be a long day's worth of hearing over the 2013 defense authorization bill, a bill that would give active duty service members a 1.7% pay raise and reduce the number of military personnel by 21,000, the bill would not require military retirees to pay more for health insurance as the administration had proposed, when the committee reconvenes members will continue consideration of amendments to the bill and a committee spokesman saying the markup could go until midnight. there are votes coming up on the house floor so that could make this a longer than normal lunch break. the house today resuming consideration of the commerce and justice and science spending bill tor fiscal year 2013, that debate should get under way shortly debating other bills this afternoon and vote is expected in the next 15 minutes or half hour. you can follow that coverage here on c-span. here on c-span 3 we're going to show you some of the opening

statements from this morning. >> key priority this is year, they are 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 in delivering on these priorities. to begin with we've taken an incremental step in this mark to reverse defense cuts. this bill authorizes $554 billion for national defense and $88 billion for overseas contingencies operations consistent with chairman ryan's budget which has already passed the house of representatives. like the president's budget request this is a slightly different number than what was authorizationed in the budget control act. its 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 incremental step to address the $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 to provide for america's common defense. this bill examines every aspect of defense activities from the war fight tear the industrial base, recognizes that we live in in an age of austerity and seeks to enact positive policies and reforms necessary to provide our troops with the best training, leader ship in the world. we go farther. this mark actively rebuilds the military within the constrained

resources available to us. we preserve some of our vital force structure like protecting cruisers, and slowing army and marine corps end strength reductions to ensure the president's new defense strategy is not a paper tiger. we listen to the council of the service chiefs for any move we made to restore structure shed by the budget request we have also provided the personnel and operations funding for those forces. so that we do not create a hollow force. these are bipartisan and we should be proud of them. the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013 further achieves these goals by working to, one, ensure our troops deployed in afghanistan and around the world have everything they need to successfully complete their 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 help and well being for our troops and their families. three, invest in the capability and structure needed to protect the united states from current and future threats. four, mandate physical responsibility and accountability with the defense apartment and finally to expand the defense industrial base and encourage innovation by costering awards to small and medium businesses incentivizing competition for every taxpayer dollar associated with funding defense department requirements. finally my third priority, resolving sequestration cannot be addressed by the nbaa alone. i'm pleased to say it's 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 solved and solved immediately. what we need are solutions. i applaud chairman ryan's efforts in this regard. finally i'm proud of the process used to build this legislation. we continue to host the most transparent for national security legislation. a copy of my mark was distributed to committee members' offices on friday a. full five days before the mark-up. and the legislation including the funding tables was posted on line on monday. while we will delve into the details during today's debate the details have been subject to public scrutiny for days. it's note worthy for the second straight year house republican leadership will not bring congressional ear marks to the floor. i maintain my ban on earmarks for fiscal year 2013 and will

evaluate amendments accordingly. we will shortly consider with a subcommittee marks and then with mine. it will be a long day but please accept my thanks in advance for your patience and cooperation. it doesn't have to be all that long. this is the first to passion the 51st consecutive defense authorization bill. your work is vital to the armed forces and this country. ranking member smith. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. first and foremost i want to thank chairman mckeon for his strong efforts to main taken the bipartisan tradition of this committee. we've had many ranking members during my time and before and it's through that leadership of the chairman we maintain that. are we say this is the most pipe committee. always joked that these days that's not a high bar to jump over but we are very bipartisan

in the approach. in the bill you have before you today reflects the work of the chairman but every person of this committee and the staff. also a bipartisan staffment we could not do it if we did not work together in that spirit. if we were looking for partisan advantage at every turn there is no way we could produce the quality product we do. i thank the chairman for his leadership in making sure that this committee up holds that that digs. i believe this also sets the right priorities, take care of the troops. most importantly take care of those troops in harms way. we still have 80,000 u.s. groups in afghan. making sure they get the equipment and support. it's the most important thing we do. broadly supporting the force getting another pay raise to the people who serve in the military is important and many other programs designed to make sure their groups get the support that they need to continue

protecting us. i also agree with the chirm that we do have an all volunteer military and key to that is making sure that we keep faith with that all volunteer military so we can continue to aprok the best and the rightest, more important keep them in the force to make sure we can continue to be the greatest military that the world has ever seen. also i think it's important that we emphasize our ability to confront terrorist threats. we had growth in our special operations command and intelligence and this continues that. i think it's important. the news in recent days about another attack only drive home the point of how large that mooms. i believe this meets the challenge. i also share the concerns. we must find a way to stop that from happening.

