>> without objection, it is so ordered. the committee will now receive the report on the subcommittee of projection forces pursuant to committee rule 17 in consultation with the ranking member. we'll postpone all of the recorded voteses on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia,

mr. forbes, for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this year the subcommittee has worked diligently and in a bipartisan matter to prepare the markup that's before the committee. however, we could not have been successful without your leadership, the work of our ranking member, mike mcintyre, and the dedication and commitment to excellence of the committee staff. the public never fully understands or appreciates the contributions of our staff, but we do. and today we offer them our thanks. i wanted to highlight some of the key issues that we discussed for consideration in our mark. first, i continue to be concerned about both the size and composition of our navy's fleet. in the 30-year shipbuilding plan, the administration has indicated a requirement of 306 ships. the independent, bipartisan 2010 qdr independent panel indicated a requirement of 346 ships. unfortunately, the secretary of the navy has proposed a reduction of the fleet to 270 ships in just the next year.

various outside experts have indicated that if we continue to support our current level of shipbuilding investments, we may even further retuesday to a 240- reduce to a 240-ship navy. in addition, the constitution directs congress to provide and maintain a navy. i hold the constitution as our mandate to insure that congress provides and maintains a sufficient navy. this solemn responsibility should not be taken lightly. this responsibility should not be budget driven. our actions should not be in response to how much we can afford; rather, we need to be distribute and dill gent in in many our naval forces. if we are unsuccessful in turning the trend lines associated with the continued decline of our naval forces. while accepting the increased risk incurred and providing national security for generations to come. also concerning to me is the navy's continued opposition to retaining ships think their

design life. in a 30-year shipbuilding plan, the navy has proposed to retire seven cruisers and two amphibious ships in 2015, 10-15 years before the end of their service life. i support a fleet size that is built around the requirements that the combatant commanders say they need. as such, i support the retention of these seven cruisers and two amphibious ships and support the chairman's mark that includes the retention of these capable ships. as to the balance of the shipbuilding program, i was pleased that the navy entered into a contract this past monday to procure ten destroyers through multiyear procurement. we should all be proud that this bill authorizes sufficient funds to insure that we can purchase the tenth destroyer. as to the virginia class submarine, we're committed to procuring two of these submarines a year. these are critical investments for our fleet. with regards to the combat ship, i'm disturbed by recent press reports about a draft xao report that indicates the lcs program

is having continued and significant acquisition problems. i support growing the frequent but am concerned that the procurement of this sea frame has advanced beyond the associated mission modules. we need to take a hard look at this program to best assess how it supports the fleet strategy. the mark also addresses the navy's carrier-based, unmanned aircraft programs. i strongly support the navy's efforts to develop this future capability and will work diligently in the coming years to keep this program on track. this bipartisan mark also includes important cost-saving initiatives that provide the navy and air force the ability to procure e2d and c-130h aircraft using procurement authority saving the taxpayers over $1 billion if the services were to preserve these aircraft annually. this mark also initiates much-needed modernization and upgrades to national guard c-130 aircraft that was absent in

the's budget request. these modern nation d mornizations will insure that we have access to tactical air lift when and where they need it using mission-capable aircraft. this mark also supports the top sea power and projection forces acquisition programs of the air force. and authorizes funding at the requested levels for both the new kc-46 tanker and the new long range strike bomber. i'm pleased at the progress these programs have made and look forward to working with the air force to see their successful acquisition in the years ahead. i'm also pleased to include in this mark additional support for the maritime administration title xi loan program guarantee. by leveraging long-term financing on terms and conditions that make certain projects viable, the expansion of this program supports the growth and modernization of the u.s. merchant marine and u.s. shipyards. shipbuilding capability is a critical part of our nation's infrastructure. mr. chairman, in my office i have a copy of the declaration

of independence surrounded by the 56 signers of that document. it's a solemn responsibility that we have to carry on the work of our predecessors. we should be reminded that they had to endure the trials and tribulations that allow our nation to flourish today. their direction is our constitutional obligation, to provide and maintain a navy. as our founding fathers did of old, we need to insure we do our part to provide for a navy that best supports our national objectives. under your leadership, mr. chairman, i hope this legislation takes large steps toward meeting those lofty goals. and with the presentation of our subcommittee this morning, we hope to take a large step towards meeting your goal of completing our work in this committee at a reasonable time today. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you very much. chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre, for comments he would like to make. >> the sea power and projection portions of our bill that is before us today comets this

subcommittee's -- continues this subcommittee's tradition of strong bipartisan support, as it should be, for our men and women in uniform. i'd also like to thank chairman forbes for building this package and working with us in a strong open and bipartisan manner. he went out of the way to a accommodate members' concerns, and, randy, thank you for that. overall, this is a positive package, report language and funding recommendations. the package carefully cuts waste, something that we're all concerned about in protecting the taxpayer dollar and getting maximum return. the subcommittee has to take care of both the current force and look out for the future, and this package accomplishes that difficult balance. in terms of legislation, the mark includes provisions for the jerrold ford class -- gerald ford class air force carrier as the chairman mentioned and several other provisions that provide additional oversight of important programs including two of the navy's largest unmanned

aircraft programs. it also gives the department of defense permission to begin retirement of some old kc-135 refueling aircraft that have been in storage for many years. we're able to do this because the new tanker program, the kc-46a, is on cost and on schedule which i know we are pleased to hear and be able to report. i'm glad we are giving the department of defense more flexibility in these tough budget times to manage their inventory of aircraft. in terms of funding, this mark recommends $14.3 billion in shipbuilding that would authorize a total of eight new ships, the full amount requested by the administration. the mark also authorized $941 million to insure that the virginia class submarine, class destroyer, ddg-51 class destroyer and joint high-speed vessel programs stay on schedule. with regard to aircraft program, the mark fully funds the administration's budget request for all the major aircraft

programs in our jurisdiction for the navy and marine corps and the air force's new bomber program. i strongly support these recommendations. we have much to be pleased with in terms of honoring the taxpayer dollar, making sure we stay on schedule and making sure we serve as we all, our men and women in uniform by giving them the assets they need. with that i fully support the sea power subcommittee's portion of today's markup and urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? mr. forbes. >> chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up an en bloc packages that have been worked and approved on the minority

side. >> without objection, so ordered. would the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered en bloc? without objection, reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. >> gentleman's recognized for five minutes for the purposes of offering and explaining his en bloc amendments. >> chairman, i call up package number one comprised of the following: amendment number 43 by mr. forbes raising the cost cap for the ford class carrier cvn. amendment number 45 by mr. forbes expressing concern with the lcs program,

specifically the concurrency issues between c frames and mission modules and directs the report regarding a series of questions. amendment number 84 by mr. courtney amending directive report language on shipbuilding plan to reflect importance of the recapitalization of our ssbn fleet and adds a requirement that the report include a discussion of strategies to address shipbuilding shortfalls in the updated long-range ship building report. amendment number 101 by mr. palazzo requiring a sense of congress with regards to finding future balance of the navy's fleet. amendment number 118 by mr. forbes directing the secretary of the navy to submit a report by september 30, 2013, on the most recent offensive anti-surface warfare weapon analysis of alternatives and a report addressing a series of questions regarding the program's development. amendment number 154 by mr.-- [inaudible] requiring a briefing to assess the current situation pertaining

to overhauls in rma kits kits ad efforts to address the backup of overhauls in closed weapon systems. amendment number 166r1 by mr. brooks requesting a report from the secretary of the navy on the joint high-speed vessel and expanding its mission. amendment number 212 by mr. langevin striking the following directive report language in the report, integration of high energy laser weapons on surface combatant. >> i thank the gentleman. and i thank the members of the committee for their willingness to work together. all of the en bloc amendments have been cleared by both sides. they're noncontroversial. is there any further debate on the en bloc amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. forbes. so many that are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> opposed, nay.

the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. are there any other amendments? at this time? gentleman from california is recognized. >> i have an amendment, i think it is now available dealing with the merchant marine and the reserve, ready reserve fleet. >> do you have the number? >> i do not have it with me, but i didn't want to miss the opportunity during this session. >> does staff have it? that they could pass out? i don't believe that one's been filed yet, and we'll have to deal with that later on.

if there are no further amendments, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move that we adopt the en bloc amendment. >> the question is on the motion of the gentleman from virginia. so many are as in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed -- >> mr. chairman, i move we adopt the subcommittee mark. as amended. >> [inaudible] from virginia. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. quorum being present, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. committee will now receive the report on the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces

pursuant to committee rule 17, in consultation with the ranking member, we'll postpone all the recorded votes on the amendment in the end of subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, for any comments that he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the members have before them the highlights of the tactical air and land forces subcommittee mark. as is the tradition of the subcommittee, the subcommittee mark gives first priority to the war fighter by providing equipment needed to support our forces in combat; active, guard and reserve. first, i would like to thank the ranking member for truly work anything a bipartisan manner of the work of the subcommittee and also to thank all the members for their support in developing and completing our subcommittee mark. subcommittee members have been actively engaged in the important issues facing the subcommittee in a truly bipartisan manner. to date, the subcommittee has held a total of nine hearings and briefings. we covered a full range of issues regarding army and marine corps equipment, modernization,

combat aviation programs, unmanned systems and reconnaissance. as well as individual equipment such as body armor and small arms. i'd like to highlight some of the provisions contained. we remain corned over the impact on the -- concerned over the impact of the weight of current body armor and other combat gear. the subcommittee mark addresses the need to reduce the weight of individual war fighter equipment, improve acquisition practices and requires the secretary to assess options for providing personal protection equipment specifically fitted for the female war fighter. regarding the f-35 aircraft, there continues to be major concerns with the program, but the committee supports the requirement of a fifth generation stealth fighter due to projected increases in the effectiveness, quantities and proliferation of threat of anti-aircraft systems. in prior years the committee has expressed concern with the pentagon's f-35 production plan being too aggressive, giving f-35 lagging technology

development, insufficient flight testing and design instability. the pentagon has now done what the committee advocated several years ago by reducing the annual procurement until the r&d issues are better resolved. one of the major areas that could set the program back is software development. the mark contains a provision that would establish an independent team to review the adopt of software for the program so that we can take whatever actions are necessary to keep this program on track. the ground combat vehicle is one of the army's top modernization programs and is designed to one day preplace the bradley fight -- replace the bradley fighting vehicle. we do have some concerns that given the program's current schedule the army may not have enough information to effectively down select to a single contractor. the subcommittee mark contains a provision that would restrict the army from obligating technology funds until the secretary of the army submits a report to the defense committees that provides us with more detailed information regarding the current program requirements

