production and procurement process will become. the decision has been made that the jsf will be our front multiroll fig multirole fighter across the services, and that decision having been made, i think that we should do it right. and so i oppose t amendmehe ame for those reasons. and i yield back. >> any further discussion? recognize ranking member mr. smith. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i definitely see good arguments on both sides of this amendment. i just want to amplify a little bit some of the remarks that mr. cooper has made about the choice that we are facing on that program. because it's absolutely true that, as you slow down the number that you purchase, you drive up the overall costs of each individual unit. it's basic -- the benefits of

buying in quantity. i certainly understand that, and that's the balance we're trying to strike here. but unfortunately there's a risk on the other side that's not being i think fully understood here. the risk is, when the mechanics are not worked out, when you don't know exactly what it is that you are going to buy because they haven't figured out how to make it work yet to the degree that we want it to, there is the risk that you buy something and then, as they're working on it, they figure out that they need to fix something in it and then you've bought something that winds up being more expensive because you've got to go back and rework the whole thing. and this is not an academic issue. i didn't explain that quite as clearly as i would if you buy b it's ready and then it turns out it doesn't get ready as you would anticipate, you drive up costs. and that has happened in the f-35 program. it happened again just yesterday when we got estimates the per-unit costs, i forgot on which varnt, were going to be up higher than expected, and the taxpayers were going to bear the brunt of that. regret plea, this program has

not met its milestones. we have constantly been waiting further than we expected to to get the final aircraft that's going to fly and do exactly what we want. so if we make this decision now to buy more of them, and it turns out there's a problem, which, again, that's not a pure hypothetical. it has happened time and time again with this program and with others, and we'll wind up having bought something that's going to cost us money. so i want to ramp this up as quickly as possible so we can get the efficiencies of quantity. but there is no efficiency of quantity if what you're buying isn't actually what you're going to want in the end. and that's why i think mr. cooper raises a very legitimate issue. i'll support this amendment. i will continue to examine this issue as we get to the floor. but we really need to make sure. and it isn't just with the f-35. we went through this with future combat systems in a number of areas. we in this committee procured money for a program that wasn't yet ready. and then it didn't get ready by when they told us it was going

to. and all of a sudden, that money was left sloshing around the pentagon to be reprogrammed. i think this is an area this committee needs to carefully examine as we look for ways to both save money and do so in a way that still protects our national security. so i applaud mr. cooper for raising this issue. i think it's an important one to debate and think about, regardless of how you come down on it. in this instance, i will urge support. >> is there any other discussion on the amendment? i would also note, and correct me, mr. cooper, if i'm wrong on this. but the amendment directs the funds to the navy's unfunded requirement for aviation and spares the national guard and reserve equipment account. but it's important for members to understand the navy's unfunded requirement was deemed to be less of a need for the navy than the two f-35 bs

requested by the department. also, we've worked hard to fund the national guard and reserve equipment account. and we believe there are sufficient funds for fiscal year 2012 in that account now. any other discussion? if not, the question is on the amendment offered by mr. cooper of tennessee, so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. kauffman, the gentleman from colorado, is now recognized for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment -- >> the clerk will please pass

out the amendment. and without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. if the gentlemen will suspend until they have a chance -- the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is to the second engine for the f-35. i'm concerned that existing language in the mark leaves the door open for a second engine.

after the houseses already voted to strip funding from this program after significant debate. i believe that funding, wasteful program, such as the alternate engine takes away from programs that could better serve those in -- those who need it the most. the young war fighters on the front lines in afghanistan and iraq. i believe that the department of defense has made a good-faith effort to cut wasteful spending, identify efficiencies, and reprogram savings into higher priority programs. secretary of defense gates and the service chiefs are repeatedly told this committee in testimony they do not need and do not want the f-136 alternate engine. secretary gates estimates that funding this program to completion would cost nearly $3 billion. i would like to remind the committee of testimony we received from the secretary of defense in this very room just three months ago. he emphasized his firm opposition to buying an extra

