in closing, again, i reiterate, mr. chairman, what a pleasure it was to work with all the members of the subcommittee. >> the gentle lady yields back. >> and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> before entertaining amendments, is there any discussion on the subcommittee report? gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. schuster is recognized for fife minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just wanted to thank you and chairman turner for preventing the wasteful spending of $400 million for the meads program which the president requested in this year's budget. as moses of us recall, dod canceled that program in 2006. and last year, we put in $400 million to be the final obligation, or to close out for the program. but again, the president didn't see it that way and put it in his budget. so, again, i want to thank you for not including the 400 million in the bill. the gao estimates we've already spent $3.2 billion on a missile

system that we're never going to actually buy. and the state department and the dod say that because of the memorandum of understanding, we need to proceed with this or continue this program. but that memorandum of understanding with germany and italy includes an escape klaus, an amendment that allows them to withdraw if congress does not authorize or appropriate the program, which we're doing. so once again, i think a wise decision on our part to make sure this funding is not in there. we have a system that we need to continue to advance, and that's the patriot system. the department of defense needs to focus and modernize the patriot system, which we will be utilizing and in service until 2040. so again, i just want to thank chairman turner and chairman mckeon for making sure that we did not include that in this year's bill. so thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman yields back. any other discussion on the package? okay. mr. turner is recognized for the

purpose of introducing a.m. an amendment. >> i ask coop sent to call up amendments that have been work and approved. >> without objection, so ordered. will the clerk pass out amendments to be offered enblock. without any objection, the reading of the amendments will be dispensed with. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes for the purpose of explaining his en bloc amendment. >> it is comprise to have had

following, an amendment by mr. larson regarding changes to the directive report language, amended regarding title 9, an amendment by mr. heinrich to amend section 3119. four amendments by myself, one regarding an insertion into the directive report language. a second to amend section 1234. a third regarding title 2. and the fourth regarding title 9. an amendment by mr. larson regarding title 10. an amendment by ms. sanchez to men's section 4701. an amendment by mr. brooks regarding an amendment to the directive report language. i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> the gentle lady from california. >> i'd like an opportunity to speak on then bloc. thank you. the purpose of amendment 138 on the purpose of missile exports technology.

>> ms. morrison, would you provide to mr. sanchez? >> the amendment, number 138 deals with a report by dod on countries that receive u.s. defense assistance and their exports of technology related to missiles and space technologies. >> so let me just clarify. it's a compliance report? >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you very much. thank you. i'd also like to thank the chairman for working with me on a $27 million increase for nuclear nonproliferation efforts to secure vulnerable materials in the global threat reduction initiative, which will help reduce the risk of nuclear terrorism. this brings this program back to fiscal year '12 levels.

and i'm pleased to offer this amendment with mr. langevin, mr. larson, mr. garamendi. i'm grateful that you put it in the en bloc, and i yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. is there any other discussion? >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman? >> gentleman from arizona, mr. frank is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just very briefly, i noticed in the en bloc amendment, that there didn't seem to be the space-based interceptor language that we had been told would be in the en bloc. and we have a separate amendment prepared for that. i just wanted for clarification if i could yield to mr. turner to give me any perspective on that. >> could you repeat that? >> mr. franks, that's in a second en bloc package. >> it's a second one. forgive me. never mind, as the lady said. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> any other discussion?

gentleman from new jersey, andrews is recognized. >> yes. i'd like the thank you and the chairman and ranking member sanchez for some help with an issue that i wanted to engage in a short colloquy with the subchairman committee mr. turner on. mr. turner, i would like to thank you for including language that provides critical oversight of the joint space operation center mission program. i think it's very important that the department meet the requirements of the war fighter and improve this program's current capabilities while maximizing cost-effectiveness by leveraging readily available government and commercial capabilities to the fullest extent practical. i would like to ask my friend the subcommittee chairman for his commitment to continue working with us on oversight activities of this important program. i would yield to the chairman. >> andrews, you do have my commitment to work with you on the oversight efforts of the joint space operations center mission program, and i

appreciate your valuable contributions and your efforts to this. i look forward to the future work. >> as i do. thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield back. >> is there further deblate on the en bloc amendment? if not, the questions on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. turner, so many are as in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> opposed, no. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. are there further amendments? mr. garamendi? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do have an amendment. >> the clerk please pass out the amendment. without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.

