it's also more than just putting money into operations and maintenance accounts. for example, cuts in in-strength can get us to a place where we can never fix readiness because there's not enough people to get the job done, and those we do have are getting worn out. and however good our maintainers are, there's only so much anybody can do to keep 30 and 40-year-old helicopters and airplanes flying. so that means end strength and procurement are a part of the readiness equation. starting to turn around our readiness shortfalls while staying within the total dollars

requested by the administration means that there's not enough money to fund fully the oco activities proposed by the president for the full year. there will be enough for roughly six months. but there will be a new president who undoubtedly will review the operational activities proposed by president obama as well as the funding for those activities. and the new president and the new congress will have the opportunity to make adjustments. by the way, that is exactly what occurred with the last change of administration. in 2008, this congress under democratic leadership passed a bridge fund that funded operations in afghanistan and iraq into part of the year 2009. then the obama administration came into office, re-evaluated what was going on, requested the supplemental. congress passed it, and the

activities continued. i think the best thing for us to do now is to ensure that whatever operational deployments, president obama or the next president sends our military out on that they are fully prepared and fully supported for those missions. the good work of the subcommittees coupled with the full committee mark accomplishes that goal, i think, and helps ensure that our military capability has both strength and agility, the two characteristics i think best summarize what is essential for protecting our country. it stops more cuts to the size of the army and adds small numbers to the air force and marines. it restores the full pay raise of 2.1% for all service members, which is what they should get under the statutory formula. it puts more money into facilities. it puts money into readiness accounts for depot and other maintenance and for training and for exercises. it responds to unfunded requirements of ammunition and a variety of weapons and

equipment. now, i don't mean to overstate, we are not going to fix readiness or the other problems we face in a single bill, but i will quote churchill to say this is not the end. this is not even the beginning of the end. but perhaps it is the end of the beginning, if we can turn it around. this bill also contains a number of other reform items which we'll discuss in more detail later. at this point, i just want to thank all the members who have contributed to the efforts to improve and update our acquisitions system, military health care, commissaries, uniform code of military justice and to improving and updating your organization or responsibilities of dod, including updating the 30-year-old goldwater-nichols act. those are five major reform packages that are before us

today, all of which make significant adjustments. i think our job is not just about allocating money, it's also about continuing to work to see that the taxpayers and our service members get more value for the money we spend and that updated technology is fielded faster and that our laws and institutions meet the challenges of the times. we're the largest committee in congress, and i realize some members may view their responsibilities differently. but i feel the weight of two duties, which the constitution places on our shoulders. one is to support our nation's security in a way that's consistent with the hopes, dreams and sacrifices of generations past, present and future. the other duty is to support the men and women who volunteer to serve in the armed services. if we can do our duty with the same kind of dedication and commitment and strength of

purpose that they do their duty, then we will have done our job. i yield to mr. smith for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to thank the chairman and the members of this committee as well for all the hard work that they've done in putting together this bill. every single member of this committee has contributed to it and contributed to it exactly in the spirit that the chairman just closed his remarks with, to meet our duty to make sure that the men and women who serve in the military have the equipment they need to do what we ask them to do and are as best prepared as is possible. and i think we are genuinely trying to do that in this bill. i also agree with the chairman that the threat environment has perhaps never been more complex for the united states, from russia to iran to the threat of various violent extremist groups to north korea and on and on. it is a very, very complex threat environment out there, and it's complex in part because the u.s. has been since world war ii the guarantor of security

for much of the globe, certainly for south korea and japan and for other parts of the world. and i know there are some who say why are we out there, you know, taking on responsibilities for at nations. i actually think it's worked quite well. if you'll go back in history, in world war i and world war ii, before those wars, we took an isolationist approach. not our problem. we don't want to be involved. we don't want to be out there. and we both know how those ended. we wound up in wars that were very, very costly. so being the guarantor of national security, or security across the globe since world war ii, it has worked out reasonably well. but the threat environment is complex and the largest problem that our committee faces is we do not have the money in the short term or the long term to meet all of those complex threats. that's why -- or sorry, i should say we are unwilling as a congress to provide the money that is necessary to meet those complex threats.

and that is why we have a bill that takes, as the chairman said, and only funds half of the oco. so, presumably, five or six months from now, in iraq and afghanistan, our troops will run out of money. now, the chairman's quite correct, this was done in 2008 with the new administration coming in and a supplemental was passed. unfortunately, the times are different now because in 2008, we didn't have the budget control act, and we did not have the unwillingness to get rid of the budget control act, which we have now. so not only five months, six months into the new fiscal year will we face a shortfall in oco, we will face the return of the budget control act, which will place severe restrictions on what the department of defense can spend. and there has been very little appetite for changing that. even as we make changes in the short term, like the agreement we got last december to get through two years, the long term continues. the budget control act is in

place. and what we have still not done is sort of accepted that reality, accepted the fact that this is the money we have, and therefore, we have to adjust our plans and live with them. we continue to hope that the money will appear. and this time, this bill is placing a very high-stakes gamble. will there be the votes in congress in april to overturn the budget control act? if there aren't, we're going to have troops committed in iraq and afghanistan who are going to suddenly run out of money. and if there isn't the proposal by the department of defense to reduce our army and our marine corps to levels that even they admit they would rather not go to, but they are living with the money that they have, and if we prevent them from doing that now and then all of a sudden in april or may of next year they have to do it in the blink of an eye, that's even worse.

so, i think this bill is an excellent effort to try to get around this very difficult problem, but i hope some time soon congress will make a decision. you can go one of two ways. either one, you say you know what, we're going to either raise the taxes or live with the debt to spend the money we need to spend for what we think our defense priorities are. or two, we're not, so therefore, we have to readjust what our defense priorities are. we haven't done that. what we've done is we've continued to maintain a belief that we're going to have this amount of money when we have this amount of money. and that could potentially wind up being more harm fful to our troops even than not passing a bill. so, while we try to support the men and women serving in the military, we have to do it not just in the short term, but in the long term. so, i hope we'll get rid of the budget control act. i hope we will get to a more sensible place. but as the military always says, hope is not a strategy, and this bill is based on a lot of hope for what's going to happen next

april or may. so while it's a good, solid bill, it spends more money than we have, and that's a problem that we're going to have to wrestle with throughout this mark-up on the floor and once we get to conference. and with that, i yield back to the chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. before proceeding any further, i have a few announcements to make about today's proceedings. the order of consideration for today's mark-up of hr-4909 will follow our subcommittee structure. we will begin first with the subject matter that falls under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, then move to the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces, then the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities, then the subcommittee on readiness, the subcommittee on personnel, the subcommittee on strategic forces, and finally, the full committee matters. just so members know, my intention is to continue working straight through until there are

votes called, which i understand are somewhere around 2:00 to 3: 3:00, and so, we can get as much done as possible before that time. second, let me remind members that any amendment offered must be in writing and 80 copies must be available at the desk for distributi distribution. for anyone who met the monday deadline, those copies have already been made by the committee staff. in addition, if a member has an amendment that involves the jurisdiction of other committees, we request the member before he or she offers the amendment to have a letter from the respective committee chairman indicating their waiver of the right of referral. i impose the same requirement before including language in the underlying mark. this approach has been the practice of the committee for many years so that we can proceed directly to the house floor without our bill being sequentially referred to other committees. also, it is the practice of the committee that amendments involving additional spending should identify suitable offsets. members must not offer

amendments that could result in a point of order against hr-4909 on the house floor during its consideration. and i want to remind members that house rules prevent consideration of a bill reported by committee unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks or a statement that there are none, since it's also the policy of the house republican conference no member shall offer any earmark. we will not permit earmarks in the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2017. it's the chair's intention to operate under the five-minute rule in order to allow all interested members the opportunity to speak in an orderly manner. without objection, members have five legislative days within which to submit written statements into the record. without objection, it is so ordered. finally, i want to remind people, i tried to use this slide last year as a motivation. unfortunately, this is how some of us looked about 4:00 as we were departing. i'm trying a different approach

