of yours. perhaps from a north korean launch at some point that they want to at least put asunder threat and mr. chairman some of the discussions about price, let me just say a robust yet limited constellation would cost about $26 billion over 20 years or $1.3 billion per year. according to hudson studies as well as iba study there for i.d. boys we can get the cost down even further if we get serious in investing. this also should be noted that this is a plan for research and testbed not to actually build the system at this time and it's always wise for us to consider looking ahead. finally before i give a clearer picture of this mr. chairman i don't think there's anything in this amendment that directly conflicts with admiral syring's perspective. we don't know what we can and can't do and this is a means of ascertaining or trying to find

greater insight into it. no one expects that -- respects admiral syring more than i do. he is caught between imaginations of congress were read force them to take critical systems to pay for other critical systems and i think you would like to try to avoid that. but this is certain mr. chairman our near adversaries are capable of attacking her critical space assets. this debate is no longer academic and the question now before this committee is what shall we do about it? these adversaries have taken note of the immense multi-u.s. force thomas provides our military and observed our space estimates. if we are to abandon future battlefields without a fight it will be our military who suffers the consequences as they find themselves cut off in fighting in an austere environment far from home. china has clearly demonstrated an operational direct

anti-satellite missile capability and proven data can reach from zero synchronous orbit to low orbit, earth orbit. russia has also tested a direct decent and north korea and i ran have launch satellites into orbit. in fact i ran just tested their space launch vehicle earlier this week. the threat is outpacing our technology. a recent hudson institute report co-authored by over a dozen leaders in the u.s. missile defense arms-control arms control space policy including two former directors and two former nor khan commander said this quote a space-based layer will dramatically augment to rest early and sea-based offense capabilities reduce commands have erred -- reduce demand on current systems and provide the united states with optimal vantage point for destroying enemy missiles. most significantly base layer provides the ability to destroy

many missiles while the missile is in enemy territory. mr. chairman, there are no treaties prohibiting space-based interceptors and concerns about debris are overstated raid enemy missiles destroyed them as base cannot destroy long-lived orbital debris. russia and china are signaling their strategies are either working to assault our space assets and exploiting the gaps in our missile defense network. i ran and north korea no less advanced, or much less predictable and continue towards favor say to enhance their ballistic missile capabilities but if we wait for the threat to materialize the cost to rapidly develop an ability to counter it will grow exponentially. this amendment will lay the groundwork for future space-based layer of missile defense. in the face of growing threats proposed by unstable actors and increasingly belligerent powers

it's our moral duty to oppose them on every front and now sir that includes space. and with that i would yield back. >> mr. garamendi. >> first of all i want to commend the chairman and ranking member and the other members of the committee and staff for an extraordinary subcommittee that deals with some of the most advanced technologies and the most dangerous weapons systems ever created by human beings. the ranking member in his opening remarks spoke to the full and beyond funding for all elements under the authority of this committee. the issue at hand i think is a debt of a misrepresentation of two problems. one problem is the satellite at defense systems or lack of

defense of our satellites. the other is the missile defense there are quite different although those might be in space. there is two types of programs that are now underway and moving forward. one is a ground-based missile defense system and another, another system would use directed energy. neither of those is what is contemplated by the amendment that the committee and the subcommittee adopted, which deals with a space-based missile , not satellite that missile defense system. we have been advised by those who are knowledgeable, who spend their entire working day and career on this matter suggesting to us, suggesting that clearly stating that it is not appropriate to spend money on a space-based system. the other two systems are in the budget or in the national

defense authorization act and will undoubtedly be an appropriation should that ever happen and those should move forward, but this one is not ready now. that will be due soon and that may further invite us and in any case we should be focusing on the other two systems underway one on directed energy and the other is a ground-based missile defense system so with that i would support the amendment and allow us to spend what is a vast amount of resources on things that are here and now. i yield back. >> the gentleman from rhode island. >> mr. chairman i yield my time to the gentleman from washington >> mr. chairman thank you. i would just note that in this conversation we are having there was in fact a recognition that

this amendment has been -- has an additional cost beyond what we have otherwise, what we are otherwise debating today for the overall budget and yet not accounted for and how to pay for that. i am not certain under committee rules whether that is a violation of committee rules but i want to address that general question to the full committee and the staff and the chairmen and ranking members and move along. the second is i want to emphasize that there's a study that exist that we approved last year for the mba to report back to us within a year about space-based interceptors. not something i supported by the distance at the law and that year is not up, and so we are jumping ahead of ourselves. we are presuming an answer to a

study by allowing the existing version of the bill to move forward. i am merely suggesting that we remove what the subcommittee did a few weeks ago and let the study move forward. and finally i would also note that there are actions and va and our entire department of defense can take otherwise to address the serious concerns that many of us share and have about space and about missile defense, issues perhaps we cannot get into here and we cannot get into in the subcommittee but it is not as if this is the answer and the only answer to addressing the issues that we face with regards to missile defense. finally, mr. chairman and mr. langevin i would note that my amendment, despite perhaps

the unintended implications of some statements made, does not mean the united states, this committee or this amendment are giving up any fight, and he fights with regards to any presumed, current or future enemy, and i want to make that note because i'm frankly kind of tired of hearing the argument by folks on this committee. we are all in this together. we all believe we are doing the right thing and this amendment does not give up any fight being made against current, present or future enemies and without mr. langevin i yield back to you. >> the gentleman yields back. let me just say with regard to

the gentleman's question about spending, there may well be instances where we adopt amendments that if carried out may have future spending implications that the question before the committee under the committee rules is does this direct specific spending, and so i think certainly it's an argument one can use as far as the affected house on the future but does not violate committee rules at this point. the gentleman from colorado. >> mr. chairman answered my question. i was just going to point out that the last time the study like this was done i it was roughly $5 million i think raid the total budget is $10 billion so for that reason also i don't think there's any violation of the rules here and the remainder of my time i would give to the gentleman from arizona if he wants to use any of it. >> mr. chairman i will just be very brief here in closing. opponents of spi argued applying space-based missile defense lawyer will either provoke an

arms race or be outrageously expensive or somehow is unnecessary but it's important to keep in mind that our enemies are investing heavily in system which exploit our gaps and vulnerabilities. they don't challenge our strengths, they exploit our vulnerabilities and we must close those gaps and those capabilities in order to deter future investment on their part and for those who also argue that the technology technology is out of region remains cost prohibitive both in 2011 study and this forthcoming report by the hudson institute dispelled those charges. mr. chairman it is important given the additional dimension for battle space that the space frontier offers us to be competitive in that area for the sake of keeping our -- the strongest in the world and with that i would feel bad. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from washington

mr. larson. those in favor say aye. all oppose, no. the no's have it or you the gentleman from washington request a recorded vote which will be postponed. now we will look to the gentleman from alabama to offer an amendment. >> mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent to call up package number one amendments that have been worked and prayed with the minority. >> without objection staff will please distribute the en bloc package.

the gentleman from alabama's recognizer five minutes. >> think you mr. chairman pay the en bloc package is described as the felling amendment 23 by mr. larson $10 million of dod support to the executive branch of the president and tell the president submits an updated plan on nuclear proliferation. amendment number 113r1 by mr. macarthur regarding authorization of directed energy research development testing in the valuation between the u.s. and israel. amendment number 143r1 by mr. mr. bridenstine regarding direction to provide a briefing on hosted payload, amendment the number 186r1 by mr. rogers which would provide the authority to mitigate unmanned aircraft to the dod's nuclear missile defense and national security space assets. amendment number 250r1 by mr. langevin regarding a requirement for notifications in

order to improve oversight and tracking of missile defense result, test results changes in cost. amendment number 302 by mr. rogers regarding modification to the report to changed delete combatant command to conduct debriefing on northcom to stratcom. amendment number 03 for r2 by mr. takei regarding improvement requirement and radar assets in hawaii and amendment number 183r by mr. bishop regarding dod and gao briefings on the use of excess icbm motors and commercial space launch activities. is there further discussion on the en bloc package? if not the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted.

further amendments? the gentleman from rhode island. >> thank you mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk raise. >> at this staff would please distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations] without objection the amendment is considered red in the gentleman from rhode island is recognizer five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will be brief. i offer this amendment today to ensure the m. d.a. is equipped with fly before you buy capability so that it may make the most cost-effective mission driven decision possible and cheering the redesign kill vehicle prevented the privilege

of chairing the strategic forces subcommittee of few congresses ago and i believe this language is both helpful and necessary. not only does the missile defense agency of her with this type and this quality of testing but i believe many members of the subcommittee concur as well and i'm hoping this will be a bipartisan amendment and vote tonight on this amendment creates this amendment does not require any specific number of tests. let me repeat that, this amendment was this not require specific number of test. what does do is drastically improve missile defense acquisition a topic i know and it's been at the forefront of many of our discussions here in this committee this year. a lack of fly before you buy capability mr. chairman has cost us dearly in the past as many people have recognized. for example according to the gao the cost to demonstrate as well as fix the currently deployed ce

to's is increased from initial $236 million, the cost of the first flight test to currently over $1.9 billion. the need for failure reviews additional flight test mitigation development efforts and they retrofit program has increased ce2's demonstration $1.7 billion. mr. chairman this problem continues to plague our national security. clearly there is a need for the policy provided by this amendment. i know that many members of the subcommittee know that i'm a strong supporter of this. i just want to make sure that we are doing this the right way and we are guiding taxpayer dollars and getting capability before and it actually works before we buy it so with that mr. chairman i ask my colleagues to support the amendment and i will yield

time to mr. cooper. >> thank you mr. langevin. this is an excellent amendment. i would urge my colleagues to realize that he said he is not not -- missile defense. he wants us to work. this is not a proposal to test this thing to death. this is a proposal to do is exactly as admiral syring recommended in a recent hearing in let me quote i asked him this question. admiralty super successful flight testing for the redesign kill vehicle before making a final production decision. admiral syring answered, completely. chairman rogers asked him a very similar question, so this is actually a more relaxed environment for successful testl syring was advocating because he did put a number of the specific number of tests that should be required before it was successful before no -- we know whether we are helping our warfighter. nothing could be more commonsensical than this and the

country language people never want to buy a pig in a poke we shouldn't buy a kill vehicle that is an going to work. i would be the greatest disservice we could possibly do for this nation so let's make sure it works. that's all this gentleman's amendment is going to do and i think that him and for his amendment. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments and i concur. i would yield back my time. >> the chairman yields back. the gentleman from alabama. >> mr. langevin is a very thoughtful and viable member of our subcommittee and are now his heart is in the right place but unfortunately this amended as drafted i would have to oppose it. i know we were close to a compromise with mr. langevin on a deal that i think would meet his desired goals that we aren't there yet so i would urge him to withdraw this amendment, to allow us to continue to work on it. on april 14 defense hearing this year, i asked admiral syring and

he made reference to denny's right, i asked him about the risk of legislating testing requirements in the way that mr. langevin would do a decent quote i would ask that you let us go through where we are in the early stages of this design in some of the testing of the components. all of it is very methodical and very laid out in terms of the ground testing that will accompany before flight test. before we legislate it needs to be three or four or five tests." consequently i would urge a no vote unless the gentleman would withdraw and allow the committee to work on this language and with that i yield back. >> further discussion on the amendments? if not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island mr. langevin. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the no's have it. >> i asked for a recorded vote raise.

