concerned about the f-35 and where we are and how many units we need an acting as some would count for this as acting. i think if you come again become we didn't go to our opening statements but one of the things that has happened in this past year is that mr. turner as chairman has allowed our committee to have at various hearings and various briefings on the f-35. ..

there are reports and there's a lot of oversight in this subcommittee mark. so i would say while i agree with some of her comments and ideas behind why she wants to see this, i would also agree with mr. turner that the unit cost as come down for us and make date in some ways more affordable as well as for many of our allies looking at some of these buys in order to make sure they are also applied by this. thank you for your time. >> appreciated. gemmill and from mr. castro appeared >> i would like to yield three minutes to the gentlelady from

california ms. speier. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have a question or to chair the subcommittee. mr. turner, the fact that the gao, the inspector general and the department of operational testing and evaluation have all said that there are problems and that we need to recognize moving forward we don't even have to ramp up capacity as i believe the gao, do you basically disagree with the conclusions made by those various oversight entities? >> no. what i recommend this if you attend a hearing before us if you were so interested in this committee would hear the gao praise the accomplishments made any operation of the past 35 in their assertion that the need to continue development and

production. you are misreading of the gao report and translating that into your amendment. i would be glad to arrange a meeting to discuss this directly with the gao sync can acquire what the recommendations -- how they would relate to your concerns into an oversight. i also invite you to any additional info they have the rest of the year. >> let me thank the gentleman for your noxious comments and suggest to you that in respect to everyone who is party to this process, i think we can all read reports. i don't believe that the gao or they inspect your general is somehow not reflecting i need to go a little bit slower. the truth of the matter is if we are going to build planes that we are no aren't adequate, it

will cost more money to rehabilitate them a richer fit them when we do find with the fix is to make it operate properly. so with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from texas eels back. it is going to be a long day. i suggest everybody needs to focus on the issues. not each other. any further discussion on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california? if not question arises by the gentlelady. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the amendment is not to agree to you. are there further amendments to the section of the bill? the chair recognizes mr. turner for offering a motion.

>> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman i move to adopt the report of the subcommittee -- [inaudible] the opinion of the chair the ayes have it in the motion is adopted. >> the committee will receive the report of the subcommittee on pursuant to committee rule 17 in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone on

record of those on the amendment in this particular subcommittee mark until the end. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. >> working with members on both sides of the aisle the subcommittee assert diligently to prepare a mark that provides resources and oversight that navy, marine corps air marine corps air force deserve and require. the programs including construction of uss john f. kennedy, cbn 79 in the first year of appropriations for the uss enterprise also includes funding for two virginia class submarines. and three littoral combat ships. it also accelerates procurement of the next class of amphibian ships and funds to refueling and complex overhaul of the uss george washington no-space dvn 73. it also begins the important process of filling the national fun that this committee established last year.

this mark includes a provision to ensure vitality, capability associated with the force structure preserved with regard to the air force we continue to support the long-range strike robber and a tanker programs. these are critically important programs and this will provide them with the funding they can execute in fy 16. finally, we reiterate the subcommittee believed that navy should prioritize development of an unmanned deep penetrating strike capability with the carrier air wing. overall this is a stronger that enhances our nation's power and ability to project overseas. i urge my colleagues on both sides to support it. i thank the chairman and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the ranking member the gentleman from connecticut mr. courtney for any comments.

>> true i have written comments that i have to be submitted briefly. first of all, i want to personally thank the chairman for again has access and collaboration during this whole process. the staff, so mcnaughton and mr. sullivan helped us with aviation issues we were dealing with this year. again not seen a job in terms of putting together a strong mark. the chairman said everything from aircraft carriers down to addressing the needs of our reserve fleet with training vessels for young maritime leaders that the future are included in this mark which again is critically necessary. the only point i want to underscore is that the national deterrent find which we created last year is that debated this year as a result of its mark. when we had our first ship in one-on-one subcommittee hearing with the department of the navy

she won't do the shipbuilding plan the next 30 years. if we don't deal with the issue in terms of absolutely essential component of our national defense from a fee-based deterrence platform that must be replaced and will be replaced. if it all comes out of the account, we will at this rate the size of our fleet and i think what the chairman smart guys in activating and funding the national fee-based deterrence fun site among presidents which rias for the missile defense program to get a program that is once multigenerational off the normal funds of the branch and again and sure it will not suffocate the rest of the navy's much needed in critical fleet. this is an important step forward. the subcommittee in this committee will be wrestling with this issue well into the 2030s from attack a platform that will cost roughly $95 billion.

the significance is really something that should be underscored and highlighted. i want to salute the chairman for his hard work on this issue and with that i will yield back. >> is there further discussion on the subcommittee mark? are there amendments to the sub committee mark? gentleman from connecticut. the click amendment. >> the clerk will pass at the amendment and without objection the amendment will be considered as red. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am trying to give them a chance to ask at least a fair number before we start discussing some of us have the chance.

>> the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes to discuss as a member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pretty simple amendment to strike language in the mark with a new change to the modernization program the chairman referred to a minute or so ago. in framing this amendment i want people to recall when we passed the omnibus in december, the congress enacted a shipbuilding modernization program for again a bone of contention with committee and the administration in the navy over the last four years. i want to start isolating mr. forbes "forbes" in terms of leadership in making sure cruisers that are an essential part are protected. we saw this recently with the uss theodore roosevelt iranian ship you the coast of yemen a cruiser was right there for the aircraft carrier.

the examples of why this is an important program are even on the front pages of the news is very weak. the measure that passed and now is lost as a result basically says the cruiser modernization program will accept to a year. it will modernize it over a period of no longer than four years at no time was six cruisers be taken out of the fleet. this was negotiated with the appropriators in the administration. baby is back in. it is on its way to san diego in the gettysburg is on its way to virginia. the sailor getting the order is to let their next assignments with the processes going forward. the chairman will ensure going to this in quite of lot of detail has been resisting some of the efforts by congress to

make sure cruisers are modernized. it is the law now. they have embraced this program but the testimony before a subcommittee and what i would just note for those who are trying to sort of absurd the issue, which is somewhat complicated, you see in no couple days ago pretty clearly stating they embrace the law and understand the need to follow it and they again are concerned the amendment included in the mark which ensures the modernization from four years to two years when they get much what difficult to achieve savings, to deal with issues in terms of the assignment for the sailors and will reduce the ability to compete the work which is something before your timeframe will allow. it will allow the shipyard workers to fill in gaps for some of us who have shipyards in our

district and this is a good flexible system to protect the industrial base. again, i would just say we deserve credit for the effort a number of years ago to retire an entire fleet of cruisers will not have been in the country is better off for it. what is the measure now negotiated last year will allow the navy to implement the president signs in a way that is much more efficient and will extend the carriers into the 24 days and avoid bad pressure that i mentioned earlier that it will put on the entire shipbuilding budget. i would respectfully vote against the amendment which is done in the spirit of respect for mr. forbes and ask folks to again more closely at admiral

graders common and i hope again folks will support the amendment. with backup my yield back. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. >> thank you. i would say mr. courtney is articulately stated the position regarding carriers. or cruisers. they do not want these cruisers. the administration does not like the language in the bill protecting cruisers. the administration does not like the language in the bill last year. the administration did not like the language the year before last. why is the language in the bill better than the amendment? first of all, if you look at our fleet year or two before the administration came into office the navy was able to meet 90% of

