>> japan will add to the trans-pacific partnership, will make a huge contribution. they have had some problems with her agriculture sector like in many other countries. it represents less than 4% of the gdp, and before when i had the opportunity to discuss these with the prime minister of japan, i remember that i was telling him that japan cannot be left out of this integration just because small sector of the economy. and i think that they've made a lot of progress. and, of course, we also have the problem with the u.s. with the agriculture subsidies. because while we want to have a free trade, therefore we have to lower our targets, but at same time we cannot continue with such huge subsidy program as they see in many countries. that's another issue that will have to be discussed. what do i mean by

accomplishments? before a competent means the system is working and more than just to get an agreement because we will have to be approved by the congress in each and every country. here you have and use two different ways to do. one is a fast-track. sorry, there is another procedure. we hope these will be able to use the fast-track procedure because that would make it easier. in the other countries will have to approve the trans-pacific partnership according to our own rules and institutions. so accomplishment means the system is working. would hope that we'll reach agreement before the end of the year and we hope that next year will be able to approve this agreement and all the members countries. and again, when this agreement will enter into action, because one proposal is that when more

than 50% represented by all these countries have signed agreements. other countries have different proposal for the. so this is an area that has not been agreed yet and it's a very important one. >> what specifically does chilling want to get out of the partnership? with easy access, market access improving the most for your country out of these talks? >> well, the truth is that chile already has agreement including japan. so from our point of view, the gains that we can obtain in terms of market access, so we're looking for a third generation. not only free trade but also to improve the quality of rules, rules of fortunes, how to resolve controversy and how to expand its agreement not only to

goods and services but also to capital movement, people movement. so we are looking for an agreement much more deep and much more wide than the typical free trade agreement that we just signed. but it's true, this is a discussion -- since we have an agreement with all the countries, not too much to gain. but i think they have much to gain. and beside that, chile has strong commitment with free trade. we start by reducing you latterly our targets and then by signing bilateral free trade agreement, then by signing multilateral agreements with a community. therefore, we don't imagine a world with a tpp without you. >> what about specifically with

the u.s.? like you said with a free trade agreement with chile for a decade already. what are you looking for to improve other peace talks between u.s. and chile mutually? >> well, we still have some progress to be made in terms of liberalizing our markets, free and fair trade. there are some areas where the us has some restrictions, particularly in the agricultural sector. so we would like to expand our trade with u.s. the a the trans-pacific partnership. but there are many other areas we want to with the u.s. for instance, in terms of education. we are sending more than 3000 chileans students to study masters or ph.d all over the world, more than one-third of them are coming to the u.s. and there are many of students going to chile. we have a lot to learn from you

in terms of your leadership in the areas of energy, science, technology and, therefore, we're also working. right now one of the largest or the largest solar plant in latin america is being built in chile by megan company. at the same time we also working in this strategic alliance with california and massachusetts. because they have a lot to gain for us in terms of improving the quality of our education, the court of our science, technology. we are bringing research excellency centers from you is to chile and many of them are already there right now. we're in the process of inviting, and many americans, research centers of great prestige that are applying because it's a joint venture between your government and these research centers. so if we think just about trade,

maybe we have already accomplished much. but if we think about what it takes to become a better country, we still have a lot of areas where we can collaborate to the benefit of all chileans your. >> how would you assess the obama administration's overall relationship with latin america? is obama taking a genuine interest in latin america, or is the u.s. playing defense as china fosters ties in the region? >> we understand that a country like the u.s. has many, many interests around the world. but we think the with a special condition because we are part of the same continent. all of us are americans. that's why when i heard the bush initiative from alaska -- [inaudible]. i thought it was the right idea. unfortunately, we have not made too much progress in that

direction. and i think that when president visited chile last year, he made a kind of speech or proposal to the whole latin america world, and he was very committed in trying to recover the lost time in terms of doing much more to integrate our america's. imagine europe, they have to suffer two world wars. but they were smart enough to move from the marginal line philosophy to -- instead of kill themselves by millions like they did in the 20s, '30s, they try to great the economic any. of course, they're facing problems. maybe they did not in the right way, maybe the creation of the euro should have been accompanied by more monetary

coordination and things like that because we are fully aware of the problems they're facing right now. but we are convinced that the use has to play a much more active and effective role, and it has to assert its leadership in its own conference like america in a much better way. i have an impression president obama is fully aware of that, and he should come as that is what he has told us, that's what he told us in sandy ago, that he will move forward. -- san diego. now it's not only chile, also colombia, costa rica, peru. site think that we're moving of the right direction. the same time we have to realize there are some countries that don't want to have a stronger relation with the u.s. on the contrary they want to get rid of the u.s., to get away

from the u.s. so it's not an easy task. part of the responsibility is on your side, the other parties on ours. >> you talked in your speech about the pacific allies. ellis, one of the overall goals of the pacific alliance and how will that different -- which is that for 15 years in that region? >> welcome the pacific alliance involves both country from mexico, colombia, peru. one-third of the population is that we represent more than 55% of the total latin american trade. because the four countries are what we've accomplished in less than one year, right now where the free trade agreement that means that more than 90% of our goods, our services can flow within the countries with no tariffs at all. and also -- at the same time,

what would want this to have a deep economic integration, which means free movement of goods, services, capital, people. and we're also working together, for instance, to integrate our financial sector. we've created corporation funds and scholarships to promote the interchange of students along these four country. they are many countries that want to join the pacific alliance. among them i can mention costa rica, panama. [inaudible] and even the u.s. has expressed an interest in becoming an observer member. so what we're trying to do is to move faster and get, move faster and reach goals that, without coincidence in terms of principles and his would have

been impossible. so all the effort of integration have been made in latin america with south america has not been as successful as the pacific alliance. and i think the main reason for that is we are able to reach an agreement because we have the same approach your we share the same values. we are not discussing democracy. we are not discussing a freedom of press. were not discussing separation of power. were not discussing those things because we fully agree with those basic principles. what we're discussing, how to join forces to take advantage of all the opportunities that we're facing today. and the pacific alliance which was born in chile less than one year ago is today a reality, which has been in my view extreme successful. and i think that the best fruits of the pacific alliance are yet to come.

