mr. barber? mr. barber, aye. dr. fleming? dr. fleming, no. mr. carson? mr. carson? mr. kaufman? mr. kaufman, no. ms. porter. ms. porter, aye. mr. ridgeel no. mr. mcfay aye. mr. gibson, no. mr. kilmer, aye. mrs. hartsler no. mr. castro? mr. castro, aye. dr. hecht? dr. hecht no. ms. duckworth? mr. runnion, no. mr. peters, aye. mr. scott? mr. scott, no. mr. enyart aye. mr. plazo, no. mr. gaeho, aye.

mr. brooks, no. mr. veezy aye. mr. nugent, no. ms. gabbert? ms. gabbert? mrs. nome? mrs. nome, no. mr. cook? mr. cook, no. mr. bridenstine, no. dr. winthrop, no. [ applause ] warski, no. mr. burn, no. mr. mcintyre? mr. lopesack? mr. lobesack, yes. mr. schuster? mr. schuster, no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson? mr. carson. >> mr. carson? ms. duckworth? ms. duckworth? ms. duckworth, aye.

ms. gabbert. ms. gabbert. >> is there anyone who's not had the roll recorded? the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, the vote was 24 ayes, and 34 nos. >> the amendment is not agreed to. if there are no further

amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mr. rogers, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to take a minute, first, to thank my ranking member and good friend from tennessee, mr. cooper, who has been a great partner in this process. i think that's evidenced by the fact that in my 12 years here, i can't remember a mark going through with only one contested amendment. and that speaks to jim and his leadership, and his staff out here. it's evidence that women are smarter than men. only one of her, it took three of my guys to keep up with her. steve and tim morrison and drew walter have all been great staffers who worked very collaboratively together. i want to applaud them, and thank all the members of our committee for being such team members. with that, mr. chairman, i move the adoption of the committee report on strategic forces, as amended. >> questions on the motion of the gentleman from alabama,

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. quar um being present, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. we have about 15 minutes before we'll be called to vote on the floor, so we'll see how far we can get on the report of the subcommittee on c-power pursuant to committee rule 17, and in consultation with ranking member, will postpone all the recorded votes on the amendment of this particular subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes chairman of the subcommittee, the virginia from virginia, mr. forbes, for his comments. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i want to begin where mr. thornberry began by thanking you for your service to this committee. you were out in front of sequestration almost before anyone else trying to fight that. the demeanor and support for your subcommittees has meant a lot to this committee, and to

this country, and your leadership will be missed quite a bit on this committee. i also want to especially thank my good friend mike mcintyre. this is his last markup. he has been a friend and mentor of mine for years. and i can tell you that i could never have had a better ranking member or better friend, and mike will be missed by this committee and this country by his service here. i want to thank the committee members and our staff, especially dave sin eky, who we believe is the personification of professionalism. i want to thank mr. runnion who has been one of the most valuable members of our subcommittee who will also be congress this year. mr. chairman, we believe that we are in a better direction for seapower and projection forces, because we had a decision to make between two roads that we could walk down. one was to do like some suggest, which is to build a military to meet the financial realities we face today. and that is a fair question.

the other one is, do we build a military to meet the threat realities we face today, and the ones we will face tomorrow. this subcommittee chose the latter. the largest movement within the seapower mark was the restoration of funds to support the nuclear refueling, and complex overhaul of the "uss george washington." virtually, every expert we talked to, everyone we heard, said that symbolic of the effect, of taking that carrier out of operation, would have been enormous. but mr. chairman, the most important thing was, the law requires that we have 11 carriers. and this subcommittee is going to comply with the law, and we put that back in there. the other thing, mr. chairman, that i think is important is, mr. thornberry mentioned this earlier, too, the degree to which the subcommittee's work with each other this year, i think was extraordinary. i want to thank chairman whitman for his work. i'm pleased that we were able to provide incremental funding authority to the navy to begin

construction of another san antonio class amphibious ship. also because of the work of the subcommittees, and i want to single out mitsz hartsler for her hard work. we applied $2 million toward growlers to make sure we were able to keep those lines open and where they're going. i also want to thank mr. burn and mr. ribl for their hard work on the combat ship. one of the things we see is the importance that the secretary of the navy and cno put on our need for small surface combatants, and while we may have a different direction for that lcs program to go ultimately, as the secretary of defense looks at it again, we think it's vitally important that the navy have the small surface combatants that they need. this goes a long way to ensure that happens by committing for the purchase of two lcss this year and advanced procurement for two more. also i'm delighted at the fact that we looked at unmanned

carrier launch surveillance and strike program that the navy had, mr. chairman, we were faced with two things. we're getting ready to pour in the concrete where that program is going to go, not just for the next year, but the next 15, 20, 30 years. it's important that we measure twice and build it once. and so what we asked the navy to do is to go back and take a look, to make sure they had this program right. and that we didn't end up with a class that was simply a modified surveillance vehicle flying over our carriers, but was really an integral part of the carrier wing. we think that's going to go a long ways to making sure that we get this right. we also added budget request, we authorized the budget for 79 construction, two dg 51 destroyers, two virginia class submarines and the ohio class replacement. i want to thank mr. courtney, mr. langevin for their hard work on both of those to make sure we continued that program going. and then, mr. chairman, i'll

just say that the constitution tasked congress to raise and support armies, in addition it directs congress to provide, maintain a navy. i believe that we hold that constitution as our mandate to ensure that congress provides and maintains a sufficient navy. and i think this mark is a step in the right direction. and i urge my colleagues to support it. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member on the subcommittee on the seapower and projection forces, mr. mcintyre, for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the mark before the members today continues the tradition of strong bipartisan support for our men and women in uniform. i would like to thank my good friend chairman randy forbes for his leadership, for his friendship, for his hard work, and all the members of the subcommittee and subcommittee staff for their efforts over the last several months that enabled us to present this mark for inclusion in the 2015 defense authorization act. there are a number of provisions

that i'm particularly interested in. the complex overhaul of the uss george washington, the submar e submarines and the destroyers. the creation of a deterrence fund that we discussed at length to provide flexibility for the navy and construction of the replacement submarines. authorization of an additional 96 tomahawk missiles and procurement authority. in as much as this is my last mark here, for the national defense authorization bill, i do want to particularly thank chairman forbes for his great friendship, his dedication that he leads by example, to the men and women in uniform. and the way in which he has always conducted our meetings in an honorable way, and very bipartisan way, so that we could maximize support for our men and women in uniform. thank you, randy, for that. thank you so much. i want to thank our chairman who also -- chairman mckeon who will be retiring. thank you for extending great

and strong leadership, chairman mckeon, and setting a positive example for all of us on this committee. my thanks also to the fellow members of this committee and subcommittee and all the committee and subcommittee staff for the great example of diligence and dedication that you set. we look forward to passing this mark, mr. chairman, and thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. >> thank you. as has been mentioned, your leadership will be missed. your presence on this committee, for a long time, is one that those of us who have served with you have appreciated. and you've always been a statesman. and you've always voted your conscience. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> is there any other discussion? mr. courtney? >> thank you, mr. chairman. briefly, again, i want to salute the chairman and ranking member for really accomplishing the incredible balancing act in terms of trying to keep this country moving toward a 300-ship navy, under all the headwinds

that the budget climate has created. i want to underscore one point which congressman mcintyre mentioned, which is the national sea-based mark. this is a fund to build the ohio replacement class submarine program, which, again, secretary gates' security review, the nuclear review, all identified as a must program for this country. when we look at the new start treaty, which was signed with russia a couple years ago, the triad is not going to be an equal three-leg triad. 70% of the triad is going to be sea based. and we have a fleet which is really going to go off the shelf in the next 10 or 15 years. so it's going to get built. there's no question that every analysis has identified that as a critical priority for the country. the question is, how do we pay for it without suffocating the rest of the ship-building account. and what this strategic national sea-based deterrence fund does is borrow a page of history, the

