northeastern part of the united states. so this was a briefing -- based on a -- analysis that was -- called for by the -- by this committee. and in previous nndas, congress said do this study that if did this study. this is what they came up with. also -- the commander of northcom in '07 and '08 recommended such a site. so there have been top military official in our dod that have agreed this is a sound idea. so it is a good investment. it's, the time has come for this, and considering the alternatives it would be a prudent thing to do. i would urge everyone's support, thank you, mr. chairman the i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair yields to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr.

chairman. mr. chairman, first let me say it is very difficult to add much to the substance of mr. turner's response. first a few observations. a lot of us are familiar with the civil war, john sedgewick that was trying to upbraid some of his younger soldiers there for dodging bullets. and his comments, i'm told among his last words were they couldn't hit an elephant at this distance. and he was killed about a second later. and -- it is always astonishing to me that -- that we kind of cavalierly suggest that we don't need a redundancy when it comes to missile defense against dang has ever devised. i don't think one has to be a missile defense or nuclear expert to be able to suggest that a nuclear warhead going off in your backyard is a fairly negative development. it is always astonishing to me

that when we have this debate that we overlook the fact that our system is the only tested system that we have that defends the homeland against intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warhead the most dangerous weapons again in the history of man kind. and, mr. chairman, it wasn't mr. turner who suggested that the president had a secret deal with russia. it was the president who suggested that on nationwide tv to what he thought was a dead microphone. >> would the gentleman yield for a question? >> i will yield momentarily. >> just for the record, what the president said was that after the elect heion he would have m flexibility. >> you're still yielding. i'm not quite done. it will be one more second. >> he did not say we have got a deal and we will go ahead and get it done after the election. he said he would have more flexibility fee

flexibility. >> reclaiming my time. reclaiming my time. >> is completely wrong and simply not helpful to this process. >> mr. smith, let me suggest to you, sir, that anybody who believes the president wasn't trying to prevent the american people from understanding that he didn't want them to know about that comment is simply either naive or deceiving the people themselves. and the notion that -- that when we are trying to do what we can to defend this country, from the likes of iran and from the likes of north korea and not needing a redundancy, i don't, i wouldn't think would be a major point of debate in a committee like this. as far as the ultimate ability of us to have a redundancy on the east coast you, don't need to be an expert there either. there is clearly an advantage to having a site on the east coast, we have been, briefed by a number of different people

inside the military and experts outside the military. that there is an added protection to this country for that reason. now, let me just say this, mr. chairman, and i am through. it is my hope that people like us that have advocated for this, east coast additional site will have to apologize some day to the american people for building something we didn't need. i hope we do. but i hope we never have to apologize for not doing the best we could when we had the chance. and this notion that we don't -- build a defense against a potential incoming ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead on it until it reaches, is not a real good plan. and mr. chairman, i hope that our colleagues vote down this amendment with the strongest resolve. and with that i yield back. >> gethe schachair recognizes t gentleman from georgia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i'm sorry that we have sunk to the level of partisan politics in this committee which traditionally has tried to operate without going too far down that road. and i'm sorry that we have now embarked upon a -- you know, upon this path. it's unfortunate. i think we need to get up out. it quickly. but it's -- it's hard for me to -- ignore the irony of -- what we are doing here. talking about wasteful spending that contributes to the -- to the debt and the deficit of this country, why would we fry to scare people about north korea and iran when everybody knows that they're not capable of mounting a -- an attack against

us. and then we are going to put up a -- a star wars shield which is unneeded and it's unproven. that's just the epitome of wasteful spending. and while we are -- talking about -- wastefully spending more money on defense we are -- debating the -- the republican reconciliation bill that is going to cut social spending for poor people and working people, elderly, and -- and children. and but shield defense spending. and now we are going to -- put some more wasteful spending on top of that. it is -- it's -- this is not, this is not good. now i think we can talk about

this without -- without kind of punching each other around. and hitting each other with low blows. and that kind of thing. i think we can talk about these policies. but it is ironic that -- that we are trying to scare people -- into supporting a wasteful expenditure and then taking away food stamps, taking away medicaid benefits, and taking away other -- other benefits from people who cannot do for themselves without that help at a period of great unemployment, trying to climb out of this economic downturn that we are in, and you know, it -- this -- this is crazy. so i, i want us to get back on track, doing the business that

