is a lot of serious stuff. republicans will have to do it. this to be full ahead with mitch mcconnell's interests and it will be very fast -- fascinating to see how that plays out. >> the senator talk about energy security, domestic production. examples, in post- solyndra, where is the discussion for federal support for alternative fuels as we look towards our energy future? >> it will be a matter of ground already taken in the first few rounds of the obama administration. we have seen it nearly triple with all the new funding. it isat best, i think you see i flat.

at worst, you see also feels -- see fossil fuels gain some ground whether or not the president wins. >> thank you for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow, senator john mccain interestcuss american mistres in asia. covered begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern. >> these men go through things and have scars that no one can understand except each other. >> the person that startled us was the relationship between harry truman and hoover. they formed an alliance that neither would never anticipated. it ended up being enormously productive and formed the foundation of what became a very

deep friendship. the letters between them later in their lives about how important they have become to one another are extraordinary. >> it may be the most exclusive club of the world. co-authors of "the president's "the presidents club," tonight on "q&a." >> the defense authorization bill proposes five added $54 billion for the defense department and national security programs -- $554 billion for the defense department and national security programs. representative adam smith of washington is the ranking member. this portion is two hours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in opposition to the amendment. i want to begin by thanking the spokesperson for opposing an

east coast site, being one of the few members of the committee that lives within less than 300 miles from a missile defense silo that has who got some missiles -- has four missiles in it. i'm sure the people on the east coast would like to enjoy the same protection near mr. garamendi's. i think he would not say that was unnecessary. >> mr. chairman, if i may for a moment' -- >> everyone knows that the emerging threat from north korea and iran is an emerging threat. as we see an emerging threat, we need to respond to it. this is a provision that would provide for our capability in the future. you mentioned the general's statement. he said, "today we do not need this capability."

he did not say we do not need this capability in the future. the national academy, in prison in their report, indicated that these emerging risks -- in presenting their report, indicated that these emerging noris -- risks. they do not want to wait for a missile to come from mr. garamendi's district all the way across the united states to try to respond to that threat. they want somebody who will be there quicker and have the opportunity to respond. all are open-source intelligence -- all our open-source intelligence indicates that iran could have nuclear capability by 2015. i do not think anyone wants to gamble by saying that our adverse eight years -- our adversaries are going to be so

slow that we can just wait. we cannot wait. this has a rolling time period in which to get done. you cannot just flick a s witch. we know there is a secret deal with the russians were the president believes he will have greater flexibility after the election -- where the president believes he will have greater flexibility after the election. i think most of us on the committee, a majority, believe that we should not be responding to a secret deal with the russians, but responding to the real needs that we have for national security. we need to do missile defense whether this president wants to or not. when you look at the emerging threats, the open source intelligence, it often means with the same conclusion. 2015, the united states could be

at risk for icbm threat from iran. an east-coast side would be a central component to the offending the united states -- to defending the united states. i would hope that everyone would vote against this amendment and would look into sustain our commitment -- vote to sustain our commitment. >> you need not put this into a personal situation. the fact of the matter is that the issue of the north korean missiles is dealt with by the alaska facility. with regard to the east coast, sir, you and i both know it would take a missile from iran, which presumably is the only reason for this. it is clear that the russian icbm's cannot be defended against by this system. it does not work with that threat.

does iran have an icbm? no. could they build one? it is not in process, nor does north korea have one that works. does iran have a warhead that would present a threat to us? no. they will not. i will assume that, should he not be president, the answer would be the same. [cross-talk] >> of course you would argue against the closure of your missile defense site within 300 miles of your district. i firmly believe the people on the east coast should believe we have as robust protection as we look to iran and the emerging threat. i hope that people will vote to defeat the garamendi amendment and not support the president's perhaps a secret deal with the russians.