engine for the f-35, a position by the air force, navy and marine corps leadership. as he stated, we company it a necessary extravagant -- during a period of fiscal contraction. unquote. he also said, quote, it would be a waste of nearly $3 billion in a time of economic distress, and the money is needed for higher priority defense efforts, unquote. i don't think we should allow a loophole for an alternate engine to the -- to the f-136. mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous concept to withdraw this amendment. i know that the votes aren't here in this committee to pass it. and i plan to offer it on the house floor. >> i thank the gentleman and the amendment is withdrawn. are there any other amendments

to the subcommittee report? is if there are no further amendments, the chair recognizes the gentleman from maryland for the purposes of offering a motion. >> i move to adopt a subcommittee report on tactical air and land forces as amended. the question is on the motion. the gentleman from maryland. of so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. quorum present. the ayes have it and the motion is agreed to.

as i previously mentioned to the committee, that we would try to have a break about time for lunch and votes. so the committee at this time will stand in recess, and we will reconvene right after the last vote in this first roll call vote today. subject to the call of chair. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[no audio] f this portion of debate. we now recognize miss sanchezf california for five minutes. >> thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. >> clerk will pass out the amendment. >> 227. >> without objection the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentlelady will hold until we get it distributed.

gentlelady is recognized to explain her amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what this amendment would do would reallocate the increase of $100 million from the ground based midcourt defense to the national guard and reserve equipment because this funding is not needed in fiscal year 12 for d m d. .for. in..

>> why don't you continue? >> the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. again, i want to thank the nking member on the matter we've worked on a bipartisan basis and even the issues we disagree, we work on a bipartisan basis, and i think this amendment certainly is another one that reflects tha this, we would disagree, and we are here adding additional funds to our ground pace mid course defense system used in both alaska and california. this is the only system that

protects the united states from the threat of long range ballistic missiles. it is the only one we have for all things in development, for the phase adaptive approach the president rolled out -- >> gentleman, please suspend. >> yes. [inaudible conversations] >> would you please call up your amendment? >> with that, there's a second degree amendment to ms. sanchez's amendment. >> will the clerk please distribute that? without objection, reading of the amendmt is dispensed with. pass out the amendment.

[inaudible conversations] gentlen recognized to explain his second degree amendment. >> the amendment provided by ms. sanchez does reduce the amount that is available for the ground base defense system and takes funds and makes them availae for the national guard equipment and procurement. while we disagree, we agree with the transferf the funds to the procurement. this sustains ms. sanchez's increase, but utilizes a different source of funding to accomplish that. it uses it from the enhanced magnitude of the reconnaissance defense system. with that, i yield back. >> gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

so my original amendment, my amendment, would reallocate the increase of the $100 million that was put in the mark and would put it into national guard and reserve equipment. this is a bipartisan committee. we worked hard together over the years. i've been on this subcommittee 13 of my 15 years in this congress and on this committee. what happens with this $100 million that is in the ground based mid based defense system being put in it money that actually the agency is saying he does not need, okay? general riley was here yesterday

on the hill, also in front of our committee and gave testimony. he can think of a lot of other places to put this $100 million. the reality is that we have a situation on our hands where the last two flight tests of the gmd system and in december of 2010 failed to achieve intercept, and these flight test failures have delayed work on gbif upgrades on stockpe reliability and gbi manufacturing, so the course that mba and general riley have taken is basically that we must fly before we buy. their system is to test to ensure that we do not have these

when we do the tests. the root cause of flight teases fame euros including malfunctions must be resolved before upgrades in manufacturing activities can move forward, and mta is on track conduct is very rigorous analysis before it attempts another flight intercept. rigorous analysis without unnecessarily rushing to test again remains extremely important to maximize the chances for success and to make smart investments. this is a difficult technology. seven out of 15gmd tests failed since 1999, so pressing mba to accelerate their analysis and testing or to move forward on acquisition activities now will only increase the potential risk in the potential cost. the line for gbi production

remains warm until fiscal year 16. there's no need to rush to production. in fact, when i asked general o'riley, yesterday, well, what would you use the $100 million on? he said, you know, it would just be along the fringes, maybe some fiberoptic increase or better fiberoptics, but in his opinion this $100 million could better be used if we get, if you will, no pun intended, get a better bang for the buck by using that somewhere else, so we have enough money in fiscal year appropriation, and we have enough money in fiscal year 12 appropriations. in fact, one of the things that the general said was that if we can get this right, and we have seen what tests are needed and