41 for freedom ballistic submarine class back in the 1950s was built with an offbudget account outside the ship building program. the national sea lift program in the 1990s was built and financed through a fund outside of the ship building account. i think those were smart decisions made by our predecessors making sure that the critical national priorities for our country, again, didn't obliterate the ability of our country to build out the rest of the navy. and so this account, which is, again, officially being created, and as mike said, was the subject of a lot of hearings, secretary hagel, secretary mavis, admiral greenard, the subcommittee hearings have all been putting up the warning flags about the fact that this cost is going to really consume almost the entire ship building account unless we come up with a different strategy. what this report does is it takes this issue out of just sort of the discussion and

actually codifies a structure so we are going to be able to balance this critical need for our country's strategic need, for our country, and allow our navy to continue to move forward with its other programs and other priorities. kudos to the chairman and ranking member for this year, stepping up and really doing something about something that people have been talking about for years. with that, i yield back. >> thank you. is there any other discussion on the subcommittee's report? are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman? >> the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> i have an amendment at the desk. would the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to offer this -- i'd like to then yield to the

chairman of the subcommittee. but then i do plan to withdraw it. this amendment, originally it asked for a briefing on the design and construction of the next generation of ice breakers. why this is important, i serve as well on the committee on transportation and infrastructure, and the coast guard, of course, we have oversight on the coast guard which has the icebreaker fleet. a dwindling icebreaker fleet for the united states. and so we're obviously very concerned about the -- this important asset, given a lot of reasons. the arctic, for instance, it's an important focus of u.s. policy in several areas. the environment, the economy, and the national security. nato allies like norway, denmark and canada recognize this. and have made a major investment. and continue to make major investments in the icebreaker fleets. and other countries like russia and china recognize the arctic, and continue to make major investments into their icebreaker fleets.

i think what the main point i want to try to make to the committee is we need a whole government approach, when we approach the arctic policy, and part of it is having a viable long-term and sustainable icebreaker fleet. the original intent of the amendment was to ask for briefing on design and construction of the next generation ice breakers from the secretary of the navy, and hear some discussion from them on the future of ice breaking needs in the arctic from the u.s. navy perspective. the navy itself has a 2014 arctic road map which makes clear that there is increasing traffic in the arctic, for a lot of different reasons. and that traffic will require cooperation between the coast guard, and the navy, as well as many other federal agencies. so i want to continue to work with the chairman of the subcommittee on this, as well as the whole subcommittee, so that we have a full understanding of how the two agencies can perhaps integrate their approaches to this, in addition to, of course,

looking at the future of our ice breakers. with that, i yield to the chairman of the subcommittee. >> i thank the gentleman for he is one of the most thoughtful and dedicated members we probably have on our subcommittee and this committee. this is a huge problem. the problem we have is, of course, we have a ship building plan right now that has a $4 billion to $6 billion shortfall each year. we cannot afford to allow that money to be spent on icebreakers at this particular point in time, or even to suggest that the gentleman agrees with that as well. my understanding is he will withdraw that amendment. he and i will continue to work together to make sure we can help work on this problem jointly. i'm optimistic we'll be able to meet some of his goals. >> i thank the chairman of the subcommittee for that. i want to thank the chairman of the full committee for the indulgence of that. i ask for consent to withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. are there any other amendments in the subcommittee's report? mr. forbes? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous

consent for amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered en bloc. reading the amendments will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explaining the en bloc amendments. >> number one, amendment number 29 by mr. smith, regarding the decision to no longer utilize the national defense sea lift fund. amendment number 030 r 1 by mrs. spear, limiting funds for mission modules until the navy submits milestone sea gulls for cost schedule and performance. 031 by mrs. spear making funding for lcs ships contingent on d.o.t. for operational effectiveness and operation suitability for the sea frames and mission modules. amendment 047 r 1 by mr. brightenstine, limiting funding

for the office of the secretary of the air force until the secretary obligates authorized and appropriated funding for the c-130 avionics modernization program. amendment number 110 r 1 by mr. lanbourn to remove c-130 aircraft from a unit tasked with the modular fire fighting system until the secretary of the air force certifies that the moves will not negatively impact the mission. the secretary of transportation and in coordination with the secretary of the navy to provide a report to the appropriate house and senate committees on the maritime administration ship disposal program. amendment number 159 r 1 by pr courtney adding 2017 to the years covered in the national sea based deterrence fund. amendment number 249 r 1 by mr. langevin, altering the moore training funding from 15% to

20%. amendment number 253 by mr. courtney, making the limitation on authority to enter into a contract for the sustainment, maintenance repair or overhaul of the f-117 engine waiverable by the secretary of the air force for reasons of national security. >> further debate on the en bloc amendment? if not, the amendment is offered by mr. forbes. those in favor, say aye. >> mr. chairman? >> excuse me, mr. lanbourn. >> mr. chairman, if i could make a quick comment about one of the en bloc amendments in this package. >> sure. >> it is of vital importance that we do pass 110-r-1, because we need to make sure that before any aircraft are reduced to the number of aircraft that can fight the fire fighting mission,

that it not degrade the ability to fight wildfires. that's a huge issue in the west. it's a huge issue in my district where we've had catastrophic fires the last two years. lives have been lost. hundreds of homes have been destroyed. so as the air force draws down the number of these aircraft, it is important that the secretary certify that that wildfire fighting mission not be degraded. not be eroded. and that's what this particular amendment within the en bloc package would ensure. so i applaud the chairman and ranking member for putting this in the en bloc package. i would urge its adoption. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman forbes, i appreciate your willingness to have this colloquy, or whatever this is. regarding our ship building priorities. i full si support the committee's authorization for

something as critical to our national security and readiness. i would like to recognize the chairman's strong support for the mobile landing platform, and the afloat forward staging base, and the ship building programs. i look forward to working with you and the other members of the sea power committee to ensure we work with the navy within the current fiscal environment to make sure we use our resources to the maximum extent possible and provide for a robust and strong navy, which you are doing right now. thank you, chairman forbes. >> if the gentleman would yield. >> i yield. >> i want to thank the gentleman for his hard work and dedication, and we'll continue to work on that program. as you know right now, 95% of the international financial transactions in the world go by underwater cable. and the only navy in the world protecting that is the united states navy. 85% of all of our goods going under the surface of oceans, the only navy in the world that can truly protect that, the united states navy. the next decade, two-thirds of all trade in the world will come through the ashia-pacific area.

i look forward to working with you as we continue to turn this ship building program around. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> further debate on the en bloc amendments? if not, the amendment offered by mr. forbes. say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it looks like they're ready to call votes on the floor in. and the next debates we get into

has two amendments to it. rather than lose our continuity, i think we'll go ahead and recess right now, and -- is there just -- we'll return right after the vote series. thank ou

readiness committee. our hearings this session have highlighted serious challenges in the coming years. if we do not solve the -- when we left we were in the middle of c-power and at this point we're open to further amendments to the subcommittee's report. mr. forbes? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at desk. >> clerk will please pass out the amendment.

without objection. the reading on the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you. mr. chairman, this is an amendment that we have worked on very carefully based upon, as many of you remember, the cruiser situation that we confronted last year. it's an amendment that is offered by myself, congressman whitman, congressman hanabusa and congressman gabbert. basically, chairman, if you remember last year the navy came to us with a proposal that would take seven cruisers and actually dismantle those cruisers. and this committee felt that we could not afford to lose that kind of firepower an d prohibitd that from being done and put dollars in there to sustain those cruisers for a period of time thereafter. the navy came back to us this

year and rather than dismantling those seven cruisers actually had a plan to euthanize about 11 cruisers which is half of our fleet. and the way they were going to do that is with what they called a modernization plan that would put those cruisers in a suspended animation, if you would, but with no guarantee that they would come out. they could have been in this program for as long as ten years. and, mr. chairman, we gave the navy an opportunity because several weeks ago, when we were considering our mark, the navy came in and what they essentially had was not a plan but a concept. so we listened to them. we then asked them to put that in a plan so we could really look at it. finally when the plan came down and we looked at the details, we realized that it just wasn't acceptable as it was but the clock was ticking and we ran out of time. that's why it wasn't in our

original mark. so what we have done with this amendment, mr. chairman, is to say that we cannot take those cruisers out of service, that we have to continue those cruisers, the 11 cruisers and 3 amfib ships. this is not a dollar amount. we're not adding additional dollars to it. basically what everyone has told us is the enormous power of these cruisers, to take half the fleet out, they're the firepower that protects our carriers. it works, compromises our readiness. it takes away the need that our combatant commanders have and could result in a higher op tempo if we do this. the bottom line, mr. chairman, is this. no one, no one in any of the testimo testimony, any of the briefings has said we don't need these cruisers. everyone agrees that they do. and so what we want to do is give the navy another year to come back and work on a plan

that we can really make sure will guarantee that the united states navy has these 11 cruisers over their useful life. and remember, these cruisers and amfibs each have over ten years of service life remaining therein. so, mr. chairman, i hope that we will adopt this amendment, and with that, i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. smith? >> yes, i have a substitute amendment that i'd like to offer. if we could pass that out. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? bho white house objection. reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. gentleman is now authorized for the purpose of explaining his substitute amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we're in a very, very difficult place throughout the defense department but particularly in shipbuilding. we've seen that in the battle to fully fund the 11 aircraft carriers, refueling dollars available to keep the 11

