>> tonight on c-span2, the senate debates the immigration bill. then senate hearings on the joint strike fighter and the merger between u.s. airways and american airlines. >> one of the sticking points in the immigration bill under consideration by the senate is the issue of border security. an amendment was filed today that would increase high-tech monitoring along the border with mexico. >> we are discussing this immigration bill and how little the focus has been on the impact of it.

>> we really talked about a hot button set of issues, but we have not focused on the subject of what we are doing. how many more can we assimilate in reasonable expectation that they would find good work in america. and what do we need for skill sets most? so i would say without this, to some degree, we have missed that discussion. that we will see a magic

amendment and we can just relax and take a now because we have one that solves problems in the senate. well, that is odd because we were told when the bill was announced that it was a piece of tough legislation, the toughest ever, and it didn't need any improvement. if you point out problems, they have a lot of problems. and i actually need and we have

had a great deal of discussion. the border security issue. >> this includes serving the national interest and this is just one of the issues. it would not have accomplished the job and those of us are asking the tough questions would dismiss the concerns finally had to deal with the issue that they didn't do what they promised. it is a big problem. it would change this quite a bit with regard to the border. because that was talked about a lot. because it always symbolize whether or not you are serious about enforcement.

and it was weaken the legislation. then it went through the net rose to 8.3. and then the bill have the floor and the american people try to figure out how weak it was. it seems almost part of this is panic and they have announced the agreement that has been $38 billion. 20,000 pages. now this is all fixed as part of the bill and you have to vote for the bill. it has a bunch of holes in it

and you close one of the holes, all of the water will still run out of the bucket. other problems with the legislation. this was one that was so dramatic and plainly contrary to the promises that the sponsors had made for the bill that it was really devastating and in total retreat in capitulation. they are spending $30 billion on the border. but we don't want to hear you guys complain anymore. now you just pass the bill. not only talking about what else is in it. not only talking about policy issues that are raised by the illegal flow of immigration that we have. you just pass the bill because we answered the border security problem. well, this is not the way it's going to be. i hope that we should be able to

do dramatic things and effective things at the border with $30 billion. but as i point out in a little bit, we are not sure at all that that is going to happen in an effective smart way. especially when it has come up in this fashion. especially since we have passed laws repeatedly that plainly requires certain things to happen, and never happen. we said last time we passed a bill that this is double of where we were. that was in 2008. so now they say that we have the 700 miles. well, it remains to be seen.

a double fence system between the fences is very effective. that is why it was put in the bill. not because somebody wanted to sound tough. because it will work. and things that really work tend to be blocked in the senate. including transforming legality and it has always been brought in my experience and it is just amazing to me. we were on track last night to have a series of amendments last night voted on.

some important amendments to be voted on. and we were getting ready to do that. and the new bill had been offered. it is part of the immigration bill. and we had it fixed. those amendments have been reached. we have voted at times on as many as 16 amendments. there is a weakness in the bill and that is the way legislation is supposed to go this is my

offer, this is my amendment. that is the way that that legislation should be processed in the senate. i think it was 10:30 p.m. when we departed. but still no magic amendment that is going to fix every problem with the legislation. we still haven't seen it. i am going to read it. we read this one. they didn't do what the sponsors said. they had their talking points. i liked what they said. but it wasn't in the bill. i had been a federal prosecutor for many years.

it was the law that gets enforced. >> i would like to ask a couple of questions to the senators. does your amendment put enforcement before the legality? does it put enforcement but for amnesty. before the legalization is allowed to occur.

>> otherwise, we have been prepared to be complacent in dealing with us. but we do not trust washington. before we allow this to have amnesty. i can cite example after example after example. of laws and rules and promises made. and that is why we have such a massive illegal flow into america.

>> so this is the question. do we have amnesty first again? >> i have voted for amnesty, my father was going to war and it was a mistake. now, we should have seen that it was not going to work. it never happened and that is why we are at the spot again today. that is the history of it. what about this that is promised in the bill?

isn't any confidence that we will ever see being more than we thought when we passed laws previously that never occur? does your amendment require a biometric exit system as required by current law? the congress of the united states has required the executive branch, create an entry and exit visa system that is biometric that basically means using fingerprint so that you can't just bring in a document that says i am john doe and we have come into the country and we have fingerprints and when you come out of the country, your fingerprints are recorded. many companies do this at the workplace. you put your time and then you notice accounted for.

did you depart as required by law. >> well, the current law says that we will do that. that that is done. we are fingerprinting you as you enter the country. but what has never been done is the exit system when you depart the country and the truth is that there is no excuse for not doing now. that means there is an increase in visa status. there are several reasons for that. one big one is illegal flow of

workers into our country. guestworkers especially when they come in when they depart. we don't have any idea and it becomes unenforceable. this is part of the illegal entries into the united states i think we can expected. we are going to see that this is well over 50% in the future. we're responsible for illegality

and illegal entry into the country. >> that is half of the problem. more than half of the problem, frankly if this bill passes. i don't believe it's likely to do so. so current law says that there will be a biometric of an entry exit of the land and sea in the air force. >> this bill, it can be weaker than current law.

>> is that part of the deal? we have been told repeatedly that they don't pay back taxes. it's not going to happen under this legislation. no way that this will even create an attempt by the irs to go back and try to investigate persons to see who owes more taxes. >> we are using these to advance agendas. does the amendment require those that received amnesty?

they say that require learning english. >> you can do that for some within five years. at the end of 10 years, and you are in this status, you don't have to pass the course, but all you have to do is in your ninth year, the 10th month, you have to sign up for a course and you get your legal status under the belt.

does your amendment require that anyone applying for amnesty actually be interviewed. this is one of the big shocking weaknesses in the legislation. to take its illegal status, it happens within a few months. so what we do to make sure that person isn't in this situation, making sure that the person is in a terrorist. one of the most viable things that can be done in the process, it is to interview the person. it appears plainly that the bill certainly does not require interviews with what we have seen with regard to how homeland security is handling that.

they are not interviewing them face-to-face. nobody is even going to be interviewed aced her face. and actually examining to see the paperwork they are submitting has any validity at all. many times it can identify weaknesses and we do further investigations. large numbers of people can get status that they don't deserve in utilizing fake documents. we can expect that to happen. and that should not happen. we are being generous under this bill with regard to the people who are given legal status. and only those who qualify should get it. people who don't qualify shouldn't get it. we are perpetuating this indefinitely into the future.

this includes violent convictions as part of the legal status. does the amendment ensured that those who do not receive amnesty would actually be deported in the future this includes assault, attempted murder, robbery. should they be given amnesty? no, they should not be given amnesty. should they be identified with some other crime? we need to be sure that the persons are going to be deported and are here illegally, because i have an amendment that is a serious amendment. it would help move us from this present system to one that can actually work.

well, i just know that, madam president,. >> this includes government employees and how it is signed. this is what the gentleman said. he is writing on behalf of the 7600 agents and officers. according to the national journal, we are working on an amendment with the bill. we are going to try to help pass the bill. and i am concerned that your

amendment is outlined in the article, not only providing immediate legalization before enforcement, but also neglecting interior enforcement. drastically reducing the ability of i.c.e. options to do their job while providing legals.us including gang members and drunk drivers and sex offenders. i can assure you that these are not the types of reforms sought by the american public. in fact, these are not reforms at all. he has his offices blocked from enforcing the law by political directives from the supervisor.

it is a plain fact. >> this does not include ice -- i.c.e. agents prosecutorial discretion by political appointees. there is some history to this. the i.c.e. options are just in an uproar. the morale of the officers was ranked near the bottom of the agencies they are out there risking their lives dealing with criminals and people in violation of the law and what did they hear from their political supervisor, don't enforce the law. don't follow through on what you

required to do by congressional actions these include new interior enforcement, making the current situation much worse and callis. this includes the executive branch officials to prevent removals, including removals of

criminal aliens they asked me what the gang of eight. the gang of eight wanted to hear from their special friends. they wanted to hear about the special business groups. they wanted to hear from big labor and they wanted to hear from special interest groups. now we can file cases that have been appealed and those that create disorder within the

normal operating system of immigration. >> he goes on to say that absence dramatically and drastically improves this to the interior enforcement provisions. and there is no doubt that this will undermine the constitutional rule of law. guaranteeing future illegal immigration and places the public at risk. now, that is a dramatic statement. i'm not seeing it anywhere close to being refuted. and as to the question, does it guarantee this, the congressional budget office, they did a report for us. they said all of us have benefited from this. but he is a fair man and he said

that we would only see a 25% reduction in the number of illegal entries into america if that bill is passed. it is going to be the toughest bill ever we have been told that they have said the same thing. they go on to say this. that part of this bill only fails to contend with interior enforcement weekend's interior enforcement.