this committee normally does in a business slilike manner and l debate these issues without personal attack. and let's think about holistically what we are doing here. i think the american people can understand what we are doing. they see it. and let any, let's all -- try to -- be the kind of representative that our people want us s to be. thank you. >> gentleman yields back. the chair yields to the gentleman from new jersey, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you. i -- i just want few to revisit issue that those who have led us s to s to the support of the east coast site. the u.s. commander in '07 recommended such a site. this recommendation is not, the recommendation of the current

administration that saw instead to move to a european phased adaptive approach. the gao recently issued a report calling into question the president's plan of the european phase adaptive approach as to whether or not the president's missile, the 2 b that was expected to -- by the president's time line be available by 2020 would have capabilities necessary to protect the united states. so it falls away as an alternative leaving us with the additional vulnerability. the president, his own phase adaptive approach recognized more was needed besides just, vandenberg air force base in california, alaska west coast sites. in pursuing the approach. the east coast site. and in addition to being supported by the u.s. northern commander in 2007, 2008. swa they have examined potential contribution of an east coast

missile defense site and the studies have recommended that work begin on the development and deployment of such a site. that's what we are doing is beginning of assessment and plan. there is no site identified. it is moving forward so we can meet the future risk, not today's risk. the future risk we all know is cuppi coming and that all have acknowledged. national academy stated as explained in answer six our recommended homeland defense system would include an interceptor base in the northeastern part of the united states. that site would receive the first installments of the new homeland defense interceptor. the subcommittee has been briefed by both entities on their findings which were the product of work they completed per our congressional mandates. let me make that clear the we asked them to tell us what we should do. and all we are doing is doing that. national academy study also shows, carried forward concerned

of the missile which the other studies with the gao have, have, also identified. i want to go back a moment to what the president said. because i think it is very clear, ranking member smith, raised the issue he said after the election i will have more flexibility. that is, a secret deal with the russians, he said i will tell vladamir, putin discussion would continue as if the messenger was going to carry back the description from the president. what was so frightening to everybody in the american public was that the president would say i am going to till you, russian president, my real position on missile defense that i can't tell the american public that i will tell you and after the election i'll bow abe able to t everybody and have more flexibility team. we don't think we should be guided by the president's secret plan with the russians, to diminish our missile defense. we believe we should follow, the u.s. northern commander from

2007/,0 20 2007, 2008, and all intellectual experts that have looked at this and said the risk is real. iran and north korea continue to gain capability that is going to reach the united states. we have to act now to respond to that. as we look to 2015 for the prospects of having that capability available, we will be glad that we did. i cannot imagine sitting in this committee and being a member of the committee, in 2015, looking at an icbm capable iran, icbm capable korea and say "i could have put something there to protect the united states but i decided not to because i thought they might not get there fast enough." we need to get there fast enough. we should owe pose the president secret deal with the russians, oppose this amendment, and support missile defense and the national security of our homeland. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair now yields to mr. andrews. the gentleman from new jersey.

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have two things i think going on here simultaneously. we have a diversionary political discussion and we have an important substantive question. the diversionary political discussion is this alleged secret deal the president has with the russians. everyone agrees what he said was "i will have more flexibility after the election." i think what's gone on for the last 30 minutes shows how candid and correct the president was. in the environment of the u.s. political campaign, lots of things are said that create impressions and misimpressions that create political, political environment that a president is going to have sop dme difficult operating within. this discussion is proof positive of the validity of the point. to return to the serious discussion. i think there are two points of agreement here. i don't think there is a member

of this committee that wants to subject the people of this country, no matter where they live, to the serious threat of a nuclear weapon raining down on that area of the country. no one wants to see that happen. everyone is committed to doing what we can do about that. the second thing i think people would agree with -- is that -- the testing tend to show that the, the ground based system, that this east coast strategy in please has had at best s a checkered record of test success. in fact i think it had a rather dismal record. so what would we do? the prudent thing, certainly is to asosume, someday, some one my have capability and in ttentiono fire an icbm across the atlantic ocean and hit the united states of america. it would be imprudent to dismiss that discussion. but it would be equally imprudent to rush to fill this perceived void by spending