chair now recognize the gentleman for the purposes of offering and explaining his amendment. >> mr. chairman, this amendment deals with the question of a missile defense site on the east coast. at a time when we hear so much discussion in these halls and around the nation about the deficit and the need to address the deficit, the question arises why we would want to initiate a program that would ultimately spend well over $5 billion on a program that at this point the u.s. military does not believe is necessary. general jacoby in testimony to

the armed services committee stated that a missile defense site on the east coast is not necessary. yet the bill before us would provide that by 2015, a missile defense facility has to be built on the east coast. and it also appropriates at this time $100 million to get that under way. let's face it. if we're going to deal with the deficit, then we're going to have to also be very wise and only spend money on those things that are absolutely essential. this is not. this missile defense is presumably to deal with iran. iran does not have an icbm now. there is considerable question as to whether they could or would produce some. and if they were, they would have to have a nuclear weapon, unless they're going to deliver marshmallows to the east coast. so we need to be very careful how we spend our money.

it's been very, very clear from this administration that iran will not be able to build a nuclear weapon. so they don't have a weapon, and they don't have a missile. so why are we spending at least $5 billion on a system that in and of itself is questionable? clearly, if we're going to spend money, we ought to make sure the technology works. some questions about whether this technology would work against a sophisticated icbm. the indication it does not work against a sophisticated ibm that has multiple warheads an multiple decoy. we need to get the technology right before we spend the money. my amendment would say we can move forward with some planning, and that's it. but the decision about deploying a missile defense system on the east coast would be left until later. and in the meantime, let's deal with the deficit and not spend our money foolishly and initiate

in this bill a commitment for an additional $5 billion. it's not 100 million, folks. this requires that this be built within the next four -- three years. so that's the amendment. i'd ask for support. and i yield back my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes gentleman from ohio, mr. turner for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in opposition to the amendment. i first want to begin by thanking mr. garamendi for being the spokesperson for opposing an east coast site being one of the few members of the armed services committee that lives with less than 300 miles from a missile defense silo that has four missiles in it. i'm certain that the people on the east coast would like to enjoy similarly the type of protection that exists near mr. garamendi's district. those missiles i'd think he would not say are unnecessary.

>> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, may i for a moment. >> i want to finish. i'd be glad to give you time. everyone knows that the emerging threat from north korea and iran is an emerging threat, as we see an emerging threat, we need to respond to it in the future. this is a provision that would provide for our having a capability in the future. you mentioned general jacobi's statement. he said today we do not need this capability. he did not say we do not need this capability in the future. in fact, the national academies in presenting their report to us indicated that in fact these eemergencying risks will require an east coast site. this is really all about geometry. because i think everybody who lives in the united states understands that if the east coast is at threat from iran, they don't want to wait for a missile to come from mr. garamendi's district all the way across the united states to try

to respond to that threat. they want something that is going to be there quicker, that is going to have an opportunity to respond. all of our open source intelligence indicates that iran could have the capability by 2015, ergo, the language that we have in the bill that has the precipitation for this site to meet the threat of 2015. i don't think anybody wants to gamble the united states' security by saying that our adversaries who have stated the intention of having icbm technology for the purposes of reaching mainland united states are going to be so slow that we can just wait. we can't wait. this has a rolling time period within which to get done. you cannot just flick a switch and have a missile defense field. we need to get started. now, the president of the united states has a different view. we all know from his little open mike episode that there apparently is a secret deal with the russians where the president believes he is going to have greater flexibility after the

election. and perhaps there might be members of this committee on the other side who want to support that greater flexibility with the president. i think most of us on this committee, though, a majority believe that we should not be responding to a secret deal with the russians, but responding to the real needs we have of national security, and that is we need to proceed with missile defense whether or not this president wants to or not. when you look at the issue of geometry, when you look at the issue of emerging threat, when you look at the open source intelligence, it all convenes with the same conclusion. 2015 the united states could be at risk for icbm threat from iran. an east coast site would been an essential component to defending the united states, the continental united states. and i would certainly hope that everyone would vote against this amendment and would vote to sustain our commitment to missile defense, even if this president will not. and with that, mr. garamendi, i would be glad to yield you some time. >> i appreciate that you need

not put this into a personal situation. the fact of the matter is that the issue of the north korea missiles is dealt with by the alaska facility. now with regard to the east coast, sir, you and i both know that it would take a missile from iran, which presumably is the only reason for this, it's clear that the russian icbms cannot be defended against by this system. it doesn't work for that threat. and so you're looking at only at the issue of iran. does iran have an icbm? no, they don't. could they build one? it's not in process. does north korea have one that works? no, they don't either. does iran have a warhead that would present a threat to us? no, they don't. this president has been very, very clear, they will not, and i would assume that should he not be president next year, the next president would also say the same thing. no, they will not have one.

