at this system with the undefined expenses for it. i mean, the president can't even give us a real number for what it's going to totally cost. understand that we cannot foot this bill. as the acknowledged threat from iran is emerging and as we have the issue for missile defense, both for our european allies through a nato mission and for our assets in europe and for our homeland, this is a system that requires that the allies all come to the table. and that certainly we have nato participation. at this point, this has been presented as that nato will not be paying any of the portions of the phase adaptive approach that is still undefined. i think this is an important statement for us to make of looking to require the administration to begin that discussion. i yield back. >> gentlemen yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the questions on adoption of the amendment

offered by miss sanchez log-512. those in favor aaye. those opposed say no. >> i'd like a recorded vote, mr. chairman. >> a recorded vote has been requested. we'll hold roll call at the end of the subcommittee mark. any further amendments to the subcommittee mark? >> i have an amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> amendment 180. >> without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the

gentle lady to explain her offer and explain her amendment. >> mr. chairman, this amendment would limit the funds available for interceptors equipped with enhanced kill capability until after successful operational testses of the interceptor. as we discussed so much earlier in the day and i'll try to limit this discussion because i think people are beginning to have some sort of a background on this committee about some of the fights that we're having. this amendment would ensure that ground basin ter accept fors equipped with a new interceptor is adequately and tested before they are procured. we want to make sure they work. the last two tests in 2010 were back to back failures. the missile defense agency has since been trying to identify the root cause and fix the problem and they want to retest in fourth quarter fiscal year 12 with preliminary ground tests planned for this summer.

allow procurement -- this would allow procurement for test assets and keep the line warm, meaning that the line is expected to stay warm until fiscal year 1718 for c-1 interceptors should they be needed but this is really about ensuring that the -- that this works before we procure it. so i would ask the committee members to back my amendment and i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i'd like to respond to this one and to make it just brief as the sponsor was brief because it is a very specific, discrete issue. programs should not be subjected to hardware-specific testing requirements that single out part by part. there's a degree of

micromanagement here that i think we've gone too far. testing and verification is set up and administered by the appropriate agencies overseeing this program and in this case the missile defense agency has a plan in place satisand is addre the steps necessary to get the interceptor in place on schedule. i don't think this is necessary and it's way too restrictive and for those reasons i'd ask the committee to oppose this amendment. thank you, and i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by miss sanchez, log-180. those in favor say aye. >> those in favor say no. >> no. >> recorded vote, please, mr. chairman. >> roll call has been requested. we'll call this roll call vote

later in the evening. are there any other amendments to the subcommittee mark? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 127. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. votes have been called on the floor. so after this amendment is dealt with, we will adjourn until the end of the floor votes when we will are resume work on the mark-up. for the purposes of offering this amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i will be brief. i believe there is a universal believe among the members that we want to give our workers and employees in the nuclear safety complex the very best level of protection that we can give them. and the issue raised by this amendment is whether that can be best pursued by an independent office, independent of the regular administrative structure of an agency in order to achieve that result. present law and a very important role in the department of energy health, safety, and security in making sure that those who work in our nuclear complex are safe. for example, they have a very stringent exposure standard for barillium which is an extremely dangerous substance to which someone could be exposed.

the base text substantially reduces -- i would argue eliminates the role of health, safety, and security and vests that in the nnsa. i think it's an outstanding agency. i don't for a minute believe its leadership would be negligent about the worker safety of it is workers. however, i think that their self-evaluation is never as rigid and effective as an independent evaluation and if we're going to leave it to the self-evaluation of the nnsa to determine how they are doing with the health and safety of their workers, i think we lose something. and because the elements to which these workers are exposed is so highly dangerous and their health is at such high risks, i think we should always error on the side of being extra careful in protecting these workers. so my amendment reverses the decision made in the base text,

restores the office of health, safety, and security to its original role and i think, therefore, has substantially better protection for the men and women who work in this complex. it also moves some money around to make sure that $49.5 million fully offset to make sure that the health and safety mission of that office can be properly accomplished. and one final point. the berillium standard is ten times more protected at the office of health and safety than nnsa. and when you talk about exposing humans to better ril yes, ma'am, i think we ought to make every effort to be safe as we can. i would ask that the amendment, too, and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. now mr. turner for five minutes. >> i want to commend him for his

thoughtfulness on approaching this. it's a serious issue and clearly the issue of protection of employees and our systems are of the concern of all of us. i am opposing the amendment. there is -- in the hearings that we've had -- there's a difference between review and dupe pli ka tif review. we have checkers that check the checkers. and so this is just our initial beginning step to begin the dialogue. we know there's going to be even more dialogue on nnsa reform. we invite the administration to go forward with their proposals and we appreciate your statement on this. we know that it will be part of the continuing dialogue as we look for a solution. thank you. >> any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption, the amendment offered by mr. andrews. those in favor say aye. >> aye.