what the program is, if they can get this right, they will be coming back in fiscal year 13 and asking for more money to actually do the production, so he basically said why don't you take that money now and use it on other things again that we get a better bang for the buck out of, and with the understanding that when we are ready, and he believes we will be ready in another year, he will come back and ask for the money he needs to get this under way. so we've already gone through that all, and we've taken a look at icbms as providing we have 30gbis in alaska and at vanderberg california and radars in california, alaska,

greenland, and the u.k., and they contribute to our homeland defense. they are deployed at sea. >> the time expired. >> they are on cruisers. i do need more time if you don't mind. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes for five minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to yield to my colleague so she can finish her statement. >> thank you. they are deployed at sea on stroyers, cruisers, in japan in the form of sea-based expand radar. this administration is investing in the phase adaptive approach, and it will contribute to homeland defense by the year 2020, so we have enough, and the head of the agency is saying he's got enough, we can't put anymore to make this go faster, so we would like too take that -- to take that $100 million to use

it where we do need it right now. the national guard and reserve equipmt account has been created and funded by the congress every year since fiscal year 2004, and the purpose for the account is to provide the army national guard, the air national guard and reserve components of army, navy, marine corp. access funding to meet adtional equipment needs that are not provided in the base budget request while overall funding levels for national guard and reserve forces have increased substantially since 2004, the additional funding provided through this account has been a critical reurce for the reserves to maintain and to improve combat readiness, and we all know where these troops have been. they have been in combat. this year, the committee received testimony on the importance of this account from reserve component senior leaders including general jackson

schultz of the army reserve, the air force reserve, and major general raymond carpenter of the national guard. all stated thissing the was an absolute essential element to their abity to preserve combat readiness. chairman proposed fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization agent provides $225 million for that account. by comparison in fiscal year 2010 and 2011, the amount was $850 million. adding this additional funding to this account ensures that all of our reserve components can continue to rebuild their combat readiness and capability that has been worn down by ten years of war in iraq and afghanistan. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

>> i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. the chair now recognizes gentleman from florida, mr. miller, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman, i yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you. the context of this amendment must be considered within the past administration cuts to this ogram. i absolutely agree with the ranking member that the problems with the program must be resolved. they can't be resolved unless we focus on the program providing additional funding. the administration cntinually cut the program in the past budget request slashed by $445 million in 2010, $185 million in this year's budget request reduction, and the outyear spending is a billion dollars less than projected a year ago.

we're only restoring $100 million. i appreciate the ranking member's statement of general saying there's a bunch of other places to put the money, but the ranking members amendment doesn't put it someplace else, but puts it in the national guard, and we support that, and that's why the second amendment was offered. the restoring the $100 million back to the program and honoring the ranking members vy valid stement of where the money would go in support of our national guard is why the second amendment is offered. it accomplishes both. it restores a portion, only a portion of the reduction that th administration has made to the gmd program. again, the only program that protects the homeland, the mainland of the united states while also then honoring the

rank member's desire to support the national guard account. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i recnize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews for five minutes. >> thank you. i strongly support ms. sanchez's amendment, and i oppose the second degree amendment to it. this -- these two votes or this vote poses for us a matter of yiewn namety and a very important choice on achieving something we apparently unanimously want. everybody here wants more equipment available for our guard and reserve with very good reason. the guard and reserve are deployed for natural disasters. i believe 45% of our force in iraq and afghanistan are come priced --

comprised of guard and reserve unites. they are overstressed and under appreciated. both amendments try to correct that situation which is why i think there's virtual agreement we should add to this account. i think the difference is here in the committee. we would purport to take the $100 million from an account that the administration didn't ask for, but the military leaderip of the gmd program didn't ask for. i think the reason they didn't ask for it as pointed out is that seven of the 15 tests since 1999 of that system have failed. general o'reilly thinks he can work out those kings, but the

