. before members stop paying attention, the purpose of this amendment it's too late for some of you. the purpose of this amendment is to correct micromanagement. one of the toughest jobs in all of american government. we have a heavy duty oversight responsibility but do not want to get into the weeds. we don't want to do anything from -- to prevent him or hinder him from doing his job. we can make an ms a function effectively. with the chairman's permission i would like to withdraw the amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn.

the gentleman from washington is recognized. >> the amendment is at the desk. please distribute. >> the staff will distribute the amendment. >> it is being distributed. a short description. >> if the gentleman will give enough time. >> i'm trying to get members of fair shot to see what is in the amendment before we start discussing it. >> my summary we will be extremely eloquent, i eloquent, i assure you. >> that is why i want everyone paying attention. without objection the amendment is considered as read. >> thank you. this amendment modifies the report to include a 25 year

plan, cost assessment and r&d and production timelines of dod nuclear delivery systems infrastructure, and critical skills necessary to maintain deterrence. i asked the community to approve this.

>> the program requires careful planning and particularly since costs peak. we require the pentagon to give us a 25 year plan. earlier this month the undersecretary stated that we have a problem with recapitalizing adding we do have a huge affordability problem. it is one we will have to face up to. secure an additional ten to $12 billion annually to modernize all three legs. essentially what i am asking is fairly simple. i understand have a better

handle. this amendment would modify the annual report on the plan. we need a much clearer and better idea. i asked the community to support this and yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will have to oppose this amendment. this amendment amends an existing tenure report to require dod to give the cost estimate over 25 years.

at a hearing just over two weeks io i asked the general would be responsible for creating this report if it will be good idea. after groaning he said not another report. i witnessed and explained to him as you would expect, looking that far out the credibility of numbers would be suspect. i would not recommend a new report that would recommend we do what we are doing now sharing the baseline plan which goes out 25 years and share that information as we have been doing. by the way the cbo has said much the same thing. they are just not reliable. through existing reports we have detailed cost estimates and get regular long-term program plan updates. the right balance between transparency and reliability

numbers. this would not result in good and effective oversight i urge my colleagues to vote no and yield back. >> ignorance is not good. let's consider for a moment what we are in the process of doing. we discussed a moment ago the development of life extension programs of hundreds, indeed thousands of very expensive the b6 one being one example. we are now looking at not only the weapon but the delivery system.

there is a new missile submarine and new nuclear fighter the knew stealth long-range bomber the new cruise missile for the delivery of nuclear weapons the long-range strike weapons knew icbms minutemen three nuclear subs, nuclear bombs. this is very real a knew nuclear arms race. russia is upgrading china is upgrading france is upgrading commanding went. does does that mean we must go forward without knowing what we're getting into? we do not need to know this is a 25 year program? most of this will not be in the next five or ten years.

it begins sometime after 2025 and the department does have estimates at the same hearing that the chairman was so good at putting together a very good hearings, excellent information. i asked will -- do you have the information and will you deliver it to me. he said yes. he did deliver it. it is economic economic equations totally without any information as to what they mean. the information is out there we're the ones that must make a decision. some some people on this committee intends to be around here for 25 years. why don't we get the information as best we can

because it might prove to be extremely expensive and indeed it is. i suspect that is why frank kendall stated they are going to have a problem funding is capitalization issue. we need to know that this is our work. why deny ourselves the basic information we must have as we enter into the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quarter of a trillion dollar nuclear enterprise. do we want to be ignorant? i hope not? do we want the very best knowledge? i hope so. this is an extremely important thing. i commend mr. larson and want to thank the chairman. we hear things differently obviously. we look at the same facts and hear different things. at least finding out what this is in the future is

something we must have. >> discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the amendment. the nose have it. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama for the purposes of offering an amendment. >> i ask unanimous consent to call an amendment. >> without objection, so ordered. please distribute the amendments. >> mr. chairman a moment while this is being passed out. i do not appreciate the amenity you have provided us so far. you are texan, correct?

