that's basically the same elements sns 15. someone better prepared on the panel could probably answer that made. what can an f-15 kerry? any pilots here? i'm not a private. i'm a ground guy. >> they can carry 1,002,000-pound bombs. i think a reaper would be limited to around 500 pounds. >> you can carry 2500 pounders?

the air force aspirated fees air force aspirated these and their unfunded requirements. it was not under dana chairman smark where the base bill so what i have done because there is such limited funding has gone into operations and maintenance for the defense contract management agency the defense information systems agency the defense media activity, the office of the secretary of defense, the washington headquarters services, the executive general and special schedules, printing and reproduction purchase communications, in management professional support services. hitting all of those we have come up with $120 million which is the cost for the eight unfunded reapers that the air force has requested. this is a choice by thing for us between good graphics at the pentagon or a uav that is tried and true that has led the uav

boom that we have had in this country. it is the predator which is the reaper. it doesn't need any more development. our soldiers sailors and marines use it every single day. it has done more good probably then many of these weapons systems we are talking about here and i think it's a worthy trade-off. with that i yield. >> the gentleman yields back treated mr. wittman. >> thank you mr. chairman. i reluctantly oppose this amendment. i understand representative hunters concerns about the mq-9 bieber. it's definitely a great platform. we do need isr platforms. this platform does even more than that but again you go to where the offsets are. these operation and maintenance accounts may be seemingly innocuous but when you take them down to a critical level you go to the point where you'll be able to take away the capability with the most accounts a man of the terms of those accounts when

you are talking about the media ability for the department of defense and those kinds of things seem like we can take this down without consequence but we have already harvested as many of these low priority funds as we can without going past the point of having irreversible effects within dod and again as i've said we look carefully throughout her readiness accounts understanding that operation and maintenance accounts are those critical elements of readiness. we talk about those each and every day making sure sure that we are properly training but then maintaining too those operational elements for our forces. these elements become problematic when we take them down to these levels and we have gone through this budget scrubbed it top to bottom and carefully tried to balance future and current readied his needs great as i said again it is critical that we look at those elements of funding as it relates to any understanding the

mq-9 reaper and its ability in what it brings to the battlefield three justices chairman said this is a choice between good and good. very difficult decisions and one that i would ask you to consider deeply about what the effect will be on readiness accounts and how we have scrubbed those to take out everything that's low priority in every place we believe we can go without having long-lasting effects on the readiness of our forces. without mr. chairman i yield back. at. >> mr.. thank you very much mr. chairman. i would like to thank mr. hunter for his work on this amendment. we have enjoyed a good bipartisan relationship on the issue as well as other. i agree with him and his interest in adding the reapers. i think it's an important unfunded priority for the air force and i would support the addition of eight mq-9 systems

and urge my colleagues to support it. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes sir. >> i think the g-men from california. desoer for windows and chairman wittman too we specifically chose these funds because they don't touch anything operational so no operational o&m accounts are touched by this. this is all in their rear with the year pentagon baloney that gets cut so the guys on the ground can have what they need. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. chairman i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'm afraid i will have to disagree with mr. hunter as to one small portion that he is claiming and that would be the defense information systems agency. while it might sound like it's in the rear with the year that

agency provides all the classified communications backbone for our military for the department of defense. so any cut to this would impact the operational and would vary adversely impact our classified mitigation system. so if mr. hunter were willing to amend his proposed amendment to take out that portion relating to defense information systems agency i could certainly concur with the rest of it when talking about things like operation and maintenance for purchased communications and that sort of thing. i don't have any problem with that but i would respectfully have to disagree with the member regarding the discount. so if he were willing to amend his amendment i could vote for it but unfortunately i'll have to concur with mr. wittman absent that change. >> the gentleman would deal. ci will yield. spear will be willing to go to dod and tell them how they can

save $10 million by doing it much more efficiently and effectively and not wasting money like they are right now. >> are you yielding back? >> yes i certainly agree with that as long as we don't take it out of -- i yield back. >> is there any further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment that offered by mr. hunter. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. do you want a roll call? i think my ears couldn't quite go that far on that one. the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. are there any other amendments?

>> mr. chairman i had an amendment. >> mr. has an amendment at the desk. will the clerk please read the amendment. without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair recognizes the gentleman from california mr. for the purpose of offering in explaining his amendment. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. in light of the failure of mr. hunter's motion i would offer a different a4. my proposed off said would deal with -- i think it's more important to provide $120 million for eight additional mq-9 system which is an unfunded party they are forced to authorize budget plus-ups for the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility or mocks. the department of energy has decided to cancel mock student on portability. mocks costs have increased to a total lifecycle cost of

$30 billion for construction and operation which is unaffordable. the facility is supposed to operate for only 15 years. the increased proposed $120 million over the budget request will not buy back anybody to justify its increase and annual appropriations on the level of 802 to $900 million annually with the required two build mocks operations of at least $500 million annually. the department of energy is conducted a study of alternatives and identified alternate down blending in disposal that cost a fraction of the cost. after the 800 billion dollars was removed which is more than the president's request $196 million in requested budget authority will remain to sustain a low-level operations in mobs to transition to a cheaper alternative. i ask members to adopt my memo to allow the air force mq-9 reaper units to deploy with a air path they plan on and they urgently need. mr. chairman i yield back.

>> any debate on this? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. wilson. >> i am in opposition. i certainly agree that we need to be funding the reapers but the consequence of what has been proposed would undercut the ability to complete the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility. the people of the united states need to know whom port this facility is in terms of environmental cleanup and in terms of nonproliferation, in terms of our national security. the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility is designed to provide for the conversion of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium and to make it into fuel, green fuel for production of energy that nuclear power facilities in our country. additionally 62% of the facility is completed.

additionally something very important to the people that i represent is that if we don't process the this fuel we have weapons-grade plutonium that is in the community i represent but it's also in south carolina but adjacent to the state of georgia. i also want to point out that it provides for a breaking of an agreement, a treaty that we have with the russian federation on nonproliferation that would require we renegotiate and as we can certainly see this is not a good time to be renegotiating with the russian federation. finally i agree with the congressman that there has been questions about cost alternatives. that is why we have a warning in the legislation that would provide for a nonpartisan federally funded research development study of alternatives to the reprocessing of the weapons-grade plutonium. finally this is bipartisan and

i'm grateful in the last two weeks that virtually every member of the delegation in georgia including congressman jim clyburn of south carolina john barrow of georgia all have signed on to a letter supporting the completion of mocks. i yield back my time. >> mr. cooper. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me stipulate that joe wilson is one of the finest members of this committee. i'm a fan of all the members of south carolina and georgia but it's still an earmark folks. the chairman and i had a short conversation earlier and it was his understanding that someone in the administration requested this. i just got an e-mail and they did not requested. dod did not request this. there is a base level of $196 million in the president's budget. that's fine and i'm not disputing that but surely $200 million is enough for our friends in south carolina for a debt project area this is just an earmark.

