increasing? >> i think you are going to see resistance almost across the congress to the fees. you have chairman wilson here who is opposed to it on the senate side. you had senator webb opposed to fee increases. there is not a lot of support here for them. that does create a gap here in the defense authorization bill. they chose to reconcile by making other reductions in mandatory spending. >> there was a debate about missile defense. california congressman, a member of the armed committee says he would cut from the bill. there is a provision to require to ensure that a u.s. based facility is operational by the

end of december, 2015. it is targeted alt missiles from iran. how much politics is behind a missile defense? >> i think it will stay on the house. i don't think the democrats have enough votes to under cut that. i think it would be a very difficult sell in the senate. that is going to be a negotiation point. from the political side of things i talked yesterday and one of the things that he told me was he felt that this was an attempt to create a national security problem for the president. republicans have been looking for some time ways to challenge the democratic president on national security. this president because of the bin laden slaying, because of some of his foreign policy

decisions has had some success on that front but if congressman turner who is the one who pushed for this in his portion of the bill i think that he is trying to expose at least from the democrats perspective the president on national security and say we want to put a missiles battery here on the east coast to protect america from these missiles. and the president won't support this. i spoke to loreta sanchez. they have sided it is really necessary. they argue that the iranians don't have a nuclear weapon and the iranians don't have an icbn at this point. it will cost $100 million if they get this into the bill to do a study on this thing and

guarantee the construction of this would lead to billions and billions more in expenses. we have seen the defense department has to carve out $490 billion out of their future planning. so this would add a great deal more expense to the pentagon over the next ten years if they were to take this route. >> we'll have to end it there. frank oliveri. authorization act for fiscal year 2013. thank you for joining us today as the committee on armed services prepares to mark up the national events authorization act for fiscal year 2013. i would like to start by expressing my appreciation to ranking member smith for his commitment to a bipartisan

process that has seen this bill pass for 50 consecutive years. i would like to thank all of our members for their professionalism and for demonstrating once again the support for our troops as a higher priority than personal politics. i have priorities, resolve sequestration, reverse defense cuts and rebuild a military stretched thin by war. i want to single out our subcommittee chairs and ranking members for their tireless dedication and assistance for delivering on these priorities. we have taken an incremental step to reverse defense cuts. this bill authorizes $554 billion for national events and $88 billion for overseas contingencies operations consistent with chairman ryan's budget which has already passed the house of representatives. this is a slightly different

number than what was authorized in the budget control act. this level of funding is nearly $4 billion more than the president's budget request but it is still less than last year's request and only an incremental step to address the military's $46 billion decrease when considering where the president estimated national defense would be for fiscal year 2013 in last year's budget. even with this modest increase to the president's request for the military the 2013 defense bill reflects the fact that members of the armed services committee and the broader congress must make tough choices in order to provide for america's common defense. this bill examines every aspect of defense activities from the war fighter to the industrial base, recognizes that we live in an age of austerity and seeks to enact positive policies and reforms necessary to provide our

troops with the best training, leadership and equipment in the world. but we go farther. this mark actively rebuilds the military within the constrained resources available to us. we preserve some of our vital structure like protecting cruisers and slowing army and marine corps reductions to ensure the new defense strategy is not a paper tiger. we listen to the council of the service chiefs. for any move we make to restore structure we have also provided the personnel and operations funding for those forces so that we do not create a hollow force. these are bipartisan accomplishments and we should be proud of them. the national defense authorization act for fiscal your 2013 further achieves these goals by working to ensure our troops deployed in afghanistan

and around the world have everything they need to successfully complete tlar missions and return home safely. two, protect the sacred covenant between our government and our all volunteer military, keeping the promises we made to provide the health and well being for our troops and their families. three, invest in the capabilities andfore structure needed to protect the united states from current and future threats. four, mandate fiscal responsibility and accountability with the defense department and to expand the defense industrial base and encourage innovation by fostering awards to small and medium businesses thus incentivising competition for every taxpayer dollar associated with funding defense department

rie requireties. >> it is being addressed on the floor of the house this week. this is due in no small part to the vigilance and advocacy of this committee. that sequestration must be resolved immediately. what we need are solutions. i applaud chairman ryan's efforts in this regard. finally, i am proud of the process used to build this legislation. we continue to host the most transparent process in congress for national security legislation. a copy of my mark was distributed to committee members offices on friday. a full five days before the markup and the legislation including the funding tables was posted online on monday. while wewill delve into the details the details have been subject to public scrutiny for days. it is also noteworthy that for the second straight year house republican leadership will not

bring legislation containing congressional ear marks to the house floor. i maintain my ban on ear marks for fiscal year 2013 and will evaluate amendments accordingly. we will shortly begin starting with the subcommittee marks and then with mine. it will be a long day but please accept my thanks in advance for your cooperation. it doesn't have to be all that long. this is the first step to passing the 51st defense authorization bill. your work is vital to the armed forces and this country. ranking member smith. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman for his strong efforts to maintain the bipartisanship of this committee. it is through that leadership that we maintain that tradition.