and acquisition strategy. another major issue is the air force's global hawk block 30 unmanned intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. the global hawk aircraft provides time on station and range that no other aircraft can provide. the subcommittee mark supports maintaining global hawk block 30 operations through december 2016. we have also made funding recommendations to the full committee in regards to our continued concerns for adequately maintaining the combat vehicle and tactical fighter industrial bases. to be clear, i believe it is an unacceptable risk to base the future viability of our industrial base entirely on foreign military sales. therefore, we recommend an additional 68 million for abrams tank upgrades, 75 million for heavy improved recovery vehicles, 91 million for reaper unmanned aerial systems, 75 million for -- [inaudible] and 400 million for national guard and reserve modernization. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that my complete

statement be entered in the mark for the record. i yield back. >> without objection, so ordered. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on tactical air and land force, the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you again for your leadership in this committee. and if particular i would like to thank chairman turner, our republican counterpart on our committee, for his steady and thoughtful leadership of the subcommittee this year. under his leadership the subcommittee has worked in a very bipartisan fashion this year to develop a set of oversight legislation and to fund some funding recommendations that support troops in the field while also cutting waste and shaping the programs of the future. first, the subcommittee's -- and i also want to thank our great staff who has worked very diligently. and as you know, this and the week before and the week before have been very tough weeks for

them. into the night trying to insure that all members' concerns line up in this, in this mark. first, the subcommittee's portion of the chairman's mark that strongly supports the high priority acquisition programs in the president's budget. the chairman's mark provides, for example, 8.1 billion for the f-5 joint strike fighter program, although i will also tell you in our committee we have had serious concerns about how that program is moving along. we have made trips out to the factories to see that. we have spoken to the primes on this, so we've been working very hard on oversight on that, and i think we'll -- we might have an amendment or two on that in the subcommittee. it provides 5.2 billion for army aviation upgrades, 3.2 billion for 21 f-18 upgrades, 1.4 billion for the b-22 and provides 1.3 billion for the

u.s. marine corps ground equipment. in addition, the chairman's mark increases funding for some parts of the dod budget where, um, we believe in adequate funds were requested. the chairman's mark provides an additional 400 million for the national guard and equipment account. it increases funding for the reaper unmanned systems by 91 million. it increases funding for additional f-100 engines by 165 million, and it increases advanced procurement funding for f-8s by 75 million. beyond that i would also like to tell you that this committee also recommends a total of $463 million in funding reductions in this subcommittee's jurisdiction. funding reductions are always difficult, but this year the

air/land subcommittee worked very hard to cut wasteful spending in the department of defense under this jurisdiction. and finally, the chairman's mark includes important oversight legislation on critical programs including the f-35, the army ground combat vehicle, the global hawk uav and body armor as our chairman mentioned. all of these provisions are good goth initiatives -- government initiatives to reduce waste or increase oversight over taxpayers' dollars. and overall, i believe that this is a good mark, even a great mark, mr. chairman, and i would urge members to support the tactical air and land forces subcommittee portion of the chairman's mark. and i yield back. >> thank you. before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> gentleman from new jersey is recognized, mr. andrews. >> thank you. i wish to commend chairman turner and ms. sanchez for their

excellent work here in finding cost effective ways to maintain the superiority of our forces in this very important area, and i commend them and enthusiastically support the mark. the one comment i would ask that we work together on from this point on is the mark does contain a $30 million cut in the recommended ask for the ga lens program which i have a concern about. the j-lens program is quite effective in dealing with both a swarming boat or truck attack situation as well as a cruise missile situation. in may of 2012, secretary kendall restructured the program and said that there, the program is essential to the national security. i'm quoting: there are no alternatives to the program that will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost. i realize that this is a relatively minor cut, but it's a big deal for this program, and i would ask is that we work together between here and the

final resolution of the bill to see what we could do about that. i would yield back. >> gentleman yields back. are there any other comments? gentleman from arizona, mr. barber. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the subcommittee chair and ranking member. as a new member, i have to say that i've been most impressed with the bipartisan way in which this process has moved forward and look forward to what may not be a marathon today, it might just be an extended race. but i'm really pleased to be here. i want to thank the subcommittee, the chairman and ranking member, for blocking the attempts to retire global hawk unmanned aerial systems. i think we know that it's been proven to be effective in our war against terror. it's a cost effective, highly valuable asset in that war, and i'm very pleased that the subcommittee is proposing to continue it and not allow it to be retired. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> gentleman yields back. any further discussion? hearing none, are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman? i ask unanimous consent to call up an en bloc package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered en bloc? without objection, the reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining his en bloc amendments. >> i call up an en bloc package

comprised of the following, a comprehensive assessment of the powered rail system for the n4 carbine, amendment number 42 requiring a report detailing the acquisition strategy for the 40 millimeter cartridge, amendment 51 for the f-35 program, amendment 173r1 by ms. duckworth restricting procurement funding for the airplane stryker vehicle program, cost of maintaining unusable parts and other matters. amendment number 187r1 by ms. sanchez requiring a report on robotics capability and technology. amendment 23 -- excuse me, amendment number 234r1 by ms. sanchez requiring the army to complete all required test user evaluations case assessments for the individual carbine program, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. for what purpose -- is there any

discussion on the, or debate on the en bloc amendment? >> be mr. chairman? -- mr. chairman? >> gentlelady's recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just would like to say as the ranking member on this subcommittee that we have reviewed these and have agreed to these, and so we would be supporting this en bloc. >> there's no further discussion, the question is on the adoption of the en bloc amendment offered by mr. turner. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> any opposed, nay. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. are there any further amendments to the subcommittee's report? gentle lady's recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, time and again my constituents have written, called and come into my office about the wasteful government spending that is ballooning our deficit and taking valuable resources away from the programs to invest in our future. one example of such wasteful spending has to do with the acquisition -- >> mr. chairman, is there an amendment? is there an amendment? >> i apologize. will the clerk, please, pass out the amendment? thank you for the reminder. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady please suspend until we have the amendment passed out. >> yes, mr. chairman.

[background sounds] >> gentlelady from illinois is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman: as i was saying, time and again my constituents have written and called and come into my office about the wasteful government spending that is taking valuable resources away from the programs that invest in our future. one example of such wasteful spending has to do with the acquisition practice of concurrency which is how we are procuring the f-35 joint strike fighter. my amendment does not oppose the f-35. indeed, i support the development of fifth and sixth generation fighter aircraft.

however, i have serious concerns that concurrency practice has led to the project costs of the f-35 increasing 68% over initial estimates. senior dod leadership has called the program acquisition malpractice to test and build at the same time, and in a recent gao report, software risks still remain the top development issue. although seemingly integral to our country's national security strategy in keeping our military the strongest and most modernized in the world, many of the warfare capabilities, the same capabilities that we need to defeat our enemies, remain untested and unready. flight testing of the first operationally-capable mission system software for the aircraft known as block 2b has barely begun with only 5% of flight testing done as of last month. a number of troubling technical issues have emerged recently as well; problems with the highly sophisticated helmet, the fuel dump system and the arresting

hook. again, my amendment does not strike any funding from the f-35 program; rather, this is a good government issue, and it simply suspend the funding until the secretary of defense certify that is the software, block 2b and fuel dump systems have all been successfully tested. i want contractors to be held accountable, and i want to ifics the technical problems before we give them another $6 billion of taxpayer money. there's nothing wrong with flying before we buy. in fact, most of us test drive cars before we drive. but we need to ask those we give precious national resources to to show that they can deliver the product that they promised. again, i am not striking any funding from the f-35 program. i simply want assurances that fixes for the problems with the software, software that is so integral to the success of this fifth generation aircraft and our national security strategy, to be fully verified and tested before we spend money on another

29 aircraft. i urge my colleagues to support this good government, smart-spending amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentlelady yields back? >> i yield back. anyone else want to be heard on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> for what purpose does the gentleman request time? >> mr. chairman, i'm speaking in opposition to the amendment, and we have bipartisan opposition for the amendment. our subcommittee has done a significant amount of oversight on the f-35 -- >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. this amendment would, in fact, stop funding for the f-35 program. it's one that has concurrent development and procurement developments of the f-35. if you stop procurement until development is completed, you, in effect, stop the f-35. this would result in increased costs and delay, and it would send a significant negative message to our partner countries. it would slow down work for over one year on the f-35, and as we know, one of our major threats to the cost increases that we've

seen from f-35 is time. if you slow down the project, you're going to increase our overall costs. and it would affect current production of the aircraft. our committee has done significant oversight on this. we believe that we addressed the issues of the f-35 in the mark. i also want to point out that one of the things we looked at is that the gao just recently issued a report on the f-35 joint strike fighter, and that report says overall the f-35 joint strike fighter program is now moving in the right direction. after a long, expensive and arduous learning process, the headline for the gao report is current outlook is improved, but long-term affordability is a major concern. this amendment, of course, would increase costs and not put the program back on track. we have another report on the selected acquisition report of the f-35 joint strike fighter which, again, our committee reviewed in hearings and say that is the program is now on track. so i would ask that people oppose this, and i would like to yield the remainder of my time

to mr. veasey who will also speak in opposition. >> gentleman's recognized. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. first of all, i want to thank ms. duckworth for her thoughtfulness on this issue and also for her sport of the f-35. but i have to disagree with this amendment because i believe that it would create a serious gap in the production line at a time when we should be ramping up production. i also worry about some of the outdated testing figures and some of the liberties that are taken in addressing the routine development problems that i feel were already being addressed on this program. also worried about the uncertainty and the cost to the f-35 program by delaying it for at least a year and obligating funds for 29 dod aircraft and then 19 additional allied partner aircraft. and worried about a significant

slowdown in production in many regards to that -- in regards to that, and also the long-term costs of this critical aircraft system to increase in international partnerships that are in place and very concerned about that component also. and so i do want to urge everyone to oppose the amendment. but, again, want to thank my colleague, ms. duckworth, for her thoughtfulness on this issue and, again, her support of the f-35 although we disagree on this particular amendment. >> mr. chairman, i'll recognize mr. bishop with the remainder of the time. >> gentleman's recognized. >> thanks. i have to talk really fast, don't i? i appreciate mr. veasey giving a number to it. this would slow 19 sales to foreign countries. the cost would be about $9.8 million that would be added to the costs of the f-35 when we

actually get back to it. the actual loss to the government could be as much as $2 billion in lost sales simply because of the slowdown in the production. in addition, the basing of the first planes, the environmental impact statement is almost on the record, a decision is about to be made. this would slow down and maybe even imperil that decision being made if we actually were to pass this amendment and slow down the process. so i appreciate the gentleman from texas giving that number, but it's not just 29 planes going to america. it's also 19 planes going to our allies that would significantly increase the costs of the american planes if, indeed, the slowdown resultsed in a cancellation of those sales. i'll yield back my 57 seconds to the gentleman from ohio. >> mr. chairman, i yield back the remainder of the time. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> for what purpose does the gentlelady request time? >> i'd like to speak to ms. duckworth's amendment. >> gentlelady's recognized for