>> absolutely. >> if you go out there there is not a single dr pepper in the entire for in room. there is a complaint. [laughter] >> the gentleman's complaint is duly noted. [laughter] and if there is one thing i will say i am learning every day about how we can improve the process. we did not quite get to the dr pepper does the gentleman wish to discuss food? >> mr. bishop, if he has another esa amendment perhaps he could come back tomorrow morning. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read in the gentleman is recognized.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. amendment number 86 are one. regarding our assured access 131 are one regarding ascent of congress regarding a strong missile defense system. the report evaluating the role of future aegis to offset future combatant commander requirements. 2121 2141. amendment number 221 are one -- i budget that name concerning an increase in funding for concept development of conventional

global strike capability. three. 321 by mr. bishop regarding a briefing in the department's plan for the use of assets. >> thank you. i yield back. >> further discussion? >> the gentleman from south carolina. >> i greatly appreciate the success of the subcommittee chairman mike rogers. this six these savannah river site retirees with other pension plans. savannah river site retirees have not seen the cost of living pension adjustment since 2002. inflation has increased 30 percent. srs retirees serve their country during an uncertain time and many are called

for -- cold war warriors. this is imperative to make fiscally responsible decisions to assist srs retirees moving forward. >> is there further discussion? does the gentleman from utah wish to be heard? >> not really. mr. forbes is a better found them -- a better a better man than i am and found the dr pepper in the other room. i withdraw my complaint. >> the staff is good at taking care of us, even when we don't know it. the question is on the amendment offered by mr. rogers. the amendment is adopted. the gentleman from california is recognized.

the clerk will distribute the amendment. >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. >> mr. chairman, i will do this quickly. there is an ongoing debate about whether we need a

triad or dyad or whether we can have a missile defense -- excuse me, missile system based upon submarines. that is an important issue as to the cost and safety of this nation. this amendment would simply require within the next 180 days we have a briefing from the appropriate people at the department of defense about which. that is what this is all about. again we are into an expensive future. >> i'm sorry there is a great a great deal of hubbub because the gentleman is talking about a different amendment. >> it would not be my 1st mistake. >> number 2661.

>> i've got it. let's go. my apologies to the community. this deals with what mr. wilson was talking about the savannah river site. this is an ongoing issue. it is a blackhole it is not working. a report that came out with in the last couple of weeks indicates this may be a $47 billion project that at the end of the day will not solve the problem. the department is now -- the department of energy is now in the process of trying to analyze for different options for this event all

of which could provide a continuation of jobs but in a different modality of disposing of surplus plutonium. this would remove $125 million of the 478 million in the current bill and use that in a variety of radioactive cleanup programs from hanford, oak ridge fort smith again the program in new mexico providing additional money to deal with cleanup. this does not terminate the program the simply meets the current shut down and allows the department to bring to

us later this year they are best recommendation on how to move forward with the disposal of plutonium. >> the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you. i am grateful that i represent these savannah river site where the fuel fabrication facility is located. it is proceeding and will work and is a copy of what has been done in france the reprocessing, a unique facility that would dispose of 34 tons of met -- metric tons of weapons grade plutonium. we have further discussion legitimately.

this is in full accord with the us russian plutonium agreement. that is the nonproliferation agreement we had and it cannot be a more important time that we follow through. the facts about the program need to be known. i cannot wait to invite anyone who would like to visit. it is a working site. 65 percent completed in terms of construction percent of the equipment has been procured and 50 percent is on-site. it is somewhat unusual but i am supporting the funding. also nonproliferation, to halt the project or interrupt the project as being proposed in the united

states would have to renegotiate with the russian federation which would not be in the interest of the united states. i i have a particular concern in that the material that is currently located we don't want it there. like for it to be reprocessed and made in the fuel and then it would be beneficial to the american people. in fact i am so confident that in a few minutes i am hoping they will provide for the national nuclear security administration to provide an assessment where it will be presented to community.

i am not confident looking at the different alternatives but the cost of the other alternatives i just not possible. at this time i oppose the amendment that you have just proposed but will be supporting the analysis of dna and as a study in the future. i have another angle. i have worked at the site. i no of the capabilities and competence of the people who work there. they know they are making a difference providing for fuel and providing to promote nonproliferation. i i yield the balance of my time and original vote. >> further discussion on the amendment? >> may i add one voice?