this is a zombie earmark. this is a dead project and it's not enough to give a $200 million. we are going to give it another $120 million because we love joe wilson and jim clyburn. there's another mystery here in some might even call it miracle. because we are witnessing a birth. the only way he can claim this is not an earmark is that happened without anybody being involved. it just happened. to my knowledge there has only been one birth and that was about 2000 years ago. i don't think any birth happened in this committee so mr. chairman if this amendment fails i plan on making a point of order pointing out as you rightly said at the beginning of this mark there are going to be no air marks on this bill.

this is a 120 million-dollar earmark. just because it's big doesn't mean it's not anearmark and as i said if we are going to earmark something let's not earmark it for zombies. there has got to be a better way. so i respect the gentleman from south carolina and i respect the whole south carolina george is delegation but we have got to stop this foolishness. >> just because it happens in someone's districts doesn't make it an earmark or anything in this bill and everything the dod does that is not in the continental united states would be in your mark. i certainly think everybody welcomes your point of order and with this point of order certainly there will be a determination that you should not be the ones and making determinations for the committee. the committee has staff to look at this and others have looked at this. we certainly shouldn't vote to take money away from something based just on your representation of what is your

mark. no matter how much i enjoyed your description of how comical it was, that is just -- that would be distracting for us to just include it because you have said so. would the gentleman yield?

and because we don't want to tony and lying around we don't know which of those alternatives are going to be selected by us and the administration but we must proceed to do that. the mocks program has proven to be unworkable and expensive. so what we would need to do here is to move off from where we are the high probability that the program will continue in the savannah river site. it's not likely to move anyplace else for a variety of reasons so the job issue going forward is

not going to be impacted. what will be impacted is a bad project, a bad program that isn't going to solve the problem. now with regard to russia it's very clear that russia knows what's happening in the united states with regard to our facility. they are art of moving to a different procedure and we will take this up later when i present my amendment. >> i have a couple of questions i would like to ask. we have a lot of experts here in the room. this site is used for plutonium disposal, right? and they're supposed to be an alternative coming from the administration. we have not yet received that so where's that plutonium going to go mr. chairman? >> if i may. the idea behind this as i

understand and staff correct me if i'm wrong was that we take this excess plutonium entered into a fuel that could then be sold to nuclear sites. the problem with that is isn't working. there are no customers for it. no one is saying this going to work. it's costing an enormous amount of money more than what was expected. and fact i think the estimates are to continue down this path if we would hope at some point this is going to war would cost another eight or 900 million. to keep the project going forward. the argument of the zombie part of it getting into the whole earmark part of it with staff whatever. this project is pretty much clearly not going to work. it's going to cost an enormous amount of money.

staff, could you please answer the question? see they put five alternatives out there so their alternatives. they have hinted here and there what they were doing but there were alternatives to this so i think this is now the reason they put $195 million into it is they have to get into the process of shutting the thing down but to put another $120 million into it i would agree your marker no earmark it's a waste of money. i yield back. >> mr. chairman is a point of clarification how is the direct purchase of eight mq-9's which i love those birds not an earmark as well? you only buy it from one source.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> mr. miller. >> i yield my time to mr. wilson. >> thank you mr. chairman and i would like to clarify that in fact this is a process that will work. it has worked with reprocessing in france. we can make it work here in the united states. there have been cost overruns ranking member smith and you are correct but at the same time the different alternatives that have been proposed would cost more.

that is why the provision i would provide for a study and additional costs could be avoided by completing the project and additionally another point too is that there will be customers for this fuel. in industry of uranium-based fuel based on when the fuel could be provided and as soon as that is determined and at the last minute is when they purchase comes about. again it's going to be an offset to the cost and benefit to the people of united states but a consequence of facing weapons-grade plutonium in our country without a plan when we do have a facility 62% completed which also will work it's just

not in the interest of the american people. just to have this in place and i yield. >> mr. chairman? >> miss bordallo. >> mr. chairman i yield my time to mr. cooper. >> i thank the gentlelady. this is the report mr. chairman they came out april 2014 that lists the five options and the gentleman my friend from south carolina says that the others are more expensive. that's not sure according to this report. there is an option that is many times cheaper. we don't know what the administration has picked but i am from tennessee and i know a bit about the tennessee valley authority. i do not believe they have committed to purchase fuel from a dead project in south carolina. >> would the gentleman yield? >> it's a wonderful advocate for the project is to lead this

committee to believe that this project still has legs, the 200 million recommended by the is closing down costs. the extra 120 million everyone is denying father did this. i would like to know who was the father for this $120 million. 's. >> mr. chair would the gentleman yield? >> are you claiming paternity? [laughter] >> yeah schalit purposing clarification because as i look over and i see congressman morriston he needs to know that the so-called alternatives placing it in the state of washington puts it in the state of new mexico. we don't need to do this. this could be reprocessed and made it to fuel. it would be good for the national security. >> the gentleman needs to take a look at this report. there are even south carolina options for reprocessing the fuel. i'm not an enemy of south carolina and i would agree

further with my friend from texas mr. conaway. if you would like a pure way to use the savings of the $120 million because i too was worried that there would be swapping alternatives and cleaning up the problem. let's not let this committee --. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> just a reminder what we are talking about is an amendment to increase funding for mq-9's better on the funding request list and we have really gotten off to where the money is coming from. mr. bishop. >> i'd like everyone else would just like to speak from a little bit of ignorance and misinformation and i can be with the everybody in the rest of the committee so far. the alternatives as i understand are as proven as the other processes going on however in

foreign countries they do to this reprocessing which is the only logical way of what you get to do with this concept. i only say i have a queasiness and trying to stop this program in south carolina only because i have seen what has happened when we have tried to impose storage on another area for this type of material. we thought that before and i don't want to have to fight that again. for now i'm uncomfortable with all the alternatives that everyone here seems to verify that they want to do. i am comfortable with what our staff has verified in going forward with something and being willing to look at that again. i also if you need a parent for some air mark let me do it because if we start coming out with this issue what is it in your marker is not nothing happens. we might just take the president's budget and say that's it and we don't do anything else because anything that dissipates or is in a way