>> the chair now recognizes the the delay from california, ms. sanchez -- the gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez, for five minutes. >> i would ask my colleagues to support this amendment by representative garamendi. mr. garamendi is correct when he says that there is no current or near-term threat from iran or north korea. we have to remember that. the current plans that we have, in particular with respect to russia, going back to what my colleague from ohio said, has nothing to do with the east coast. russia is worried about europe and adding missile defense in europe. they're not worried about our homeland and what we're doing here. i think to even suggested introduced that issue -- suggest and introduce that issue into

this debate is both unfair and very personal. i do not think it is a necessary thing to do. there is not anything right now or in the near-term future to reach the east coast in that way. you and i can debate. we can think about, we can assume from a weekend strategy as as to what is going on with iran, but it is our military -- we can assume, we cannot strategizing as to what is going on with iran, but it is our military who suggest that we do not require in east-coast missile field -- an east coast missile field. remember the cost. this is millions of dollars to begin the process. it is a $5 billion o 6r billion dollar project. -- or $6 billion project. if you are really interested in having a sound policy and in

putting our money where we need to, we should invest in improving reliability and discrimination for interceptors and sensors. it is a much more cost-effective solution to provide a better defense. in fact, this is the recommendation of a recent nas report and ida reports . the technology of putting something on the east coast is not the technology that is the best thing to do. we should invest in trying to make the missile system be robust before we go and build a third site. i would ask my colleagues to vote for the garimendi amendment and i yield back. >> the chair yields to the gentleman from maryland 5 minutes. >> thank you.

i want to thank mr. turner for taking the time last evening to discuss this issue with me on the floor. we keep watching for north korea and iran to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile which will reach us and we perceive there is no real threat to us until they have done that. i would suggest that that is not really the threat. the threat is imminent now. i spent three days in north korea and these people may be evil but they are not idiots. if they launch from their soil, they know that our satellites would pick that up and within about 30 minutes, they would be vaporized. they are real threats about the threat is not that they will launch an intercontinental ballistic missiles from their soil. if the threat is they will launch a shorter-range missile from a ship off our coast, then the ship would be sunk and

fingerprints' will be difficult to find. we really, really need missile protection on our east coast. i don't know whether a single site - whether geometry would protect us up and down the coast or not and i would be more sanguine with an amendment that said we were going to study the needs for ballistic missile defense and the east coast rather than committing the money to an environmental impact study for a specific site. it may require more than one site and, indeed, the preferred defense might be more ships off our coast for it until you have done that study, i don't know what the resolution would be. i'm going to vote for an amendment that says we need to be looking at the east coast because i think we have a risk that is not a risk of intercontinental ballistic

missiles shot from iran and they're not going to do that, they are not suicidal, i believe. it is the rest from a missile from a ship with much shorter range and therefore the geometry, the curvature of the earth and require we have more than one defense site on the east coast. philosophically, we need to defend ourselves. the threat is more evident than you might imagine. we don't have to wait till an icbm or a crude nuclear weapon and tramp steamer can be acquired for it can be a non- state actor so it is past time to look at the van harris:. i support that philosophy is why not sure the money should be spent on environmental study but we can address that in conference. i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back pretty chair now yields to mr. critts, the gentleman from pennsylvania, 5 minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to express my support of

the amendment. in this time of fiscal issues, i think it is about the prudence use of our resources and i listened intently as mr. bartlett's spoke from a scientific point of view. the threat of a missile being fired from iran is probably not what we should be looking to but a threat from maybe a ship. if i remember correctly, president reagan demanded that gorbachev to other wall -- or downs of the cold war is over and i am not sure about any secret deals that the president has our flexibility and i don't think that has any bearing on this argument. it only served to confuse the argument and muddy the waters. with a bat, i want to speak strongly -- in a time when we should be more prudent with the

dollars we are spending i offer my strong support of mr. garimendi's amendment and i yield the rest of my time to him. >> everyone in this room including those from the west coast spent nearly 3/4 of our days here on the east coast. our personal concern is no less than any other permanent residence. we all care deeply about every american citizen. it is rather disingenuous and incorrect to make an argument that those on the west coast are not concerned about the east coast. >> hold on -- >> i claim my time for one minute. i'm from pennsylvania and that is on the east coast so i have a geographic expertise and i yield the rest of my time. >> yes, we recognize that. the question here and mr. bartlett pointed out the more