there is no credible alternative this program that fulfills the treaty obligation we have especially when we are two thirds completed. this should go forward. i wish to give a quick word and support. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. the nose have it in the amendment is not adopted. the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> amendment at the desk. >> the staff will please distribute the amendment

without objection the amendment is considered as read. >> unless you're paying close attention you probably do not realize this is the zombie your mark we passed last year. let me stipulate i have the highest regard for general wilson. let me be clear about the money involved. i am okay with $220 million for the mixed oxide facility we have a big investment.

i am okay with another hundred million and maintenance. $320 million. what i am not okay with is another hundred $25 million on top of that. that i can't hear mark. fear that no hearing on this this is probably the project in american history with the highest cost overrun. something that was supposed to cost four to $6 billion in and $30 billion now $47 billion and there is an estimate it might be $110 billion. we sent 4 billion already. how can you possibly say that is two thirds complete

when the overall cost of the project is so extraordinary? i welcome the gentleman's interest in having another study of this. in nasa wants this project put in cold standby. let's not do the extra hundred 25 million the matter how much we love joe wilson. as the chairman said earlier, we have to prioritize. many of the buildings are literally world war ii vintage. people at oak ridge were nearly killed by falling concrete. we have plants all over america that need continued maintenance so that we can attract top-quality folks.

let's prioritize money and not allow this zombie your mark to come back to life again. to embark on this project site unseen is an extraordinary mistake. i support the amendment. earmarks are not allowed but somehow or another this has gotten legitimacy when it is really a special favor for a special person in one town. that is too much. >> mr. chairman. >> if the gentleman will withhold how much did the administration request for

the facility and their budget request? >> $345 million. >> how much is in mr. rogers mark? >> 345 million. >> i got confused. the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you very much. i want to.out this project pre- dated me, substantially i have had the privilege and opportunity having worked at savannah river site worked with personnel visited the facility and it is uncontroverted that the construction is 65 percent completed. that is not a question. additionally it is truly uncontroverted that 90 percent of the equipment has been procured. the other numbers being

thrown out our beyond mere speculation. they are just not correct. the good news is as i indicated there is a study to determine the alternatives, what the cost would be but there is no question to me that this extraordinarily unique facility which would convert 34 metric tons of weapons grade plutonium into fuel can only be positive. additionally by living up to the obligations we have with the russian federation on nonproliferation by changing the numbers that were just described we would have to renegotiate. this is not a time to renegotiate. it is not personal to me. i do not want high-level nuclear waste and the communities i represent. there is a a way for this to

be addressed and i urge and no vote. this is an in conformity with what the administration has proposed. >> the gentleman from washington. >> thank you. i yield my time to mr. cooper. >> i am glad my friend is so interested in adhering to a treaty with russia. a treaty that russia walked away from years ago. both sides promised to destroy 34 metric tons of plutonium and the russians chose to do it through a reactor which does not destroyed much of any in fact it increases. the exact ratio they take a pound of plutonium and turn it into almost a pound of plutonium. that's not a reduction. frost to want to follow into

a bargain i am astonished. this is turned out to be a bad treaty. the key is we have got to prioritize. ..

we still have to worry about lindsey graham in the senate conference that barring lindsey graham we are going to invest in the house and the senate. >> is 220 the amount asked in the budget request last year and is 220 p.m. annual amount projected for the rest of the out-years? >> there's another 100 million for maintenance. and we took the extra 125 million that i'm complaining about. let's not give them that extra. let's put a little bit of a break on this thing. this is more than any member of the committee has ever asked for in any project. $47 billion in one-time of south carolina and possibly $110 billion? this dwarfs the manhattan project and this adheres to an agreement that the russians have broken? give me a break.

so let's reduce it. we can spend that money on refurbishing essential nuclear facilities most members of the committee agreed on the priorities and let's shift the money now. not that extra 125 million. >> let me ask you do you agree the administration asked for exactly the amount that cinemark? >> as they do. >> i'm just trying to clarify. people might have different opinions about the project by 20 start talking earmarks that gets into rules that apply to everybody so what we are providing is exactly the amount the administration asked for in the budget request. that's the only point i want to make in this discussion. the gentleman from new jersey.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to yield my time to mr. wilson. >> thank you very much mr. lobiondo and indeed i'm not here defending the conduct. we should be promoting america abiding by agreements but we have a great opportunity here to live up to the agreement on nonproliferation. this is so important for the people of the world and it's been discussed numerous times in different venues even tonight but we have a great opportunity and i would like to point out that this truly is disclosing out not just creating more of a problem but eliminating 34 metric tons of weapons-grade to tony m., converting it into green fuel and living with agreement we have with nonproliferation. this predated me and i'm very

