ied activities. we're recommending $500 million for that account. four major programs in the mark include issues related to body armor, the army's heavy armor industrial base, the air force global hawk unmanned aircraft fleet, and the multiservice f-35 aircraft program. body armor provided to the war fighter continues to meet all current survivability performance standards. however, we remain concerned over the impact on the soldier of the weight of current body armor and other combat gear. proposed language in the committee highlight the need to continue the effort to reduce the weight of soldiery equipment and options for body armor specifically designed and fitted for the female soldier. the army budget request for fiscal 2013 would result in a

production peak for heavy modification programs, including the abrams tank, the bradley fighting vehicle, and the hercules recovery vehicle beginning in 2013, which the army indicates could last anywhere from three to four years. army analysis to date does not support its budget recommendations. that is why ranking member reyes and i requested that the gao review the army's analysis. in a preliminary briefing to committee staff last week, the gao indicated that the overall soundness of the army estimates for the abrams production facility cannot fully be determined because of uncertainties associated with both the army and prime contractor asumses underlying the cost estimates. it is very possible that the cost to shut the lines down and restart them several years later could be as costly as maintaining minimum sustained production that would sustain the production base and provide

vehicles to the army's heavy brigades combat teams. in addition, the committee was informed last week that the bradley fighting vehicle production line was being temporarily shut down for one month this summer due to a delay in getting a contract signed. this is just another indicate they're the industrial base is vulnerable. the subcommittee mark supports maintaining minimum sustained production of the modified abrams tanks, bradley fighting vehicles, and hercules recovery vehicles and sustaining the heavily armored vehicle production's base by authorizing an additional $380 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 global hawk blocked 30 unmanned surveillance and intelligence aircraft. the air force budget request would retire and place all 18 aircraft in storage, including four new aircraft as they come off the production line. in contrast, just last june, the under secretary of defense for

technology and logistics called the global aircraft program, and i quote, essential to the national security. and there are no alternatives to the program which will provide acceptable capability to meet the joint military requirement at less cost. the global hawk aircraft provides time and station and range that no other aircraft can provide. nine global hawk aircraft are currently providing support to the combatant commanders in the central, the pacific and the european commands. there continue to be major concerns with the program, but the committee supports the requirement for a fifth generation stealth fighter due to projected increases in the quantities of proliferation of threat anti-aircraft systems. the 187 may not provide the required acceptable risk. in require years the committee has expressed concern with the production plan being too aggressive, given f-35 lagging

technology and development, insufficient flight testing and design. the pentagon has done with the committee advocated several years ago by reducing annual development until the issues are resolved. production is scheduled to stabilize at 30 aircraft a year through fiscal year 2014, and i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces, the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes for any comments he would like the make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the tactical air and land forces subcommittee has a long history of working in a bipartisan fashion to complete its portion of the chairman's mark for the national defense authorization act. i am happy to say that chairman bartlett has continued that tradition, and i echo his comments about the appreciation we feel for the staff on both sides of the aisle. we want to thank them for their hard work. first, the subcommittee's portion of the chairman's mark supports all the high priority

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, uavs and other aviation platforms and upgrades, provides $3 billion for the 38 fa/18s and $1.6 billion for 21 v-22 ospreys. included is $2.2 billion for upgrading the army's tactical communications networks, providing $1.5 billion for u.s. marine corps equipment, and provides $46 million for stryker vehicles and upgrades. the chairman's mark increases funding for some parts of the dod budget where our committee does not feel adequate funds were provided. the chairman's mark provides $500 million for the national

guard and reserve equipment account. it increases funding for the continued global hawk block 30 operations by 260 million. it increases funding for abrams tanks by $181 million. it increases funding for bradley fighting vehicles by $140 million. it also increases funding for mq-9 reaper unmanned systems by $180 million. increasing funding for navy 18 growler electronic attack aircraft, and finally, mr. chairman, the chairman's mark includes important oversight legislation. the most important legislative provision in the chairman's mark in my opinion is legislation requiring the air force to continue to operator the global hawk block 30 unmanned aerial system, which just reached operational capability in august of 2011. each was procured for more than $100 million. so shelving them when they're almost brand-new at a time when the demand for intelligence has

