but because of those two words i reluctantly can't support the amendment. if those were fixed i'd be all there. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? >> hearing none, if the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. whitman, in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i would ask for a recorded vote. >> the--there is sufficient support for a roll call vote pap a roll call vote is ordered. we will call this roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. here on c-span3 back live to the house rayburn office building. you've been watching some of the earlier proceedings of the house

armed services committee as they markup the 2013 defense authorization bill. the budget for the pentagon calling for $554 billion plus $88 billion for the war in afghanistan. the budget would cut the service by -- cut military personnel by 21,000 and give service member as 1.7% pay raise. committees in recess for lunch and votes on the house floor. live kov rouge when they resume. we spoke positive a reporter earlier who has been covering today the markup session for details on what's happened so far and what's ahead. >> joining us is mark oliveri, a defense and foreign policy reporter with congressional quarterly. what are some of biggest issues the committee has to deal with in this 2013 programs bill? >> well, i'm sorry. i didn't hear your question. i think you asked the big issues they're dealing with. what they've actually dealt with, pretty big things. congressman turner was able to get an amendment passed or

adopted here that essentially would provide $160 million for the execution of what's called a chemistry and metallurgy replacement over los alamos. it's a program that the obama administration would like to delay, because it's a significant amount of cost, and at this time, they're trying to find ways to save money. this facility could cost between $3 billion and $6.5 billion and it looks like the committee has thrown its support behind this. this is the second sort of big ad that congressman turner, who is chairman of the strategic armed forces committee has been able to get into the bill. the other the idea of building an anti-missile battery on the east coast, a pretty big investment in and of itself. >> what's the budget for 2013? >> i believe they're look at 050, the entire bch of somewhere around $554 billion. that's not including the $88.5

billion they want for the wars. so, you know, it's roughly $607 billion or so in total for the defense department nnkts the morning debate there was a good deal of discussion about the issue of sequestration. explain that to 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 with a 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 back through the ryan

budget resolution essentially 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. pardon me. about $490 billion to $500 billion lopped off the top across the board and it would impact everything, and, you know, in particular in some cases have a negative impact on places like the navy, which each individual ship is its own -- something like 9/10 of the ships the navy wanted to build under sequester wouldn't get built. >> there is plenty of debate still ahead when they gavel back in. what are some policy issuesy think will attract the most debate? >> well, i think missile defense will continue to be an issue of debate. there will be an amendment to

try to reverse what is already in the bill in regards to this east coast missile silo -- missile base that they want introduced. there's going to be debate on detainees. there's a number of amendments that will be proposed to try to either constrain how the u.s. military handles detainees. there will are others that will try to give even 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 military tribunals. that one's offered by ranking member smith from washington. so those are really going to be key fights. we're going to spend quite a bit of time on those areas. >> frank oliveri, covers defense and foreign policy issues for congressional quarterly. you can read his reporting at cq.com. thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure. the committee souf reesds. the committee should be

gaveling back in sortly. they broke for recess and a couple votes on the house floor. once those are wrapped up we expect the committee to gavel back in for more amendments to the 2013 defense authorization bill and a hearing, a markup session that could go well into the night. talking about even up to midnight this evening. we will have all of this live for you here on c-span3 and the c-span networks. the house is finishes up a couple of votes, just passed renewing export/import bank and resume the 2013 spending bill for the departments of commerce and justice and also for nasa and other science programs. follow the house on c-span. while we wait for the committee to gavel back in we're going to show you a bit more from today's session with the house armed services committee, and texas congressman, allowing liquid fuel derived from coal. currently environment regulations prevent the

government from buying coal-based liquid fuel because of concerns about greenhouse gas emissions. we'll show you as much of this portion as we can, until the committee gavels back in. >> gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the energy security independent security act 2007 had a late amendment to it that put in section 526, which previous federal government from -- or government agencies from buying fuels unless they can certify that life cycle greenhouse gas emissions are less than the alternatives. this is prevented our federal government from buying that. this would exempt the definite defense from 526. just the department of defense and allow them to continue to buy, know, coal to liquids as alternatives, much as has said in the previous debate how important it is that we have