different from the president's budget will by definition be an air mark. that's ridiculous. i'm very uncomfortable with trying to make decision on what is the right alternative when we don't have a decision of what is the right alternative. i'm ready to go forward with what is in the baseball right now simply because i have no confidence in any of the other proposals that are floating out there right now and i would like to be much more confident before he moved forward. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i yield to you. >> at the question. i was just trying to get information. i know nothing about the subject but the thing you have referred to is that depository in nevada that i've never been able to use meanwhile i guess we are stacking up nuclear fuel all around the country. i don't know. is this plutonium the same thing? what you are saying is if we let go of the site even though it

isn't making money and it's costing money is plutonium something we have to get rid of? and what you are saying is out of these other four or five alternatives that people can throughout but when you try to go through nepa and get the local people ought to accept this stuff we are probably going to end up having a bunch of other alternatives and nothing happens and stuck with plutonium. is that kind of where it is? >> yes. that brings it a little more into perspective because i understand now. it's very difficult to get one of these places open. like impossible. mr. larsen. >> thank you mr. chairman. this is a clarifying for those

in washington state that are concerned about any comments made about hanford in the report as mr. cooper reported. the site is not viable. that option discussed is not mean it's an option. means it's discussed in the actual lifecycle cost estimate of that option is $3 billion more than the lifecycle of the cost estimate for option one which would be the mocks facility. making the case that washington state is in danger of becoming an alternative is not a viable argument and with that i would yield back. >> all i know is that is at eagle mountain or what is the name of the place in nevada? i will bet years ago there was probably a study and that was the problem we listed as the best alternative and that's

probably before i ever came to congress. we have been fighting over 20 some years and we have not resolved that issue. in fact we have built a huge facility. i live right close to it so i always vote against it. that's my problem. but this type of thing, unless we have some kind of viable alternative that is already approved and already been through the process we had better be careful about shutting down something that apparently is needed. >> would the gentleman yield for a moment? >> we got pretty hung up on this earmark thing and i think that's really in people's minds but apparently it was just one place in the country and it just happens to be where joel lives.

>> appointed you live there he would probably be arguing the same way he is right now. >> mr. chairman as i understand it the mocks process of removing the gleaning them from the plutonium is the super expensive way but there is a classification process in south carolina at the river plant available for one quarter of the cost. there is a place to put it. to different chemical process. it's in the gentleman some state they not be in his district but yes, its optional. >> here is what i'm going to propose. and this is kind of like the process that we go through. this is the start of a process and we have subcommittees and now we are going to fall committee. two weeks we are going to be in the floor. what i would like to do is have the staff look at this and

educate us all a little bit more about this process over the next couple of

>> i was waiting for you. i would like to have a recorded vote please. >> request a recorded vote. >> okay. i think the nose did prevail and the gentleman has asked for it a recorded vote. we will do that again with the chairman's mark. >> okay. here we go again. mr. cooper has an amendment at the desk. >> thank you mr. chairman.

>> please distribute the amendment. without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes mr. cooper for two minutes to explain his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. i won't even take the two minutes because we largely rehearse the arguments. the only difference between my amendment and the peter's amendment was i would take the $120 million from the mocks facility and use it to plus-up the operations and maintenance and readiness account that has already been shortchanged by this committee to the tune of 1.5 william dollars. that's only a partial repair but it's a start. i prefer to put money there than in a facility that has no future. having said that in deference to the late hour and the committee's patience i withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. are there other amendments?

mr. smith. >> guess mr. chairman. >> with the clerk distribute the amendment? and without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the char now recognizes ranking member smith for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. in deference to the hour at the debate we have had many times this is simply an amendment that would allow the president to close guantánamo bay. there are two things in this bill that prevent that from happening. number one is there is a prohibition on transfer of any of the inmates in guantánamo bay to the united states the united states in number two is prohibition on spending any money to build facilities to accommodate them. in past years i have gone on at some length in making that argument. i will make it much more briefly this evening and simply say number one in this country right now we already safely hold literally hundreds if not thousands of terrorists, mass

murderers, incredibly dangerous people so the argument against is that somehow we can't have bad people in the u.s. does not make any sense. we have them in for some reason we can't accommodate them we had better fix that right now regardless of what happens happens to quantum of. cycle and i will continue to make the arguments against secretary gates george w. bush and a whole lot of other people made that the fact of a president -- to get the corporate money to prosecute the war against al qaeda. it is in a good if in that fight. the sooner we take steps to close at it the better off we are going to be. i know i'm going to lose but i just think it's important that we continue to have this debate and get to the point where we can close guantánamo bay and i yield back. >> in the interest of time i'm going to say -- vote no on the amendment. we have had this debate over and over and over at nottingham.

i appreciate the gentleman bringing it forth. i appreciate his brevity. i would encourage all of us to move forward on the vote and hope that he is correct that he will lose. if there are no more debate on the amendment the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. smith raised so many azar in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it. we will have a roll call vote at the end of the chairman's mark. are there other amendments? >> mr. chairman i have another amendment. >> mr. smith has an amendment that the desk. will the clerk these distribute the amendment? without objection the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair recognizes the ranking member from washington for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> this one is different because in our mark this year as a put

on my glasses to see the number here we put $69 million into mel kohn to build a high value detainee facility at guantánamo bay so this is the beginning of what i think is going to be many increases in cost contained at guantánamo bay prison which i don't think should be allowed to be continued to be run as a mentioned earlier. my amendment would strike that $69 million reauthorization and would move the money into a couple of different places read one is to help out with a general reduction on the readiness -- sorry can't cannot readiness. this moves $49 billion -- million dollars back into the general milk on account and then it also has money for missile defense trying to appeal to folks on the other side of the aisle. some of that missile defense money goes to help build a facility in poland and some of

the other money here which i think is really important is for radar which is going to help with the west coast site. i know we have stratcom so i'm going to do my best not to start the missile defense debate except to say improving the quality of the radar is incredible and improving our ability to have those missiles that we are deploying to those sites start hitting the targets so i think radar is very important. as i said i don't think we should be throwing more money at one time of day. we take 69 million out of the guantánamo bay issue in the 20 million in missile defense and a couple of places and 49 million back into general milcon. i urge the adoption of the amendment and i yield back. >> mr. thornberry. >> thank you mr. chairman. on march 12013 the department of the army notified us that they were going to begin design work for a new high value detainee at guantánamo bay because the one