our requirements across the globe. they fear less than 50%. how does the administration deal with that? taking half of the cruiser fleet out of the fleet. second, if you look at the pentagon right now they are beginning to establish would need more combat troops and predict it. how does the administration respond? by taking ships out. if you look at what they need for the bmd capacity, they needed 44 last year. they are disabling and 77 ships next year. what are we doing? hardships loved vmd capability they are taken out. mr. courtney's amendment would say no money. these are all funded through fy 18. why did the administration take the position that? four years ago they were

proposing we take out and dismantle cruisers. when congress said no, they double down it came in the next year and wanted to take out seven cruisers despite the fact that was twice the combined firepower of the entire british navy they wanted to dismantle it. when congress said now is that the scene from a disney fairytale. they came back and said you guys misunderstood. we don't want to destroy the cruisers like we are talking about. we want to put them in his sleep and take off all of their electronic, radar and 11 years hope they will wake up and be refreshed and ready to go. the kicker is they have -- mr. courtney is right in saying this is the law. it is the law because they force them to do it. to this day the navy has not put a penny in their future year defense program to wake up in the cruisers and they are not going to put any money in there.

mr. chairman, i would also say mr. courtney needed illustration would say this is about modernization. the bill we have will modernize cruisers. we've given them an extra six months said two years. if you run into problems you can have additional six months. we say you've got to do it in the time you can do the modernization to make sure it gets done. i want to remind all of you here when the administration came into office and proposed a hundred million dollars of cuts, you know what the secretary said? we have to do this for modernization. that money is going to walk out of the door in about three months and $680 billion followed it. just as the air force marines navy and army have the modernization has worked well. mr. courtney is right.

if he took the cruisers out. not that the amendment would do it, it would save money. if you took carriers that it would save money. if he took 60 stores, which by the way the administration was proposing to do it would save money. mr. courtney would quickly so you don't want to do that because they are strategically important to the country. there was nobody in the navy, no testimony we've had said these are strategically important. just the opposite. the pentagon may be the guys in the pentagon who have to decide whether to support the the administration or not do some great things. the cml is a wonderful man. he does great things. the supported this is not one of them. supporting the administration last year to not refuel aircraft carriers was not one of them. supporting the administration last year when he wanted to do

away with tomahawk production lines was not one of them. supporting the amendment last year when they didn't want to fund a marine amphibious ship was not one of them. mr. chairman, at the end of all of this, when we don't have the cruisers the president will not come say my gosh, i did this. what they'll do is what they've done before and say i proposed and congress agreed to it. we need to defeat this amendment. i yield back. >> distinguished ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman. leaning forward as one of those things i am not supposed to do so i will bring back. i hope you can hear me okay. i'll talk loudly. mr. forbes is right. i just want to make two points on that. first of all the bill itself cost money. by changing the agreement we reached last year to do with the

way mr. forbes is proposing, will cost us more money. there is an account set up so we don't have to find that money anywhere. i believe it's the modernization fund. if we don't make a change mr. courtney is proposing to go back to the deal that was reached last year we will spend more money out of the find and in this case on the new cruiser plan that mr. forbes puts in the bill and there will be less money to do other things. so it does cost money. the reason for the compromise reached last year was in part to say i don't disagree with anything mr. forbes said about the cruisers aircraft carriers attack submarines in all of that. unfortunately as i said in my opening remarks a couple hours ago the theme of what we are

dealing with, we do not have as much money as we would like to have or at this point that we need to have to adequately fund our priorities. said there's two choices here. number one is something i'm an advocate for, to get rid of the budget control act and be prepared to put up the money necessary to pay for the national security and the national defense will hear everybody on the committee say that we want. we are unwilling to do that but we played a couple games could make that work. i will mention the word tags quickly. if we are absolutely committed to providing a national security they need and the cruisers we need, we could god forbid, raise revenue and pay for it. but since we are not doing that the department of defense and the department of navy is scrambling to figure out how to make it work.

i forget what the number is. mr. forbes notes that. the number we keep saying we are going to have but we will not have because we don't have money for. if you are not going to do that not take the first choice and provide the department of defense with the money they need to meet the obligation because they have to find ways to save money in a compromise were out last year was a pretty good way to do it. it doesn't leave us many cruisers and services we would like, but the money is the money. we are where we are. in tales you can make money magically appear but we haven't figured that out. eventually it catches up with us. it is about money. the plane that came up last year as a way to do it. if we accept the underlying part that they will be less money for

everything else. need we go from 11 to 10 aircraft carriers. i'm not sure. cnl. that is why he sent a letter version so they can keep the budget plan in place instead of once again being forced to spend money that we in congress will not cave. it is a reasonable compromise. i support mr. courtney's amendment as a way to deal with the budget situation we are in. but that i yield back. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield my time distinguished subcommittee chairman. >> chairman, i thank the gentleman. i want to point out it is whether you want these cruisers or not. detox your cries about how important the cruisers are from the globe. the ranking member says the money is not there. the money is fair to ask why he is. the question is whether we let

the navy run the clock out leaving these cruisers on the dog where we never use them again, but if they start using the money congress gave to modernize cruisers. if you pass this language two years from now we will have a couple modernize cruisers. if you can't make several years from now the navy will tell you we are sorry we can't do the modernization and the reason is because congress is the money. if the navy. if you do any program they would have had money and the defense program each day not only how to put a guy named. they are not going to do it. we continue down the path it will not have these cruisers and we will continue to go down across the globe with less than 60% to further down in years to

come. it is time we start turning this around rebuilding the seapower this nation depends on. these cruisers are vitally important. i hope you reject the amendment and support the language the subcommittee has put in it. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman from colorado yields back. gentlelady from massachusetts. >> i yield my time to mr. gordon. >> thank you. the exchange here which i want to congratulate chairman for the factual civilized discussion as one of the reasons i'm a house armed services committee. i want to address a couple quick points. the 246 program in law is not the administration's plan. the administration plan was to take a leading cruisers out and use a $3 billion fund over a longer period of time.

congress said no. and what we passed last december they said we want a faster schedule of modernization and we want to lock you in in terms of the exact parameters of how the modernization program is going to work. the 246 was not i repeat not the administration's position barbara said admiral green ears. he was testifying for the original plan to take a leading cruisers were suspended over an even more long-term flexible period of time. congress has weighed in. i want to tip my hat to mr. forbes for being one of the driving forces here today. it has to be cognizant of the fact that right now the navy is operating pursuant to law for a four-year modernization shipyard

schedule. it won't be until november december before we get the bill done. they basically will delay the start of the work in gettysburg that is in the latter from 2016 to 2018 and shorten the lifespan of cruisers which we need well into the 20s 30s or 40s until we get a replacement program. again, and in many respects this is a discussion between two sides to care about the program. it's about how we do it. we are over the hurdle of whether cruisers will continue to be part of the fleet. the question is what is the smartest thing moving over to modernize the critical component of our seapower. with that, i respectfully ask to breathe the latter who has a distinguished record of military service and is presenting a