this is the most bipartisan committee in congress. quickly joke that these days that is not a high bar to jump over. we are very bipartisan in our approach. in the bill you have before you today reflects the work of the chairman but of every single member of this committee and of the staff. also a very bipartisan staff. we could not do it if we did not work in that fashion. i thank the chairman for his continued leadership and making sure the committee upholds that tradition which is the most important thing we do. i believe this sets the right priorities. take care of the troops. most importantly take care of those troops in harm's way. we still have roughly 80,000 u.s. troops in afghanistan. making sure they get the equipment and support that they deserve and their families get the support they deserve is most importantly and then supporting the force, getting another pay

raise to the people who serve in the military is very important and many programs that are designed to make sure that the troops and families get the support that they need, the most important thing we have done. i agree with the chairman's sentiment that we have an all volunteer military. key to that is making sure that we keep faith with that all volunteer military so we can continue to attract the best and the brightest and to retain them and keep them in the force to make sure that we can continue to be the greatest military that the world has ever seen. i also think it is important that we emphasize our ability to confront terrorist threats. we have had tremendous growth in our operations command as well as our reconnaissance capabilities. i think it is important the news in recent days about another attack coming out of yemen only drives home the point of how important that is.

i also share the chairman's concerns about sequestration. we must find a way to stop that from happening. it will be devastating to the entire budget. the way to do that is to find at least $1.2 trillion in savings in other parts of the budget or through revenue, as well. i think it is imperative that we do that. i want to emphasize that that is a problem right now. the chairman has done a great job of emphasizing this. a lot of people think sequestration doesn't kick in until january. right now businesses and companies are laying off people and not hiring people in anticipation of those cuts coming. every day that we wait is a blow to our economy. the sooner we deal with it the better off we will be. i feel and agree with the chairman that after ten years of war and dealing with the budget constraints and the draw downs that are coming is one of the most critical tasks that this committee faces.

i worry on too many of these issues we have kicked the can down the road. it is arguable right now that we have started more programs than the next ten years could possibly fund. we going to have to confront those challenges. yes, i would like to imagine a defense budget that continues to go up and up and up. but i'm also mindful of basic figures. in 2011 we spent $3.6 trillion. as a federal government we took in 2.3. that is a $1.3 trillion gap. there is no way to close that by rounding off an edge or two. we are confronting major challenges. maybe we confront them by looking at every other aspect in the budget and putting other revenue on the table. i find that unlikely. if you are 20% of the budget that is 38% out of whack you are going to have a devil of a time not being touched. the longer we delay those

decisions the more i'm worried about the impact they are going to have on our force. if we plan and prepare and look at what our budget numbers are going to be i'm absolutely confident that a $550 billion plus defense budget can protect this country. if we delay the decisions and get to a point where there is no strategic common sense way to deal with them i worry about the impact. we will have to make tough choices to deal with the budget realities. i'm confident this committee is up to the task. i look forward toor the markup. it is going to be long and i would urge members to try to make it no longer than it absolutely has to be. it is always a great debate and always a great process and i thank the chairman for his work. >> thank you. before proceeding any further i have a few amounsmentes. the order of consideration for today's markup will follow our

subcommittee structure. we begin with the subject matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. and then the subcommittee on readiness and tactical error and land force ss and then strategic forces and military personnel. we have a new board up here on my left that will list the possible upcoming amendments to make it easier for all of us to follow the order of what is happening. first time we had the opportunity to use this new board. second, let me remind members that any amendment offered must be in writing. for those of you who submitted amendments by monday's deadline the necessary copies have been made. if a member has an amendment we request the member have a letter from the respective committee

chairman indicating the waiver or the right of referal. this approach has been the practice of the committee for many years so we can proceed directly to the house floor without our bill being referred to other committees. it is the practice of the committee that amendments involving additional spending should identify suitable offsets. i want to remind all committee members that house republican leadership has a stated policy that it will not bring legislation containing congressional earmarks to the house floor. i will not permit earmarks for 2013. it is the chair's intention to operate under the five minute rule in order to allow all

interested members the opportunity to speak. without objection members have five legislative days in which to submit. before beginning i ask consent that the provisions contained in the reports of the subcommittees be considered for the purpose of this markup as original text of hr-4310. is there objection? without objection so ordered. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities pursuant to committee rule 17. we will postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendments until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee,

the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. >> my first comment would be to thank the members of the subcommittee not only for their contribution in developing this mark but for all other contributions through the course of the last year on our oversight activities as well as developing this mark. i especially want to thank the gentleman from rhode island. he is a leader in many issues but he is a partner in all issues before the subcommittee. it is certainly a pleasure to work with him on them. and finally i appreciate the work of all the staff arrayed across the table there not only are they very high quality professionals, they are good people and it is a pleasure to work with them as well as the members of the personal staffs who support this subcommittee. mr. chairman, if i were to boil down the emerging threats and