i believe that this places us at risk. i know that he cares about what he is doing. this man is very impressive as a leader. he is a marine, he loves his country. he believes that this bill is bad for america and he has the courage to state that in his association has backed them up with it. are they all in it together? he goes on to say that this includes the sponsors of the amendment. this includes the safety of america before special interests. and i think that is very important. it cannot be without promoting a

piece of legislation as being the most effective improvement in history. those who are trying to say that we are making it worse. this is really disappointing. now, i wanted to kind of tease my colleagues a little bit about this amendment that we are still waiting to see and we were going to have at 6:00 o'clock last night and seven and eight and nine, 10 and 1030, now it is 11:00 o'clock the next morning. then we hadn't seen it. presumably it must be okay if we are concerned about this.

senator schumer at the markup talks about this. this is marked up to enhance enforcement at the border and there are a lot of different things that he thought were important. this includes these border patrol agents. basically, we are familiar with these issues. senator schumer said that.

just on the border alone, senator mccain and i spent a few years ago, that includes about $60,800 on the board, and the effective rate went up from 68 to 82 and we spent much more. so as i told you earlier, they spent 6.8 billion. the border will be effectively closed. so how is it that it is now supporting an amendment to 20,000 agents.

the numbers have gone way up and most people think that they are an adequate number. that includes 20,000 border patrol agents. back in the markup of may 9. so, senator schumer, our goal is to make this border more secure

and you are positive throughout. but the question is does the legislation do what you want to have done? that is the question. the border is effectively closed and we don't need any more agents. >> that is covered at about $6 billion with the new agents. what we have been talking about

here is the border patrol that is currently at about 21,000. he did to 60,000, he is talking about the amendment. we are talking about 30 or 40 $40 billion to do that. i know it is a sincere desire to put more resources at the door. and we have fiscal constraints. >> so he goes on to say that on the floor, make no mistake as we

are talking about this bill. he said make no mistake, the border will be secured as a result of this bill. so the bill is taken care of again, the point is that we are going to spend no matter what the circumstances are we are

losing sight of the fundamental responsibility of important legislation. and that is not to achieve a political end. this includes achieving a better america to serve the national interest. and i'm going to continue to ask, does this bill serve the interest of the people of the united states of america. not economically, not legally. senator mccain, just the other day, those of us who think that we need more people, we need more people to facilitate movement across our border. we want more people to come in quicker. but we have 21,000 border patrol agents on the arizona and mexico areas sitting in vehicles. what we need is not more people because in 1986 we have 4000 border patrol.

but what we need is the technology that has been developed. it seems like what senator mccain said on the floor, i think it was $980 million in our borders. we got nothing for it.

this is why the american people are not confident that anything politicians tell them include immigration particularly will ever happen. this bill in the statements of the walk, i think. with regard to the amendment, they have 5000 agents and some other things, and this is what senator schumer said back in the committee in may. during this last month. senator mccain took me to a portion of the border. we have more people on the border patrol. watch the number, i think it was triple what it was five years ago.

but if you want to have the whole thing, you guys figuring out like it was, the whole federal budget -- we could probably have 100% operational control. >> maybe we are part of the border patrol and we need to use technologies the last four years

we would've had far more reduction and we have seen. we had been in much better position to go to the american people. but i've never wanted to do that. this includes a solution through the legality. this includes amnesty to everyone here. we promise that we will fix things. but i can tell you that it won'.

there a lot of things are noteworthy that i would like to talk about as we go forward in the legislation. i think that this bill is part of the talking points memo and this is a high-quality type of memo. this is very important. the transcript of it, i think, it shows some of the misconceptions about the legislation and kennedy made

better and are their weaknesses [inaudible] well, we will talk about that. so talking points support immigration reform, even though we understand the new law is somewhat chaotic and there will be a magnet which why we need stepped-up security.

it is not so at all. it is not even close. you know, it is a virtual need immediately. not in 13 years.

everybody that qualifies under the 11 million will be given this for provisional status, virtually immediately. they can get any job in america, live anywhere in america, compete for jobs, do whatever. for about two and a half million people who came here as teenagers, the so-called dreamers, they get citizenship in five years. they have citizenship in five years. that is 2 million or 2.5 million. and certain add workers, those individuals become permanent legal residence permanently. but in five years, they get permanent legal status.

in 10 years, not 13. 25%, i think that there are people who are commenting about this. the span of those who invested in passing the bill, getting down to what the bill actually says. and that is very important.

so when the bill is paid for, you have all the money needed to fund the legislation and they claim this report that came out the other day backs them up. but it does not back them up. we need to talk about that in some detail because it is a very important matter. the cbo does not back that up. the cbo report shows this bill reducing deficits in the next decade according to this part of the bill. but in fact, it plainly states that the legislation will increase on budget deficits.

>> we will be paying some payroll taxes, payroll taxes, the fica, medicare, social security taxes withheld from workers pay. but they are not drawing social security benefits at this time. most of them are younger than not. as part of the 459 billion in taxes and fees, only about half of that comes from the income taxes that these workers are going to pay. because most of the workers are low income workers. only half of the people who are here illegally did not have a high school diploma and they are not just making this is a

sizable wage with paying any income tax, although you do pay social security and medicare withholding the payroll tax. so the number is how do they have the money to pay for all this stuff? well, they count the money from the payroll taxes. okay? that makes sense. much of it belongs to the social security trust fund. that is not money available for the government to spend on trips to africa. that is social security. using this money to offset other spe@ using this money to offset other spending that was used to pass obamacare.

so this income tax coming in, some people have other ideas. they have direct welfare payments to poor workers. therefore adding 14 billion to the own budget debt of america. so that had to do it the bill. so the individuals were allowed to work any surplus money that

doesn't medicare is not given to the united states treasury. that money is loaned by the medicare trustees. this shows the transfer of this money in interest payments that are made by the u.s. treasury

this includes other programs of the government. it is really an important issue. the night before the president's health care bill passed, they prevailed to write a letter to explain that. he wrote a letter and said that you cannot simultaneously -- what happened in obamacare was the cut medicare. medicare benefits and they use that money to fund his new health care program. claiming that it strengthened medicare because they reduce medicare costs and claimed it provided money to fund obamacare. and this was a sentence that was

very powerful. he said you cannot simultaneously use the money to strengthen medicare and pay for a new program this is exactly what has happened here. social security, medicare, it isn't enough now to pay for the amount of money that individuals will claim. we will start retiring and using health care and social security checks every month. there is not enough. there's not enough there. you cannot claim that this is on the divide mark. >> certainly, in the beginning

we have worked with this bill. and we all include marking up this bill. we were here last night working of the bill. mr. president, i think the chairman of the subcommittee on immigration, senator charles schumer has been the quarterback and leader of the gang of eight. under his direction, the basis of this bill, and it is now dependent upon the amendment. this amendment will put to rest any remaining credible concerns about border security. senator mccain said yesterday that they can't accept these provisions, and border security is not their problem. i think that all of the members,

sherman entrenched senator schumer, senator menendez, others as well. i think it speaks volumes, mr. president. he stepped out even though there is a reelection effort. i especially want to focus on as i it as i have just done. i think the senators for their work. working with the gang of eight to come up with a product that we have. a product that we have now has to do with their friends. i told bob corker about this earlier today. he stepped foot in this body.

he is mayor of the city. he is all about understanding on many levels of government that compromise is the way we get things done. we are working to get things done. >> we have a broad bipartisan vote on this measure. they follow the model and we have done this.

this includes how this has been disappointed disappointing in the years. even with this bipartisan support, the majority that we have, in this package that is part of a wonderful product, there is still a few. this is part of the consent agreement to allow for the processing of amendments. i have senators wanting amendments. they have ideas on how to improve this bill. we have heard from the senate republicans that they want to offer amendments and we should be able to do that,

mr. president. as i have indicated to the two republican senators, senator corker, senator hoeven. we are going to continue to try to work before we finish this legislation. we are going to continue to work on that. but we haven't been able to overcome objections of a small minority of senators to the

senate will vote monday evening and we will vote cloture on the security amendment. we will continue to work to help process legislation this includes the 230 plus years that we have in the country, this legislation, we are going to pass it in this body. it is historic.