never been higher or more important to us made no sense. the mark holds the air force to its plan from last year to continue to operate both global hawk and u2 through the end of 2014. so mr. chairman, overall, chairman bartlett has developed an excellent proposal for our members to consider. i urge them to support the tactical and land portion of our chairman's mark. and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee's report? gentleman from ohio, mr. turner is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman bartlett for his commitment to our industrial base and for his work with the heavy brigade combat team production lines. the issues of being concerned with those lines going cold, this administration had planned to close down production facilities for perhaps a period of three to four years. and in doing so, we would lose

both the intellectual capital that the people who worked there would move on to other things. and the production capability techniques to take us to the next generation. the chairman is protecting that in this. one of the facilities commonly known as the tank plant is very concerned as what would happen to their long-term capabilities if the administration's position was allowed to stand. so i appreciate the chairman supporting our industrial base and our capabilities. thank you. >> any other discussion? are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman, have i an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

>> i just think -- i just think we're running down the primrose path with this thing. that is an amendment to it. the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is the one in the f-35 that everybody is told you're supposed to vote against. and i want to say at the outset that i'm not against f-35. i'm an engineer by training. i understand it takes time. to develop good technology. and i'm not against its builder. but i am quite a bit concerned about project management, which should be the concern to the people on this committee. and also i'm on the budget committee, and i have to try to fight there for the defense budget.

and we always hear about that there is a lot of waste in the defense budget. i believe we're setting ourselves up for a lot of waste if we don't crack the whip a bit on the program. now the project should give us pause. this is why. first, it's the biggest acquisition program in dod history at $1.5 trillion. this is a massive program for us. it's the only program without an ioc date. that is initial operational capability, has a milestone b decision, but it's the only one that has no ioc date. the problem is, and this is something we found over and over, we get in trouble, whether it's ship building or anything else, we start building a product and we don't have a final design. that means you have to go back and rework everything and that

runs the cost through the roof. this amendment i have is about transparency. it's about accountability, and it's about project management. it's an idea we ought to be very careful of building something when we don't know what it is that we're building. now uthere is two pots of money. the first is the development and the design and development money. this amendment leaves that completely untouched. the second pot of money is the procurement dollars. and what this does, it freezes half of the procurement dollars until we get an ioc date. now the ioc date should have been given to us right after it passed its milestone b. but even -- even if we got a date some time this year, this is not going to affect the program at all. all we're doing is saying we want to play for real. if you cut half the procurement money out, that would take effect in march of 2013. so all we're saying is some time in the next year almost, we want

some type of ioc date. this also affects other programs because we have fighter shortfalls, how do you plan what you're going to do if you don't know what the date is. so that's the purpose of the amendment is to simply say hey, we want the pentagon to really let us know, tell us when it is that we really know when we've got -- when we know we have a finished product that can be delivered. and i don't really -- it doesn't make a lot of difference to me how people want to approach this thing. it's just that we have ourselves one big project management problem here that is about to zap us if we don't take some type of corrective action. the pentagon, they could have given us an ioc date, but they don't want to tell us when it's going to be. i think it's about time to tell the pentagon we need to have decent management. we've built over 30 of the aircraft. you know, when it is that we're going to have an ioc date on it. so this is only about just getting that date, and get:00 it

before march of next year. and so that's the purpose of this amendment, mr. chairman. i am aware that there might be just a little opposition to the amendment. but on the other hand, we do need to deal with project management and take it very seriously, especially on the biggest project that we've ever spent money on. thank you. >> gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? >> i have a secondary amendment at the desk, mr. chairman. >> an amendment to the amendment, if you will. will the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

>> the chair now recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his substitute amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all, let me agree with mr. aikin on the challenges that have been presented by the f-35 program. it's an enormously expensive program that has slipped repeatedly and had a number of problems. and that committee has taken a variety of different steps to try to get it under control and to try to force dod and force the manufacturers of the plane to get become on track. it is a hugely problematic program, both because of the struggles that we've had with it, and because it's so important. it is intended to be somewhere i think over 90% of our fighter attack aircraft fleet at some point. we need this program. and i think mr. aikin recognizes that. and the problem with this amendment by fencing the money and creating the possibility

that we will not, in fact, buy half of the f-35s, it sends a message that it is possible that we will not ultimately support the program. and the reason that's a problem is another aspect of this program is we have a number of foreign partners. i'm sure everybody on this committee has been reading about some of the partners' angst about the future of the f-35. we want them to buy it, because if they don't, our costs will go up. and if they see us stepping back in this way, there is a distinct risk that they will reduce or delay or in some cases completely eliminate their buys and cause further problems for the program. so there is considerable risk in that. the second thing that is worth noting is what is being asked here for is the department of defense to set an initial operating capability date. now the department of defense has said that they intend to set such a date for the f-35 for all three variants by the end of this year. what my substitute amendment does is it simply requires them to do that.