>> the gentleman from rhode island asked for a recorded vote which will be postponed. the gentleman from tennessee. >> mr. chairman nye have an amendment at the desk. >> staff will please distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations] the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman could we have been at this for about 11 hours now so it's quite a burden to explain amendment as three negatives in it. let me put this in plain english. one of our warheads was

scheduled to be dismantled by 2022. the proposal is that it be dismantled by 2021. that is accelerated. some people are worried about that. accelerated dismantlement can be made to sound like unilateral disarmament. that is not the intention. as we move towards more sensible nuclear warheads safe secure and reliable nuclear warheads some are being discontinued and that's an very important for workforce management issues because you have to train these people years in advance to make sure the work is done right. this work is done primarily in two places in the united states one is in the chairman's district and this amendment involves some 40 jobs and the other places in the upper agency which is in my state but not in my district and there are about 20 jobs there.

for the nuclear enterprise it's very important that workers be hired now and be trained adequately to these very sensitive matters so that we can use this talented workforce for the vital life extension programs that will preserve and enhance our nuclear capability so it's like the cycle of life. the bad and old ones need to be dismantled -- disabled so we can keep our remaining arsenal fresh and viable but workers have to be hired to do that. for us not to be able to hire 60 odd workers partly in texas and partly in tennessee to do that work would be a serious blow to our national security predict total amount involved in this amendment is only $14 million but that or teen million dollars will be used to keep our nuclear manpower workforce in tip top

shape so i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment which would allow the regular cycle of dismantlement of some unneeded nuclear weapons so that we can keep our needed nuclear weapons on their scheduled programs. this is not a peacenik amendment. this is a strong news will -- nuclear forces a minute and i would ask my colleagues to understand in that light. i apologize for triple negative because it takes up almost impossible to understand 11 hours into a markup. i yield back the balance of my time mr. chairman. note that i only took three minutes. >> i do note that an i appreciate it. with the subcommittee chairman is under discussions down there i will say from my standpoint, as you correctly put the folks at all of these facilities do very important work to keep our current nuclear deterrent safe and reliable.

i support dismantlement but i do not support dismantlement at the cost of the vital work they are dumbing -- doing for the weapons they keep a say. sometime in the past that's been a trade-off and so i'm not sure the exact numbers. the gentleman from tennessee and the subcommittee chairman know that better than i do. my view though is that the first job is to defend the country and we will dismantle as we can but first we have got to keep these weapons safe. so i yield to the gentleman from alabama. does he need to break up the conference that's down there with? >> we are trying to speed things along mr. chairman. >> i don't want to break that up. >> my understanding is the gentleman from tennessee has his amendment pending before the body. i would like it thanks my friend in the ranking member for his bipartisan work on it and b.a.. we agree on so many things

including the need for a strong nuclear triad but even friends disagree every once in a while. this amendment is one of those disagreements. it strikes section 3119 of the subcommittee mark which is all about setting priorities and defense spending. arbitrarily accelerating dismantlement of the retired u.s. nuclear weapon is not a priority. getting our nuclear modernization done is a priority nuclear modernization efforts such as the life extension programs and deferred infrastructure maintenance are obviously higher priorities. the secretary of state john kerry announced lester nuclear nonproliferation treaty conference of all places that the u.s. would accelerate dismantlement of the retired u.s. nuclear weapons by 20%. this would include the schedule of dismantlement a year earlier and is entirely arbitrary and a terrible prioritization of scarce resources.

these retired weapons are safe and secure and there's no need to accelerate their dismantlement to satisfy the disarm america crowd. here is my opinion. john kerry -- i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment and with that i yield back. >> further discussion on the amendment? is not the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper. those in favor say aye. as of close say no. the no's have it, the no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from washington mr. larson. >> thank you mr. chairman. amendment at the desk, 230. >> staff would distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations]

without objection the amendments considered read in the gentleman from washington is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman i think we can move quickly on this. amendment 230 would simply add the new text to the section on ground-based strategic deterrent the incremental cost associated with missile designs which include the flexibility to develop mobile variants as well as the strategic doctrine which will inform an eventual decision on whether to include mobility requirements and future procurement. that is the language that is added to this thing gets to the

issue of mobility as part of the version of gps d and i believe, i believe we have an agreement that we can move forward with this language in the committee and would ask for the support of the committee on this amendment. >> the gentleman from alabama. >> mr. chairman my friend from washington i urge the committee to accept the amendment to. >> those in favor say aye. oppose say no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. next, the gentleman from alabama. >> i ask unanimous consent to call up on blog package number two consisting of amendments that have been worked in approved within a minority. minority. >> without objection with the staff please distribute the en bloc amendments?

without objection the amendments are considered red in the gentleman from alabama is recognized for five minutes. >> amendment number 61r2 by mr. lamborn to limit funds to extend new s.t.a.r.t. treaty prior to receipt of certain reports. amendment number 287r2 by mr. lamborn directing report on the commercial space-based capabilities. amendment number 327 by ms. gamber at a briefing from nda on plans for missile defense in hawaii. amendment number 156 amec two by mr. frank directing and b.a. to develop a program record for defense against hypersonic weapons and ballistic missiles. amendment number 330 by ms. gabler and requiring and

b.a. to request a proposal for the medium-range discrimination radar in hawaii. >> further discussion on the en bloc package? if not the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from alabama mr. rogers. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the high -- the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. ms. sanchez. did you work something out? >> we did mr. chairman. it's a little up in the air right now. can we come back to it? they are just trying to get the language right. mr. chairman, i will yield. can we do that? can we do them out of order or encapsulates them another en

bloc mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman we are planning to accept the amendment as tendered. >> said in. >> said in a except that i believe. >> yes. >> do any to bring about? amendment number 84. >> the staff would lease distribute sanchez number 84. the gentlelady -- the gentlelady from california's recognize. >> this increases the funding for defense nonproliferation r&d

by $20 million. it helps to address current threats. it increases funding improve nuclear detection technology, to prevent diversion of nuclear weapons grade material. it helps with detecting illicit underground explosive testing t. it's all about r&d. helps with the 3-d printing that may come along with respect to emerging threats and technologies in the new clear area and it also helps to detect efforts or diversion by nuclear terrorists and the chairman has said that he will accept it so if it's acceptable i will and there and we will continue forward. >> questions on amendment offered by the gentlelady from california ms. sanchez. those in favor say aye. these -- the those opposed say no. the ayes have it and the

amendment is adopted to read next they believe we have the gentleman from california mr. aguilar. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> if staff would please distribute mr. aguilar's amendment number 236. without objection the amendment is considered as read. >> my amendment would modify section 1643 of fy15 ndaa the cbo review of cost assets to make the time period 30 years instead of 10 years. the secretary carter said

recently the nuclear arsenal in the united states is a foundational part of our security and as is often said in this room it is essential that this arsenal be safe secure and reliable however the age of our forces have become a concern. currently the nuclear-capable bomber fleet contains 76 b-52s with the first-year models entering service over 50 years ago and continuing to fly only after numerous modernization efforts. our higher class submarines which were originally 30 years have been extended to 42 years with the end of the 42 year lifespan approaching in 2027. and the first three icbms were deployed 30 years ago. with a provocative actions of north korea and the increase in nuclear weapons activity taking place around the world a critical nuclear deterrent is vital to the national security of the united states and if one of the basic tenets of deterrence theory says that one must appear to have the technical capability carry out

such threats of modernization of our nuclear arsenal must be a priority. however with the past two years there have been a good amount of debate about the modernization process and what it will cost. over the next 30 years not only will all three legs of her nuclear triad bombers icbms and ballistic missiles have to be replaced but the sustainment and modernization program for nuclear warheads will be taking place at the same time as well. even after all of that it still does not factor in the necessary updates to our commanding control systems in the creation and fielding of a long-range standoff weapon. with little evidence that the demands of our conventional forces will be decreased a proper accounting of the price of our nuclear modernization process must be made if we are to adequate plan for the coming investments and provide top or oversight. numerous organizations have attempted to adequately gauged the price of this modernization from james martin center for nonproliferation studies to the center for budgetary assessments. the results have varied from

cfpa 704 and $4 billion between fy15 and 39 to the 1 trillion-dollar estimate between fy14, 243 produced by cms. cbo's mandated by law currently produces a projected cost of nuclear weapons reporting early however to make covers 10 years and its future. my concern is that the cbo's current 10 year timeframe does not encompass the late 20s and early 30s when costs are projected by many to increase significantly. this is not an unreasonable request. reports covering extended periods of time have been done before for other items. perfect example of cbs thirty-year estimate for the navy shipbuilding plan which was just released this past over it if congress hopes to provide proper oversight of these modernization efforts more information is needed as early as possible. that's why we should make the time period for the cbo review of cost estimates for nuclear weapons 30 years 30 years instead of 10 years. thank you mr. chairman am at that i yield back.

>> the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you mr. chairman. i regret having opposed mr. aquila r.'s amendment. he is a fine member for subcommittee and i really respect him but in all candor i cost estimate like this wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. this amendment would not result in good effective and transparent oversight. it would result in false and unreliable data and i urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and with that i yield back. >> mr. guerra monday. mr. guerra monday. >> straggler is right and i want to thank him for attempting to him for must and congress about the full cost of the complete revamp of our entire nuclear security program. estimates range in the trillion dollars over the next 25 to 30 years. testimony from various heads of the departments general welsh

for one at the hearing said we will have to make tough decisions and apparently this committee ought to be part of that tough decision process. we are going to spend an incredible amount of money on what amounts to a new nuclear arms race and it will take money from other programs. we went proper readiness issues a while ago. if you're concerned about readiness or if you're concerned about the size of the army, if you are concerned about naval ships and all the rest of those elements of our military that are essential for at least the next several decades, you had better be concerned about the total cost of this nuclear enterprise and the fact that we are in a new nuclear arms race that involves submarines, new airplanes, new cruise missiles, new ground-based rockets,

icbms new and almost every conceivable nuclear weapon that would be on those. not only that's it's extraordinarily dangerous because all of this new stuff is still free. the rules of the last cold war are not going to apply so we have to be aware of it because we will be robbing money from other critical elements of our nations defense if we proceed blindly which is what opposition to this amendment will provide. we will be blind about the total cost. a word that is often used is a bow wave. the current expenditures are significant, very very significant. they amount to tens of billions that the bow wave which is about five to 10 years out you can add

another three zeros and we are talking about hundreds of billions. we set in place today the process that leads to those expenditures in windows expenditures come in this future committee will be very hard for us to maintain all all of the or things that we must be doing in her nation's defense. many of which we have been talking about. i think this is an extremely important amendment. we have to think beyond the near-term because these decisions that we are making with regard to all the elements of the triad and all the weapons associated and all the command-and-control will be put in place and either be done in a manner that will provide other essential programs or they will be abandoned at an enormous waste of money.

so i would urge acceptance of this. >> ms. sanchez. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. chairman before i came to the congress i financed large infrastructure projects and i can't think of a larger investment than we as america are making in the deterrent or the triad of our nuclear weapons arsenal and as mr. garamendi said we are renewing and reinvigorating the whole thing and it's an extremely expensive piece and proposition. about $35 billion a year and in fact i have a chart right here. mr. chairman it shows the bump. this is where we are right now. shows the amount of the

president's budget up what we are going to spend on our nuclear arsenal so we can see if the mountain right there. and what mr. abelard is asking, he is not asking about how much we are funding. that's the president's budget. he is asking about what is the timeline really look like? how were we spending this amount of money and get you are right to thirty-year projections out me not be worth the paper they're written on but you've got to have a map. each of you have a map i hope to each of you have some sort of budget in your own household, and operating budget for next year what you're going to make in how you're going to spend that they probably have at least a five-year plan of where you are going, so i don't think its such a bad idea for us to make

some sort of a plan of where we are going. certainly we know at the top 3% of the most successful people in the world are the people who actually write down their plan so if we are going to be spending $35 billion a year, we might try to at least grasp what that's for and how that is and what the timeline is. we are not going to hit it exactly but it will give us a roadmap so that we as the caretakers of america's pocketbook can look at our constituents and the people we represent and say, we have a plan. we have a map of how we are spending the money and i yield back. >> mr. forbes. >> mr. chairman first of all i agree with all three of the parties who has spoken on this amendment but unfortunately the

chairman is exactly correct as to why it won't work. we would love to have the thirty-year projections. they would be great. fact without we needed them for ship willing -- shipbuilding plants and aviation plans would put into the law that we would have a 30-year shipbuilding plan because as the gentlelady from california said it would just make sense that we have a plan and projections of the costs. the unfortunate thing is when the secretary of defense has come before a committee they have testified really anything beyond five years as a fantasy world in their own words. well that would be wonderful if we could get it that far out what the chairman of the subcommittee has said is exactly true, we don't need fantasy data, we need the closest thing we have to accurate data that we can get and i think this ten-year time period is a good compromise mr. chairman. i hope we will go with the chairman's recommendation and we will reject the amendment and with that i yield back.