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is true that we have on this subcommittee taken a really hard look, and we'll continue to take a hard look at the production, the development and the production of the f-35. as you know, it's our only production plane scheduled for the next 20-30 years, and it does have a great number of allies included in the buy as we move forward. the last year has seen significant improvement in the development and the production of the f-35. however, we also have to recall that this program is seven years behind schedule and 70% over cost at this point. so we have to ask ourselves how do we, how do we move forward in a program that we need but insure that we're getting what we need? and ms. duckworth's amendment is

really about putting the pressure in particular on lockheed martin who's the prime and everybody else, and so i can appreciate mr. veasey's concerns. as you know, these are always difficult issues. but this really is about how do we continue to insure that the contractors who are developing and building this are doing it in a way that is successful for us? that's what we're talking about here. there's still many concerns out there. the mel met, for example -- helmet, for example, and its software continues to be jittery. whether we want to acknowledge it or not. one of the main pieces of the technology that we're talking about still does not sync well with what is happening out there. i don't think that it's unreasonable what ms. duckworth has asked. because if testing proceeds as planned, delaying the contract award for the fiscal year '14

aircraft until early fiscal year '15 might cost some production delays, but it won't shut down the production line due to the backlog of dozens of aircraft and billions of dollars of fiscal year '13 still in the pipeline coming through. if the testing doesn't go as planned, for example, the block 2b software doesn't really work, then this amendment's restriction would actually have a significant impact on the program, and it's a good significant impact on the program. in fact, it makes its intention known. these things need to work before we continue to move forward with them. also, mr. chairman, the amendment could be adjusted in conference based on the 2013 testing progress or lack thereof. and in the meantime, this puts pressure on lockheed martin and everybody that's involved in building this program. and i don't mean that in a

negative way. we certainly have sat down with them. i mean it in a positive way. we need to continue to insure that things are being met and things are coming along and that the taxpayers are protected in this. so i would ask that ms. duckworth's amendment be adopted. and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. for what purpose be does the gentleman from california ask to be recognized? >> to speak to the amendment. >> gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i yield my time to ms. duckworth. >> thank you. mr. chairman, this amendment really speaks to the fact that even while the testing of the f-35 went relatively well in 2012, there are numerous technical issues that have emerged. and, in fact, this amendment will send a message to our international partners in the program that congress is fully supportive of the program and that we are serious about

getting this aircraft delivered on schedule and with its promised capabilities. what's wrong with waiting to see how testing can fix the serious design issues in software before we put another $6 billion on the contract? and, in fact, this amendment simply proposes that fixes to these problems, since they are there to be fully verified and tested before the fy-14 aircraft are put on order? and i yield back. >> i yield back my time. >> gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut ask to be recognized? >> thank you, mr. chairman. um, when i -- first of all, i just -- >> for what purpose? >> to address the amendment. >> to address the amendment in favor or opposed? >> in opposition. >> gentleman's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, when the congresswoman disclosed a couple days ago that she was going to move forward on this amendment, again, i think she deserves a lot of credit

for, again, putting the spotlight on issues that, um, have been reported in the press that are out there in terms of the, you know, difficulties that this program has experienced. but i think it's important for people to remember that the base of the bill actually has language in it that, again, looks at this issue. it's creating an independent outside report not from the industry and not from the air force to report back to the committee and to the congress about exactly the same issues that her amendment is focused on. so, you know, i think it's important for people to recognize we're not giving a blank check here to this program with the base bill. there is, in fact, going to be serious scrutiny given to the issues that congresswoman duckworth's amendment is directed at. and so it's a balancing test in terms of whether or not, you know, we go with what i think is, again, a healthy review of the issues that she's raised or whether we delay the program for a year. and i would just respectfully say that, um, the interpretation by our allies who now have

signed up for roughly over 700 of these aircraft would be the opposite of her, you know, i think well-intentioned comments a minute ago. i, in fact, i think and i believe having talked to representatives from australia and the u.k. that they would interpret this very negatively, that congress is, in fact, backing off this program, and i think it would create almost a crisis of confidence in terms of our commitment to move forward with a program that is going to be, again, the base of our military alliances in terms of air domination for decades to come. so, again, i agree with her that these issues deserve the highest level of attention. again, i just feel that the base bill addresses this issue in a responsible, healthy way, and to delay this program, i think, for purposes in terms of the progress that have been made in terms of the industrial base and moving forward with, again, these critical export agreements

that we have would be far more negative in terms of the final outcome. so, again, i would respectfully oppose the amendment and support the base bill's language. and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any further debate on the amendment? if not, the question's on the adoption of the amendment. offered by ms. duckworth. so many as are in favor will say aye -- aye. >> mr. chairman? >> those opposed, no. >> mr. chairman? >> who do i -- >> i'd like to ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. >> in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. the gentlelady asks a recorded vote. all in favor of a recorded vote please indicate by raising your hand. sufficient number has requested a vote. we'll call the roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any further amendments

to the subcommittee mark? [background sounds] >> we'll now proceed to amendments where a roll call vote was ordered. the committee postponed the amendment offered by ms. duckworth. question now occurs on the amendment by ms. duck worth. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. mckeon?

-- [inaudible] >> mr. thornberry? >> no. >> mr. thornberry votes no. ms. sanchez? >> aye. >> ms. sanchez votes aye. mr. jones? >> aye. >> mr. jones votes aye. mr. alaska intire? >> no -- mcintire? no. >> mr. mcintyre votes no. mr. miller? >> no. >> mr. miller votes no. mr. andrews? >> no. >> mr. andrews votes no. mr. wilson? >> no. >> mr. wilson votes no. mrs. davis? >> no. mrs. davis votes no. >> mr.-- [inaudible] >> no. >> mr. langevin? >> no. mr. langevin notes no. mr. bishop? >> no,. >> mr. bishop votes no. mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. larson votes no. mr. turner? >> no. >> mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper? >> aye. >> mr. cooper votes aye.

ms. bordallo? >> no. >> ms. bordallo votes no. mr. rogers? >> no. >> mr. rogers votes no. mr. courtney? >> no. >> mr. courtny votes no. mr. franks? >> no. mr. franks votes no. mr. loebsack? is. >> no. mr. loebsack votes no. mr. zeuser? >> no. mr. schuster votes no. ms. tongas? >> aye. >> ms. tsongas votes aye. >> mr. conaway? >> no. >> mr. conaway votes no. mr. land born? >> no. >> mr. lanborn votes no. mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. johnson votes aye. mr. hunter? >> no. >> mr. hunter votes no.

ms. spear? >> [inaudible] >> ms. spear votes aye. >> dr. fleming? >> no. >> dr. fleming votes no. mr. barber? >> no. >> mr. barber votes no. mr. coffman? >> no. >> mr. coffman votes no. mr. carson? >> [inaudible] >> mr. carson votes no. >> ms. shea-porter? >> no. >> ms. shea-porter votes no. mr. gibson? >> no. >> mr. gibson votes no. >> mr. ma thai? >> no. >> mrs. hartsler? >> no. >> mrs. hartsler votes no. dr. hecht? >> no. >> dr. hecht votes no. mr. castro? >> no. >> mr. castro votes no. mr. runyon? >> no. >> mr. runyon votes no. ms. duckworth? >> aye. >> mr. scott? >> no.

>> mr. scott votes no. mr. peters? >> no. >> mr. peters votes no. mr. palazzo? >> no. >> mr. mass sow votes no. >> mrs. robe by? >> mr. brooks? >> [inaudible] >> mr. brooks? mr. veasey? >> no. >> mr. veasey votes no. mr. nugent? >> no. >> mr. nugent votes no. mrs. nome? >> no. >> mrs. nome votes no. mr. cook? >> no. >> mr. cook votes no. mr. briden stein? >> no. >> mr. briden stein votes no. dr -- [inaudible] votes no. mrs. velour sky? >> no. >> mrs. v.a. lore sky votes no.

[background sounds] [inaudible conversations] >> clerk -- clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were ten aye votes -- [inaudible] no votes. >> the amendment is not agreed to. if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes

the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces as amended. >> questions on the motion of the gentleman from ohio? so many as are in fair will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. a quorum being present, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. committee will now receive the report on the subcommittee on intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities. pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman in texas, mr. thornberry, for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, first, let me thank my partner on this subcommittee, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, for his work.

not only his cooperative spirit, by the expertise and insights he brings to some rapidly-changing, complex issues that we get to grapple with in this subcommittee. i appreciate all the members who have contributed to this mark and the staff. it is particularly at this time of year, i think, that we remind ourselves of how valuable the staff work is on a day in, day out basis. mr. chairman, i think it's true for all our subcommittees but maybe especially for this one that oversight is absolutely critical. when we are charged with overseeing special operations, cyber, science and technology, military intelligence, oversight before, during and after crucial events is just essential for us to fulfill our responsibilities under the constitution.