immediate threat is likely to be the threat from many days to come. this particular missile defense system is not at all appropriate for short-range missiles that might be fired off the coast in any manner or in a container that might arrive at one of our ports. that is where the big risk is to be found. the national academy of science did look into this missile defense system and it clearly stated it is not ready. it does not work. well. and the last two attempts have failed. we really need to spend our money here if we're going to spend it at all to spend it on making sure this thing works rather than putting a bunch of missiles in the ground that cannot hit an incoming icbm warheads. . we ought to be very cognizant that to insert into this debate about this the presidential

campaign is not worthy of our time. to suggest that the president has a secret deal going is really a nice campaign talking point but has nothing to do with the issue that is before us. the issue before us is whether we should spend up to $5 billion in the next three years put in place a missile defense system that does not work and is defending against a non-existent threat. could that threat come to pass in the future? perhaps it could. but it is not there now and it will not be there in the next few years. we have time to deal with that. if it were to come to pass. let me reiterate that the president has been very clear about the nuclear threat from iran, no way, no how. that is our policy. it is actually in another section of this bill. what are we defending against year?

north korea? the missiles that may or may not work in alaska are as of agreed designed to deal with north korea wherever they may be targeted. it could be used coast, might cut -- midwest, or the west coast as are the missiles in vandenberg. it is not only to protect the west coast. they are midrange missiles, made air, half way here wherever they may be going. we have a missile system that is $5 billion and is not necessary to defend against a nonexistent threats that may or may not work. i also said that the russian missiles are highly sophisticated and the system does not work against a highly sophisticated missile. why are we spending the money? i will let those of you who vote for this answer this question. i think we should be concerned about the deficit and we ought not on necessarily spend defense money. i yield back the time that was kindly given to me. >> the chair now yields to mr.

langborne. >> i could not disagree more. we have heard some of the same briefings although we have not all been there for all of the same briefings. yes, there would be an expense to this but the alternative would be much more expensive. we all know that iran is not capable today of this kind of threat but i think we should all agree that they are working to achieve the capability of having nuclear weapons and having entered ballistic missiles. they have tested intercontinental ballistic missiles and we know that they have centrifuges spinning away as we speak, buried in deep bunkers, trying to develop enriched uranium they say for medical isotopes but i don't

think anyone buys that. there is a threat in the future given their clear intentions. there would be a deterrent effect if we could successfully field and east coast site that would maybe have a deterrent, i don't know, but it would at least be an insurance policy protecting our largest population centers in the country from an iranian threat. the european-faced adaptive approach is geared more for midrange threats. it is good as far as it goes but it does not deal with intercontinental threats. we need some kind of a homeland defense, i think, is a wise investment that is prudent and would be cost-effective when you look at anything remotely attempted by some of the bad

guys out there. the institute for defense analyses and the national academies have done examinations of this. let me stay with the national academy stated and they came and briefed our subcommittee and not everyone was there but they said our recommended homeland defense system would include an interceptor-based in the northeastern part of the united states. this was a briefing based on an analysis that was called for by this committee. congress hasndaa's, said do this study. they did this study and this is what the came up with. also, the commander of northcom into thousand eight recognize -- recommended such a sites of has been top military officials in the dod that have agreed this is

a sound idea. it is a good investment. the time has come for this and, considering the alternative, it would be a prudent thing to do and i would urge everyone support. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> the chair now yields to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks, for five minutes. >> thank you. let me say that it is very difficult to add much to the substance of mr. turner's response. a few observations -- a lot of us are familiar with the civil war and general john sedgwick who was trying to upgrade some of his younger soldiers for dodging bullets. his comments on told among his last words is that they could not have an elephant at this distance and he was killed about a second later. it is always astonishing to me

that we cavalierly suggest we don't need age redundancy when it comes to missile defense against against the most dangerous weapons mankind has ever devised. i don't think one has to be a missile defense nor a nuclear expert to suggest that a nuclear warhead going off in your backyard is a fairly negative developments. it is always astonishing to me that when we have this debate that we overlook the fact that our gmb system is the only tested system we have that defends this homeland against intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, the most dangerous weapons in the history of mankind. mr. chairman, it was not mr. turner grew suggested the president had a secret deal with russia. it was the presidential suggested on nationwide tv to what he thought was a dead microphone. >> will you yield to a question?