we have done is good for our country in so many ways. of the congressional budget office demonstrated, it will be the largest boost to the economy we have seen in a long time. we have almost reduced the debt. and in the process we are going to increase the security of this great nation. mr. president, i have indicated the part of the subcommittee chair. this includes ted kennedy who tried to do this the best that he could. he was chairman for decades. i'm sure that he is, and wait until next friday, he's going to smile at all this because this is a remarkable and good piece of work that he tried to do for a long time.

this country is a nation of immigrants. i have to say just a couple of more things. my wonderful wife is here in america today because her father came here from russia. he and his people were persecuted against. one thing he did accomplish, he fathered my wonderful wife.

an only child. as a result of that, i have five wonderful children, 16 grandchildren, that is what immigration is all about. that is why this country of ours has found immigration as a source of vitality and not a burden. this has been part of america's genius. i'm very proud of this body. >> the senator from vermont. >> i appreciate the comments. and i will be speaking further on this later this week or this coming week i thank him for getting us here. i am reminded that legislation is about making tough choices and it's not about standing on the sidelines. you can get a perfect solution that way.

because it is part of vermont. this includes achieving bipartisan immigration reform. this includes those who are in the judiciary committee, debating this bill. what was initially a proposal when the gang of eight became part of this committee process, since this was part of bipartisan talks that have continued, the circle of numbers supporting and has continued to grow. i want to speak next week more

about these numbers. but i hope that my friends won't be embarrassed when i mentioned something very few people know about. that is a 10-pound battery on his cell phone it is the only way he can keep making those calls to notice in the west at all hours of the day and night. it is trying to include immigration reform legislation.

so this is not the amendment that i had drafted. i'm just pointing out the main parts of it. the modification reads like a christmas wish list. there are those that are part of this with our friends at the other side of this amendment. expensive services, technology, hardware mandates. it is combined.

>> so these border positions are requiring significant congressional oversight. i worry that our friends talk about border security. the high cost of these projects. we talk about programs and people who need medical research

some of it was going to militarize hundreds of american communities in the southwest. so my friends on the other side of the aisle, we have republican support for these pieces to reunite family. so i think all of the senators, both republicans and democrats.

so there're there are too many people living in the shadows. we should be allowed this. i'm will support this modification amendment. again, i don't want anyone to mistake what i am saying. there are many areas, both republicans and democrats have come together. i yield the floor. >> the senator from north dakota. >> thank you, mr. president. sir, we have now filed this amendment. i believe that the first order

of business for immigration reform is to secure the border. americans want immigration reform and there is no doubt that they want us to get it right and that means first and foremost securing the border. i want to thank the senator how this is really crafted, crafting an amendment that puts border security first. that is what we have work to do.

>> we want to show that this is a bipartisan effort to secure the border as a first step in comprehensive immigration reform. that is what this is all about. we have provided five significant criteria some have called them requirements and conditions that must be met to ensure the border is secure and before illegal immigrants can get to a permanent status of green card -- green card status, there has to be requirements to make sure that the border is secure. it is a comprehensive southern border security plan. it is 3.2 billion worth of technology claims, unmanned aircraft, sensors, all spelled out in this legislation that

includes 700 miles on the border. this includes the system that is in place and operating so that we can enforce the workplace law. so that we not only have a secure border, but that combined with the guest worker program means that people come legally and they go back home.

all of these must be met before the green card status. i want two thank my colleague and senator corker this includes our sponsors. we are reaching out for everybody and we want to work on a bipartisan bill does. we are doing it right. with that, i give you my right to yield the floor. again, i know the tremendous efforts of my distinguished colleague, the senator from tennessee. >> i want to reciprocate and talk about the wonderful leadership the senator has provided i have enjoyed his

foresight and rationality. i want to thank him for the friendship and the opportunity to work on the legislation. >> obviously those people have cared deeply about that. it is going to give everybody in the body and the nation the ability to read this piece of

legislation before the cloture vote occurs i want to thank you for the way that we have worked together. we have tried to work through republican sensibilities. so that do you have a bill that not only needs -- meets these needs, but i want to thank them for the honest efforts in this regard. i want to say that i believe and i believe that we do have a history. ..hadows and work in

the light and be a part of this great, great nation in the way that has dignity and respect. so i want to thank all involved. i want to again turn to the senator from north dakota and thank him for his relentless efforts over the last nine days, tell him that i look forward to helping cause this to go across the finish line, and i know this is just the beginning. there are going to be some trials and tribulations, and there is going to be a lot of controversy, i understand that, but i think all of us came here to solve the big, big problems of our nation, and to me that's a privilege, it's an honor and certainly it's been an honor to work with you, and with that, i yield the floor to the yield the floor to the >>es with that i yield they floor to the distinguished fro senator from newm york. hard >> the senator from new york. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues from tennessee other tennessee, hard work, diligence. one of the hallmarks of a should truly outstanding legislator

is the ability to walk in diffee the other person's shoes and mt something we should all try to do. to see why the other side thinks differently and comes h to meet somewhere in the middle.ment that is what my good friendg anom tennessee has done throughout the years in the senate and he has had nogue froh finer moments and this strong ever on immigration ey, i reform. i want to say the same about my colleague from north dakota. c this is not easy. that, this is tcourageous.o tha you are doing the rightur thing for your country, and lder with that there is a great deal of satisfaction. i want to thank our great leader, his steadfast, a serve nkiet style gets thereant to tha anything in this body. he is my friend and he is a great leader. leadersp. i am proud to serve under him and i want to thank the hav chairman of our committee come for his steadfast leadership and the other seven members

of the gang of eight we have become friends, we have nat argued with each other, we have bonded with each other broe but most of all we areit's a united in this effort to make your nation better by fixing our broken immigration system. lets it is a wacky system. it turnaws away people who will create jobs and lets people across the border whoow will take away american jobs.e forward it makes no sense. f mr. president, we are nowcohense ready to move forward with in this amendment. the bipartisanship of comprehensive immigration reform launched in january with this amendment. sat make no mistake about it. to satisfy anyone completely but together, the amendment in the bill to get us to the

comprehensive immigrationfo reform signed into law. sthi it is easy to focus on things and that is what hasy some effort after efforts at th from the most democratic to republican. and accept commonsense solutions for the 11 million living in the shadows and for future immigration reform if they're convinced there won't be wave after wave of future illegal legislation immigration, and that is just

what this bill does. that's why it's a turning point. this amendment, the offering of this amendment is a turning point. we've always known there would be large numbers of democrats to support final passage of this bill in the senate, but this amendment gives us the real chance of getting a very significant number of our republican colleagues. i believe a large bipartisan vote in this body will change the dynamic in the house to make them far more amenable to passing immigration reform. i believe a large bipartisan vote in this body will wake up our colleagues on the other side in the house, ask them to live up to their responsibility to fix our broken immigration system for the good of the country. hopefully as congressmen, look how their senators voted. they will be influenced by it and take the same kind of courageous stand that the

senators from tennessee, north carolina, north dakota, rather, and many others have taken. mr. president, there have been three main objections to comprehensive immigration reform as we have moved forward. first, that the process wasn't going to be open. second, that it was going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money, and third, that it would not close down our borders. i believe with this amendment we answer all three resoundingly. on the first, the fact that we need an open process. this process has been tremendously, completely, transparently open. the bill was filed way in advance of the committee -- of the committee markup of the bill.

amendment after amendment was debated and debated and debated. many amendments were accepted, many from the other side, many were rejected, but it was an open process and the leader has endeavored to make that process be open on this -- on the floor as well. some others -- some of whom have actually complained about the lack of openness of the process have delayed our ability to offer amendments, but hopefully that will end soon. the second objection that will cost money. that was successfully debunked this week by the c.b.o. report on this bill. it said three things. it said first, it will reduce the deficit by $175 billion this decade and another $700 billion in the next decade. there is a lot more deficit reduction in this immigration reform bill than many other bills that we have voted for

whose specific goal is deficit reduction. second, it will grow our economy. imagine, it's almost like an elixir. g.d.p. grows over 3% this decade and another 5% in the next decade. what we have struggled to do to what we have struggled to do to what we have struggled to do , to get even one-quarter as much growth, with programs that either spend money or cut taxes, but the vitality of humanity, a struggle -- even those that risk call to come to america is perhaps the greatest economic engine of them all. and the cbo recognizes what that would do and third, it will create jobs at a time when we worry about the future job market in the ratio of retirees to those

who are working. this bill is the best antidote. finally come on the border border, there is no bill tougher on the border there is no proposal tougher than this one. we created virtual human fence there are enough border agents to be on guard from san diego, california to brownsville, texas, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days per year year, 1,000 feet apart for every minute the clock ticks. no one, no one would be able to cross the border with that number of people on the border is a view to what -- virtual human fence and maybe it -- may have asked for that to protect the border.