>> your turn is coming to a close early next year. please give us your perspective on the upcoming presidential election. >> well, we still have more, nine more months -- [laughter] and a nine-month we can do a lot, even debate. [laughter] so we are not thinking yet about the next couple. were still thinking how to close successfully our government. but i will answer your question. but really come in three years the results we been able to accomplish have been from my point of view their impressive. chile was 3%. now we've doubled the rate. we have doubled our capacity to create jobs. we have, key part inflation under control. special but lester was 1.5%. we have a balanced budget. we, we have an important trade

relations with the u.s. by the way, the u.s. has a very big surplus in trade balance with chile. we are one of the few countries in the world that can say the. and we don't care about that. so basically we have been able to reduce poverty and to reducing -- nonetheless government poverty and went down. so change that the country has experienced is very, very substantial but, of course, there are people that want more. you were telling me about profit from people, because they of course, we are not a rich country in terms of fossil fuels. we don't have enough gas or oil or coal. the only gas and oil that we have we have in the south province, and, of course, we are concerned that that situation might change in the future if we don't take care of those natural resources. and that's why we want to have

rational, and efficient and substance of gastric that was part of the problem with the south regional, with the students. we have almost, almost 6 million students in chile. and, of course, you'll always find 50,000 that want to march, want to protest. and they are exercising their right because chile is a free society and people have the right to protest and express an idea and/or postal. the only problem with the march is that they have violence, particularly at the end. not because of the students but at the end we have to suffer a lot of fraction in terms of public-private -- public property, private party ended in terms of life. freedom of expression and, therefore, they can march with keeping public order in place. and also there some differences.

for instance, they're asking for free education for everyone and we think we should a free education for those people who really need it. but not to everybody. survey not for the riches once because they can afford it. and that's a difference we have to be discussed democratical but the weight we discussed and we make decisions in our democratic system is not who is yelling more industries. we have a democratic system or people can express their opinion. they cannot let the government that they want. with respect to the next election that would take place by end of this year, my impression is that the decision has not yet been made by the people. so it's an open election. there are some candidates -- that's always true. not my impression is that would be a tight election we don't know yet who is going to be the next president of chile.

>> on education, tell us what you were doing to expand educational opportunities for the poor and where you draw the line between rich and poor. >> well, as i mentioned before, we have put a huge priority and commitment in transforming our educational sector. we have already increased our investment in education by more than 60% but what are we doing with that money? first of all, we were very much aware that we didn't have the coverage in school education or in university. it was a quality product is also a problem of guaranteeing access to everybody. but we did have a huge coverage problem in preschool education. so we made a commitment, we will guarantee free and mandatory

preschool education to each and every child in chile. and for that we are doubling our capacity and substantially -- [inaudible] in terms of what kind of preschool education we will be giving to our boys and our children. and for that we have put more professional, more requirements, and it's same time with increased financial for preschool education stance. we more than doubled our investment in preschool education even though we know those kids do not march, to protest, do not vote. we are fully convinced that were we -- that's we can make a real difference. that's what we can do a huge contribution to equality of opportunity. because if we wait until they go to school, six years old, many times the abilities of the home

-- [inaudible]. that's what we're putting a lot of putting a lot of effort putting a lot of effort in coverage and cori of preschool education but in terms of school education we already have coverage, was about 95% so we're just increasing the a little bit but we're doing a huge effort in increasing the quality of our school education. for instance, we're trying to attract the best students to study and to become the professors of our children in the future. and, therefore, we are giving a lot of incentives. for instance, is very good student and you decide to study to become a teacher, you get, i mean, you get a scholarship that means that your education is absolutely free. if you're even the them that you get a scholarship to go to some of the country, many of them are coming to the u.s. or europe to study for a semester. that improves the quality of our

teachers which is a key aspect. another thing we're doing of course is that we are trying to educate -- elevate our teachers qualification the normally they go according to h. we're trying to do this performance test in other schools, incentive a more those people are doing a better job. that's something which is important school education. in university education we want to guarantee to all the students belonging to the 60% of the most mobile a home, the right to the scholarship and, therefore, the scholarship will pay for university education. and we're doing that. we as a government we guarantee if you belong to a family which is part of the 60% of the most vulnerable families in chile,

and you have the right to get a scholarship funded by the government. and for 30% which -- [inaudible] with established a system, very long system. actually i will say it's better than yours because the interest rate is 2% which is one-third or maybe one-fourth of what should've been it was according, you don't pay more than 10% of your income. so it's contingent to your income. you pay whatever but never more than 10% of your income. and after 15 years whatever is left, it's over. because you will be committed to pay your loan only for 15 years. and, therefore, we have 90% of the chilean students, our students belonging to 90% of the most vulnerable middle-class families in chile that have guaranteed access to a scholarship. so excellent a 10%, the most

which are the richest 10% of the population that -- with her own resource. that's the system that we have. and that means that we have to enforce to increase the number of scholarship. with increase the number of scholarships the last three years. so basically that's our approach. even though this is very general i think system, there are some people that have an idea that i will discuss with some of students because we shouldn't confuse these students with those students, that they want free education for everybody. and we think that's not fair and we think that we cannot afford it. of course, we have free education and preschools and school level for everybody. we talk about university education. and we said, look, we will help those who really need it with a scholarship of loans depending on their situation. and the second discussion is

whether we should have a mixed system where both private and public institutions are participating at all levels of our educational sector. we think that's the right solution. to have private and public institution, and the government is responsible for all these institution at the same time provide the funds and would have free preschool and school education, but the students have the right to choose. so we don't believe in government monopolizing the educational sector. in every level of all times, and that's another difference with the students. but we have this discussion which is normal in a democratic society. the important thing is that we have to make decisions according to our democratic system, and not according to who is able to yield or be more violent in the streets. >> a different topic, i chilean poet body has been resumed to determine what he was poisoned

as a result of his opposition. can you tell us more about this investigation and the question is whether the results of investigation of any sort of impact on the election? >> well, they have been the same questions in the past about again, there wasn't a situation, he came out to the conclusion that he committed suicide. the theory of his family, the government, everybody. therefore, the judiciary power in chile has determined to undertake an investigation which is the course. so we see what the results are. even though he died in 1973. some more than 40 years ago. who knows? i cannot ntu what was the real cause of death of our nobel prize and 10. but at the same time i can tell