they have now is falling apart. what they tell us is existing facilities have far exceeded their service life expectancy and are deteriorating rapidly. the inefficiencies experienced improper separation conclusion and control put joint task force guantánamo staff at risk and to me that's the point. you can agree or disagree that we should close quantile memo but if we are going to have folks there and we are going to have to guard them we should not put our people at risk. they go on to say that if this project is not funded detainees will continue to be housed in facilities that will degrade to the point of risking failure to meet operational and life health and safety standards not only for the detainees but for our folks. so i think this is simple. again we will have the debate so now what should happen with guantánamo and moving detainees but until that is resolved we

should not do something that puts our folks and our staff at risk. they say it will and you don't get a new facility because is was falling apart. >> if there is no further discussion on the amendment. so many azar in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it. the amendment is does not agree to. are there at amendments? mr. cooper has an amendment at the desk. if they could be distributed please. >> would clerk distribute the amendment? the chair now recognizes the gentleman from tennessee for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman and colleagues this is a very simple amendment. all it does is take the word report in a report language to

replace it with the word briefing. we are drowning in reports. this could -- committee already has mandated 49 pages single-spaced of reports on the pentagon and another 107 pages single-spaced of contingent reports from the pentagon. and to that massive unreadable and ununderstandable total we in this mark are adding an estimated 171 the additional reports. you might think a report is innocuous but each report when it's written up by the pentagon has to have a price on the front cover. our friends in the pentagon are not keeping up with the totals of the individual prices and reports that can vary from a low of 20 to $30,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. so you need to think of the price of each report is almost purchasing a new automobile.

only the trouble is that a lot of these reports are like super deluxe mercedes and lamborghinis and things like that. we so easily just put the word in report. we have done it so many times here today that i think a briefing would be another way of getting the same information probably on a quicker more timely basis because it takes time to write these reports and hundreds probably thousands of contractors employed director of ports because the pentagon personnel are too busy doing the real work of the warfighting to write all these of these reports. we are drowning in paper and we are only making it worse every day. everybody is at fault. i'm a fault and you were at fault come to everyone as a fall. this is not a partisan issue. this is a problem with an aging nation and a bureaucracy that is out of control. if you are for big government do nothing on this event meant and if you are for smaller

government let's try briefings instead. remember any report ordered is fine. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to commend mr. cooper and his continued great sense of humor here because he has offered an amendment taking all of the reports and turning them into briefings. of course we wouldn't have to do anything here today because we can all ask for briefings. we wouldn't have to do language of what is really comical that we just came off an amendment where mr. cooper continued to say a report about the mocks facility and he has even offered in a memo today amendment number 227r1 for the purposes of amending the language of the report. now we all know that these reports are important. they are our way of requesting additional information and data that go into actual briefings. they give us a greater understanding, greater ability

to be legislators and take up the issues that are important to the department of defense and national security. for us to do otherwise, for us to say merely we can just sit in our five minutes of we have of a briefing and learn everything there is to learn about all the important issues that we have here is completely diminishing the authority and responsibility of this committee. i think we all depend upon the department of defense to pride us -- providers that information this hopefully is just another part of mr. cooper's great sense of humor. >> any other debate on the amendment? mr. bishop. >> thank you. i appreciate it and i think mr. cooper has given a problem and i've minutes of problem. and forcefully has not given us a solution to the problem because the briefing also takes time and a briefing also costs money and it just doesn't give us the result we want from it.

a report is a valuable oversight tool which is our responsibility. it's an oversight tool for dod because it requires them to take a position to that analysis but it's also an oversight tool that is important for us because it requires answers that we want, sometimes answers that are not given any other mechanism or forum. so i would want you to do this because let's face it if indeed the briefings are not successful and reports are not allowed the only thing you have to do then is put everything in statue form which exacerbates the problem. so mr. cooper think your analogy was right. it could be the reports are giving us a lamborghini but if you ask for briefings we get the value of a yugo. so keep the reports they are. a valuable tool for us. it's a valuable tool for the department of defense and it is the our responsibility to request answers and of man we

get answers which only come in the report and i yield back. >> mr. larsen. >> mr. chairman think it very much. just in response that would like to yield the rest of my time to mr. cooper please. >> remember all i'm asking for our reports requested them report language which really doesn't have the authority of law. the pentagon as a courtesy gives it some authority and tries to take a request seriously but all they are our requests. where's the pentagon find the money to pay for these reports? i was told by staff that there is a 2 billion-dollar like slush fund available so they can do these reports for us. it's just kind of this off budget netherworld of professional courtesy of committee. the good thing about a briefing is you have to attend. ideally you would pay attention but you are there. if you can't attend at least you would have staff there. now i would be the first to tell

you many reports are valuable. some are priceless but we have gone overboard folks. i would challenge any member of the committee even to say they have read a fraction

>> so many as are in favor will say i go. those opposed know. the no's have it. the amendment is not agree to. i ask unanimous consent to call up an en bloc packet number two consisting of amendments that of them worked and approved by the minority side. will the clerk please pass out the amendment en bloc package number two comprised of the following amendment. 005r15 the secretary of defense. to submit a nonbinding plan to congress to consolidate existing geographic combatant command headquartered on us to know more than four by fiscal year 2020.

amendment number 137r1 by mr. forbes to direct direct the secretary of defense to brief the committee on the merits of establishing a dod unmanned systems office. amendment number 176r1 by mr. smith to authorize the global security contingency fund program to conduct minor military construction. amendment number 177 by mr. palazzo to update the definition of national guard counternarcotics training center operations to better align with the d.o.t. counternarcotics global threat strategy in the office of the national drug policy. amendment number 220 to direct the secretary fence to brief committees on the impact of foreign military sales and direct commercial sales on d.o.t. lands for industrial base sustainment. amendment number 220r1 by mr. carson secretary of defense to include an analysis of the impact of the budget control act

on high-risk sectors of the industrial base annual report mandated by 10 usc 2502. amendment number 229 by mr. thornberry to create a d.o.t. audit buys a panel that monitors the progress of dod and provides interim findings and recommendations to congress to aid in his oversight of our readiness. amendment number two and 42 by ms. duckworth to require the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to conduct a study concerning the integration of gender into the planning and execution of foreign operations of the armed forces. amendment number two and 58 by mr. thornberry depending periodic review of dod personnel requirements or management headquarters. amendment number 260 by mr. rigell to amend the report language on the full committee markup positions involving license to include language including lowest-priced technically acceptable methodology. amendment number 26 tour one by mr. thornberry to direct the

secretary of defense in consultation with the director of national intelligence to submit a report on the process procedures for intelligence information and the appropriate committees for capital network. without objection the en bloc amendment is the four members. is there any discussion on the package? if there is no further discussion on the en bloc amendment the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. mckeon. all those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there other amendments? mr. coffman do you have an amendment at the desk wexler the clerk these read the amendments? without objection the reading of the minute will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes german for colorado for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. this amendment concerns the requirement has been around for