-- kinks, but the money added to this is sur puffer louse to his efforts. we have to do what we can do to deal with the threat to the homeland. that's why the adaptive approach is being pursued by the administration because the technology on which it is based as worked whether it's platforms out at sea or the ground based platforms in alaska or california. this is reliable. we're saying that a system that the general says that hasn't worked, isn't ready, money hasn't been asked for, that's where the money should come from. the majority takes a very different view. they would take the $100 million from the enhanced medium altitude reconnaissance and

surveillance system. these are aplanes that gather intelligen about hot spots on the ground. these are the aircraft made available to give us informational superiority over a battle space the next time. we have to send special forces into a tough situation to achieve a national security objective for the country. the services asked for 18 of these planes. the majority's mark gives them four, and if this amendment is adopted, the four shrinks essentially to zero so here's the choice -- everyone says correctly they want this equipment for the guard and the serve. everybody agrees the money has to come from somewhere. we say the $100 million should come from a system that's not proven, that's is not current with our present efforts, and

has in its place a phased adaptive approach based on technology that is working and has worked. the majority says that that $100 million should come from reconnaissance and intelligence aircraft which the military values so much they've asked for 18 of those planes in this budget, so do you favor intelligence gathering that the military says it needs or an unproven system that has a better backup that the military says it doesn't need? that's the question. i think the answer is self-evident. i think we should defeat the second degree amendment and adopt ms. sanchez's amendment and fund these guard and reserve units with the $1-rbgs 1 #* -- $100 million. >> the gentleman yields back. thank you, mr. chairman. i tried to figure out who is doing what to who on this

thing. had either side led with the national guard, it might have more credibility. it gets tossed here in gratuitously to argue about the broader issue on keeping the missile system or the reconnaissance. i want to ask my colleague from ohio, i don't know who the champion of ariel systems should be, but zuz this system, mr. turner, follow your jurisdiction? can you tell us what impact? >> let's rewind for a moment on this. the reduction that we're proposing, again both those doesn't fall under this subcommittee. >> okay.

>> it's based upon a recommendation. in fact, the chairman's mark for that program already has a reduction. this just takes additional moneys from it that are then consistent with the gao recommendation for the reduction. the funds that we preserve trying to take out of -- >> okay, reclaiming my time. this is one of those classic -- i hate this stuff. we come here, have subcommittees that chew this stuff up one side down the other, a then we come in here, throw these $100 million around with competing claims by both sid which dependenting on who you listened to last can be the most persuasive. again, the national guard is thrown in as gray gratuitously. at this stage, i'm looking for additional infoation, but i don't know how to vote on this thing, but it's frustrating for

both sides to talk the way you talk and not have the facts. i yieldack. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes ranking membermith for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i can help out. first of all, national guard stuff, taking care of the amendment, you know, the money is going to go to thos purposes, the $100 million is put into that as well as the primary endment. the two areas in dispute in the secondary amendment are first of all the $100 billion for the missile defense system, and the problem with the debate here are you for or against it? that's not the point. as explained clearly, given where the ground base missile defense system is at right now, what the general in charge of implementing the program is telling you is that in this coming fiscal year that this bill covers, fiscal year 2012, he cannot spend $100 billion -- >> will the gentleman yield?

>> just getting started here. i'll yield in a second. >> all rig. >> he cannot spend that money because the program is not ready for it. there is money for the program. it's not being eliminated in any way. we are forcing them to spend $1 million which apparently they have to get very creative about where to spend it on this program because they reached the determination that they can't effectively spend it because the program is not ready for it to be spent, but to make the philosophical point that the majoritys more supportive of the ground based missile defense, we'll throw the money at them any way and watch them spend it. i don't think that's intelligent. where the money is coming from is coming from a program to build new c-12 aircrafts which are isr platforms, intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance. this program has had trouble. the original program cut $417

million autoof the program taking it down i heard from 12, mr. andrews said 18, but i heard from 12 planes down to four, okay? that's an initial rate production number more in keeping with what they they thei capabilities are. we are taking another $100 million out of it eliminating the program basically. now, if you support the secondary amendment, you take $100 million, give it to a program that can't spend it effectively given where the program is at for fiscal year 2012, and you take the money away from a program where we could build four isr platforms, csr aircraft, leave $20 million there again which the have to figure out what to do with because they are not building planes anymore. this secondary amendment is worse than the original mark in terms of where it takes the money from and at it leaves.