very grateful over the years i have been to this site numerous times and every time i go i'm very impressed to see indeed that if 65%. i can tell you it's an extraordinary facility and i invite anyone to come and visit and see the extraordinary work they are making a difference and promoting a really positive effort for the people of the united states. >> the gentleman yields back. if there is no further discussion the question is on the amendment offered by the represented from tennessee mr. cooper. the no's have it. the gentleman from tennessee request a roll call vote which will be postponed. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama mr. rogers. >> thank you mr. chairman good i ask unanimous consent to call up the en bloc amendment worked in approved with.

>> at the clerk will please distribute the amendments to be offered en bloc. [inaudible conversations] without objection the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes to offer explain the amendments. >> thank you mr. chairman. i call up number three amendment number 138 regarding a plan for medium-range ballistic missiles and alternatives for the enhancement of hawaii. amendment 162r1 by ms. sanchez regarding the conduct of an analysis alternative environmental management.

amendment number 165r1 by ms. sanchez regarding the security outlining an approach for non-kinetic means of ballistic missile defense. amendment number 178r1 by mr. hicks regarding the administrative nuclear security to submit requiring the administrator to submit a data sheet for the enhanced radiography project. amendment 278r1 by ms. gabbard regards removing the deadline for reassignment that they board an associate certification and with that i urged a guess but and i yield back. >> is there further discussion on the en bloc amendment offered by mr. rogers collected not the question is on amendment offered by the german from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. icas have it and the amendment is adopted. next the chairman recognizes

mr. garamendi for the purpose of offering an amendment read. >> and amendment at the desk. >> was apple distribute the amendment. without objection the amendment is considered as read in the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i think i explained this. i will go very quickly here. this is a request for a report from the department of strategic command about the wisdom of the

triad or diad. it's information we probably have maybe 200 requests thus far that we have approved everything from tanks to missiles and missile defense. this is a big one. this has to do with the ground-based missiles. it has to do with the submarines and it has to do with the nuclear systems. we are looking at a very very expensive future here in the question that was raised in our committee by two witnesses as to what the cost might be and whether there was sufficient money to capitalize all three of the triads. this is simply a request for the department to deliver to us the information that we will need to make some strategic decisions about these issues. that's it. if we want a little more information on extremely expensive extremely important

part of our security then let's approved this and have some knowledge. i yield that. >> the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you mr. chairman. i oppose this amendment. first the amendment is too broad. it would require operational nuclear war plans and related analysis. the committee does not require that kind of thing. second eod already provided information to the committee and gao. we received a conference of document containing analysis of the information contained in the triad and i think the gentleman made reference. i don't know whether guessing that diad -- triad. the gentleman would like to get another briefing on this topic with dod would be happy to come and read it based on a simple e-mail request. i urge my colleagues to vote no and i yield back.

>> is there further discussion on the amendment? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california mr. garamendi. those in favor say aye. those opposed a bill. the no's have it. he knows have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia mr. whitman rise? >> mr. chairman and this point onward that we change the time for debate for members from five minutes to two minutes. >> this would require unanimous consent so rather than operate under the five-minute rule we would operate under the three minute rule. you said too. i'm sorry. you told me three. >> eyeless deal what i can get. >> mr. chairman.

>> is there objection to the unanimous consent requests? >> i think there are two more amendments on this. is that correct? >> i will see what's on the chart. >> why don't we finish this section . i happen to have the remaining four. >> objection is heard. and thereafter mr. chairman i would object. two objections were heard. >> a three minute rule. >> now we are negotiating. >> free is my max. >> we will revisit the issue after we finish this section . how about that? next the gentleman from

california mr. garamendi is recognized for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> at the clerk would read the amendment. >> it wasn't my idea to put me last. without objection the amendment is considered as read and mr. garamendi is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, this is an effort to try to get the information that we need to make some informed decisions about

how we are going to carry out our strategic defense, nuclear defense systems. the elements that are asked for in this report another briefing but a report of the nuclear weapons undergoing life extension, all of them. what their development program is, the warheads their modernization and the platforms on which they will be deployed. and the cost estimates associated with each of the lifecycle costs. as i've said several times and this will be the last time i see see -- save at least tonight but i intend to play it for quite a long time ahead of us, we are the first quarter of the very expansive expensive than in many ways a far more dangerous nuclear arms race. the weapons are far more sophisticated. we are using stealth technology.