point of view of an agency in the middle of implementing this and support the amendment. i yield back. >> mr. chairman. >> the gentleman from south carolina. >> i yield to subcommittee chairman, randy "forbes." >> this is an enormously important issue to the navy. mr. courtney just answer the reason we need to object this amendment. this is not a compromise that may be or agreed to an essay mentioned the navy wants to start out with the only because the administration because they will not take them out. or nurse about this they did not do that. the pressure on the shipyard. the only pressure has may be coming down from the telling them not to talk about this

which they've been telling us because of norm is to pressure because they say give us an example where you put these things up. mr. courtney can't do that. if we let the cruisers go when their, you will never see these cruisers surface again. with that i yield back. >> there is no further discussion. the question arises on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut mr. courtney. those in favor say aye. as opposed to say no. the gentleman from connecticut request a recorded vote. we will have recorded votes until the end of this subcommittee mark. the amendment is not a doubt it. he he asked for a roll call vote and we'll have a roll call votes until the end. further amendments on the section of the bill? the chair recognizes the

gentleman from virginia. >> i ask unanimous consent the en bloc amendment. >> that chechens a word or. yasser en bloc. >> the amendments will be considered as red. -- as >> the gentleman from virginia is recognized for the purpose of explaining the en bloc package. the mac i call upon package number one to comprise amendment number 17 concerning the advanced low-cost munitions for the combat ships. amendment number 123 by mr.

forbes concerning the timeframe in which the secretary made his incremental funding for nuclear refueling and complex overhaul of carriers. amendment 137 by mrs. train for the long-range strike bomb. amendment 186 concerning refurbishment relating to insert his destroyers and cruisers. amendment number 193 a mr. smith regarding the status of the mariner workforce. amendment number 219 by mr. byrne regarding joint vessels. amendment 225 by mr. hunter requiring a vessels be flagged as class had complied with international agreement. amendment 256 r. one re: the air force long-range recapitalization plan. amendment number 275 by mr. forbes regarding concerns about upgrades to the sbs 48 radars

and amphibious ships. amendment 309 by mr. forbes concerning funding from the modernist nation to understand warfare rdt&e programs. should is there further discussion on the amendment offered by an or "forbes" question dark if not the question is on the amendment offered. those in favor say aye. katrina levin have they. are there further amendment on the section of the bill? the gentleman lady -- gentlelady from california. >> with that objection the amendment will be considered as red.

-- as read. >> the gentlelady from california for five minutes on her amendment. >> mr. chairman thank you. i am offering this then withdrawing it. it is very important that we keep our eyes on the ball. the program was first conceived in the 90s. at that time is envisioned to be a way we had flexible ships that could survive combat. 14 years later we are told the ship has doubled in size in this admission slots could take 30 to 60 days or more in this the ship. after realizing he it is as he

is, more staffing on board then we were told originally in the design has indeed kept changing. it is important for us to take a step back. congressman garamendi and i lcs coronado should resign as first trial run. we have the opportunity to go on the ship. the ship had problems. imagine a brand-new ship that was leaking massive lies. we then went up to the bridge and were told by many of the staff on the ship that the computer system was full of bugs is very hard to operate. the commander told us this

construction made a very difficult to see out of the ship and i said why do you need? you need rearview mirrors, cameras. he said we need something probably won't get that for two years when we go into dry dock. well fast-forward the ship actually came through the panama canal on its return to court not aware of is going to be christened. i don't know what scrapie means that their issues around the ability to move through the panama canal. this amendment would ask to slow it down to not have the process move forward until we have tested the modulators that are supposed to be able to be placed on the ship to make it operate

in a manner that is appropriate. we are also changing the name because it can't be used in combat. this chip will be responsible for one third of the surface plate when we complete our buyer. it is time to take a hard look at this and try and recognize what we are doing recognize what was anticipated and it to 90s and early two thousands is not what we have today. as we move forward again with more concurrency is very told the ship and test it and find out it doesn't work we are spending taxpayer funds in an appropriate fashion. the data will yield back. and withdraw my amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. are there further amendments to this section of the bill?

mr. conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i apologize for the false start earlier. this is the required that we raise our level of operation of aircraft carriers from inside nine to 12. we will ask the clerk to pass out this segment in and without objection the amendment will be considered as read. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. be my thank you mr. chairman. we currently have 10 shifts available, one of which is dry dock for refueling for a multiyear out of service can. another for incremental maintenance which leaves us with a fleet in the available sleep right now.

the operation is on our sailors and their families in particular by having to do deployments in the nine and 10 months range and it goes without saying. the other boats are also used how they should be angry fat maintenance issues are being deferred, which in many instances is not good for the long-term impact on the fleet itself. the world in which we operate including the most complex global threat that we face since world war ii and at that time we are shrinking the single most iconic and versatile piece of diplomacy we can put in the water and that is an aircraft carrier. my amendment with simply raise from 12 to 11. i understand this cost a lot of money and i intend to withdraw it.

the range to the rest of the committee and the heart of the conversations platforms they have. it would be in our own national interest we are down to eight. in a regional amount of time. with that, i would request unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. >> the gentleman withdraws the amendment. >> the gentleman from connecticut mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the clerk will please pass at the amendment and without objection the amendment is considered as red.

-- as read. >> the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes on this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a bipartisan amendment which was deals with the projection component of our subcommittee. the air lift program about 21 states, air national guard are operating for the c-130 agents who are in dire need of modernization. again, this is a bipartisan and i met and in the interest of time i will yield to the gentleman to explain the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. to the gentleman from connecticut, thank you as a tireless advocate not just on the sea, but on the air. as so many of you i have heard in thank you for understanding

this is all of us from our national guard, we are all very well aware of the c-1 dirty as an important aspect and one of our most important tools for strategic projection and we are on the same page. all this amendment does is push at the modernization schedule 22020. everybody is asking for this. we can get it done and move it forward. i yelled back to the gentleman. >> further discussion on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut? mr. graves. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to lend my support to this. i am very concerned about the models in their compliance with the airspace issues and the modernization program. we have a lot. obviously the guard is dependent on giving the increased load to

the guard and reserve requires to do to maintain everything we need for war fighters. i think this is a much-needed amendment to speed the process up. i yield back. >> is there further discussion? if not, the question is suffered by the gentleman from connecticut mr. courtney. those in favor say aye. katrina left and have it. the amendment is agreed to. are there further amendments? >> mr. chairman, i've been amendment is >> the clerk will pass at the amendment and without objection the amendment is considered as red.