and i know mr. langevin shares with me the commitment to make sure that our oversight procedures and systems are adequate for a rapidly-changing world. and sometimes that's hard. if you're talking about cyber that moves at the speed of light or counterterrorism that is occurring all across the globe, having those oversight procedures in place is not easy. two years ago this committee instituted a quarterly reporting requirement for counterterrorism operations around the world involving special operations forces. last year this committee instituted regular reporting requirements for cyber operations. and i am pleased that this year the chairman's mark includes an enhanced reporting requirement on sensitive military operations, and i'll mention

that more when we get to that point. but i think the key is having the oversight mechanisms to make a sure that we fulfill our responsibilities under the constitution is essential. mr. chairman, as you know, this is the first year that this subcommittee or any subcommittee has had the responsibilities related to military intelligence. i think it has been particularly helpful to have mr. langevin as well as chairman miller and dr. hecht be members not only of this subcommittee, but the house permanent subcommittee on intelligence. i think that has worked very well. but i've got to say i'm very grateful for the cooperative spirit of all subcommittee members and staff to cooperate on these military intelligence issues that do span the gamut of all the subcommittees. our goal, of course, is to focus on the war fighter. that's what you ask us to do, and that's what we have tried to do. among the provisions in this

mark is a fence on the defense clandestine service not because they're doing a bad job, but because this is a new entity that deserves special scrutiny. and we give that special scrutiny in the mark. on cyber i think the military has made progress in thinking about what the job of the military is within -- is to defend the country in cyberspace. but it is especially important in this area to have cooperative consultation ahead of time, not just coming back to us after the electrons have started flying. and in addition, in this subcommittee mark we take some steps to encourage the department of defense to do some thinking about how special operations will be used in the future. the socom commander, admiral mcraven, has been talking about this. i'm not sure the rest of the department has kept up, and they need to be more forward leaning

in this. we have a number of science and technology programs, but i just want to emphasize there's a couple programs we don't spend that much time on until the headlines force us to. for example, funding of the defense threat reduction agency, chem-bio programs. if you look at the headlines, these become even more important. and i guess the point i want to emphasize is you can't wait til they're in the headlines. you have to be prepared ahead of time, so that's what this subcommittee mark tries to do. on a variety of cutting edge issues, mr. chairman, we have tried to take some steps forward. i think we have. but, again, i appreciate the work of the staff, the members and especially the gentleman from rhode island in making it possible. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll try to keep my remarks

brief, but i first want to acknowledge the terrific partnership of that of the vice chairman of the full committee, mr. thornberry. we've met on these issues and, boy, for his leadership on the committee, it has truly opinion a collaborative effort, and i'm grateful for his work and his efforts. i'd also like to thank you, chair mckeon, and the ranking member for expanding the jurisdiction of this subcommittee by placing intelligence under its purview. it is absolutely critical that we maintain proper oversight, as chairman thornberry has stated in his remarks, of those capabilities. particularly as the defense intelligence agency fully stands up the defense clandestine service. this mark includes some of our most sought after and cutting edge capabilities. i particularly want to highlight the important provisions that address cybersecurity including the full support of our cyber

warriors and the ever-evolving tasks associate with the the full range of the department of defense's activities in cyberspace. as well as the clear definition of responsibilities across the national security apparatus. i believe that cybersecurity is one of if not the most pressing national security challenges that we face. and it's critical that we make sure that we get it right. now, i'm also pleased that this mark fully supports the budding deal of directed energy which will be such an essential part of our future capabilities particularly given the upcoming operational deployment of the de systems onboard the uss -- [inaudible] this mark also makes important strides in numerous other areas from s.t.e.m. education that will support future generations of war fighters to fully supporting the president's budget request for the r&d that will enable future capabilities

to the i.t. that supports every aspect of the department's activities. and i'd also certainly like to highlight the support of our special operations forces and socom which play such important roles in our engagement around the globe and, where necessary, the tip of the spear. the mark also makes sure that the committee is fully informed on a variety of key issues from the resilience of data links that enable our systems to the coordination of electronic efforts and ways to improve i.t. acquisition outcomes. with that, mr. chairman, this mark's creation has been a true partnership, and i again thank and would like to commend chairman thornberry for his leadership. he's truly reached out and made sure that the views of the minority were certainly considered and wherever possible incorporated.

and i appreciate his role and his work here as well as our work together on the house permanent select committee on intelligence. with that and certainly but not least, i'd particularly like to thank expert staff on both sides of the aisle for their herculean effort toss make sure that this subcommittee runs smoothly and serves the best interests of our war fighters and our national security. the committee clearly could not function without them. and i, again, thank them for their efforts. with that, mr. chairman, i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. >> before entertaining amendments or any further discussion on the committee's report? are there, are there any amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman? i ask unanimous consent to call up an en bloc package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority.

>> without objection, so offered. would the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered end bloc. en bloc. >> gentleman's recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining. without objection, reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining his en bloc amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i offer an en bloc package number one comprised of the following: amendment number 28r1 by mr. andrews that requires a report on medical research

information sharing. amendment number -- >> that was from this morning's session of the house armed services committee markup. members are returning from votes on the house floor. our live coverage of the review of the defense program's bill continues now with amendments related to military personnel. chairman buck mckeon just gaveled the session back in. it's expect today go late into the -- expected to go late into the night. >> for members to speak from two minute -- to two minutes from five. i read steve jobs' biography, and it said if you can't explain yourself in two minute, you don't know what you're talking about. so in memory of steve jobs, i recommend we go to two minutes. >> we're not trying to cut anybody off. >> yeah. >> but we're trying to be expeditious. and i like the jobs -- no objection, so ordered. i think we're set for

mr. andrews' amendment? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your indulgence on the schedule. i offer this amendment not to be provocative, but to be sincere in talking about the following situation: -- >> gentleman's -- can we can the staff, is that already passed out? would you, please, pass that out? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. [background sounds]

>> does anybody out there know -- the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's say that we have a soldier who has a relationship breakup at home, finds out about it, and the soldier's an episcopalian like i am. and the soldier wants to get some counseling. doesn't have a mental health problem, doesn't need a psychologist, but wants to just talk his sorrow through. the chaplain corps would have a minister or priest that would be appropriate for him to choose. then imagine the soldier next to him has exactly the same circumstances, except that soldier is a humanist. a person, frankly, who does not believe in god, but that's their philosophical system. and that a perp wants to seek -- person wants to seek some help. think about what his options would be. yes, he could seek mental health

counseling, he could go to a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but he's just sad and wants to talk through the situation with someone. he needs a spiritual counselor. presently, the chaplains corps does not, to my knowledge, contain a person who would be an appropriate person for that to counsel with. and also let's keep in mind that in our present situation when a person seeks advice from a mental health counselor, there are some circumstances under which that goes on his or her record and can become an impediment to future promotion or consideration. what this basically says is that the secretary should make efforts to be sure that in the chaplain corps that there be a person that would share the believes that this person has so he or she could get counseling. i don't offer this to be provocative or as an attack on anybody else's choice of faith. but it seems to me that for whatever number of people, it's

either tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands who wear the uniform, that they have this option to receive counseling when they belief they need it -- believe they need it in such a situation. so i've offered this amendment ask would ask that it be approved and yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from texas wishes to be recognized. >> i do -- [inaudible] >> gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. um, my colleague knows that he and i have worked together on a lot of different things. when he was in the minority and -- i've got immense respect. but i couldn't disagree with this move any more vehemently. the chaplain corps provides an awful lot of services, and to ask to distinguish between an atheist -- you can't use the word chaplain with atheists because they don't believe in a faith. so the word "chaplain," if you look it up, all the definitions are associated with issues of faith.

and so to have the word atheist or agnostic, it makes no sense. i can't imagine an atheist accompanying a notification team as they go into some family's home to let them have the worst news of their life and this guy say, you know, that's it, your son's just worms, i mean, worm food. and so this is -- i disagree vehemently with this. it's misplaced. administratively, it won't work because these chaplains are supposed to be interchangeable, and how are you going to change an atheist or an agnostic to lead a service when they don't believe in anything. and so this is, this is misplaced, and so with all due respect to my good colleague, i couldn't disagree with this more. yield back. >> mr. smith from are -- from washington? >> i will attempt to be as brief as possible. it is absolutely wrong -- >> gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> it is absolutely wrong to say that atheists don't believe in anything. now, again, i'm an episcopalian

too, and that's my faith. but i, i just think that, you know, opposition to this fundamentally, you know, goes against everything that we've been hearing from the other side of the aisle about, you know, if it was a muslim up there saying the prayer, i'd be okay with it. this isn't just about chaplains, you know, not saying, you know, the right thing for christianity. i mean, to say that an atheist or a humanist doesn't believe anything, um, is just ignorant. they have very, very developed beliefs and value systems, and, you know, there are many, many of them serving in the military including pat tillman who we all know very, very well who was an absolute atheist. and, you know, i think that we have to recognize our beliefs. i think the gentleman's, you know, the response to the gentleman's amendment makes me feel all the more the necessity of it. so, basically, if you are an atheist or a humanist in the

military, the military's response is we've got nothing for you. there's no hope for you. they believe in a system of values, and that system values is worth as much to them as our christianity is to us. so i think it's actually pretty logical amendment, and i urge support. >> dr. fleming? >> yes. i rise to oppose the amendment. >> gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. mr. chairman, there are several things wrong here with that viewpoint. first of all, by definition a chaplain is a minister of faith, a minister of a higher power, a deity attached to a secular organization. in this case, the military. we have a chaplain, as you know, in the house of representatives. it is an oxymoron to say that you would have a chaplain who is also an atheist.

by definition a chaplain is someone who believes in a higher power. also chaplains come to us via the department of defense recognized faith groups. you have to be sponsored by a recognized faith group to even be a chaplain. atheists, agnostic, nonreligious military personnel already have -- there's plenty of resources for them. there's social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, physicians, there's many who can counsel them on humanistic or nonreligious things. so, again, to say that there's nothing there for them -- and also so they that an atheist doesn't believe anything, what we mean by doesn't believe anything is doesn't believe in a deity. and it's true by definition. you can't be an atheist if you believe in god. on the other side of that, you can't not believe in a god and not be an atheist. and so we need to be honest with what we're discussing here. so, again, i oppose this

amendment. this, i think, would make a mockery of the chaplaincy which is i think is an essential part, goes back to the days of the revolution. and also, lastly, i would say the last thing in the world we would want to see is a young soldier who may be dying, and they're at a field hospital, and the chaplain is standing over that person saying to them, if you die here, there's no hope for you in the future. that's the last thing in the world i want to hear. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. forbes from california. >> move to strike the last word, mr. chairman. >> gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, first of all, we certainly respect the, our friends on the other side of the aisle and their positions on these issues and, certainly, mr. andrews. there are big differences between many of us on this committee. we've seen those differences with -- [inaudible] we'll see them later with

guantanamo bay. but i think this is a huge difference, too, because basically this chaplain corps didn't just spring up six months ago or six years ago. it was begun with george washington. it has a long history. and as mr. fleming pointed out, these are the department of defense guidelines, this is the guidance for the appointment of chaplains. and these have been handed down through a lot of study, they have been utilized for a long period of time. and as the gentleman mentioned, you have to have an endorsing agent to get a chaplain. and part of that is because the endorsing agents actually have to go through a process of being recognized by the internal revenue service as having a church. i don't think many atheist organizations have churches, but maybe they do. maybe they can qualify through the internal revenue service, but that's something they would have to argue through the internal revenue service. secondly, to my knowledge the pentagon has never gone in to an effort to try to solicit