>> momentarily. >> the president said that after the alleged, he would have more flexibility. i'm not quite done. to do not say we've got that -- we got a deal and we will get done after the election. he merely said he would have more flexibility to enter into discussion. >> i am reclaiming my time. >> you are completely wrong and it is not helpful to this process. >> let me suggest to you, sir, that anybody believes that the president was not trying to prevent the american people from understanding that he did not what bridget want them to know about this is either naive or deceiving the people themselves. when we are trying to do what we can to defend this country from the likes of iran and north korea, i would not think this

would be a major point of debate in a committee like this. as far as the ultimate ability of us to have a redundancy on the east coast, you don't need not to be an expert there either. there is clearly an advantage to having a site on the east coast. we have been briefed by a number of different people inside and outside the military that there is an added protection to this country for that reason. let me say this and i am through -- it is my hope that people like us that have advocated for this east coast additional site will have to apologize sunday to the american people were building something we did not need. i hope we do but i hope we never have to apologize for not doing the best we did when we had the chance. this notion that we do not build a defense against a potential incoming ballistic missile with

a nuclear warhead until the ridges its apogee, is not a real good plan. i hope that our colleagues go down this amendment with the strongest results and with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yield back barry the chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am sorry that we have sunk to the level of partisan politics in this committee which traditionally has tried to operate without going too far down that road. i am sorry that we have now embarked upon a pundit's path. it is on for 72 get out of it quickly. -- it is unfortunate and we need

to get out of it quickly. it is hard for me to ignore the irony of what we are doing here. talk about wasteful spending! this contributes to the debt and debt as of this country. why are we try to scare people about north korea and iran when everybody knows that they are not capable of mounting an attack against us? then we should put up a star wars shield unneeded and unproven. that is the epitome of wasteful spending. while we are talking about wastefully spending more money on defense, we are debating the republican reconciliation bill

that is going to cut social spending for poor people and working people, elderly, and children but shield defense spending -- but now we will put more wasteful spending on top of that -- this is not good. i think we can talk about this without punching each other around and hitting each other with low blows and the kind of thing. i think we can talk about these policies but it is ironic that we are trying to scare people into supporting a wasteful expenditure and take away food stamps, take away medicaid benefits and taking away other

benefits from people who cannot do for themselves without that help in a period of great unemployment and trying to climb out of this economic downturn. this is crazy. i want us to get back on track doing the business this committee normally does in a business-like manner and let's debate these issues without personal attack and let's think about this holistic play. i think the american people can understand what we're doing. they see it and let's all try to be the kind of representative our people want us to become a thank you. >> the gentleman yield back barry the chair now yields to the gentleman from new jersey

for five minutes. >> i yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you. i want to revisit the issue that those that have led us to the support of the east coast site -- the commander of the u.s. command in 2007 recommended such a sight. this recommendation of the current administration sought instead to move to a european debt phased adaptive approach. the gao called into question the president's plan as to whether or not the president's missiles would be available by 2020 or will have the capability necessary to produce the united states. it is leaving us with the additional ballmer ability. the president's son approach

recognize that more was needed besides just vandenberg air force base in california and alaska and west coast sites. in addition to being supported by the u.s. nor the command in 2007, the east coast's that was supported by the institute for defense analysis and the national academies. they have examined this. these studies have recommended that work begin on the development of deployment of these sites. this is the beginning of the assessment of the plan. there is no site identified but it is moving forward so we can meet the future risk, not to dave's rest, but the future risk we know is coming and would have a knowledge. even the bread and of united states has acknowledged this. our recommended hole lead defense system would include a

missile base site in the northeast. they would receive the first interceptor. the agencies were briefed on these. we asked them to tell us what we should do and all we are doing is doing that. the national academy study also shows concerns about 2b missile or other studies have identified the same thing. the president was very clear. it has said that he said end to the election you have more flexibility. that is a secret deal with the russians. what was frightening is that the