we are talking about 20 years maybe 25 years ahead of us of spending money and modernizing this entire system. we really don't know how all of these things fit together. we really don't have information despite mr. rogers very good briefings. there is never been a report that covers the issues in this amendment. it is the way in which all of these fit together under the warheads and a life extension programs of the warheads. what is the timing of those? how do they fit with the new delivery systems, the long-range standoff missiles the new stealth bombers, the new minuteman to the new nuclear subs and the new missiles that are used on those subs. how did they all fit together and what does it cost? that is what this is all about. that is what our job is and why we would deny yourself that basic information i do not

understand. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you mr. chairman. i've posed this amendment just like i oppose the amendment by my friend from virginia mr. larson because it's basically the same amendment. the amendment requires a misleading report over long-term falsetto cost of current and planned modernization programs in dod and nsa. the dod doesn't believe it can do this and thinks it would be very suspect. this is another way of saying that even if we did it it would be useless. if you think cost data looking out to 28 he is any that is what this would do then i would like to sell you some oceanfront property in colorado. the amendment would not result in good oversight and transparency. i urge a no bug and i yield back back. >> further discussion on the amendment?

if not the question is on the amendment offered by mr. garamendi. of all those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the no's have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. garamendi is recognized for the purpose of offering another amendment. >> the gentleman is not going to offer as i understand it and amendment 102. does the german was to offer 251r1? if the clerk would distribute 251r1.

without objection the amendment is considered as read and garamendi is recognized for five minutes. >> once again this deals with the nuclear enterprise and a piece of that puzzle, a very expensive piece of that. this amendment deals with production of new nuclear plutonium pits. it's part of a nuclear weapon grade it's the plutonium that is used to make it really explode in a very big way and it's extremely expensive. for some reasons, which are not explained in any hearing that we have had thus far the end and

essay wants to expand the ability to make new nuclear plutonium pits to the tune of 50 to 80 year. the current production is about five to 10 a year and yet there is no explanation of why we need to go from 50 to 80. as was stated in earlier discussions here we are actually reducing the number of total nuclear warheads and why we would want to go out and build this extremely expensive facility that will be at lease $1.4 billion is beyond me. we have never been given the information on why this is necessary either in classified hearings during public hearings. in 2013, the question of building new facilities to increase the production from

five to 10 pits a year from 50 to 80 was delayed for five years. this bill this amendment is designed to give us the information on weather that delayed is useful and should continue whether the project should be abandoned and stayed with the five to 10 a year or whether we have to proceed before the five-year time horizon has lapsed. once again why do we fear -- i keep getting put down by the chairman saying it's not necessary and if we had the information that might be misconstrued. maybe that maybe it would also add to our knowledgeable we are doing here. it might add to our knowledge of how we will be spending over the next 20 years a trillion dollars dollars. is that where we want to spend that? wouldn't it be helpful to have the basic information? this is one of those pieces of

extraordinary enterprise page huge cost going forward in the multi-billions. some people estimated at 3.725.9 billion and operating cost of 100 million to 150 billion a year. to do why? to produce new plutonium pits at the same time we are trying to dispose of 34 tons of unused plutonium. much of which happens to be plutonium pits. what is this urge on extremely absurd. so let's proceed. it seems to be the order today. mr. rogers do you want to repeat your message of the previous? what i do that? >> the gentleman from alabama. >> i thank the chairman chairman. i do oppose this amendment.

included in the strategic forces to market the request of the gentleman from california. it requires a sweeping on plutonium pits. i understand all the detail he wants but as far as i'm willing to go on this repetitive unnecessary questioning of a thoroughly considered national security requirement. we have required many many reports and reviews of plutonium in the past several years. he simply do not need to keep on doing this. i understand the gentleman from california does not like the answer we give back. the obama administration let either -- says would be plutonium pit production and we needed into the 2020s. we have 163143 and the mark. i urge a no vote on this amendment. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? is not a question occurs on the amendment offered by mr. garamendi. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no.