17 years for the pentagon to pass an audit have operable financials. under this amendment the failure to achieve a clean audit on the department statement in budgetary resources and 2015 will result in a requirement that the chief financial officers at the department of defense the army of the navy and air force all up and require to have served that an agency that has received a clean audit opinion in order to be confirmed in that respected position. by 2018 what it does is it puts teeth into this requirement. right now by 2018 is essentially says that they cannot pass, they don't have audible records by that time then in fact they would have to -- he defines with the requirements would be for a cheap management officer in the department of defense and then it would in fact move the

department of defense finance and accounting service under the department of the treasury. the department of the treasury handles a lot of federal agencies and federal government now. all of the agencies that they do handle the accounts for all have auditable records so which is merely provides a sanctioned a proviso teeth for that to occur. that provision was in the fy13 national defense authorization act on the senate side to not stay in conferencing committee. this is an issue on the senate side that has been championed by senator coburn and they have certainly made process but when mr. mccord who has confirmation near --. >> the gentleman's time has expired.

is there debate? mr. connolly. >> i'm going to respectfully oppose the amendment. the department of defense has made progress on this very important issue. it is making progress. we just passed the en bloc amendment an advisory panel that would help this committee with his oversight in this very important issue throughout the entire period. it is a much better approach to making sure this happens in this feel-good thing that you think you have to be somebody it. moving faster treasuries that policy. the only place to get the fast audited is to have the department do it. you move it to treasury and separate the functions oversight of the from the actual new owner the treasury than that will not work as y have to audit the rest of the stuff. i thought i heard my colleagues say that was not an issue but he is wrong. you can't audit the army and the

navy and air force without defense being audited. i laud his attention to this and welcome his continued support on this for making an effort but this is not going to help. it's simply going to continue to flog the department of defense in ways that it hurts their morale quite frankly. they're making progress starting with panetta's work making progress up and down the chain of command. all this does is he attracts. this does not help the process and quite frankly even if they don't make it this is nothing to actually help us get this auditable. the panel could do a much better job of keeping this committee apprised of the progress or lack of progress in time to take better reaction is to help them actually get this done. we all want them to be able to audit the department of defense department of defense here and in europe and this will not do that and i asked my colleagues to oppose it and i yield back. >> is there further debate on the amendment?

>> mr. chairman? >> if not the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. coffman. all those in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. are there other amendments? mr. garamendi has an amendment at the desk. with the clerk please distribute the amendment? without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair now recognizes, and from california for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you mr. chairman. we had a long discussion on the mocks facility. this is a solution to the discussion we had. this amendment would require the department of energy to immediately solicit from appropriate contractors and qualified contractors the solutions to the problem.

there are five different options presented by the department of energy. any qualified contractor that can solve this problem would be solicited or given the opportunity to put in it did as to how to do and what it will cost to be done and then we could make a decision on moving forward. among those options is the recurrent program the current mocks facility so mr. wilson your program would have the opportunity to put in a bid going forward. what would it cost to complete a? the other options of putting the material into a silicon formation or disposal in various ways including the irradiation of the fast reactor would also be available. qualified contractors would be asked to do this. immediately present their ideas and their costs and then he would have the information to make a decision on how to deal with this. there are many issues surrounding it as part of that

contract procedure. the contractor would have to answer the questions that are raised in the report that has been discussed. this is a solution to the problem and they spend some time discussing a few moments ago. i think it's viable. the money to do this is already available and it presents the opportunity for a solution to a very real problem and we must address it. doesn't preclude anything that mr. wilson would want done. it does give his proposal for his program an opportunity to go forward should it be deemed to be the best of the options. >> is there any debate on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? i appreciate input from congressman garamendi put this brings a commitment to the people of the southeast. actually as identified earlier by the chairman the great likelihood is that unprocessed

weapons-grade plutonium 34 metric tons which is remain in place. what we have is a commitment to the people that this was not going to incur that it was going to be reprocessed and this can be done confident will be done. it has been done in france. it is a workable program. i would also let you know that the warring we have in the legislation does provide for looking at the different options that have been identified because i know something. the other options that have been identified are going to cost more. in fact another fact that needs to be identified as by simply closing down the facility. it is a billion-dollar cost which is unnecessary because we can proceed. we can address the issues of processing the fuel and making it into fuel. we cannot have to renegotiate an agreement with the russian

federation. we can live up to the commitments that we have to the people in the region that i represent and we can address the concerns that we have of national security of having 304 metric tons in our community. .. >> the question is on the amendment and so many are in

favor, please do so. those opposed come up we say now. okay, the amendment is not agreed to. are there other amendments? mr. lamborn come you haven't amendment at the desk? >> please distribute the amendment. >> without objection. we now recognize the gentleman from colorado to explain his amendment. >> mr. chairman, my amendment changes and modifies the sense of congress and it marks this to section seven which is actually more technical. the it also adds a section establishing clear requirements for a deal with iran which would result in sanctions to be lifted. going back to the 20 10 build that many of us voted for, in congress, and mr. obama signed

it into law in 2010, when we imposed the stiffer sanctions on iran in that bill, we said that they needed to stop their nuclear program and weapons of masters auction, as well as stop sponsoring terrorism. and so with that in mind, it would be good before a comprehensive deal is signed and sanctions be lifted that we keep those same goals in mind today. but they stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop sponsoring terrorism. and lastly that they seize the enrichment of uranium. and i think of these that these are all issues that we can agree upon. some of them have been stated by the president senior negotiator,

wendy sherman, who has suggested that the listed missiles should be seized as part of a comprehensive agreement. and so with those things in mind, mr. chairman, the precedent that we have cost into legislation should be part of any deal going forward that the administration would want to sign with iran. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> this is a very bad idea. they completely ties the hands of our negotiators and ties the hands of the p5+1 effort, going well beyond what can be achieved. i agree with the gentleman that certainly nuclear weapons are one piece of the problem. however, it is a very important piece and if we can get an agreement to get them to stop

the nuclear program, i believe that it is a good agreement. if we jeopardize that agreement because we are trying to achieve those other issues on terrorism or ballistic missiles, then iran ron goes forward with nuclear program, and that is extraordinarily dangerous and i do not believe that we should be tying the hands of our negotiators as they try to get this deal. our overall effort to basically say to them that the cost of developing nuclear weapons, because of the sanctions is going to be too great, has been very effective. it is what has driven them to the negotiating table and also what has put our partners in alliance with us, the partners are in agreement with us because they want to see the nuclear program stopped greatly expanded out to these other issues, we have this right or wrong, to agree to help us with the sanctions on just those other issues alone.