>> reclaiming my time, mr. garamendi. >> don't make it personal, sir. this is not about the west coast, but expenditure of american money. >> closure of the missile defense site that is within 300 miles of your district. i similarly think the people on the east coast believe that we should have a robust protection as we look to iran and the emerging threat. i certainly hope the people will vote to defeat the garamendi amendment, and not support the president's perhaps secret deal to diminish our missile defense capability. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back, the chair now recognizes the gentle lady from california, mr. sanchez for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to ask my colleagues to support this amendment by representative garamendi. to begin with, mr. garamendi is correct when he says there is no current or near-term threat from iran or north korea. we have to remember that.

the current plans that we have, and particular with respect to russia, going back to what mr. my colleague from ohio said, has nothing to do with the east coast. russia is worried about europe and having missile defense in europe. they're not worried about our homeland and what we're doing here. so i think to even suggest and introduce that issue into this debate is unfair and very personal. and i don't think it's a necessary thing to do. i mean, let's go with the facts. there isn't anything right now or in the near-term future to reach the east coast in that way. and you and i can debate. we can think about, we can assume, we can strategize as to what is going on with iran. but it's our military leaders and our intelligence community

that is telling us that the threats they see now and in the near future suggest that we do not require an east coast missile field. and we have to also remember about the costs. you're talking about -- i mean this is millions of dollars you're asking to begin this process. but it's a 5 or $6 billion project. and if you're really interested in having a sound policy and in putting our money where we need to, the place we should be putting it into is before building a new missile defense site, we should invest in improving reliability and discrimination for interceptors and sensors. it's a much more cost-effective solution to provide a better defense. in fact, this is the recommendation of a recent nas

report and ida report. the technology of putting something on the east coast is not the technology that's the best thing to do. we should invest in trying to make missile system work and be robust before we go and build a third site. so i would ask my colleagues to vote for the garamendi amendment. and i will yield back. >> the gentle lady yields back. the chair now yields to the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett. five minutes. >> thank you. i want to thank mr. turner for taking the time last evening to discuss this issue with me on the floor. we keep watching for north korea and iran to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile which will reach us. and we perceive there is no real threat to us until they have done that. i would suggest that's not really the threat, that the

threat is very eminent now. i spent three days in north korea, and these people may be evil, they are not idiots. and launched from their soil, they know of an absolute certainty, our satellites would pick that up. within about 30 minutes they would be vaporized. they are real threats. the threat is not that they're going to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile from their soil, the threat is they're going to launch a shorter range missile from a ship off our coast. then the ship will be sunk and fingerprints will be difficult to find. so, we really, really need missile protection on our east coast. i don't know whether a single site of, whether geometry would permit that to protect us up and down the coast or not. and i would be more sanguine with a, an amendment that said we were going to study the needs

for ballistic missile defense on the east coast rather than committing the money to -- to an environmental impact study for a specific site. because it may require more than one site and indeed the -- the preferred, defense might be more ships off our coast. until you have done the study i don't know what the right solution would be. i am going to vote for an amendment that says that we need to be looking at the east coast because i think we really are at risk there. it is not a risk of intercontinental ballistic missile. shot from iran. they're not going to do that. they're not suicidal i believe. it is a risk from a missile from a ship, much shorter range and therefore, the geometry, the curvature of the earth may require that we have more than one defense site on the east coast. philosophically we need to defend ourselves. the threat is more imminent than you might imagine. we don't have to wait until they have an intercontinental