>> thank you mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. aguilar from california. >> i think the gentlelady from hawaii and i appreciate subcommittee chairman's comments about my contributions to the committee. i will be sure to share this at home. thank you so much and with respect to both of my chairman chairman forbes as well its not worth the paper it's printed on we have the ship opening cbo estimate that you does reference. we asked for this. we asked cbo to do a thirty-year estimate. i look forward to the time that this body then requests that this plan not move forward are we not to thirty-year estimates. if we are not going to do long-term planning is ms. sanchez said that let's be honest about it. what i'm trying to offer here is a commonsense transparency measure that is honest with all of our colleagues here on the committee about what the true

cost of this is going to be. this is manageable. our military leaders have told us it's manageable but we have to plan for that and we have to be honest about the effects that this is going to be on our readiness and on our activities. what i'm trying to offers a transparency measure for 30 years. i realize that these body sometimes have planning longer than five years as the chairman mentioned. when we are talking about something as important as their nuclear triad rate thank you very much miss gabbard and i yield back. >> that a lady of the questions on amendment offered by the someone from california mr. aguilar. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. ..

>> would you like to move on? >> just a second, i let him get past you. without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mister chairman. i don't believe i'll take five minutes. virtually everything we do in modern life whether it's the cell phone and the text messages that most of us are sending rather than listening to the testimony, banking,

driving, gps, all of those. all of it is dependent on gps which is a signal from various satellites that we have and other countries have read those gps signals are corruptible in numerous ways. radar along the anti-radar device or along the highways or freeways will interrupt a gps. we've seen incidences of gps interrupt and the problems. this amendment simply advances a backup system to the gps by requiring that a report be developed by the department of defense that would give us the full opportunity to establish a backup system for the gps. this is called the eagle rain system, it's a terrestrial based system, a very high-powered low-frequency radio wave that would allow for triangulation and timing, positioning and navigational purposes.

the systems once were in place in the united states, they been dismantledthey can be reinstalled. other countries are using the gps , the lorraine system, advanced lorraine system. it could be done in a public-private partnership and that's what this amendment would attempt to have a full study that would allow for us to move forward should we decide depending on the study for that the lorraine backup system to the gps. we can go into great depth about why the gps systems we haveare vulnerable . it has been studied since the early 90s, all of which say the gps system is the single point of failure for virtually everything we do now including most of the, a good portion but not all of the military navigation and

smart bombs and the rest. there are some backups in those systems but the e lorraine system could be built at a modest cost and could be a public-private partnership in which the government would set up a opportunity for private companies to use the existing lorraine sites that are within the united states. that's what it is. it's simply advances the study and moves us one step closer to being in place and providing us with a backup. i yelled back my time. >> the gentleman from alabama. >> thanks mister chairman. unfortunately i'm going to have to oppose my friend from california amendment. the committee work in a bipartisan action across multiple committees through the process to have a clear and reasonable provision and the chairman's mark.

the announcement of alternatives as firmly written in the chairman's mark is broad and would not respect the study leads from analyzing these elements identified in the gentleman's amendment. further, by specifically adding these amendments to the study this could create an undue bias toward particular solutions such as private public partnerships and service-level agreements. there quite i oppose the agreement. without ideal back. >> i hate to disagree with chairman rogers and be in agreement with mister garamendi but this is critically important redundancy that's necessary. we have a backup in e-lorraine in my district. i support mister garamendi and i think it's important that we do. i yelled back. >> mister brightside. >> i have a question for mister garamendi. certainly i understand how criticalposition navigation and timing is and the space assets . the question is, when you think about what we are striking it says strike subparagraph c and replace it, what are we striking? >> i think the chairman described it as a general statement.

the statement here is more specific and it does lead to a specific analysis of the private public partnership does not remove what was the general report about the utility or the necessity for the e-lorraine or backup system but it just. >> would you say this narrows the aoa, the analysis of alternatives? >> it actually expanded. >> okay >> gives some direction, expands and give some direction. >> ideal back . >> further discussion? if not the questions on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mister garamendi. those in favor say i. others say no the trend ones have . >> gentleman from alabama asked for a rollcall vote.

gentleman from california have an amendment? >> i have an amendment on the desk. >> the stack would please distribute the amendment. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from california, mister knight is recognized for five minutes. >> the language in this amendment is from hr 44: nuclear energy capabilities act which i was proud to cosponsor along with my colleagues here today, mr. garamendi and mr. bridenstine

and mister peters. nuclear energy has the highest energy of any known energy source that relies emission free energy. unfortunately because nuclear energy technology is highly regulated and requires long-term investments to mature, innovative nuclear designs are locked out of the market.right now, innovative companies located up and down the california coast and from coast to coast are seeking to develop next generation nuclear energy technology. this amendment will provide the research infrastructure and flex ability for the private sector to develop next generation of advanced nuclear technology. this amendment erects doe to construct rain for research infrastructure that will allow researchers from the private sector to carry out cutting-edge research and testing in the us. today this research would depend on facilities in russia or elsewhere overseas. this amendment will also direct doe to leverage expertise from the national labs universities and private sector to accelerate civilian nuclear r and d through

supercomputing. this amendment enables the private sector to test and build prototypes for advanced reactors at doe sites. due to the regulatory burden for nuclear power, the staffing and prototype development is simply impossible without access to doe facilities. not only will this amendment encourage innovation in civilian nuclear energy research, the site type of nuclear r.m.d. could reduce the military's energy cost in the future. compact reactors developed by the private sector could someday power future warships or forward operating bases, eliminating the need for supply lines in the field. off the battlefield, affordable reliable power is essential to our national security. the united states benefits when cutting edge nuclear technology is developed here at home . mister chair, right now there are several countries across the street working on this. unfortunately, nuclear power is not like spaceflight has been over the last 10 years where you can do this and in a garage or a small airport. nuclear energy is something

that absolutely needs the doe and we need to have this cooperation. i yelled back the balance of my time. >> jim yields back.the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you mister chairman. i like to urge my colleagues to accept the gentleman's very thoughtful and productive amendment . with that i yelled back. >> further discussion on the amendment? gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. >> i myself am in agreement with the chairman on this one. we really ought to move forward and do this kind of research, this is a very good amendment. >> questions on the amendment offered by the general from california, those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the chair, the trend ones have it and the amendment is adopted. >> there are no further amendments. we will proceedto vote on those amendments .man, i keep jumping ahead. the gentleman from alabama. >> thank you mister chairman.

wishful thinking, i am with you. with unanimous consent, i called that is number three, proved with the minority. >> without objection, the staff would release distribute the block amendments. >> without objection, the amendments are considered as read. gentleman from alabama is considered for five minutes. >> en bloc package number three, comprised of the following. amendment 303 mister landlord clarifies 1606 shall be unclassified with a

classified annex. amendment number 317 by mister frank could clarify that the direction for the nba director to begin r and d is for planning of such activities and amendment number 326 by mister forbes to amend a reporting requirement on the intermediate range ground missiles to permit the secretary of defense to submit his views. >> is there further discussion on the block package? if not, the question is on the amendments offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the trend ones have it and the amendments are adopted. now we were going to go back and proceed to vote on those amendments for a roll call vote was ordered. they are amendment number 158 from mister larson and 249 from mister lanterman and in amendment number six from mister aguilar and amendment 204 as revised from mister

mr. garamendi. the question is on amendment number 158 from mister larson which strikes section 1656 of the bill related to space based defense. the clerk will call the role. >> mister thornberry. >> no.[roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] [roll call

vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] the clerk will report the result. >> mister chairman, there are 27 trend ones and 35 knows the amendment is not adopted. now occurs on amendment number 249 by mister lanterman regarding successful testing of kill vehicles. the clerk will call the role. >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >> clerk will point the result. >> mister chairman there are 27 trend ones and 35 knows. >> the amendment is not adopted.the question now occurs on amendment number six by mister aguilar regarding 30 or cost estimates. clerk, call the role. >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>.

[roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>.

[roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >> how is mister sanchez reported? >> aye. >> thank you. is the clerk ready to report the tally? >> yes. >> please do. >> mister chairman there are 26 aye and 36 no's. >> the amendment is not agreed to. the question of occurs on 204 as revised by mr. garamendi of california regarding the report on gps. the clerk will call the role. >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote]

>>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] >>. [roll call vote] the

amendment is agreed to. if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama, mister rogers for the purpose of a motion. >> mister chairman, i have a favorable report of the subcommittee mark. as amended. >> gentleman from alabama moves to adopt the subcommittee report as amended, questions on the motion of the gentleman from alabama. all in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the trend ones habit and the motion is adopted. >> just to give everybody a status report, we still have fortysomething amendments remaining although there is

some hope that that number will shrink over the next few hours. but that's where we are at this moment. i think everybody has really been good at keeping their comments brief and to the point and i appreciate that. we just have a number of issues remaining for the full committee portion of the market which is where we will turn it the moment. the committee will now consider the chairman smart which includes full committee provisions pursuant to committee role 13 episodes mister smith we postpone recorded votes on amendments until a mutually agreed time. in the interest of time, i'm not going to try to summarize all the provisions or many of the provisions in the full committee chairman of the mark. i want to highlight two sections, one dealing with acquisition reform. working with the senate, we made some significant changes in acquisition reform last year.