safe stable sources of fuel and energy from the united states for our military to, have access to and this was a broad spectrum aloud oil from canada, from the oil there as well as the oil shell and sands out of the, from the united states also. department of defense in 2008 letter to, to the senate on this issue does not believe they can -- that they even understand if they can comply with this when fuels are planted at a refinery, they're not sure which or what you're buying, based on those. so this was, quite frankly, an ill-suited section out of that energy bill and would allow the department of defense to be exempted from that. reduce liability risks from being sued for lack of compliance under 526 and allow access to a broader array of fuels to

address the cost spikes that have been talked about earlier. supply spikes, or risks to supply, by being able to use at a minimum, coal to liquids and tar -- excuse me. oil sands production out of canada. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to speak on this, but also to mr. conway. i think you mentioned the issue around the convoys and the reality is, that if we can do alternative fuels differently, we don't have the same content that we're talking about. we're trying to be efficient. we're trying to have small amounts of fuel that are, that have to be conveyed from one area to another. and so that -- i just wanted to mention that, because -- >> gentle lady -- >> same volume of fuel. >> one, i think mr. kaufman brought that up, but i'm not

sure that we're talking about the energy efficiency of the engines using the fuels. these buyo fuels don't create at much energy. so you have to use more of them, so i'm not sure of what you're talking about. >> referring to volume. i think when you were more energy efficient, can you do things differently. you can do things differently. that's all we're talking about is trying to invest in that kind of technology. but i also wanted to point out that section 526 does not prohibit production or importation of alternative or unconventional fuels. it prohibits tax dollars from being used to procure fuels that have a higher global warming pollution emission than conventional fuels. section 526 has not applied to d.o.d. purchases of fuel for military operation. the department does not anticipate that that will change. however, section 526 does provide a useful framework for the development of alternative fuels. so this exemption really is not needed or wanted by the department of defense. and in that regard i would oppose it. i would also yield to the

ranking chair, mr. -- mr. smith. >> gentle lady yields back. the chair now recognizes gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the amendment. section 526 basically the federal law states, no federal agency shall enter into a contract procurement alternative synthetic fuel, including a fuel used for non-conventional petroleum sources, et cetera. section 526 does not prohibit production or importation of alternative or unconventional

fuels, it prohibits tax dollars from being used to procure fuels that have a higher global warms emission than conventional fuels. section 526 has not applied to d.o.d., has not applied to d.o.d. purchasers of fuel and military operations and does not anticipate that will change. however, section 526 provides for useful framework for the development of all tifb fuels. this exemption is not needed or warranted by the department of defense. clearly, if we are going to continue to be dependent on fossil fuels then you want to support the gentleman's amendment. if you want to look at the -- the future needs, alternative fuel needs or fuel needs of our nation, our military, we have to start somewhere. so i believe that -- that the department should be able to purchase alternative fuel. they should not be exempt from this alternative fuel procurement requirement, and i would oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the

same, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes gentleman from washington, ranking member smith, five minutes. >> thank you. it's a fairly simple straightforward debate here. it's a matter of whether or not you believe burning fossil fuels is a problem and climate change is a problem. if you do, you will oppose this amendment. if you don't, you won't. part of what we're trying to encourage in turn of alternative fuel certainly is to have alternatives for the reasons we debated in the previous amendment, but part of it as well is the environmental concerns what burning fossil fuels means and the impact of that. if we're moving to alternatives that are actually worse for the environment that create more climate change problems which add to global instability, then that is a problem. a problem we'd rather not create when we don't have to create. there are many alternative fuels that go in the opposite direction that give us a cleaner environment and help on all manner of different fronts. and those are the ones we should be selecting. i don't think this exemption makes sense.