chaplains by saying we need x number of baptists or x number of catholics or x number of mormons. they haven't done that. they simply rely on the kaplans to -- chaplains to come in and to be approved by these endorsing agents. and for us to begin the process now to say the congress of the united states thinks we should get involved and say there should be atheist chaplains would be to change the entire process of what we have been utilizing for chaplains. so i think this amendment really effectively, whether the gentleman intends it or not, i think, goes after the very essence of the chaplain corps. i hope that we'll defeat this amendment. and just simply recognize we respect each other's rights, but there is a huge difference between the two sides when it comes to protecting kaplans -- chaplains. and the final thing i'll say is this has been a movement to try to take a lot of these valuable services that the gentleman

talked about that chaplains do away from them as the air force itself has even tried to tell commanders that they can't even instruct the men and women under them of approved programs within the chaplaincy corps. so i hope that we will, again, stop this huge pendulum that has been swinging in, i think, the wrong direction. i hope we'll defeat this amendment and protect the chaplain corps as much as i think it needs to be protected. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> gentleman wields back. dr. win stop. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i seek to speak in opposition -- >> gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. as a veteran who served in iraq and been in theater, you know, i think that this is already pretty well covered by the people that we have in place as far as providing guidance and counseling to members. we have combat stress teams, and we have social workers, we have chaplains who are trained to counsel people and comfort them, comfort all service members

regardless of faith or lack of faith in that regard and, also, commanders are also there along with their staff to provide guidance and counsel to members. so in my opinion, it's already covered, and this does not need to be addressed in this way. and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. mr. gibson? >> thanks, mr. chairman. strike the last word? >> gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> i just wanted to say very briefly i deeply respect the gentleman from new jersey, we worked together on a number of issues, and i just want to echo the comments of my colleague that just spoke. with my experience, you know, we -- in one of my tours in iraq we had a young man who was wicken. and, you know -- wiccan. and he sought assistance from a chaplain. and from all i could tell, and i did make sure that things were coming out the way this trooper was hoping to be supported, that

his interactions with the chaplain helped him to be able to get where he needed to be. so, you know, with the chain of command, with the support to the chain of command and given the full spectrum mission that we already give to chaplain corps, i just respectfully don't think that this is necessary. but i do want to reiterate and end where i began, that i respect the gentleman from new jersey. yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. mr. johnson? gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> thank you. move to strike the last word. i'm listening to the dialogue, and i'm looking at the amendment. the amendment talks about threistic organizations, not anything under or outside of religion, but nontheist

organizations which has to do with the supreme being. and there are some religions that are religions, but thai not the -- they're not theistic organizations. so i view this as innocuous. but i, i heard it said that we need to protect the chaplains that we have now from the, is it from the theistic organizations? or who would we be protecting the current chaplains from? and i would also pose to mr. andrews a question: is there a problem now in terms of chaplains who are from non-texas heistic religions being able to become officers in the chaplain

corps of the armed forces? >> if gentleman would yield, it's my understanding that there are no such chaplains. the process that works now is there's the senior chaplains, essentially, have the authority to decide who gets into the, this part of the corps and who does not. but i would say to hum that for a person to even be considered under this, they would have have to be certified or ordained by a non-theistic organization, so it has to be someone who met some criteria in their organization. >> uh-huh. well, then my answer to my second question, could the gentleman who made that statement, please, respond? >> i'd be happy to respond if you have any time left you want to yield. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. forbes? if mr. forbes could answer that question for me, i would be more prepared to then vote, mr. chairman, and i thank you. >> gentleman --

>> i'll be happy to answer the question. i didn't say protect chaplains. if you listened, i said protect chaplain corps. and that corps, i think, has provided a valuable service over the years. and one of the things that you look at is with this guidance it has some very, very strict regulations to make sure that we're protecting that chaplains' corps by making sure you have these endorsing agents that they have to have certain qualifications, they have to also degree to two things. one, not only approval by the internal revenue service, but secondly, they're agreeing to serve everyone no matter what faith they are when they come in which is exactly what you heard from mr. gibson when he indicated that. to do what mr. andrews wants to do, you'd have to basically throw this guidance out and start all over again. i think that would be a bad direction for us to go. >> thank you, mr. forbes. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. there's no further discussion on the amendment.

the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. andrews. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no! >> mr. chairman? ask for a roll call vote, please. >> roll call vote has been requested on that. we will hold that vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any other amendments? will -- mr. smith? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. i'll wait for it to get passed out. >> will the clerk, will the clerk, please, pass out the amendment? without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

[inaudible conversations] >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman, i do spend to offer and withdraw this amendment, but it is coming before us from the department of defense that we -- [inaudible] marriage between same-sex couples is now legal in, gosh, i should have had this stat, i think we're coming up close to a dozen states. so there are going to be a number of people with the repeal of don't ask, don't tell and the legality of same-sex marriage who are married and serving in the military. and the problem is under doma, they do not receive benefits as heterosexual couples. that is fundamentally unfair if you are legally married in whatever state it is that you're married in including my home

state of washington, you should not be treated differently based on who you're married to. now, it also ties back in with some earlier comments that i had about personnel costs. this certainly will drive that up, and it's a pretty high mandatory score. but it's something, again, i think this committee's going to have to wrestle with in terms of overall costs, and we should respect states' rights, and we should respect marriages that those states allow to be legal. and right now the military does not. i believe strongly that it should and look forward to working with the committee to figure out ways to get us to that point. in the meantime, i withdraw the amendment. >> gentleman asks unanimous consent to withdraw his amendment. without objection. are there other amendments to the subcommittee's report? dr. fleming? this is amendment number 266, if the clerk will, please, pass out that amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

the chair now recognizes the gentleman from the, for the purposes of ouring and explaining -- offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in code currently section 533 titled protection of rights of conscience of members of the armed services and chaplains of such members, there's certain language that lays out how the first amendment applies to uniformed military members including chaplains. and i'll just read the first part under one accommodation. it says: the armed services shall accommodate the beliefs of a member of the armed forces reflecting the conscience, moral principles or religious beliefs of the member, etc.

the problem is that because it says "beliefs," that's been interpreted in some avenues in the military now to mean that you're allowed to believe what you want to believe but not express what you feel in your conscience which is part of the first amendment, the free expression of religion. and this has led to some problems, and i'll just give you a few examples here. a service member received a severe and possibly career-ending reprimand from his commanding officer for respectfully expressing his faith's religious position in a personal religious blog. an air force officer kept a bible on his desk along with other personal items for 18 years. when he transferred to his latest assignment, he was told by a supervisor that he could not keep his bible in public view, that it may offend someone if they saw it. thousands of soldiers received equal opportunity training labeling, quote, evangelical

christians, catholics, end quote, and ultra orthodox jews, end quote, as, quote, religious extremists comparable to the kkk and al-qaeda. this training, which was memorialized in writing, further instructed the service members that they may not support such extremist organizations by attending meetings or organize or distribute literature. in other words, thousands of soldiers were told that they could not go to church, lead sunday school, tithe, share their faith or give out bibles. all expressions of their faith. an enlisted service member was threatened and denied promotion by a senior noncommissioned officer for expressing during a personal conversation his religious belief in support of traditional marriage. so for that reason i present this amendment that expands beyond just belief, but the ability to express one's self. and certainly when it comes to

chaplains, a chaplain should not -- and this goes back to a discussion we had earlier -- where a chaplain should not in any way feel like his discussion should be abridged or in one case he should feel like that his superiors are going to come down pop him or her for literal -- down upon him or her for literally handing a bible to someone who may request to see it. i think the pendulum has swung way too far in the wrong direction here, and i can't -- i don't think that we can allow just the regulations to rule here. it needs to be specified in statute -- >> gentleman's time -- >> needs to be codified. and, finally, unified among all three or four services. thank you. >> gentleman's time expired. mr. smith. >> thank you. >> gentleman's recognized -- >> to speak in opposition of the amendment. i think what we've learned is very, very difficult managing any group of people with regard to religion, because you want to protect people's right to express their religion, but you also want to protect their right

from being exposed to things they don't want to be exposed to. how do you strike that balance? it's extraordinarily difficult as we've seen through this debate. if you're allowing someone to express their beliefs depending on the context, that could be more intimidating to the people of other faiths than it is enabling to the people of that faith. and ask this is a tough decision. not just in the military, but in any workplace. you know, what, you know, within the military what if as a result of this which says beliefs, actions and speech, you know, people say, well, i'm not working on friday. i'm not working on sunday. i'm not working on saturday. that's my belief. you can't punish me for it. and there can be numerous other examples where actions that are perfectly consistent with the person's faith are very inconsistent with the duty and responsibilities in the military or inhibiting upon other people's beliefs. so expanding this -- and we did this last year, okay? we put in a provision for

chaplains and to protect, broadly speaking, religious faith to try to strike that balance. i think now to go back at it again and put in actions in addition to beliefs and speech is going to make it extraordinarily difficult for the military to do its job and strike the right balance in this issue. so i will oppose this amendment. >> gentleman yields back. mr. brighten stein? >> i request two minutes to -- >> gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> okay, thank you. i just wanted to express that i am in favor of dr. fleming's amendment here. i've been in the active duty navy for nine years, i've been a reservist now for three years. part of my faith is sharing my faith. and i have shared my faith within the military, and nobody has ever suggested that we were losing good order and discipline by me doing so. i think that nobody in this legislation should construe that

we are somehow going to affect a commander's ability to preserve good order and discipline. in fact, that is something that is protected by the language of this amendment. so i support dr. fleming's amendment, and i encourage my colleagues to do the same. >> i am going to support the amendment, but there is concern that this amendment could be read as weakening the religious protections that we put into law last year in the bill. these concerns have led to discussions with dr. fleming and others. and while we have dr. fleming's assurances that in his view the amendment does not walk back what we did last year, we will continue to work with him on the language as we go forward to the full committee markup. >> may i respond, mr. chairman? >> dr. fleming. >> i would say that we have run this language by outside legal organizations, constitutionalists, and i'll be happy to share with you or any

other members offline about that. but i think i can reassure you that it won't have that impact. i yield back. >> mr. forbes? >> mr. chairman, i have enormous respect for mr. fleming -- >> [inaudible] gentleman's recognized for two minutes. >> i have enormous respect for mr. fellowing and for many of the groups he says have looked over this, and i know that they have said exactly what he says. but i also glee with you that i hope we can massage this wording, because i think that this worded is problematic. when you start saying that word "accommodate," it may do some things that we really don't want it to do. so i just encourage the chairman to work with mr. fleming as we go to full markup and perhaps do a little bit better job of massaging these words so that we can make it accomplish the purpose he wants it to do but not push it too far back. and with that, mr. speaker -- i mean, mr. chairman, i yield back.