aircraft carrier going. i applaud mr. forbes, chairman of the committee, for doing that because i think we need those 11 aircraft carriers. we also built two virginia-class submarines a year, build two destroyers a year. as has been discussed earlier by mr. courtney building up for the ohio class replacement. as mr. forbes has said also every year, i forget the exact number he cited but we're some hundreds of millions of dollars below what our shipbuilding fund should be. so going forward, we face some very, very difficult choices. so my substitute amendment basically takes the exact opposite approach to the main amendment and says, let us specifically authorize the navy to implement this plan, to lay up 11 cruisers and three amphib ships if they choose to do it. i'm not unmindful of those ships. it's a matter of choices. it's a matter that the navy looked at their entire situation, all of their shipbuilding needs, all of their needs in terms of power

projection and concluded that one of the better things they could do is this plan to save a little money so they could spend it elsewhere. you know, on future ships and a bunch of other things. by restricting them from doing that, we're once again tieing their hands in dealing with this broader budget problem. and i want 11 aircraft car yeri and i want us to build the two submarines and two destroyers every year. those are two very cost-effective programs. now, the money on this is a little fuzzy for a couple of reasons. it is estimated that the lay-ups would save somewhere in the neighborhood of $4 billion over 5 years. mr. forbes is correct. his amendment to say you cannot do that doesn't actually cost any money but that's only because of a special fund that the appropriations committee set up which i believe is called the ship modernization operation and sustainle fund which is met to fill a variety of different gaps in our shipbuilding and

maintenance. all those things con catained i its title. if we do this, that's where the money is going to come from to operate the cruisers and amphibs. this is not a free choice. i want to make sure the committee understand that. we're choosing to prohibit the navy from doing this and maybe come back next year and come up with a different plan. maybe it's just one year. citing the $4 billion figure, i don't know, maybe we'll come back next year and find only savings. we place a further burden on the broader shipbuilding needs that we have. if d.o.d. and department of navy say, look, this is a smart choice for us to make to maintain our needs, again, congress restricting the pentagon's ability to work around the difficult budget choices they have i think has more long-term and more difficult implications. so my substitute amendment would basically say if this is the best way you think you can save

money to make sure we meet other needs, we in congress should not restrict you from doing that. row a you are not required by thorszed to find this broader savings. with that, i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in opposition to the amendment. i want to point out a couple things here. one is, we're going to take ships out of active duty that have ten years left in our service life. that, to me, doesn't make good business sense. it also affects readiness. those ships are part of the request by our kbat tant commanders. they meet an immediate need, laying them up at the dock allows us nothing other than to save a few dollars now but costing us more in the long run. that, to me, just doesn't make sense. compromising that readiness component also has an effect on our sailors. we're talking about higher operation tempos.

when you talk about fewer ships, now you talk about more tee m d demand on the ships we have which means sailors are longer at sea. we have issues with retention and recruitment. i would say, folks, let's look at the long term, what we're saving. i adamantly disagree with the gentleman from washington. i think this is a good decision. i want to make sure we're not wears our soldiers out. talk about making a commitment to readiness. it's make a commitment to our sailors that serve our nation. taking ships away from them takes away from the navy achieving what they need to achieve. this is ridiculous to move this away. let's keep these ships at sea. let's make sure they're doing the job this nation needs those ships to do. let's be supporting our sailors and make sure we are not wearing them out by the higher operation tempos that come by taking ships that have ten years left on them

at the dock. this isn't volume on the radio, turn the volume up and down. we'll tie these ships up at the dock, and if we need them. let's support our sailors, let's make sure we support readiness, support our combat commanders. let's not retire these ships early. let's keep these 11 cruisers that were designed for another ten year of service, keep them in service. that's the best long-term commitment we can make to this nation and navy. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> miss hanabusa? >> thank you, mr. chair. i also speak in favor of the amendment offered by mr. whitman, mr. forbes, and myself. and i guess as a result, respectfully disagree with my ranking member, mr. smith. mr. chairman, and members of this committee, we have looked at this issue before. now, this amendment, the prior,

the base amendment speaks to 11 ticonderoga class cruisers as well as three dock landing ships. we call them lsds which we know are critical for the marines. let's look at what these ships do. we already know from testimony we've heard from admiral lock ln le lear, we grew from a sea-controlled environment to a ballistic missile defense environment. he also said that he cannot meet the requirements as we pivot to asia pacific with a number of ships in the fleet inventory now. removing 14 more doesn't help with the situation. general amos has already tested that he has a vast shortage of requirements when it comes to amphibious ships. three more out of service doesn't help the marines as well. but i thought one of the most telling testimonies we received

was from retired admiral patrick walsh who made it very clear that you need, you need the cruisers to work with the new platforms of the lcs. so as we look in our policy statements, as we look to fund about 32 of them into the future, we have to understand the role that the cruisers play in relationship to the lcss. the lcs, the latoral comeback ships are more for the shoreline. he made it very clear you need ships like the cruisers in order to afford the protection that our men and women in uniform truly need. so, what are we looking at? we already have this ship modernization operation and sustainment fund which covers the 11 ticonderoga class cruisers and the three dock landing ships. that's already covered. and i cannot see how we are doing something against what

this congress has already told the navy to do. we're just simply telling the navy to do what the congress has already said that they should do. but more importantly than that, our primary concern should be we are pivoting to asia pacific. we need to ensure that our men and women in uniform are safe and we need to clearly understand the interrelationship between what the cruisers do for the lcs which we all have agreed is the way that we will be looking at asia pacific. so with that, mr. chairman, i ask that my colleagues vote for the amendment number 135 r1. and against the substitute amendment. and i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. forbes? >> mr. chairman, i just want to, again, join with my friends from hawaii and from virginia in opposing the secondary amendment. we all have enormous respect for

the ranking member, and he's right on most of the facts that he points out. it's not that we differ on those facts. it's just that if we followed that, we would have also voted for brac which most of us know that's not the right thing in the direction we want to go. second thing if we followed that line of reasoning, where we would be today is seven cruisers would be out of our fleet because this committee came up and saved them last year. the navy came up, wanted to take a carrier out this year. they now want to take out 11 total cruisers out. next year, they're already talking about taking six destroyers out. mr. chairman, every major country across the globe, they're increasing their navy except for us, we're decreasing our navy. i think this would be the exact wrong direction for us to go in taking these powerful ships out of the united states navy. and the last thing i'll say, in addition it saying they can't take these out, it requires they do the modernization on two of

them right away so we know those ships are going to be there and do what we need to do. so in conclusion, i would just request respectfully that we vote no on the secondary amendment and then vote yes on underlying amendment. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. smith. >> if i could, i mean, i think the debate troubles me more than the amendment to some extent because we're kind of turning facts on their heads here. i'll start with the note of agreement. there is no question that in doing this, we take some ships out of the fleet right now and that is a problem in terms of the number of ships that we will have at sea right now today. it balances it out. there is one qualifier even on that. there is the necessity to modernize these ships and make sure they are, in fact, ready to fight. so they will at some point have to be taken out and have to be modernized and have to have a pattern for doing that, but it

is a choice. i'll grand you that. what doesn't make any sense is this notion this undermines readiness. it doesn't undermine readiness in any way. this is not readiness account. this is taking cruisers out of service and refurbishing them. it puts fewer cruisers out there to sea right now today, certainly, but it has nothing to do with readiness. does not undermine it in any way, shape, manner or form. number one. number two, as far as sailors being out at sea longer periods of time, it doesn't do that, either. it reduces the number of ships that are at sea. if you take these cruisers and put them in port, by definition sailors are not out at sea. again, it will reduce the number of ships out there at sea. those two arguments about readiness and how it impacts our sailors makes no sense whatsoever. what this comes down to is a choice. i will completely respect flchlt forbes and others in terms of how we try to make that choice. if we had more money, we wouldn't be having this

discussion. if sequestration hadn't happened in fy '13, if we hadn't shut down the government for three weeks in october, if we hadn't given continual crs over the course of the last two, three years and if there weren't eight more years of sequestration on the books -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> not just yet. we couldn't be having this discussion. i grant you that. these are the discussions we are faced with and this is a place where we can save money. when we come back last year and the year after, you think it was difficult to save the 11th aircraft carrier last time? take another $4 billion out that the navy wants to save, good look at sequestration at saving the 11th aircraft carrier and good luck having anything close to the shipbuilding plan we want. we're choosing from amongst places to save money. inevitably whatk2q committee has done, said, nope, we're not going to save if there. where would you like to save it instead? the answer is, nowhere. we wait.