this year. when i was recently overseas with the speaker, one of the people on our trip recommended this book. and then i come home and realize it's on so. com's recommended reading list for this year. it's called "brief: make a bigger impact by saying less." and one of the recommendations it has for the military is don't use powerpoint. now, if that's not an advancement of civilization, i don't know what is. so, i'll just encourage this. the part of the point of the book is that we've all got limited attention spans, and so, make your point right up front, make it quick and move on. and if we can do that over the course of the day and evening, we will be out a lot quicker than we were before. >> mr. chairman? are you also willing to throw that book at the person who speaks too long? >> it's not a very thick book, so i'm not sure how much of an

impact it will make, but it will be available here at my desk if anybody wants to consult. before beginning with the subcommittee reports and following consultation with mr. smith, i ask unanimous consent that the provisions contained in the reports of the subcommittees and the chairman's mark, which includes full committee provisions, be considered for the purposes of this mark-up as original text of hr-4909 and that these provisions be considered as having been read and that the bill be open for amendment at any point. is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered. without objection, the chair's authorized to declare a recess at any time. the committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces. pursuant to committee rule 17 and in consultation with the ranking member, we will postpone all recorded votes on the amendments in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. and that's the way we'll proceed

throughout the course of the day. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for any comments he'd like to make. >> mr. chairman, first of all, you and the ranking member were very gracious in thanking all the members for their work on this bill, and we would all like to thank you and the ranking member for the work that you've done, beginning to change the direction of a dangerous curve line for national defense is good work, and this committee has done good work on this bill, and it's because of your leadership, and we appreciate that so much. i'm pleased to present to the full committee the sea power and projection forces mark that passed unanimously out of subcommittee. this is the definition of a bipartisan mark, and i want to recognize and thank my ranking member, joe courtney, and all the members of my subcommittee for their help. they have been instrumental in developing what i think is a truly historic mark. over the past year, this committee has heard about the need to choose between presence and posture, capability and capacity. the sea power and projection

forces mark projects that false choice and provides more of both. it authorizes the highest level of shipbuilding funding since the reagan administration. it authorizes three ships more than the president's budget. it protects 1/12 of the fleet and one of ten carrier air wings from deactivation. and it authorizes procurement of new capabilities that will increase the navy capability and capacity. in total, our mark represents a down payment on the 350-ship navy america needs. it also provides critical investment in the air force's b-21 bomber, kc-46a tanker and c-130 air-lift programs, which are critical in the ability of our nation to project power. i also want to emphasize what the subcommittee mark and full committee mark accomplish in tandem. the subcommittee mark prohibits the administration from doing away with cruisers and signals strong congressional support for our carriers and carrier air wings. i am pleased that the readiness,

military personnel, tac air land and full committee marks provide the funding needed to operate and man the elements of force structure that we are protecting and to invest in 20 additional strike fighters to flesh out our air wings. i am grateful to chairman thornberry and to other subcommittee chairmen for their efforts to achieve our shared vision of a stronger military and a stronger national defense. there are many items in the subcommittee mark that i would like to highlight, but in the interest of time, i will conclude by reiterating that i believe that this mark constitutes a turning point. for many years we have trend lines going in the wrong direction. with this mark, however, i believe we are bending those curve lines in the right direction and taking some early, important steps toward the stronger military and the 350-ship navy we so clearly need. i want to once again thank chairman thornberry, ranking member smith for their efforts to turn the tide, and i'd urge the members to support the mark. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. chair now recognizes the ranking

member of the subcommittee on sea power and projection forces, gentleman from connecticut, mr. courtney. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i'm going to summarize my written remarks which i'll ask to be entered into the record. i again want to salute my chairman, randy forbes, who our subcommittee again has worked totally on a bipartisan basis in terms of the hearing and record that we built up over the last four or five months to get to today's mark, which as he said, passed unanimously in subcommittee. i also want to salute the hard work of our staff that, again, it's almost impossible to tell who's majority and minority. they work together so seamlessly. phil mcnaughton, dave sin kelly, bruce johnson and katy rember, who have again done an outstanding job in getting us to today's place. again, i want to reiterate the general comments of chairman forbes, which is that when i first came to congress in 2007,

the administration submitted a shipbuilding plan that called for construction of only three ships. today we have a president's budget that came over that called for $18 billion of investment in shipbuilding in eight ships, and we built on that submission. and as the chairman said, we have roughly about 11 ships included in this budget. again, it's happening for very real external forces and reasons that are occurring. the cno, the navy, john richardson remarked the other day that america is entering a maritime era over the next two or three decades, and our fleet, which again, declined during the 1990s and early 2000s, really needs to continue to build on the upward trajectory, which again, was started six years ago under secretary mavis. i just would end by saying that, you know, this subcommittee has also been really, i think, very focused in the out years,

because shipbuilding is such a long-range game in terms of the ohio replacement program, which is going to cost the country about $80 billion. this is an essential part of the triad which the new star treaty really has, i think, chiselled in stone. and what we have done in this subcommittee is to use really smart acquisition approaches, incremental funding, multiyear procurement, to try and trim the costs of that program. and the cbo and the congressional research service endorsed that approach in december, saying that we will save up to $10 billion with the efforts that our subcommittee has put together. and assistant secretary stackley issued a report about a week ago. he said that we will save as much as 25% in the missile tube production because of this approach. and it has been a bit of a battle to get to this different type of shipbuilding program approved by the congress. we were very successful last

year, and i look forward to working with the chairman to make sure that this very forward-thinking, smart approach to shipbuilding is going to, again, avoid a situation where we suffocate the rest of the fleet, which would be much at risk if we did not move forward in this direction. so again, i look forward to continuing to work with the chairman in terms of advancing this mark and all the members of our subcommittee. and with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. before turning to amendments, is there any other discussion on the subcommittee mark? hearing none, are there any amendments to the subcommittee report? >> mr. chairman, i have -- >> gentleman from oklahoma? >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk would please distribute the amendment.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> reading of the amendment and the gentleman from oklahoma is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. lithuania is a country in the baltics sharing a border and a long history with russia. russia has repeatedly shut off lithuania's energy supplies, literally turning off the lights and turning off the heat. in late 2014, lithuania began operating a floating liquefied natural gas import terminal. they gave it a very appropriate

name -- independence. before deploying "independence," lithuania relied on russia's gazprom for nearly all of its natural gas and paid some of the highest prices in europe. almost overnight, gazprom cut its rate by 25%. that's a 25% rate cut overnight. now lithuania has a diversity of supplies from norway, finland, sweden, the united arab emirates. but curiously, not the united states of america, the world's largest natural gas provider. mr. chairman, i hope my colleagues keep lithuania's story in mind, because it shows that energy security is national security. the two are undeniably linked. we enhance our own national security when our allies and trading partners are not reliant on unfriendlyieiendly regimes f energy. mr. putin has shown us that energy can be a more powerful weapon than bullets, bombs or

even tanks. and the mullahs in iran are surely learning the very same lesson. an uncertain regulatory environment deters investment and confidence necessary to fully unleash the american energy that helps our allies and our partners. my amendment helps fix this problem. it is the text of hr-351, the lng permitting certainty and transparency act sponsored by my friend from ohio, congressman bill johnson. this bill passed the house back in january of 2015 with nearly a veto-proof majority. nine members of the minority on this committee supported the bill. the current export approval process works like this. the federal energy regulatory commission approves permits for onshore siting, construction, expansion and operation. then ferc oversees an environmental assessment consistent with the national environmental policy act or nepa, and other environmental