the no's have it. the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california. mr. garamendi wish to offer another amendment? >> i'm beginning to get a sense of how this is working. maybe i'm just a little bit slow or maybe i'm determined that we understand are these have some sense of what is going on with the nuclear enterprise. so i withdraw my remaining amendment. >> so the gentleman chooses not to offer amendments to 55r1. in that case proceeding 259r1 excuse me. in that case proceedings will resume on those roll call votes which we have previously postponed.

and as i see it is mr. franks 207r1 a missile defense mr. cooper 51r1 on six portal monitors ms. sanchez 164 nuclear deterrent sanchez 241r1 and the sanchez 311r3 cuts to internet weapons activity. cost-sharing agreements and cooper 289. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona mr. franks number 207r1 on missile defense. the clerk will call the roll. >> roback --

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

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

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

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

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

[inaudible conversations] the gentleman from texas mr. castro. mr. castro votes no. the gentleman from missouri mr. graves wish to be recorded? mr. graves bodes aye.

the gentleman from rhode island mr. lender then how is he recorded? >> is not recorded sir. mr. lone german votes no. mr. longo then votes no. langevin >> the clerk will report the tally. >> 35 aye vote, 27 no votes. >> the amendment is adopted. the question now occurs on amendment number 51r1 by the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

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

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

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

[roll call] [roll call] >> mr. chairman? >> ms. speier. >> i would like to change my vote from no to aye.

>> ms. speier of votes aye. the clerk will report the results. >> mr. chairman the ayes were 27 and the nose were 35. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the question now rises on the amendment offered by ms. sanchez number 164. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

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

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

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

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

[inaudible conversations] the clerk will report the results. >> mr. chairman there were 26 aye vote, 36 no-doz. >> the amendment is not adopted. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by ms. sanchez number 241r1. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

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

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

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

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

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

[inaudible conversations] >> is staff ready to report the results? >> mr. chairman the ayes are 26 in the nose were 35. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the question now occurs on the amendment numbered 311r3 by the gentlewoman from california ms. sanchez. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]

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

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

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

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

the clerk will report the results. >> mr. chairman there were 22 aye votes, 40 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. the question occurs on amendment 168r1 by ms. sanchez. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

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

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

[roll call] [roll call]

[inaudible conversations] the clerk will report the results. >> mr. chairman the ayes were 27 and the no's were 36. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the question occurs on amendment 289 offered by the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call]

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

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

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

>> >> mr. rogers you end your staff for your efforts for commercial satellites. proposed section moves us in the right direction is important changes and in hammond -- enhancements provide to clarify the intent of the language the was a report about the pathfinder effort of the new program however there is some concern dot may so the focus of the pathfinder and

delay any focus on the newer satellite technology. is it the intent of this provision to have commercial satellite communications including new technology in the expeditious fashion in addition to the pathfinder efforts. i thank you for the clarification. >> at the with the strategic forces has amended the gentleman from alabama say aye. oppose? the aye have it and the motion is adopted. let me give. we are about to go into the full committee portion we will have a couple of amendments, then we need to

have the vote but then to the full committee portion we have roughly 20 amendments that we know of that'll have to be offered. [laughter] not everybody has to talk or ask for a roll-call vote. but we will proceed until we're done. but we have to have the votes. >> and have unanimous consent to get a stupid to minute limit for debate? >> is there objection? >> if you kid doing in two minutes you don't know what

you're talking about anywhere. [laughter] so unanimous consent to minutes per person. >> i object. the ones we have going forward on the full committee is very serious and i can think of several. how about anybody attempt to do with it in three but some will have to go over. >> and objection is heard. okay. the committee will consider the chairman's larkin consult - - consultation with the ranking member we will arrange votes as i have just discussed. in the chair appeals to himself.

among the provisions in the full committee mark are those dealing with acquisition reform. thank you to members of both sides to have contributed to these sections. is just a start but it is a beginning. there is some confusion about section 1223 that deals with assistance to various groups in iraq. in order to provide assistance to the various groups we had to phrasing which in a certain way to comply with u.s. foreign assistance act. the committee does not been to change decisions for iraqis and sovereignty that is up to them. i just want to clarify that is removed into the full committee portion for pro in the comments you would like to make?