visa the three major objections we have answered them resoundingly. we have answered the fact the process may be open to make it transparent. we have answered the view it will cost money to show it will save money. we have the answer the view that the border will not be secure by the addition of the amendment. there is anyone other objection lack of openness of the process costing the government money, not closing the border and other stated objections there is only one other and that is usually on stated. that is the current path to citizenship. if portions of this bill were voted on separately, most of our colleagues to oppose the bill would go for them they

certainly would vote for more border protection they would certainly vote for deficit reduction they would certainly vote for the immigration flow to create jobs. so why are they voting against it? they simply don't believe in a path to citizenship. that is fine but it should be stated. the beauty of the hoven-corker amendment is, it rips bear the real objection. no longer border security, i know what to path to citizenship that some may profess. let's debate it on that issue and by the way, mr. president, no mistake, no accident that the house wants to do pieces individually. because they don't believe in a path to citizenship. those who profess that.

but mark our words here today, no bill, and no bill on immigration reform will be signed into law by the president without a path to citizenship. it can be turned, a tough or difficult path but it is a real past. canid it is essential for any immigration reform so those you think that they can pieces without comprehensive reform are sadly mistaken. in conclusion, mr. president, we are just about halfway through the process. we still have a long road to go. of the good immigration reform will whether more storms but the addition of

hoven-corker amendment gives us a new master and women in our sale with with democrats and republicans with immigration reform signed into law by the president of the united states. >> before my friend believes , i study legislation and i have worked on this matter for many years. as leader i have directed more attention to this than any other issue. so i understand the bill quite well. but the one thing i want to make sure before my friend leaves the floor is this. i always thought we could pass the bill. i told my friend that.

but no one common no one other than the senator from new york thought we could get 70 votes. i doubted it. he knows that. no one in this body thought we to get sex it -- 68 or 72 votes except for him. so i have watched a lot of things on the floor. i have been in congress 31 years. not as long as the senator from new york. and for the division to see this take place is remarkable. and i so i admire his ability to hang tight when everyone said leave this alone. just get a bill passed and he was not satisfied with that. that was not good enough because senator shimmer

alone, if there is some video in this committee can tell me but i don't know of anyone who agreed with him. so mr. subcommittee chair, thank you for the revision but for this vote that we will have, i am not sure we could have gotten it done. perhaps, but this is a pathway to satisfy the demand for this country, a demand what is in this legislation is agreed on by the vast majority of democrats and republicans. so thank you for your vision. >> i thank the leader for his very kind words. he is a kind man as well as a strong man to be a great friend and leader i would just add one addendum. there were others who thought i could help put

together a proposal to get 70 votes. we're not there yet. climbing each day but i think we will get there. and that is my staff.

>> when you talk about transparency to the american public, you will give signals to the adversaries as to what our capabilities are and the more specific you get about the program and the oversight, the more specific you get about the capabilities and the success to that extent you have people sitting around saying now i understand what could be done with our numbers in yemen and the united states and consequently i will find another way to communicate. i will keep that in my mind. there is the price to be paid for that transparency now to identify where the capabilities are is out of our hands. you tell us to do it that way we will do it that way but there is a price to be paid for that transparency.

>> as we march north he writes, the time has come. it looks like we have a chance because it had not been settled yet, this was may or june this is our chance. to maybe hit them again och -- to bring the lincoln administration to the negotiating table.

but he formed a three man commission that would negotiate with the lincoln government upon a confederate victory in pennsylvania. so he went north to settle. >> this subcommittee meets

to receive testimony of fiscal year 2014 budget. to review the cost, schedule, performance given it is the largest acquisition program in the history of our nation. with context to develop the aircraft and fiscal year 2014 alone the president's budget request from the strike fighter program is eight point* $7 billion to continue development of test and procurer of 29 aircraft to begin a formal modification program. there will be to panels for the first one i will welcome under the secretary of defense acquisition of logistics' thank you for coming in the chief naval operations admiral, thank

you for being here and chief of staff general mark welsh and assistant commandant general paxton thank you am program executive officer lt. general bottom. thank you. on the second panel we will hear from the honorable michael gilmore of the gao acquisition sourcing management team and senior fellow and michael hammond. thank you for being here and we will take your testimony. i am concerned of the defense acquisition program that cost taxpayers billions of dollars more than what the department and congress originally signed up for. the program had more than its share of car group -- problems over the last decade and reads like a textbook on how not to run a

major acquisition never. for instance the government turn over complete oversight responsibility to prime contractor on a cost reimbursement contracts resulting unquestionable design decisions and cost overruns and delays. the extreme -- extreme overlap of concurrency guarantee the unit cost would be considerably higher than the $69 million we originally planned. that said, ryan told the program is starting to turn the corner with cost and schedule. about the increasing slightly and moreover to modify aircraft have decreased by 47%. to show the aircraft's structure in in within normal limits and i look

forward to hearing these achievements as well of the better understanding of the process. i want to hear what steps are taken to ensure that we learn from this experience and not repeat mistakes. this hearing must address the remaining development development, risks, entire cost of the program and more than any other options like the aircraft in new guinea to provide an opening statement and ask you keep them brief so we can have more questions and now we will turn it over for opening remarks. >> mr. chairman i am pleased to join you to welcome these distinguished witnesses to review the of 35 -- f-35

joint strike fighter and the fund needed to provide for tactical aircraft. with the threats to the security we looked forward to hearing your testimony and appreciate your assistance. thank you. >> thank you senator cochran for the first witness is the honorable frank kendall. >> i asked my a written testimony being admitted to the of record. members of the subcommittee i am delighted to discuss the f-35 joint strike fighter this is a critical program in the nation with the ability to have power from the air is essentially our armed force forces fight and with the technologies -- technological area in the air we cannot be which lacks

rubber to focus on acquisition aspects of the program. my experience with the f-35 dates back spring of 2010 hour focus has been on the efforts to control cost of the program and achieve a more stable designed to increase the budget to more economical quantities. indications at this time that these efforts are succeeding but we still have a lot of work left to do. we are now about 90% of the ways to the program and 40 percent of the way of the program. coming from the unit cost breach it has been executing with modernist -- my schedules and they're still rests with the final block of software. also the potential for surprise of the remaining test program including flight testing and

structural testing. our intention is to complete the effort within the planned cost and schedule and however we may need to make adjustments. on the whole comment that f-35 designed today is more stable than three years ago. in 2011 concluded given the design issues we saw at that time and the uncertainty of how soon it would be resolved, they're not willing to increase the production rate. the f-35 is one of the most current programs and have never seen. there is a high degree of overlap between that phase in the production phase of the program and mr. chairman anders and this is of high interest will be willing to address in more detail and with the 2013 budget request we kept the rate flat over the next two years and i seriously considered stopping production at that time but the cost of disruption that would resolve would be considerable so the better

course until the test program progresses to the point* that this fall we will be reviewing the program whether or not we have increased up production rate as is currently planned. at this point* i'm cautiously optimistic we will be able to do so. with regard to cost, we are most of the way through to escape be of effort of the funds and since 2010 production costs has been stable in their coming down as dimension. roughly consistent with estimates we have been tightening the contracts beginning with 2010 which is the first fixed-price incentive contract and then we tightened the terms for there to lower the cost despite the we did not fix the production rate for the first time what he was required to share the cost associated with design changes due to currency what six and seven are in negotiation and these

lockheed will bear of cost. at this point* we have a solid understanding of the cost as they represent the ability to lower the life cycle costs going for now we're focused to find ways to reduce competition to take creative steps to lower those costs as well. the bottom line is we have been making steady progress to stabilize the design and control costs and a lot of work remaining we should not be surprised if bad news does occur in we are a long way to go. but i am cautiously optimistic we can increase production beginning in 2015 as planned. >> admiral greenert. >> thank you chairman forsythe the of jay discuss the future of naval aviation to me that f-35 is a key part of the future providing

the unique capabilities for our air wing and our carrier strike group effectively for the fleet dramatically enhancing the air wing capability immediately upon the integration. as we prepare to integrate this aircraft, we're focused on three things. one, to ensure a the f-35 that we need and integrated the f-35 charlie is effective and conforms to the carrier if passed to fit into the air way and third to understand the concept of affordable operation and sustainment. with regard to capability capability, we need the advanced sensors anza weapons and with that the ability to be closer to the

threat to detect targets to bring them together to determine what is a threat to build a common operational picture that you can engage first and just as important the f-35 charlie will share that operational picture with other tactical aircraft including the super hornet and other platforms for is a the tactical data links and it is a force multiplier to be an incredibly capable aircraft. to integrate f-35 the top challenges to reconcile to get the software program to be certified bring as weapons and the aircraft that meets the operational envelope and the folks that is reliable and precise and a display system that is

being worked right now with some deficiency in queeney negative certified and is a mansion before to integrate we needed to be carrier compatible and that evaluation will start next year. based on the joint program we are on track with the certification we have a lot of work to do but i think we have time to integrate the f-35. with the main inseams and try service meetings to me with my counterparts quarterly to go over these sorts of things and to settle what the cost will be and what are the habits for this type of aircraft? simulation verses

proficiency flying in what is the best estimate for the cost to fly this aircraft and we will work through that we have a mandate mr. kendall has given as we project we will meet this mandate but our sustainment challenges are to maintain the aircraft in the maritime environment salt water, a moving ship the humid environment and how do we maintain this environment? and we need trained sailors and if we repair it we need logistics' and one that is responsive so f-35c is designed the capability we need and will forward to looking for the program office at -- in a the affordable rates.