you that there are no, -- nobel prize pablo neruda. there was no evidence about a plot. but if somebody wants to find out, and our judiciary power decided that they would undertake an investigation, which is in process right now. >> your presidency will be remembered for the rescue of the 33 miners. the action at the time of course exposed safety concerns about mining in the country and probably other places as well. tell us what your administration has done to improve safety in the industry since then. >> well, i remember that episode with a lot of emotions, because it was a huge accident. suddenly we realized, 33 miners were caught in a small mine in

the driest surface of the world. more than 2000 feet below the earth. i remember that i was in colombia at the time because he was having his inauguration ceremony, and they decide to come back. when i ride in chile many people said don't go there because no way would be able to find them and there's no way that we will be able to rescue them. because -- i decided to go there that night and remember i met with the wives, mothers, daughters, sons, and they were desperate. because at the time we didn't know anything. we didn't know where they were. we did no whether they were dead or alive. and i remember that i made a commitment to them. i said, look, the only commitment i can make to you is that we look for them, as if

they were our own sons. we will do whatever is possible to find them and to rescue them, safe and alive. we did exactly that. we start doing everything that was useful and necessary to find them, and it took us almost three weeks to find them. and finally we knew that they were alive, all of them. and then we had to face the second challenge, which was to rescue. it was actually difficult to something that has never been done before in the world. so we asked for help from many countries, and we've are very grateful with the u.s., the u.s. was very helpful in providing technology. and after almost three months we finally were able to rescue each and every one of them alive and safe. so for us, it was something very

emotional and very important. because it was not just a question of rescuing miners. is a question of our commitment to life, our commitment with the lives of those 33 miners, a commitment, quality of life of every chilean. and we were very motivated because the whole country rallied behind this challenge, and the whole world. since then, of course, we've taken a lot of measures to improve the quality and security of working conditions of our work. and we've been able to reduce by half the number of accidents that we are having in the mining sector, and reduce by half the number of lives lost because of mining accidents. and we have done, we've done many things but the most important things we have established standard for

companies. and each and every company has to be responsible for its own security. so they have to fulfill a kind of checking, at least plan -- [inaudible] and workers are participating themselves. and, therefore, we've been able to identify a lot of areas where security measures were not enough, and we have of course improved our standards. and we've standards which i see all of her country but that because that is our goal. oecd countries, one of them is the u.s. >> we are almost out of time, but before asking the last question i have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care. our upcoming luncheon speakers, tomorrow on june 1, june 5 we have u.s. agriculture secretary tom vilsack. on july 1 we have the former ceo of hewlett-packard who currently

serves as the chairman of good a free 60 come in on august 8th we will have jim rogers, ceo of duke energy. second covered by 2% our guest with a traditional national press club coffee mug. >> thank you very much. >> you're welcome. thank you. [applause] >> i'm pleased to say hello to other some of you because they are very good friends of mine. >> wonderful. suitable for drinking chilean wine as well. [laughter] and for our final question, we begin by mentioning the fact that you're a helicopter pilot angelo to fly helicopters. telecom is that something you are looking forward to more of what you're out of office because well, i think -- [inaudible] since the very beginning. remember the stories about, that you want to fly? [inaudible] they wanted to fly until he told them don't get

close to the sun and delicate close to the ocean. they did that. that happened 4000 years ago. it took almost 4000 years to get to the wright brothers. all it took for thousand years, it was the first one who started acting as an engineer, planning how to fly and it took 400 years since then for the wright brothers to have the first flight. even though many people think other people flew before them. but it, you know, the winners write the story. [laughter] and i think that all the time, at least in my case, to flight has been always a dream and, therefore, when i had a chance, and this was eight years ago to become a pilot, and even though i'm president and this is something that i would like you to keep right here --

[laughter] i'm still flying. [laughter] for every simple reason that if i don't fly, i would lose my license but and to get my license back would be very difficult to end one story which was very funny because in chile just like in the u.s. you cannot fly over the white house. so i was flying in the direction of our white house and i was called by the traffic control and said hey, look, you cannot go there. why i said? because that's the presidents house. why do we have this rule? i want to protect the president. i said i'm the president. [laughter] thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for coming today. we really appreciate it i would also like to thank our national press club staff including journalism institute and broadcast center for helping organize today's event. finally, here's a reminder you can find more information about the national press club online

and if you'd like a copy of today's program you can also find that on our website at www.press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] >> i realize the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war and frequently the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. but we have no more success. some say -- or world law or

world disarmament. and that it will be useless until the leaders of the soviet union adopt a more enlightened attitude. i hope they do. i believe we can help them do it. but i also believe we must examine our own attitudes as individuals and as a nation. for our attitude is as essential as theirs. every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace should begin by looking inward. inward. >> tom brokaw and nick clooney reflect on the kennedy presidency and his peace speech sound at 7:30 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3. >> the house armed services committee approved with bipartisan support the 2014

defense program bill early thursday morning. the final vote was 59-2. the markup on this package includes $552 billion in spending for national defense. and an additional 85 billion for overseas operations. here's part of the debate. >> the committee will come to order. the committee will now mark of h.r. 1960, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014. ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us today as the commit on armed services prepares to mark up h.r. 1960, the defense national authorization act for 2014 but i want to express my appreciation to ranking member smith for his partnership, for his commitment to the bipartisan spirit. i've seen this bill pass for 51

consecutive years. we're expecting this to b-52. i would also like to thank all of our members, especially our subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their professionalism and for demonstrating once again the support for our troops is one of the highest mayor these in this congress. i've always been proud of the process we use to build this legislation. for several years now this committee has maintained the most transparent process in congress for national security legislation. a copy of my mark was history but to all committee members offices on friday last week, five days before the markup. the legislation itself including the funding cables was posted online monday. while we will delve into the details of the market during today's debate, the details have been subject to public scrutiny now for five days, for days. in addition to our transparency i maintain the ban on in marks

in the market. it authorizes 552.1 billion in spending for national defense, and an additional 85.8 billion for the war. or ocoa. consistent with the house budget. it provides our war fighters and their families with the care and support they need, deserve, and have armed. it ensures that america's forces are capable to face threats with resolve why protecting them from the unacceptable risk of sexual assault. improviser warfighters the resources and authorities if they need to win the war in afghanistan and to pressure al qaeda and its affiliates. we've made controlling costs a top priority. however, achieving falls short term savings at the expense of vital long-term strategic capabilities, the market also continues investments and oversight for key systems while preserving our capacity to meet