reviews as required. only after receiving the necessary ferc permits and clearing environmental reviews does the application reach the department of energy's desk. d.o.e. then performs a public interest review and accepts or rejects the application. i want to be really clear about what this amendment is and what it does. my amendment only deals with the very last step of this process, the final d.o.e. review. my amendment does nothing, nothing to shorten or modify in any way existing full environmental review processes. my amendment codifies into law a 30-day limit for d.o.e. to make a final decision on an export application. it also clears the backlog of pending projects which have cleared the environmental review process. it's necessary to codify the 30-day limit because d.o.e. is dragging out final approvals well past 30 days, defying its

own guidelines. in fact, more than half of the 30-plus applications awaiting approval today were sent to d.o.e. before 2013. the second part of my amendment reinforces the ability of applicants to use the courts to compel d.o.e. to issue a final approval to avoid endless legal wrangling. when people are investing $20 billion in an export terminal, they shouldn't be caught in regulatory purgatory for these endless amounts of time. i ask my colleagues to remember the hopeful story of lithuania, a small country, a former soviet vassell, a nato ally once coerced and intimidated by moscow through repeated gas shutoffs. one lng import terminal changed the game. let's help repeat that story. lng exports are a win-win for our allies, a win for our

partners, and a win for the american economy. my amendment helps ensure a fair and reasonable regulatory process which encourages investment. with that, mr. chairman, i'll yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman, mr. courtney, seek recognition? >> yes, just briefly, mr. chairman. i just point out that this has been an issue in terms of the approval process. d.o.e. in 2014 looked to extradite it and they have been approving these applications and are committed, frankly, as an administration, to doing so. i would just note that, you know, the language of the amendment actually mandates a decision. it does not mandate approval. so a decision could be nonapproval as much as it could be approval. this could actually end up sort of, you know, blocking applications as opposed to what i think is what the proponents' desire, which is to move these along. so, if my republican father who practiced law for 50 years used

to say, careful what you wish for. and i would just caution people that, you know, this amendment is a double-edged sword. and i would just point that out for the members in terms of their consideration of this amendment. i would yield back. >> other discussion on the amendment? mr. kaufman? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i support this language because it will improve the national defense posture of the united states by improving our ability to export natural gas to our allies in europe and asia. u.s. liquefied natural gas exports are already being referred to as the most powerful demonstration of u.s. geopolitics in decades. lng exports will help our allies reduce their reliance on russian energy. in addition, the value of being a major lng supplier will create u.s. advantages in diplomacy and geopolitics in the decades ahead. lng has already been an important geopolitical lever to

contain russia's antagonist ambitions by forcing russian energy companies to reduce their energy prices to u.s. allies in europe. i'd like to thank the gentleman from oklahoma to for his work on this issue and encourage all of our colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank the gentleman. gentleman from california. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. i'm not going to take it up at this time, but i want to raise the point, and i will on the floor, lng, or natural gas, is a strategic national asset, as are ships and shipbuilding. if we are going to take this strategic asset and deal with lithuania, as the gentleman proposes, and beyond, then we ought to use this national asset to advance the american shipbuilding industry in american mariners.

my amendment, which has not received a waiver from the energy and commerce committee, and there are, not appropriate at this time, i will take up on the floor. and what it basically says is that an initial percentage, 15% of that lng in year one must be on american ships and then ramps up to 50% of the lng over a five-year period on american ships. this is essential. the american domestic shipbuilding, commercial shipbuilding industry is doing well at the moment, but in two years from now, their book of business will significantly decline and there will be significant layoffs within the commercial shipbuilding industry. and so, we have this opportunity of using this strategic national asset to the benefit of lithuania and our allies. and at the same time, to the benefit of the american shipbuilding industry. american mariners would be on those ships, and the safety in the ports would be significantly

enhanced because we would know who the men and women on the ship are. so i'm not going to offer this at this time. i want to alert the committee to this. i will take it up later, if we are able to, on the floor, where we don't need this issue of the other committees. i'll let it go at that, and withdraw. >> if there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. briden stein. those in favor, say aye. those opposed say no. being the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. are there other amendments? gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. >> thank you, mr. chairman. there's an amendment at the desk. >> the staff will distribute the amendment.

>> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> without objection, the amendment is considered as read, and the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment's pretty straightforward. it would increase our operational carrier fleet from 11 to 12. the chairman of the subcommittee mentioned a 350-ship fleet. 12 of those should be aircraft carriers. we currently have 11. the deployment of these 11 is about a ten-month deployment each time. that's too long. it's hard on the crews. it's hard on the ships. and so, adding that 12th carrier would be beneficial to the readiness that you've already talked about, in addition to the strategic asset that a carrier is. i don't intend to ask for a vote on this. my intent is to point out to the

committee and others the need for this 12th carrier. we struggle from time to time to understand our scope of the needs for the department of defense. we do a defense review and other things that sometimes tries to get at that issue, but this is an issue that should be considered and looked at as we look at what the defense department needs. we will, of course, have to make hard priority choices, and that's what our chairman has done with respect to this year's work on the subcommittee. so now that i've got the statement made, that we do need that 12th carrier to properly defend this country, i will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. >> amendment is withdrawn. further amendments? gentleman from virginia. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to call upon block package number one, consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, is so ordered. if the clerk will please pass out the on block package.

>> thank you. >> without objection, the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from virginia's recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, on-block package number one is comprised of the following. amendment number 18 by mr. hunter for a briefing on fund distance line replacement. 111r-1 by mr. courtney considering the build right of the virginia class submarine. amendment 112 by mr. courtney to strike incremental funding.

amendment 124 by mr. nugent, the special operations under sea capable. 135r-1 by mr. norcross regarding dismantling and recyclely naval vessels. the amend bent my mr. courtney considering the united nations convention on the law of the sea. amendment number 180r-1 by mr. byrne, regarding floating dry docks for naval vessels. and amendment 318 by mr. hunter to strike reporting requirements on u.s. coast guard icebreakers. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> is there further discussion on the on-block amendments? if not, the question is on the package of amendments offered by the gentleman from virginia. so, members in favor say "aye." >> aye. >> those opposed say no. being the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it and the amendments are adopted. furthermentments to this portion of the mark, gentle lady from california, ms. speier.

>> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at desk. >> the staff will distribute the amendment. >> without objection, the amendment is considered read and the gentle lady from california's recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you. this amendment would support secretary carter's directive to the navy to reduce the total number of lcfs to 40 by downselecting to one variant, getting two for the price of one is usually a good thing. getting one for the price of two

is not. yet for some reason, we are paying for two variants of the lcs to conduct the same exact missions. this defies common sense and has resulted in two totally different ship types, each requiring their own supply chain and crude training programs. you would think that producing two variants would improve the odds at least one of the options would achieve its intended objective, but even that's not true. these ships are more expensive than originally planned, have taken longer to develop, are unreliable, lightly armored and have limited offensive capabilities. if the goal is to make this program more efficient, then we should downselect one variant of the lcs, as secretary carter has suggested. in fact, he makes the point that by downselecting to one variant, we will reduce the total number of lcf ships to 40, allowing for higher end ships that we will ensure the navy has the necessary capabilities and posture to defeat even our most advanced potential adversaries. the lcs has combat in its name, but indeed, it is not survivable in combat.

i will offer and withdraw this amendment, mr. chairman, but i do think there are others who would like to speak on it. >> is there other discussion on the amendment? the gentleman from alabama? >> thank you, mr. chairman. this issue has been studied by the subcommittee. and the gentle lady's points have been rejected by the subcommittee unanimously. let me review the betting for everybody. two years ago, the secretary of defense ordered the secretary of the navy to review this program, which he did. they did at length. they came back and said they needed a 52-ship lcs program. they did say they wanted to upgrade the last 20 to frigates. we agreed with that in the subcommittee. there has been no new study. the navy showed back up before the subcommittee and they committee and reiterated the need for 52 ships and reiterated the need to keep two shipyards, because what they've gotten out of this program is one of the

unusual things in the department of defense, and that is a weapons program that has gone down in cost. i have talked extensively to people up and down the chain of command in the navy. they need this ship. the people that sail on it like these ships, and they like the fact that they have two variants. now, the secretary of defense did not get a new study to justify what he was saying. and when he came before this committee, i asked if they had amended their long-range ship plan which they are obligated by law to present to this committee and to the congress to reflect this new proposal, and he said they had not. so not only has the navy not changed its mind, but the department of defense has not each amended its own ship plan to reflect this. so i respect the gentle lady's points. i respectfully disagree with her points. and the subcommittee has disagreed with her points. and i would ask the members of this committee to reject her amendment and any other effort to change this program from 52 ships and downselect to one shipyard. with that i yield back.