to the point we can't afford it and the impact it's going to have on our sailors, on our navy long term. this is penny wise and pound foolish. i'll end on a point, this is exactly like brac. representative forbes is right. our unwillingness to address it is another example of how we are going to shortchange all of our military in the future by not making the tough choice. i'm sorry i didn't hear who asked to yield but i'm happy to yield to whoever it was who asked. mr. whitman? >> mr. smith, i'd respectfully disafree with you as far as the issue on readiness. look at the operations plans our service branch has put forward in all of the combatant commands, there is a request and a requirement there for these cruisers. if they are not there, how do we meet the operation plan requirements? you can't do it. that is readiness. the ability to respond, make sure we are properly trained. >> reclaiming my time, if i may -- >> sure. >> -- and this is a very important point for where we're headed in the committee.

readiness is basically whether or not the force you have is ready. you're talking about the size of the force. and this is what i'm really, really worried about in the future. you know, the argument always is, a smaller ready force will always beat a larger unready force. okay? so what you are describing is you want a larger force, but because of the dollars that we are short and because of the cuts in operation in maintenance, we will have that larger less ready force. that is the entire crux of the debate. so it's just -- it's not a readiness issue. i will, again, yield. >> it is about the navy we have today. if you take 11 cruisers away with the sailors we have today, you will not be able to make sure those sailors are ready. the sailors have to be ready by train and being at sea. i don't see how sailors at the shore have a ready force for us

today. where do the sailors go? to me it's a simple math. if you're saying we ought to reduce the navy in conjunction with the number of cruisers that come out, your argument is valid, but if not, with the sailors we have today, with no ships for them to sail on, we're not a more ready navy under that scenario. >> reclaiming my time, again, i mean, i think this is a lin legitimate debate to be had here. where we want to find savings. again, it's a basic issue of we can have a larger force or a ready force. i'm absolutely arguing that unfor the given sequestration, given all the cuts as between having a larger force that is not as trained as they should be and a smaller force that is, i'm going to choose the latter. it's my contention basically what this committee is doing is being presented with that choice, we're closing our eyes and plugging our ears and saying no, no, we're not going to make that choice, we're going to continue down the path we are and let the chips fall where they may. i think we ought to make the choice. i yield back.

>> yeah, i think this little debate right here has kind of put the crux of this whole markup, at least as i'm looking at it, as i see it. the way i've kind of been defining readiness to myself is the individual soldier, sailor, airman, marine. are they trained up to go to war to fight with whatever tools we're able to give them? and if you have them trained but they have nothing to fight with, they're ready, but they're not ready. and i think, so then you have to talk about the readiness of the force, and the readiness of being able to meet the challenges or the aggressor or whatever comes at us. and that is what we're grappling

with because we -- there's no question. there's nobody on this committee that thinks we have enough money. and so it's a fine line that we're trying to deal -- we want to make sure the individual is ready to go do what we ask them to do. they can't be fully ready if they don't have the chanthings o to war with. you can't have all your money here and can't have all your money here. it's a terrible dilemma that we're faced with, and my underlying goal out of this markup is to hole on to as much of the stuff and as much of the training as we can. hopefully next year when a lot of the members that have voted for these cuts, when they come up to the realization of what sequestration has done, you know, when you first vote on it, it's just numbers.

now it's coming back to i'm losing a base in my district or my people at my port are not trained, i'm losing planes for the national guard, or i'm losing reservists. when all of these things come home to roost, which is what is starting to happen, next year it is going to be -- it's bad this year. next year it is a disaster. it's a catastrophe. mu but i'm hoping we can just hold enough so that when realization hits next year, we get rid of sequestration and we -- some miracle happens and we get money in next year that we don't have now. because the money you're putting in to keep the carrier one more year, we don't have the money next year to do it. the money that we're talking about to get these cruisers to save their -- i mean, to get rid of them when they still have lifetime left, all the investment we've put in, it's a

terrible situation that we put ourselves in, and, you know, i voted for the budget control act. and that incorporated sequestration. it also kept the government open. there were a lot of parts of that vote. and, you know, if i had it to do over again, i'd probably still have to make the same vote. i didn't want the government to shut down, and it's -- it's a real dilemma and i hate to be leaving all of you with this problem, but i think it's best for the nation right now that we hold on to as much as we can hoping that we find ourselves in a better place because there is no guarantee with what russia's doing now, with what china's doing that we don't find ourselves in a war tomorrow or a month from now. and if we lost these cruisers, if we lost the aircraft carrier,

if we lost, you know, what we got in the bill, the a-10s. we at least have them at a place where we can bring them back if we need them. so it's been a tough, tough deal getting this bill to the way we are hoping that it coming out, but i grant you there's a lot of wishing in this. there's a lot of hoping in this. is there any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the questions on adoption of the substitute amendment offered by mr. smith. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes do not have it. the amendment is not agreed to. how's that for a quick shuffle? the question is now on the adoption of the original amendment offered by mr. forbes. so many as are in favor will say aye.

>> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. are there furlter amendments to the bill? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> okay. i'm going to change the rules now. here's -- here's the new rule i'm going to ask unanimous consent to do this. i don't know how this fits into anything, the way we're supposed to function around here, but i would like to propose and ask unanimous consent to amendments that are proposed and then going to be withdrawn that the person presenting that amendment has two minutes. i can almost get one.

let's say two. and that there will be no further discussion after the amendment's withdrawn. is that -- very good. okay. okay. then we are an amendment at the desk. will you please distribute the amendment? without objection, reading the amendment will be dispensed with and the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of, planing and withdrawing his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can do that two minutes. while the amendment is passed out, let me take a minute to commend chairman forbes, their work on this mark and support for the virginia class submarine and the ohio replacement program. and i also want to thank the chairman for his leadership on youth class. we need to make sure we're

getting the best out of that program, not just doing it halfway. with that, on the amendment that i'm proposing here, separate issue, i'm pleased to be offering this amendment with mr. courtney. i'm deeply concerned about the reduction of the navy's training ship program contained in this mark. this program is absolutely essential to our national security and nuclear navy. there are no other viable alternatives to the training ship program or mtss as they're called for training and qualifying the navy's nuclear operator. existing mtss were commissioned as ballistic missile submarines in the 1960s and rapidly approaching the enof their service lives. this program provides two converted los angeles class submarines to serve as trainers. this is the most cost effective and viable solution, but it does require the overhaul of the propulsion plants and construction of new modules. this bill as it stands eliminates $220 million of the requested 737 million of the fy

'15 budget, reduction of 30%. this is the full funding year for the first of the two ships and without restoration the conversion would insufficiently be funded and the ripple effect to go the entire program would be serious. so with that i am going to -- i know my time is running out. we can't risk the safety and confidence to make a rhetorical point. i withdraw this amendment. i work to address this in conference the gentleman withdraws his amendment. further

>> i think this is especially critical at a time when the dod's proposing such things as a raise in tricare premiums for military family members as well as reaching into our retirees' pockets for part of their pay. if we can look at that, then we can certainly ask the navy to give us their plan for the lcs before we spend another million

dollars. thank you, and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> mr. "forbes," you're recognized. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to speak in opposition. first of all, the gentlelady has a lot of valid points. we have done oversight almost ad nauseam on program and will continue to do, as we should be. the thing we want to do comes back, mr. chairman, comes back to our flexibility in keeping these programs alive. first of all, secretary of defense is going to do the exact study she's talking about doing. but it's not going to impact whether we need these lcs authorizations that we put in this bill, because everybody agrees we need at least the 24 lcss that we're going to actually be building. what you're going to find is that if we delay this funding until any of those studies do about what we do down the road,

we could have an enormous impact and actually irreparable harm to the industrial base. and then we come back, we may not be even able to build these ships and certainly not for the price we're looking at. mr. chairman, ba i think the subcommittee has come to a very, very good compromise, a balanced approach whereby we are simply authorizing two more lcss this year, we are doing the advanced procurement of two more.wh we areer going to look very, vey carefully when the secretary of defense comes back with his review, and that's going to give us a huge picture and perhapsfes the pathway of where we go to forward. but i think this would be the wrong approach, and i hope we'lg reject this amendment. hope we' reject this amendment. >> any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> our newest member, bradley. >> thank you, sir. i want to thank the gentleman