to do that is to find $1.2 trillion in savings in other parts of the budget or through revenue as well. i think it's imperative that we do that. and i want to emphasize that is a problem right now. the chirm is done a great job. a lot of peoplepy that sequestration doesn't kick in until january. right now there are businesses and companies that are laying off people and not requiring people in an miss pags of those cuts coming. every day we wait is a blow to our economy. i do also feel and agree with the chairman in dealing with the budget with constraints and the drawdowns is one of the most critical tasks that this committee face. i worry on too many of those issues we have simply kicked the can down the road. it is arguuable that we start more thams than the next 10

years could possibly fund. yes, i would like to imagine a defense budget that continues to go up and up. but i'm also mindful of figures in 2011 we spent $3.6 trillion, we took in 2.3. that's a 1.3 trillion dollar gap. we are confronting major challenges. maybe we confront them by looking at every aspect of the budget, putting refuse knew on the table so the defense doesn't have to bear more of the burden f. you are 20% after budget that is 38 percent out of whack you're going to have a devil of a time not being touched. the longer we delay those the more i'm worried about the impact on our force down the line. if we plan, prepare, look at what our budget numbers are going to be i'm confident that a

550 billion defense budget can prothekt country. but if we get to the wouldn't where there is no common sense way to deal with them i worry about the impact. ear going to have to make tough choices to deal with the budget realities. i'm confident that this committee is up to that task but i'll worry that we'll wait too long to begin it. i look forward to the markup as the chairman said it's going to be long. and i would urge members to try to make it no longer than it absolutely has to be. but it's always a great debate and great process i. thank the chairman for his work. >> thank you. before proceeding further i have a few announcements. the order of consideration for today's markup of hr 4310 will follow our subcommittee structure. we'll begin with the pub matter under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee. then the subcommittee on c power and projection forces, then the

subcommittee on readiness, on tackle air. then subcommittee on military personnel and finally the full committee matters. we have a new board on my left that will list the possible upcoming amendments so make it easier for all of us to follow the order of what is happening. that's the first time we had the opportunity to use this new board. second, let me remind members any amendment must be in writing and 90 companies available at the desk for distribution. those who submitted by monday the necessary copies have been had. if a members that an amendment that involves the durst jinx of other committees we suggest to have a letter from the chairman indicating their waiver or the waiver of the right of referral. i remind members that this has been the practice of the committee for many years, it's done so we can proceed directly

without our bill being sequentially referred to other committees. it's the practice of the commit that amendments involving additional spending should identify suitable off sets. members must not offer amendments that would violate the congressional budget act, the house rules, the statutory pay go act or what other wise result in a point of order against hr 4310 on the house floor during its consideration. 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 any earmarks for fiscal year 2013. it's the chair's inteengs operate under the five-minute rule. allow all interested members the opportunity to speak in an orderly manner. there are five legislative days within which to submit written statements into the record. so added. before beginning with the pub

committee reports i ask unanimous consent that the provisions in the reports of the subcommittee and the full proyty be considered for the purpose of this mark up as original texas of hr 4310 and these be considered as having been read and that the bill be open to amendment at any point. 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, consults with the ranking member. we'll postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendments in this subcommittee mark hal the end of the subcommittee mark. the care recognizes the gentleman from texas mr. thornberry. >> thank you. and my first comment would be to thank the members of the subcommittee not only for