ballistic missile. a scud launcher, crude nuclear weapon and tramp steamer is all they need. it could be a nonstate actor. pastime that we looked at defending our east coast the i support the philosophy, i am not sure the money ought to be spent on environmental impact study that's asomethisomething we can in conference. i yield back. >> the chair now yields. the gentleman from pennsylvania. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to express my support of the amendment. and in this time of -- fiscal issues i think it is about the prudent use of our resources i've listened intently as mr. bart let spoke from a scientific point of view is that the threat of a missile being fired from iran is probably not what we should be looking to, but -- a

threat from maybe ship-based. if i remember correctly, i sort of remember, president reagan, asking, or not asking, but demanding that gorbachev tear that war down. so the cold war is over. i am not sure abut any secret deals the president has or flexibility. i don't think that has any bearing on this argument, just serves to confuse and muddy the waters. and with that i am, i want to speak strongly in a time of when we should be more prudent with the dollars that we are spending. to offer my strong support of the amendment and i yield the rest of my remaining time. >> i thank you, mr. crist. everyone in this room, including those from the west coast, spend nearly 3/4 of our days here on the east coast. so our personal concern is no

less than any other permanent resident. and we all care deeply about every american citizen. so it is rather disingenuous and incorrect to make an argument that those on the west coast are not concerned about the east coast. >> i claim my time for one minute to make sure that everyone is aware that i am on pennsylvania, the east coast, i have a geographic expertise that exists here. >> i thank you. yes, we recognize that, as do ko league ko -- as do colleagues on both sides of me. and mr. bartlet pointed out the more immediate threat and threat for days to come, this missile defense system is not at all appropriate for short-range missiles that might be fired off the coast in any manner or way, in a container night arrive at one of our ports. that's where the big risk is to be found. the national academy of science did look into this missile defense system and it clearly

stated it is not ready. it doesn't work well and only in the last two attempts have failed. so, we really need to spend our money here if we are going to spend it at all, to spend it on making sure this thing works rather than putting a bunch of missiles in the ground that really cannot hit an incoming icbm warhead. we ought to be very cognizant that to insert into this debate about this, the presidential campaign is not worthy of our time. and to suggest that the president has some secret deal going, is really a nice campaign -- talking point, but has nothing to do with the issue that is before us. the issue before us is whether we ought to spend $5 billion in the next three years putting in place s a missile defense system that a , doesn't work, b, is

defending against a nonexisting threat. could threat come to pass at some point in the future? perhaps it could. but, it's not there now. it's not going to be there in the next few years. we have time to deal with that. if it were to come to pass. let me it rate, again, that the president has been very clear about the nuclear threat from iran. no way, no how. that's our policy. and it's actually in another section of this bill. so, what are we defending against here? north korea? the missiles in -- that may or may not work in alaska? are specifically designed to deem with nor deal with north korea where they're targeted. as are the missiles in vandenberg. not only to protect the west coast. they're mid range missiles, that is midair, halfway here. wherever they may be going.

so, we got a missile system that is $5 billion. not necessary to defend against, that may or may not work, that is to defend against a nonexistent threat. let me also say that the russian missiles are highly sophisticated, and this does, this system does not work againstthe highly sophisticated missal? why are we spending the money? i will let those that vote for this decide that question. we ought to be concerned about the deficit. we ought to not unnecessarily spend defense money. i yield back the time kindly given to me. >> the gentman from klgentleman for five minutes. >> i could not disagree more. we have heard some of the same briefings. though we haven't all been there for all of the same briefings, unfortunately. but, yes, there would be an expense to this. but the alternative would be

much more expensive. and we all know that iran is not capable today of this kind of threat. but i think we should all agree that they are working to -- to achieve the capability of having nuclear weapons and having interballistic misses that if have tested intercontinental ballistic missiles. and we know they have sen centrufuges spinning away. there is a threat in the future given their clear intentions. so, there would be a deterrence effect. if we could, successfully field an east coast site that would maybe have some deterrence. i don't know. but it would at least be an insurance policy.

protecting our largest population centers in the country from an iranian threat. the european phased approach is geared more for mid range threats. it's good as far as it goes. but it does not deal with intercontinental threats. so we need some kind of homeland defense. i think it is a wise investment. it is true deveprudent. it could beep co cost effective you look at anything attempted by some of the bad guys out there. and the institute for defense analysis and the national academies have done examinations of this. and let me state what the national academy stated and they did come and brief our subcommittee, not everyone was there, but -- it's, they said our recommended homeland defense system would include an interceptor base in the