future challenges. but our hard-working members have additional good ideas so we will consider all amendments thoroughly. with that in mind i know today will be a long day. starting with consideration subcommittee marks, but let's work together to avoid making it unnecessarily long. senator udall once said everything has been said but not everyone has said it. reminds me of some of our past markups were everyone did say it. and sometimes two or three times. you can always count on us to get this bill right and on time every year. and every year we have delivered. ranking member smith? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i again want to thank the chairman and is given and staff for the hard work that's been done in the last several weeks and months to pull this bill together. this is a large and important piece of legislation from a lot

of folks have been working very hard as staff listening to me this morning. they are already tired. and now we get to do the 14, 15 our markup or what if it winds up again. having. so we appreciate all of that hard work. 90% of this bill is very straightforward. it continues to support the department of defense and the very important mission of fascist and but it provides pay raise for our troops, provides ano to construction necessary to continue to support the efforts as well as the funding for various others programs are important to that's a business of this committee and the basic work that we do that we should not underestimate its importance just because we do it every year. supporting dod in that manner is the core of our job. also i'm pleased that this bill does take significant steps to try to address the sexual assault issue that we've heard much about. that is a stain on the military right now, and after date as reports of further abuses, out, many times carried out by

officers who were specifically task with getting with sexual assault. we have an idea of the scope of the problem. i will say whatever we do legislatively can't solve that problem. it is a deep cultural problem within the military that they must confront, must take dramatic steps to change. i do appreciate all of the members. i would name them but there's so many that have been involved, i would fear to leave some out have made the sexual assault issue a priority and you're trying to come up with the best legislative situation possible to get the military to do that. this bill also supports our warfighters. we're still at war in afghanistan. i'm making sure that they have the equipment they need and the support they need is paramount. we cannot send our men and women in the military off to do a mission and not give them what they need to fulfill that mission. the bill also prioritizes the special operations command, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance as the rectum is

the continuing fight against al qaeda and their various offshoots. i appreciate that priority. we to also support our allies. we support israel and we continue to support iron dome which is had incredible success rate in terms of dealing with missile defense but i think it gives some promise for the future of developing missile defense for ourselves as well. that said there are some things until i continue to be troubled by. the continued presence of guantánamo bay prison i think is a stain upon this country. it's becoming unsustainable. it was built as a temporary facility 10 years ago. there are $250 million in military construction request just to keep a temporary. given its location and given the difficulties of maintaining it, that's always going to be a challenge. i know that i'm on the wrong side of this one and a vote on the floor yesterday and that the construction build on this issue. i do not have the votes but i would urge members to think long and hard about what we are going to do about the 166 people are

down at guantánamo bay and the fact that that is not a sustainable situation. we need a reasonable alternative. i have also deeply concerned by the ability of the president to do in government detention on people captured here in the united states. i do not think that is a necessary power. i think our article iii courts in our department of justice have proven more -- protecting this country. if caught and convicted and locked up well over 400 terrorists. they do it quite well. we do not need to jeopardize our constitution in order to protect this country, and i would hope we would make a change in the. and lastly, i have to mention sequestration. this bill does not recognize sequestration. i think on this committee there's a growing awareness of sequestration is a fact of life. so whatever we do here today will wind up being reduced by

significant amount. at some point over the course of the next six months as we get together and finally to our budget, are appropriations bill one or the other. i think went to start thinking about that. and in particular when you look at some areas where he could find savings but don't i think this committee is regrettably too much stock in the past when the money was there. you look at things like the absolute unalterable opposition to a background, even as our force shrinks across the board, even as clear savings in the long term can be found, and we oppose the. you look at personnel costs, are absolute opposition to making any just and in health care costs. when you look at some of the decisions like not allowing the military to decommission nine ships that they say they need to decommission in order to adequately fund their budget. we are continuing to have sort of a small war approach. protect its been program because like a progressive think about

the fact that sequestration is a fact of life, we're going to have to live with a lower number and we're going to have to be smart about how we decide what the, not is up with a lower numbered should be but decide how to spend the money but we don't really do that here. we assume a number somewhere in the 40-$50 billion range above what ultimately will be spent by dod pics all of us on the committee if we're really going to live up to our obligations to support the department of defense, we will have to think about whatever going to do when the number comes down? what are the choices we will make? none of them are good, but i think continuing to duck them is a disservice to the department of defense. with that said i look forward to the mark and again i thank the chairman for his hard work and all the committee members and the staff. >> think you. just a short response on the sequester point. i have the same concerns. i'm very concerned about sequester, but we did has a house budget. it followed the numbers that

were in the budget control act. our topline is 967 billion, and we're following the budget. we have that number in the bill. and i will be the number. the problem we run into is that the senate did not follow that number and have a much higher number to work through that will make it very difficult to finish up all of our appropriation bills. so we will do what we can here, and we will keep fighting the good fight. before proceeding any further i've a few announcements. the order of consideration for today's markup of h.r. 1960 will fall our subcommittee structure. will begin first with subject matter that falls under the jurisdiction of subcommittee on forces, then the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces command subcommittee on intelligence, emerging threats

and capabilities subcommittee on readiness and the subcommittee on military personnel. then the subcommittee on strategic forces and finally the full committee met uzbeks second let me read my -- any amendment offered must be in writing and 90 copies must be available for just a vision. for those of you who submitted amendments by monday's deadline to the necessary copies have been made. it makes it much easier for the committee and for a smooth process. in addition to the member has a name that involves the jurisdiction of other committees we request that the member before the osha offers the amendment have a letter from the respective committee chairman indicating their waiver of the right of referral. i note that i follow that same process to anything that i have in the mark, we have followed that same process. i remind members that this

approach has been the practice of the committee for many years. it is done so we can proceed directly to the house floor without our bill sequentially being referred to other committees. also, it's a practice of the committee that the amendments involving additional spending should identify suitable offsets. members must not offer a amendments that would violate the congressional budget i, the house rules, the statutory pagel act, or would otherwise result in a point of order against h.r. 1960 on the house floor during its consideration. o remind all committee members and how to publish it has a stated policy that will not bring legislation to any congressional earmarks to the house floor, therefore, i will not permit any earmarks in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2014. it's the chairs intended to operate under a five minute rule and/or to all interested members the opportunity to speak in an orderly manner. without objection members have