>> would you be comfortable, doctor, with pulling this at in this time and working on that language for the full committee? >> mr. chair -- >> or do you want? >> i would prefer to move forward. >> you want to move forward. okay. the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by dr. fleming. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. >> mr. chairman? i request a roll call vote. >> roll call vote has been requested. are there any amendments to the bill at this point? [inaudible conversations] mr. wilson, you have an amendment? >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i ask unanimous consent to call up a third and final en bloc package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk, please, pass out the amendments to be offered en bloc? and without objection, reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for, hopefully, two minutes. to offer and explain his en bloc amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i call up an en bloc package number three comprised of the following, and in the interest of the two minutes, mr. chairman, it's amendment number 20r1 by mr. andrews, amendment 25r1 by mr. andrews, amendment 32 by mr. andrews, amendment 96 by dr. heck, amendment 115r1 by

ms. spear, amendment 116r3 by ms. spear, amendment 113r1 by ms. spear, amendment 126r1 by ms. spear, amendment 129r1 by ms. spear, amendment number 143 by mr. la nborne, 149r1 by mr. scott, amendment 176r2 by ms. duckworth, amendment 183r1 by mr. coffman, 186r1 by ms. shea-porter, amendment 273r1 by ms. davis, amendment 267 by ms. dixson. i move for unanimous consent to include full description. ..

mr. chairman, to speak to 115 r1 , representative spears amendment in here, which discusses the whole issue of what is happening to people when they are separated from the service after they have been assaulted. and in many cases, the

separation involves a less than honorable discharge and that moves forward with the victim and married td 14 as they move forward. i know we've accept dead and black report to take a look at how we handle those cases where these takedowns they have something in their record that is negative, like personality disorder or some of these issues that arise. but i would hope that somebody could have this discussion about how we wreck to face situations or people have separated from the service have become a sexual assault of negative implication in particular that ddt-14, which they carry with them as they try to get other jobs, for example

the federal or state or local government agencies. i just sort of wanted to call that out and what do you have a discussion at some point with you about how we were by the situation. with that i yield that. >> jellied yields back. ms. davis, the generality is recognized for two minutes. >> yes, mr. chairman, if i could bring your attention to 237 r1 with mr. wilson on myself because we have so my discussions about whether people understand what their rights and responsibilities are. the acronym could be the smart act. what we've done here is in a sustained way with the rights and responsibilities are as it relates to sexual assault and

abuse and there's a number of reasons i suggest we do that because people are not aware of the options they have available to them in the aftermath of a violent crime. this bill of rights makes abundantly clear what responsibilities are except expected of every single service member. requires acknowledgments of one career with the data to the services to make those decisions. among other things, this led service members know they have a right to go outside the chain of command report an incident and also reinforces the fact they have a responsibility to never leave a fellow servicemember behind on the battlefield or anywhere else. i think it is important to put this together in a way that could be posted, people acknowledge this is important and can set a tone and also is a

strong message to our commanders that they need to educate and they need to train the service members that are really under their care and their commanders well. it's not the end-all be-all. i don't think any of us believe there's anything someone can say when you have people in your mid-who are not at an appropriately, but it is important and i want to make sure we have this distinct language before servicemembers today. >> the general it is time is expired. yes? gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to speak to the talon act, which representative hunter and 28 of my colleagues have cosponsored in addition to 91 total in the house. this will allow our servicemen and women to better transition

into positions of the private sector and led to the current transition program and asked the military too early and often connect service members military occupational specialties with corresponding credentials and possible future careers. it allows members to use military assistance funding for courses to learn a credential effectiveness while still on active duty. our servicemembers and veterans guaranteed quality of work with lies and civilian employees are in need of that level of dedication and expertise. those who served two transition more easily unaltered businesses thrive at the same time. the inclusion of the act of fiscal year 2014 national defense authorization act would be a victory for businesses, the military veterans and communities. i urge my fellow community members to support this amendment vote yes on the following en bloc package.

i yield back the rest of my time. >> at there's no further discussion on the adoption of the amendment, the question is, call here the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. wilson. those numbers and neither will say aye. the ayes is agreed to. other amendments to the subcommittee's report? ms. speir, number 192. while the clerk please pass up the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

the chair now recognizes the gentlelady for the purposes of offering and explaining her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment further strengthens the amendment by congressman turner and congresswoman tsongas that limits the discretion eating authority has supposed judgment. you know, we can any tipping points, whether the scandal at lackland, the officer scandal or the case and not the other, italy or he can be an authority come as general decided forward with a court-martial select the panel of jurors, prosecutor, defense, the judge, a

court-martial to place, the five members of the jury came back with a verdict of guilty five connoisseur with recommendations with a sentence of one year in prison and devotion and discharge. the convening authority then decided to dismiss the case in toto even though there was an appeal process readily available to the defendant and that was that shock i think that most of us and certainly the public felt what is wrong with the system or convening authority can just disregard the legitimate court-martial taking place at a sentence conferred. now the language, the turner tsongas language from dismissing a sentence out right, but does

still permit the convening authority to lessen the sentence even to zero, for instance will require an individual to be discharged. prosecutors have spoken with have told me the ability to reduce the sentence is the more insidious power compared with the power to dismiss a case over a. one when prosecutors go to deals primarily with sexual assault cases tells me sentences or less than 30% of the cases and this is lessening after court-martial is taking place and conviction has been offered in a sentence has been given. given the robust nature of the appellate process, there's no need for these cases. i amendola preclude the authority from less than a was still give them the authority to make a plea agreement mwave forfeitures so dependents are not adversely impacted. >> but generally this time is expired. mr. turner. >> mr. chairman, i have a perfect man at the desk.

>> the clerk will please pass up the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. this is a confidential amendment and because members and staff have not had the time and opportunity to assess the merits of the proposed amendment prior to today's markup, the chair declares a recess subject to the call of the chair. a request of the same place, but we will take five minutes to study the amendment and that we will continue. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible] >> it was. i couldn't tell who the voice was. i had the garamendi problem over there. last back

>> our voices are also low. >> let us look at this and that we will come back in a couple of minutes and go to your point of order. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we will now resell them and ms. speier, your point of inquiry. >> i understand confidential amendments are very rare and ours will in order. i am just curious as to why we would have to deal with this as a confidential amendment and maybe that can be clarified by mr. turner. >> that was mr. turner's decision in the way we will proceed as we will ask mr. turner to take the two that had to explain his amendment. then we will debate that amendment and because it is a

perfecting amendment, we will vote on that amendment and then proceed to voting on your amendment. mr. turner. your recognize her two minutes to explain your amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i discussed before the pc side which myself and missed tsongas were to authorize was bicameral negotiations. there were two things i would like to have seen in that bill that we did not get in the bill. one was mandatory minimum sentencing including incarceration, which i offered in the amendment and withdrew. the second is preventing convening authority in article lxii wave or modify or sentences imposed by the military tribunal. ms. speier's amendment seeks to

address that so the convening authority would not be able to wave and incarceration sentence. i support that. there is however a technical correction that needs to be made to the amendment. the way her amendment is structured, it would have eliminated the ability for plea bargaining or pretrial agreement to be negotiated where an accused can plead guilty in exchange for the convening authority making concessions with respect to sentencing. that would not permit taking a sentencing below mandatory minimum, which in this instance is dishonorable discharge. we've also made this to other offenses that we have preserved the ability for the convening authority to consider portions that relate to forfeiture of

pay, finds a reduction in rank as those may affect the forfeiture of funds and find. so we give them the ability to address that issue. this supports the end result ms. speier is seeking that makes it so would make in the military tribunal system. the reason this is done in this manner is because having a perfecting amendment unless the amendment by ms. speier had been offered. we then offer a correction of it >> the gentleman's time is expired. thank you very much. mr. smith. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> if i understand what you're saying, you merely want to preserve the right for plea bargaining within the convening authority and it's a very technical correction, but why

keep it a secret? this really puts us at a huge disadvantage over here. you've got lawyers trying to figure it out. this committee works in a bipartisan way. why did she talk to ms. speier about this? why did neo had their staff talk to our staff. i take you at your word except for the whole secret thing, which is just bizarre frankly given how this committee does business. why do we learn about this at the last minute. i'll yield the last minute to you to try and explain it. >> i don't think the subject matter is a secret, but the issue is or was -- the issue is and was this amendment is irrelevant to lessers is offered in the list we had did not include all the subject matter.

the staff had reported to us they were uncertain as to the subject matter of each of ms. speier's amendment. >> reclaiming my time. >> okay, we were sure was going to happen, but you could've still talked about it. i don't see anything nefarious here, but that's just weird you were sure it would be offered and you don't want to talk about it? if it doesn't happen company wasted five minutes of your life having a conversation. now were going to waste 10, 1520 minutes of our time notch of the conversation in the first place. i'll leave it to ms. speier is the correct way to handle this. i've are time judging the substance on such short notice and sodas may staff.

>> anyone else wishes become amendment? ms. speier. the generally recognized or two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i rise in support of mr. turner's second degree amendment because it addresses the issues that congresswoman speier is raising bombing teeny the convening authority ability for a pretrial agreement. on those fronts is a worthy op hurry. >> the generally deals that. anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? as davis recognized for her two minutes >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to ms. speier. i have a question because i was somewhat confused. my understanding was you could

not minimize the sentence on a felony are basically on any kind of charge that we have designated here of assault and what was being discussed as a separate kind of case that would be of a far lesser offense. but i think i am hearing and mr. turner and ms. tsongas are saying on the same offense. i'm going to let ms. speier respond to that. >> the lessening of the sentence can take place in a sexual assault case presently in the language that has been supposed. the dismissal of the case cannot take place, so if we are really going to address the caveat now,

italy circumstance, we would not want to dismiss a court-martial conviction and sentence that we would not want to allow the convening authority to reduce the sentence. but the caveat suggested by both, my amendment and mr. turner's would allow for plea bargaining, not for 15 for dependents and i think mr. turner would like to expand if you increase to include something beyond dependence, maybe rank and one other thing, mr. turner. >> reclaiming my time. is this some pain you are supportive of? >> i'm certainly have the opinion that it's acceptable. i would like to urge in the

future we were together. my staff is in communication with mr. turner's staff over the last few days. >> the generally this time is expired. anyone else wish to speak on the amendment? the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you are running a tight clock. i yield my time to ms. speier so she can finish the sentence. >> i'd forgotten what everything, but thank you, mr. garamendi. >> i will reclaim my time and yield back. >> the gentleman yields back it up there's no further discussion on the question, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. turner. so many ads are in favor will say aye. those opposed to no. the ayes habit.