>> the gentleman from oklahoma's recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have been working since i got into congress on the adriatic modernization program for the c-130 issue. it's in a critically important program for the defense of our nation. being a navy pilot myself a bit on the active side of things come of the reserve side of things. i have flown jets had propellers. if you fly a jet delegate the fanciest avionics equipment. if you fly propellers chances are you are not. the active component you get fancy equipment and if you guard or reserve by the time you get it will be 10 or 15 years old. what this bill does about this amendment does is remedy is the discrepancy. it also takes into account the serious technology upgrade for me to be had.

recently i had the opportunity to fly with that airline in their simulators and the airline had civilian pilots that were the same for her c-1 30 pilots. another critical important thing. that is what the c-130 program provides. i want to talk about what the country is already dunn. the taxpayers have already invested a billion dollars into the modernization program. that has done all of the initial engineering work and the technology to be advanced. it is also an modernization program. we have provided for additional kids and all of the aircrew and maintenance trainers for the program. there are two major reason. number one separation of

powers. even before i've been here, we have authorizing congress had appropriated the money for the c-130 avionics modernization program. for the last three possibly four years as money has been authorized and appropriated, the pentagon does not obligate the funds. then they tell us they don't have the money. the reality is they do. we gave it to them. all they have to do is execute what congress told them to do. this is a separation of powers issue. congress have a say in this and congress should be exercising power. there will be significant delays. we have seen the air force alternative will result in delay. we have seen the program of record on different names. last year was minimized. now i am hearing last week it is

miraculously two separate programs. amp one and two. whatever they call it, this will have new delay time and when it comes time to comply with the faa or the european union air force rules, this will put us back potentially a decade. there is a better way. at the air force request, the contractor working with the air national guard has developed an option which restarts and complete the program and incorporate the necessary air traffic management upgrade for airspace viability. we get upgraded faster utilizing contract vehicles for engineering change proposal. the air force could restart the program and produce aircraft and s. 116 to knock of 45 aircraft for the next three years. the entire would be upgraded by

the year 2024. i will withdraw this amendment is to avoid a divisive roll call vote. however, the challenge is not over. this committee should pose for the air force about an alternative. please keep an open mind about this. the path forward way provide an essential upgrade and makes the airspace viable by the year 2024. with that, i withdraw my amendment in yield back. >> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. if the committee were just suspend for a minute, i'm trying to remember for told members will not have a vote and we can get this in. hold on for just a second.

[inaudible conversations] >> i think we will go ahead and get this vote we can get the section done before votes on the floor. are there any further amendment to the section of the bill? if not we will proceed to vote on the amendment square rollcall ordered. further postpone the amendment offered by mr. courtney regarding cruisers and will now resume proceedings. the question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut mr. courtney. 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]

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 24 aye votes 34 no votes. >> therefore the amendment is not adopted. are there further amendments to

this section of the bill? the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes for the purpose of offering a motion. >> i miss to adapt the subcommittee report on sea power projection forces as amended. >> the questions on the motion offered by the gentleman from virginia. all those in favor say aye aye. suppose they know. katrina levin have it in the motion is adopted. >> we have a few more minutes before votes so i think we ought to proceed. i appreciate the flexibility as they get through this day. the committee will receive their part of the subcommittee on readiness pursuant to committee rose 17 in consultation with the ranking member will postpone recorded votes on amendments until the end of the section.

the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee the gentleman from virginia, mr. witt and for any comments you would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our subcommittee members for all their hard work on this. i really want to thank the ranking member for cooperation on this. it is a real honor should be working with her. general dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff reminded committees this year and the president's budget request level of funding, it still leaves us on the ragged edge as you said earlier of being able to execute the defense strategy. even the budget request data and recover and saw spector readiness remains a challenge and the department will continue to experience gaps in training and maintenance over the near term with a reduced margin of error in dealing with a dynamic security environment over the

long-term. i'm pleased to readiness and the factors to alleviate. we have from additional b. rac browned additional b. rac browned or any other effort aimed at locking in force structure reductions during a time of accelerated transition and uncertainty over future presence in the middle east could a provision with the assessment of where we may be over capitalized study so congress can make informed decisions forward. the operation and maintenance carrier and a-10 aircraft carrier maintenance reset and ship operations. we fully fund exercises resulting in a team combat training center rotations for brigade combat needs as well as

initial entry rotary wing training and restoring 100% -- of the required by program. we provide the marine corps with resources of unfounded aviation requirements to ensure that members. furthermore the air force up additional resources high demand areas such as unmanned systems pilots, join terminal controllers insider threats and intelligence. we also address shortfalls are researching many department unfunded requirement. i encourage colleagues to support the readiness mark. >> the chairman kneels back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the chair recognizes the distinguished ranking member the gentlelady from guam. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wish to thank my chairman.

it is indeed a pleasure to work with chairman whitman. we worked together really well and i appreciate the opportunity to recognize the hard-working staff on the subcommittees. i want to say that i am disappointed that congress overall to effectively continue sequestration. the relief of defense for funding is not a permanent solution and today we will address the defense budget including the shift of $38 million from the operation and maintenance technology to meet the requirements of the budget resolution and in my opinion, this is not a wise strategy. on a more positive note this marks the authority for overtime review of civilians maintaining our carrier japan and prohibit

the working capital fund employees. the marcos amick's improvements to disposition military property and reforms the 1033 program which governs donations to law enforcement. of particular importance to me is the continued support that this mark shows for the relocation to guam. we continue to ensure appropriate funding for this endeavor and continue to move restrictions on this initiative. ..

and again, i want to thank you. this is a strong market i urge my college to support either a bloody thank you again chairman wittman and members of the committee, and also those who are on the subcommittee could sell. with a strong mark and i would urge all my colleagues to support the passage. and i yield back. >> is there further discussion on this section of the committee mark? okay. here's the plan. we have one en bloc. were going to do that right quick and then we will break to go vote. there r-2 votes and did we will come back. please come back promptly after these votes.

the chair recognizes gentleman from virginia mr. wittman for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> i ask unanimous consent to call up an envelope package of amendments better than worked and approved with a minority. >> without objection so order. with the clerk please pass on the en bloc passage? and without objection the amendments will be considered as read. >> the gentleman from virginia disregard for the purpose of offering and and explaining the en bloc unlimited. >> tried what i call up an envelope package number one comprised of the following. and name at number 014 r-1 by mr. bridenstine regarding a briefing on the burden of temporary duty and travel depended training on national guardsman. amendment number 035 r-1 by mr. lamborn concerning the continuation of the initial flight training program for potential expansion to the navy. amendment number 04 r-1 by

mr. hunter regarding expansion of the gao review of the navy's proposed transition to any bald contracting strategy. amendment number 056 by mr. lobiondo regarding the military working to adoption process. amendment number 08 before i mr. wittman the verdict and a force structure plan and infrastructure inventory baseline. amendment number 085 concerning a project line authorization for arlington national cemetery. amendment number 106 by mr. wittman regarding extension of authorization for land conveyance projects at fort benning, georgia. amendment number 107 r-2 concerning efforts to develop and deploy an updated range implementation systems. amendment number 150 r-1 by ms. duckworth regarding increases for defense logistics agency testing solutions. amendment number 210 by mr. kline regarding efforts by the department to make low-cost

anticorruption solutions available to all services and corrosion policy standardization. amendment number 276 r-1 by mr. forbes regarding current and potential future uses of modeling and simulation. >> is there further discussion of the en bloc package? if not the question occurs offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. opposed say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the committee stands in recess until just after the next vote on the floor. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> the committee will come to order. are there further amendments to the readiness subcommittee portion of the mark? gentleman from utah, mr. bischoff. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass out of the amendment?

without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from utah is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. >> turn one. of course,.of course, this is the next one should be en bloc because they are brilliant in minutes right, joe? good. this is also one of those that is easy to understand. as we go through this process trying to find money for the military, money does desperately needed. there's one source in which we are simply wasting our revenue come wasting our time and effort. it deals with public lands have been set aside for military and military use. but only for specific breed of time 20-25 years in every country that period that is that they must go through a renewal at whether that should be dedicated for military use or not.