>> other discussion? gentleman from massachusetts. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to speak in support of the amendment. while i take the point that the ship has gone down in cost, it has also gone down dramatically in expectations and capability. ensuring our men and women are provided the best equipment and weapons platforms before being sent into combat is among our most important responsibilities as members of this committee. the department of defense's director of operational testing and evaluation, the gao, and serving naval personnel have all acknowledged the major flaws in the troubled lcs that put our sailors at risk due to its significant shortcomings. over a decade after inception and six years after delivery of the first ship, the lcs has been shown to be "significantly lacking in survivability and lethality" in combat environments. specifically, the pentagon's own testing office stated that

"neither lcs variant is survivable in high-intensity combat because the ship's design accepts the risk the crew would have to abandon ship under circumstances it would not require such action on other service combatants." moreover, as the shortcomings of this troubled program have continued to emerge and concerns about the ship's survivability and lethality have become public, the navy has continually changed its concept of use for this ship and curtailed its mission down from that which it was originally intended, all to ensure that it stays out of harm's way. along with a concerning lack of survivability in combat, dod's testing office shows significant reliability and maintenance problems, specifically one vessel lcs-4 spent nearly half of a recent testing period -- 45 days of 113 days -- without all four engines or steerable water jets operational. basic c-frame failures caused lcs-2 to return to or remain to

port on seven separate occasions during a five-month testing period. with these serious concerns about the vessel's survivability and reliability in mind, i will be supporting ms. speier's vesy in mind i will be supporting ms. spears's amendment that no more than 40 total ships are produced under the combat ship program. our navy ship building dollars are scarce and critically important. they're simply better spent on vessels that don't put the safety of our sailors in jeopardy in craft that are capable of surviving in combat. i would like to thank ms. spear, with that i yield back. >> gentle lady from california indicated she wants to withdraw the amendment? >> that's correct, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> the amendment is considered withdrawn. further amendments for this portion of the bill, gentleman

from arizona? >> thank you mr. chairman. my amendment is very -- >> if the gentleman would like to offer his amendment at this point. if the staff would please distribute the amendment and the gentleman will withhold just a moment until we get it partially distributed at least. >> without objection the amendment is considered read and the gentleman from arizona is recognized for 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chair. my amendment is very straightforward and completely non-partisan. it would be a sense of congress

that the marine corp newly upgraded amphibious vehicle will be named aaev 7. this is something that's extremely personal to me. i had the luck and fortune of serving with lima company in 2005 a unit that ended up being the hardest hit in the iraq war. my unit unfortunately had the same tragedy many other units had where we were in ill equipped vehicles and we lost many men, including my best friend, in that war. i unfortunately was in one of those aev's that rolled over a mine. it didn't go off on me but did go off on the guys behind me. when you're in these types of situations you always question what was this all for and what was their sacrifice for. i still have that question every day. one of the things that helped me at least deal with this recently

was an article regarding the marine corp aev program. and in it it said a lot of the new designs and safety equipment and upgrades were because of the men that died from lima company. i would hope that if many of the marines that live in the future because of these designs, because of the sacrifices of these men they would be able to be recognized in the future for everything that we did in that short time in iraq. what i ask is that if we can help me help me send a sense of congress. i'm not mandating anything we should remember these men and their sacrifice by renaming the vehicle that many of them ended up using as their tomb, at least have some form of victory in their death. and i ask you to join me in support in rename it the lima warrior av. thank you.

i yield back. >> mr. chairman, i certainly recognize the gentleman from arizona's good heart in this and his point. and certainly he is entitled to speak on this issue far better than i or many people in this committee. and for that reason, i decided yesterday to meet with the commondant of the marine corp to ask his thought. i thought the commandant of the marine corp could be entitled to speak for these losses. but also for so many people in the marine corp who had made such sacrifices in serving their country. the commandant's thoughts were these. his enormous respect for these individuals who lost their lives. his comment was this that the united states marine corp chooses not to single out any unit or individual in the corp by naming combat vehicles after them since, quote, all of our marines sacrificed in iraq and

afghanistan. and the other thing the commandant said to me was the commandant believes there are better ways in keeping with the history and traditions of the marine corp to recognize the ultimate sacrifices made by the lima company. in addition to that, mr. chairman, while we certainly recognize this enormous loss, the other thing we have to recognize is this, almost every year, i will have a member, a very good member, come to me and they want us to name from this committee a ship after one of their cities or some other thing that's happened. we have rejected that historically knowing that once we open that door, every single year someone would have a great wonderful reason why we should name another ship. and this year was no exception. we had a wonderful member come and we just couldn't comply with that request because last year we had another wonderful member that we couldn't do. i think the commandant is

worried if we open the door it will be very difficult then to get our arms around it. so with that, and in all due respect to the gentleman who i know whose heart is right. i know the sacrifice he's offered for his country and all these men did in this particular situation. i respectfully hope we'll not adopt this amendment. and by not adopting it, leave it to the commandant to do what the marine corp feels is appropriate in terms of recognizing this huge loss. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> other discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> gentleman from california, mr. hunter. >> i would ask mr. molten what his take is on this. i yield to mr. molten. not to put you on the spot so early. >> thank you for putting me on the spot. you know, i think this is a

difficult call because i spoke with the gentleman from arizona. and having tremendous respect for his sacrifice and the sacrifice of the men he served with, i initially was planning to support the amendment. but i do find the commandant's comments compelling. and as difficult as it is to say i think the marine corp has established a precedent for good reason. and there probably would be an awful lot of other units that would come in and request different vehicles or ships or whatnot to be named after them. i can't think of a more compelling case than the case that has been presented. this was an unspeakable tragedy. and the appropriateness with which he has envisioned naming this vehicle after those marines who died in this particular incident, seems quite appropriate.

i think when you take the long view you have to understand that the commandant speaks in the interests of not just the marines of today but the marines of the future. and does so with compelling authority. >> i wieyield back, thank you. >> gentleman from california is also a marine, would he like to offer his opinion on this? >> no, that was very well said, but thank you. truly. >> gentleman from new jersey. >> yeah, just a question. is there already a sense of congress on this issue? >> i'm sorry? >> is there already a sense of congress on this issue? has there been a question. >> is there already a sense of -- >> yeah. the resolution, has this been discussed in the full house yet? >> mr. chair, congressman, the bill is actually a sense of

congress i'm not mandating the marine corp to change the name. what i'm asking is we're sending a sense of congress to the commandant to consider this. he could go through his internal process to figure this out, whatever it is. as we do know there are different vehicles, different platforms that are named after people and after divisions. and what we're saying is we encourage you to do this. i'm not mandating it, not tying any dollars to it. what i'm saying is we feel like this is a good idea. much like we sense congress all the time to the commandant to other and to other departments. so at the end of the day that may not occur. he may not decide to do this. but i would hope at least we would say please consider this and that is actually all that this amendment is doing. >> gentleman from new jersey yields back. gentleman from california, mr. cook. >> thank you mr. chairman. there is another marine from california that was in the marine corp, and that's me.