the amendment is agreed to. now the question is on the adoption of ms. speier's amendment as amended. by the turner amendment. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed to no. the ayes habit. the amendment is agreed to. we are now going to proceed to vote on those amendments were rollcall goes this order. the first would be that anders amendment, zero to one r1 authorizing the chaplaincy to provide guidance to atheists and exhausted members of the armed forces. the question now occurs on the amendment offered 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]

[roll call] [roll call]

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

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

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, the ayes at 18 in the no's have 40. -- have 43. >> the amendment was not agreed to. we have one final amendment that requested a roll call vote and that was the fleming amendment to clarify his religious freedom for members of the armed forces. the question recurs by that her fleming. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

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

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

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

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

>> does anyone wish to change their vote? mr. carson. >> i would like to change my vote to a note for the record. >> i vote no, mr. chairman. >> mr. barber votes no? >> yes, no. >> mr. carson essay now. -- is a no. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> mr. chairman, the route 33 votes for aye, 26 votes for no and three present. >> the amendment passes. if there are no further amendments prelature recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson for the purpose of offering a motion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. vendor to adopt the report is the subcommittee and military personnel as amended. >> the question is on the motion. so many us aren't favor will say

aye. those opposed to no. a quorum being present, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the committee will not receive the report on the subcommittee for strategic versus pursuant to committee was 17 and the ranking member will postpone all those on the amendment of this particular set committee until the end of the subcommittee did the chair recognizes the subcommittee, gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers. i point out with another hour and 45 minutes, so we need to talk quickly for any comments you would like to make. >> i'm from alabama. we must be quickly, but i will be brief. the markup of the subcommittee on strategic forces is a collaborative effort on the committee. i've been pleased with that. the marker present streamlines

14 ground-based interceptors. reforms deities business process at commercial satellite companies have very bits to transfer a missile defense technologies to russian strength is congressional oversight of it ministration upper with regard to missile defense cooperation generally. it's vital systems like irondale provide significant resources above the request rather is really cooperative missile defense programs like aero to an aero three and forces efficiencies critical nuclear modernization in the budget of the nsa. it implements initiatives to improve security, which has got a lot of room for improvement. my friend and colleague from tennessee, mr. cooper spent a great partner in the process. i urge the members favorable consideration of this market without i yield back,

mr. chairman. >> the chair now recognizes the strategic forces. mr. cooper for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's been my pleasure to work with chairman rogers. it's a generally bipartisan effort. we do not agree my shoes, but it's been a good spirit of putting the national security first. we will have a number of amendments. i urge my colleagues to be as brief and focused as possible a comment so we can get as much done as possible. i think the chair and back balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? are there any amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> mr. rogers. >> ask unanimous consent to call up en bloc amendments worked in approved of the minority site

geared >> without objections ordered. with the clerk pass out the amendments to be offered en bloc. but 90 minutes will be dispensed with his pajamas recognizer two minutes for the purpose of explaining en bloc amendments be a >> thank you, mr. chairman. eyecolor package number comprised of 201 by mr. rogers of alabama to amend section 1604. a member number to two by mr. rogers of alabama to the report language requirement on nsa security. number 204 concerning section 23, 231 p. amendment number 96 re: additional production line for the dog system based in the u.s. and the number a provision by mr. larson has a report on cost and risk that amendment 53 by ms. sanchez concerning. a pitcher of system.

amendment number 82, revision one by mr. barber concerning a report by the u.s. navy amendment by mr. lamborn preserving u.s. nuclear triad to amendment number 193 by mr. shuster concerning recertification of gmt. number two or three by mr. rogers concerning asset missile defense agency in amendment number 213 by mr. lanter then of icbm motors. i yield back. >> are there any discussion to the en bloc amendments? if not, the question on adoption offered by mr. rogers, someone is our favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes habit and the amendment

is agreed to. are there other amendments to the subcommittee report? mr. turner. >> mr. chairman, i have it in them the desk. >> this to be number 003. will the clerk please pass up the amendment appeared without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining offering this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am offering an amendment with the sport as chairman mckeon and chairman rogers. this would require the missile defense agency to make operational fiscal year 2018 and missile defense site to protect our homeland on the east coast.

this committee this year i've had the experience of the missiles sitting on the launch pad in north korea, where the state of north korea openly made threatening statements to our nation to engage in a nuclear attack on us, south korea and japan. we are all aware of the intelligence reports that indicate that iran and are continuing to threaten the mainland united states. we are sitting and also an odd position in the first time in decades that we do not have an administration planning a forward the scene of missiles as part of the missile defense shield to protect the united states. the bush administration for

canceled on a bomb administration have 24 s. and three blocked to missiles has also since canceled. knowing there are those directing our nation and continuing to seek missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. it's imperative our defense system is expanded in this committee and the nda was preparation for the defense site. this amendment would ensure the operation all as we see these emerging threats. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman time is expired. are there any -- mr. cooper,

john is recognized for two minutes. >> greatest respect for mr. turner or my urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. the key bit of testimony from admiral siring who when asked by mr. garamendi at april 2013 would additional funding additional $259 the 2014 nda eight be of use to you in the process underway selecting admiral siring responded not at this time, her. but we have here is a well-intentioned amendment and i at least am strongly in favor of any escrow site. i think it's unduly extensive and premature at this point to rush the selection process. speed does not equal safety. we've got to get this right. there is a process underway. admiral siring is a capable leader and has the spelling hand. was the type of fish and funding

already. this is too much money too early to the security of the american people. i yield back. >> any other discussion? mr. garamendi, gentlemen recognize her two minutes. >> following are mr. cooper's comments, this is not necessary in this very, very expensive and it's very quick by 2018 you basically start construction now, probably well ahead of the environmental impact and the studies underway and as was said by mr. cooper, the man that runs the whole program said he doesn't need additional money now. this though commits us to an extraordinary expenditure for a significant program that doesn't

work. this would go on to the particular site does not work. we got not move forward with the program that works -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi, i want to take issue with your statement that it doesn't work of course to assure the american public they had their missiles sitting on the launch site. part of which is near home is both operational and is essential for us to defend ourselves that type of missile attack. every administration has needed a third site. >> the specific missile to be used here is not useful against

a sophisticated missile coming on us. this number could not context. >> again, i have to take issue with that. excuse me, it was my time and now it is gone. that doesn't mean you've won the debate. it should simply means you've occupied most of my time. >> the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers for two minutes. i want to say completely disagree with mr. garamendi's statement. even not admiral steering has said he didn't need money for the study on the side. mr. turner's amendment is trying to make sure we keep us on track and doing a reasonable amount of time and i urge my colleagues. i yield that.

>> mr. chairman. >> ms. sanchez for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, my 17 years on this committee i spent 15 years on the subcommittee that joseph this issue. i would just say that pictures in my opinion is much closer to what mr. garamendi is saying about mr. turner as saying that the real feasibility of the systems we have in alaska and california. to actually shoot something out of the air. we obviously are developing, working, researching, trying to get the system to work. as you know, many tests have not worked out. i truly believe to build the third system on the east coast is very premature will be in our best interest to continue to

refine said that when we do build the systems again if we would in fact put a third sat on the east coast do it hit and of becoming it intends that word reached us. i would say no to spending this type of an anti-week get the system. with that mr. chairman, i yield back my time. >> gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would disagree with the gentlelady who just spoken that there is many successful tests

that have taken place in the technology is getting better year by year. what would be premature or related until we wait for the iranian threat is mature there several years sleeptime that needs to take place first before we can install a third site and by then it would be too late and we would have a window of uncovered capability on their part. so knowing how we have these huge population centers on the east coast i think it's prudent to begin the work now. mr. garamendi come you mention environmental impact statement isn't quite ready. when i look at the alternatives, if one of these cut through that could be the least of our worries frankly. >> would the gentleman yield?

you were gracious to my colicky moment ago. >> i appreciate that, mr. lamborn. the studies underway or to determine where it's best to locate such a site. if you recall the testimony it's not at all clear and east coast site is the preferred site. it may well be better to have a shape in different locations. some of them can learn about business directs the military by 2015 and that's the problem. i yield that. >> the gentleman time is expired. mr. franks, gentleman from arizona for two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i just had my voice and favor of this amendment. the biggest thing that the east coast site and they don't know where this will be yet.

the biggest thing will give us the additional space that we need. it is as fundamental as that. ..

>> the west coast in fort greely the challenges that there's 2,000 miles between the west coast and the east coast and the

missiles won't fly at the speed of light. the reality is that it reduces our chances to engage and if something comes up the coastal track. >> reclaiming my time should we position will an aircraft carrier and were some submarines on the atlantic northwood. to counter the threat that this $3 billion expenditure that purports to eliminate one. >> the challenge is the missile speed of the acceleration off the ships are not fast enough in many cases to catch. the only system we have that is tested -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. >> this is what the east coast side would accomplish.

>> we had a debate a couple years ago or a year ago and they shut down the missiles for the west coast, then why when korea got pretty aggressive a few weeks ago the secretary reversed that decision and the west coast will be receiving those missiles that were lost before putting it will cost us a little bit more money but he reversed that decision. it's interesting that i find now it seems like the west coast is trying to defend the east coast by putting a site on the east. anyway, if there is no further discussion on the adoption of the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i wanted to make in reputation to some of the claims made so i will yield my time to him.

>> the only point that i want to make is that president obama himself has said the missile defense system works. at some point this became a partisan issue as to whether or not the missile defense system we have on the west coast of california and in alaska worked. when president bush was in office, we became a partisan banter. now you have president obama who should take it out of a partisan issue saying that it works and should be a deterrent for north korea. but we know that both iran also is seeking missile technology and mass destruction technology. it is only pertinent to take action now before we have a missile on the launch pad in iran. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from utah is recognized for two minutes.