it's always routine. it just simply haven't. what the military is asking is to maintain their property for the use of what they've been doing. however, the mere fact you go to that becomes and even event which means the military has to spend up to seven years cutting down thousands of force to try and to a report with an eis on whether they should maintain, be allowed to maintain what they had been doing all along. it also is expensive for each and everyone of these it will cost between two and sometimes up to $7 million. we flat out don't need to spend that money. just for the ability of the department of the interior to say, we still actually technically control the land. it is a waste of time. it is a waste of money. and especially as we are searching so frantically for money for our military defense for readiness, it is stupid to waste it on going through the procedure motion just so someone

can say technically we still own olympic epidemic on the military doesn't need the land of the three years to define that have actually the federal government gets first crack at getting the land back if they want it. so the process is simply a waste of time, a waste of money. in these five areas are ones who have been or will be up for renewal in this process. we are making this permit process giving the land over to the department of defense so the military, so basically these five areas they can continue to do what they have been doing and will do in the future without having to spend two to 7 million bucks simply to go through the process. yield back. >> is there further debate? the gentleman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas. >> i would like to speak out in opposition to the cinema and urge my colleagues to oppose it and support the current public review process for withdrawing military land. withdrawing military lands our public lands that have been

turned over to the dod to connect military training, testing, and are in support of military readiness. our nation's public lands belong to all americans and i managed to balance many competing uses, recreation responsible economic development, sustainable resource extraction. yes, military purposes and conservation of historic american landscape, just to name a few. determining how we must strike this multiple use balance is something we discuss how almost every single hearing on the natural resources committee, on which i serve. our military installations are not isolated from this broader debate. under the military withdrawal review process the department of the interior and the department of defense work together to determine if a public land withdrawal is still being used for the purpose for which it was established. these reviews are typically conducted every 20-25 years, a far cry from a burdensome requirement.

comprehensive periodic reviews are vital to promoting highest-quality stewardship and management of our public lands. this process provides regular opportunities for dod and that there is branches of our military to evaluate their continued use of the land and firmly coordinate with the department of the interior on resource management. regular review also enables congress and the public to provide input and oversight. and we have examples of windows process has helped the dod relinquished responsibility of surplus land that they no longer need. the bureau of land management has been able to make the lands available for other priorities identified by the public through the land use planning process. for example, the deity was able to return over 111,000 acres of public land from the very -- barry goldwater range in arizona back to the pier of land management through the fiscal year -- after comprehensive land withdrawal review. over 83,000 acres of this land are now part of a national

monument. we must never forget our federal lands belong to all americans no matter where they may live preserving military land reduce protects the fundamental right of the public to help determine how our lands are managed. i urge my colleagues to support the public review process and reject this amendment. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you. children from colorado is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to the gym and natural resources committee, representative bishop. >> mr. chairman, let me give my time to the gentleman from colorado mr. cox. >> thank the gentleman from colorado and utah. adding that greater safeguards to the endangered species list would have a significant impact on the western part of this country. >> mr. chairman, if i can reclaim my time for just amendment or quit on a different

amendment. >> all. spent but when you come to that when you are spot on. >> thank you. [laughter] >> let me thank the gentleman from colorado. we've gone through these reviews. nothing ever changes. we keep the same process. we just been a hell of a lot of money doing it and we should not do that. yield back. >> gentleman from california is recognized. >> i will try to do this quickly. in the '90s i had a lot of experience with this specific issue. and we would work with the department of defense and all of its various agencies from the navy to the air force, army and even the marines. and always had surplus land they need to get rid of. so the process worked very well. it wasn't very expensive but also as the representative of massachusetts was saying very eloquently, it provides an ongoing opportunity for all of us to review that military land

and to put them back into other uses. i think all of us have heard repeatedly, although we've not done it, the military wants to dispose of multiple properties all across the nation sometimes it's called barak but they want to reduce their inventory. you eliminate dissent is going to be less likely that what happened at this doesn't require any military to dispose of anything but it does provide an ongoing review every quarter century to take a look at the lands, public lands that have been withdrawn and see whether they are still necessary for the military, whether there's a better use for the public. so i think the amendment should be defeated. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? if not the questions on the amendment offered by the to and from utah mr. bischoff. those in favor say aye. those opposed to say no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from california

request a recorded vote? pursuant to the previous agreement, recorded vote will be postponed. arthur further amendments on this portion of the bill? the gentleman from south carolina mr. wilson. >> i have an intimate at the desk. >> the clerk will please pass the amendment. without objection the amendment is considered as rich and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the language of this amendment was included in last years house version of ndaa and urge its inclusion in this years bill as well. the bill is a simple change that will aid in the preservation of active training ground and troop readiness of space. the u.s. military has a long history of caring and protecting our national treasure as directed under the national historic preservation act. this is a law that is particularly important to me and i'm a member of a number of other historical organizations and historic preservation organizations in my own community. and, in fact, i have restored and maintained three different historic homes in our community. so now important it is to have historic preservation. but, unfortunately, there's this multiple into existing law that prevents federal land owners from stopping the nomination of federal property for historic national historic designation outside interest groups. the department of the interior

has no statutory authority to consider national security concerns or military objection win federal property is not made by third party group. the military cannot prevent historical designation on its own land for any reason. this multiple is a critical one because it would allow an interest group these historic designation as a means to affect the ability of our military to safely train on their own land. without action every base in the country is at risk of losing control of the use of its own land and been subject to unnecessary bureaucratic control that impedes training possibilities. the language gives our service is a needed tool. it is not a mandate to act if historic nomination is agreed. private property owners have the ability to object to third party nominations and our troops deserve no less protection. we should appreciate the concerns expressed by those who volunteered to protect us through the approval of this language. we can give their consent of

voice. thank you, mr. chairman, and i urge the adoption of this amendment. >> is there further discussion on the amendment? the gentleman from california ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i opposed this, this measure because we actually have been in contact with the department of defense over it and they did something that is necessary to ensure access to the land a major military testing and training. compliance with the national historic preservation act is a problem here and believes that the historic properties window listed and determined eligible, it works well with the department of defense with its state tribal and federal partners. the over all i think it's unnecessary. it's one thing to try and step in on this kind of an issue, but

it hasn't created a problem and i don't think it will. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from ohio mr. turner. >> chairman wilson, -- exact language in less time it was in the bill. i know staff is looking to confirm. i do have concerns about the provision. i want to give an example that perhaps you can help me to in colloquy fashion see the limitations of this. it looks as if from this cursory reading of all this says is that the end result would be that the secretary of defense would have the ability to say that he needs the property for national security purposes. >> yes. >> because obviously in my district having the home of wright-patterson air force base with historic sites have the right brothers box on the base that are part of the nation which part of the application

all within this company which affect national security. i just want to make sure that they are unaffected. >> and effective would it be because you would agree to it. there's a question that would be agreed to. for example, we have historic sites that i'm really pleased to recognize even at the columbia army airfield with the dolittle riders were formed. many examples in our community where this was done by agreement spent actual but i appreciate the clarification because i'm co-chair of the historic preservation caucus and i was one of the authors of the reauthorization of the act less than a month so i appreciate your note its limitation under look forward to sitting additional changes need to be made. >> very limited. >> thank you. >> the ranking member of the subcommittee. >> thank you mr. chairman.