capabilities portion of this mark i would put it this way. one, we try to support the people and missions of the special operations command while at the same time providing objective oversight of what they do. involved in some cutting edge legal and policy issues as well as being on the cutting edge of efforts to keep our country safe. too much of what they do has been in the press lately in my opinion but they are incredibly professional. secondly, we try to ensure we are planting and nurturing seeds for tomorrow's national security capability through our snt programs and other emerging capabilities. third we try to take a couple of steps forward on cyber especially by asking to idea the laws and authorities that may be at issue. we also add a quarterly briefing

requirement on cyber operations. mr. chairman, in the hopes of setting a good example, i will yield back the rest of my time. >> thank you. >> i recognize the ranking member on emerging threats and capabilities, gentleman from rhode island for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me just say that i want to echo the comments. the work of the emerging threats and capability subcommittee on this mark has been a bipartisan effort. i would particularly like to thank the chairman as well as the subcommittee staff for their tireless work to make sure that this subcommittee runs smoothly and serves the needs of our nation and our men and women in uniform. the subcommittee has oversight of some of our nation's most sought after critical assets like the men and women of special operations command, our

counter terror efforts, the information technology programs that enable our war fighter networks and the research and development efforts that maintain our technical augical superior oughtity. i'm pleased that the mark supports the fiscal year 2013 reflects the science and technology programs accelerated development of the new technologies and enhancing the workforce. these issues are mission critical not only to our security but to 21st century job creation and military. it is important to note that this mark continues to prioritize and support the department's cyber security efforts. cyber has been a chief focus of mine as it has been of chairman thornberry. i have watched this issue grow.

the recent cyber week in the house is a testament to how significant the issue surrounding cyber security and the internet have become. we must continue to define and redefine the department's approach to cyber. i want to commend the chairman for focus and attention. i am pleased that this mark addresses these critical issues and many more and look forward to working with the chairman and the members of the subcommittee to ensure that we are doing all we can to keep our network secure. i want to thank chairman for his close collaborative work on this issue. i'm grateful for his friendship and the hard work of the staff. with that i thank chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. >> before entertaining amendments is there any discussion on the subcommittee's

report? now, recognize for the purpose of introducing an on block package. >> i have consent to call up a block of amendments. >> without objections so ordered. would the clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered on block? without objection reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. gentleman recognized for five minutes for explaining his

amendments. >> i call up an on block package number one. amendment by mr. owens concerning a report on weapons of mass destruction. amendment by mr. franks to amend section 2.52. and one concerning alluded nerve research. an amendment regarding new energy weapons. an amendment concerning an active technology road map. an amendment regarding a report on a task force at the u.s. northern command. >> any members wish to discuss the on block amendment? if not the questions on adoption on the amendment so many in favor say aye.

those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. we have an amendment now by mr. johnson. >> yes. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

this amendment would defund so-called information operations or i.o. in the budget for overseas contingency operations. it is described in an unclassified army war college report as operations to convey selected information to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, actions to deliberately mislead the enemy, electronic warfare and computer network operations including attack, defense and exploitation. earlier this year usa today journalist tom vanden brook and ray locker launched an investigation of the programs. the results were disturbing. spending on i.o. mostly in iraq rose from just $9 million to $580 million per year. nevertheless the usa today

reported on february 29th pentagon officials have little proof the programs work and won't make public where the money goes. as far back as 2003 information operations road map found the department cannot currently identify what is spent on io or even on specific core capabilities. the pentagon's top io contractor is run by a brother/sister pair with no military contracting experience and $4 million in liens on their homes for failing to pay federal taxes. that hasn't stopped the company from receiving $145 million in federal contracts since 2009. but perhaps most disturbing is evidence that the usa today journalist who spear headed this investigation was subsequently targeted in a possibly criminal

disinformation and reputation attack campaign. that campaign appears to have employed tactics including the creation of fake twitter and fake facebook accounts, the unauthorized web domains and proliferation of false and damaging content attacking the journalist on multiple websites. some of that phony content even hypothesized that a journalist doing his job look into allegations of waste in government might be an agent of the taliban. as incompetent of this attack campaign appears to have been it raises the deeply disturbing possibilities that a federal defense contractor that specializes in information operations may have targeted american journalists. it may have done so using taxpayer dollars and tactics developed to counter the

influence of adversaries such as al qaeda and the taliban. although we don't have compelling evidence that this money is well spent i recognize that some of these investments may be effectively supporting our men and women in harm's way so i intend to withdraw this amendment but i call up on the department of defense to launch an immediate investigation of this matter, to refer evidence of criminal activity to the attorney general and to consider suspending all contracts with leony industries until such investigation is complete. thank you. i withdraw the amendment and i yield back. >> gentleman withdraws his amendment. >> i move the subcommittee report on emerging threats and capabilities as amended.