contribution in developing this mark but for all other contributions over 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 a pleasure to work with him on them. i appreciate the work of all of 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 go down the mark i would put it this way one, we tried to support the people and missions of the special operations command while at the same time

providing objective oversight of what they do. so co smrks involved in cutting edge legal and policy issues as well as be ong the cutting edge of efforts to keep our country safe. too much what if they do has been in the press lately but nonetheless they are incredibly professional. secondly we tried to ensure that we're planting and nur churing seeds for tomorrow. tomorrow is national security capability program. third, we try to take a couple of steps forward on cyber, asking d.o.d. to identify from their perspective the laws and authorities that may be at issue, we also add a quarterly briefing requirement on cyber operations. mr. chairman. in hopes of setting i'll yield back the rest of my time.

>>recognize the ranking member on threats and capabilities t gentleman from rhode island, any comments he would like to take. >> thank you. let me just say that i want to ek go the comments of the owe merging threats subcommittee on this mark has been a bipartisan effort and i like to thank the chairman as well as the staff that did tyler's work to make sure this works smoothly and serves the needs of our nation and men and women in uniform. the subcommittee has oversight of some of our most sought after critical assets. like the men and women of special operations command the information and technology programs, networks and cyber operations, and the research and development to maintain our

superiority. supporting these assets and the dedicated people behind them. i'm pleased that the mark supports 2013, the programs follow particularly in the areas of capabilities, accelerated development and enhancing the s and t work force. these are mission critical not only to national security but to a 21st century military. it's important to note that this mark continues to support the department efforts. it's been achieved focus of mine as it is of chairman thornberry. he has been a true partner. i watched this grow in importance. the cyber week in the house is a testament to how significant the issues around cyber security and the internet have become and we must continue to define and redefine the department's

approach to cyber. i want to commend the chairman for his focus and the things that were working on today. i'm pleased this addresses these critical issues. you have more and look forward to the chairman and the members of the subcommittee make sure we're doing what we can to keep our network secure. i want to thank mr. thornberry. it was a bipartisan effort and i'm grateful for his friendship and the hard work of the staff and of the subcommittee has been an important effort. i'm proud to be part of it. with that i thank the chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. >> some of the opening statements the morning statements from this markup of the 2013 defense authorization act, the committee is in recess, they are out for recess lunch and also some votes expected on the house floor. we have more from today's markup

session coming up momentarily. joining us is frank, a defense and foreign policy reporter with congressional some of the bigg issues the committee has to deal with in this 2013 programs bill? >> i didn't hear your question. asking what are the biggest ish issues they're dealing with? what they've dealt with, pretty big things. congressman turner was able to get an amendment passed or adopted providing $160 million for the execution of a, what's called a chemistry and metallurgy research facility in los alamos. the program the obama administration would like to delay because it's a significant amount of cost. at this time they're trying to find ways to save money. it could cost between $3 billion and $6 billion. it looks like the committee has

thrown support behind this. this is the second sort of big ad that congressman turner who is chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee has been able to get into the bill. the other was the idea of building a anti-missile battery on the east coast, which is a pretty significant investment in and of itself. >> what's the size of the pentagon budget for 2013? >> for 2013, i believe they're looking at 050, some around $554 billion, not includincluding'sey they want for the wars. roughly $607 billion or so in total for the defense department n. the morning debate there was a good deal of discussion about the issue of sequestration. explain that to our viewers and how that ties into the debt agreement of last year. >> right. the debt agreement of last year required the commission of what's called a super committee, and it had representatives from both sides of the party, both parties, and they were supposed to come up way deal that would

cut over the next ten years roughly $1.2 trillion out of the federal budget. that committee failed to achieve that, and as a result, in january, mid-january, the rules on the budget control act changed. sequestered now becomes a -- a real possibility, and it also set more constraining caps on defense spending. the thing that's interesting about this is that the house has taken the resolution to sidestep the budget control act as it relates to the defense department. pretty much everybody on the hill feels like, you know, that the sequester would be devastating to defense. what it does, it sets caps every year for the next ten years essentially on defense spending that would lead to roughly $490 billion taken out of the defense department over the next ten years. it's about $490 billion to $500 billion just lopped off the top