i rise in opposition to the minute to admit the national historic preservation act offered by my very good friend mr. wilson. i opposed this amendment because it is unnecessary to the department of defense objects to this amendment and believes it is not necessary to ensuring access to land it needs for military testing and training. based on experience the dod does not believe that compliance with the nhb eight including the national register nomination process is in any way threatening dod's ability to fulfill its requirement. went historic properties are listed in more determined eligible for listing international register, dod works with its state, tribal and federal partners to develop mutually acceptable agreements that address the potential consequences of du the actions on historic property without impeding mission-critical

military testing and training. now, i wish to mention this. in particular this committee has provided dod with authorities and tools to mitigate any potential impact by historic designation. further dod has flexibility should the collaborative process not work. in testimony last year before the house natural resources committee, maureen sullivan with always be stated, ethical, if however, we were ever unable to reach a mutually satisfying -- management approach, the acting cost him at a military department to make the final decision of how to manage the property in a way that doesn't diminish our ability to meet our mission needs, unquote. so again dod already has a tremendous amount of flexibility in dealing with the nhpa. now, i personally have an important example on guam where

there was a historic designation of a certain cultural site that did not necessarily negatively impact dod mission. the historic designation and the cultural site was below the cliff line where the marines plan to live fire training range. the historic designation complicated the marines planning effort but it was not something that stopped the process. the marines worked with the local community to develop mitigation plans that would allow more access to the site during designated times as well as improve the trail to visit the village. it was a collaborative effort. yet this amendment if it was in place during the debate would have undermined the local communities concerned. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> is there further discussion

on the amendment? the gentlelady from massachusetts, transport. >> i, too, would like to speak out in opposition to this amendment as a deserve on the committee would like to reference the testimony of the department of defense for that committee on this very issue. with the dod testified that the current processes around the national stork preservation act quote worked well for dod unquote, and that they quote have not found compliance with the national historic preservation act to be an impediment to our ability to meet our military readiness obligations, unquote. the department also testified that the national stork preservation act quote protects the quality of life for our military men and women and their families and the public by facilitating a strong connection to our shared history, culture and traditions unquote. with that i would like to yield back step further discussion? if not the question is on the

amount offered by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the enemy is agreed to -- the anonymity is agreed to. sorry, the gentlelady from telephony and guam request a recorded vote. recorded this recorded vote will be postponed. are there other amendments to this section of the bill? the gentlelady from massachusetts. >> i have an amendment at the desk. desk. >> the clerk will pass out the amendment.

without objection the amendment is considered as read and a generally from massachusetts is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment would strike a writer in the underlying bill regarding the greater sage graphic this section presents a something listed as endangered or threatened under the endangered species act for 10 years. these management ago federal and to the states and raises acer's constitutional concerned by prohibiting judicial review. section 2862 it said unacceptable precedent that would receive as much of 60 million acres of federal land to state control and again raise serious constitutional concerns by limiting judicial review. this provision would fundamentally weaken endangered species act and put a halt to federally led a bipartisan collaborative effort across 10 states and tended to avoid

listing the greater sage grouse as endangered or threatened under the endangered species act. this provision would be especially damaging because it comes at a particularly important time when unprecedented and for active partnerships between federal agencies such as the. of land management and the fish and wildlife service states sportsman courageous, farmers and conservationists drop the west have come together to restore the sage brush. when the most imperiled ecosystems in north america which is home this piece is like a greater sage-grouse out of nowhere else in the world. while simultaneously encouraging economic development. we have proof the ongoing collaborative approach works. just last week the secretary of the interior sally jewell announced a distinct populatiopopulatio n of the bird that lives on the california nevada border will not need to be listed on the endangered species list thanks to proactive

collaborative investment by federal state and private partners. and secretary jewell stayed at the announcement quote the collaborative science-based efforts in nevada and california are proof that we can conserve sagebrush habitat across the west while we encourage sustainable economic development unquote. republican governor of nevada ryan sandoval stated that quote sage grouse and economic development can exist, coexist in both the tri-state area and across the range of the greater stage -- sage grouse. steve williams and served as director of the fish and wildlife service under president george w. bush agrees quote my concern is the legislative delay will slow the work that is being carried out by ranchers, farmers, industry and conservationists leading to further decline into species numbers, unquote. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and go to protect the ongoing public-private cooperation that is proving so hopeful and helpful.

>> the gentlelady yield's back. further discussion on the amendment? the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. with the help of theories conservation groups and the military is voluntary grouse conservation efforts, states are equipped and capable of managing and improving the population of the greater sage-grouse without the far-reaching impact that an endangered species designation would bring, that is why i support the initiative to maintain conservation efforts for the greater sage-grouse at the state level without the negative impacts associate with such a designation. with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentlelady from california. >> mr. chairman, thank you. every year the same dance happens but there's a lot of puffing out of the chassis can

display of tailfeathers and bobbing of heads. witnessing this display it's hard not to wonder what it's all for. this describes the famous dance of the sage grouse, but it also describes a ridiculous contortion the congress will go through so to weaken the size of endangered species act. this is a four-pound unfortunate bird that has nothing to do with national security. listing the sage grouse as endangered is a scientific decision and will have absolutely no effect on the department of defense operations. it provides for no net loss in the capabilities of military installation plans to support missions, even went endangered species are present. this makes us look a little silly, maybe as silly as advancing sage grouse. i yield back. >> on this thursday morning to use and is about to gavel back into session. there will be an hour of lead remarks up first before work

reasons on the iran nuclear negotiation oversight bill. commitments are expected. both are possible. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. today's opening prayer will be offered by pete miller in, chaplain of the north carolina senate in raw lee, north carolina. -- in raleigh, north carolina. the guest chaplain: let us pray. heavenly father.

you have been our dwelling place for all generations. before the mountains were brought forth, you were god. and so we bow our heads and our hearts before you and we seek your guidance as a nation. we are crippled without your help, and helpless without your love. come to our assistance, make haste to help us. forgive us of our sin, lord, and wipe away the tears from our eyes. we are so grateful for this day, and we come boldly to your thrown of grace and we bring our weaknesses, and we bring our doubts and our requests, and we submit our pleas before you a holy and a good god. have compassion on the lonely and grant peace to the brokenhearted. hear all of these prayers, o lord, and bless all of those members assembleed here

may you pour the oil of your gladness down upon this nation upon these proceedings, upon this government, and towards every one of these hard-working representatives of your people. and it's irk in jesus' name we pray. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. burr: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina. mr. burr: mr. president, thank you for the recognition.