five legislative days within which to submit written statements into the record. so ordered. before beginning with the subcommittee reports and falling consultations with mr. smith i ask unanimous consent that the provisions contained in the report of the subcommittees and the full committee provisions be considered for the purposes of this market as original text of h.r. 1960 and that be considered as having been read and the bill be open to amendment at any point. is there objection? without objection it is so ordered. the committee when i received important subcommittee pursuant to committee rule 17, consultation with ranking member will postpone all other recorded votes on the men in this particular subcommittee more into the end of the subcommittee more. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. forbes, for any comments that he would like to make.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. this year the seapower and projection forces subcommittee has worked diligently and a bipartisan manner to prepare a market that is before the committee. however, we cannot have been successful without your leadership, the work of our subcommittee 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 it and today we offer them our thanks. i want to highlight some of the key issues that we discussed for consideration in our market. first i continue to be concerned about both sides and constitution of our navy sleet. in the 30 years shipbuilding plan the ministry has indicated a requirement 306 ships. the independent bipartisan 2010 qdr independent panel indicated a requirement 346 ships. unfortunately, the secretary of the navy has proposed a reduction of the fleet for 270 ships and just the next year. berries outside experts have indicated that if we continue to support our current level of

ship building investments we made even further reduce the tune of 40 ships navy. constitution as congress to raise and support armies. in addition it directs congress to provide and maintain a navy. i hold the constitution is amended to ensure that congress provided and maintained a sufficient navy. this home responsibly should not be taken lightly. this responsibility should not be budget driven to our actions should not be in response to how much we can afford. rather, we need to be deliberate and diligent in assessing the right trajectory for our naval forces. in my estimation future historians will treat us very poorly if we are unsuccessful in trimming the trendlines the sulleys with it continued decline of our naval forces. while accepting the increased risk. also concern to me as the natives continuing opposition to retain ships through their design life. and 30 years shipbuilding plan, the navy has proposed to retire

seven crews with to empty the ships in 2015. 10 to 15 years before the end of their service life. i support a fleet size that was built around to requesting that the combatant commanders say they need. as such i support the retention of the 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 the navy entered into contract this past monday to preach or 10 destroyers for multiyear procurement. we should all be proud that this bill authorizes sufficient funds to ensure that we can purchase the destroyers to add to the virginia class submarine we are committed to procuring two of these submarines a year. these are critical investments for our fleet. with regard to the combat ship and disturb our recent press reports about a draft gao report that the ports indicate the healthiest program is having significant acquisition problems. i support growing the fleet but

am concerned the procurement of this has advanced beyond the technology available in the associated mission module. we need to continue to take a hard look at this program, to best assess how the littoral combat ships fleet strategy. the mark address is the navy carrier-based unmanned aircraft programs. i strongly support the navy's efforts to develop a huge capability and worked 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 aircraft using multiyear procurement authority. saving the taxpayers over $1 billion if the services were to secure these aircraft annually. is mark also initiates much-needed modernization and upgrades to air force reserve and national guard c-130 aircraft that was absent in the presence of budget request. these modernization initiatives will ensure that airmen, soldiers and our respective governors have access to

tactical airlift when and where they need it using reliable and mission capable aircraft. this bug also supports the top forces acquisition program of the air force, and authorizes funding at the requested levels for both the new kc 46 tanker and a 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 the successful acquisition in the years ahead. i'm also pleased to include this market additional support for the maritime administration title 11 loan program guaranteed by leveraging long-term financing on terms and conditions that make certain projects viable. expansionist program supports the growth and modernization of u.s. merchant marine and u.s. shipyards. shipbuilding capabilities are a critical part of our nation's infrastructure. mr. chairman, in my office have a copy of the decoration of independence surrounded by the 56 signers of that document. it's a solemn responsibility

that we have today. we should be reminded that you endure the trials and revelations that i now our nation's launch today. as our founding fathers did, we need to ensure 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 ourselves -- subcommittee this when we hope to take a large step toward meeting our 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. the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on seapower and projection forces, mr. mcintyre for any comments you would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the seapower and projection forces portions of our bill that is in force today continues the subcommittee tradition of strong bipartisan support as it should

be for our men and women in uniform. i would also like to thank chairman forbes for building this package in working with us in a strong, open and bipartisan manner. in fact, he went out of his way to accommodate as many members concerns as possible, and randy, thank you for that the overall this is a positive legislative package. report language and fund recommendations pick the package carefully cuts waste, something that we're all concerned about protecting the taxpayer dollar, and getting maximum return. subcommittee has to take care of both the current force and look out for the future. and this package accomplishes a difficult balance. in terms of legislation the mark includes provisions for the gerald ford era class carrier. and several other provisions that provide additional oversight of programs including two of the navy's largest unmanned aircraft programs. but also gives the department of defense permission to begin retirement some old kc-135

refueling aircraft data been in storage for many years. we are able to just because they tanker program kc 468 this on cost and on schedule what you know we're pleased to be able to report. i'm glad we're given the department of defense more flexibility in these tough budget times to manage the inventory of aircraft. instance of fun is mark recommends $14.3 billion in shipping that would authorize a total of eight new ships but this is a fault not requested by the administration. in addition to mark also authorizes $934 million of ship construction funding to ensure that the virginia class submarine, destroyer, and joined an icy coastal programs stay on schedule. with regard to aircraft programs the mark fully funds the of ministrations budget request for all the major aircraft programs in archer station for the navy and marine corps and air force's new bomber program. i strongly support each

recommendation. we have much to be please with entrance of honor and 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 exactly the type of assets that they need to do the job that we depend upon them to do. with that i fully support the seapower and projection forces portion of today's market and urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. before in beginning and amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> i have an image that in words and approved in the minority side. >> without objections order. with the clerk please pass out

the amendments that would be passed out en bloc. without objection, reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purposes of offering and explaining is en bloc a minutes. >> i call en bloc package number one comprised of the following them amendment number 43 by mr. forbes raising the cost cap of the 40 class carriers, amendment number 45 by mr. forbes expressing concern with the lcs program specifically the concurrency issue between see friends and mission modules and directs the

jl to report to congress by march 30, 2014, regarding the series of question. amendment number 84 by mr. courtney a mini direct report language and shipbuilding plan to reflect importance of the recapitalization of our fleet. and adds a requirement that the port included discussion of strategies to address the shipbuilding shortfalls in the update of overage shipbuilding report. amendment number 101 by, a sense of concrete findings regarding the future balance of a navy's fleet. amendment number 118 by mr. force directed the secretary of the navy to submit a report by september 30, 2013, on the most recent weapon analysis of alternatives and a report addressing a series of questions regarding the programs develop. developed. amendment number 154 by requiring a briefing to assess the current situation virginia overhauls.