from virginia and the chair and the subcommittee staff and committee staff for the very, very hard work they've done on this issue. i don't know if they spent more time on this particular vessel than any other one, but it seems to me that they did. and if you'll look at the mark, it actually reduces the authorization by net amount of $350 million and calls in the mark for studies and reviews, et cetera, as there have been as the gentleman from virginia mentioned seemingly aw lly ad n. the navy needs these ships. there are 300 russian ships in the black sea. we don't have letoral ships to match up with that. we need them there potentially. we'll need them in the pacific for sure. we've got to keep this buy going. yesterday the secretary of the navy and the chief of naval operations wrote a letter to our chairman, and i want to quote a couple of lines from it. this is the secretary of the navy and the chief of naval

operations. any further reductions to this program in fy 2015 will have serious impacts to the industrial base including subtier suppliers. specifically, the competitive block by pricing will be lost and the navy ship count will be impacted. lcs is a critical component in meeting the navy's requirement for 52 small surface combatants. so there's no question we need to go forward with this if for no other reason that we are in this thing, we've got to go forward with it in order to meet the navy's requirement to get to 300 ships. we don't need to lose the momentum for national defense purposes. let me read another letter that i received today. this is from the international brotherhood of boilermakers. the union that represents some of the people that work on these ships, and there are 14,000

people whose jobs will be fa affected if we don't go forward with this. this is what the boiler make verse had to say. these cuts will effectively affect the lcs this year despite claims that the advanced procurement will keep the funding alive. cutting the procurement of two ships means the loss of thousands of jobs across the industrial base. advanced procurement means nothing if the program is terminated. if we don't go forward with this as per the committee's mark, that will effectively terminate the program. i join with the gentleman from virginia and the chairman of our subcommittee in asking everyone on this subcommittee to vote against this. i yield back. >> would you like the record to have the entire letter? >> yes, sir, i would. >> no objections. so ordered. mr. castro. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield my time to congresswoman duckworth if that's fine. >> gentle lady is recognized.

>> i thank the gentleman. again, i do not disagree with the requirement that the ship is seeking to fill. i do not disagree with the yielding of the ship. what i do disagree with is not having proper oversight of close to a billion dollars and possibly sinking precious resources and time into a program that is not being strategic in its acquisition. i have 42 suppliers and countless jobs for the lcs in my home state of illinois. i understand the importance of the industrial base which is why i want to make sure that the contracts being awarded are making the best use of taxpayer dollars and are contributing to job creation. we need a sound acquisition strategy for this ship. the navy does not exactly have a good track record recently with the acquisition strategy of the f-35 is any indication and now the lcs. part of the early problems with lcs strategy was cost overruns due to shortsightedness from the navy and an inability to

properly test mission modules before deployment. if the navy needs this ship so badly, and i believe that they do. they will happily draw up a plan that outlines their needs for the next few years and receive all of the funding the president requested. if i remember correctly, the gentleman from virginia offered an amendment last year expressing concerns for the lcs program explicitly for the reasons i've laid out in my remarks. representative ford asked for a gao report to look at the concurrency between c frame and mission modules which is where i received most of the information to inform my decision to bring this amendment forward. the gao recommended that the d.o.d. limit future sea frame acquisitions until it has a full rate review. i'm not asking the navy to do that much. all i'm asking for is a plan that outlines their needs for the next few years so that they can receive the funding that they've requested for this ship that we all agree they need. i yield back. thank you. >> ms. sanchez.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to congratulation the young lady from illinois for bringing forward what is a very tough amendment to bring forward in this committee. i know that last year, for example, she had some f-35 amendments with respect to the costs and overruns and things that were going on with that program. i mean, you know, all of us here from everybody back home and all around why can't congress cut back, why -- you know, what are they doing? why aren't you doing the correct thing? why are there so many overruns? why can't you get ships built, et cetera. and then when we find somebody who comes and consistently puts forward some of these amendments, and if you go back and you look at the ga report in particular, you will see that the young lady, you know, has her facts correctly and there are some problems with what the

navy needs and what the navy wants and what they're really getting with the lcs. so it's always difficult for people to vote against suppliers, against jobs in their district, but i really want to thank the gentle lady for being courageous enough for bringing forward some of these amendments and pointing out a lot of the work that we really need to do on these -- in particular on these subcommittees. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. this is -- the procurement process is difficult, and many people have tried to work on this issue over the years. one of the things that you point out, you know, that ten years, 15 years ago it was a 200 million, now it's 400, it's not the same ship. that's one of the problems is as we go through the process people keep finding new missions for the ship and they put in new

components and so it's not the same thing. we run into the same thing with planes and tanks and all of these different programs. ms. thornberry is really working on this issue and some of the things are in the mark and there will be something i'm sure each year going forward to try to work on this process, but it's something we do need to get a handle on. if they were still building the same exact ship and we could keep the costs just -- the costs of inflation, that would be a whole different story. any further discussion on the amendment? if not, there are no further amendments, the questions for the amendment offered by forbes,

no, ms. duckworth. so many as are in favor will say aye those opposed, no. the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. if there are no further amendments the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> i move to adopt the subcommittee report as amended. >> the question is not a motion. the gentleman from virginia. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed no. quorum being present, the ayes have it, the motion is agreed to. committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on military personnel pursuant to committee rule 17, consultation with ranking member will postpone all the recorded votes

on the amendments of this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, mr. wilson, for his comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the military personnel subcommittee report before each member is a product of an open bipartisan process. the mark provides our war fighters, veterans, and military families to the care and support they need, deserve and have earned. specifically, this year's proposal continues to refine the department of defense sexual assault and response program while at the same time actively monitoring the department's implementation of the significant reforms enacted by congress over the last two years. in particular, the mark requires performance evaluations for commanding officers to include assessments of the command climate emphasizing how reports on sexual assault are treated by the commander and how victims who have reported crimes are treated by members of their

unit. in addition, the mark would authorize an extension of a wide array of bonuses, special and incentive pays for our men and women in uniform. would require the secretary of defense to conduct a review utilizing the services of an independent organization experienced in grocery retail analysis of the defense commissary system and reverse some of the cuts in the budget to the commissary system. would express the sense of congress that the united states has a responsibility to continue to search for missing or captured members of the armed forces while transitioning from combat operations in afghanistan. additionally, would standardize the collection, reporting and assessment of suicide data involving members of the armed forces and their family members, including reserve components, and provide enhanced tracking of suicide data within the

department of defense. additionally, the mark requires a review of department defense efforts regarding suicide prevention among members of the special operation forces and their family members. although this mark accepts the administration request for annual in strength reduction, as i have made clear in the past, i have serious reservations about the in strength and force structure reduction plans for our military. america remains at war today. there is worldwide instability and we will continue to have a persistent global conflict with a ruthless and obsessed enemy for the foreseeable future. this is an enemy encouraged by outlaw rogue regimes. we must not forget the attacks of september the 11th, 2001 and september 11th, 2012. this report does not include the department's request for

military retirees to pay more for health care. this does not include a fund amountal change to the tricare benefit. congress established military modernization commission and we need to be informed of their analysis before proceeding with wide impacting changes. this mark does not include the requested reduction in the basic housing allowance that would require a 6% out of pocket expense for housing for all service members. in conclusion, i want to thank ranking member susan davis of california and her staff for their contributions and support in this process. additionally, we are joined by an active, informed, and dedicated subcommittee. their recommendations and priorities are clearly reflected in the mark. additionally, i appreciate the dedication of the subcommittee staff, jeanette james, deborah

wadder, craig green, dave giaceti, colin bossey and our two academic fellows, dr. ellen johnson and matt vandeshear. we are great for their professionalism in the prodigs of the late john chapla. thank you, mr. chairman. >> chair now recognizes ranking member of the subcommittee on military personnel. gentle lady, ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. wilson and the committee staff in particular for working in a bipartisan manner to develop the mark. i really appreciate all of their efforts. the mark continues the committee's focus on sexual assault. the chairman's mark includes two more provisions in addition to several provisions that were already included in the subcommittee mark, and these include a requirement for the secretary's concern to establish a confidential process by which a victim of sexual assault may appeal to the board for corrections the terms or the

characterization of a discharge or separation from the armed services and requires the secretary of defense to modify rule 404 of the military rules of evidence to clarify that general military character of an accused is not admissible except in cases where the military character of the accused is relevant to the element of the offense being charged. mr. chairman, the oversight of the sexual assault issue remains a priority of the committee, and i certainly look forward to the department of defense briefing the committee on the status of the implementation of the provisions that we have already put into law, and there are a number of them as you know. that said, we will continue to identify gaps that need to be addressed to enable the department of defense to reduce the number of sexual assaults within the department. mr. chairman, as you're well aware, the mark does not include the proposed legislative changes to the commissary system, the housing allowances and the melt