billions of scarce dollars or something that doesn't work when you have something that does work that you could use in such an event. let's assume for a moment that -- tomorrow, the intelligence community walked into the oval office and said, you know we, forgot to tell you something. but there is a foreign power that could hit us, with an icbm over the atlantic ocean, that we haven't really looked at very carefully. here's what we would do. just over a year ago. april 15, 2011, the uss, stationed west of hawaii was involved in a test mission. what happened was -- we launched a, an unarmed icbm from the marshall island, 2,300 miles away, approximately, from where the ship was. within 11 minutes, with existing technology, the ship detected the trajectory of the icbm, shortly there after it activated

and launched an sm-3 bloc 1-a missile and hit the missile in the sky and knocked it down. we can dupe this today. with our existing technology. since 2002, 21 of the 25 tests have had a successful result. since 2001, 45 of the 58 tests have had a successful result. if we had an immediate crisis-- the imprudent thing to do would be to rush and spend billions of dollars on something that doesn't work. the prudent, practical, available option would be to deploy this regional technology, based on ship board, based on the aegis radar system and use it if we had to. if we should be talking about anything, it should be expanding that capability at the same time in an intelligence, analytical way we further develop ground based systems. that's a rational response to a

real problem. this is a political response to a campaign problem, the amendment should be approved for that reason. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair now yields to the gentleman from washington, ranking member smith. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to take one minute to emphasize the two things mr. andrews said. we are not talking about whether we should protect the country. we are talking about the fact that the proposal in this amendment by, in the bill, by mr. turner, is to, fund a system that currently isn't working. when in fact there is a better alternative. it is up to $5 billion to be spent on suck thomething that i the best strategy. >> will the gentleman yield? >> let me make the second point. >> it is worth emphasizing you can see how politics enters into this when you translate a benign comment like we will have more flexibility after the election into the factual existence of

some very detailed secret deal. it is precisely that political nonsense the president was referring to and in which we have seen on display again today unfortunately when we ought to be working on the substance of the issue which is what mr. andrews said. i would be happy to yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you, ranging member smith. >> there have been a lot of statements on the system not work wg. i want to call on our staff members for a moment to help us in this. there have been famed tests of certain portions of systems. in fact, the sm-1, a and b tests, the sm-3 tests, mr. andrews, perhaps were not icbm tesz th tests. we are dealing with information that is perhaps a little inprecise. we address that in this bill by putting more funding in in order to fix the issues. and for a moment. >> reclaim might time. for just one quick second.

but the systems that mr. andrews is referring to work like all of the time. at this point. and have tested, very, very well. >> that is not true either. the 1 a and 1 b tests of smb failed. so, could you, drive-through quick, on what works and what has difficulties yet? >> mr. turner, it's correct that ftm 15, a test of the 1 a missile failed. and that ftm 16, test of 1 b missile failed. the gmd system is ce 1 and ce 2 interceptors. ce 1 interceptors are 3-3 in their tests. ce 2 interceptors, have failed the last two tests. >> how many -- >> it is my time, if i may. how many of each, the 1 and 2 on the, ce, last one you said, do we have at this point? >> mr. smith, we have 20, ce 1

interceptors. we have 10, ce interceptors. >> are we bidding cb 1s? >> no. >> cb 2s -- >> sorry, that was inappropriate for staff. i apologize. i yield back my time. >> yes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would look to yield from the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. >> mr. chairman. a quick correction here. i believe i heard mr. andrews suggest that the -- that the sm 3 bloc 1 a would be the answer to this problem. as i understand the sm 3 bloc 1 a would have to be stationed pretty perfectly to consistently

approach speeds of an icbm to be effective. i understand, we debated this when weep were talking about the european site, and the, the aegis -- deployment that i believe mr. andrews is talking about -- indicated under the, cost test s to be much, much higher than steel silos instead of stationing a ship and having it in that place that the, the silos with the gmd in ttercepto was less costly. i would look to clarify, bloc 1 a, something on the sm 3 bloc 1 a would be an effective defense on the east coast for, for icbms? >> mr. franks, the sm 31 a. >> sm 3 bloc 1 a? >> yes. tested against short-range. ballistic missiles and medium range ballistic missiles.

