. i support mr. train for his amendment, cheney met for readership in this area and i yield back. >> gentlemen yields back in the chair recognizes mr. schilling for two minutes. >> thank you, chairman. one of the things i like to point out is because they need to proceed with caution with this. the largest concentration of civilians in the army is the nature of command and the biggest concentration is found in the arsenals in the depots, which is our organic base. workers keep or fighter safe and

civilians hurt -- tend to be often less expensive than the contractors. during this time of fiscal constraint we must choose the best value for the organic is that fits the bill. the arsenal and manchester prufrock island arsenal is a great example of the value in this amendment would be detrimental to it and one of the things i always use as an example is that when our war fighters win out and have a soft skinned humvees with the rock island arsenal but up-armored those in the quicktime and actually saved several lives. so you know, proceed with caution, but we've got to be careful, especially with the skill sets we have on arsenals and depots on the patio type. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i just want to point out to the gentleman, to come has been sure he knows tennis, the discussion earlier was if we could do this in the air, this

is not a question whether we can do it in the private area. it just fixes the arbitrary amount before it does any analysis to see if that could be a possibility for us to look at. >> what the gentleman yield? >> is not my time, but i'd be happy to yield. >> the fact is -- the fact that it doesn't give a timeline, but it states the conditions for what could occur, in other words only jobs competitively done by the other as the situation, then those jobs would go down to bring you at the 30% level. so i do not think it is says arbitrary. >> the other gentleman's time has expired. the chair now recognizes mr. andrews from new jersey for 10 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman from colorado's couple of amendment makes some good points and i particularly would want to find a way to work with him to

encourage more purchase of goods and services in a way that would maximize value for the tax year. i think he's on the right track. however, i do agree with those who have spoken against the amendment on the grounds with arbitrary numbers in it and i think we had to have a process. i think the 876 process fundamentally is right of the nice treaty tweaking that has a fair competition that we can make this on a case-by-case basis. and i'm sure it was not with disrespect, i'm certain it wasn't, but one of the comments earlier was federal employees need the chance to stand on their own two feet and get more self-esteem. i think that characterization really is way out of whack. i do find it kind of ironic to hear it at 120 the morning, surrounded by federal employees

come in many who have not been a bed for the last 40 hours and made this market possible. i know it's not pointed at these individuals, but i think a lot of a lot of people that a paycheck from the government work very hard and they don't need to be encouraged to get on their feet. there were an effete and the ones who helped us to especially thank her for it. i yield back. >> the gentlemen yields back. any other discussion on the amendment. hearing none, the question on adoption offer by mr. train for colorado. so many in favor will face of the. those opposed, no. the nose habit. the amendment is the amendment is not agreed to. other amendments? another amendment for mr. coffman. but the clerk please distribute the amendment? but that objection to my reading will dispensed with at the chair now recognizes gentleman from colorado's the purpose of

authorizing explaining the amendment. >> this will restrict allowed to forces the pentagon to identify current contracts for conversion to non-competitive civil service positions. he replaces restrictions that the freedom to leverage free-market solution to optimize cost control according to omb, gao and center for naval analyses, savings of 30% are achieved in implementing competitive sourcing public private cost comparisons to commercial activities currently performed by the government. if competition is applied to a 453,000 dod fact position, the annual savings would receive 13 billion. my amendment recognizes their inherently governmental functions by the department of defense. it does not adjust the definition of inherently governmental functions or seeks to outsource functions in any way. my amendment will only address functions not inherently

governmental and afford the department of defense options to do with the cost of providing commercial products and services. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentlemen yields back. the chair now recognizes mr. franks from arizona for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, just wanted to encourage my colleagues to support the coffman amendment. i think is exactly on the right track here in case the pentagon and defense department more latitude in the fact is all of us know the examples of allowing government and the private sector to compare prices with each other and allow the pentagon to seek out private site or advantages is something good for both our national security and economic well-being and i just want to encourage everyone to support mr. coffman amendment and i yield back.

>> the chair recognizes the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. many of the reasons opposed to the previous one. this goes at a very delicate balance struck within the workforce in terms of what is competed, what is contracted out a knife. the impression is being given the federal government no longer contracts that were. quite certainly does then there has been a long, long history of the lab developed to govern how that is done, to come take a swipe at this one aspect is unwise and upsets the balance and i urge the committee to oppose. >> gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. >> this seems to fit in with the work he and his panelists at encourage small businesses to get back to us to government contracts and work.

this does talk about products and services as opposed to inherently government employees. so i would encourage my colleagues to vote for the castor amendment. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes mr. johnson from georgia for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. national security and the defense of this nation should not be reduced down to a cheap way out -- the cheapest way out. some things the government can do better than private industry can send things should not be left to whoever can do it for the lowest price analysis.

i think that is kind of a simplistic way of looking at the needs for security of the nation. when you outsource a lot of jobs, you are turning over a response ability for security with respect to the employees to the private employer, oftentimes the private employer may be owned by private for-profit foreign-based corporation. you know, just so many questions that have to be asked about some of these positions you are seeking to drive into the tear. so i want us to be careful about that. i am inclined to oppose this amendment. and i yield back.

