states with a ranking member. the chair recognizes the chairman's subcommittee, the gentleman from texas for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my first comment is to thank those not only for their contribution but for all contributions during the oversight activities as well as developing this mark. i especially want to thank the gentleman from rhode island. he is a partner in all issues before the subcommittee and it is certainly a flesh pleasure to work with him on them. and finally i preesh the work from all of the staff. 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 staff that support this committee. if i were to go down the emerging threats 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 nonetheless, they are incredibly professional. secondly, we try to ensure that we are planting and nurturing seeds for tomorrow. tomorrow's national security capability through the s and t

programs and, third, we try to take a couple steps forward on cyber, especially by asking d.o.d. to identify 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, lee yield back the rest of my time. >> thank you. the chair recognizes on emerging threats and capabilities, the gentleman from rhode island for any comments that he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me just say that i echo the comments of chairman thornberry. this has been a truly bipartisan effort and i'd like to thank the chairman, mr. thornberry as well to make sure that this committee runs well and serves the needs of our nation and men and women in uniform. the subcommittee has oversight

of some of the most south after critical assets. like the men and women of special prayings command and counter terror and proliferation efforts, information technology programs and networks and cyber operations and research and development efforts this confirms our commitment to supporting our assets and dedicated people behind them. i'm pleased that the committee supports the 2013 science and technology policies and programs, particularly in areas supporting innovative technology and accelerated development of the new technologies and enhancing the s and t workforce. additionally, it's important to note that this mark continues to

prioritize the he have the efforts. i've watched this issue grow in importance. this is a test to how significant they are becoming and we must continue to define and redefine the and we are working on this here today. i'm pleased that this market addresses other critical issues and look forward to working with the chairman to ensure we are doing all we can and the hard work of the staff and members of the subcommittee has been an important effort and i'm proud

to be part of it. with that, i thank the chairman and yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? know recognize pll thornberry. >> an on block package for amendments worked and approved by the minority. >> without objection, so order. wot clerk please pass out the amendments to be offered on block. without objection, reading will be dispensed with.

i. >> an amendment by mr. franks to amendment section 252 and concerning nerve agent research and an amendment regarding a report on efforts to field new directive energy weapons and concerning an act of denial road map, an amendment by miss davis regarding a joint task force at the u.s. northern command.

>> the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. thornberry. those in favor, be say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed say no. the ayes of 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, the amendment the reading of the amendment will be dispensedreade

dispensed with. the chair now recognizes the gentleman the purpose of explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment would defend so-called io in the budget for overseas contingency operations. information operations are described in an unclassified u.s. army war college report aspirations 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 journalists tom vandenberg launched the release of these programs. the results were disturbing. between 2005 and 2009, spending on io rose from just $9 million

to $580 million per year. nevertheless, the u.s. has reported -- usa today reported on february 29th, quote, pentagon officials have little proof the programs work and they won't make public where the money goes, end quote. as far back as 2003, d.o.d.'s operations road map found the department cannot currently identify what to spend on an io or even on specific core capabilities. the pentagon's top contractor, leoni industries is run by a brother-sister pair with no military contracting experience and $4 million with liens on their homes for not paying federal taxes.

but perhaps most disturbing is evidence that the usa today journalist who spearheaded this investigation was subsequently targeted in a possibly criminal disinformation and reputation attack campaign. that campaign appears to have employed tactics including twitter and facebook accounts, impersonating the journalists, the unauthorized web domains using the journalists' names and attacking the journalists on multiple websites. some of that phony content even hypothesized that a journalist doing his job looking into allegations of waste in government might be an agent of the taliban. as incompetent of this attack c campaign attack has been, it raising the 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. mr. chairman, 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 upon the department of defendants to launch an immediate investigation of this matter to refer any evidence of criminal activity to the attorney general and to consider suspending all contracts until such an investigation is complete. thank you. i withdraw the amendment and i yield back.