>> there is a lot to talk about so let's get going. [laughter] >> any of their comments? are there any amendments? i will recognize myself and ask unanimous consent with those of having worked and approved by the minority. it is so ordered so please pass out to block number worn. >> they're reading has been

dispensed with and comprised of the following for goldman and number one that expresses congress should provide u.s. forces supporting operation in here resulted in combat search and rescue in forces providing such should not have limitation on ground forces. from the comptroller general for the reason of delays in testing the way you have from the capital cash flow in the midsection in 17 of the of 515 with the congressional report and it from the secretary of

defense the litter there in september 30th, 2015 to include a link to the sba procurement center with a briefing by 2015 by how small businesses are affected by the contract vehicle. not modify section frank to required not less than 12.5% of the fis 61 assistance be provided to you the kurdish pressure dash and from chapter 93 subtitle six with a shared a bond guarantees from the sba at the 90% requires a comptroller general to study the impacts of such. an event section 15 and section four of the sba --

small business act for procurement specialist amendment to 38 of 1633b including subcontracting goals to make a technical edit the midsection and 124534 in an assessment of transfers of military equipment from non iranian sources. panera requiring to report of the military posture to do your a real from a nuclear weapon in. to protect u.s. military interested in the region an amendment 320 to study the resources for the department of defense that were canceled after bids were

received. >> thank you for including the infant -- amendment 23 aviation restructuring initiatives from apache helicopters but my amendment is very simple to reaffirm the committee's previous agreement fiscal year 2015 and guarantees congress does the 60 day window to review the report this says it may be late all components of the international defence to richer in a proposed change are carefully revered in the 60 day window program like

to thank the co-sponsors am thankful to the committee is hard-working and i yield back the balance of my time ; it may sincerely thank you for putting this amendment on block to guarantee funds but the route the years the kurds have been bombed by turkey guest by iraq bombed by iran now hunted on a daily basis by isis that it go beyond war crimes. watching as isis raped murdered be headed crucified burned people live have perpetrated genocide against other record days.

update number one it has consistently stood bravely and the load in the fight against these evil monsters of isis. the only pair of military democracy that holds the ideals that we do. including christians do they have defended with their lives for pearl some of the most well trained fighters that we have in iraq and are proven to be the only effective ground force to push back with emeline's - - reads they have resisted with a 600 while french. without doing it territorial gain. with those positions to cut off their retreat.

lecter g. desires to work with him the the sunii arab tribesmen with military training and weapons. with armored vehicles and heavy artillery and body armor with military and assault rifles for:last november kong congress passed the language in the bill that delineated that they should go to europe kurdish forces but yet they recently stated hardly any made in the was the equipment has arrived for the kurds are our friends but this administration seems to hang for them to dry i am glad this committee is not stopping you i believe by as well.

and then continue to fight against the greatest people we have ever seen. >> those in favor? those opposed? the amendment is agreed to. the gentlelady from arizona. >> have been an amendment at the desk. >> please distribute. >> senate with the other jet

share is considered as read in and we have five minutes to describe the image of this direct aid you to the chairman for including the 53 to fully fund is critical platform for cody and the legislation includes funds of to support 283 a-10 for the next year. my amendment does not cost a dime the chairman has provided funding for the return -- reading fleets. is simply ensures the intentions are carried out the air force does not use backdoor means to retire these aircraft.

it also calls for badly needed independent assessment for capabilities or the five former fed is needed to replace the a-10 for over the last three years the administration has mothballed four squadrons leaving only 98 cable squadrons to carry out the unique critical missions of the a-10 is only 64. i know the unique capabilities it brings for troops on the grounds sometimes three or four times with maneuverability and survivability weapons loaded including rounds of 30 mm to bring the enemy in

protect troops on the ground for pro if we have a downed airman we cannot bear to have another flight only that a-10 shows up to provide the critical role. this month in korea admitted mothballing the a-10 would create a gap for missions. the a-10 is the most survivable aircraft. just two weeks ago i dod official testified the f35 could not take a direct hit but the a-10 could survive. this is also the most affordable the lowest per flight hour cost danbury have invested over $1 billion to upgrade that avionics capabilities and though weapon control systems pre-building the wings through 2028 at a minimum. and the general has repeatedly said iraq and

afghanistan in the administration is on the record to say it is a budget issue only. they have testified in clarified if they have the funds they would keep the platform. since the defense bill was marked up with the fight against racism in europe but 12 a-10 ridge just deployed to aid in the fight against sizes. just give one example to bring these troops alive. master surgeon wells when there were ambitious -- ambushed in afghanistan. the weather was is for the

sun going down the train was rugged they cannot identify the targets are could not engage. and then would slam into the mountainside. and italy's tried to save them. to make than done passes each to provide cover to retreat to safety. six men are alive today because of the is unique capabilities. enclosing it is about saving american lives and thank you to the chairman to provide full funding for the a-10 i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment to make sure the intentions are carried out. i yield back.