>> the chair recognizes the gentleman text is for 10 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, we need to tread carefully here. i understand and i commend my colleague for the thought behind this, but what i fear is that we make it into a situation where currently gsa said steve contracts, and makes sure that the quality is fair, and make sure there's a good comparison between the price and the quality. if all we are are about the cheapest price, then we'll just lose every contract to china and i don't think we want products that are not standard for the

government and especially for the department of defense. so i think this is another area where we need to, as i said, tread lightly and i would ask members to oppose this amendment. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the gentlemen yields back to the chair now recognizes mr. garamendi for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have to take a look at the language because something is missing here. there are three reasons why he thought to be done in their seat on the second page, a come at bmc. neither speak to the issue of cause or savings. product and services can be adequately available to resource of adequate competition and product or service is not inherently a government function. where is the cost savings here? it is not in this legislation. if they're going to do this, it

seems to be looking at saving money, but that is not one of the three criteria. in fact, it is absent from the criteria. and therefore, is simply outsourcing. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i suppose whoever it may be out there. maybe they can answer the question. >> thank you. the fundamental issue is that gives the flexibility to the department of defense to make the decision for those items that can be outsourced to be able to outsource them. right now there is an assumption and kurd do you have to establish that it cannot be turned within the public sector to make the decision to go to the private sector. this merely reverses that. >> reclaiming my time, the year-to-year mechanistic and save some 30% of whatever the cost might be. that is your fundamental argument.

yet the way for method does not speak to cost savings at all, but rather simply that someone outside the government can do it. yes, maybe they could, but it seems you're going to go to office. >> with the gentleman yield? >> for 12 seconds. >> that simply understood. >> gentlemen yields back. >> you know, i've been lucky not to and i don't understand it myself. i am wondering if the shaman and would be willing to withdraw that some of us were a little bit more with staff and now that a little bit better to find for the floor. >> yes, mr. chairman. that would withdraw the amendment to work on it further with staff. >> i appreciate that. we will work online and see see if we can come up with a more

refined product. >> mr. chairman. >> if they could, and looking at the subsequent amendment, if they could roll those two together because they're very similar and work with staff is on the subsequent amendment, they probably should've been combined in the same amendment in the first place. >> i think that is a great idea. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would try the second amendment two. >> any other amendments? with the clerk please distribute the amendment without objection, greeting will be dispensed with at the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. rachel for the purpose of operating and expand his amendment. >> i thank the chairman of we have had a really informative discussion and to a degree at debate this evening about how do

we best address the profound fiscal challenges facing our country and within that the department of defense and specifically as it relates to the efficacy of using federal employees versus terror. coming from a strong private or background, but also having a deep appreciation for the value and contribution of the federal workforce, i am introducing an amendment that would allow the department of defense really what i think is an essential tool that they need to meet their fiscal goals, to drive efficiency and that would be to move forward with the private competition under some circumstances is not available to the department of defense. i would like to point out an i.t. reference the office of management and budget that reported regardless of whether the federal government for the

private contractor wind, the competition in the act of allowed generates cost savings between 10% and 40% on average. this amendment does not require the use of private competition. it simply unlocks a powerful tool that the department of defense may use to drive cost effectiveness and efficiency. with that i could go on, but i yield back in casey's additional discussion. >> the chair now recognizes the lady from guam for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. congress withdrew a 76 because the department had not resolved long-standing problems with the 76 process by gao particularly to keep track of cost and savings.

the inventory of contract services required in fy 10 as a condition for lifting the moratorium had not been submitted by the department of defense nor has the department integrated the data in the inventory into his budget justification material. until the congress can understand the extent and scope, the department's dependence on contracted services as a component of the total forests for their conversion of federal civilian and employee functions to contract performance is not in the best interest. the 76 circular has not been changed to ensure that actual cost of caring and a 876 study don't exceed an estimated saving the federal employees are not put at a competitive disadvantage through the imposition of excessive overhead charges. it is consistent with a lot of that for bids automatically

competition of in-house workforces. lifting the moratorium would eliminate the incentives the department needs to 6876 process as well as finish services contracts inventory. before i conclude my remarks, mr. chairman, i will mention the 76 process was a pilot program on guam and it was a total flop. we experienced a series of problems and eye witnesses firsthand. i go on record as opposing this amendment. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i hope we will support this amendment. first of all again i appreciative of discussions on these issues the good thing about this amendment is we're not picking an arbitrary amount we have to pull out of the year.