>> those in opposition say no. >> the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. roll call vote has been requested. we'll follow -- we will -- let me tell them, the members of the committee will be recessing now for the votes on the floor but return right after the vote because we will be moving right into votes here on the committee. so any other members of the committee that you see over there, tell them to come right back because we will be voting as soon as we come back. this will be a roll call vote. the committee is in recess.

except for a midday vote, this mark-up of the 2013 defense authorization bill has been under way since 10:00 this morning and they expect a late night this evening. they are breaking here, as you heard, for more house votes and you can follow those on c-span. lots of issued discussed today on the armed services committee and more on the way. in foreign policy news, the

white house is saying that russian president vladimir putin is canceling his plans to attend the g-8 meeting in chicago and hold a summit with president obama. that from the associated press. this is one of just a number of committees meeting on capitol hill today. earlier today on the c-span networks we covered the hearing with fbi director robber muller and in that hearing he was urging congress to renew wide ranging surveillance authority to thwart terrorism plots, the latest one in the al qaeda explosive device to be detonated on a u.s.-bound airline flight. here's what he had to say. >> recognize myself for some initial questions. i mentioned in my opening statement, director muller, that the acts of 2008 are going to expire at the end of this year. how important is it that we continue those amendments and

should we seek be to improve that act in any way? >> well, we've seen over the last several days, particularly with regard to the ied that was recently recovered that terrorism should be his and should be and continues to be our number one priority and the number one priority of our intelligence agencies. the amendments that are up for passage again reenactment at the end of this year, absolutely essential in our efforts to address this threat. >> okay. >> and not only us, the fbi, the access to information that enables us to identify persons both within the united states but also without the united states that would hurt us but also our intelligence agencies under the supervision of the

court to put together the information we need to prevent attacks. it's essential and remains essential. >> i appreciate that. if you can think of any way that we can improve it and get that information to us in the next couple of months, that would be helpful as well. >> i think you'll have our support. >> appreciate that. thanks. >> again, all of that house judiciary hearing is available in our video library and also later on our schedule on c-span. the house armed services committee mark-up. they are on a break right now. we'll have it live for you once they resume and gavel back in. in the meantime, we'll show you the opening statements and debate from earlier today.

>> the committee will come to order. welcome all on this beautiful, wonderful day that we're going to have here. the committee will now mark up the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2013. ladies and gentlemen, thank you all for joining us here today as the committee on the armed services prepares to mark up

hr-4310, the national defense authorization for 2013 and express my appreciation and for his commitment to a bipartisan process that has seen this bill pass for 50 consecutive years and, once again, the support service is higher priority. i have three key priorities this year. they are resolve reverse defense cuts and rebuild the military stretched then thin by war. i want to thank members for their tireless work. to begin with, we have taken an incremental move to reverse cuts. this bill reflect $88 million

for overseas contingency 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 authorized in the budget control act. level of funding is nearly $4 billion more than the president's budget requests 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 and last year's budget. even with this modest increase to the president's request for the military, the 2013 defendants bill reflects the fact that members of the arms services must make choices and this bill examines every aspect

of this and 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 by protecting cruisers and slowing reductions to ensure that 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 shed by the 2013 budget request, we have 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 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 government betweenment and military keeping the promise that we made for their health and well-being for our troops. three, invest in the capabilities and forestructure needed to protect them from current and future threats. four, mandate fiscal responsibility and accountability with the defense department and to expand the industrial base and encourage innovation by fostering awards to small and medium businesses. thus incentivizing competition for every taxpayer dollar

associated with funding defense requirements. finally, my third priority, resolving see quest sistering cannot be resolved by the nda alone. this is due in no small part to the vigilance of this committee. that must be solved and must be 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 process in congress for national security legislation. a copy of my mark was distributed to committee members offices. a full five days before the mark-up. and the legislation, including the funding tables, was posted online on monday.