president will tell the russian president that my real position on missile defenses that i cannot tell the american public by will tell you and after the election, i will be able to tell everybody and i will have more flexibility. we don't think we should be guided by the president's secret plan with the russians to diminish our missile defense. we believe we should follow the u.s. nor the commander from 2007-2008 and the national academies he. iran and north continue -- and north korea continued to gain capability we have to respond to that as we look toward 2015 for the prospect of having the capability available. we will be glad that we did. i cannot imagine sitting in this committee and being a member of the committee in 2015 and looking at icbm-capable iran and north korea and say i could have

put something there to protect united states. we need to get there fast enough. we should oppose the presence secret deal with the russians that oppose this amendment as a court martial meant members of the. -- we should support mission protection. >> the gentleman now yields to mr. andrews, five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we have two things going on here simultaneously. we have a diversionary political discussion and we have an important substantive question. the diversionary political discussion is this alleged secret deal the president has with the russians. everyone agrees that what he said was is i will have more flexibility after the election. what has gone on for the last 30 minutes show how candidly correct the president was buried in the environment of the u.s.

political campaign, lots of things are said that create impressions and mish -- misimpressions that create a political environment that a president will have some difficulty operating within. i think this whole discussion is proof positive of the validity of his points. to return to the serious discussion, i think there are two points in agreement here. i don't think there is a member of this committee that was to subject the people of this country no matter where they live to the serious threat of a nuclear weapon raining down that area of the country. no one wants to see that happen. everyone is committed to doing what we can do about that. the second thing i think you would agree with is that the testing tends to show that the ground-based system that this east coast strategy implies has had at best a checkered record of test success. has had a rather dismal record.

what would we do. the prudent thing is to assume that someday someone may have the capability and intention to fire an icbm across the land goes in and hit the united states of america. it would be imprudent to dismiss that discussion. it would be equally important to rest if those perceived void by spending billions of scarce dollars on something that does not work when u.s. and in the does work that you use in such events. let's assume that tomorrow the committee comes in and there is a foreign power that it has with an icbm or the letter goes to the will not really looked at carefully. just over a year ago on april 15, 2011, the u.s.s. oakane

station west of hawaii was in a test mission. we launched an armed icbm from the marshall islands 2003 other miles away. within 11 minutes, with existing technology, they shifted -- detected the trajectory of the icbm and surely there after i added loss 83sm block missile and not to the missile out of the sky. we can do this today with our existing technology. since 2002, 21 of the 25 tests have had successful results. since 2001, 45 of the 58 tested positive results. if we were to have an immediate crisis, the important thing to do would be to russian to spend billions of dollars and some of it will not work.

the pardon and practical an available option will be to deploy this regional technology based on ship board, based on the aegis radar system and use it if we had to. we should be talking about anything, it should be about expanding that capability at the same time in an intelligent and an analytical way we develop ground-based systems. that is a rational response to a real problem. this is a political response to a campaign problem. the amendment to be approved for that reason and i yield back. >> i want to emphasize two things mr. andrews just said. were not talking about whether we will protect the country, we're talking about the fact that that proposal and this bill but mr. turner is to fund a system that currently is not

working when there is a better alterative. it would be $5 billion that would be spent on something that might not necessarily work. you can see how politics enters into this when you automatically translate a benign comment let will allow more flexibility of the election into the absolute factual existence of some detail this -- detailed secret deal. there have been a lot of statements of the system now working and what to call on our staff members to help us with this. there have been failed tests of certain systems.

we're all dealing with information that perhaps is a little imprecise. the ground-based system has been tested and works and there are portions of a system that is bent at the -- has been tested. >> the systems that mr. andrews is referring to work like all the time very well. >> that is not true either. 1sa and 1b test failed. give us a drive through on what has been the focus. >> mr. turner, is correct to fpm missile which failed and

another one felt and one interceptor is 343 their test and the other interceptors have failed last two tests. >> how many of each do we have at this point? we have 20 of the ce-1 interceptors and 20 a ce-2 enters centers. >> this is part of the problem. i yield back my time. >> i would like to yield to the

gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. >> just a quick correction here -- i believe i heard mr. andrews suggest that thesm-e block a would be the answer to this problem. my understanding is that it would have to be stationed pretty perfectly in order to consistently at the approach speeds of an icbm to be affected. i also understand that we debated this when we're talking about the european site to the aegis deployment indicated by the costs test to be much higher than steel silos. the silos with the interceptors was a signal a less cost.