we build on those this year to try to make sure we get modern technology yielded faster and into the hands of the war fighter. we require weapons systems to be designed with open architectures that can easily be upgraded. we also provide some flexible funding for experimentation and prototyping. we give the secretary more tools to manage and approve costs scheduled and technological rest but on the other hand, we give the services greater milestone decision authority for joint programs. we establish an acquisition scorecard that helps give us and the department greater visibility on the status of these acquisition programs related to a discussion we were having earlier today. and we begin to clarify some of the issues involved in intellectual property. briefly, on the wider nickels as you remember, 1986 congress passed the goldwater

nichols act which most everybody thinks has been a tremendous success in encouraging joyfulness and defining roles and responsibilities in the department of defense. it's been 30 years so it seems like it's time to take a look at it. the department has sent over some proposals. what some of the things that are in the market are to expand the advisory role of the chairman of the joint chiefs to advise on ongoing operations and the allocation of forces across regions. i believe that we should extend the chairman's term from 2 to 4 years and i also believe that the qdr as constituted and has outlived its usefulness and so i replaced the qdr with a different formulation, an actual military strategy from the secretary that flows down to other required reports which department is doing now. there's a lot more detail on

the elements of that but this is a start at trying to update some of the laws and organizational and responsibilities in the apartment to meet the times as i mentioned in the opening statement. i'm going to leave yield to mister smith and then advised chairman hack to summarize the healthcare part which should have been in the personnel part of the mark but is in the full committee plea because we were late in getting some of the scoring but in the meantime let me yield the ranking member for any comments you would like to make a full committee portion of the mark. >> thank you mister chairman and i want to thank you for your work and for the staff work on this. there are excellent things in the full committee mark. most notably is the acquisition reform. we discussed the money issue earlier. it all gets easier if we send

the money we have more wisely. i think that's incredibly important. i also want to thank the chairman and mister hack for taking on health care issue, not an easy one to tackle and i think it is very important we address it again as part of figuring out how to deal with that cost curve that we are facing. i think there's excellent things in the market, i think the chairman and staff for their great work and i look forward to debating the next 40+ amendments and hoping that number shrinks between now and 4 am.so thank you mister chairman, with that i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. the chair yields to the gentleman from nevada.>> thank you mister chairman. to address the tricare provisions within the chairman's mark, the committee held multiple hearings, briefings and roundtables that included the form and for surgeon general, representatives from the health agency, the bso's and mso's, tricare contractors and militaryhealthcare providers and all of them , the overarching theme is that the military health system is there with the primary

mission of readiness and that means a medically ready force and are ready medical force. we have healthcare providers ready to go to provide combat casualty care and we got force ready to go to engage in combat. what we did, we looked at the current structure and function of the military healthcare systems and made recommendations. some in line with the never makes . some in line with what we heard in our briefings and roundtables. we divided them into three areas. one to change the structure of the military health system. that is by creating one single entity that is responsible for the management of all military treatment facilities across the od which would be the defense health agency. now each service has responsibilities so there's efficiency to had by having one central agency responsible for the overall management of military treatment facilities. the second area, lighting military treatment facilities based on population and

civiliancapacity and capability within the community, the third was to ensure access and quality care. we then went on to codify the joint trauma system and create a joint, education and training directory to maintain the skills and experience gained after 15 years of conflict . the last area that we delved into was tricare. there are over seven or eight different tricare plans. we condensed them down basically into two. a tri-care hmo option and a tri-care preferred provider option. i want to make sure everybody understands we made no changes to tri-care for life which is the over 65 military retiree plan and we didn't do anything to guarded reserve tri-care. but we do call for a study of the best way to provide coverage for the members of the national guard and reserve. as we heard from members within the services, there are different options on how

best to cover reserve but they did not have the data to make a recommendation so we asked them to complete the study and bring the data back so we could address that issue. in the tricare plan, in going to two basic options of hmo and ppo to maintain the current rate structure which is currently in place right now for tricare for all current active duty members and their families. we also do that for the current retirees. the goal is to see the changes in structure and function be rolled out and evolved over the next 2 to 4 years at which time the potential increases in enrollment fees and deductibles will be put into place because we will have increased access and increase the product so all those that are currently serving will not see any change to their premiums, will not see any change to their deductibles or co-pays.however, after

2018 and after the gao completes a study that does an assessment of network adequacy access to care and beneficiary satisfaction, we move to a co-pay system that's based on fixed fees as opposed to a percentage of co-pays. there's an institution of a small annual enrollment fee and deductibles and co-pays will be indexed to kola. that served briefly as a review of the health care provisions and i yield back. >> i yield to the ranking member, the personnel subcommittee mrs. davis for any comments she'd like to make . >> thank you mr. chairman and i want to echo and thanked the chairman of the committee for his work on this as well as all the people that came to us and gave their time and energy. there were many, many opportunities to ask questions and i think the committee did that. one thing that is perhaps not as clear is that in the end, we are probably not saving

the kind of money that might be necessary going forward so that we are certain that people are getting the very best care but at the same time that we are being able to provide savings going forward so that we are not really taking so much of health care costs from the rise of about four percent. the budget was in 94 to 10 percent of the budget now so we don't want to get a lot past that because once we start letting it rise too much over the personnel cost overall, we are going to the in trouble. we cannot really spend that much money on healthcare. what this does is create that kind of two-tiered and it will be actually about, the structure will mean in effect for at least 50 years until

the last person who comes in the military on december 31, 2017 moves into tri-care for life at age 65 so that's probably not tenable over time. we are going to move forward with that atthis time but i think really by the end of next year , we should be looking at some changes so that we really can make certain that we are not spending much more of the budget that we are today. >> thank the gentle lady. isthere other discussion of the full committee portion of the mark? gentle lady from guam . >> thank you mr. chairman. for the record i would like to briefly note my concern with a provision in the mark that places restrictions on reverse auctions. reverse auctions are procurement tools which allows sellers of goods and services to be down to win a project rather than vice versa. this often drives contracting price down and opens up the

procurement process to new entities. while i acknowledge that we have not perfected their use in federal contracting, i do believe that there is a value in incorporating reverse auctions into the procurement process. they also note that gao report and testimony from other committees indicates that when there are problems with reverse auctions, they tend to be with the procurement officer and how they utilize the procurement tool itself. it's not the use of the reverse auction per se. so we should be working to find and improve on creative solutions to rising project cost, not outright prohibiting such tools because they are not perfect. section 804 which prohibits the use of reverse auctions for procurement of personal protective equipment seems punitive and unnecessary.

so instead of finding ways to better utilize reverse auctions and improving the process, we seem to be legislating just for the sake of legislation. as we have in the past, i hope we will be able to work mister chairman with the senate in conference to more appropriately address this particular procurement challenge and i yield back. thank you. >> i appreciate the comments and concerns of the gentle lady and i think i agree with the vast majority of what she said. we need to keep working on these provisions. are there, is there other discussion of the full committee portion of the mark mark if not, we will turn to amendments of the full committee portion of the mark . the gentleman from arizona, mister gallegos. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> if the staff would distribute the amendment. >> without objection the

amendment is considered as read and the gentleman is considered five minutes. >> mister chairman, we've been fighting in america's armed services through the founding of the republic. many of them did not come here legally though in cases we allow them to enlist because most of our history, your patriotism and their patriotism was more important than papers. mister chairman, i want to tell you about a great american named joseph medina.

joseph was born in mexico 101 years ago. when he was four: his friends moved to minnesota to work in the soybean fieldhowever it wasn't until he joined the army that joseph learned he was undocumented. in 2016, spite great threats , despite the great threat our nation faces, dreamers like joseph wanted to serve our nation in uniform are turned away from recruiting offices across the country. in contrast, in 1944 the option was for joseph to drive to canada one afternoon, reenter the united states and returned to his unit. joseph went on to fight with distinction under legendary general george macarthur. two years ago, at the grand age of 99, he came all the way here to washington to plead with congress to give today's undocumented young people the same opportunity he had to fight for his country. being on the national mall, he talked about the wealth of america that boat motivated him to enlist, the sincere patriotism he shares with millions of undocumented youth grew up in our communities, pledge allegiance to our flag and want to give back to our country.

mister chairman, my amendment would allow dreamers to do that. it would allow the secretary of defense to establish a process to permit the enlistment of beneficiaries of the deferred action for childhood arrivals program. dod already has this authority pursuant to section 504 of title 10 in the department currently allowing a small number of documented young people who have special language and technical skills to join our armed services. unfortunately, in a few moments some will argue this is an admin immigration issue and it should be argued in the context of the defense bill so saying my bill amounts to backdoor amnesty. that is nonsense. my amendment is consistent with past president. in 2006 when congress last acted to revise the rules on noncitizens, this change was made through the nda a. moreover, this amendment

would have no effect on the negotiations of doctor recipients for anyone else. in closing, when we vote on this amendment later this evening, these consider the long sweep of history and not just the anti-emigrant politics of the present. our military is made strong in the 1940s because men like joseph medina were allowed to enlist. our military will be made stronger in 2016 in this very room if we vote to give another generation of immigrants the chance to serve. mister chairman, the willingness to fight and die in uniform is the pure expression of love for our country. please support my amendment and give dreamers who love america the opportunity to enlist in america's armed forces. thank you and i yield back. >> the chairman yield back. i would recognize myself for the purpose of offering a substitute and the staff would please distribute the substitute.

[inaudible conversation] without objection, the substitute is considered read and i recognize myself for five minutes. up to five minutes.as we all know very well, there are a number of controversial access to the issue raised by the gentleman from arizona hand generally to the subject of immigration. my goal is to keep our focus on the national security of the united states. and so this substitute affirms the authority that

the secretary of defense has to bring anybody into the military who brings a critical need, even those, including those who arrived into this country unlawfully as children. as the gentleman from arizona noted, the secretary has authority to fill critical needs what ever they may be with individuals, however they may have gotten here and that's the way we make sure that the national security of the country is protected. and in fact, that authority is used currently. now, to go beyond that, i believe gets us into territory about the president's executive orders and a variety of other issues which i say, and we all know

are very controversial. so i want to keep the focus on the national security. i want to affirm the ability of the department to fill what ever need it believes it has to ensure that we have the best people possible to defend the country and that's what the substitute will do and i yield back the balance of my time on the substitute. is there other discussion? gentleman from alabama, mister brooks. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to emphasize something. the issue is not the dreamers or folks who are often called .illegal aliens. the issueis national security and whether americans and unlawful immigrants are meeting national security needs . right now, everybody on this committee understands that there are reductions in force in the united states military to the tune of thousands,

tens of thousands depending on the time frame talked about. american unlawful immigrants in uniform are getting pink slips as american military is being cut by the thousands and tens of thousands of positions. right now all recruitment and reenlistment needs of all branches of the united states military are being met by american and lawful immigrants who seek to serve america in the armed forces. if the day should come when national security is at risk as the chairman correctly notes, there is a provision in law that enables the secretary of defense, the pentagon, the department of defense to address that issue in ways that the chairman has mentioned in his substitute amendment and so with that, given the choice and given that i prefer that americans and lawful immigrants as long as there are enough willing to serve that we not deny than any positions available. i support the germans substitute amendment.>>

mister chairman. >> go to ms. sanchez and then miss norcross. >> mister chairman i think the substitute amendment you put forward recognizes what we are currently doing which is that when we need a skill set that we don't have, we are able to get that not necessarily from united states citizens, we have that provision in the law and i think you restate that and i think there are skill sets in our students that would make them really great members of the military and so i personally will be voting for your substitute amendment because i believe that the skill set is great amongst our young people who for all intents and purposes are here and are part of our fabric, our community and they want

to be serving our country so personally i will be voting for your amendment. thank you mister chairman. >> i think the gentle lady. mister norcross? >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to tell you a story about a young woman who joined the army, served in south korea. the chemical weapons response unit. served honorably. she ended up marrying a young soldier, moved back to fort hood texas, said both of them serving. had a child. and then got a call late one night saying they wanted to deport her. she's willing to give her life for her country. but the country wasn'twilling to give her a life in the united states . what better way to say you love this country than to say you would give up your life? that woman happens to be my daughter in law, the mother

of my grandchild. and i very much appreciate the fact that we are moving this along mister chairman with your amendment. there needs to be that legal pathway for those who want to serve our country. i thank you and yield back. >> i appreciate the comments of the gentleman. the question is on the gentleman from arizona is recognized on the substitute. >> thank you mr. chairman. and my short time here in congress i recognize you can't get 100 percent of what you want, 90 percent of the time red junk. but i do want to recognize and support your men. i think it's a significant step forward when it comes to the equitable treatment of dac ca immigrants that serve their country and i encourage members to support this substitute amendment and will in turn withdraw my amendment. i guess i will have to eat away.