you have $120 million spent on nothing that's going to help national security, and now i'm happy to yield to mr. turner. >> thank you. with all do respect, there has a lot of statements made -- >> i hate it when people start with that sentence. it makes itpparent you don't think that much is do. >> it is not accurate for us to make a decision that this is based on a stement that the general never made. he did not say i do not need the $100 million or i can't spend it. >> oh, i'm sure he can spend it. >> there's statements made in the deliberations as if this $100 million is unnecessary and that the general doesn't want it. that's not true. this program was whacked by $185 million. it is a program that is thee only one protecting the homeland of the united states. it is not a troubled program in

development. it is deployed. now, it is a program that is having difficulty, there's the needs for the additional funds. there's errors in testing that lead us to believe that the general in front of our committee on -- >> can i ask a question? we are funding it even within -- we're not zeroing the program out, is th not correct? >> the programs are necessary to ensure ce with overcome -- >> we are funding? >> absolutely. >> how much? >> the aggregate number is -- looking here on this -- let's defer to carey. >> $1.2 billion in the mark funds act. . >> adding $100illion to that? >> yes, sir. >> all right. secondly, the other item where there's debate on the cutting of the amarss. there's the support of the chairs on this.

it's a program that gao recommended a reduction of $526 million -- >> i'll take my time ba saying $1.2 billion for a program that's having trouble is more than enough. >> i also have a question. how much was cut from this program, i think it was the year before last? >> sir, in fiscal year 2010, the budget ask was reduced by $445 million. >> which left how much? >> i do not have that nuer in my information right before me right now. >> was $1.5 billion cut from missile sieves, $200 million plus from this particular program? >> in fiscal year 2010, it was reduced by $445 million. in fiscal year 2012, this year's budget request, reduces the

program by $185 million from the fy11 request. >> okay, but the total missi defense couple years, i think it was cut $1.5 billion? >> $1.2 biion the entire program was cut previously. >> yeah. this just gets it back up to kind of what was needed a couple years ago to deploy these missiles in california and alaska? was that correct? >> this would add -- >> i think, mr. chairman, if the gentleman yields for a second? >> sure. >> i think what is needed is a debatable question. that's not an appropriate question for staff, and at's what we're debating. it's reduced from what it was, but what is needed. it's not something staff can answer, but -- >> right. what i was trying to get was the numbers what it was and what it was reduced and what we're trying to get it back to.

>> mr. chairman? may i, if you please? >> yes. >> will you yield? i hope, and i don't believe that i said that general o'riley said he couldt spend the money. what i said when i explained the situation was he said i'll find a place to spend it on things on the edges on the fringes, but it's not the biggest bang for the buck for the money. he said i have enough to do what we need to do and giving me that $100 million is not going to move the part that we need to move, the system testing that we need to move in order to construct more, and what he said wawhen i get through this phase this year, loretta, i will come back, and i will ask you for more money to build the thing,ut first i need to make

sure that it works, and there are better places to put the money. >> thank you. reclaiming me time. >> that's what the general said. >> mr.-- recognize now the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to mr. turner. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate you giving us construct of really where we are on this. let's do a review. i don't have an amendment to increase missile defense spending by $100 million. what we have is an amendment to reduce it. what we provided was a secondary amendment to stop the reduction. there should not be a reduction in missile defense spending. i can't respond to the private conversation with the general she had, but i can only respo to what general o'riley said in

testimony in front of the subcommittee, and he testified there was a need for more ground based intercepters as a result of recent flight test failures. there was a need for additional tests because there were failures in the system that are fairly critical concerns we have this system, portions of it deployed to protect the continental united states. remember, this is our only system protecting the united states from icbm attack. there's a portion of the system in which a difficulty, not the onesn e ground, but that is in development that has arisen for the follow on program. we need to get that resolved so that we can go back to full confidence in the system as it's being developed and full confidence in our ability to protect the continental united states. we don't have an amendment to increase spending, but the amendment was to reduce it. we provided a secondary amendment to maintain the level of spending that's in this