once again, i also sympathize with the gentleman from arizona on this subject. i understand i think where the commandant is coming. just to give you a little bit of history from a long long time ago. the subject of anthrax. i'm not going to call up the number of marines that were surprisingly killed on amtraks. because during the vietnam war, the old amtraks actually had the fuel cells on the bottom of the amtrak. consequently if they hit a mine or an improvised explosive device as it's called now that would go right away catch on fire. and there were very few amphibious landings made in vietnam. but amtracks were used place to

place and they were always hit. and many of them exploded and blew up because the marines would not be inside the amtrak, they would be on top of the amtrak. and the trick when this would happen -- i personally happen to have the same thing happen to me. unfortunately, blown off the amtrak, or got off right away. but many instances it would catch on fire right away. not the same experience, but very, very similar. and so i share your feelings. it never goes away. some of these things. and because of what happened to that particular vehicle, obviously, they did not name that -- the new vehicles for some of the ones in first marine division or third marine division or my particular outfit which was bravo company 11 first

battalion first marines but they did change the design based upon what happened. i share your sympathy. but i also respect the commandant. and some of the past history that goes back a long long ways that covers not just your unit, but many other units that have had tragic experiences. and thank you very much for bringing that forward. i yield back. >> question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor of the amendment say aye? >> aye. >> those oppose say no. the no's have it and the amendment is not adopted. are there further amendments to this section of the bill? if not, the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes for the purposes of offering a motion.

>> i move that we adopt the -- chairman i move we adopt the report of the subcommittee on c power as amended. >> questions on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, members in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the quorum being present the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. committee will now receive the report of the subcommittee on tactical error and land forces pursuant to committee rule 17 and with consultation with ranking member we'll postpone all votes until the end of the subcommittee mark. chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee, gentleman from ohio mr. turner for any comments he'd like to make.

we'll go to the ranking member first if he doesn't get together. mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the member have before them the tactical land and air forces subcommittee mark. i gave a more detailed summary last week. today i will mention a few highlights. before i do, i want to thank the ranking member and all the members for their attendance in the process. i would like to express my appreciation to mr. sanchez as this will be her last mark up. i enjoyed serving with you both as chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee and of the tactical land forces subcommittee throughout the past decade. you have served both your country and men and women in unifo uniform in those circumstances.

i also want to take the time to thank mr. gibson for all his efforts in working to stop and reverse harmful to the air corp. we received a candid assessment on army capability and national security through this year's process. the total forces strained as the services continue to do more with less. we heard testimony from all the service chiefs about lacking capability and capacity to address threats and mission requirements. a resurgent russia the rise of the islamic state of iraq and the fragile environment in afghanistan were not accounted for. these new security challenges have kept operations at elevated levels while the services continue to down gicize and cut modernization. supporting those deployments by robbing the next to deploy. the military services have submitted over $22 billion in unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2017 alone. we are concerned that resources

incurred modernization plans are insufficient to meet the current strategy. and we are headed to a high risk force. so it is within this context and we strong leadership and guidance that we built this mark. we have recommended the chairman include $6 billion in additional support. this is a good mark that provides necessary oversight and buys back critical modernization capacity. mr. chairman i ask unanimous consent my complete statement be submitted. >> without objection, and the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, gentle lady from california is recognized. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to thank chairman on his leadership this year. and for being such a good partner these four years. i'm pleased the subcommittee worked in its traditional bipartisan and transparent

manner in building the tactical air and land forces portion of the chairman's mark. the mark before the members includes a mix of bill and directive report language that combines three objectives. it includes provisions that allow us to have multiyear procurement contracts with respect to our ah 64 and uh 60 helicopters. i have always believed that from a production standpoint and a planning standpoint multiple year contracts are significantly better in saving costs and getting product than doing a year to year basis. this will save us about a billion dollars over time. this mark includes important new oversight provisions on programs and policies that the subject researched over the past four months, including our efforts an independent review to fix the fa

18 aircrafts oxygen and life support system. getting to the issue is incredibly important because it is about the lives of our naval aviators. i strongly support it. another provision that requires the army and the marine corp, is to set concrete standards for vehicle fire protection requirements. again, the safety of our soldiers and marines should be our number one priority. and this legislation allows for that. this mark includes language covering 34 different programs. members wanted to express their views on various issues and require more information from the department of defense so that we can do our job even better. in terms of the funding requirements of this bill, it's a little bit different than the last three years that we've had.

the programs are plussed up about $6 billion in this mark. those increases include $1.4 billion for f-18's. $1.2 billion for f-35's. $700 million for additional army helicopters and several billion more in increases for a range of programs most of which are from the military services unfunded requirements list. i think that's all good and it's good for the department of defense, but i have to tell you, that the way this ndaa is unfortunately not our normal practice. and a little disheartening as mr. smith spoke about it in the beginning. in past years we've done an aggressive look at what things cost and really tried to save money in places in order to fund those things that we needed. this year, unfortunately, that didn't happen.

while the subcommittee did find reductions of programs most of the $6 billion is coming from the readiness and personnel accounts in the oco. i do want to address one last issue and that is just that it has been a pleasure to serve for 20 years. this is my 20th year. my 20th markup . the first mark up i had i was sitting way down there, pete. and that first mark up several things happened. the first was believe it or not, this committee voted to get rid of all women in the military. it wasn't until we went to the house floor that we put them back in. such a change in 20 years to time now. i know because my good friend, walter jones was on the committee at the time. mack you were on, i think adam you were on. i think it was just the four of

us. we put them back in on the house floor. another thing that happened -- i don't know if you recall this because we actually had rod blagojevich there at the time. encryption. encryption was a big issue. i come from california and you come from washington state. and, of course, our companies were on the forefront of encryption. and we wanted tod allow tougher encryption to be sent out of the country in order for us to set the standard. you began to speak from it and somebody from the top row called you a communist. so we were the only two votes that day on that encryption issue. and the last thing was that, of course, when i came here it was a much different congress.

at that time, the difference between the number of democrats on -- in the house and the number of republicans in the house was just five votes. and i came under a cloud because nobody knew who i was and i got through an election as some of you will recall. that was a very difficult election. and so i was sat on this committee, and i went to pass my first amendment. which was an eight sentence amendment about how the south veetmunesis had been on our side. she's like why does she have to read this, this is a no brainer. and steve boyer, i always got his name wrong objected, took my amendment and put a substitute amendment on so that i would not

have an amendment passed with my name on it. and the amendment passed his way without my name on it. and then i asked mr. spence who was the chairman, a great gentleman from south carolina i had another amendment at the desk. this was after a one hour debate on an eight sentence amendment. he said to me, ms. sanchez, is it different than the amendment you just put forward? i said yes, mr. chairman, i've changed one sentence. and he said do you have 100 copies? at that time it was a 100 copy requirement. i said yes, mr. chairman i have 100 copies. he goes i'll let the amendment come forward. and mr. boare began to object. and mr. spence, our chairman,

republican, looked at him and said are you knowing to waste another hour of my time? and he kept quiet and the amendment was passed with my name on it. we've come a long way. thank you. >> i appreciate the comments of the gentle lady thinking about the past. i note, we've got a number of members who have made enormous contributions, both sides of the aisle, over the years in this committee who have said they're retiring or running for other office or something else and we'll think of an appropriate way to recognize their contributions. of course, gentle lady from california, ranking member of this subcommittee is certainly among them. are there -- is there other discussion about this portion or this subcommittee's mark? mr. chairman? >> gentleman from new york.