like i said, it's straightforward. we've all -- i think everybody on the committee at one time or another has had the debate about climate change, fossil fuels and the impact on the environment. you know where you stand. i think it's a pretty significant issue in terms of the impact it is having on the environment, and i'd oppose this amendment because it would undermine attempts to try and get that problem under control. i yield back. >> chair recognizes gentleman from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and ranking member smith, when you said global instability i just wanted to make a brief quick remark. getting oil sands, petroleum products from canada, i think, promotes global stability, because we're that much less reliant on middle eastern petroleum products. so i would much rather get a canadian product -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> certainly. >> certainly promotes our stability in that sense. what i was talking about was the fact as the climate changes it is creating all kinds of water

problems, other problems in parts of the world that are now unable to grow their crops, unable to provide for the people and is contributing to instact in other nations. that's the kind of instability i was talking about. not that. >> thank you. to reclaim my time, i think this is good for our relations with our neighbor to the north. our biggest trading partner in the world, and it makes us that much less reliant on middle eastern oil. for that i think it's a good amendment. i support it and urge its adoption and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, i think it's one thing to say, we need to diversify -- research fuels, diversify, to help our military operate more effectively. so that we have fewer convoys and so forth. i'm all for researching batteries, for example, so that

we are freer from the supply chains that limit sometimes our mobility. so -- so doing research, taking actions that makes our military more effective, more secure, that's one thing. it is completely another thing, however, to say we are going to reduce our options of fuels for some sort of other agenda. and basically, that's what this is. this is saying we are not going to take advantage of some fuels that could be available to us, including some fuels that will come down as a result of the keystone pipeline from canada, we're going to tie our hands, we're not going to do that, because of our concern about the environment, or some other agenda that's going on. and that handicaps our military, makes it harder for them to operate. i guess you can say that's a short term versus a long term attitude, but i'm pretty concerned about the short term and making sure they have the ability to operate. they have the fuel, a full range of fuels so they have to

depend -- we all have to depend less on fuels coming from the middle east and we can roll out or rely on more on fuels that come from our neighbor to the north. and i'm just saying, the department of defense, i would prefer, they not be studying life cycle carbon emissions. they ought to be studying how we're going to defeat terrorism, and developing the plans to do that. so we've debated this issue before. it seems to me that things that increase our military capability is a good thing. this provision that we're trying to strike limits or military capability and it ought to go away. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes the gentleman from -- washington, ranking member smith, for five minutes. >> just quickly. this is the debate, as the gentleman from texas said, somewhat derisively, for some sort of other agenda.

the other agenda in the minds of other people is the destruction of the planet. it's important to our national security needs. you can decide for yourself. that our agenda is not relevant, parochial or narrowly partisan. it is an important one in terms of the overall planet we all live on. again, i oppose the amendment and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. chair now recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. garamendy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm confused here about what the proponents are proposing here. a moment ago in the previous amendment they were argues with ought not have alternatives and now ar arguing we ought to have alternatives. so which way is it? are they going to argue both sides simply to promote the oil industry? i suppose that's what this is all about, and the previous debate they said we ought not be

looking at alternatives. now they're looking at alternatives. the bottom line of this is that the pentagon in the last four years has said repeatedly that climate change is a major national security issue. affecting countries around the world. causing disruption in their food supplies, their agriculture, water supplies and the rest. and so this effort by the united states government over the last six years, five years now, to look at other ways of providing energy in a manner that reduces greenhouse gases seems to me to be fully in concert with what the pentagon, the department of defense has been repeatedly saying. that climate change is a major national security issue. so why in the world would we prohibit the pentagon from taking this into account, when they purchase fuels? it's make 340s sense to me at all that we would want to limit the options available to the pentagon. and i would simply use that

argument from the previous debate. the previous amendment. so we ought not do this and we ought to simply have oppose this amendment. so woe ought to simply oppose this amendment. gentlemen, if there's no further discussion on the amendment. chair recognizes gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, for five minutes. >> last i checked this was the armed services committee. not the environmental committee or the commerce committee. i would get back to one of the people who works for the navy said in they were trying to develop an industry here that resolved around alternative fuels. and i would suggest the sooner the united states government gets out of the alternative fuel business, the sooner the american citizens will benefit from alternative sources of fuel. thank you, mr. chairman. i intend to vote for the amendment.