>> you can't withdraw it now that i've offered a substitute but i think we are on the same page. keep going. you will. >> still learning the ropes mister chairman. >> the question is on the substitute amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the opinion of the chair, aye has it and the substitute is adopted. the question is on the amendment, the element on the arizona has substituted. sorry, substitute done. right? gotcha. so the substitute amendment is adopted and now we will move on to other amendments. gentleman from texas, mister viti? >> thank you mr. chairman. i have an amendment. >> the clerk will distribute the amendment area without

objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from texas is recognized on his amendment x mister chairman, thank you. what this amendment does it it directs the secretary of defense to evaluate the effects of allowing 2012 doctor beneficiaries to apply to the us military service academies on, so they can be part of a diversity that makes up the us military officers core. according to a 2011 report by the military leadership diversity committee they found that while the pentagon has created a force whose

lower ranked racial diversity of america, the same could not be said for the officers. the us military relies on military service academies as an avenue for fresh talent and yet despite the need for diverse officer classes, a particular young group of men and women are barred from even applying to institutions like west point or the us naval academy. regardless of your thoughts on immigration or the president's executive actions on immigration, daca beneficiaries represent a diverse pool of men and women and they have a great deal of talent that will serve america well. and while i support president obama's executive actions on immigration, this amendment does not make any judgment or assert any opinion but only requires our defense department to objectively evaluate how current policies could impact the future of diversity of high ranking

officials in the armed services and i would like to remind members of certain things when it comes to these appointments. in certain areas particularly in suburban areas and higher income suburban areas and in certain rural areas, the participation pool and interest in the service academies is much higher than in certain urban areas. in certain urban areas, particularly i can tell you in the dallas-fort worth area, in dallas and fort worth in the city, and even in some of the older suburbs, the interest level is just not there and some of these daca kids may be willing to fill that void . what i say to people that may think these kids don't have much to offer, i will remind you that going back to the days of the american revolutionary war, we had foreigners that thought as officers and trained alongside officers that had

been there with us for every battle and i don't see any difference in these kids and the benefits they can bring to help make the united states a great place, particularly our military and with that, mister chairman i do yield to the gentle lady from california. >> thank you to the gentleman from the dallas area. i just wanted to say that i actually sat on the board of visitors for west point and want to remind you all that we do have those in foreign military actually attend our academies also so i just was up for our meeting about 10 days ago up in the hudson river, the hudson valley and sat down with some troops, some cadets to have lunch and several of them were from other countries so we do have foreigners currently attending our academy and i would like to echo my

colleagues comments on the fact that in particular in some of the urban areas, we never have enough supply. we don't have enough people actually asking us for those admission slots and many of the slots go empty and it would be nice to increase that diversity. mister cummings and i because i also said on the board of visitors for colorado springs for the air force academy for about eight years, we worked very hard on increasing that diversity at our academies but is very difficult but for many of you, you probably have a lot of people trying to fill those slots but in many, especially some of our colleagues on the black caucus and hispanic caucus, it's a little bit more difficult to fill those slots so i think this is a great amendment mister, mr. veasey

and i yield back to you. >> mister chairman i feel that the balance of my time i yield myself in opposition to the amendment. i think we were all pretty much on the same page a few moments ago and that is focus on national security, bringing the key skills however you need to bring them in. once we start defining particular populations, to have an evaluation or consideration or so forth then i think we are looking at other criteria and to the gentle lady from california talking about west point, i'll just say there is another numbers of underrepresented group of folks and that's in rural areas. i have some challenge in getting enough people to apply for some of the academy positions and so i think there are a variety of populations that one could look to increase knowledge, awareness and hopefully

applications but when we start into these sorts of situations i think we are getting away from whatever skills we need to defend the country we ought to get them and we start off into other areas and that gets more controversial and so that's the reason i would oppose the amendment of the gentleman from texas. other comments on this amendment? mister conaway. >> thank you mr. chairman. i also opposed the amendment. i served as well the board of visitors and i like to remind my colleagues that west point has a fully funded completely staff recruitment team that is charged with nothing but finding qualified hispanics, qualified blacks and other qualified minorities to diversify the officer corps. they are keenly aware of the need for this and the value of it and they go and it's fully funded so to ask us to

vote for this would ask us to in effect affirmed the president's overreach which many of us disagree with but just rest assured that as far as west point is concerned, they are very aggressive in trying to include all minorities to better reflect in the officer corps of america is she's at and team up there is doing a great job and i yield back mister brooks? >> i want to emphasize something. i think every member of congress regularly meets with applicants who want to enter one of our military academies, whether it be west point or the naval academy or coast guard or air force or what have you. and there is an abundance of people who are here lawfully, in particular american citizens who want those positions who want to be able to serve our country, who want to be able to go in these military academies and are denied that opportunity because the composition is stiff and if you look at the

content of mr. veasey's amendment, i want to emphasize this amendment is talking about opening up the door for illegal aliens to be able to compete against americans who want to serve our country. and i have compassion and kindhearted thoughts for a lot of these people coming to america illegally, just trying to better themselves but at the same time we need to focus on americans. who want to serve their country and give them top priority or at least that's the way i look at it. and it's nothing against the people who are from other countries and have come into america illegally so much as my focus is on the desire to turn away as few americans as possible who want to serve in

the united states military and who wants to go through our military academy and this kind of amendment is a step in the direction on a one-for-one basis, every time an illegal alien gets admitted to a military academy, it means that an american citizen and perhaps a lawful immigrant has been denied that opportunity and as for me, i want to give priority to americans and lawful immigrants so long as we have an abundance of those people who want to serve our country in the armed services who want to enter our military academies and so with that i would oppose mr. veasey's well-intentioned amendment because it would eventually cost positions that i believe americans should have the first crack at. >> mr. gallego. >> thank you mr. chairman. i'd like to talk in favor of

mr. veasey's amendment. i think a couple things. one, the amendment is asking for a study. we don't know what's actually going to happen to this population of recipients in the future. as things go we may have an immigration form in a few years or some other form of stabilization. this body of men and women

>> >> the -- the amendment is

not agree to. next to the gentlelady from california. >> mr. chairman i have an amendment. >> the staff will distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations] with other than any amendment is considered as read it here recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman andrew the

courage tri-care program that don't have the same preventative health services as under the affordable care back to my amendment would test fix this but when we looked at that hca -- aca that people could get tested for diabetes or other issues of that type there was the study that came out from ucla that 46 percent or half of california have diabetes are just below the line of pre-diabetic if you don't have access circuit is too expensive or with the co pay to get preventive care and diabetes is one of those diseases and i know because their runs in my family

50 percent of that time can go only if you know, that you have it to exercise its nutritional information and followed with a nutritional diet. all preventive health care services and it provides fists to add these additional services and screenings to be inappropriate medical care and again and did is not looked at with screening with diabetes and co-payments in with disease

prevention with the tri-care beneficiaries. also is getting well care benefits to those under 18 years of age. right now it is only through six years of age. those who use tri-care are retired officers who are listed to have preventive care the same way that those who are under a the aca and i do think that will bring down the health care cost for americans. unfortunately we were not able to get what is necessary for this i will withdraw the amendment but like to have helped to bring it to the floor because they do think it is an important

issue of to use that as primary insurance. i yield back. >> certainly i believe that we will focus on preventive care that you describe. it is important. next the other gentlelady from california. if the staff would please distribute without objection

and is considered as read interview recognized a new amendment. >> the payments were 68,000 widows over tenures and gives it to 30,000 in secure food service members of the lease to access those benefits and to pay for these critical initiatives to those pharmacy copays between 10 and $15 and sometimes we have to fix things to have young families and that means we

have to make those fixes because retirees feel that we are breaking faith with them but this is a simple way to approach a. the we have increased its but the retail prescription is $10 billion under a pharmacy program fiscal year 14 alone. but unfortunately it only extends for benefits by one year so in essence we kick the can down the road of course, he will come back next april to do this again. i eight have been to four other committees and all the energy and commerce so i

have to withdraw the amendment i but i hope we see the merits of this proposal to provide those needed benefits for service members and families and widows. >> she withdraws her amendment. do you have another you wish to offer? >> i do. >> please distribute. >> you're recognized.

>> been to participate in that as we all know the study confirms military voters still have many needs that we should address rather than the most basic is to know where it is in the process as they could be traveling halfway around the world is services can be unpredictable mostly in a bipartisan manner most notably when we improved military voting in 2009 it to set up some free access to find out if the ballots have been received and we have an opportunity to fix that now. it can be as simple as linking the data base we

encourage voters to law again to their status as they rested -- received that back but also if it was sent out all information in the database this gives the military and overseas of voters to take the burden off especially military members to check on the ballots there all over the world that is the best way to do that this is something we having california and it works very well i would hate to miss this opportunity and fortune behalf to withdraw my amendment because it would not waive jurisdiction but i will put this on the floor i hope i have

everyone's support. >> she withdraws her amendment but i do encourage her to pursue this issue as she correctly said ballot access for military members has been an issue we want to continue to work through the floor even though we didn't have the chance to get what was necessary for her today. >> without objection and so ordered.

[inaudible conversations] without objection the amendments are considered as read i yield to myself to describe them. number one amendment 39 which reverses her diem reduction in the joint travel regulations and. number 59 to determine the feasibility of using health care navigator is from the. . . negotiators. isn't directing the secretary of defense to provide a briefing to your services committee no later than january 14, 2017 for the process of referring beneficiaries for field repair procedures. amendment 1/6 four which directs the secretary of defense of the feasibility of including public-private partnerships using services

to provide health care within the service. amendment 199 which directs the report said the the feasibility of providing acupuncture and chiropractors service to veterans participating in tri-care as an alternate to opiate treatment options. amendment to 92 which authorizes duty to conduct programs to allow tri-care recipients to choose between local facilities or mail order or military facilities. amendment 131 and to reassure their at the table and the insurance companies when they collectively determine core quality performance metrics and with the tri-care program into which he with the i.r.a. subsequent recommendations amendment 325 as those

practicing surgeons are included in to assert a new section to keep current cost sharing of 90% for the tri-care preferred. is there any further discussion on the package? >> thank you for support of this amendment. and to have a very negative consequences with the duties civilian and military personnel. november 1st, the duty is to to did reduced her diem rates for employees and members of the military to travel who launder them 30 days for work. the policy created a structure to compensate the

workforce for official travel the standard rate below 30 days between 30 and 180 days and another great employees and members who travel more than 180 days. they are 25 and 45 percent lower respectively they and the rate of all other federal employees whose travel 30 days or less. basically dod employs and military service members are being penalized for accepting long-term temporary duty assignments. the results is of the civilian work force to pay out of pocket to travel on official business. i hear of personal sleeping in campsite's because they cannot afford to a hotel. that was long-term duty assignments and unnecessary to the needs of our military inner not simply a choice. the policy is eroding the morality of the work force

the department should not put workers in a spot where they're required to travel to work but have to pay out of pocket for necessities. this results in natural results of those dedicated to serving our military. thanks for supporting this amendment. i yield back. >> the gentleman has been strong on pursuing this issue it is important to have if not it is with the package number one those in favor? those opposed? the amendments are adopted the gentleman from california you have an amendment. >> i do at the desk. >> please distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations]

to. >> without objection the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> in 1994 streamlining act creates commercial items and we get those from the acquisition reforms. it included those modified on the department of defense they said the exact item house to be sold to the general public.