mark. .. >> we put 100 of that $185 million back. we didn't even put the whole amount back. if you look at what they are projecting over the next ten-year period, they are looking at spending $1 billion

less on this program that again is our only one that protects -- if you are for missile defense, you have to be for retaining these funds. it is our only option for protecting the unit states at this poi. with that, i yield bak. >> gentleman yields back. and the chair now recognized the gentlelady. >> thank you, i yield to my colleague miss sanchez. >> i thank my colleague from san diego. generally when the administration gives us a budget, sometimes the put less than what they really want in the program. because they know that th congress has favorites and that we will put the mon in and then the congress will be the one who pluses up the budget not

on the administration. we all know here if you've been on the committee for a wile that that happens. but it's very ra for someone to come after the administration budgets has come out and the congress has plussed up the account is rare for someone to come and say we really don't need that money, please use it in other plces. but yesterday at 4 p.m., general o'reilly was walking the halls of congress. and desperately looking to come and talk to the members of the subcommittee. we definitely said we should be using this money in a different way. >> would the gentlelady yield? did he ask to go to the national guard? >> he had recommendations. one was them was the pstd

program. if yohave a problem with it going to the national guard, we would agree to put it in that other problem, which is under his control, mr. urner. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> wer you aware he was on the hill lobbying for a change yesterday? >> no. i was aware that he was coming and talking about whathis needs were. >> that's a were fine line, i think, from lobbying the hill on a bill we were marking up. >> i think that's priorities -- he was not lobbying. e was making us understand what priorities there were over the department. >> that is a very fine line. i mean that's what many lobbyist would say they do every day. i think it's very important that we are very accrate on what's being said about that.

because that as i understand it, that could be in violation of the law. >> well, i would not say he was lobbying me. i would say he came over to discuss what was not in the budget. >> was it a cnge he wanted in the bill? >> no, sir. it was not a change he wanted in the bill. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i would just ask the gentlelady, because i've never known our committees to be able to deal with private conversations for the exact reason we see with the chairman, there's a differentiation of lobbying, does he have a testimony that the gentleman has made that we can read and look to make sure there's no differentiation in interpretation of what the general might have said that you could present to us? >> i'll yield to the ranking member for a moment. >> thank you, this is a worthy discussion again.

i want to get back to the issue if i could just quickly. the point is it's not any big secret who o'reilly was. this is $100 million, as mr. turner said, it was added back in to what the president requested. that was the issue that i would like to focus on. when you get into the numbers of how much money last year and the year before. makes an issue if we ar going to save money. two or three years we said we project to spend the amount of money that we have to spend that amount of money. >> would you yield? >> my only point, i'll conclude with the and stop talking, as the program evolves, sometimes it doesn't hit the milestones we expect it to and can no longer effectively spend the money. if we can't, we ought to be smart. that's why the president's request was $100 million less than what we're asking for. i'll yield back to miss davis. it's her time. >> would the gentlelady yield?

>> miss davis? > yes? >> i come back to my initial question. do we have a single document or letter or official testimy as to what the general says? because it is very confusing. >> absolutely. i will tell you that the official document for the request is the president's budget. that the request where he asks for $100 million less. >> i meant anything official that the general gave. >> well, the general did come before a committee with the president's budget. >> but you don't have any -- >> gentlelady's time has expired. >> could someone get me some time? >> chair now recognized gentleman from california for five minutes. >> it's with some trepidation that i march into this field. i do recall as a member of this committee discussions that took place, some of that discussion i should not and will not discuss here. but my recollection is that

given the two failures which are widely known and reported, not recently, but in formal hearings, said that he is redesigning this program to address the underlying problem with the system. and that would tke some time to do and to work through those problems that were known to exist and that instead of spending money on new hardware, they were going through a process step by step so that they could analyze the deficiencies in the program and develop a solution to the programs. and as i recall, that would take a year, perhaps a little longer to do. and i think that's why this budget was in the president's proposal educed. now given that there's no reason to augment this $100 million.

because it doesn't meet the needs of the program as i understood his explanation to the committee. we know the national guard needs money. this is about choices. the military and the president have made a choice as to how to spend money and we're suggesting that instead of adding more money that they believe is unnecessary, we put that money where we believe it is necessary, the national guard. the secondary amendment, i think, is ill conceived, and my recollection, it does take money away from those assets that have been requested by the military and are a essential part of what was the recent success that is the bin laden situation. so i would sugges that we put e secondary amendment down that we pass the initial amendment, and get on because this ground has been rather thoroughly plowed.

>> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognized the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, the reason that it's so important for us to have testimony and to rely on documents is because it's fine for anyone to talkto us privately. we can come in and saythis is our opinion from that assessment. but the reason that we rely on the testimony is because often times i is confusing. unless we can askthem questions and follow up and see what they actually mean and said. by not having that capability, and by bringing in a generals comments, it runs through filters thatould be misinterpreted and not have the facts before the committee. that's why as for the documentation, mr. turner has heard that testimony, met with the individuals, at this time, i'd like to yield to him for any comments that he might have. >> thank you, i want to agree with mr. forbes.

it shuts down all of the detail on all of the issues if we say we had a private conversation with the general that says don't do this. because it's impossible for us to debate a private conversation. i do know that what was said in the testimony in front of our committee that i have now, a couple of exerts in front of us. so general o'reilly says right there it indicate that is we four gbis that we haven't accounted to before. so he's not funded them. for fiscal year '11 and '12, i'm diverting that funding to fix the problem, i'm using funding that as reserved for the flight test, which we will have to move to another year. he wouldn't have to make the changes from program to program if we can give them the correct amount of money. the programs are under funded. this program is under funded. with respect to the prsident's budget, we shouldn't move money.

then every member that says we should go back -- >> i did not say that. >> all right. >> i did not say that. i would never imply that. i nearly said if you want to know what the administration's position is, since that's what we were debating, administration position was $485, or $100 million less than what you authorized. i would never make that statement. >> okay. all right. it certainly wouldn't be a basis for us, because the whole bill is based on that. our whole bill is based upon congressional action. in this action, we all want to support missile defense. it is under funded, it needs to be funded, we have a source for the funding, we can satisfy both sides here, ranking member gets the funding for the national guard, and we get the funding for missile defense, we should support the secondary amendment to the ranking members amendment. with that, i yield back. >> any others wish to debate this issue? gentleman from new yorkis recognized, mr. gibson, for five

minutes. >> i recommend we delay a vote on this. i think the testimony from the general is material at least to my decision on the vote. i'd like to have something on the record. further more, i've had staff come up oments ago, telling me th regard to the c-12 variant, there's protest. i haven't heard that from the subcommittee chair, that's not submitted for the record. i don't think we have enough on the record for any kind of positive vote on this. >> would the gentleman yield? obviously we have the -- testimony that has occurred -- would the gentleman yield? >> i field. >> our subcommittee spent a significant amount of time in public hearings putting this together. as all of the subcommittees did. we can't take each item for them to review testimony and report

that is have been available through the whole process. this important for us to move forward. it would obviously delay the whole bill. the whole process is based on the active participation. these are programs -- the secondary amendment has the support of the chair, and has the support of the subcommittee chairs and has my support. we should under take the secondary amendment. >> i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. is there further debate on the amendment? the question -- the question is on the second degree amendment to the pending amendment by mr. sanchez, all of those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. recorded vote has been request requested. we're about now to the point where we're going to fall for votes. and it might be a good time for us to break.

calm down a little bit. and we will go over and vote and take a dinner break and we will reconvene at 7:15. and then we're about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, -- about six or seven amendments more to go to finish up strategic forces. so we will reconvene at 7:15, the committee or the call of chair, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the final defense bill added $100 million for missile defense. the committee rejected congresswoman sanchez'amendment and was given those funds to the national guard instead. you can check this out on our website, c-span.org. up next, today's "washington journal,"law of with your phone calls and that is followed by today's session of u.s. house where they are considered to finish work on an offshore drilling bill. in about 45 minutes,