>>. >> thank you mr. chairman and members of the committee we appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning to discuss the joint strike fighter in the other thing should like to address. the united states has deployed roughly 7 million service members around the world and thousands have died but not a single one has been killed by enemy aircraft. the air superiority this nation has enjoyed is not an accident to maintain it is not easy. requires change their men and requires credible and technologically superior aircraft. it is critical to the security and is of fundamental power of their power but also a joint warfare and without it our maritime forces would have

to radically change how they go to war. i believe that f-35 is essential to ensure we could provide that security in the future. about on par with the orbiter that our legacy generation with sophisticated systems to employ a better service to air missile systems at a time at 2,000 aircraft is a little over 23 years of age the smallest and airforce -- all this in history we need the f-35 to stay a step ahead to make sure the future fight is the away game when conflict does occur and it is among partner nations and to hold any target at risk the only real viable option and which is the backbone of the fighter fleets. last year's it has shown steady progress and now it

needs stability. i am proud to lead the most people will air force on the planet and they need the right tools to help them get to the power of america. the f-35 is one of those tools and i look forward to our discussion. >> thank you. now general paxton. >> members of the committee, thank you. >> excuse me. distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss of joint strike fighter as a marine corps modernizes the aviation fleet of building there joint strike fighter remains a top priority in capabilities are an equal buy anything in the world today and this single platform we obtain the most

lethal fighter characteristics supersonic speed and extreme agility and the unmatched ability to disseminate information. this has a number of air fields worldwide to utilize and combined with the f-35c gives the nation the devil the amount of those setter capable of a fifth generation and in today's environment of denial technologies many more non state actors on the road stage to reach out to touch surface targets and necessitates it had sufficient assets to combat these assets. said to have a fixed-wing aircraft in the hip pocket is instrumental to the many success of the battlefield from the birth of marine

aviation through today. the f-35 is the tactical what we need now into the middle of this century. the f-35c is the aircraft to enhance the anticipation and the degree of protection from the sea. the f-35 will replace three models that the marine corps operates and will replace all of the fighters the b and also the electronic aircraft it is more than just a new fighter by replacing capabilities it represents a new way to do business including tactical command i thank you for your time and support and i request that will afford your questions and we always

with forward to today's crisis today and this gives us the ability to do that. >> your statement will be made as part of the record general bogdan? been a distinguished members of the subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to discuss the f-35 program with you today. i will be brief. it is not the same program as it was a number of years ago we have significantly restructure the program over the past two years to create a more realistic base line and we have adequately resource the program to meet commitments in terms of manpower, a technical expertise, and many. relative to the program's schedule executed with minor delays but on track to the schedule we put in place 2010. i am confident meeting the commitments that well allow the ioc to declare in 2015

and 2016 to meet the commitments of our initial partners to deliver airplanes to them. of us are fine no capability in 2017 we can discuss that further with a q&a. affordability is my number one concern is a priority. relative to development we have taken a mindset we have no more time and and many in the development phase of the program meaning within the resources we are given we're committed to finishing it on time and on budget. the cost of the airplane and the engine are coming down and i am currently negotiating a lot six and seven and v expect that to continue many years into the future as prices continue to come down. relative to sustaining cost it takes aggressive action

on many fronts over the life cycle cost at devil be happy to detail those during the q&a. we need to make sure our partners and services have the affordable weapon system in the future to take this seriously and technically the design of the aircraft is solid and we have solutions to all technical problems in front of us today. that does not mean in the future we do not have other challenges or discoveries but i believe we have the capability or capacity to overcome those. finally i have been at the helm six months and my promise to you and the enterprises i will continue to lead this program with transparency, and discipline. >> with five minute rounds of questions but let's concede a few points. first america wants to have air superiority.

period. over any possible enemy, second we owed it to the men and women to give them the very best that they can rely on to protect their own minds capable and successfully we also have responsibility to the taxpayer to achieve that goal to make sure we don't waste their money to develop an aircraft that meets the criteria no over 10 years ago we had a competition for this aircraft and i believe the notion was to harmonize the needs of military within the services based on a like-minded platform we were designing. the question we have to ask ourselves today what have we learned in terms of the development of this aircraft? mr. kendall you were pretty blunt you stated with your disagreement to allow production before the first test flight occurred and you

called it acquisition malpractice. the decision made by your predecessors has the same problem almost 12 years later. you are responsible for establishing the department acquisition rules and regulations. what have we learned? what would we do to limit currency and programs that we would consider? >> thank you mr. chairman i would bring that up if you did not. it is the one i am most often associated with when i first saw the schedule for the f-35 i was surprised but i had not seen a program with that degree of concurrency in my past experience. >> excuse me excuse me step back and define concurrency that the layman would understand for the record. >> it is not unusual in any

program as you come to the latter phases of development to start the production process. the key to doing unsuccessfully is you have design stability and you don't expect to find anything in the test program or any other software development to substantially change the design or the process or force you to go back to modify the product you have made for good reason to do that is to get the product in the field as soon as you can. in to have to make that transition earlier sometimes there is urgency because of a threat. it is a judgment call how much overlap between the default and the testing phase and the start of production. his stark the start of production. his starkly with a sophisticated new cutting edge design aircraft flew be a year or two into a test

flight before production we did a much more aggressive approach amanda standing is people felt that the time that the simulation our design tools are more sophisticated in me would not see a lot of problems through the test program. that was wishful thinking frankly. it flies in the face of prior experience but i will read to you from guided by a brought the draft policy that is in staffing rainout to address concurrency. in most programs there will be some degree of concern -- and currency between the developmental testing and perhaps devolve network with software that will be scheduled to occur after the production does get -- decision is made concurrency can reduce the lead time but also can increase design changes and costly retrofits after production has started.

they should determine the acceptable or desirable to agree a currency based on a range of factors. in general there should be reasonable expectation based on developmental testing of full-scale prototypes but the design is stable and will not be subject to significant changes to enter production. at milestone be the yvette based criteria for initiating production will be determined and included in the decision memorandum at that time so it is based on actual demonstration that the product is mature enough to go into production with reasonable risk. that is secretariat -- criteria and with f-35 there was a combination of factors partly with that the money was in there for production and people had a sense of inertia to get it started because the money was sitting there.

i resisted making that decision we should not be driven by the fact there is money sitting in the budget. >> let me ask you. one is an approach to acquisition and the other is the incentive that we created and you just identified. there was many sitting there to produce and the year ending or the urge to acquire the taxpayer dollar, maybe too quickly which does not sound to me like a sound decision and to identify your own personal decision not to fall into that trap. when it comes to something characterized as an definitize contractual action but that is not incentivized because it is rolled into the final negotiating cost so that

sounds like a similar situation we create the incentive to produce not to produce in a timely fashion but in the fashion and spends the money we have appropriated. is your comment? >> i have given other testimony where i talk about the pressure in our system of incentives to be optimistic and take a risk. is starts and runs throughout the whole system and they have to resist a the pressures. to look get the community to of the best to have optimism and those tend to be optimistic about what could be produced or capability built. but when they put together the budget they tend to be optimistic for what they can do with the many.

when people bid on projects they tend to be optimistic because they want the business to bid more aggressively to hope you can execute. a ripples through the system. and one to keep the risk under control uca is where we have not completely defined the job to be done and have not reached completed agreement with exactly what that job will be and what it will cost us so we start contract activity with the thought we will go back to clean it up and definitize actions sedated is pretty clear and with the development that leads to problems problems, difficulties further downstream if you looked at the history of the cost overrun and i will be publishing data you can

develop consistent a result of overruns later because with the contractors to build it and to it has not been refined and the other problem of wes uca you give up negotiation leverage and i resist then one negative them an interesting way the data pork production contracts is not nearly as negative on the development side of the house of the recess to do that there are rare occasions where we need to get to work to reduce something that is the urgent operational requirement it makes more sense to get the work started in people will be dying.