i like to clarify the issue a block21a. would this be an effective defense on the east coast for icbm is? >> the s m 31 a has been tested against short-range and long- range ballistic missiles. to my knowledge, it has not been tested against icbm this. >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes. >> the source for my comments is a release from the missile defense agency dated april 15, 2011. i would ask unanimous consent for it to be entered into the record for the markup. is that appropriate at this time? >> no objections? , itn layperson's terms sounds to me that they fired a missile from 2,400 miles away

and the missile defense system mounted on a ship knocked the missiles out of the sky to reclaim my time -- there is no one that has a higher opinion a ofegis system when i do but everything i've learned about the aegis sm1, block a there has to be an ideal telemetry for it to be affected. has a faster missile and should be able to catch icbm's. with the later models, we have added that is the right now, want to get our facts right. in this situation, the overall point i would make is that -- not to have some redundancy or makes a critical mistake and that has profound indications. with that, i would yield back. >> the chair now yields to the

gentleman from virginia. >> i would like to yield to chairman turner from ohio. >> thank you and i want to thank everybody for the yielding back- and-forth that has occurred for this discussion. everyone has been incredibly polite in ensuring we can get to what is the substance of the systems we have and what works and does not. i want to make sure we don't end the debate leading the people the impression that the system did not work. there is significant investment in a system that has been tested and absolutely works and there are problems with the stretches of the system as a try to implement new technologies. we will get those right and when we do, we will have greater flexibility. i would like to end this debate by saying that our subcommittee can invite all personnel in to go through with the cowboys are so that we cannot -- we don't

have to deal with the information we thought we did not have. you can learn that this stuff works and is important and the threat is real and we would be glad to host that an uncertain want to invite all of you to hear from the exports were works. -- from the experts what works. >> the chair now yields to the gentle lady from california, ms. davis. >> i would like to yield to the ranking share on this that i thank you. it is a very technical issue we are talking about. some of this is somewhat classified. for somebody to think that a missile can be shot from north korea and reach the east coast or any portion of its, you just mass ofook at tujhthe

it. you were talking about trajectory and your talk about how to position a ship so we can shoot some of those down. the whole east coast is also not exposed on this. going to throw in technical pieces, let's give this right. this technology from a grounded- based system has had only eight of 17 tries have worked. that is not a good percentage. to think somehow that when we shoot that missile in that text, that it is in the conditions of what would be coming from north

korea ran over her added that have the technology and if they have them do a clear warhead. speed orput in the know where it is coming from. we're still not shooting it down. these systems are not as robust, mr. chairman, as you suggest. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will in a minute. to be putting in a system that is not as robust and that is the way i will put it, you have only one thing to look at -- general o'reilly has said that i need to go back with my team and get this technology rights. he has passed and laid out the fastest plan he can which will

take two years at best to see if we should go down that road and we can get a system that is as robust as some how you are suggesting to people on the east coast that we could shoot these things down. i will yield to the young lady. >> thank you for yielding. very quickly -- i say do this irrational and stays away. the amendment is very clear. it eliminates the two -- >> can you show us where the were rational is in your management. it just shows the word strike. there is nothing about rational. >> we have worked many days

together and i would like to continue to do that in a way that does not back -- that does not get personal. >> i'm just reading the language. >> you are correct, sir. there is a second amendment that says it differently. we will take up in a few minutes. my apologies. >> the gentleman yield back. >> the chair now yields to the gentleman from florida -- from florida, mr. miller. >> thank you very much. i yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you. i am very concerned when there are statements made that there is no threat and the systems do not work. even though we have the benefit of classified briefings to contradict that, there are