>> since i sit on this commit e committee, i want to say briefly this is the best bill i've seen in the six years i've served. we're reassuring allies and improving readiness while taking care of troop and families. we're embarking on serious reforms in this bill to acquisitions, defense planning, and some post cold water nickels initiatives. i want to thank you and chairman turner and all the co-sponsors we had at the posture act. it was important we bring it forward in this bill with the necessary funding to go along with it. i appreciate the attention to detail that you and also i want to say to the staff, i know the staff, i see john and so many others put so much effort into that. i appreciate that and i yield back, mr. chairman. >> no further discussion we'll turn to amendments for this section of the mark. chair recognizes gentleman from ohio. >> i ask unanimous consent to call up on block package one

consisting of amendments that have been work would the minority. >> if the staff will please pass out the unblocked amendments. without objection the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> this unblocked package is comprised of the following, amendment number 16 by mr. larson that directs the secretary of the navy to provide a briefing on advanced software development for carrier landings. amendment number 43 r 1 by mr. jones that expresses the sense of congress regarding the

reporting of the mv 22 crash in mar yawna, arizona on april 8th. 2000. amendment 55 by ms. duckworth. it requires the secretary of defense to perform a study that could prevent helicopter crashes. amendment 110 r 2 by mr. smith that directs the secretary of the air force to provide a briefing on recapitalization strategies for control surveillance aircraft. amendment number 220 by mr. sanchez. meeti meeting requirements for female soldiers. amendment 224 that requests further information on policies of the export of radio software. 247 mr. bishop it the department meets the goals for unmanned aircraft systems. amendment 296 r 1 that modify

odexisting report language to include plans to evaluate pilot training design solutions and prohibit retirement of aircraft in fiscal year 2018. i yield back. >> is there further discussion on that block package? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank you and the staff for working with me to include language in this on block package. which directs the secretary of the navy and the commandant of the marine corp to work in coordination with the secretary of the army. to develop a joint acquisition strategy to provide more effective personal protective equipment to meet the unique requirements for our female marines and soldiers. as we continue to integrate our marines and our female marines and soldiers into the army, and marines it's more important to

insure that the equipment that they have is actually out fitted for them. so they can do their job properly. females are built differently. and it's not just about the stature, but it's just that they have different bodies than men. and so it's not just about purchasing smaller sizes for our female marines and soldiers, but actually about developing the gear that will fit them and is made specifically for their needs. so the army has taken a number of steps to field combat gear size and fitted for females. they've developed new plate sizes, to cover the differences between the genders, et cetera. my amendment would have the marine corp collaborate with the army and make sure that this gender specific equipment is made correctly.

i think when the two services can get together we can save money, we can get the right equipment and it will allow our female leaders to be even better in combat situations. and i yield back. >> if there's no further discussion on the on block amendment, the question is offered by the gentleman in ohio, those in favor say aye. those opposed sade no. the ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. gentle lady from illinois? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. >> the staff will distribute the amendment.

without objection the amendment is considered read and the gentle lady from illinois is recognized for five minutes. >> this amendment requires the department of defense to treat the f' 35's block for modernization program as a distinct major defense aquisition program and to separate it from the existing f-35 base line procurement program. this amendment is not an attempt to hinder f-35 procurement in any fashion. it does not cut or fence money. it does not reduce the total buy and it does not slow production. in fact, i agree that this country needs a fifth generation fighter. and there is no doubt about the necessity of the scheduled improvements of block four. however, i feel congress must balance this with our need to conduct rigorous oversight and to be good stewards of taxpayer

dollars. the f-35's integration of censors and weapons is one of its most unique signatures and highly sophisticated software enabled that integration. currently the f-35 program is developing and testing the software version known as block 3 f which will provide a fully capable aircraft. the final version is expected to be ready in 2017 and will be fielded for the navy in 2018. all this is occurring, the program office is already planning for the next package known as block four. my amendment focuses on this effort, block four is intended to deliver improved capabilities and correct problems identified in earlier software versions. development of this program will move forward in 2018. according to the fy 17 budget request the department is expected to spend over $3 billion over six years on just this software upgrade alone. this is a significant investment and the dollar amount alone

would classify it as a major defense acquisition program or m dap. and warrant consideration -- considering the program under it's own incremental acquisition. the department of defense has decided against this and despite the size and cost of block four, again, over $3 billion, they will not separate the modernization program from the baseline program. the department's decision is important because it gets to the heart of transparency and the need for congressional oversight. it was a principal area of concern. according to the testimony in front of the air land subcommittee by treating block 4 procurement as a separate program it would include periodic reporting of the program's cost schedule and performance progress. congress has been here before. the same concerns gao has with the modernization program they had with the p-22. it was warned the procurement

and operational testing programs face cost overruns and delays. the department moved ahead with plans and muddled through the suspected delays. in 2012, mandated gao review discovered the costs had more than doubled and delivery time line had been delayed five years. these over runs cost taxpayers $6 billion. it indicted they would split the two efforts. congress finally had enough and required that the air force separate the programs, in follow up reports, the gao has found the f-32's modernization program is on solid ground. as written this amendment mirrors that fy 13 legislative language that split the f 22's modernization program from the

base line program. in nearly identical situation today with the modernization program except this time we're in a position to get it right from the beginning and waste billion dollars before we come back to do this. given the troubled history and numerous delays of the f 35 program to insist the department adhere to best business practices with a $3 billion plus program is the prudent thing to do. let's not repeat the same expensive mistakes we made with f-22. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment . i yield back. >> gentlemen from ohio. >> thank you, i appreciate ms. duckworth's hard work on the subcommittee and her concern for the issues of the f-35. there's no question there are issues that have arisen as the f-35 has gone through development and production. i think our committee has provided direct oversight. and implementation of some corrective action that's helped the program.

the thing that people need to understand in looking at this amendment is this would not help. it would hurt and this is not simple. this is complex. what this amendment does is it would create a new major defense acquisition program for the fourth block of the f-35 program it would separate it out. as its own major defense aquisition program. according to the f-35 program, making block four a follow on modernization and separate m dap, will cost time, and money. over $13 million and up to over a year of delay in starting a new major defense acquisition program. this delay would impact schedules for international partners and it would result in delay toward dual capable aircraft which of course is the most important aspect of the acquisition in our nuclear capability. dod and joint program office are taking a number of actions to mitigate concerns for block four

and following efforts. a separate contract has been created for the block four efforts which provides more oversight and transparency. the jpo has established a separate budget line for modernization efforts to align with the separate contract is creating a plan for cost reporting that tracks content for modernization. the jpo has conducted a cost estimate. this has been in the most recent report a recommendation, both the jpo and the dod and an industry team active with the f 35 appose it. this would result in delay i would ask people to oppose the amendment. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> thank you. i do want to note that a joint program office of the jpo is not a guarantee everything will be okay. the program has made strides. there have been serious delays and cost overruns all along the way even with an office

overseeing the production. the department made the same argument with f 22 and failed to control cost and delays. those delays cost taxpayers over $6 billion. if the oversight department is already rigorous it should have no problems. >> there are distinct differences between the single service f 22 program and joint service program. the lessons that could be learned to its own acquisition program have been taken into account on the f-35 program because the joint nature of the program processes are in place to manage capabilities. you are correct, of the problems with the f-35. you are correct of the lessons learn would the f-22. they have been incorporated in the process. however, the solution that you are suggesting of creating block four as its own major defense program has with it the creation of its own bureaucracy and

contracting system. and the creation of new delays and cost increases. i appreciate your concern. but i still oppose the amendment because this is not the solution. thank you i yield back. >> mr. chairman? >> gentle lady from california. >> mr. chairman, once in a while we're on opposite sides of an issue. i wish to support ms. duckworth on her amendment. this f-35 program -- i've been a big supporter of trying to get a single production multiservice aircraft done for many years. we have been bird dogging this thing, looking at it, seeing the cost overruns, going to take a look at it. looking at the production of the different places. working with our allies to do it. there's no doubt that mr. turner and i have worked very hard to move this f-35 program forward.