care modifications requested by the department of defense. as a result, the department will need to address the 1.5 billion savings it already took in the fiscal year 2013 budget. in addition, the 1% cola reduction that was in the budget agreement that was restored earlier this year left the department with an additional hole of 500 million for fiscal year 2015. these savings will need to be paid for from other department of defense accounts. clearly we need to begin a conversation to address compensation and retirement issues, and part of that conversation needs to include the results of the military compensation retirement modernization commission which is addressing compensation and retirement. i certainly hope in a holistic manner. we all know that these are difficult times, as you stated a number of times, both the chairman and the ranking member, particularly with sequestration still in effect for the

department. difficult decisions, of course, will need to be made to protect and sustain the all volunteer force into the future. otherwise an action will continue to lead to more and strange reductions and readiness challenges for the force. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the subcommittee for working on this. >> any amendments or discussion on the subcommittee's report? are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? mr. wilson? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up enblock package of amendments worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection so ordered. will the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered enblock. without objection reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of offering and explace his enblock

amendments. >> i call up an enblock package number one comprised of number one, amendment number one by mr. johns authorizing a chaplain to close the prayer according to the traditions of the endorsing faith group. amendment number 22, by ms. vaidaillo of guam to allow the chief of the national guard bureau lead guard directors. amendment number 35 by ms. spear of california, to permit interlocutory appeals. amendment number 58 by mr. wilson, to provide for food service management of dining facilities. amendment number 61 by ms. davis, to amend section 614 by adding a date for the completion of the report. amendment number 118 by dr. fleming, which adds requirements to review of the military health

system modernization study. amendment number 148 by mr. lambert which directs the secretary of defense and secretary of veterans affairs to analyze potential benefits of a joint partnership. amendment number 199 by mr. hunter which allows for housing relocation purposes. amendment number 215 by mr. miller of florida, it provides for the evaluation and reform of the integrated disability evaluation system of the department of defense and veterans administration. and finally amendment number 228 by mr. cooper of tennessee which reduces the total number of enlisted aids that support general officers. >> any further debate on the enblock amendment? if not, the question is on adoption. the amendment offered by mr. wilson. so many as are in favor will say

aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. are there further amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman i have an amendment at the desk. >> you have an amendment at the desk? >> i do. >> clerk please dispense -- pass out the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> i thank the chairman. my amendment addresses a very real problem, which is unfolding across our country at different military bases, particularly those serving our navy and marine corps, and the problem is there is a sharp increase in the cost of the wages for the concession airs that are providing what are truly

critical services and support of our men and women in uniform. these are restaurants that if i mention their names you'd quickly recognize them. i'd like to walk the committee quickly through this. the amendment establishes an eighth exemption to the service contract act of 1965 for military exchanges and military morale, welfare and recreation activities. the technical part is this, that it's necessary to clarify that the sda does not apply to nonappropriated funds, instrument at at this concession funds and military mwr activities which are for the benefit of service members and their families. and in layman's terms, it's this. back in the fall of 2013 the department of labor issued nonstandard wage determinations that covered these concessionaires. it had a dramatic increase in

not only the base wage but in somewhat an unprecedented fashion also a fringe benefit requirement which was, indeed, new of almost $4 an hour, and together these added costs result in the concessionaires paying for over 50% to 70% higher wages than competing concessionaires which are oftentimes right outside the gate. from my limited military experience, he was an e-1, e-2, all the way up to e-5. often you don't have a car. your choices are limited to what you can get to, ask a friend to take you to, walk to on base. at a minimum the prices would spike, but really wa we're seeing, i ask my colleagues to consider, this is the adverse impact of this termination by the department of labor is already being seen. concessionaires are not renewing

their contracts. they're not going ahead with some improvements that were already being made. this is not thetheoretical, it' taking place right now. we're seeing a loss of jobs which is not something any one of us want to see. we're seeing the choices available principally to our younger men and women in uniform and sailors and marines are being restricted. it's directly and adversely affecting their quality of life. so by establishing an eighth exemption we are looking out for our young men and women in uniform. there's also a technical argument that could be made. i'll spare the committee this but whether or not the department of labor even has the jurisdiction to go in and to make a determination like this. i think that the merits of the first argument is sufficient and i would be happy to discuss with any member the technical side of this as well. so i ask my colleagues to

support this. i think it's in defense of our men and women of uniform, particularly those, again, who are the younger ones who don't have that many options and i think this is common ground. i ask my colleagues to support it and i yield back the remainder of my time. >> is there discussion on the amendment? mr. courtney? >> thank you, mr. speaker. my highest regard for the opponent but i rise in strong opposition to it. he actually at the tail end of his remarks raise one of the problems i have with this. this doesn't belong in this committee. it's the education and work force committee. i thought the committee had all issues regarding pure labor standards act, davis bake and service contract act which is a service contract act was passed

in 1975. it is a thumbnail sketch. it's a fair labor standards sort of davis bacon in terms of federal contracts.mro i'm concerned. i just checked with the ranking member of the subcommittee. there was no hearing on this by the armed services committee. obviously i'm being cognizant which is the education and work force committee. i would say it is a major rewrite of what the services contract act was designed to do, which is, again, to extend the same protections to low income workers that day in and day out just seem to be sort of brushed aside by this congress. this past week in the senate we had an effort to take up a vote on the minimum wage. 54 votes in favor of it. unfortunately with the 60 vote

automatic threshold for everything in the senate, that majority vote was blocked. we have 195 house members who have signed the minimum wage increase in the house. again, we can't even get a hearing in the education and work force committee, yet here we are today with an amendment that's bypassing the subcommittee on personnel, bypassing the education and work force committee. again, with no input from secretary perez or the folks at that department in terms of the impact it's going to have on that single mother who is serving hamburgs and french fries at some of the chains that my friend from virginia mentioned. i want to remind people that the department of navy is not helpless in terms of trying to raise questions that mr. rigeld discussed here, which is that it might have an impact in terms of concessionaires being able to enter into contracts. there is an administrative mechanism for an appeal to be made to the new rule that is the subject of this amendment.

in fact, on april 8th the navy's office that administers these concession programs has, in fact, submitted a written appeal to the department of labor. so, again, this amendment seeks to basically override a process that's already in place administratively by the department of labor, again, well settled law going back 49 years in this country. yet, here we are with an amendment that is basically saying we are going to pull the plug on an effort to try to, again, bolster the wages of the lowest income workers in our economy. last friday we had encouraging job news that came out with the report that 288,000 jobs were created, most of them in the private sector. the flip side of that report is that wage growth again stayed totally flat if not fluctuated or fluttered down a little bit. we have got to start doing something as a nation to start recognizing that people who do essential work in our economy get the full protection of laws that have been on the books under republican and democratic

administrations and yet here we are with an amendment that seeks to undercut that type of wanl protection. so, again, if for no other reason, this amendment does not belong in this committee. it belongs in the committee that has jurisdiction over the u.s. department of labor. again, there can be an opportunity for people who are concerned about its impact on military bases to wade in. the order that was issued pursuant to the consumer services act provides not just military bases. again, we should not without a hearing be moving forward with an amendment like this that will have severe ramifications again on that portion of the work force that is really struggling the hardest in terms of trying to put food on the table for themselves and for their families. so, again, i would -- again, with all the highest degree of respect for the proponent urge a no vote on this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman, as i pointed out at the outset of the markup, no amendment could be brought

that has sequential referral until we have a letter waiving that jurisdiction which we have in the case of this amendment or we wouldn't have brought the amendment. any further discussion on the amendment? >> yes. mr. chairman, i'd like to yield my time to -- >> dr. fleming is recognized and you yield to mr. rigel. >> i thank dr. fleming for yielding. i think our friend mr. courtney and the spirit in which his opposition is shared. i think it's relevant here and i think the committee needs to know that the committees that were mentioned by my friend, mr. courtney, were approached and also they -- they did not feel the need to take these matters up. so they -- those committees essentially did, in fact, waive on that. i think if we don't act on this, it's clear that this is going to continue to roll out across the