if the private company develops a radio on their own to their own expense and doesn't add encryption because is not sold to the department of defense because it doesn't have the encryption is how crucial companies can sell to dod. in to be reclassified as military items. in that has to comply with federal requirements with the deity the commercial companies that disappoint to have commercial off the shelf products and the same

phrase requesting data but we didn't actually achieves the definition of a commercial item. is our job to remove barriers and allow more to be added at the private expense. i cannot get a waiver and with that i withdraw my amendment. >> mr. chairman. >> do you seek recognition. >> the amendment is withdrawn. >> i move we limit from this point forward. >> if you don't mind

withholding the motion and to consult with mr. smith and get an agreement before mr. limiting debates. i understand the point that it may be time to start narrowing down but let -- let's do it with consultation on a bipartisan basis. >> i appreciate your indulgence. legend a lady from california. >> the staff will please distribute the amendment. >> [inaudible conversations]

without objection and it is considered as read. >> i will withdraw this betted is an important issue we need to spend a couple of minutes on it. you may remember but if not the companies that got more than an 39.$5 billion of taxpayer money for iraq related contracts which is less than the bailout. also the company whose wiring in the showers has been blamed in as many as 12 dash soldiers electrocutions also exposing 800 soldiers to toxic chemicals cause a a respiratory illness. they's rightfully sued over

the incident but guess who gets to pay over $30 million in legal fees? the u.s. taxpayers. the indemnity provision forces the government to pay the cost. is seen all too eager to overspend taxpayer money there at $750 billion and also billed for those in excess of $500,000 in the consultants apply the depositions with numerous international trips even admitted to billing when day are with legal judgments and settlements several other large contractors have had contracts with the pentagon with the indemnification

clauses these were signed over a ten year period and then they pass that measure requiring the pentagon but we need to go further we will prevent these types of contracts are right. they should not be responsible for contractor incompetence and gross negligence under any circumstance. but they are both dash iran and incompetent to defendants in court. and with the secondary referral i will straw the amendment. i yield back. >> you have an additional amendment to offer? >> is that yes? >> please distribute the

amendment. [inaudible conversations] >> without objection it is considered as read. >> mr. chairman this amendment is basically one that is on the other side because the use of the term commercial is being abused with that department to the defense but nobody else will baia but the u.s. government or of my.

but that isn't the case for commercial goods a and services but by labeling the items commercial to allow the government to determine if the prices are there in reasonable. as a result taxpayers are getting ripped off. for the those sections of cost $10 on average studio overpaid 392% with spare parts costing billions of dollars. how do we have this wasteful spending. also to is the demise vendors to label their goods and services as commercial even if they only sell to the defense department.

as an attempt the standards scrutiny i don't think anybody would argue it is a commercial item. i doubt united airlines is added to the fleets it is time we put an end to these practices to provide cost data on commercial items that are not actually sold commercial. and i will yield back to withdraw the amendment. >> the amendment is withdrawn. >> i ask unanimous consent

that for the rest of this markup that atari be limited to two minutes per member and i make that request after consulting with the ranking member alien to we have about 33 stallone amendments. that is the universe. is a limit that debate at two minutes per member. is there objection? package timber to consisting of amendments that have been approved with the minority place a strip -- distribute the packages virtue.

>> without objection they are considered as read number two comprised of the following number 31 and between contract and officers and number 64 regarding the efficiency standards and number three with the best value contrasting for auditing services to maintain the current simplified with the small briefing categories. is amendment 191 directing of briefing on competitions.

and by mr. norcross with defense acquisition training it with the definition of commercial items. an amendment three '04 on the traveling wave tubes. any questions? if not it is on the amendment package number two. the aye's have it the amendments are adopted. further amendments? mr. russell. >> i have an amendment that the desk. >> please distribute.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> without objection the amendment is read and recognize for two minutes a bit more than 2,000 federal contracts and those in vital programs president obama and executive order affirmed the right of religious service providers to equal opportunity to compete for funding while still retaining their religious identity.

it then must be free from political interference or even the appearance and thus be made on the basis of merit not a religious affiliation or lack thereof of the recipient organization and the president's order emphasized faith based providers are eligible to compete for assistance under the social service programs to participate in those programs to maintain even the religious identity as described in the executive order unfortunately guidance however well intended cause some confusion regarding religious contractors it also violates a compelling interest to enter with regard to the free exercise of the first amendment then and do the burden the practice of religion in just three weeks ago the present

obama felt compelled of those service providers and contractors how they can contribute to the nation as they apply to nine departments and agencies it simply eliminates the ambiguity to tie those prescriptions that are well-established in depositions -- provisions of the civil-rights act of 1964 and the americans with disabilities act of 1990. they support the president's assertion to eliminate the ambiguity of compliance programs. with that i will be happy to take any questions. >> i oppose this amendment because the exemption for religious organizations that

is consistent with of hobby lobby decision the way the amendment is written it doesn't matter if it is a religious organization basically with the private contractor this issue the right to discriminate. if you just decide to do business with gay people or anybody else for that matter on that discretionary basis of a protected class so based on that the religious exemption with the court decision that this is a blanket right to discriminate to the department of defense to

prohibit the federal government than we do want to do business with you. >> i'll also propose mr. russell's amendment those identified as lesbian or gay or transgendered. and with a plan to federal contractors. and those that are missed guided with that definition of religious organization. blast your proposed amendment on the house floor of housing and urban development the amendment passed of the nine republican members is to be

treated equally with dignity of sexual orientation or gender identity. to vote against the dangerous amendment with discrimination. the key for bringing this amendment we have a first amendment in this country i yield the remainder of my time. >> that is not what is kept. that is not you have been informed of.

to establish in the firm he had to establish new guidelines with the department of health and human services department of justice labor of usaid unfortunately that is not what this does that codifies executive order that offers protection to have the information is provided to make it what it other than what it is that dates based organizations to deliver federally funded services. they can run the entire gamut to substance abuse

programs but now under the ambiguity have been forced to shut down operations for about but consistent with the president's own statement from march 31st to reaffirm the executive order 559. i'm a sensitive to the objections on the other side of the aisle. this is reaffirming to make-up double play infield the free exercise thereof that has ben upheld with multiple supreme court decisions and i yield back. >> who is seeking recognition and?

>> i feel we are almost gone to different planets we're reading this very differently and to on the basis of pregnancy as suspect that was not what was intended but according to a lot of people it would impact those who have government contracts in terms to be open to non discriminatory. so we have a problem of what this actually means and then to seek up better understanding. >> i appreciate what ms. davis said it is wise to

go forward because as a look at these words of the of clarification to the redefinition that limits the concept to say the department of defense will not discriminate it is a reaffirmation of the first amendment right. i support the effort in the words we can say to clarify would be helpful but we shall least go forward with this i urge adoption. i yield back. >> i stated in a position as another attempt for worker protections for federal employees this amendment looks to reverse the steps we have made by removing workplace protections for 28 million workers. therefore this would expose

at least 11 million individual sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination. this all rights act prohibits based on race race, religion and sex and natural -- national origin and workplace discrimination against people with disabilities however section seven '02 and seven of three of the civil-rights act and the americans with disabilities act exempt religious corporations from these key discrimination protectors. for allowing for these religious exemptions the amendment is underwriting the executive order with the quality protections i have seen repeated attempts to peel back the civil-rights

of consumer protection i am disappointed to see that in the armed services committee looking to promote and protect discrimination in free workplace. and then allowing that back to the workplace. >> from the gentleman from oklahoma the aye's have it. >> i ask for a recorded vote >> that will be postponed and. the gentleman from minnesota >> read the amendment.

>> it is considered as read. >> president obamacare issued a executive order -- order already plagued the order requires of federal contracts to report any violation or alleged violation of 14 different liberalize to provide this information from every supplier or subcontractor. the amendment i am offered

with the rules and regulations of those of the department of defense our national nuclear security administration. funded by taxpayer dollars that is precisely why there is the process already in place under current law. if you have a history of bad behavior they already have the authority to deny federal contracts. in fact, the federal government issued more than 1,000 including 400 suspensions from the department of defense the best way to ensure fair play is to enforce the current process the regulations implementing these laws are extremely complex and outdated it to protect the

workers to be tripped up on overly complicated rules the same is true for federal agents. even the department of labour have run afoul of from time to time the nation faces a significant security challenge the last thing the federal government should do during the stagers times is to make a harder and more costly to do their job. i yield back. >> i oppose this amendment those contrasting with the federal government to obey the law to treat as they would require and if they don't there will not do business with the federal government it does again those in the way of those that do follow labor laws.

this is the major and significant problem. the nlrb is overwhelmed so it is difficult to establish such the violation was made with how much they could do to find that to beecher is to say if you don't treat your workers according to the law is follow the law and the federal government will not do business with the we have a significant problems with the concentration of wealth we urge paying workers what they deserve. and not to pay overtime.

if the law is violated it'll think they should be doing business with the federal government. >>. >> i was curious as mere securities social policy issues and though weapons systems. we're sitting here with a timid role the clock isn't running. >> it was less than two minutes. >> i take less than two minutes. >> the committee rules provide the chair and the ranking member did not operate all those mr. smith and i have made an effort to operate under the time limits to move things along as much as anybody has.

to emphasize the point dash wheeled to myself and please start the clock. [laughter] as sanders did it with the executive order even if you have reported the violation before it has proven and tell in this sense is proven but that seems that secondly as i understand the executive order there is one person per agency to be sure all the contractors and subcontractors follow these labor laws and that one person has to provide guidance for 24,000 contracting officers and hundreds of thousands of

actions. as you know, part of my goal in life is to speed up top quality modern technology if they they will slow that down to have everything go through one guy with 20,000 contracting officers. but finally made a standing is with that executive order every contractor has to affirmatively verified as subcontractors need to the contracting laws. in there for whatever happens with the rest of the government we can debate that i yield back 25 seconds >> following that logic we ought to do with the back

pay without any security clearance. >> i rise in opposition this is the executive order if you had violated the business of the alleged violation it is repeated a and willful to make sure those that will contract with our country family medical leave not allegations but actual violations transparency does not keep them from getting any contracts take that into consideration this goes on every day we want contractors they protect the very people who build the products i yield back my

time. >>. >> i rise in opposition of those the fair play of the executive order in 2014 the rules said questions start to ensure the workplace for their kids employed by government contractors with 28 billion employed by corporations as the federal procurement contracts valued

at more than five adele's dollars that it was complying with the labor laws and with the basic worker protection. it takes the critical step with hard-working americans by prohibiting the forced arbitration clauses contracts for those greater than $1 million to the civil justice system of the sexual assault and harassment cases. that violate the protections of the executive order to abusive and employment practices.