>> it sounds like it is optimism and i know we want to be pessimistic. >> we want to be realistic. thank you senator. >> mr. chairman we appreciate very much issa cooperation of this distinguished panel and i have a few questions. of the major challenge before us is trying to avoid budget decisions better needed by u.s. allies to look down the road 10 or 15 years to assess the threats and to make decisions for now that help to meet those

needs and capabilities. how do you apply that to the actual practice? are we making progress to meet the challenge? >> vice chairman, i believe believe, can you hear it? >> this should work. [laughter] >> it is amazing your instruction. [laughter] but tim and jane optimism look at the military threat of the future we tend to be pessimistic we assume the future threat with is all going and almost impossible to defeat cemented the best things money can buy in the best quantities so we have to fight that tendency

looking at the future threat we have looked very closely at the future threat to access with the global strike mission in or supporting ground activity for the indirect strike. so a fifth generation aircraft become white when they become available to the adversaries and can integrate with the fourth and fifth generation fighters are starkly clear and the reality is without talking about how many you need it the fourth generation fighter resurfaced generation they be more be efficient but they will be dead.

a continuous effort with the strange side benefit the chairman described is that we actually have actual numbers now from earlier in the program than otherwise so we start to replace projected cost with actual cost and as we apply more hours we will have a better feel for what it really means but it will drive us to consider mixed fleets

into the future. but to continue down that path. >> figure mr. chairman. >> let me first commend secretary to 94 his decisive intervention of the program and for his candor to warn us we still have serious challenges ahead and we're not there yet. so for me to ask a specific question, you have noted the court seems to be coming down does that exclude or include the cost of production? >> it is coming down. the cost of retrofit is also coming in at 25% less than indicated so we're making progress on that as well.

they started to show that risk and we did that for two reasons one was to focus to get the conspiracy changes in to the design as quickly as possible and as we go through the test program we are discovering things have to be fixed to reduce that list. as time goes on and we have a projection we will be well under control. >> talk about the price of the airplane coming down in the unit's flyaway cost it does include coming off the production line to put that

six back in. with the cost model is the estimate. >> given potential issues we don't anticipate this problem. >> the good news is both the estimates have come down 25% looking to the future of how many fix we have to make to the airplane in those to make the retrofit fix to get back on to the production line are also down 25%. taking those together back three or four years ago it is about 50% to llord now with the estimating and actual cost and i can

provide the committee that information to assure you that's. >> one way that we manage the cost of the weapons system is changing requirements for is that discussed given the limited budget? >> senator i think the cost is firm at this point*. the one thing we will have to do is respond to the threat as they occur. there is a plan to ask funds to start that that is just emerging. the threat constantly evolves an@ the threat constantly evolves and we have to stay out of it. just to mention a couple things of the cost calling for word, as we go to the test program in the areas we are most concerned are a major structural failure

roughly one testing of the aircraft and we have to more but but then the design goes down but it is not as zero. the same is true that if there was there did chemical performance are a major problem that the merges of the flight envelope that could have a significant problem of redesigned and so far we don't see a high likelihood of that possibility. >> a final question. this goes to the issue that you look at emerging threats are you confident the system is in place to present the aircraft and confident at this point* they are not? >> i am confident that our classified information is well protected. i am not in all confident our own costs --

unclassified is well protected but i am in general with the loss of design information and i will be putting policies in place to make stronger sanctions were consequences for the contractors to don't protect that well enough. a lot of that is being stored and it is a major problem. >> does that increase the vulnerability of the aircraft now that we can anticipate? >> reduce the cost and lead time to doing the own designs it is the time and effort and as you are aware these two nations are well into developing a fifth generation aircraft. that is a concern.

>> thank you for your service. general as i sit here we have to make sound money decisions and air superiority is very important. we had that a long time since the second world war. my thought is aircraft is the concept is sound. have you worked out the technical glitches? most planes and weapons systems more than others and ultimately this committee has a balance due homage we can afford. i believe we should be on the cutting edge of technology.

and from what i know and we're not in a closed hearing but what and how do we bring the cost down? economies of scale the more you produce we have to do this. some of the decisions we have to make and i do think we need this plane. can we afford this playing? and how do we afford it? day want to talk about that a minute? >> thank you. i indri we do need the airplane. can we afford it is the question. not just the committee but us as well. >> america. >> but we are asked to do is defined by national guidance

and based on the darr domain this airplane is something we need to me of what we have been assigned if there was no intent and not a requirement for the united states of america to protect against those threats we would need the airplane but that is not the case. everything we're focused on is to make sure this airplane is operationally feasible they focus on the cost of development of production over time in tottery drive the cost down? from the services perspective with the developmental tests and to but of those aircraft we have trained the pilots over

this year and over 3500 flying hours and the airplane works the pilot will tell you that the avionics are here and are light years ahead of legacy fighters said they believe the program is moving forward they are frustrated from what is utilizing the aircraft but that is from what mr. kendall described now with into the 5 miles of lightning and cannot fly within whether. but through 2016 those problems are in the past. >> will they have any peers in the world? >> the f-22 that is the only

one. >> secretary kendall you have to make decisions this gives affordability. i enlisted in the economies of scale and the cost. >> the way i started to put affordability capital programs the idea is that to require programs to do an analysis of our future budgets and the portfolio of products to the german a reasonable amount of money with their production cost for sustaining cost and many years into involvement with this policy we do that now routinely but it is an affordable program because

of the priority and we will find it a way to afford it 30 years down the road we may find out about the core structure but there is no doubt we can afford it and we need to get production up to a rate that is more economical as soon as we can spinnaker you concerned of the technical glitch of the navy or the marines? >> there are a number of technical issues to be resolved. that will be testing shortly and the helmet is still work done and at this point* in time it is on the edge and it needs to be better. the software isn't matter of time and money but those capabilities are to the performance of the aircraft

so there are a number of things to be done and no lightning strike these are all things we are looking on resolving over time we have made progress the last couple of years and died of see anything for us to get it to where it needs to be. >> the key mr. chairman, secretary kendall with that f-35 was designed to be an international program and indeed we have formal binding agreements with several other allies such as great britain, australia and i believe the israelis agreed to purchase some f-35. could you comment on what value it brings to have

international partners involved in this program from the beginning and also what cost savings to be american taxpayers are produced by these international agreements spinet there are several aspects first, as a direct contribution and with higher production rates we expect several hundred aircraft to be bought by the partner of tanner 15%. >> that makes a difference of unit cost.

and they're all still in the program and the netherlands has sent a final decision that because of budget constraints they have reduced the numbers. in addition we are starting some sales so but this is the future of tactical aviation internationally. >> thank you. general, this morning you describe that f-35 as of this generation aircraft and for other military officials one of the characteristics is the capabilities.

with the anti-access environment those who have a stealth fighters and some of the potential adversaries have a base against integrated air defense systems could you describe more fully this committee if the f-35 is the fifth generation fighter and how that technology helps us to counter emerging threats? >> that is a fantastic question. the emerging threat means it is more integrated, and it

connects quicker to things like sensors and things that can shoot you down and prevents you from getting access to a target. fifth generation in capability but with electronic protection and attack capability against the radar with the ability to move quickly with the apparent long -- the environment or what is launched at you it could break the killed chain if that makes sense. from the time they first see you to this system that will intercept if it is said ground system that is required to be intact to keep you from preventing the mission this generation technology allows you to break that chain of multiple places to operate because it

would not be in that way it is a single airplane or a system in the ground and complete submission we have been assigned. >> that is very helpful. think you've senator? >> thought good morning gentlemen and thank you for your service. general, my comments or questions will be with the role of some five the f-35 and what it may play in the benefit package and 2012 the general predecessor said the air force planned to transfer the f-16 squadron to the of mundorf air force

base with two-thirds of active duty personnel by 2015. the air force has informed us they will make a decision this fall following the strategic analysis. it had a devastating impact with the interior region the job loss is estimated at 3,000 individuals from where we are now to the unacceptable level to lay off teachers, close schools schools, a tough situation but we are not in the environment but i have described this as the back door and comes as no surprise that i along with other members have requested the air forces prohibited from implementing the