it has not been tested against icbms. >> would the gentleman yield, my friend from arizona? >> yes. my source for my comments is a release from the missile defense agency, dated april 15, 2011. and i invite the other members. ask unanimous consent it be added in the record with a markup. is that appropriate at this time? >> no objection. so order. >> in lay person's terms. i will refer to you, i am a lay person. i will defer to you experts. sound to me that -- you know, they fired a missile. >> mr. chairman. >> from 2400 miles away. and a missile defense system mounted on a ship. knocked the missile out of the sky. >> reclaiming my type there is no one that has a hypigher opinn of the aegis system that than i do. everything i have learned about the aegis sm 3 bloc 1 a is that in order for it to be successful against an icbm there has to be

almost an ideal telemetry, situation for tight be effective. the gmd, a much more robust, faster missile, and able to catch as it were, icbms. now with the later sm 3s. we have added advantages. but right now i want to get our facts right. because in this situation, i guess the overall, point i am troug frying to make sheer here is no have redundancy or make a mistake has profound implications. with that i would yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes. >> thank you, mr. chairman the i would look to yield to chairman turner from ohio. >> thank you the i want to thank everybody for the yielding back and forth that occurred for this discussion. everyone has been, incredibly polite and ensuring we can get to what is the substance of the systems that we have, and what works and doesn't work. i want to make certain we didn't end the debate with leaving people with the impression that

we had a system that didn't work. i called on staff to give us the detail. the significant investment in a system that absolutely has been tested and absolutely works. there are problems with the stretches, of the system as we try to m plimplement new technologies, we'll get those right. when we do we will have greater capability. what i would lock ike to offer e end the debate. i would be glad to host a classified briefing that our b subcommittee can invite every member, what the capabilities are, what they aren't. and the information we believe we recall. we can have the experts, and you can learn as my subcommittee members learned, this stuff works, this stuff is important, the threat is real. we would be glad to host that. we certainly will invite all of you to hear from the experts what works. i yield back. >> will the gentleman? >> gentleman yields back. the chair now yields to the gentle lady from california, ms. davis. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i would look to yield now to ms. sanchez, the ranking chair on sis s this subject. >> i thank you. i mean it is a very technical issue that we are talking about. and some of this is some what classified. but, you know for somebody to think that a -- a missile can be shot from north korea and reach the east coast or any portion of it, you know you just have to look at the math of it to know that's not what the east coast should worry about. should they worry about iran? there is just a small portion. talk drag jektoing trajectory, position a ship to shoot this down. the whole east coast is also not exposed on this. so, you know, if you are going to start throwing in technical pieces, let any get this right.

the second thing is that this technology from ground-based systems has had only 8 out of 17 tries have worked. that's not -- that's not a good percentage. and to think somehow that when we shoot that missile in that test that it is in the conditions of what would be coming from north korea, or from iran, if they had the technology, if they had a nuclear warhead, is incorrect. because we don't put it, the speed, we know exactly where it is coming from, we have little sensors that say, here i am. here i am. come and get me. and we are still -- not shooting it down. these systems are not as robust, mr. chairman, as you suggest.

>> will the gentlelady yield? >> i will in a minute. so to be putting in a system that is not as robust, and that is the way i am going to put it. because the i don't want to go into spilling all of the guts about everything we are doing -- you have only one thing to look at. general o'reilly has said, i need to go back with my team and get this technology right. and heap has asked and lapd out the fastest plan that we can, which will take two years at best to see if we should go down that road and we can get a system that is as robust as somehow you are suggesting to people on the east coast that we could shoot these things down. and i will yield -- i will yield to the young lady and i think he might want a little bit of time.

>> will the gentlelady yield? >> thank you for yielding. >> just very quickly. my amendment does not say don't do it. it says do it in a rational and staged way. the amendment is very, very clear. i'm just going to take a couple second to cover it. it eliminates the 2015. >> will the gentleman yield. can you show where the word rational is in the amendment, it just says the word strike. strike. section 223. there is nothing about rational. >> mr. turn in, you and i have had the opportunity to work many, many days together. i would like to do that in a way that doesn't get personal. >> i'm reading the language. that's not personal. it says strike, 223. >> you are, correct. sir. there is a second amendment that does it differently. we'll take that up in ape few minutes. my apologies. >> gentleman yield back.

>> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> the chair now yields to the gentleman from texas -- from florida, mr. miller. >> thank you very much more yielding, mr. chairman the i yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. miller. thank you, mr. chairman. i am very concerned when there are statements made that there is no threat and that the systems do not work. because even though we have the benefit of classified briefings, that of course contradict all that, which we can't bring forward in these hearings, there are enough luckily, nonclassified statements of information that we can bring forward to contradict the statements of -- it doesn't work there is no threat. one of which is secretary gates himself. who said that -- north korea's, capabilities, that they are seeking -- absolutely threaten the continental united states.