>> if there is no further debate, the aye's have it there is a recorded vote that will be postponed. mr. johnson? >> [inaudible conversations]

>> without objection is considered as read the process over the years with the department of defense to combat training they have been with the plan to move forward coming both inside and outside not only do using live animals almost as hugins simulators with the civilian trommel program

that is effective or necessary to put the service members at risk with the un trading possible military medical personnel considering the vast majority of the civilian side to use simulators rather than animals. don't lose sight of our ethical obligations to our own humanity in the name of trading with the advent of technology there is no need for the department of defense to study the effects of chemical warfare agents as part of pediatric care trading to operate on my coat seal and p.i.g.s.

despite an ongoing burgee of congress that has yet to provided definitive timeline with the use of simulators with to transition to get exclusive use we must have an opportunity to direct the department of defense to have a concrete plan moving forward and i yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. chairman i could not disagree with this amendment and a more to be trade with the live tissue it is up process to enable the health care teams to save lives. there is nothing the

simulator can do to replace live tissue it is not even close. they have become very good for day to day trading beheaded to combat a guarantee he did not want somebody to try this on a human being for the first time that they have not tried all liable because nothing can replace bleeding every begin the data she tried to replicate. they are american heroes because they are the ones that help train people to save american lives. i don't know where you get your confirmation but it was completely unnecessary because i learned to do things that saved american lives. but i can tell you it is very true with this trading process to help you save american lives. i disagree wholeheartedly and understand this is coming from first to you and

knowledge and i yield back. >> the special operations has used to live tissue for a reason because it saves lives. you can simulate combat their deface devices that simulate the we are working harder and what is ethical to make sure the troops in harm's way have what they need that is what is at the call and the job of of committee as you look at what the job is to raise an army to fight the war and to read to have everything they

need the right trading in rules of engagement i yield back. >> i commanded a company battalion with the special operations command as the great paratrooper with live tissue trading. with the medics are the combat life saving for those who have any questions and to go down and talk to see the confidence and the competence that they get to absolutely save lives. i yield back. >> questions on the amendment? >> i appreciate the comments

but it asks for a steady as to where their act if you voted for in the effort to 13 you already voted for the provision that encourages deity to move away from live tissue trading the army has stated their policy is committed to the highest quality trade must continue to include appropriate replacement of libeling used including the alternatives the assistant secretary of defense of affairs said you must make progress to the standardization for the reduction in of the live animal model. additive for services at the time we did use live tissue trading and then moved away at the university to say where are you in the phase out?

there is a lot of misinformation of live tissue trading it is a factor of working on live tissue there are ways to teach these procedures that we do not need to use live animals simulators are getting better and to say where are you in this process? i would suggest supporting the amendment and i yield back. >> since i was deemed as dr. dr. but jokes aside i do believe that what we are looking at is an opportunity to understand if they have

an alternative to the live tissue trading and a stand of medics did great work and great trading but what we have seed from those have spent visiting could simulate the same including leading and other instances and save money at the same time. favor the most expensive simulators bed to buy some of these space animals and then to save their reports that we should follow a thorough and though for that amendment to see where it has got.

>> and then to make the progress that has not then bade concerned with the failure data justification and i appreciate the comments the gentleman has made and they should keep track of where they are and what is possible and the language of this i don't know that. had based on what i have been told i am not ready to make those judgments.

it is not offered from the gentleman. the no's have it the amendment is not agreed to. we will call-up package number three consisting of amendments approved with the minority. please pass out the package of the three. [inaudible conversations]

>> without objection the amendments are considered as read. to provide a report on the headquarters does hazy image and 119 to increase funding for u.s. defense systems. amendment 138 increases funding for system restoration in modernization amendment 154 express's to congress to provide support for the iraqi kurdish dash per dash. number 1/6 eight as revised that requires a dod to submit a report are beecher terrorist organizations and syria and iraq. amendment 193 to be

instructive report language of the national commission of the future of the army. amendment to 192 directorates, with the redeployment of existing systems. amendment to 27 which strikes ted 87 to replace it with requirements of the network. of the bed to 94 that has $20 billion of the picture because of our reproduction and industrial facilities and the cybercenter for the national ecological museum. in that slips off the top of >> further discussion?

>> i would like to call the committee's attention to my amendment with the secretary of defense to provide with the condition is to be met for isis to be considered defeated in and most importantly the secretary has to provide a strategy to facilitate that economic security conditions. in this is the fourth consecutive administration in 15 years we are still

using it to conduct military strikes in iraq and syria just a few years we're fighting the successor to al qaeda in the country what would be unforgivable to defeat isis militarily for its successor to have the united states to have the service members into harm's way but it is critically important to define what victory looks like how we sustain that to fill the provisions of that requirement. i yield back. >> with the amendments those

in favor? the aye's have it the amendments are adopted. >> please distribute the amendment. [inaudible conversations] >> without objection and the amendment is considered red ant the gentlelady is recognized. up. >> for that reauthorization

that snuck into them must pass funding bill has no real space on the issue. and neck to be a colossal failure. of the underlying bill more money on this program spent for another your hand is widely reported special forces are all the trading the commanders of the opposition forces and to equip the entire brigade thousands of people who have not been screened in any way. continuing to these weapons the loyalties are questionable use so-called forces are indistinguishable we see the results to strengthen our enemies. right now the first is to

throw these syrian government and that which should include al qaeda with is another avenue for the administration to be counterproductive wars that congress is not authorized to result help in the and be reached their objective tried to overthrow the syrian government is causing a tremendous loss of life to strengthen groups like al qaeda and isis to introduce legislation and i encourage my colleagues to support it is simply strikes the language to stop the reauthorization of the program and encourage my colleagues support. >> i yield to myself. please start the clock.

just to be clear what the underlying bill does is to authorize their deity trade and equip program in syria. it does not contain money to do that that basically says dod has to reprogram anybody -- nt monday to keep a check to help govern how that goes and where progress is being made. there is a lot of criticisms to be legitimately made about the equipment so far and i don't dispute any of them. but at a very simplistic level there are three options. one is for the u.s. to send troops to defeat isis and other is to send partners so

there are downsizing of three of those but let us see another but of course, not worry about that because we have to worry about it later but i believe we should authorize the train and equip program to keep our figure as close as we can on the pulse of how that is going digital mcfarlane to talk about his view and we believe this authority is necessary but at the same time we need to push the administration to have a strategy that successfully degrades isis a we don't have to do this again that is my view i yield back five seconds. >> i will just add to your

comment this doesn't start until october 1st by the big 1221 went in place and to keep them place the options for the new administration and whichever party is in place and by keeping a 2112 it seems that we struck up a good balance to be sure we reprogram that money that comes up and coming through this process during this transition i would respectfully urge them not to adopt it.

>> sharing concerns about the trend and what that was first authorized by congress with public jam private and my concerns have not ben sufficiently to benefit from a larger discussion and that's something that hasn't then fully thought through i yield back the remainder of my time. >>. >> i looked carefully through all of the existing language and the underlying measure and could not find

anything that limited the forces to target isis i saw multiple references. i thought it would be a different conversation if i saw that language here. i agree that we do need local forces to defeat isis to work with but my point is we should work with twisted partners to read those who are affected like syria and iraq and the arab coalition birders. we should not be providing arms to those who we don't know who day are or whose loyalties lie between overthrowing the aside government and fighting against isis. there are far too ready issues that have not been clarified and the underlying language is a problem for

that reason if. >> dr. fleming? >> i have a question this cannot for a vote because it didn't make sense to me it was ridiculous so where's the money now? i know there was a lot of money included originally. >> there was some money spent some was not successful some was more successful and some of that was not spent. i hesitate a little to get into too much detail into open session but i would be happy to have further conversations about it.

but where we are now is to spend money in this effort that is reprogrammed to give a greater oversight step-by-step as it goes forward. >> do we have to vote on that reprogram? >> it is not something the full committee votes on. it is something that goes through the leadership of this committee and the appropriations committee. >> okay. thanks. >> further discussion on the amendment? >> very briefly i have approached this in the past but we don't have a strategy to beat isis and i just wonder as we get to the floor if we will spend this money may be the president

will deliver a strategy to congress and united states government? i yield the remainder of my time. >> just does a couple of quick points said chairman his said the lieutenant who has said this is necessary and i am very confident those reprogramming efforts will make sure that is properly focused. we do have troops on the ground it and iraq and syria and the commander says it could be helpful we ought to give it to him. i yield back. >> further discussion new the question is on the amendment the gentlelady

from hawaii. the no's have it said rebecca call from up -- for a recorded vote. >> that will be postponed. the gentleman from massachusetts spec i have that amendment at the desk. >> please distribute. [inaudible conversations] cpac without objection did is considered as read. >> this amendment would remove the unfortunate ability requirements to

prevent hundreds of afghans whose lives are at risk because of their work for our country to be considered for resettlement in the united states with the eligibility to exclude hundreds of afghans applying for the programs to work at the state department, usaid security contractors are a number of other capacities. betty have well documented death threats regardless of front-line troops were on the american base. making it easier for the enemy to track afghans as opposed to those two are embedded with the front-line. these are people who put their lives on the line not just for their country but four hours with that risk and sacrifice the least we can offer is the chance to stay alive rather than abandon them.

although my amendment does not address the and demerit quota i am deeply frustrated by the failure to address this urgent need. there 3,000 ted hunt -- 3,000 afghans if they're only 4,000 left ladies and gentlemen, we're leaving over 6,000 individuals better stand in to address those on the house floor but we never let annamese compromise our values that is a solemn commitment to

our brothers in arms to follow through on our commitment for thousands of afghans had with that i withdraw the amendment and deal back. >> alibi defer further conversation on this topic there is another dimension that we need to talk about. >> i have an amendment at the desk the amendment 334 repeat that amendment please

>>. >> without objection is considered as read the gentleman is recognized. >> for the last 45 minutes we your dancing around the issue of iraqi use syria and the role of the united states if we could or should arm and assist and how we got to deal with it their comments to have a strategy or no planned we do have a plan that is a working.

those to carry out the constitutional responsibilities we have allowed the president to rely on the 2001 authorization for afghanistan to deal with al qaeda with a stretch of the of legal imagination that is the only justification for action in iraq assyria. so it is very difficult for the military and the president to develop a plan that it is so far removed from a legal foundation. so this amendment to the congress of the united states for iraqi use syria. that is the we ought to be

doing instead of defense and around this issue we should come to grips with their own responsibility for what this undertook to obey the constitution. >> that's what it is, a fairly simple gives authorization to go after isis hear we are. the house armed services committee that presumably deals with this issue except for the one thing we're required to do. i yield back my time. >> this committee does not have jurisdiction and i

don't believe they have waived jurisdiction and therefore it is not possible to consider this amendment. i am sympathetic actually that congress ought to deal with it and therefore we cannot consider the amendment. >> on this issue we have vast with that constitutional duty with the republicans said democrats would write that he meet with you and the committee chairmen from the foreign relations committee to discuss the possibility to bring forward a web that would you consider that?

>> i have met with the speakers he would like to bring the uh the aumf for relief has sat in tucson was sitting sessions to see what might be possible to vote a year and pass. there has been several so i encourage us gentleman for whatever he thinks is appropriate now he is sympathetic but at this point his view is we do not yet had a majority on any particular proposal and he wants to continue. >> i yield my time. >> this is inquiring as to the rules dealing and the committee. we have the power within this committee to wage a rule on jurisdiction.