amendment number 166 by mr. brooks requesting a report from the second of the navy and the joint high speed vessel and expanding its mission. amendment number 212 by mr. langer and striking the following directive report in the report. integration of high energy laser weapons on surface combatants. >> i thank the gentleman and i thank the members of the committee for their willingness to work together to all of the en bloc amendments have been cleared by both sides. they are noncontroversial. is there any further debate on the en bloc amendment? if not, the question, the adoption of the enemy offered by mr. force. so many will say aye. opposed nato. the ayes have it. and the amendment it is agreed to.

>> are there any other amendments at this time lex the gentleman from california is recognized. >> i have an imminent. i think it is now available, the ready reserve fleet. >> do you have the number? >> i do not have it with me. ..

>> the question is on the motion of the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed -- >> stop, stop, stop, stop. >> chairman, i move we adopt the subcommittee mark. as amended. >> question is on the motion of the gentleman 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 air and land forces. pursuant to rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we'll postpone all the

amendment toss the end of subcommittee mark. chairman recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the members have before them the highlights to have tactical air and land forces subcommittee mark. 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 working in a bipartisan manner and also to thank all the members of the subcommittee 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 mar lean corps equipment -- marine corps equipment and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. as well as individual equipment

such as body around por and small 5r78s. i'd like to highlight some of the provisions. we remain concerned over the impact of the individual war fighter of the weight of current combat gear. the 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 concerns with the pentagon's f-35 plan being too aggressive, giving. f-35 design instability. the pentagon has now done what

the committee advocated several years ago, by reducing procuremented until the r&d issues are better resolved. the subcommittee mark contains a provision that would require the secretary of defense to establish an independent team to review the development of software for the f-35 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 it's designed to one day replace the bradley fighting vehicle. the committee support the army's need to modernize, but 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 con trains 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 acquisitioning strategy. another to 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 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 168 million for abrams tank upgrades, 75 million for heavy vehicles, 75 million for fa-18 advanced procurement and 400 million for equipment modernization. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent, um, that my complete statement be entered into the mark up 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 forces, gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez, for her opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you again for your leadership in this committee. and in 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 -- and i also want to thank our great staff who has worked very diligently. 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 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-35 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, um, 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 18-gs and f-18 upgrades. 1.4 billion for the b-23, and it provides 1.3 billion for the u.s. marine corps crowned ground equipment. in addition, it increases funding for some parts of the

dod budget where we believe inadequate funds were requested. the chairman's mark provides an additional 400 million for the national guard. increases funding for army ground vehicles by 274 million. it increases funding for the reaper unmanned systems by 91 million. it increases advanced procurement funding for f-18s 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 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 i entertain any amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> purchase? mr. chairman? >> gentleman from new jersey's 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 is that we work together on from this point on is the mark does contain a $30 million cut in the recommended ask for the j 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 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 less cost. i realize that this is a relatively minor cut, but it's a big deal for this program, and i would ask that we work together between here and final resolution of the bill to see what we could do about that, and 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, might just be an extended race, but i'm really pleased to be here. and 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 concept to call up an en bloc package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the committee. >> without objection, so ordered. without objection, the reading of the amendments will be dispepsed with. dispensed with. gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining his en bloc amendments. >> come pleased of the following: a comprehensive

assessment -- [inaudible] amendment number 42 by mr. loebsack detailing the act acquisition strategy for the 40 million millimeter cartridge. amendment 173r1 by ms. duckworth restricting procurement funding for the army striker vehicle program until a report is provided on the status of spare parts value, cost of containing unusable matters. amendment number 187r1 by ms. sanchez -- [inaudible] amendment 23, excuse me, amendment number 234r1 by ms. sanchez requiring the army to complete all required test user evaluations in business, case assessments for the individual carbine program, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. for what purpose, um -- is there any discussion on the, or debate on the en bloc amendment?

>> mr. chairman? >> with 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 these en bloc. [inaudible conversations] >> 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? gentlelady'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 that invest in our future. one example of such wasteful spending has to do -- >> mr. chairman, is there an amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> is there an amendment? >> will the -- [laughter] 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]

[background sounds] >> gentle lady from illinois, ms. duckworth, is recognized for five minutes to explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as i was saying, time and again my con tip wents have written and called 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 as quick sixth generation fighter aircraft. however, the project costs of

the f-35 have increased 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, leadership said that software risks still remain the top development issue. although seemingly inte y'all to our country's national security strategy, many of the aircraft electronic warfare capabilities -- the same we need to defeat our enemies -- remain untested and unready. flight testing of the first operationally capable mission systems software for the aircraft 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 lighting protection system, the fuel dump system and the arresting hook. again, my amendment does not strike my funding -- any funding from the f-35 program. rather, this is a good

government issue, and it simply sensors the funding until the secretary of defense certifies that the software, block 2b and the lighting system and fuel dump systems and arresting hook have beenfully -- successfully tested. i want contractors to be held accountable. 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 sew -- show that they can deliver the product they promised. 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 sport this good government -- support this good goth, smart spending

american. thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentlelady yields back? >> i yield pack. >> 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. our subcommittee has done a significant amount of oversight on the f-35 program. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment would, in fact, stop funding for the f-35 program. the f-35 program is 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 significantly 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 encloses that we've seen from -- increases that we've seen from the f-35 is time. if you slow down the project, you're going to increase our overall cost.