but on the program they see the danger and they want that stopped. if we pass this, essentially that deal is done. p5+1, they will walk away from it will not agree with this and ron will continue down the path of nuclear weapons. we will continue our sanctions, but we will either have a nuclear armed or we will have a very, very large war in the middle east. so i do not believe that we should tie this stance. i forget where we are on the clock and we have about four months or maybe less than that, maybe three months from when we set the deadline. and it's going to be difficult to get that. no matter what. i don't know that i would bet on that. but if this amendment passes, the deal is done and all of our efforts to sanction iran and to build partnerships with our allies and to get them to also sanction them so that they could drive the negotiating table to stop the nuclear program would be dead. so i urge the opposition to this

amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to support this amendment. the fact is that the entire ballgame with iran getting nuclear weapons capabilities lies in the ability to enrich uranium or produce plutonium. funding our resolutions from the u.n., most of those functions more so they had to dismantle the uranium capability. under they in turn agreement, the enrichment of and is actually a protective protocol and an astonishing thing. and i believe the congress should have weighed in before this agreement was signed. we did it, but this gives us a chance to do this. and it suggests that the nuclear pursuits are marked by decades of failed promises, later in this regard and inspections

standards and now iran continues to develop a comprehensive list deck missile system that will soon be able to raise the united states. if they gain nuclear weapons it is a game changer of the first magnitude and this congress has yet to be clearly on record before this was entered into. all the things we have dealt with tonight that we might someday have to look back and talk to our children as to why we failed, somehow making it clear that the first order was to prevent them from having the ability to enrich uranium or produce petroleum. not only does this not do that, mr. chairman, in the fresen, but it actually has a protocol to allow them to enrich uranium. they would be 85 or 95% weapons grade material at that time and i hope you will support this amendment and ideal back. >> mr. conley.

>> i yield back to mr. lamborn. >> i think the gentleman i would like to remind the ranking member that he supported the 2010 legislation and he was a cosponsor. if it was good then, i believe it is good now. >> will will the gentleman yield? >> in a moment i will. you cannot separate the delivery through ballistic weapons ordered the use of surrogates who commit terrorism from the nuclear program. iran has nuclear weapons and they are the most state sponsoring for terrorism in the world today. and through ballistic missiles you can deliver through combat technologies and either way the delivery of nuclear weapons is in question with iran. so with the enrichment you cannot just stop there, but you actually have the dock their

ability to deliver the weapons. i yield back to the ranking member of. >> two points. 2010, absolutely, we should work as hard as possible to stop them from sponsoring terrorism or developing these ballistic missiles in building these weapons. but what is on the table right now is stopping the nuclear weapons program. to say that unless we get all three we will take non-, that is what i am disagreeing with and that's what very different about 2010 and i would not have us change the position whatsoever. that we should continue to get them to stop those is as well. but if we have on the table the possibility of stopping that as was said, the number one game changer, i don't think we should jeopardize that. and i would also say that you can, in fact separate them from nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles are bad. with nuclear weapons are much worse. that is how i would separate it.

so stopping the nuclear program has to be a priority in this negotiated deal. thank you for the time. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to support the amendment and remind our members that iran has proven untrustworthy in the past. let's not forget that they have directly killed troops and in addition iran is supporting rogue regimes like bashar al-assad in syria, via the state supported system i would just ask their colleagues support this amendment and ideal back my time. >> if there is no further discussion of the adoption of the amendment, so many would please say so. okay, the amendment is agreed to and there will be a roll call at the end of the chairman's mark.

are there other amendments? sumac mr. johnson, you have an amendment. the clerk will read the amendment. >> reading the amendment will be dispensed in the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the security situation has become increasingly tenuous since 2011. february of 2011 uprising and this includes the potential to escalate and undermine stability in recent months bombings by french opposition groups have resulted in the deaths of several security personnel including arbitrary detention obligations and severe restrictions on freedom country and freedom of association and expression have continued unabated.

demonstration notices from the u.s. embassy over the last three years showed increasing slots of the country being off limits to u.s. personnel stationed there and one of spontaneous and at times violent antigovernment protests. in instability, distrust, and violence are only likely to grow without significant governance and security reforms in a country, which thus far has refused to do so. therefore my amendment simply requires the department of defense to provide congress with an assessment of the security situation and the possible side effects of ongoing instability on u.s. military assets including personnel and families in the country as well as to report on contingency planning on u.s. personnel. the u.s. must be prepared to respond to the dangers of

instability in the region. and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment as well as ensure the protection of the u.s. long-term security interests and our assets and the gulf region and i yield back. >> is there any debate on the gentleman's amendment enact and if not, then amendment offered by mr. johnson. those in favor, please say so. the amendment is not agreed to. >> the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. the court will handle that. are there other amendments? >> mr. lamborn has amendment at the desk if the war would please distribute the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i am going to withdraw the amendment after i explained in. >> without objection. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman for the purpose of operating in explaining this amendment. >> which one is it? i have two of them. >> 147. >> very good. >> one moment. >> mr. chairman, i'm going to plan to offer this on the floor and not at this time. it needs a little bit more development. >> would you like to save your arguments so they will all be fresh? >> i will not argue with the chairman. thank you, i will withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. we will wait with needed breath until the floor. >> thank you. >> i ask unanimous consent as the amendments have been worked in approved. >> without objection. with the clerk pleased passout

the amendment. this amendment, by mr. jones requiring the secretary of defense to determine transportation costs incurred by the dod for congressional trips outside the united states. amendment 041 requiring the department of defense to appoint someone to be ensuring compliance with the existing postemployment trainings at the guideline and a congressional defense committees in 180 days.

>> this includes amendment number 162 with discretion to condition the final federal

approval for construction on federal land underneath the special use area attached in mexico and potentially adversely impacting military readiness. and this includes the last transport of security and this is the transportation services program with amendment number 248 by the use of selection methods and critical safety items. without objection the amendment is before the members. is there any discussion of the package? >> mr. chairman, we seek recognition. >> mr. gibson is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have been listening intently tonight. it's my first time speaking the

ranking member and the staff have a dozen initiatives that we have in the market and we also appreciate the collective work of the entire committee here supporting war fighters. it really means a lot. i also want to say that this amendment that you included is also important for our national security. it is on gender-based and violence prevention because i think that folks in resources, particularly the right to live free from violence promote stability. this is a human value. we strengthen our position in the world and i appreciate the work of niki tsongas and others who did this together. essentially all it does is insert us in this and i anticipate this because we do so rather than report and we also wire the dod to continue to participate in the working group

and implement a strategy. this is actually based on previous law 2012 and the executive order that the president brought forward. and this really puts us in this as well. it's an important issue and i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yield back. is there any further discussion? if not, the question is in favor and please go ahead. the amendment is agreed to. are there further amendments? >> mr. conaway hasn't amendment. please distribute the amendment. >> it will be dispensed in the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas for the purpose of operating in explaining his amendment. >> this is the purple heart issue that we have the conversation about earlier. i believe that we have fixed this issue with respect to the ranking member's concerns and that we have agreed to it. and so i yield back.

>> mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to address a couple of pieces of this issue. the process and the substance and clarify that my political argument was on the process and that by offering this up without a mandatory offset, input is in an awkward position that you could oppose it based upon the process and then be accused to some degree, as i was accused by mr. conaway, of not caring about the substance of the issue and that is why it was so important. i also want to point out that i was informed that the majority new there was a mandatory score and choosing to ignore it. the gentleman seemed surprised when that was brought up and i have to take him at his word that he didn't know that that issue is out there. but as it was explained to me, he was choosing to ignore the mandatory solution which put us in an opera position. and so believe me, that was the only thing i was talking about

was talking about politics him of putting a in that position not to vote on the substance of the issue. and i will do one thing and that is that i met with the gentleman whose son was at fort hood when the shooting occurred. his run was not hit by any fire but injured in the general melee. committed suicide three years later and he still thinks that his son should have a purple heart. i've had that discussion with other folks. and it seems to make perfect sense and the purple hearts watch very jealously over the issue of who is awarded a purple heart. and this includes having the conversation with the purple heart association and whether or not they think this is

appropriate. so on the substance of it, that is the only issue to raise. it is a great deal of debate about what wants a purple heart and what does not, which i was greatly surprised about once i learned about it. so in the process of that, we can't offer up a mandatory issue without offsetting this because then it puts us in a position of are we voting against the substance of the bill order because it doesn't have the offset. believe me, i do not mean to impugn the victims of the ford had shooting and i met with the gentleman and i understand that they are paying only too well and i do not oppose the amendment and i would urge adoption. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to read two comments raised by the ranking member. first of all, this is a different sort of language than we have had before to deal with this issue. and i think that everyone s

hopeful that not only the senate but the pentagon will agree with this approach. secondly the house has acted on this issue before and it has not gotten to the issue where the de minimis level that would work biron off site has been reached. it is only because of the delay of not dealing with this for several years and inflation that the cost has gotten to the level which is $1 million over a tenure timeframe. so that is the reason it is new and different this year. because just the delay has gone up to that level. that being said, the ranking member was appropriate to raise it and now there is an offset. it is ellis and i think that it is very appropriate to move forward and i yield back. [inaudible question]

>> please go ahead and say trento. the ayes has it. are there other amendments? >> yes please distribute the amendment without delay. >> nicu, to you, mr. chair. i was offered this amendment and proposing a during the floor for consideration in light of the spirit of the gentleman, i will withdraw at this time. >> i'm not sure that he heard me. [laughter] >> she withdrew. >> the gentlelady has withdrawn her amendment. thank you so much. are there other amendments?

>> mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> please distribute the amendment. >> without objection. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california for offering in explaining her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to speak to the amendment i have a test. without eston we constitute one of america's most important oteri and security policies. you and i both represent districts with past ties to the asia pacific, whether political or security, military or economic or cultural, social and even people to people exchange. as you and our colleagues are well aware, more than 200,000 young women and girls from throughout asia and the effect but mainly from korea are forced to become sex slaves known to the world is comparable women during world war ii by the imperial armed forces of japan.

in 2007 the house of representatives passed this one to 124 late knowledge and apologize for this historical fact. this is an issue that congress has already expressed as critical. and i believe this issue has linked the rebounds in the asia pacific and i believe that this is germane to the jurisdiction because of the unresolved historical complex that will ultimately undermine cooperation between the u.s. and the republican republic of korea and japan as a whole. this includes the issue in regards to comfort women must be addressed and avoidance of the issue will continuously distract this and the trilateral relationship impacting the goals and regions. japanese statements such as

convert women were necessary and they were not forced to agilely calling them prostitute will only hinder the relationship, whether it is economic, political, or military. we need the republic of korea and japan to work together, cooperation and trust between these two countries are absolutely critical for countering the north korean nuclear threat in any future threat that may arise in the region. on his recent trip to asia, president obama stated that what happened to the comfort women was terrible and agreed to send these women deserve to be heard and respected. and with that, mr. chairman, with the majority of the committee and prior agreement, i withdraw my amendment.

>> the chairman wanted me to reiterate. having just come back from asia along with mr. cook and others, we value this alliance with japan and south korea. we all shared deep concern about the nuclear missile capabilities as well as china's aggressiveness and actions and surrounding waters. we should be focused on how we can work together and we recognize that a healthy japan and south korea relationship and the strong security and stability, i appreciate the lady was drawing her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> please go ahead with the

amendment. >> without objection. the reading will be dispensed with and the gentleman from the post is recognized. >> tonight at midnight when it turns to may, it will be the 69th anniversary of our victory in europe and your comments about our commitments, as we look to our commitments in europe, we will to the aggression. and this includes the comments that were made, it speaks of russia, causing what he describes as frozen conflicts where he goes into nations and creates areas of conflict that prevents those from freely choosing to associate with the east and the west.

stopping the progress look to the west. i appreciate this chair and this was intended to go in a block and it would have stated the importance of nato and the importance of our relationship with nations that aspire going into nato. it does not result in increasing our military commitments or defense or only our continued assistance to those nations that aspire before the nato membership. this has been objected to hire foreign affairs committee and we then intend to provide this on the house floor and look hopefully to have full support at that time and hopefully be part of the chairman amendment. but i want to bring this to everyone's attention. >> the chairman withdraws the amendment.

mr. lamborn has the amendment at the desk. please distribute the amendment. >> this will be dispensed with. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> in this case they have attacked american companies over $1 billion. practically speaking if the companies don't pay this illegal taxes, they cannot obtain

uses the funds withheld to reimburse the businesses for the illegal taxes they are forced to pay. and i understand that concerns may exist regarding the implementation of this reimbursement and it is a question of sequential situations. it is my desire to work with you and other committees to address all of these concerns before we bring this bill to the house floor. i believe this amendment is vital to protect u.s. businesses and supporting our troops overseas. and i hope to introduce this on the floor. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back.