[laughter] >> no. we could do tax reform if we could do that. >> we probably could but maya understanding one is a committee rule the other is the house rule. is seen as we could have the opportunity to take this up under our own volition cast doubt the aumf and then referred over to the other foreign affairs committee. >> of the gentlemen like to offer an amendment to go to the floor i suggest he do so but the situation is our bill would not go to the floor with an amendment which had some provision that the committee of jurisdiction did not leave

on. . .

you will a recognized for five minutes. >> sir, i want to make this amendment basically deals with

the arm and support in syria. basically it says that unless we have this one ear after the passage of the national national defense authorization act, the authority to arm and her the rebels in syria is close to this. i will make it quick. less than one minute. every single one of us is responsible for war. 535 of us. and they're the ones that said we are in iraq and syria and it is our responsibility to lay down this, put the parameters in place, give the authority that's necessary and let the president conduct the war.

we are not doing that. we are advocating a responsibility. it comes down to our fault and it describes what has been done in that area. i'm not going to let this issue go by, we will take pick it up on the floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. cemented gentlelady from california. >> mr. chairman, i have amendment number 322.

>> the gentlelady from california is recognized on her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is a violation of human rights by the military. this is a country that we currently you support your military training programs even though they have a poor history of human rights. and according to the human rights watch, they have escalated -- and 2004 when this man murdered and armenian officer during a peace program,

instead they are bringing macular justice, promoting him a celebration and most recently they acted along a long stated threat to pass a situation that claimed lives on both sides. during hostilities there have been reports of human rights violations. i believe these are not part and in an investigation into possible human rights violations and i believe that the united states should conduct an investigation on whether this law is being violated and we, the united states are a leader on human rights and as you know

i have worked on this the last 20 years with respect to other countries and so i thank you, mr. chairman, and i withdraw my amendment. >> the amendment is with john. >> staff would please distribute the amendment, number 251. [inaudible conversations] >> without objection the amendment is considered this way

>> i thank you, mr. chairman. this is a familiar issue. they are lifting the prohibition for novell. and they have enclosed and what continues to be an international eyesore and what is unbelievably offensive. and there are many compelling reasons for closing this once upon a time, george w. bush supported closing it. and therefore i am offering an amendment that would take away the bill that would stop that from happening.

and with that i yelled back. ideal to myself, just to remind everyone in lester's meaning that we told the administration that if you want to closers, give us a plan on how to do this. they sent us about seven pages but did not say very much. as a matter of fact they said that there are about 13 different places that we could put them, we asked asked them to give us a plan on what to do with future detainees and their answer was we have several options. my conclusion is that the administration is having a hard time coming up with an implementation plan on how they would close guantánamo bay, where they would move the detainees and what they intend to do with future detainees. so without a better plan, my view is that what we're doing now needs to continue and that

includes the same restrictions that had been part of this basically sends the democrats were a majority in both the house and senate and they remain in place all this time for all those reasons. and they have continued down in this mark. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just adding one more thing come i agree with the chairman. let's not forget the recidivism rate from the high-risk terrorist, the worst of the worst. and we were reading about these guys everyday in the news. and i agree that this is the same as those for them is the american people and i yelled back. >> thank you.

>> i just want to be clear on that point. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment also does do away with this section. >> they say that there has to be has to make sure that it's in the interest of the united states, making sure that the receiving country is not state-sponsored terrorism, will maintain control, make sure that they don't engage. so this amendment does far more than just talking on transferring here and i would ask everyone to oppose this amendment. >> keeping a deep gratification i do not get rid of all the

restrictions. as the restrictions that we have it pilasters bill. anyone the transfer that i get we understand happened i gitmo, this does not give carte blanche to the administration. he removes the added restrictions but it plasters bill. >> the question is on the amendment offered from washington, those in favors a yes, those opposed said no. they have and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from california had an amendment. >> of the staff would please distribute the amendment.

>> without objection, the amendment considered as red. gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there is an updated policy for service members, the military installations including recruiting centers which we required a masters meeting that was supposed to be done by december 31 of last year. and it was not. [inaudible] and recruiting centers or

personal protection. the dod is updating its policy. given our interest and the fact that we have put this in last year's terms, it is important and unimportant now because of poor code, chattanooga and hopefully we will know more in the future. this amendment simply holds the dod accountable for updating the policy as we require them to. updated guidance will address security over 17,000 dod facilities including over 400 military installations in the united states and 6000 recruiting centers like chattanooga. it is appropriately applied to the policy only, which is the section of the secretary of defense that is responsible for developing and coordinating the updated policy. thank you and i yelled back. >> is quickly i oppose this

amendment. they can submit a report on all of that. but i think it is a bit of overkill and certainly we should emphasize that yes, they should give us a report and the plan. as we have heard over and over we don't want to tie the hands of the department of defense to do their best to provide for the men and women who served in the military and in all asked ex-of that. so i think that is a little bit over the top. >> with the ranking member yield? >> mr. turner does not object, yes, i will. >> okay, 10 seconds. >> the reason i think it's important, these are lies. these are soldiers lives, sailors, terrines, we had guys get killed. that is why i think it is okay. >> it is debatable whether or not and i realized i could start an enormous fight. the presence of more firearms in

a place may not make that place safer. and that is what the military is trying to determine and i agree with you that it's about lives, but it's which is more protective of allies. so i yield back. >> the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. hunter. >> the amendment is agreed to. mr. hunter, we have another amendment to . >> yes, we have another at the desk. >> the staff come if they would please distribute the amendment.

>> without objection, the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this provides military spouses the same as others from purchasing firearms. if you live in virginia and you did stationed at camp pendleton and you and i california resident, you can still purchase it if you taken your orders to the gun store. show them your orders, the military at the military prison can produce a weapon but their spouse cannot. it puts him on the same grounds as the military members themselves. here is one reason that i'm doing this. we spoke with a woman whose husband was identified on a isis

kill list. she had worked to get a weapons purchase and she had issues obtaining a firearm. should discard the incident and the lack of ability to do this. it immediately cause the families stress. there was a burglar in the neighborhood. the spouse is unable to purchase a firearm to protect herself due to current laws. if you are on active duty are going to be deployed. and it's not just for the safety but the perceived safety that a spouse would have while the loved ones overseas. and i yield back.

>> it basically had to be in a place other than their home state. you also have to be in the place equal to the home statements i have no objections to this amendment. >> the question is on the amendment offered from the gentleman from california. they have and the amendment is adopted. >> i have an amendment on the desk. >> if the staff would please distribute the amendment.

[inaudible] >> without objection it is considered as red. the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. this amendment strikes section 909 and 910 from the bill. i think that they both represent a no strategy to try to fix something that does not exist. i understand that the department and the committee under tremendous pressure to find savings and efficiencies wherever they can. this represents a marked departure in which this committee is supportive.

and that includes consolidating it back to washington dc. i believe every member of congress needs to be concerned. the problem is is trying to fix. let's not forget how we created this in the first place. security challenges are complex, diverse, often nontraditional and frequently interconnected. abby each combatant command headquarters these and other questions were addressed by enthusiastic and knowledgeable joint planners skilled in the art of military strategy. if there's anywhere that the dod should operate jointly it is at the headquarters level in my own doing this structure, cost savings would be minor by pentagon standards. this is especially true where day in and day out men and women are working on the nation's top

security challenge. the nation sees the benefits of our engagement in the asia-pacific region where he puts forward some of the most critical alliances and partnerships in the world. and i guess why are we doing this. if it is to save costs, shouldn't we take it a bit driven approach before changes? at that point i yield back. >> at the bottom line is that this is a direction in which they are headed on their own. we are trying to facilitate some of the rearrangement of the three and four-star headquarters and it may well be that through the course of the next several weeks and months as we continue to talk with them that we want to make some adjustments here. basically the direction that we have put into the market is the

direction that the dod is already headed. as i have said, we have been in conversations with them about this. and we will continue to be. i am sympathetic to the point that the gentleman is making. we are not trying to arbitrarily say this money or that money to save some money. but we are trying as part of the overall review going on at the department and some ordinary talks with them to be consistent and then to have something in the market that we can continue to revise as the review progresses. i don't want the gentleman to think that we set out with a piece of paper and invented all of this, this has been -- i will not say they agree with all of this yet, but they are headed in the direction. subject to revision. and i want the gentleman to know that what we have in the bill is subject to revision in consultation with the dod.

>> mr. gibson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the gentleman for understanding concerns and i would like to support what the chairman stated moments ago. personally i think that we need to go much further when it comes to this reform. the moving towards consolidating headquarters are too top heavy right now. icon candidly we need to prioritize and meet leadership to do that and so i support the direction that we are going and i respectfully ask for members to oppose this amendment and i thank you, mr. chairman. >> are there any further questions? >> thank you, mr. chairman. there is a difference between section 909 and 910. 909 is about readiness. it allows a returning unit

cannot be assigned to a cocom because it gives flexibility if they want to be assigned to a different unit and that is important. i agree with the gentleman from new york. we have talked about what has changed in battle, who is calling the shots and the authorities. the following of operations was six lines. the last operation is over 5000 different lines with wiring multiple headquarters. if the decision is no longer a fleet commander's decision it is going back and that is the way that the department of the defense has been headed in the way that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff has reflected his view and we are just too much top-heavy and we are going to adjust as time goes by and i oppose the amendment and i wish that it would have separated 909 and 910.

but i appreciate the authors that are working on it. i yield back my time. >> any further discussion on the amendment. those in favor, those opposed. [inaudible] the amendment is not agreed to. >> asking consent to call up number four. without objection, so ordered. if the staff would please passout the amendments. >> without objection, the amendments are considered as being red and comprises the following. amendment number 12 requires

chief naval operations to bring the individuals and to the capture of the u.s. navy sailors by iran. amendment number 41, requires the secretary of defense to complete and updated july 2011 assessment on the condition and capacity of look schools on military installations. amendment number 52 requires the secretary of defense to determine disclose transportation cross and a and it adds a reporting element to the annual report. plus supports the baltic states. it expresses a sense of reaffirming support for the state of georgia. and it adds a reporting element to the iranian military report. it expresses the secretary of defense should conduct a program of senior military exchanges in the u.s. and taiwan.

amendment number 216 requires the secretary of defense to provide their report on the u.s. freedom of navigation operations and then it requires a secretaries of defense and state support to congress an integrated political and military strategy to counter isis. amendment number 270 that directs the gao to include the impact of certain contracting on the defense industrial base. in the amendment increases in line 66 by $7.5 million and reduces the amount for 158 by $7.5 million and amendment 295 that directs the gao to include two additional elements in its assessment. is there further discussion on

number four? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak briefly on this campaign strategy amendment. this requires an unclassified and classified counter is a strategy from the secretary of defense and state through rigorous reporting requirements including military strategy and clear objective of the department of defense and coalition partners against them as well as a political plan for iraq and syria. there wires and forward-looking strategy detailing the political integration of the campaign that has today than lacking. members on both sides are supportive and the republican leadership of the foreign affairs committee has been supportive and waving jurisdiction for the committee to act. we were frustrated by a lack of specificity and direction in section 1222 reported wired by last year's report.

and in fact it is only mentioned three times in the report.

[inaudible conversations] >> without objection the amendment is considered as read. and the gentlelady is recognized on her amendment. >> mr. chairman my amendment would strike to present -- provision in the on line bill. last fall the department of the interior announced banks unprecedented proactive partnership the greater -- does not need protection under the endangered species act. rather than supporting this partnership legislation creates uncertainty and undermines the immense progress that is already underway to conserve sagebrush habitats while simultaneously providing predictability for economic development. perhaps most significantly