it still is true it's seven or eight years behind schedule. hundreds kmore expensive than w ever thought it would be and it still has problems. one of the issues was the development and producing it at the same time in order to save time and money but it hasn't turned out that way. so this is what i would like to say the gao has made the recommendation that we have a separate major defense acquisition program for this block four. normally that rule kicks in when we're talking about $480 million in rnd funding.

this program, this piece, is at least $3 billion. over the next six years or more than six times the size of the standard mdap. so i think it's critically important that we really get the oversight we need on this. i do not believe it will have an impact, the $10.5 billion and the additional aircraft, all of this is still in the with whole program. we are not asking to stop production. we are not asking to slow down production. that is not what we're asking. we're saying, let's do the right oversight on this program. let's not just lump it in and

say we're going to see reports. let's chaek make sure that this gets done in the right way. for this reason i'll support ms. duckworth on this program knowing we have done a lot of oversight. that we need to continue to do that oversight. and that this is way too important to just let it be a part of the overall program. i yield back. >> other discussion on the amendment? chair will yield to himself briefly. i'm not going to repeat the challenges of the f-35 or the f-22 which i think have been described. the question is does this amendment help. and my view is that they have done things differently for the f-35. they are doing things differently for this particular block. to make it a major defense program, would add money and

time. and to repeat something, the soldiers are flying aircraft that were made in the 1980's and to delay further getting them newer aircraft is something that only compounds our readiness problems. so look, i -- for this subcommittee, i appreciate the work that y'all have done. and putting much more oversight over this program. it is crucial that you continue to do so. that we all do so. because three services and a number of international partners are depending on it. but my view is we shouldn't delay it further. in an additional bureaucratic move that may or may not improve the oversight. i don't think it does. the question is on the amendment offered on the gendal lady from

illinois, those in favor say aye. the no's have it. >> i ask a record of vote. >> gentle lady from illinois asks for a recorded vote. we'll postpone that vote momentitarily. are there any other amendments to this portion of the mark? if not, we will now proceed with the vote on the amendment from the gentle lady from illinois, ms. duckworth. question occurs on the amendment offered by the gentle lady from illinois the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. thorn berry. >> no. >> mr. thornberry votes no. mr. smith. mr. smith votes aye. mr. jones, mr. jones votes aye. ms. sanchez. ms. sanchez votes aye. mr. forbes, mr. forbes votes no.

mr. brady, mr. brady votes aye. mr. miller, mr. miller votes no. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes aye. mr. wilson, mr. wilson votes no. mr. longman votes aye. mr. lobeando votes no. mr. larson, mr. larson votes aye. mr. bishop. mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. ms. bordio. ms. bordio votes aye. mr. klein. mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers?

ms. songas. aye. mr. franks. mr. franks votes no. mr. maur amend. votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conway. mr. conway votes mow. ms. spear. ms. spear votes aye. mr. lamborn. mr. b no. mr. castro. mr. castro votes aye. mr. whitman. mr. whitman votes no. ms. duckworth. ms. duckworth votes aye. mr. hunter. mr. hunter? mr. peters. mr. peters votes aye. d

dr. fleming, no. mr. visi. votes no. mr. kaufman, mr. kaufman votes no. ms. gabbart. ms. gabbart votes aye. mr. gibson. mr. gibson votes no. mr. walls. mr. walls votes no. ms. hartzler. ms. hartzler votes no. mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke votes aye. dr. heck. dr. heck votes no. mr. norcross. mr. norcross votes aye. mr. scott. mr. scott votes no. mr. gieggo. aye. mr. brooks. mr. brooks votes no. mr. takei. mr. takei votes aye. mr. nugent. mr. nugent votes no. ms. graham. ms. graham votes no. mr. cook. mr. cook votes no.

mr. ashford. mr. ashford votes no. mr. briden stein votes no. mr. moulten. mr. moulten votes aye. dr. winstrip votes no. mr. aguilar. no. mr. burn. mr. burn votes no. mr. graves. mr. graves votes no. mr. zincy. mr. zincy votes no. ms. stuphonic. no. ms. mcsally. ms. mcsally votes no. mr. knight. mr. knight votes no. mr. mcarthur. mr. mcarthur? mr. russell. mr. russell votes no.

mr. rogers? mr. rogers votes no. mr. schuster. mr. hunter. mr. hunter votes no. mr. mcarthur? >> clerk will report the tally. >> 20 aye votes.

41 no votes. >> the amendment is not adopted. if there are no further amendments to this portion of the park the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio for the purpose of offering a motion. >> i move to adopt the subcommittee report on the tactical air and land forces. >> question is on the motion of the gentleman from ohio, those in favor will say aye. those opposed say no. a quor waum being present the a have it and the motion is adopted the committee will receive the report of the subcommittee in emerging threats and committees in consultation with the ranking member. we'll postpone recorded votes on amendments in this mark until the end. the chair recognizes the chair of the subcommittee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm grateful to present today to the house and armed services committee the subcommittee on

emerging threats and capabilities portion of the fiscal year 2017. national defense authorization act. i appreciate that we are a subcommittee that oversees some of the most innovative and critical aspects of the department of defense. including the u.s. cyber command, cyber programs across the department of defense, and major portions of the national security agency. defense wide science and technology efforts such as the defense advanced research projects agency or darpa. special operations forces and programs that counter weapons of mass destruction from state and non-state actors alike. this year, the emerging threats and capability subcommittee has been active in all of the major areas. this truly represents a comprehensive and bipartisan product that all members can be proud. it is worth mentioning that our oversight often involves reviewing sensitive department of defense authorities, programs and activities. we also participate in

congressional delegations. to visit with the service men and women in the global war on terrorism across the world. the members of the subcommittee take this oversight role very seriously. as we remain current on activities and programs involving most notably forces from across the defense intelligence enterprise essential operations command and our cyber mission teams. i'm especially grateful this morning to highlight a few key areas of the etc committee subcommittee mark. this year, our mark provides for robust and resilient cyber operations capabilities. supports innovative science and technology advances to meet future challenges and fully supports our special operations forces who remain at war. and globally postured supporting national security objectives. we extend vital counterterrorism authorities while improving congressional oversight in this important area. we also include many provisions

to strengthen cyber capabilities and insure rezil zaesiliency. and it fully funds u.s. cyber command and military service cyber programs while also providing authorities to improve cyber readiness and fully recover from a cyber attack. this morning i would like to also thank our ranking member from rhode island who has been an energetic partner on the issues. it's been a pleasure to work with jim. i look forward to continuing our bipartisan efforts together. the professional staff has been tirele tireless, thank you chairman thornberry i appreciate your leadership and i look forward to discussing this morning. with that i yield back the remainder of my time.