>> other amendments? we have mr. smith. >> without objection, reading the amendment will be dispensed. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of explaining his amendment. >> thank you, and i will be offering this as well and this is a bipartisan piece of legislation that shall be reached to the full congress. this is the most active that would say any undocumented person in the u.s. who joins the military would get lawful status as a permanent resident after that. this is a great idea that underscores the houses lead to act on comprehensive immigration reform. and certainly if someone is in the u.s. and willing to join the military and defend our country, they have more than proven their loyalty to this country and many

of these people came to the u.s. in the first place as children. so yes, they were not documented, certainly it was not their fault or their choice. so i support the bill and was going to offer it as an amendment to this. previous discussions come back to the floor here and it has a mandatory score. so we will be withdrawing the amendment and again i would like to underscore the need for us to deal with conference of immigration reform. and this is something that i do think congress needs to find a way to deal with area. >> are there other amendments? >> will the clerk please

distribute the amendment? paternal recognizes the gentleman from georgia for the purpose of explaining his amendment. >> thank you. i intend to withdraw it. i had intended to a offer this tonight. in the interest of our time, i withdraw the amendment. two of my amendments would have clarified that nothing in the bill could be construed as authorization for the use of military force against iran or syria. these amendments are important because the bellicose talk about it in this chamber and in this town is growing louder. and calls for united states military intervention persist as the conflict drags on. and this includes the congress and the american people.

and we will make clear that congress wants to engage in diplomacy over force. the third amendment made clear that no funding under this bill could be used to establish any permanent installation or base. with that, i asked to withdraw this amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws the amendment. >> thank you, thank you very much. the next amendment -- and you widrew all three of them, is that correct? >> yes. >> the gentleman has an amendment and we are asked to distribute the amendment. >> pardon?

>> reading the amendment, the chair now recognizes the drummond from california for purposes of explaining. >> thank you, sir it's getting awfully late so i don't want to make it too long. but mr. chairman come you mentioned that we are spending $79 billion in this bill on the overseas contingency operation and we have had virtually no discussion in this committee. >> what i have said is that we have a placeholder that we have not received yet but what the request will be a. >> i appreciate the clarification and nevertheless this is an extraordinary amount of money, whatever it might be at the end of the day.

and it is an extremely important issue about which we have had virtually no real discussion here. in my amendment that i am going to withdraw deals with this is the reconstruction issue and it is similar to language that was in last year's situation. and there are about $103 billion would have been spent and i don't think many people think that it was well spent. there are plenty of questions and it deserves our attention at some point and i suspect we will get to it. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. there is one more amendment from

mr. hunter. the clerk will please distribute the amendment. >> without the objection, the amendment will be dispensed with in the chair recognizes the gentleman in california for the purpose of explaining his amendment. >> we have to refer it to the foreign affairs committee. believe it or not we don't have the ability to prosecute the benghazi perpetrators. the chairman came over and said we do not have the ability to go after them, other than in a law enforcement capacity. with all of the politics surrounding benghazi right now, this is not political in any way whatsoever. it authorizes the use of military force to kill or capture or use military force against the benghazi perpetrators, which we are not allowed to do. and that is what this does when we are on the floor and with

that, i withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. i ask unanimous consent and you might notice this. randy promised me a hamburger. i want all of you who requested votes to be thinking seriously about that. i ask unanimous consent insisting of amendments that have been worked on the amendment side. without objection, so ordered. please pass out the amendment. amendment number 0261, we direct the president with the interim nuclear agreement as well as an assessment of the nuclear program. and the amendment to have precertification commssions for the procurement of certain

systems. and this prohibits the dod funding for contracts violating the decorative order. amendment number 0971 to provide a briefing on the cost and impact of production strategy by mr. lamborn acquires the secretary of defense to take such steps as necessary to improve the situational awareness and capabilities regarding illicit transactions of potential adversaries. and this includes dod contractors with persons or the government of iran. and this includes the secretary of defense with existing law

regarding manpower performance to the congressional defense committees. in this includes modifying provisions of congressional intent. this includes the submission of the biannual report of counter drug activities to include the committee on foreign affairs of the house in the committee on foreign relations of the senate. amendment number 263. and allowing the secretary of state to the patriotic union with the definition of the limited person of a temporary visa of the patriotic union. without objection, this is proper for the members.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, i would like to thank you for including my amendment. fifty-one years after we have passed the equal pay act, a woman still and 77 cents for every dollar that a man earns and while some have suggested that women take time off to care for children, researchers show that this is not true. for example in 2013 a study was done that shows there is a significant pay disparity between women and men in similar jobs and a with tina still only earn 54 cents for every dollar a white man earns. this is about a 250,000-dollar number over the course of their careers and their are salaries that are transparent. one of the laces is congress.

and we set an example for the rest of the nation. and that is why i am extremely glad that we have our colleagues that know that we have the executive order that was amended by president obama on april 8 to 2014. and for bids federal contractors from taking action to punish employees who discuss the rate of pay with other employees are at this amendment would allow them to do that i think you and i yield back. >> are there any other discussions on the amendment? >> please go ahead and vote. and did anyone say no? >> no, i don't believe so. >> the amendment is agreed to. >> does any of them or seek recognition?

>> mr. chairman. on behalf of mr. smith and myself, amendment number 265. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> without objection and will the clerk please pass out the amendment. >> without objection, it will be dispensed with. >> we now recognize the gentleman from texas for explaining his amendment. >> congress has occasionally honored the chairman of the house armed services committee by naming a particular national defense authorization act for them and this means the fiscal year 2154 buck mckeon. and as i said we are going to have lots of opportunity to honor the chairman and talk about his many accomplishments. i would say at this point he has

included complex national security and he has done so in a cheerful spirit that has brought out the best in all of us. and we still have the conference report to finish and i would like to offer this at this point to name the fiscal year 2015 information. i would hope that we would now update this. >> thank you. i know that we are missing with your hamburger. but it's for a good cause. these have not been easy times. and as you can see we have issues and difficult things to

deal with and i think that your spi

>> mr. smith. [roll call] [roll call] rococo.

[roll call] rococo rococo. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> mr. johnson? >> mr. lamborn? [voting] [roll call]

[voting] [roll call] you [roll call] [voting]

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

[roll call] [voting] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> mr. chairman, the amendment is agreed to. [applause] >> why are we so bipartisan? [laughter] >> mr. peters, number 266. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [voting] [roll call]

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

[voting] [roll call] [voting]

[roll call] [voting] [roll call] ..

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the clerk will report the telly. >> yes are mad bridger chairman. there are 30 to i met votes and 29 no votes. >> the amendment is agreed to. [applause] [laughter] what was the next one is mr. smith on guantánamo. the one that we had thel