and it would affect current production of the aircraft. our committee has done significant oversight on this. we believe we addressed the issues in the mark. i also want to point out is that one of the things we looked at is that the gao just recently issued a report, 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 would, of course, increase costs and not put the program back on track. we have another report of the f-35 joint strike fighter which, again, our committee reviewed in hearings and says that the program is now on track. so i would ask the people oppose this, and i would like to yield the remainder of my time to mr. veasey who will also speak in opposition. mr. veasey? >> 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 support 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'm also worried about some to have outdating, outdated testing figures and some of the liberties that are taken in addressing the routine development problems that i feel are already being addressed on this program. also worried about the uncertainty and the cost to the f-35 program by delaying it for 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 regards to that. and also the long-term costs of this critical aircraft system to

increase and threaten the 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. [inaudible conversations] >> mr. chairman, i'll yield. >> 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. now, the cost of that 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 push 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 cost of the american planes if, indeed, the slowdown resulted 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? >> gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman? >> for what purpose does the gentlelady request time? >> i'd like to speak to ms. duckworth's amendment. >> from 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 will 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. howrvetion we also have -- however, we also have to recall that this program is seven years behind schedule and 70% over cost at the 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 even 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 so many concerns out there. the 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 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, um, 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 till in the pipeline -- 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 that 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 the taxpayers are protected in this. so i would, um, ask that ms. duckworth's amendment be adopted. and i yield back. >> gentlelady can yields back. for what purpose 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, the 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 of fixes to serious

design issues and 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. when i, first of all -- >> 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, um, 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 we really -- 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. 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 in 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. >> mr. chairman? >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> mr. chairman? >> who do i -- >> i'd like to ask for a recorded vote, mr. chairman. >> in the opinion of the chair, the no have it. the gentlelady asked 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 to the subcommittee mark?

[inaudible conversations] >> we'll now proceed to vote on those amendments where a roll call vote was ordered. the committee postponed further proceedings on the amendment offered by ms. duckworth and shall now resume those proceedings. question now occurs on the amendment offered by ms. duckworth. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. mckeon? >> no. >> mr. mckeon votes no. mr. smith? >> aye. >> mr. smith votes aye. mr. thornberry? >> no. >> mr. thornberry votes no.

ms. sanchez? >> aye. >> ms. sanchez votes eye. mr. mcintyre? >> no. >> mr. mcintyre votes no. mr. forbes? >> no. >> mr. forbes votes no. mr. brady? >> aye. >> mr. raidty votes aye 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. langevin? >> no. >> mr. langevin votes 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. mr. klein? >> no. >> mr. klein votes no. ms. bordallo? >> [inaudible] >> ms. bordallo?

ms. bordallo votes no. mr. rogers? >> no. >> mr. rogers votes no. >> mr. courtney? >> no. >> mr. courtney votes no. mr. franks? >> no. >> mr. franks votes no. mr. loebsack? >> no. >> mr. loebsack votes no. mr. schuster? >> no. >> mr. schuster votes no. ms. son gas? >> aye. >> ms. tsongas votes aye. mr. conaway? >> no. >> >> mr. land bourne votes no. mr. johnson? >> aye. >> mr. johnson votes aye. mr. whitman? >> mr. whitman votes no. mr. hunter? >> no. >> mr. hunter votes no. ms. spear? 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? is. >>. no. >> mr. carson votes no. mr.-- [inaudible] >> no. >> ms. shea-porter? >> no. >> ms. shea-porter votes no. mr. gibson? >> no. >> mr. gibson votes no. [applause] hartsler? >> no. >> mrs. hartsler voted no. mr. kilmer? >> no. >> mr. kilmer votes no. dr. heck? >> no. >> dr. heck votes no. mr. castro? >> no. >> mr. castro votes no. mr.-- [inaudible] >> no. >> mr. runyon votes no. ms. duckworth? >> aye. >> ms. duckworth votes aye. mr. scott? >> no. >> mr. scott votes no. mr. peters? >> no. >> mr. peters votes no. mr. lose sew? >> no.

>> mr. palazzo votes no. ms. roby? >> yes -- no. >> ms. roby votes no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks? mr. cease si? >> no. >> mr. veasey votes no. mr. nugent? >> no. >> mr. nugent votes no. mr. cook? >> no. >> mr. cook votes no. mr. bridenstine? >> no. >> mr. bridenstine votes no. dr. win stop? >> no. >> miss velour sky? >> no. >> and mr. brooks?

mr. palazzo? [inaudible conversations] >> clerk -- clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, there were ten aye votes, 51 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 a i mended. >> questions on the motion of the gentleman from ohio. so many as are in fair will say aye -- in favor 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 from 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, but 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 today in, day out -- 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'm pleased that this year the chairman's mark includes a enhanced reporting requirements 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 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. heck be members not only of this subcommittee, but the house permanent select committee 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 asked 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 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 k they need to -- 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 that 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 defense programs. if you just hook at today's headlines about what's happening in syria and perhaps elsewhere, these become even more important. and i guess the point i ant what to -- i want to emphasize is you can't wait til they're in the headlines. you have to be prepared ahead of time. so 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 on intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities, 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 his leadership on the committee it has truly been a collaborative effort, and i'm grate. for his work -- grateful for his work and his efforts. i'd also like to thank you 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 cybersecurity including the full support of our warriors and the ever-evolving task associated with the full range of the department of defense's

activities in suabler space be -- 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 field 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 hon say. 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 sports every aspect -- supports every aspect of the d.'s act tithes.

also the support of the special operations forces and socom which play such important roles in our engagement around the globe and, where necessary, the tip of the spear. now, the mark also makes sure that the committee is going to fully inform 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 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 the 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 national security. the committee clearly could not function without them, and i again thank them for their efforts. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. 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 ordered. will the clerk, please, pass out the amendments to be offered en bloc. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> gentleman's recognized finish 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 of 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 28 4-rbgs 1 by mr. andrews that requires a report on medical research information sharing. 48r1 by mr. lanborn that --

[inaudible] amendment number 66 by ms. bordallo that would amendell jilt requirements for the defense experimental programs. amendment number 77 by mr. franks that would modify reporting requirements for testing and evaluation of electromagnetic pulse vulnerabilityings. amendment number 88r1 by mr. nugent concerning high-powered microwave weapons systems. 112 by mr. castro, legacy system requirements. amendment number 1 3r5, my amendment on the clip to graphic modernization review and advisory board. amendment number 37 by mr. kilmer to clarify report language on information technology exchange program. amendment number 155r1 to modify the mission analysis for cyber operations to include roles for reserve components. and amendment number 157 by mr. accuracy toe for the development and fielding of nonlethal technologies.