the second thing is we are not changing bias towards government contracts where we changed the 10% figure. but the other thing to point out is an amendment and friends over here and it passes an art last year. i think mr. rigell has done a good job of striking the right balance because what this ended doing is having true competition without shifting the balance where we get the best product for the best price and i hope we support this as it did blaster on block and pass it on the former heard that mr. chairman i yield that. >> the gentlemen yields bad. the chair now recognizes mr. anders from new jersey for two minutes.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i associate and opposed the amendment. the balance we all straight cannot be achieved to adequate of contracts subject to the 876 process. the inventory proceeding to lifting the moratorium not yet supplied. the department needs to expedite the completion projects. until it does i don't think we can strike the balance because we don't have the rest of contracts to look at. i would urge a no vote on the amendment and yield back. >> gentlemen yields back. the chair now recognizes gentlelady from hawaii, ms. hanabusa for two minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i too would like to incorporate the remarks a very good friend from guam. i think the premise upon which we are looking at these as we've got to explore it.

if were talking about government efficiency, let's recognize the dod has spent more, double the amount of money for contract tears and a half for the civilian workforce. in fact come in the civilian workforce if they'd rather rather stable rather than money spent from 2000 until 10 years later to 150 billion. this does not include local funding at all. when the army lifted in sourcing another is going as mr. schilling said in the other amendment we let that, we look to in sourcing and around civilian workforce, they found we could save 900 million in fiscal year time alone. i think that was dod. the army claims 16% to 30% and one-year alone and they have been able to reduce the costs.

the premise is whether or not we are actually using outside contractors. the answer is of course we are. the question now is whether it is sufficient. let's look at what they dod has managed to save any year. more importantly than that and i think this is the point made by mr. schilling is the fact that we also have to invest in civilian workforce because when we talked about being prepared and meet the various demands, it is when we don't have that talent available to us in the critical -- the critical fields in particular would we are advantage. >> the gentlelady's time is expired. the chair now recognizes mr. reyes for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to associate myself with the lady

from guam because i actually administer the pilot program under the 876 in the mid-80s. under the reaganite ministration they required us to do a pilot and in a law-enforcement agency, the impact that it had on us was that a typical oil change for a vehicle went from about five bucks to about 20. and if you did it after hours and if you did it on the weekend or holiday there is an additional surcharge for any sort of work done under the 76 program. it was supposed to be a one-year pilot after six months at the very frustrating experience of being able to manage the 24 hour law enforcement operation of the program was canceled.

so this is not based on the study. it is actual a pilot program that was found in the mcallen sector and i was the chief of the time. i am in opposition to this amendment and i urge the members to oppose it an ideal that. >> gentlemen yields back. if there's no further discussion on the amendment, the question is an adoption of the amendment offered by mr. rigell of virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the train a habit. >> i ask for a roll call vote please. >> roll call vote is ordered. we will call this roll call vote. for me just tell you, that was the last amendment we're debating. we will have an unblock amendment and then we will have our rollcall boasts.

we're approaching the finish line. i ask unanimous consent to collect an unblock package of amendments without objection so order. with a clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered and block -- on block. the amendment is comprised of an amendment by mr. andrews to require report from the dod on the potential of transition to human-based methods of training. amendment by mr. miller to use the nondisclosure and civilian employees from communicating with vendors of congress and ms. sanchez to require an assessment of the nuclear weapon pit production requirement. amendment by mr. mcintyre to establish a center of excellence for the national guard partnership program and improve

skills and relationship and partnership building the foreign entities. an amended to mr. hunter to prohibit the secretary of defense from retiring or transferring any air guard reserve or army reserve aircraft until certain information is provided to congress. and amendment by mr. randy into required to save a secretary of unfunded requirement budget submission. a member by mr. whitman to require a report on recidivism formerly detained at the detention facility in afghanistan. the amendment we collaboration with the faa in integrating ues international aerospace system. an amendment by mr. wilson as the comptroller general to determine the effects of titanium purchase restrictions on domestic manufacturers of

aircraft components to contract with the dod. and a technical amendment to section 238 by mr. turner. further debate on the unblock amendment? if not, the question some adoption of the amendment offered by the chair. so many of favor with a aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. we are now going to perceive those were roll call vote was ordered here the committee postponed offered by mr. mr. garamendi. number 085, question now occurs on the amendment offered by ms. garamendi. the clerk will call the roll. garamendi. the clerk will call the roll. garamendi. the clerk will call the roll. wal-mart

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

[roll call] [roll call]

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

[roll call]

[roll call] >> clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, the nose or 32, the ayes or 36. >> the amendment are not agreed to. further proceedings offered by mr. andrews. number 128 shall now resume those proceedings. the question or a curse on him an offer by mr. andrews. the clerk will call the roll.

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

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[inaudible conversations] >> how was mr. langevin recorded? >> mr. langevin is not recorded. mr. langevin records aye. >> the clerk will report the tally. >> the nose are 35. the aye are 26. >> said the amendment is not agreed to. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by mr. kissel and number 177 shall not resume proceedings. question out occurs on the amendment offered by mr. said tree. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] [roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> how does mr. brady record? >> mr. brady has recorded us know. >> mr. brady does