>> the gentleman withdraws his amendment. >> the question is on the motion from the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. >> ay zechlt those opposed no. >> the motion is agreed to the committee will now receive the report on power forces and in consultation with the ranking member we will postpone until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri, be mr. aiken, for any comments that he would like to make. >> good morning. the powered rejection forces held several briefings in consideration of the president's budget requests for fiscal year

2013. the subcommittee's portfolio consists of navy ship building, ship weapons, maritime patrol aircraft, unmanned combat demonstration and strike aircraft and mobility and tanker aircraft. due to fiscal constraints, the navy had to make some cuts specifically one destroyer and submarine fell out of the fiscal year 2014 budget. this mark facilitates the navy being able to restore both the destroyer and the submarine providing much needed stability to the navy and the industrial base while authorizing a multi-year procurement for both up to a quantity of ten. all told, our subcommittee added roughly $1 billion to navy ship building. with the ship building plan, we found that the new target for structure for the navy is 300 ships down from the previous

floor of 313. this is somewhat strange when the national strategy after a decade of land wars has pivoted to the asia and pacific and middle age and forces are critical due to larger distances involved. the obama administration proposal to pivot makes no sense. another important provision was the requirement for the navy to maintain a minimum of 12 ballistic submarines which consists one-third of the steal stealthiest leg. they planned by two years the construction start of the class which will replace our ohio class submarines. the two-year delay equated to

over a decade where there would be only ten boats. there are other important provisions in this mark meant to maintain the greatest navy and air force that the world has ever seen. i want to thak my friend, mr. forbes, for his work on the subcommittee. we interfaced with the process of trying to get the additional submarine and destroyer and work through how all of those numbers are going to work. and we are trying to make sure that we project power and keep the peace through strength. as always thank everyone for

their hard work and especially mr. mckeon. >> the chair now recognizes sioux power and projection forces. mr. mcintire. any comments you'd like to make? >> thank you very much. the mark before the members continues a strong bipartisan tradition of support for our men and women in uniform, which is the way it should be. i'd like to thank chairman akin and others for this mark in inclusion in the 2013 defense authorization act. there are a number prove visions that i'm pleased with, such as multiple year procurement authority for up to ten, which gives and restores advanced procurement also authority for up to 10 tdg class destroyers.

also extension of the ford class aircraft carrier from five to six years. this mark with these examples and there are others, it meets the needs, most importantly, for our men and women in uniform. i want to thank chairman akin again for his hard work and others on the staff and look forward to removing this mark. with that i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? hearing none, the chair now recognizes mr. akin for purposes of introducing an on-block package. >> i ask for consent to call of

packages that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> 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 is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining his on-block amendments. >> i call up package number one comprised of the following. an amendment to state a sense of congress for early engineering and ship construction -- in ship construction. headed by mr. spear to require

gao to review the lcs program and review the navy's support. amendment by myself, defense, navy funding until the 30-year ship building plan has been submitted. amendment by mr. palazzo to state a sense of congress on presence requirements. an amendment by myself and mr. mcintire regarding long-range strike. amendment by mr. johnson to require the secretary of the navy to submit a report on comparative costs and effectiveness of the two lcs designs. amendment by myself to amendment section 1021 regarding nuclear surface combatants. >> is there any discussion on the on-block package? >> mr. chairman?

>> yes, miss spear. gentle lady is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to amendment for the gaos review, both the quality and control operations of the lcs program. when congress was first told about this program, we were told it would be light, fast and cheap. but each day brings more news about how the program is failing to meet its key performance parameters. taxpayers have already paid $7.6 billion for the development and procurement of the lcs one variant and for their money they're getting a ship that is cracking and corroding. the program installed a fresh water coolant system on a ship designed to travel the ocean and it exploded when it took on sea water. the navy told congress that the stern door couldn't seal. pictures in the press show that you can stick your hand in the