across the board and would impact everything. in particular, some cases that would really have a negative impact in places like the navy, which each individual ship is it's own line item. the ships under sequester wouldn't get built. >> plenty of debate still ahead in the committee when they gavel back in. what are some of the policy issue s you think will attract the most debate? >> i think missile defense continues to be an issue of debate. there will be an amendment to try to reverse what is already in the bill in regards to the east coast missile silo -- base that they want introduced. there's going to be debate on detainees. there's a number of amendments proposed to try to either constrain how the -- the u.s. military handles detainees. there will be others that will try to give greater rights to people who are detained in the united states so that they are able to be prosecuted, for

example, in federal courts rather than just the military tribunals. that one's being och offered by ranking member smith from washington. those are going to be key fights. we're going to spend quite a bit of time on those areas. >> covering issues for congressional quarterly. read his article on c-span.org. thanks for joining us. in recess for lunch and when the committee comes back in we will have live coverage continuing here on c-span3. while we wait for that we'll going to show you more from the committee's markup this morning including debate on that amendment from congressman turner of ohio on the nuclear infrastructure. >> is the further execution of the construction of the cmrr facility, this is a companion to the prior amendment, and the

prior amendment where we gave the authority to the department of defense for them to undertake the construction, this amendment directs the secretary of defense to undertake construction. this does not move money. in is already money in the bill. this is not, again, falling under the criticism of directing money to a particular project, and once again, this is a project that is the execution of the president's own plan. the president's 1251 plan required that the, that this facility be under construction and operational by -- 2021. in order to meet that deadline of 2021, we've got to get started. so this amendment would say to the secretary of defense, we've now given you authority on this building. proceed with that authority, and, again, the president's representation to the senate in the ratification of the new

s.t.a.r.t. agreement was this would be under way and operational by 2021. this allows to us begin that process. the president currently has within nsas inability to complete the project, helping expedite this securing a strong return. yield back. >> the chair recognizes gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, this amendment would require the secretary of defense to budget and carry out military construction of the cmrr nuclear facility in new mexico. and it limits funds spent on an alternative plan that does not include the cmrr. so first and foremost, this amendment disregards the budget control act funding restriction that led the administration to prioritize and accelerate their

uranium development overseas delaying this project here for at least five years. the assistant secretary of defense for global strategic affairs, madeleine creedon, testified to our house strategic forces subcommittee on april 17th that within the context of the nuclear weapons council, we looked at the program of modernization and the two construction projects, and we made a very conscious decision to prioritize the urine rain yum decision at oak ridge and with that came the decision to defer cmrr for at least five years so we could focus on the uranium processing facility, which per d.o.d. was the higher priority.

so where this amendment would take scarce resources away from priorities for nuclear weapons including d.o.d.'s priority and life extension programs and even the g.o.p. controlled house and water operation subcommittee stated in its mark of fiscal year 2013 energy and water bill that a five-year delay to construction of this project we're talking about would not adversely impact sustainment of the stockpile in the near-term, since alternatives are available. this five-year deferral will not compromise nsaa's ability to maintain the stockpile and essential plutonium missions can be performed by our existing complex. referring to this delay, nsaa tom augustine oh testified and

said the good news there are a number of options. a number of different paths we can proceed. we're not hampered by seeing the nation has to have a capability right now to make 50 or 80 pits per year in order to take care of the stockpile. that's great news for this country, because we are not forced into mation ed ration d specific period of time so we have time to evaluate this area, and assistant secretary of defense creedon at past strategic hearing added we need a capability to support the production of pits. exactly how many? how many we need in the future, what's the future pit requirement? how big cmrr has to be, how much pla tone yum it has to hold, those are all decisions that may in fact change at the completion of the upf when we once again resume consideration of the funding and the design of cmrr. neither the house no