i rise today to welcome to this body a friend and a fellow north carolinian peter miller in miller milner, a fellow demon deacon, an alum of wake forest, he received his undergraduate degree in sociology and religion. while at wake forest, chaplain miller in -- faculty and staff to participate in community-based organizations. after completing his undergraduate work at wake forest he went to earn his move tokers in a second social studies education to become a high school teacher. called to the ministry, though, after his first year of teaching he attended duke divinity school where he thrived in his role as a resident

coordinator of her umasas house in raleigh which provides safe, affordable housing for working homeless men recovering from substance abuse. his devotion to and passion for helping the homeless is un-wavering and very clear. i saw it for myself when i first met peter a few years ago at a homeless shelter in raleigh north carolina. besides the tireless work on behalf of the homeless, chaplain miller in hasmilnerhas been instrumental in improving the lives of students. because of his work as outreach specialist for veterans at step up ministries, chaplain milner established an important link between veterans in need and the business community. his hard work continues to help struggling veterans achieve stable lives through employment counseling and life skills

training. the north carolina general assembly is blessed to have a man who has devoted his life to causes so much larger than himself. but all of that he has accomplished in life so far he says that his greatest accomplishment is that of of being a husband to a bride of 13 years, anna, a father to their two beautiful children who are all with us today. mr. president, thank you. chaplain mill nerks i mill nerks i want to thank you for leading our prayer today, and i welcome you. a senator: i will start out by apologizing for that unauspicious recognition. the chaplain is somebody who has blessed our legislate tour in the time that i was speaker of the house -- and i won't repeat all of the things that peter has

done for the community. i want to speak specifically for what he has done for the senate chamber and general a assembly. he was just a calm presence in the legislative body, not unlike the one we have here. but he's always somebody you could look to for guide andance support and inspiration. for that i thank him. i will also tell you i notice he is a little bit tall, played basketball at wake. we have this rivalry are south carolina. wre play basketball every year. we get together and we either travel down to south chemical or the legislature comes here. i played on that basketball too team for four years. each of those four years we were hopeful that peter would play with us, but for some reason he didn't. now, the only thing that i see differently, he is playing this year is that it's my de-par tiewmplet hypocrite that your -- i hope that your decision to play isn't because of my departure. i welcome your family who i

believe are in the chamber today. i hope you enjoy today and on behalf of all the members who benefit from your guidance and your spiritual presence in the state of north carolina, the general assembly, thank you and welcome. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: mr. president i as some know, fought a little bit -- i was in the minor minor leagues for a couple years ago. in nevada saturday night in las vegas there is going to be a stunning athletic event one of the most significant athletic veangtszs actually in the last 50 years. it's a wonderful owequation for nevada to be hosting that fight between congressman pacqio and floyd mayweather. they will be battling out for three separate titles, fighting at the 147-pound weight class. for all the people that think that's small that's the class

that we've had some of our great fighters of all time that have fought that same weight level. these are two great athletes. the winner of the match will be crowned as the greatest pound-per-pound fighter in the world. and they will go down as two of the finest fighters ever in the history of the world. so regardless of who wins, this bout is projected to shatter boxing records for not only it being a significant boxing match -- people all over the world will be watching this fight. they don't really know how many pay-per-view purchases are expected but i made one last night. as my friend knows the presiding officer things have changed over the years. if we want to get one of those good seats, we have to pay for it. i have been willing to do that

in the past, but traffic was a little too heavy there so i decided to watch it here with some of my feavment family. but i'm so happy that the pay-per-view purchases are expected to exceed more than 3 million people, and they won't get them any cheaper than i got them -- $99.95. so it's wonderful that all previous records will be broken as to revenue. the only thing i don't like about it, the fight doesn't start back here until 9:00 and usually they don't end until around midnight. i wish they would start a little earlier, because i've learned with my baseball and start they just start them later back here. i'm really excited about this unforgettable fight. there's nothing like a championship fight. there's nothing like one that has all this atten. -- attention. after i started practicing larks

i started judging fights. i was on the nevada athletic commission and i judged lots of fights. i can remember the first big fight i went to. ah, it was a big fight. i walked in there i couldn't imagine there could be that much attention on anything. of course, there were thousands of people there. i was excited. i was going to judge one of the preliminary fights. it was stunning. it was -- you'll see ringside all these glamorous important people. it's just -- it's really -- these fights catch the enthusiasm of sports fans all over the world. the eagerness i have of watching this fight goes far beyond the sport of boxing or the spectacle of a marquee match-up. i am thrilled for nevada. this fight will inject hundreds of millions of dollars into the state's economy.

it'll benefit nevadans all -- fighters and their teams, of course hotels, restaurants cabdrivers limousine drivers parking valets, maids will get bigger tips than they usually get. it is going to be a great time for nevada. so i've done everything i can within my power here as a member of the legislature to help in any way that i can and i have interceded on a couple of occasions to help make this fight move forward. and i was very happy to do so. i love the sport. i have -- some of my prized possessions in my home are fight pictures. i have one picture mr. president, it is a picture of the great joe louis and max shmele. and they both signed that picture before they died. i had the good fortune when joe

louis spent so much time at caesar's palace, to have met him. i have a pictures, a big thing on my wall of my deer father-in-law who worked with fighters. he's got a picture -- i got a picture on the wall -- they are all together -- with jack dempsey, with primo carnero a big man. sugar ray robeson all of these -- none all of them, but many, many great fighters above that picture, and it reminds me of my minor league boxing. so mr. president i just am very excited about watching this fight. las vegas has been the entertainment capital of the world for a long, long time. and we're happy that that in fact is the case. but a few short years ago as the presiding officer knows, we

were hit really hard. the debacle that took place on wall street hurt nevada more than any other place. we haven't recovered totally but we've recovered significantly. the 2008 economic collapse took a heavy toll on nevada. a quarter of nevadans were unemployed in the tourism and hospitality industry. when the recession hit they got hurt as did all work classes -- construction everybody got hurt. but we fought our way back. last year we welcomed to las vegas 41 million people. little las vegas 41 million people. that's not so little. but the presiding officer and i remember when it was a little place, but now it is a community in the metropolitan area of over 2 million people. 41 million people come to las vegas, and produced an economic

impact of more than $50 billion. we shattered previous records by attracting 1.4 million more visits than we did in 20146789 it-- in2014. this fight this weekend will keep the momentum going for nevada. i am not going -- i was going to say i'm not picking a winner. i were issue both men the best of luck -- i wish both men the best of luck. but i am a little biased because of my relationship with man manny. one of my real campaigners in one of my difficult races was manny. and he campaigned for me. he broke training to come flew out of l.a. you have to remember that kind of stuff. so i have a very good relationship with manny. certainly i don't have a bad one

with floyd mayweather. but i know manny much better. he stood in my corner in the past and he will always have my support. regardless though, mr. president, of who wins saturday night. regardless of who leaves the arein a with the big belt, nevada's hardworking economy will have won the fight. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader.

mr. mcconnell: the senate will soon resume consideration of the iran nuclear agreement review act. i expect we'll consider several amendments today and i continue to encourage senators to come to the floor to offer them. the iran nuclear agreement review act is bipartisan legislation that will ensure congress and the american people have a chance to review any comprehensive agreement reached with iran, and it ensures they'll be able to do so before congressional sanctions are lifted. these sanctions are a big reason why america was even able to bring iran to the table in the first place. we shouldn't be giving up that leverage now without the american people through the members of congress they elect having a chance to weigh in. quite simple. the american people expect us to have an opportunity to evaluate this agreement or not.