country. and i have no -- or very little confidence, i should say, in the department of labor to act because it is happening right now not only in hampton roads but across the country where concessionaires are not renewing their contracts. this is hurting our men and women in uniform. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i yield back. >> mr. bese is recognized. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i'll be brief. i want to also encourage everybody to not support this amendme amendment. i actually have an afis facility that's not quite in my district. it kind of borders my district and the one next to me. very huge in dallas, texas, one of the afis headquarters. i went in and talked to them. of course, they're concerned about this wage hike, but i know that when i spoke with them a lot of the concerns that they -- that were raised from the various franchisees at these

facilities is that they would look to pull out -- none of them that i heard of had committed to pulling out if, in fact, the minimum wage was raised on these bases and i just want to echo what the gentleman said earlier just about giving the department of labor the opportunity to come out with whatever guidelines or criteria, give them a chance to review this. again, these aren't -- aren't, you know, lazy individuals or individuals stereotyped negatively. they worked very hard for very little money. these are the working poor. if you were to give them this wage increase they still would be the working poor. i mean, at $10.10 an hour even in a place like texas where the cost of living is relatively, you know, reasonable, people are still going to have a hard time making ends meet at that rate. i would ask that people oppose this amendment and give the

individuals that work at these facilities a better chance to support their families. >> thank you. >> mr. chair -- >> any further debate? ms. tsongas. >> mr. chair, i yield my time to mr. courtney. >> mr. courtney. >> i'll be very brief. number one, i want to make a point. it wasn't like the full committee educational work force had a chance to have a voice on the waiver. the chairman did sign a waiver and agreed to do that and that's well within his authority -- >> that's how they work. >> i've been around a long time to figure that out. it's not like the committee did that. the work force subcommittee which has jurisdiction, we have not had one hearing in terms of trying to deal with the issue of wage depression that exists right now in terms of either the minimum wage bill that has majority support in the senate or otherwise. the second point i wanted to make was regarding the secretary of labor. today he issued a directive which implemented a five-year

deferral in terms of designating tri care hospitals as federal contractors for the federal contract compliance office. for a lot of you that haven't been following that point, you know, this was an amendment that our committee tasked a couple of years ago that said that a hospital's acceptance of tri care does not trigger federal contract status in terms of department of labor, you know, requirements of reporting, et cetera. again, mr. klein, myself, tim wallburg raised the issue with the secretary after he got sworn in in january. we complained about the fact that the middle folks at d.o.l. were refusing to really live up to that requirement that this committee passed and was signed into law by president obama, and secretary perez to his credit listened to us and issued a directive basically shutting down that enforcement action by his department, withdrew a court action in florida that, again, was still sitting out there. this is a -- in my opinion

somebody that people should get to know. he is extremely responsive. he is extremely pragmatic and practical. he's been on the job for less than a few months or so. i would say the notion that the navy's appeal that they filed on april 8th is going to automatically fall on deaf ears at the department of labor frankly is unfair because i think we have a very responsive secretary who understands practical issues and will listen to what a reasonable request can offer and take appropriate action. again, for this amendment to move forward, again, i think just runs -- it just short circuits a process that's been in place for 49 years and will have an impact in terms of families and workers out there that really i think we should be going in the opposite direction. with that i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> any further debate on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption. the amendment offered by mr. rigel. so many as are in favor shall

say aye. those opposed say no. the amendment is agreed to. on that we will have a recorded vote. there's sufficient vote. we will call the roll call at the end of the mark. are there any other amendments to the committee's report? >> mr. chair? >> mr. chair -- >> do you have an amendment at the des snk. >> yes. >> the clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentle lady for the purpose of explaining her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chair. this is the first in your new rule. i'm offering and withdrawing this amendment due to the creation of a new mandatory spending but i look forward to alternative ways to move this proposal forward. i introduced this with senator dean heller. we are in the house to find it incumbent to do the same.

this proposal would authorize the department of defense to establish an appeals process for filipino vets who have not been able to have their military service verified by the united states for possible additions to the missouri list. this bipartisan bill gives these veterans the opportunity to have their records examined and verified by military historians so they can receive benefits. it's been an honor to meet many of the hawaii filipino veterans of world war ii and to discuss with them the challenges they have faced in obtaining compensation for their service. after playing an integral part in our pacific strategy in world war ii, over 250,000 veterans have struggled to obtain the benefits for their sacrifice to the nation for the conflict. many of you know they served in the service on the call of general mcarthur and for the next several years they would share the faith of our american -- of the american

counterparts in the battle fields, prisoner of war camps, and throughout the countryside as part of the guerrilla warship. washington promised them the same pay and pension benefits. omar bradley said they were to be treated like any other american veteran. however, congress passed and president trueman signed public law 70-301 known as the recision act of 1946 which stripped these veterans of their earned benefits. this remains one of the greatest tragedies of our time and our nation still struggles today to compensate these brave men for their valor. this tragedy represents a great injustice since filipino world war ii veterans and their families and is long overdue for solutions. i was especially pleased when president obama signed the american reinvestment act of 2009 which included a provision for the filipino veteran fund. mr. chair as of april 1, 2014,

45,991 applicants were processed but almost 25,000 applications stand disapproved. this is because of the missouri list. all this amendment does is state -- >> time. >> -- an alternative way to say whether these veterans served honorably. this is a solution that we must have for this terrible injustice. with that, mr. chairman, i withdraw my amendment. >> lady withdraws her amendment. are there any other amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> mr. hunter has an amendment. the clerk will please pass out the amendment. without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment's very simple. it simply says that if a category or consumer product was legal to sell as of the 1st of this year and the defense commissary system or exchange

stores or aps or any aircraft carrier or sea going vessel or overseas px, it was legal in january 1st, it's going to be legal after this is passed. what -- the reason i bring this amendment up is we've had interference from the soekt of the navy and others to think that guys like me when we serve in the marine corps, tell us we can't buy soda, we can't buy chewing tobacco, we can't buy beer, we can only buy 2% milk. we don't want that to happen. especially for the enlisted ranks and the young officers. it's important that what few amenities we get to keep when we join the service and give ours lives up to uncle sam for four years, that those amenities, we get to keep them. that's what it does. i would ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. thank you. i yield back. >> mr. chairman.

>> ms. davis recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to speak essentially in opposition. i asked that this be pulled from the enblock because i do think that this is an important discussion and rather than preempting the secretary of the navy from carrying that on and trying to really develop and talk about how we can better promote readiness as well as better health, i think that we need to look at our programs, look at what's out there now and try and improve on those. this is not telling people that they can't use tobacco. clearly people can go across the street almost wherever they are and purchase that, but we are sending a kind of double message by not saying that we recognize that tobacco can cause damage not only to a sailor but also to

their families. secondhand 1340smoke we concern. the issue of readiness, we know that that's affecting the ability of the men and women that serve to do their job. this is a conversation. i think it's important. we want to commit to that readiness and to health care costs. the reality is that smoking, use of tobacco has been banned on submarines without any impact. it's a discussion that actually isn't even coming forward. in san diego i would be hearing from people, i can assure you, whether -- if they felt this was not something they wanted to see move forward. i think that we need to do more in this area, especially in cessation, and i would like to force the secretary as well as our other services to do everything possible to try and encourage, promote the kinds of programs that people really want that are going to help them to stop smoking. so rather than just letting this

move forward, i think we need to ask the question. is this important? would it make a difference? if so, do we want a double message of having tobacco in our exchanges on bases? now keep in mind, we don't have tobacco at commissaries any longer. where people shop and exchanges is more about trying to get electronics so that the idea, and i really appreciate the fact that many of our folks who work with the communities have suggested that that might bring down the money that's spent at our exchanges. well, it's a different purpose that people go to exchanges for. this is not commissary or where you get snacks or food from your family. this is separate from that. i think we can do that differently. the other issue here that's critical is the secretary in his exploration of this issue would back up mwr to be sure that we don't take money away from that, the dollars that would possibly come out in not having tobacco

at our exchanges. so i think we want to cover for that as well. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. kaufman. >> thank the gentleman from colorado. number one, as somebody who used the exchanges and lived on base for a number of years at camp pendleton, we do use the exchanges almost purely for beer and tobacco. that's what the young marines that go to war and fight for everybody in this room, they use those exchanges purely for tobacco, sometimes beer, water and gatorades and little snacks to take to the field. just because we joined the military to serve this country doesn't mean we can do it comfortably in the smallest ways possible. we sleep in the dirt for this country, we get shot at for this country but we can't have a cigarette if we want to for this country because that's unhealthy. if you want to make us all