>> chair recognizes the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, gentleman from rhode island. >> i want to thank mr. wilson. his work on this mark has been incredibly bipartisan, has been the important issues that we have dealt with over the year in our committee's jurisdiction. we oversee some very important aspects of the department of defense, including u.s. cyber command and the nsa. special operations command. defensive research products agency and the office of naval research among just a few to be identified. this work has been incredibly important and meaningful and i thank the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for their hard work and due diligence. i would especially like to recognize etc staff, lindsay,

pete, kevin, katie, like us they work together in a bipartisan manner. and focus on producing legislation that is in the best interest of our national security and i thank them all for their hard work and expert counsel. i'm very proud of the mark before us today. from tooth to nail we touch on critical policies and programs. the strategic operational and tactical levels. this begins with critical investments in basic research. extends authorities that guide our special operations forcess activity around the globe and comminates on obtaining the frameworks to enhance national security such as the biodefense of our nation. i'm please would the many provisions relating to game changing technologies. such as language addressing how to properly operationalize directed energy technologies.

and legislation requiring a strategy for electronic warfare capabilities. the subcommittee's history of focusing on innovation by urging the department of defense to utilize authorities we have provided in the past like partnership intermediary agreements and the small business innovation research program. the mark also takes action on the department's recent initiatives to make them more effective and enduring while reducing redundancy and bolstering existing inhouse capabilities. despite budget pressures the mark sustains critical cyber funding and funding for special operations command. we cannot afford to take risk with cyber funding. there are many policies, issues that this bill addresses and many that remain to be resolved in the cyber domain. but personnel capability development must not lag as we forge new territory.

finally, i'm pleased with the approach we took towards enhancing capabilities to defeat non-state actors like isil and al qaeda while keeping pace to address state actor aggression. in closing, let me just say i want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their diligence and dedication to national security. mr. chairman, i'd like to thank you for your leadership. and your bipartisan approach to leading the subcommittee and i work together and with that i yield back the balance of my time. >> is there other discussion of this portion of the mark? i just want to highlight one issue briefly for members. although it appears in the full committee mark, the portion of the mark because that deals with the organizeal changes at dod. one of the changes we make is to mi make cyber command its own

independent command. as anyone can tell, the cyber domain of warfare will be more important in the future. the subcommittee does a great job of overseeing that and i think this is the next logical step as far as organizationally. there are lots of issues out there and we're all going to have to spend more time on that. other comments? if not, are there amendments to this section of the mark? gentleman from south carolina? >> mr. chairman i asked unanimous consent to call up on block package number one consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, so ordered. if the staff would please pass out on block number one.

without objection the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for five minutes. >> on block package number one, it's comprised of the following. amendment number 001 r 1 by congressman rob whitman directing a brief on nano materials. amendment number 007 by mr.in aguilar. amendment 032, who is modifying a report on the national guard bureau requirements for domestic response. amendment 050 r 1. by mr. jones, directing a brief

on low energy nuclear reaction technology. amendment number 051 r 1 by mr. jones, directing a brief on the special operations forces education. forces education. amendment 062 to designate an official with responsibility for a directive energy weapons. amendment number 068 r 1 making permanent and authority for research and development funds. and amendment 088 r 1 by ms. spear modifying a report on cyber activities. 096 by ms. spooer directing a brief on grant awards and data collection. amendment number 134 by mr. norcross directing a brief on software license inventories. is there further discussion of the on block package? gentleman from colorado?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in support of this package. contained in the amendments is one i authored with the congressman that would direct the department to designate a single already serving senior official to be responsible for the development and demonstration of directed energy weapons. it's increasingly becoming more of our national capabilities. they are as high cost benefit potential and many applications across multiple domains. so i'm hopeful this amendment will get this critical technology out of the lab and boo the field and i thank the chairman and committee for supporting it. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> further discussion, gentleman from rhode island. >> just briefly on the amendment that we have offered together. i just add that after decades of promise and frustration, i firmly believe that we are at a place right now where there are real near term capables to be

utilized and it's exciting to be at a tipping point of these technologies and witness real progress. i thank the gentleman for his offering the amendment. glad to work with him on this and look forward to seeing this issue before. with that, i yield back. >> other discussion? if not, the question is on the on block package offered by the gentleman from south carolina. those in favor say aye. the amendment is adopted. are there further amendments? gentleman from south carolina? >> i ask unanimous consent to call up package number two consisting of amendments that have been worked and approved with the minority. >> without objection, so order ed. the staff will pass out package number two.

>> it's comprised of the following. amendment 153 on a pilot program in evaluation centers. amendment number 157 by mr. franks directing a brief on lek magnetic u ha magnetic hardening. by mr. larson on a pilot program of electronic worker systems. amendment number 185 by mr. rogers directing a brief on radiation hardened microelectronics.

a pilot authority for innovative commercial items. by mr. lamborn directing a brief on cyber hardening. amendment 246 by mr. brooks, directing a brief on high resolution terrain data requirements. and amendment number 264 r 2 direct iing a brief on military free fall and 289 directing a brief on anti-cooperative research. >> further discussion? gentleman from california? >> i want to thank the chair and particularly the committee for bringing up the cyber security issue. the amendment that we have proposed and embark group allows the department to get ahead of

the threats on cyber security by going out and acquiring commercial items on a pilot based program. if we go through the normal process, the software industry and we're always behind. this is a catch up amendment. it is limited in numerous ways and does not change the jus underlying acquisition law. >> gentleman yields back. mr. lamborn? >> i want to thank the chairman and ranking member for the great work they do on this subcommittee on which i also serve. there are many great amendments in this package. the very last one on a briefing on anti-tunnelling research between the u.s. and israel is a good amendment. i appreciate the bipartisan work and even here in the u.s. we have seen tunnelling becoming a bigger and bigger issue for drug

importation. there have been over 75 tunnels detected in the last ten years come i coming in the last few weeks. super tunnels that are well excava excavated so this program between israel has tremendous potential to help both our countries with different needs we have on our borders. i appreciate the support in the past. with that, i yield back. >> i'd like to thank the ranking member for your help in ensuring they are in this package. i specifically want to offer my thanks to my colleague and friend for his work and cooperation on this amendment.

we work to include language authorizing research and development of an anti-tunnelling defense system to protect israel from terrorist attacks. it has uses for the united states on our borders and foreign embassies and operating bases and to protect other al allies including south korea. this amendment requires that the committee be briefed on the status of the anti-tunnelling program and the plan for project development. now more than ever our closest ally in the middle east lives under the constant threat of terrorist attacks from underground tunnels. to secure peace, we must secure their state from attacks. iron dome saved countless lives and an anti-tunnelling defense shield will save countless more. i yield back. >> gentleman from nebraska is

recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i would also like to thank the subcommittee and to congratulate mr. lamborn. this is an incredibly important work. i had an opportunity to visit the site of one of the stimulation centers on the gaza border with mr. lamborn. and the work is significant. it's ongoing. it's needed. and it's critical to the security of our partner israel. thank you. >> thank you. other discussion? gentleman from rhode island? >> mr. chairman, i support the amendments in the package. particularly i'd like to offer pli support for the amendment to establish a pry pilot program for the acquisition of innova innovative commercial items. we have to continue to support invasion and especially when it

comes to i.t. i thank the gentleman from for his work on the amendment. i yield back. >> if there's no further discussion, the question is on the on block amendment offered by the gentleman from south carolina, those in favor, say aye. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. if there are no further amendments to this portion of the mark, the chair recognizes the gentleman from south carolina for the purpose of offering a motion. >> mr. chairman, i move to adopt the subcommittee report of the subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities as amended. >> questions on the motion, say aye u. those opposed say no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. committee will not receive the report on subcommittee on readiness pursuant to rule 17

and in consultation with the ranking member, we'll postpone recorded votes in this particular subcommittee mark until the end of the subcommittee mark. chair recognized the chairman of the subcommittee from virginia for any comments he would like to make. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for your leadership on this committee and for highlighting as we navigate the fiscal security. i'm pleased to present the mark drafted in a bipartisan manner that directly addresses these critical readiness concerns. i'd also like to again thank our ranking member for her tireless efforts and participation in this process. once again, i'd like to thank each of the members of the subcommittee for their attendance and participation at the hearings and briefings throughout the year. finally, i'd like to thank the readiness subcommittee staff for thei g