>> you have got me confused again. i'm glad we were able to take all the north koreans so effectively. since we are covered and the east coast isn't, just as long as you can make sure the bad guys attacked us when we are on the work period, let it go. [laughter] >> i will yield back. >> i think that is a tremendous recommendation. the problem is -- i heard that the enemy sometimes gets a vote. if there is no further discussion on the amendment, the question was on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. turner. those in favor? those opposed will fax the amendment is not agreed to work -- the amendment is agreed to. it's not even leave yet. the recorded vote has been

requested. we will have that at the end of the mark. are there any other amendments to the subcommittee report >> there is an amendment at the desk. will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection from reading the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman, just a question. i have two different amendments i want to make sure that i'm speaking to the wright amendment. >> this is the one that we

follow on about the one that we had. >> i'm prepared to take up the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes to explain his amendment. >> this follows up on the discussion that we have, so i will try to make it as quick as possible. question is when do we spend the money if mr. turner's amendment becomes law we will be building a site on the east coast. the question is do we spend that money right now or later? the present bill has some to wonder if $50 million for this project, of which 140 million as for the site itself. as we said earlier, the general that runs this program said very clearly he doesn't need additional money in this fiscal -- this coming fiscal year. use of the allocation of the money 140 million would simply

be sitting there and used for the year. there's much more useful ways to use that money than it spent so i'm recommending that you take $140 million out of this particular item that is the missile defense program that's not going to be needed this year and use it for the national guard and reserve equipment which all of us have heard from the reserve units and the national guard they are in desperate need of equipment. so it basically moves money away, not needed, it moves it to where it can be very useful the deployed with our national guard. i ask for i aye vote. >> i'm going to make this short and sweet. i oppose this amendment. we had an exhaustive study. taking money from the mark that provides $400 million for the national guard, my mark already covers the 400 million of the

national guard. this amendment is not necessary. i oppose it. does anyone else want to talk on this? becerra now recognizes -- if not the question is on the amendment of the adoption of the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. so many in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. we are going to make that 9:00, aren't we? the recorded vote has been requested. are there other amendments to this mark? mr. brooks? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> this is amendment number 130. will the clerk please pass of this amendment? >> the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> mr. chairman my amendment addresses concerns --

>> the gentleman will please suspend for a moment while they pass it on. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. my amendment addresses concerns that the missile defense technology that is costing american taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to develop may be shared with nations that are not allies of the united states in order to protect america's investment in our expensive hit to kill technology and to protect national security. this amendment bars any president from sharing a hit to kill missile defense technology unless one of two alternative requirements and safeguards are met. the hit to kill technology may be shared first if by a treaty ratified by the united states senate or second, if approved in legislation passed by congress.

by way of background, this committee in the full house approved similar amendments to the national defense authorization act in both 2011 and 2012. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any discussion on the amendment? >> the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. >> the gentleman from alabama is a very fine man. i do think this amendment goes too far to get i think it's probably an unconstitutional undermining of the president's authority. we have no indication that he's interested in talking about anything like this with any other nation, but i think putting things like this in the statute are and overreach by this committee at least at this time. i look forward to working with the gentleman from alabama and hope that we can figure out a way so that he feels comfortable and i do, too. no one is interested in any

secret deals with russia or china or anyone like that but we do have allies including countries like england and things like that where we share a lot of nuclear technology. there could be opportunities that perhaps neither the gentleman or i can anticipate in which statutory language like this would be harmful to the national interest. so i would urge my colleagues -- >> with the gentleman yield? this doesn't apply to any nation that's entered into a treaty of alliance or has a security guarantee in the united states so we respect our allies and there being no approval required by congress or the senate if there is a treaty. >> but as the gentleman knows, over time and when something is in the statute and lasts for a long time come allies turn into enemies and sometimes they turn into a neutral party and sometimes they even turning to friends. so putting something like this in stone, carving it in stone seems a little bit especially

since the technological changes are moving so fast. none of us can anticipate the technology. i think the gentleman is well intentioned, but this goes too far and i know the gentleman is not interested in undermining the president's foreign policy authority. >> the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on this amendment? >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. turner? >> i want to speak in favor of this. as you know this arises from the open mike incident that the president had as appraisals of the secret deal the president acknowledged in his open mike incident that he would after the election have greater ability to make a deal on the missile defense. we know in their recent press reports the continued offers by this administration to diminish our missile defense and to share sensitive information about the missile defense systems with the

russians and the press reports indicate that there is conjecture that the administration may be taking this path because they specifically believe congress would not approve these types of exchanges if a was put before them. it is essential that we assert the congressional authority in this to stop this process of secret deals undermining our ability to protect ourselves through our missile defense technology. i yield back. >> any other discussion on this amendment? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> mr. chairman, just for the record, there is no secret deal in a microphone by the president about anything. adel let's just once again put that on the record. and the president was reelected in november of the past year and it's already been six or eight months since then and there has been no secret deal. so i would just say --

>> weld gentlelady yield? >> no, i won't. mr. turner, i want. but i would like to put on the record there is no secret deal going on, and i yield back mr. chairman. >> if it were a secret deal, we wouldn't know about it. the gentleman from louisiana. >> thank you. that is precisely my point. you made just before i could. how would you know it? did you have access to information that we don't? i'm not joking and that is the question. i think sometimes there is much truth in humor. but i believe -- i don't think anybody in this room today knows whether there is a secret deal cooking and i would be happy to yield to my friend, mr. turner, if he would like to make additional comments. >> the one thing that we know is that after this election, the president has abandoned the third site in europe, the sight

he was going to replace them muscles in poland to protect mainland united states without any confessions from the united states or other items he received and he continues to offer the sensitive technologies surrounding missile defense with exchange of the russians as a result of the news reports from russia. we have nothing out of the white house considering what their position is or what their negotiation positions are for us to evaluate to determine if it is in the best interest of national security. so what this does is figures that out so we can have the debate for what is best for national security, not just what is in the best interest of this administration. >> the gentleman from california is recognized for another two minutes. >> mr. chairman, i don't want to try your patience in the this is

written in such a way i think we are limiting the ability of the president to put in place missile defense systems for the united states. we are -- as i understand there are negotiations under way with various countries in the eastern european area to install missile defense systems the would protect -- i understand are not in a treaty relationship with the united states or in a strategic defense program. so i think we ought to be really careful about how we are limited. and i a understand where the author and his compatriots want to go with this. but the language is very limited and i don't think that is in the interest of the united states so it tells the amendment as written. the question is on the adoption of the amendment so many in

favor will say aye, those opposed, no the amendment is agreed to. >> are there other amendments to the subcommittee reports the? you have another amendment? >> i do. >> will the clerk has held the amendment to 27 or one. the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his

amendment. >> this is my intent this evening to find common ground with mr. turner. i reach out to you and your colleagues out there. to direct the program as a component for the missile defense systems it has a tremendous potential. but it's coming along slowly mostly because we are not finding it as robust as we could. we have discovered that there's $20 million in darpa that is not to be used because a specific program has been cancelled. it didn't work. some $20 million of appropriated funds are available and this amendment would redirect that 20 million to the directed energy programs at the department of defense.

so an effort to reach out and to provide a future missile defense system that has a great potential and expedited by i offer this amendment. >> anyone wish to speak to this amendment? >> you are recognized for two minutes. >> i rise in support for the amendment. directed energy from everything that i have studied or looked into is a major component in the future of our military. the lasers clearly promised to

dramatically change the military's ability to survive and in the high threat environment where we are reaching these technologies coming in to reach. we are actually seeing now the return on the investment that has been made over the years the capability of shooting on drums taking out the ships at great distances. the directed energy system come next year into centcom and aor. the promise is real and this is no longer science fiction. the potential of the fundamental shift in the equation is so great.

to intercept the rockets, drones and other threats in some cases only a few thousand dollars or less. we cannot afford this kind of exchange rate. the promise to switch that cost and i do not want to -- i do finally believe if you pardon the expression we can finally see light at the end of the tunnel and the navy's upcoming deployment and recent military tests out of the white sands and other locations are proof of that. so i believe this is an important amendment and i am proud to urge my colleagues to support it as well. >> the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers recognized for two minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. the strategic forces mark already supports the request to ensure that it is effectively privatizing the directed energy

development and in fact i wholeheartedly share the enthusiasm of the development but i've talked with the admiral about it and i asked him if he needed more and he said he really didn't. that they are moving as quickly as they can to develop a clear path of where we need to go and i can assure you he said he needs more license but right now he doesn't. the gentleman from ohio you are recognized for two minutes. >> i appreciate reaching out to get consensus on the committee behind the didactic energy. i absolutely wholeheartedly agree. we are in the line on the issue of what that promise is. as he was saying it is the next generation from this defense and i excited about the development that is occurring and i always concerned when we have an amendment like this i can't be

certain the effect this would have unless we had them here to tell us and so for that i support the amendment not knowing where the funds are coming from but i do certainly support for the policy and principle. >> the gentleman yields back from texas. >> the gentleman from ryland said about the promise of directed energy weapons he and i share an enthusiasm up as do other members. like mr. turner i am reluctant to say we are going to take your word that they have a program that doesn't work so we are going to cut them by $20 million would be nice if you have an offset that is going to come that there would be a little consultation about where it comes from so that we can check the consequences of that.

i would just point out that darpa was the cutting edge research on all sorts of things including directed energy and cyber and materials and a whole variety of things for so without more information where this comes from and the consequences, i would oppose it at this point in addition to the reasons the chairman talked about and that is the funding that is already in the bill for this particular account. i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado. >> i really want to applaud what was said about directed energy. just yesterday in this building in the atrium there was a display by american defense companies large and small about the advancements made in the corrected energy. the army, the navy, air force, they all have great programs

where they are making strides, tremendous strides and they all moved away from chemical to solid state electronic sources of energy and the power output is increasing with each generation so it's something that is horizon. i have reluctantly go with what mr. rogers and mr. turner said. other than that i applaud what they are saying. if there is no discussion on the amendment it is on the amendment offered. those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed to. are there further amendments to

the subcommittee reports this is an amendment 054. will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

we recognize the gentlelady for the purpose of offering and explaining the amendment. >> thank you so much mr. chairman. this amendment would cut 107 million-dollar increase in the mark for long lead procurement for ground missile defense, ground-based interceptors or what we call gbi and transfer that to the reserve equipment account. the mark funding increase is to buy the long lead items for the gbi, specifically -- however the start procurement of the gbi until fiscal year 16. because the missile defense agency must conduct a successful slight cast because in 2010 the

last time they tested they had failures. so they must first conduct a successful test than they have to get that incorporate that and look at the analysis through the upgrade etc. so procuring the rocket motor doesn't depend on the test but it would be resulting in the early procurement and storage costs for the motor which are not needed until you actually know that it's going to work. if the rocket motors are procured two or three years before you actually have the total they lose about 15% of their life and thereby unnecessarily limiting the total life of the gbi. law per c.a.r.e. of the rocket motors are not needed in fiscal

year 14. we can put it into a more important area for this year which would be the national guard and reserve. i ask a yes vote on the amendment. >> the chair will recognize himself. >> the national guard and reserve that wasn't requested by the administration to make sure that we meet their needs. when you cut advanced procurement, you increase the cost eight because that advanced procurement is the cheaper way to buy things. previously, the chairman characterized a similar amendment as more of a stunt than anything else and i think that applies to what we have here and we oppose this amendment. does anybody else wish to be heard on this amendment? the gentleman from california for two minutes. >> so you think it is a stunt to spend a quarter of a billion dollars on necessarily. is that with the chan