proposal in 2014. back in 2008 the air force announced to the affair bakes' community in writing to start the environmental scoping process with the f-35 than in 2009 became to learn it never occurred the we were promised because of the other f-35 so then there would be an announcement made shortly the that never came and tell me of the f-35 basic location what kind of time frame and whether or not the air force immediate decision of downsizing will be affected by possible f-35

basing in the future? >> yes senator, the secretary and i reviewed earlier this week the proposed criteria for the oversight -- overseas selection process. there is a little more work to be done and clearly coordinated with specific command and european command but that process is ongoing i suspect by the end of the month by a think the criteria will be established with the base in both europe and the pacific and alaska as part of the pacific base and also that base is on the list to be examined and sometime this fall we will produce a preferred and reasonable listing to be briefed to the congress but

i will tell you this i am looking forward to my visit in about a month to listen to the community's concerns directly and as you have mentioned we are completing fed es. . . . . >> ies is designed to inform decisions, and it seems logical

there's the animal gist to proceed it and perform from there, so i guess the question to you would be whether or not you could leave this draft ies comment place open is done, and also to invite comments then on the strategic analysis as well, whether or not you would consider that. >> senator, the path ahead that the secretary laid out for us is to take a look at the other place, the strategic analysis, i believe you referring to the one conducted by general carlisle and his team, and when he's completed that analysis, operational analysis, input from the eis, and look at costs, all the things you and i both hope were in the discussion, but i'm not sure keeping that available for public comment as he

completes the recommendation would be helpful to this process. and that's factored in, and you'll see the results of any analysis he does. >> i just might add that the concerns that i'm hearing from those who weighed in and gave that public comment is that they don't feel they've been heard on it, so it will be up north so it will be something you and folks might want to give a little extra work. >> thank you, senator. let me ask you this. i listened to your earlier testimony, and i'm trying to draw analogies that may or may not be accurate in my mind. in the financial industry, we have this phrase too big to fail, and i'm wondering if this

project is so large in scope that it was too big to cancel, that it had to continue a pace because of international partners, fifth generation demands, and have we reached a point when it comes to acquisitions in the future that we have to take this into consideration? >> as a matter, we are not in a place to consider stopping the program, the threat is driving us towards the next generation of aircraft, and our fourth generation aircraft are not survivable in future battlefields, to start over, go back 10-20 years and ininvest $20 billion in other aircraft in the f-35 does not make sense.

let me go to the one particular that you mentioned, sustainment. it's my understanding that the cost of flying the air force variant of the f35 # is 28% greater than sustaining the f16, but a report that came out in 2012, the acquisition report, estimates that the cost to sustain the fleet of jsf's over a 30-year life is $1.1 trillion which equates over 30-year period of time to $36 billion a year, which is a substantial sum of money by our calculations, by anyone's calculations. it's my understanding that one of the best ways to reduce costs is to address them early in the program, and it appears that that didn't happen as it should have in this program. what actions are we taking now to deal with the costs? >> mr. chairman, it's an inflated number of 50 years so it covers a lot of time, and a lot of inflated cost, but it's a

big number, and we have to do everything we can to drive it down. there's a long list of things, and in the list of testimony, we go through that, but the keys include looking very creatively, and see if there's other ways, and see if there's competition not leaving this in the hands of one provider, but go out, bring competition, and drive costs down. we have an initiative in the program to use call performance based approach where they provide a level of ability to do that and provide at lower and lower costs. there's a number of things to be done, and he's got a long list of things he's doing, and the general's predecessor attacked the problem, so we're not just starting on this. you can, i think, argue we started this too late. we should have done it earlier, but we are giving it the full attention now. >> general? >> sir, there's primarily three

areas that i'm taking action in right now to try to reduce the costs, and the first area as was said was there are different portions of the sustainment life cycle of the airplane that we, over the next few years, will compete. for example, support equipment on this program is well known, and we know where the support equipment needs to come from, and we know what it's designed like. there's no reason in the world why i need to buy the support equipment for the airplane from a single supplier who goes out and contracts with many other suppliers to buy that. we will complete that type of thing. another example is on the global supply chain. we will have airplanes all over the world in the next 10-15 years. there's no reason to believe that a prime contractor whose niche is building in manufacturing airplanes could be or should be a global supply

class expert. there's other companies out there to do that, and we'll explore those cines of options, so competition is one piece. there's a second piece that we're working on very aggressively called the reliability and maintainability program. until a few years ago, this was on airplane on paper. we did not have airplanes flying. today, we have over 7,000 hours under our belt, and we're 5,000 shorties. the information i'm gaining from flying those airplanes today in invaluable. i can show you a list of the 50 top parts on the airplane that are breaking more readily than we thought they would. we can show you the 50 parts on the airplane taking longer to repair than they should by systematically looking at reliability and maintainability program where we attack problems by either redesigning the parts and finding a second supplier or better repair parts organically

stay by standing up the depots. you can begin to attack the reliability and maintainability of the program. we couldn't do that a number of years ago because we didn't have any real data. we have a lot of that data now so we are doing that. the third piece is that that 1.1 trillion estimate that you talked about has an awful lot of assumptions in it that those three gentleman at the other end of the table have a lot to do with in terms of how many -- how many hours does each pilot need to fly relative to getting training in the simulator. how many maintainers do i really need on the flight line to launch this airplane? those kinds of assumptions which we put in place many, many years ago that came up with this 1.1 trillion number are now being relook at because we know more about the airplane, and they, with their advice and with their assumptions, we will go back in and now relook at the con cement

of operations for maintaining and sustaining the airplane and adjust those numbers. i personally think you'll see over the next few years those numbers coming down, sir. >> thank you very much. senator cochran, your follow-up? >> mr. chairman, i have a follow-up question. the marine corp. is indicated that the marines expect to save up to $1 billion per year in operation and maintenance cost by having one type of tactical aircraft in inventory and billions of dollars saved over the last decade by not recapitalizing the marine corp. with fourth generation aircraft, and waiting to recapitalize with the f-35. given increase f-35 cost and production delays, is this still true, or is it time to start looking at alternatives? as well as continued commitment

to the f 35 program? >> well, thank you, senator cochran. i believe the basic premise of the previous statement, and then connected to the comments that the general made, the basic premise of cost and affordability is true. it's coming down, and as we actually have more flight hours and more shorties and more reliability of the data, we have better ability to predict the actual fly-away cost as well as the cost per flight hour for the aircraft. i come at this a little differently opposed to the gentleman at the other end of the table who are technicians or aveuaters. i'm app infan try guy, so when i looked at the program in the viability and the value of the program, sir, i go back to the basic premise that we have three type model series we're going to do away with, the fa16, the ebfv. there's a cost savings in necking down the tight model series. in addition, as we get more

reliability z and actual facts from the hours, we have the capability of collapsing the maintenance doab at the depot level, organizational level, and we have ma reaps there now turning wrenches on things we didn't expect to happen this early in the program because we've been able to identify where the failure is and what they can actually do, so i believe as the program and the value of stability in the program, it's not an issue of too big to fail, sir, but an issue of stability and using state to create advantage in then opportunity. i'm confident we can bring the costs down on this, and then that bat tub we're in with aging fourth generation legacy aircraft will be out of there, and we'll be into the fifth generation aircraft to optimize used around the world and many

more places to do many more things. >> thank you, senator. >> thank you very much. >> i want to go back, if i could, to the technical challenges because the general leaves it to some of them, and what are say the top three challenges? is it software? expand your own? is it metal fatigue, problems? metal production, met call failure, of that? what is it and i'm sure off l us hadn't be satisfied, but i feel they will. >> [inaudible] >> is that important? >> it is. >> okay.

the top three op my list are the software, and the block three capabilities are critical, and so we need to get that done. we have to make decisions for the software looking at it very closely this fall. second thing is the cockpit of the airplane is designed around the ability to see the structure of the airplane and all things needed to operate esksively. there's a number of issues there that we'll be working, and mentioned we're at the edge of what's acceptable, but not where we want to be. the third thing is the thing that came up a moment ago, reliability. we're not where we need to be on reliability right now, and i think we can do better on that. we're by a significant part right now in terms of reliability that we're actually seeing on the airplane. we have to improve it. that's my top three, and chris can add anything.