>> is there any discussion on the end locke amendment? -- en bloc amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. thorn we'rely. -- thornberry. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there further 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 ordered. will 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 purpose of offering and explaining his en bloc amendments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i offer an en bloc package number two comprised of the following: amendment number 159r1 that would allow certain department of defense labs to accumulate funds to support infrastructure projects. amendment number 160r1 that would require a briefing on an investment entity to support military medical innovation. amendment number 199r1 by mr. kilmer to require the secretary of defense to provide a plan on software licenses. amendment number 213 by mr. langevin that would direct the the president of defense to brief on forensics.

amendment number 258, my amendment, that would change directive report language to the comptroller general. and, mr. chairman, if i can add, i appreciate all members in both en blocs working with the subcommittee staff to get the final language. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any further debate on the en bloc amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. thornberry. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. [background sounds] >> if there are no further amendments, chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt

the subcommittee report on the subcommittee on intelligence, emerging threats and capabilities as amended. >> question is on the motion. the gentleman from texas. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. quorum being present, the ayes have it, and the motion is agreed to. the committee will now receive the report on the subcommittee on readiness. pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all the recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. whitman, for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my colleagues on the readiness subcommittee who have worked so well as a team throughout this congress and especially on this bipartisan mark. while this mark will not fix all of our nation's readiness challenges, it does can go a significant distance in addressing depleted force readiness levels and associated

levels of assumed risk. specifically, the mark prohibits the department from proposing, planning or initiating another round of base alignment and closure better known as brac, a provision in my view that's critical given the political uncertainties we face and many ongoing planning prospects that look at where this nation's strategy is going. the mark also increases oversight of the lcs and f-5 programs and requires dod to issue a life cycle sustainment plan for both platforms. it also insures appropriate stationing of missile defense cat capacity in the asia by requiring dod to analyze and report on capabilities in obama obama -- in guam and insures the department has continued access to military training ranges such as china lake and chocolate mountain aerial gunly range. finally, the mark provides paying benefit authorities for federal civilians deployed overseas which represents an

important element of national force readiness. as we all know, however, these measures will not solve our readiness challenge. with the successive rounds of budget cuts in sequestration, readiness rates are at historic lows, and our war fighters are at risk. while we've restored the air force and army flying hour programs and bolstered 23eu89 sustainment in depo maintenance, we'll need to maintain focus on these issues in the months and years to come. as i close, mr. chairman, i want to thank the members of the subcommittee and especially our ranking member, ms. boar hall doe, for their unyielding support for the men and women we so heavily rely on to defend this nation and who we owe an eternal debt of gratitude. thank you, mr. chairman, and with that i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on the readiness. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gent llady from guam, ms. bordallo. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman.

i, too, have appreciated working with mr. whitman as we developed this readiness mark, and i want to thank all the committee members who we spent many, many hours working through this report. i believe this is a very good mark that addresses many of the challenges that we face in the readiness arena. as we continue to deal with the impacts of sequestration, i hope congress -- especially our respective leadership -- undertakes serious efforts to finally fix sequestration with a comprehensive solution. i would like to highlight a few important items in the readiness mark. the bill provides a one-year extension of authority for certain pay and benefits to civilian personnel who are forward deployed, performing critical operations overseas and in combat areas. we are also requiring gao to look into how the furloughs of civilian employees are being implemented by the department of defense to insure they are implemented in a fair and

equitable manner and to understand the impact on mission execution. the mark deals with sustained issues for two important procurement programs; the f-35 joint strike fighter and the lcs. understanding the costs associated with the sustainment of these programs over the long haul is important for congress to make informed decisions about the future of the programs. i greatly appreciate that this mark puts real resources into the rebalance of our military toward the asia-pacific region in particular. i appreciate this committee's continued support for the realignment from okinawa to guam, and we also insure support for the pacific air power resiliency program for air force insulations in the western pacific. -- installationings in the western pacific. our bill rolls back language that hampers the expenditure of

the government of japan funds. this restriction makes absolutely no sense in the current fiscal environment, and repeal of these restrictions is positive for our bilateral relationship with the government of japan. because of concerns about the department's resources and preparedness for assessing, operating in and protecting national interests in the arctic as access to this region widens with warmer global temperatures, the readiness mark directs the secretary of navy to provide a road map for future activities and costs for training and operating in the arctic. our bill also strengthens the quarterly readiness reports that this committee receives from the department of defense. given the challenges of recent budget cuts and sequestration, this report will help inform us about the current state of readiness. in particular it enhances congress' visibility of gee graphic and function -- geographic and functional

combatant commanders' ability to execute the full range of their respective operational and contingency mans. and finally, i do have some concerns about a few provisions in this mark. while i adamantly oppose authorizing an additional round of brac -- and this bill does not authorize such a round -- i am concerned the language included in the bill goes too far by restricting the d. from conducting studies or analysis related to the fawch brac request. from our hearing a few months ago, it seemed our committee needs and does want additional information, so i don't understand why we want to restrict the department's ability to provide us that information. and further, while i appreciate the efforts of the house natural resource committee to move forward on several bills that have been incorporated into our mark, i am concerned about several of the provisions dealing with land conveyances for the purposes of supporting

military training. in the case of the sections dealing with white sands, china lake and 29 palms, the proposals actually transfer the lands out of the department of the interior and to the army, navy and marines. the provisions in at least one case are problematic for the services in meeting their readiness requirements. so we will need to continue closely reviewing these provisions as we move through the legislative process. and again, mr. chairman, this this is a good mark overall, and i strongly support, and i urge my colleagues to adopt it. and i yield back. >> gentlelady yields back. before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman? >> gentleman from arizona, mr. barber, is recognized. >> i certainly want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee again for conducting business in a remarkably bipartisan manner, and i fully support the section

which deals with brac. i do not think it's time for us to be moving forward with the brac. while we need to find efficiencies given the budget control act and sequestration, this is not the time to implement or to proceed with a brac. by implementing sequestration, mr. chairman, we have created great uncertainty in our military and in the community that surrounds our military installations. i have two such installations in my district, and i'm really hopeful that we can figure out a y