i think it's important that we at least keep pushing on it to that extent. but to do it to the extent that mr. aikin suggests, as i said, jeopardizes the program. it could potentially drive up costs and further undermine our foreign partners' confidence. and the final thing that i will point out is the f-35 has had initial operating capability dates before. so even if we were to force the pentagon to do this, they can set the date and it doesn't necessarily solve the problem. so at great risk to the overall program in terms of the message it sends to our foreign partners, we're not actually accomplishing a great deal with the underlying amendment. so this is a simple way of saying yes, the committee is still very focused on making sure we get to initial operating capability, but hopefully do so in a way that doesn't send the wrong message about the program. we are for better or worse committed to this program because, frankly, we have no choice. it is critical to our national security needs. we have to keep up the pressure to make sure that it actually

gets delivered and meets its capability. but an amendment like this doesn't move that forward, and does create greater problems for the amendment. so i offer my substitute as a simple way around that, continue to say we need initial operating capability. i would prefer we actually get initial operating capable, not just set a date. but i believe this substitute amendment eliminates the threat that the underlying amendment poses to the program, and continues to make clear that we on this committee want this program to move forward and get done and get back on schedule. i urge support for the substitute amendment, and i yield back. >> let me just say how i agree with everything that the ranking member said. this is a very critical program for us, very important program. some point in the future, this plane will be 95% of our air fighter force. so it's important that we get it right. it's that we move forward with it. are there -- is there any further debate on the amendment?

>> mr. chairman, yes. i'd like to talk about the substitute amendment. >> the gentleman has five minutes. >> well, the substitute amendment essentially, if you take it at face value, it's saying we're going to get an ioc date not later than december 31. what i'm requesting is an ioc date by about march. so this is in a sense more strict. the only trouble is there is no teeth in this one. and there is no guarantee the pentagon is going to necessarily do what we say. we've been talking with them on all kinds of different things. we found the helicopter problem with our medevac helicopters. you can talk to them and say you want a report and you want them to do this and that. they don't do it. so this thing has no teeth. the proposal i had was simply saying by march if they don't have something by march of '13, this is december of '12, then it's going the start cutting into their funds. what you're doing here is

effectively just saying well, we really want this and you really should do this, but there is no real teeth in it. and as far as hurting the perception of the program, i forget what your phrase was, that it's undermining confidence in the program. it's just simply saying we need to have some specific dates so we know how to run what our requirements for joint strike fighters or different fighter aircraft, we need some sort of thing to plan on. and you're not doing that. but anyway, i understand that this amendment will probably pass. i just don't think your amendment will really do anything at all. but if that's what the committee wants to do, i'll live with that. thank you. >> gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the amendment? if not, the questions on the adoption of the substitute amendment offered by mr. smith.

as so many are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. the aye's have it. and the amendment is agreed to. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call up a package of amendments that have been worked -- >> just a second. now go ahead. now the question. the question is now on the adoption of the amendment as amended. >> do you have to? >> i thought we just did that. >> the question is now on the adoption of the amendment as amended. so many in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. the aye's have it. the amendment is agreed to.

>> mr. chairman asks unanimous consent to call up an m-block package of amendments that have been worked and approved by the minority side. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk please pass out the amendment to be offered on block. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes after we get the amendment passed out.

>> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes to slain his amendment. >> i call up the tactical air and land forces package number 1 comprise to have had following, an amendment by mr. franks that would report language regarding improvements to army vehicles to include thermal prevention and report language reporting aircraft survivability amendment and an amendment by mr. and drews that would require a report on the vertical lift consortium. and an amendment by mr. and drews that would authorize the program to develop and flight demonstrate vertical lift platform technologies. an amendment by myself that would clarify section 214 in the subcommittee mark regarding ground and dismount moving target indicator air force aircraft to apply only to manned systems. and an amendment by mr. and

drews that would amend report language regarding the joint tactical radio system. >> any discussion of the amendment? the question is on adoption of the amendment, offered by mr. bartlett. so many as are in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. the aye's visit. the amendment is agreed to. if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett, for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces as amended. >> the questions on the motion, the gentleman from maryland, so many in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. the quorum being present, the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on strategic forces pursuant to

committee rule 17 and a consultation with the ranking member. we'll postpone all of the recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chairman recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee mr. turner for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank also my ranking member ms. sanchez for her cowork on this mark. we've worked hand in hand with full transparency with the minority at a time when we all open the newspaper and every day hear the threats of north korea and iran and the increased concern that we all have for the ability of other states to place the united states at risk and our homeland at risk. our bill takes up the issue of the defense of our homeland, and also the issues of sustaining a nuclear deterrent and the important aspects of missile defense. the bill also authorizes defense

nuclear cleanup activities within the department of energy's environmental management program. the mark directs nsa to seek cost analysis and estimate by the dod office of cost assessment and program evaluation cape for nuclear warhead life extension programs and new facility construction. it limits the availability of a portion of funding for evolved expandable launch program until the air force provides a report on the acquisition strategy and achieves substantial cost savings and provides opportunities for competition. i want to thank again my ranking member's support and her past statements at our hearings and briefs on the subject of reform for the national nuclear security administration. we both agree that needs to happen there are opportunities for large efficiency savings that we can place right back into the important issue of protecting our national security. i know the administration has been slow in trying to figure out its path forward. but i understand that the strategic forces mark is accelerating its process. our effort here is to begin and

initiate the discussion and dialogue so we can find real solutions for savings and maintaining our important infrastructure. the national academy strategic posture commission and others have found nnsa is simply broken. with the agency responsible for insuring the safety, reliability and credibility deterrent, and they're not able to accurately tell what's it will cost to do that such as the w-76 budget request this year, something has gone horribly awry. the last time congress took up a comprehensive look at this subject under the leadership of mr. thornberry, i know ms. sanchez and i worked very hard on this issue. we need to realize the bill alone is not going to solve all the problems with the nsa and dod, but will take leadership in the administration on capitol hill. we believe this is a start. and again, i want to thank if gentle lady from california for her assistance. >> now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee on strategic forces. gentle lady from california, ms.

sanchez for any comments she would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to begin by thanking mr. turner and actually all of our subcommittee members for their leadership and the contribution to our subcommittee in this new session of the congress. it's a pleasure to work with all of you, especially in such a bipartisan manner. overall, i am pleased to support the strategic forces mark. i would like to comment briefly on the importance of protecting national security in a constrained budget environment. the bipartisan view on the national nuclear security administration programs, particularly in light of the ratification last year of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and missile defense. first i'd like to note that this mark contains important provisions that advanced national security while also promoting fiscal responsibility, such as improving satellite operations and supporting the air force's space acquisition

strategy by supporting a block by fix price contracting approach. by assuring sufficient production and sustainment schedules for missile defense and for the nuclear enterprise. by conducting oversight of large scale construction programs and building on good progress related to improving efficiencies at our nuclear sites. and implementing the new s.t.a.r.t. nuclear reduction programs. secondly, the subcommittee mark recommends full funding for nnsa atomic energy defense programs, reflecting our bipartisan partnership that led all the members, all the members of the strategic forces subcommittee to sign a letter to the budget committee chairman in march emphasizing the national security importance of supporting nuclear nonproliferation efforts as well as maintaining a reliable, safe, and effective nuclear deterrent. the mark also supports full funding for continuing much

needed progress on nuclear environmental cleanup at hanford, washington, and at other contaminated sites. third, we agree on the need for effective and proven missile defenses based on operational testing to defend our homeland, our deployed troops and our allies against missile threats, but make no mistake of it, we do have our policy disagreements. we disagree on the need for $100 million of funding increase over the budget request for ground-based mid course defense which was included in the mark. and i intend to offer an amendment to post the increase in full committee. i'm also aware of concerns about certain funding cuts in the mark. i look forward to having and engaging debates with my colleagues on missile defense provisions and policy. these are important national security issues on which we have differences, and we must have an informed and merited