>> general? >> sir, i would tell you software, software, software, and realistically, it's right, it's number one op the list, and he talk about that. >> the software, if i could, and correct me if i'm wrong, it, expanding software, you know, software, that would help you expand the envelope capabilities. >> absolutely, sir. >> that's key. go ahead. >> the software op the program, fist of all, just to give you some perspective, the airplane itself has 10 million lines of software code in it. that's about five times more than any other airplane ever developed. that's just on the airplane. the maintenance system, the admission planning system has another 10 million lines of code on it. this is virtually a fine

computer. if you don't get the software right on the program, all the things that general welsh in the casino and the marine corp. talk about are not going to work right. we have many sensors op the airplane, and they all have to talk to each other to provide the pilot with the situational awareness he needs to go into those very high threat environments. if you don't get the software talking right to the sensors, you will have a problem. the good news there is over the last two years, we have made significant progress in the way we develop, test, and field software op the program. we are cautiously optimistic that in the future what we learned over the last two years are applied # to the future, but that does not mean we're out of the woods yet because the hardest part of the software development on this program lies ahead of us in our block three, and that's why we attempt to take all the information from

one's open airplane to another f35 flying next to you, and all the other sensors that we have in our arsenal and put that together to give that pilot a picture. >> do you believe you can do it? >> i do, sir, and the reason i believe that and cautiously optimistic is because a lot of the foundation of what we need to do in 2016 and 2017 we're flight testing today, okay? it's working. it's not working perfectly, but there are no things that i look at in the future relative to soft ware that i do not think we can overcome to be honest with you. a couple years ago, i'm not sure we could have said that on the program partly because we have not flight tested much of it, but we have 40% of the flight testing done now and starting to learn more. one of the other things that he didn't mention that's always op my mind is the maps system on this airplane is a huge

information technology system. we call it "house," and what it does is it combines both the maps of the airplane, the supply chain for parts on the airplane, and the training for the maintainers and the pilots and puts it all together. that system shows great promise, but that system, like any other complicated information system of software, has got serious problems, okay? what we did over the last year instead of keeping that lo gist ticks maintenance system in that part of the development program organizationally, we pulled it back underneath our engineering team so they are dedicating the same kind of software work used on the airplane to the maintenance system. i believe over the next two year, and you can hold me accountable for this, we will see great improvement. >> general welsh, do you have anything to add to that? >> senator, i'm pretty confident because, one, it's not the same

thing, and it's not nearly as complex as doing it on the actual airplane. we integrated this concept in the simulator, working well for training for some time. there's not as many lines as code in the simulator, but it works tremendously well. one pilot described it to me like you fly around in a 200 miles per hour bubble of information. that's the concept and why the helmet is important because that's how it's relayed to the pilot, but the intreg gages, everything as a young fighter pilot, i thought, boy, i wish i knew x. x is now available to somebody flying the f-35. it's displayeded for you on an easy to understand concept. the biggest problem for the pilots is figuring how, how do you manage the information? that's what they focus their training. >> thank you, senator. good question, and i think it puts it in perspective what we're talking about here. who could have imagined 12 years ago when somebody said let's do a joint strike fighter, what the evolving threat would be that we

face today and will face in the future, what the evolving technology would be. couldn't have dreamed we'd carry these around in the pocket. maybe we could have, but i wouldn't of, and we are dealing with that, and it takes a sen of optimism, mr. secretary. it's not negativings but it's a positive when it comes to our view of as americans, taking a challenge head on and conquering them. despite setbacks there, we are on set to the development of the plane that make people safer. thank you for the testimony today. we'll have the second panel come on now, and i'll come by and say good-bye to you. thank you for your testimony. director of operational test michael gilmore, michael sullivan, and that will be the next panel.

[background sounds] >> we're going to welcome the second panel here unless we've got name tags that are switched. there we go. our fifertion witness is ordinary reason and prudencal director of test and evaluation, dr. g iring's -- please proceed to your oral testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator cochran, senator shelby. i agree with the statements made by previous panel members that the program now is on a sounder basis than it was back in 2009 proceeding the review and the restructuring and the technical baseline review that extended all the activities extended into 2011. they put the program on a much

firmer basis by taking a hard nosed look, a rigorous look at past program performance, and i'm not talking about and gent programs, but programs like f22, what it took to make them operational, what were realistic assumptions to have test points that needed to be flown, what could modeling and similar police station tell you -- simulation tell you versus what the aircraft had to tell you. how many aircraft did you need to do testing? we added a significant number of aircraft to conduct the test program. we added substantial number of test points not relying on simulation or unrealistic assumptions about so-called test efficiencies which the program office unfortunately is talking about again. i also agree with the statements made by lieutenant and mr. kendal there are many important challenges that remain.

in particular, the block 3s software to provide thee most important combat capabilities, yet to be flight tested, it's just beginning in an early version of it just getting development. what's the history of flight testing that software up to this point? well, looking at the most recent data from the program office in preparation for the hearing, as of the end of may of this year, not all block test points have been completed and were supposed to be completed some time ago. the block 2a software test program, flight test program was to complete in february 2013. according to the integrated master schedule version 7 that the program office is funded to, my estimate that it did not occur, that flight testing did not finish in at the end of february, and my estimate is that it could extend anywhere from january of 2014 to august of 2014.

the block 2b, and master 7 supposed to finish flight testing in may 2014, and my current estimate based on pressures i see building in the program is it finishes around december 2014. now, admittedly, these are not the multiple year disconnects with reality that existed prior to 2009. these are six to 12 months in schedule slippage in the schedule in which the program is funded. that is, obviously, improvement, but it demonstrates that as many of the previous panel members have said, this is an extremely complex undertaking, and it's very difficult to project with any certainty, although, doing a much better job than we had been, how long it takes to finish complex developments and demonstrate in testing that they work. some of the previous panel members talk about 90 #% of the development is complete. well, that depends upon how you define "development."

to me, development is not complete until capabilities demonstrated through testing to work. what we are finding is that we discover a number of testing to sort through and fix once we actually start the flight test program. i would note that the peo that was noted that the block 2b software program is just a few weeks out of step with this current schedule, and that is true, but the schedule is based on a rebaselining done back in november 2012 that add the 3 # 1 weeks to the development program for the block 2b software and subtracted 31 weeks from the flight test program. that's a concern to me because that means the flight test

program is undergoing the squeeze, and i'm afraid it means unrealistic assumptions are made about flight test deficiencies, and i hope that that decision to increase the 31 weeks needed for development in the software, prudent based on what we have been seeing, but to then subtract 31 weeks from the flight test program so the fleet release of the 2b software stays there in 2015 consistent with needs for operational testing and brain core. i hope that's not a hair bin jeer of decisions made earlier in the last decade which yields the need for restructuring. finally, you mentioned a concern about how to reduce risk, what lessons should be learned, and it was mentioned we needed rigorous developmenting testing and wait longer before we begin production. i mean, production in this program started before there was any flight testing at all, which

was unprecedented in history of aircraft development programs, and so that's about as concurrent as you get. that's pretty much 100% concurrency. obviously, that's a bad thing. we need more rigorous testing, we have to let the developmental testing proceed before we make production decisions, but let me also say that my experience with early operational assessments where we take versions of aircraft tanks, other military equipment before a production decision is made, before a decision to go to low rate initial production, put it in the hands of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, let them tell us what the problems are that they see at that point, even though when we -- you know, with we start production, low rate initial production, we have a ways to go in terms of developing all the final capabilities -- let the actual people who have to use the equipment and rely on it tell us what the problems are that need to be or -- urgently fixed before we ramp up

production. by the law, we do operational test prior to full rate production, but i see value to doing oaring's name assessments prior to the decision for low rate production. i thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, dr. gilmar. dr. sullivan. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. chairman, senator cochran, senator shelby. it's a pleasure to be here this morning to discuss the f-35 joint strike fighter acquisition program. as the chairman pointed out, the program is now 12 years old having begun in 2001. since then, it's development cost grown by more than 20 billion, and the estimated average cost to buy one f-35 doubled from about 69 million to 137 million. clearly, the programs original business case was deeply flawed. in 2012 after the program

breached its cost estimate, the department reset the business case, talked about that on the first panel, and they added significant dollars to the cost estimate, more time to deliver aircraft, and since then, the manufacturing process appears to have stabilized and has shown progress in delivering f 35 aircraft. today however, we are here to discuss risks to the business case moving forward, and from our perspective, there are three. these are software development, concurrency between flight testing and production, and the funding asuggestions from the program that underpin the current business case. ..

>> this creates risks that problems found during testing force design changes so have to be retrofitted to aircraft in production or already delivered at a distant -- additional cost to the government. the current cost estimate assumes annual funding of more than $12 billion on average for development and procurement over the next. . .