second iran wouldn't just use the funds derived from sanctions relief to rebuild its economy. what's clear is that iran is determined to use every tool -- every tool -- at its disposal to aggressively expand its sphere of influence across the greater middle east. the regime's belligerent behavior in the strait of hormuz was just another reminder of that fact. but it reminds us of something else too. our need to invest in the naval and seaborne expeditionary capabilities in the persian gulf that will be necessary not just to retain dominance at sea but to contain iran's military and irregular forces as well. to date, though -- today we're focused on one point above all else, that the american people

and congress deserve a say before any congressional sanctions are lifted. at the very least sanctions should not be lifted before the iranians fully disclose research and development as it relates to the military dimensions of their nuclear program. and yet the interim agreement as it's been explained to congress would bestow international recognition to iran's research and development program along with international blessing for iran to become a nuclear threshold state poised at the edge of developing a nuclear weapon. it's frightening to think what iran might be able to achieve covertly in that context. to a lot of americans this all sounds quite different from what they were led to believe a deal with iran would actually be about. preventing iran from obtaining

nuclear weapons and dismantling iran's enrichment capability. but that apparently has already been given away. so the american people deserve a say they deserve a say through their members of congress. the iran nuclear agreement review act will ensure congress gets a vote to either approve or disapprove of the comprehensive agreement. just as president obama's successor will need to modernize our military to deal with the challenges poised by iran's aggression so will the president's successor want to consider congress's view of any comprehensive deal. and a failed resolution of approval, as the bill before us would permit, would send an unmistakable signal about congressional opposition to lifting sanctions. let me say that again a failed resolution of approval permitted under this bill would send an

unmistakable signal about congressional opposition to lifting sanctions. so now's the time for congress to invest in the capabilities president obama's successor may need to use to end iran's nuclear weapons program if the iranians covertly pursue a weapon or violate the terms of the ultimate agreement. and now is the time for congress to pass the iran nuclear agreement review act. on a different matter, mr. president, i was glad to see yesterday's announcement of a budget conference agreement. that means congress is now one step closer to passing a balanced budget that supports a healthy economy funds national defense, strengthens medicare and begins to tackle our debt problems without taking more money from hardworking americans. it's a balanced budget that could help lead to more than a million additional jobs and boost our economy by nearly $500

billion according to the nonpartisan congressional budget office. in short it's a balanced budget that's all about the future. that is also why it provides a tool for the senate majority to repeal failed policy of the past -- obamacare -- so we can start over with real patient-centered health reform. this is a good balanced budget every senator should want to support, and i look forward to the senate taking up the budget agreement next week. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order the senate will resume consideration of h.r. 1191, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 30, h.r. 1191, an act to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, and so forth. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendments to

call up my amendment 1149 to agree any agreement reached by the president relating to the nuclear program of iran is an executive congressional agreement to be considered under the expedited procedure in both houses of congress. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. cardin: reserving the right to object. mr. president, we have been proceeding now for about a week, have had good debate on issues. many members are working with senator corker and me to clear their amendments that are consistent with the overall objective that was supported by the senate foreign relations committee by a 19-0 vote, and we're going to continue to work on that process. and the orderly consideration of amendments. and for that reason, i must object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. johnson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wisconsin. mr. johnson: perhaps if the senator from maryland will listen to my explanation of what this will amendment does, perhaps he will withdraw his objection. during our debate, during our discussion on tuesday when i

offered an amendment to deem the agreement between iran and america well actually and the world, a treaty subject to the advice and consent of the senate, the senator from maryland spoke. and one of the objections to the treaty he said secondly, i don't know how we are going to explain it to our colleagues in the house of representatives. the presiding officer served in the house. i served in the house. senator menendez served in the house. the last time i checked we imposed those sanctions because a bill passed by both the senate and the house. and now we are saying that the approval process is going to ignore the house of representatives, solely going to be a matter for the u.s. senate on a ratification of treaty, that does not seem like a workable solution. now, mr. president i appreciate the fact that the senator from tennessee and the senator from maryland did not object to my raising my first amendment to deem it a treaty. of course this body then voted

on that, and i appreciate that fact and i accept the verdict of this chamber that they did not want to deem my first -- this agreement a treaty. fair enough. but i would like to quote, in addition to the senator from maryland, the senator from tennesseer in debating against or arguing against deeming this a treaty, the senator from tennessee said -- quote -- "we think the president has the ability to negotiate things." first of all i agree with that. article 2 section 2 states the president, "he shall have the power by and with the consent of the senate to make treaties provided two-thirds of the senators present concur." so that actually is the constitutional method for making agreements between nations having the president negotiate that completely agree. we can't have 535 negotiators

but we certainly should have this body involved in those agreements. we should have a role. we should have a robust role. and of course, i believe it's so important, this has such an effect it risks so much for this nation, i believe it should be a treaty. but again fair enough. this body deemed it would not be a treaty. what the senator from tennessee went on to say he said "we had no idea this president would consider suspending these is sanctions ad infinitum forever. no idea. i think people on the other side of the aisle were shocked. we were shocked yes. we granted those waivers for national security. we did not believe those waivers would be abused the way they're being abused right now." the senator from tennessee also went on to say "this is one of the biggest geopolitical issues that will potentially happen if an agreement is reached within our lifetime here in the

senate." once again i agree with the senator from tennessee. this is a huge geopolitical issue. and right now this administration deems that agreement on its own authority an executive agreement and really at this point we have no role. there is no involvement. the senator from tennessee went on to say "look, i have strong agreement with the sentiment of our the senator from wisconsin wisconsin" -- again agreement with the fact that this should rise to the level of a treaty. he also went on to say -- quote -- "without the bill that is on the floor the american people will never see it." think of that. think of an agreement between iran that i believe as is being be described to us again nobody really knows yet but what i believe is being described to us puss -- puts iran on a path

for a nuclear weapon. how many years has it been that members from both parties members of congress from both parties have stood and said very forcefully we simply cannot allow iran to have a nuclear weapon? we may be facing an agreement between this country other nations of the world and iran that actually puts iran on a path for that nuclear agreement. the senator from tennessee is correct. i hope he's not correct but i think he may be correct. that right now this president has no duty to bring that agreement to the american people i happen to believe that public pressure to be so great that the american people would not tolerate that level of brazenness that level of arrogance on the part of any administration, any president to do a deal, make an agreement of

such import that before implementing that agreement the president of the united states would not bring that agreement to the american people and subject it to in some shape or form the advice and consent of either this chamber or congress as a whole. the final quote that i'd like to quote from the senator from tennessee, as he said, "now look, if i could wave a magic wand or all of a sudden donkey's flew around the capitol, i would love for us to have the ability to deem this a treaty. i really would." well mr. president if the agreement that president obama is talking about in the framework is agreed to between this administration and the other negotiating parties in iran we better all hope that donkeys start flying around the

capitol. because that agreement as it's being described to us would put iran on the path to be a nuclear power. that would destabilize not only the region, that would destabilize the world. it would lead to an enormous amount of nuclear proliferation within the region. it is a very bad deal. it is very risky for this nation. it affects this nation. now again let me just go through the three forms of international agreements. again, there is no set criteria in terms of what is a treaty, what is a congressional executive agreement or what is simply an executive agreement. they are considerations. there is precedent. but i go to the foreign affairs manual the state department, they lay out the considerations. what should be considered in

determining what an agreement is a treaty, a congressional executive agreement or just an executive agreement. the first consideration is the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole. the third consideration whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by congress. the fact that we have this bill proves the fact that it needs subsequent legislation by congress. number five, the preference of the congress as to a particular type of agreement. that's what we're talking about here. the congress weighing in in the form of my amendment saying we want a role. we want a more robust role than is currently offered in this bill. the seventh is a the proposed duration of the agreement. er were going to be living with the impact, the effect, the results, the collateral damage of this agreement between iran and the other negotiating parties for a very, very,