>> i have the substitute amendment at the desk. >> us clerk will distribute that substitute amendment. >> was unobjectionable is

considered a as a red. my amendment does three things. first keeps inventory and shifts the highly unusual offset to purchase dod identified unfunded requirements to support the front line troops. third mitt insurers the greatest military effectiveness to equip the ground troops. i respect sally on the armed services committee that i strongly disagree with her priorities for our troops on the ground. as a veteran of the iraq war my commitment to church on the ground is and bravery and. i have great appreciation for the a-10 i would not be

alive today if not for close air support but you never hear about the trade-offs. $682 million to carve but of the budget over four years the cost to keep all of them reaches more than $4 billion. not whether not it is said good aircraft for everyone to keep some of the inventory. but having some no. maybe a good idea but it is not the only one that has their support -- air support but forcing the air force to keep all planes is the best way to $682 million i don't believe it is. that will describe the substitute amendment how

better supports the troops. carrying out the plan to retire the a-10 aircraft for grass for a report from the air force, it could best use the 118 remaining a-10 to provide support in the future. boast importantly it shifts those unrequested funds to those requirements but first it has $75 million for aida equipment for the marine corps to provide 500 systems to meet the latest threat. ied with a number one killer of iraq and afghanistan war. not six but thousands.

but second to of 168 million the are a great demand to give the choice of global terrorism operations. and currently is a 21% inventory with through the f-16s and also the unfunded in the current market. we're charged on this committee will reconsider diverting funds it is a very real challenge to the most advanced and tear easily take out a path of a three italy's construct a scenario where only a certain weapons system works but there are

very few scenarios where they could not be covered by registered aircraft with helicopters close to the ground to defend themselves with troops in combat. the report provides the best air support in the world without the single a-10 there are plenty of scenarios were a small moving your plan is more vulnerable it is no good if it is shot down by the shoulder launched missile. i urge rivers to support my substitute amendment every dollar affected moves funds from where the air funds were requested to what it is needed. the biggest employer in the biggest city in my district makes a-10 in day stand to gain significantly with reinvestment but this should

not be about district politics it is a shared national security and the lives of young americans. >> the gentlelady wishes to be heard? >> yes provide preshave a colleague service to his country but make no mistake this is poison to a fancy administration is flawed plan to send the a-10 to the boneyard. to take away the ability we currently have to dispose of it without a replacement. and to not get rid of the entire capability but to leave the gap for career already down after the administration and retired four squadrons in the last three years.

although that sounds like a lot to take out aircraft needed for training and testing in back up and preserve that leaves about 78 aircraft for the equivalent of three squadrons. we have one in korea, europe , a kuwait and on its way to swap out. that is for so of this amendment would pass we don't even have all we need to do their current national security demands. although it says the necessity to the chairman's mark after a thoughtful decision to fully fund the a-10. i recommend they support the chair read to fund the a-10 and not the substitutes that will devastate the ability to protect our ground troops i yield back. >> 84 they're articular

remarks. i support the amendment i cannot articulate better but i will just add one. the of money here is in the chairman's mark but it does come from somewhere. because we have rejected just a matter of free proposal with of cruisers. the money comes from somewhere. to look at the numbers to answer the question nasally it comes from readiness. that is the last place. service y people are complaining with you have 1. $5 billion the budget request on readiness because we rejected the a-10 and all those things.

and readiness is straining our men and women to be ready to fight. with that ability of the korean war with the first people were sent over that were slaughtered. so right now the of voluntary does not have as much fuel to trade or the ammunition so that is a choice we're making progress strongly support their representatives amendment. let us not act like this money does not come from somewhere. . .

we just sent to 12 more 12 more last week into iraq and syria, and aircraft being used today