the details have been subject to scrutiny for days. house republican leadership will not bring legislation containing congressional earmarks to the house floor. i maintain my ban on earmarks for fiscal year 2013 and will evaluate amendments accordingly. it will be a long day but please accept my thanks in advance for your pash sense and cooperation. it doesn't have to be all that long. this is the first step to passing the 51st consecutive defense authorization bill. your swork vital to the armed forces and this country. ranking member smith? >> thank you, mr. chairman. first and foremost, i want to thank chairman mckeon for his

strong buy tart r partisanship committee. i always say this is the most bipartisan committee in congress. that's not a high bar to jump over but we are very bipartisan in our approach and the bill that you have before you reflects the work of the chairman and of every member of this committee and staff. we could not do it if we did not work together in that smirt. if we were looking for partisan advantage at every turn, we could not produce the quality product that we do. i thank the chairman for making sure this committee upholds that tradition, which is the most important thing that we do. i believe this bar sets the right priorities. first and foremost, 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 that they deserve is the most important thing that they do and then more broadly supporting the force. getting another pay raise to the people who serve in the military is incredibly important and they are designed to make sure our troops and their families get the support that they need and the most important thing we've done. i believe this mark reflects this. i agree with the chairman that we have an all-volunteer military and key to that is making sure that we keep faith with that all-volunteer so we attract the best and brightest and retain them and keep them in the force to make sure that we continue to be the greatest military that the world has ever seen. this mark leads up to that as well. it's important that we emphasize our ability to confront threats.

we've had tremendous growth. this bill continues that. another attack out of yemen only drives home how important that is and how large that threat looms. i also share the chairman's request for see questions sistering. the way to do that is find at least $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 want to emphasize that that is a problem right now. the chairman has done a great job in speeches of emphasizing this. a lot of people think it doesn't kick in until january. we have december to deal with it. right now there are businesses and companies 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 can deal with it, the better off we are going to be.

i do also feel and agree with the chairman that after ten years of war and in dealing with the budget constraints and drawdowns that are coming is one of the most critical tasks that this committee faces. i do worry that on too many of those issues we have simply kicked the can down the road and it's arguable right now that we have started more programs than the next ten years could possibly fund. we are 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's a $1.3 trillion gap and there's no way to close that by simply rounding off an edge or two. we are confronting major challenges. maybe we confront them by looking at other aspects of the budget, putting revenue on the table so the defense doesn't have to bear any more of the

burden. i find that unlikely. if you are 20% of a budget that is 38% out of whack, you're going to have a devil of the time not being touched and the longer we delay those decisions, i'm more worried about the impact down the line. if we plan, prepare, realistically look at what our budget numbers are going to be, i'm absolutely confident that a defense budget can protect this country. but if we delay those decisions and get to the point where there is no strategic commonsense way to deal with them, i worry about the impact that is going to have. we're 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'm worried 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 make it no longer than it absolutely has to be but it's always a great

debate and great process. i look forward to the markup. >> thank you. before going any further, i have a few announcements. we'll begin first with the subject matter that falls under the jurisdiction on emerging threats and capabilities, then the subcommittee on power and objection forces. then the subcommittee on land forces and strategic forces and military personnel and finally the full committee matters. we have a new board up here on my left that will list the possible upcoming amendments so it will make it easier for all of us to follow the order of what is happening. that's the first time that we've had the opportunity to use this new board. second, let me remind members that any amendment offered must about be in writing and 90 copies must be available for

distribution. if a member has an amendment, have a letter from the representative committee chairman indicating their waiver or of the right of referral. i remind members that this has been the approach of the committee for many years. it's done so we can proceed directly to the house floor without our bill being sequencely referred to other committees. it's the practice that amendments involving additional spending should identify suitable offsets. members must not offer amendments that would violate the congressional budget act or a point of order. the house republican leadership has a stated policy that it will not be legislation containing congressional earmarks to the house floor. therefore, i will not permit any

earmarks for fiscal year 2013. if the chair's intention to operate under the five-minute rule in order to allow all interested members of the opportunity to speak in an orderly manner. without objections, they have five legislative days within which to submit written statements into the record. so ordered. i ask unanimous consent that the provisions contained in the reports of the subcommittee and full committee provisions be considered for the purpose of this markup as original text of hr-4310 and they be considered as having been read and 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 that consult