>> thank you. thank you, mr. chair. i speak in opposition of this amendment. we ail know that the pivot is to the pacific, asia pacific. we've heard many sessions in here be my of our military leaders about the concern about the pacific and the rising strength in the pacific. now what that represents for someone like myself who comes from hawaii is the fact that you know a pacific command is housed on the hawaiian islands. we have no, quote, natural resources in fuel. it's not only critical for the stability of the military in the pacific but also for the united states as well.

think about it. we're talking about the housing of our troops in the pacific. it's not just the ships and the jets. it's also where they live. it's the bases. how do we provide the power needed to run the facilities? that's alternative energy. hawaii has geothermal. how do you transmit geothermal from one part of the state to the other parts of the state? >> we will break away from the recorded portion and take you back live. >> the chair recognizes mr. bartlett for any comment he is would like to make. >> i would like to thank my good friends for all of his help and

special thanks to a first class staff. thank you so much. it gives first priority by providing the equipment needed to support our forces in combat. active guard and reserve. over 2 billion in the president's budget request is recommended to be authorized to address urgent operational needs for the war fighter to include counter ied activities. in department of defense did not request funding for the national guard four major programs include issues related to body armor. the industrial base. the air force global hawk unmanned ircraft body armor provided to the war fighter cuts continues to meet all current

survivability performance standards. proposed language highlights the efforts to assess option for providing body armor specifically designed and fitted for the female soldier. the army budget request for fiscal year 2013 would result in a production peak for vehicle modification -- production break for heavy vehicle operation programs. which the army indicates could last anywhere from three to four years. army analysis to date does not support the budget recommendations. in a preliminary briefing last week to committee staff. they indicated the overall

soundness cannot be fully determined because of uncertainties associated with both the army and prime contractor assumptions, underlying the cost estimates. it's possible the cost to shut them down and restart them several years later could be as costly as maintaining minimum sustained production to provide vehicles to the army heavy brigade combat teams. r this is another indicator that the industrial bals is vulnerable. the reports maintaining minimum sustained production to the modified tanks brad he fighting vehicles and herk lease recovery vehicles and sustaining the u.s. heavy armory vehicles base by authorizing additional $383 million. this would provide army national

guard units the same modernized version of these vehicles that our active duty forces have. another major issue is the block 30. unmanned intelligence and reconnaissance aircraft. the air force budget request would retire and place all 18 global aircraft in storage. including four new aircraft. in contrast, just last june they called the global hawk aircraft program essential to the national security and there are no alternatives to meet the joint military requirement at last cost. the global hawk aircraft provides time on station at range no other aircraft can provide. they will be in the central, pacific, and european commands. regarding f-35 aircraft, there

continue to be major concerns with the program, but the committee supports requirement for the fifth generation in the effectiveness, quantities and proliferation of threat anti-aircraft systems. 187 f-22s may not provide the capability require d they expressed the concern is too aggressive. lacking technology and development. insufficient flight testing and design instability. the pentagon has done what the committee advocated several years ago by producing the annual skurmt until the issues are better resolved. u.s. production is scheduled to stabilize approximately 30 aircraft a year through fiscal year 2014. >> the chair recognizes the ranking member. the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes for any comment he would like to make. the tactical air force sub

committee has a long history of working in a bipartisan fashion to complete a portion of the chairman's mark for the national defense authorization act. i'm pleased to say the chairman has continued the tradition. and i echo his kmens about the appreciation we both feel for the staff. first, the chairman's mark supports all the acquisition programs in the president's budget. for example, the chairman's mark fully funds the army's ground combat vehicle program at $639 million. it provides $9 billion for the f-35 joint strike fighter program. provides $5.8 billion for the new army helicopters and other aviation upgrades. provides $3 billion for the 38 f-18s and provides $1.6 billion for the off sprays.

included in there is also providing 2.2 billion for upgrading the army's tactical communications network, providing 1.5 billion for u.s. marine corps equipment and 46 million for striker vehicles and upgrades. the chairman's mark increases funding for some parts of the d.o.d. budget where our committee does not feel adequate funds were provided. the chairman's mark provides 500 million for the national guard and reserve. it increases funding by 230 million. it increases funding by 1818 million. it increases funding for bradley fighting vehicles for 140 million. it increases funding for unmanned systems by $180 million. increasing funding for the 18 g growler electronic tech aircraft and finally, mr. chairman, the chairman's mark includes important