healthy, let's outlaw war. war's really dangerous. it was bad for my health and it's bad for other people's health. if you truly want to make it so we're all healthy we shouldn't be have a military at all. that in and of itself is dangerous. i yield back. >> mr. garamundy? >> i appreciate the view of my colleague, mr. hunter on this, but i think that this committee would do well to observe the statistics of tobacco addiction among the young service members in all military branches. it is at least twice the rate in the general population, and there's a reason for that. and part of the reason for that is this ability to ghetto back could he on the base and the culture of the base. i have not served in camp pendleton, but the statistics

that are becoming available and the ongoing cost to the taxpayers of this nation of the extraordinary addiction to tow pa tobacco in the military is very, very heavy. those statistics are out there. i don't have them with me today. had i known this amendment is coming up, i would have had them for this committee to ponder and consider. we're going to have to address this issue. this is a very significant problem within the military and beyond. failure to take this amendment makes -- would probably make the situation worse. i urge that we oppose this amendment and that the readiness committee -- subcommittee undertake a very careful and thorough study of tobacco addiction among the enlisted men and women and quite possibly the

officers also. it is a very real problem, one that goes way beyond life in the military. it goes throughout and it kpoms back and hits us, veterans side of it and beyond. with that i yield and oppose the amendment. >> dr. wenstrom. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to speak in favor of this amendment from the standpoint that our military should not be less free than the rest of this country to purchase legal items. why would we take something away from the military that the rest of the country is able to partake in? it's a bigger issue when it comes to the smoking. it's not just military, it's our population in general but you're saying you just want to restrict it for the military? with this i stand in favor of this amendment. i yield back. >> mr. gale.

>> my issue is not so much with the drinking or the smoking. i think if you're out on the front lines and you're chewing tobacco, that's not a big deal to me. you're entitled. but i -- where i have an issue is any new policy that would limit or restrict orban the sale. i mean, any restriction -- any restriction on any product on any legal product? because when you start talking about restricting any legal consumer product category, you can't make any restrictions? so if you decide that you're going to change the size of the shelves because you want to sell more bud reiser than you want to sell coors or you want to sell -- and all of a sudden you can't make any restriction? that to me tells me we can't make any changes at all from what you're doing today. while i understand the issue you

raise, you need a rifle and you're using like a huge cannon to take care of an issue that is really limited in scope. so me -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> -- this is overly broad. i would vote no on it because i think it's hugely broad. when you say you can't restrict any legal consumer product category at all, that covers a lot more than cigarettes. that covers a lot more than beer. it covers a lot more -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> it doesn't restrict the stores, it restricts the sec deaf and the military secretaries from implementing policy that would limit, restrict orban so it doesn't restrict the store from changing its stock or changing, you know, rows around, it restricts the secretaries because they're not doing that. thank you for yielding. >> and i appreciate that, but the truth is that the decisions of what ends up in the store is the decision that's made higher

up. and so, again, i mean, for me it's just an issue of when you say you can't restrict anything. you're making them do anything they do today having to do it forever and that doesn't seem to make any sense to me. >> any other discussion on the amendment? >> thank you, mr. chairman. look, whether or not the items are going to be sold in the px, service men who want them will go off base and get them at the convenience store outside the gate. the concern then becomes granted the addicting qualities of nicotine is that when they are then deployed or ship board and the items are no longer available on the ec$.ráñ is not the time you want somebody going through withdrawal from nicotine. so i think from a logistical view, they're going to get the items when they're conus and then when they're deployed or ship board, they can no longer

have them there is a decrement in their functioning so for that reason i will support the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to speak in support of the bill. what i'm a bit mystified about is that the other side wants to say that the department of defense can restrict items that are actually perfectly legal for adults to use but on the other hand i suspect many on that side voted in favor of giving an illegal drug, that is marijuana, to veterans. so, look, we need to kind of work this out a little bit. rather than restrict legal substances that people can normally buy across the counter and give people things that are as harmful if not more so in the way of marijuana, smoke that has

more carcinogens than tobacco, that we need to be consistent about this. in this case, as long as it's legal and able for a consenting adult to purchase, i think it should be as available on base as it would be off base, but on the other hand, if it's illegal, it's a schedule one drug and it's against federal law, i don't think we should be giving it. i think that's pretty plain. >> any further -- >> thank you. actually, i will be -- i am in favor of mr. hunter's amendment because i actually believe that those people who go and fight for us should have the same rights as is legal here in the united states and so i will be voting with you. i'm not a smoker, i don't like

smoking in my face, i don't like it in a bar, i don't like it anywhere, but if somebody wants to do it and it's legal, i'm for it. i just remind you that i feel the same way about reproductive rights when you all tried to limit it. when it's legal in the united states but you limit it for military women. thank you. >> the lady -- >> any other discussion on the amendment. >> i just want to take just a second. i have never smoked. i've never had a drink, but i -- it bothers me when we think of big brother deciding what people can buy and sell, even something that's legal. i think it's probably good that they say you can't sell something that's not legal, but it really bothers me. what if they decide that we shouldn't if they decide we shot have kool-aid for whatever

reason? they ban kool-aid? i have a lot of problem. we do a lot of social experimenting with the military. i would like us to listen to those who have served that have to put up with some of the stuff that we send down to them. and so i'm in strong support of the amendment. >> chairman would you yield for a moment? >> if there's no further discussion then, we'll -- >> oh, great. i started something. i'm sorry i said anything. mr. castro? miss spear? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to miss davis. >> to who? >> miss davis, okay. >> just for the record, mr. chairman, we also -- we've seen that cvs is limiting their sales. they're not restrict iing it to anybody. we're certainly not trying to target troops here. we have to be thinking about health care costs and about readiness. those are issues worthy of a discussion. it's been a good discussion

rather than bearing it in a nonblock, this is being discussed out in the community and we want to give people an opportunity when they have those -- they're taking that risk, really, in trying to bring something forward that's going to make a positive difference in the quality of life and we should support that. >> i think it's been a good discussion. miss spear wants to give mr. garmindi, he hasn't had a chance to speak yet. >> marijuana is now legal in colorado and washington state. under your amendment, could it be limited at the px or the commissary? >> it was not legal as of january 1st, 2014 on base in commissary, vessel at sea. it would not be legal. >> so the argument about access to legal is only half correct?

>> okay. is there any other discussion? >> i would like a little further clarification. i do -- am worried about the broadness of the language. other things that are sold at commissaries may be deemed unsafe. for example -- i know this sounds far fetched but if lawn darts could be sold before and we find out that kids are getting hurt from a particular toy, does that mean we must continue to sell that dangerous toy on post? it's not just about cigarettes, alcohol, pornography, whatever. their families are purchasing things as well. and i just worry we are now using a blunt instrument to try to address an issue that just requires a scalpel.

does the amendment cover things like toys for kids and preventing the sales of things that maybe we find are dangerous, but are not deemed illegal? i yield my time for an answer. >> if the gentlelady looks at the amendment, it's one paragraph. and it's really explicit. may not take any action to implement any new policy that would limit, restrict, ban the sale of any legal product sold as of january 2014 on bases. >> re -- >> if it was -- >> reclaiming my time, if there was a car seat that was legal for sale january 1st, 2014, and we find that car seat to be faulty and dangerous and the dod is no longer allowed to ban the sale of those car seats? i yield 30 seconds for your response. >> the exchange, they make their own decisions on that. it's like the question about how do you stock the shelves then? two totally different things.

this says that the secretary of defense and the military's secretaries cannot make these changes. if they want to make a change like that, they can make a change, obviously, with a defective product they can pull it off the shelf or any product for that matter. >> reclaiming my time, it's a general officer who is in charge of the military exchange service. that is a military officer who is ultimately in charge. it's not a civilian. and so ultimately it is a military officer who makes those decisions and i'm worried that we are going to be tying the hands of the military on some of these issues. and, again, i don't care about the issue -- when i went on deployment over half my unit started smoking just because it was a way to release stress and i understand that. i'm worried about things like car seats and the broadness of this language. perhaps my concern is precisely because this amendment is very vague and it is just a paragraph long. and that we have now opened the

door for some real restrictions on military leaders on this issue. is there any way to perhaps be more specific? and i think i would be more comfortable if you could be more specific in the language of the bill. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> we are now in our eating time. so, if you want to keep talking, we can do that, but we have now down to about ten, 15 minutes to eat. so if there are no further discussion, the questions on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. hunter, so many as are in favorable say aye. as opposed no. the ayes have it. amendment is agreed to. anybody want a roll call vote? mr. garamendi requests roll call vote. we'll have that later when we finish. as i said, we will now take a recess. dinner is outside. here is what we're going to do. we're going to eat. when the vote is called, go

vote. as soon as the last vote is over, we will come back and begin where we left off. thank you for your patience.