gap. correcting these problems accelerates costs. some of this is to be expected but i'm worried that these problems threaten the a affordability and also the viability of the concept. we are not finding out about these problems from the navy, but instead, congress must rely on the press and outside organizations to tell us when the navy isn't cooperating with the testing office. the navy assures us after the fact that these problems are a year old and being corrected and the follow on versions of the ship. but is not dismissed experts charges that these problems reflect systemic design issues. as more cracks appear on the program, this amendment asks for the gao to review the navy's quality control to ensure we are not accepting shoddy ships. moving forward the navy presents

different problems. and the optimistic expectations for this program are no longer true. i'm asking the gao to review the lsc operation and assumption tanment strategy to ensure the nave has a plan to control costs moving forward. it's time for an independent assessment of what's really going on with this program. i'm going to -- return the balance of my time. >> is there further debate on the unblocked amendment? the chairman recognizes mr. bartlett for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, the development of the lcs did not follow the usual development of a class of ships in the navy. it was the dream of admiral vern clark, he saw it as a solution

as to the wars we are now fighting where there was a lot of activity in the literals. to t to the contract left before the mission was completed. early in the development of the ship, the navy changed the rules. the ship was bid with commercial design. criteria. the navy then said that it needed to meet navel surface vessel rules, which obviously would result in increased costs. the $220 million figure was really never the cost of the first ship, it would be the cost of ships during production. there's a lot of information out there about this ship. considering how hastily the ship

was put into production, the ship has gone along with other classes of ships quite well. the second ship from the marionette marines receives very high accolades from the navy. there's some lessons to be learned from this development and that is we probably shouldn't do developments without an analysis of alternatives without completing the mission and we certainly shouldn't begin development before we knew the rules under which the ship was to be developed. but considering all these things, i think the general consensus is that the general combat ship has gone quite well. if we were to have a 330-ship navy, there's going to have to be a lot of lcss in it because of all of its problems, it is

still very much less expensive than the other ships and if we don't have them in the feet, we're going to have -- lessons learned so we don't make these mistakes again, but now the development is on course and the present ships being delivered are a-ok. thank you very much and i yield back. >> is there further debate? is gentleman is recognized for fife minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, on the first amendment, i would just like to say it's pretty self-explanatory. its good for the navy and the marine corps, it's good for our american ship builders and a great price for the american taxpayer who has to end up picking up the tab on the construction. on the second amendment, i have

introduced to express a need for am fibbous lift requirement for our marine corps. the force is designed to move from the sea to perform a wide range of combat -- 38 amphibious assault ships to reach this wide range -- that requirement has been droppeded to 33 and now that that minimum has been lowered and our shipbuilding plans to 28, i overheard someone recently say you can give the marine corps a can and a mission and they'll complete their mission. the marines are -- given the tools at their disposal, this is not a time to take on additional risks. we have all heard about the pivot to the pacific, many of these threats have no greater enemy than the united states marine corps embarked on

amphibious assault shows. the marine corps needs to fulfill this need for ships and maintaining this valuable capability in the shipbuilding industry that supplies our united states marine corps. i thank the chairman for entering this amendment and need back my time. >> any further debate on the unblocked amendment? no questions on the -- so all those in favor will say aye. the opposed no, the aye's have it, the amendment is agreed to. the gentleman will recognize mr. akin for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move that we adopt the amendment.

>> the subcommittee report. >> the question is on the motion of the gentleman from missouri of adopting the subcommittee report as amendmented. members in favor will say aye, those against no, the aye's have it and the motion is agreed to. the committee will now receive the report according to committee rule 17. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia mr. forbes for any comments he would like to make.

>> thank you mr. chairman, and i would like to reduce the dangerous -- sequestration. we have a long way to go if we are to continue to guarantee the security of american and american interests. i'm optimistic your leadership will help us attain that goal. this subcommittee has work ed diligently and in a bipartisan manner. together through considerable discussion and negotiations, we have made several significant improvements to readiness and remedied many of the short falls we discovered. the readiness portion of this mark shows initiative that i believe takes important steps to insure the readiness of our force. this mark does not include provisions related to brac. to assume that our --