enough non-classified statements of information that we can bring forward to contradict these statements of it not working and there is no threat. one of which is secretary gates himself who said north korea's capabilities, they are seeking a threat of the continental united states. the argument about not worrying is an absolute overstatement. we are talking about the future. we're talking about a threat that is real. people.american when the secretary of defense tells the public, the continental united states that there are at risk, they are at risk. should not be debated like fiction. subsequent to this markell, will host a classified briefing and i

invite all of you to attend and you'll find this system works. there are many missiles that we have better are under development. there are many missiles being tested while they are being deployed. when you lump them altogether and said the missiles that are being tested or developed and put those against a missile that works as in the ground and say a shot off i should have won the ground but it does not work by another one that does works to their 50% reliable. they are not the same missile. we should not combine all the information together and confusing people. with ground-based missiles that or can we need to proceed. i will call on people to oppose gar a mendi's amendment. i would ask you to vote down the amendments.

>> the gentleman yield back. any further discussion? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. garamendi. all those in favor will say i those opposed will say no the no's have it in the amendment is not agreed to. roll call has been requested. we will call the roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any other amendments? >> @ -- i have an amendment at the desk. >> will clark pass out the amendment? r1 147-are1 >> reading the amendment will be dispensed with.

>> the chair recognized the gentle lady for the purpose of exploiting her proposal. >> this is a green-based strategy. -- ground-based strategy. there is a record of testing failure and it has had those two back-to-back failures just discussed. the u.s. has deployed 26 ground- based interceptors and alaska

and four in california. there have been all eight kids at a 17 tries of this mess is a since 1997. the last two intercept flight tests and jim leyritz, 2010 and december 2010 failed. there has not been another successful ground based missile midcourse defense flight since december, 2008. in march of 2012, the pentagon would delayt was dela another flight test until late 2012 so it could continue to evaluate the system and determine the cause of the recent test failures. conducted ailly has rigorous analysis and is proceeding deliberately. mda has identified the cause of

failure and is implementing fixes before the ground testing this summer and another flight test in december. more funding will not speed this up. more funding will not read -- speed up the task of investigative work. teh gao found there should be another $100 million that could be cut from the budget. in his 2011 report on u.s. missile defense systems, dr. gillmore stated that today's ,gmd has distributed a limited

capability against a specific threat referring to the decoys and countermeasures. a 2011 defense report added that while the ability to dependably discriminate reentry vehicles from penetration and other objects is essential to an effective missile defense system. discrimination is still not a complete solved problem. recent studies concluded that improvements in discrimination are reliability of gbi's needed. a 1999 national intelligence estimated that country's developing or plastic missiles like korea and iran will also develop those that are responsible to our defenses by the time they would flight test their missile. despite sending billions of

dollars on missile defense, it remains a troubled system. according to the missile defense agency estimation, congress's appropriating almost 100,000 -- $150 billion on this program between fiscal year 1985 and 2012. this does not include the $8.6 billion a m or theda in fiscal year 2013, service spending on programs that serve the patriot system are many tens of billions of dollars spent with work on a anti-missile system but \ . why are you adding more money? general o'reilly has said he does not need it. he needs to get through these tasks. when he finishes, we will talk about what we need to actually build. i yield back my time. >> mr. chairman --

>> i hear the discussion and not all of it is very productive but i also see in the education part -- i also sit on the education committee and we determine how much we spent on title won since was first passed. it was $400 billion. we're not quite to stop. we'll keep working ago -- because we haven't solved all problems. we're probably not going to stop because we have not solved the problem. until we have a system that will do the whole job, will have to keep working because we need to be protected. >> maris is something to you on that? >> i recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> i would begin by reiterating

the point you just made nine runs -- when one runs into difficulties, is usually not to throw your hands and give up. i know of no completely solved problem in the world, almost. i've never run into it. what comes to our gnp system, it is important to note that this is our only tested and proven system to the vendor, and of united states against incoming intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles. to me, that puts them in a fairly important category for all the consideration we might have. there has also been some discussion about some of the recent test failures. it also harkens back to the first discussions about missile defense. some people have said this is star wars.

they say it is an unresolvable system because it is like hitting a bullet with a bullet. remember that debate two decades ago. allen possible end our ridiculous. today, the closing speeds of our hit to kill technology is far beyond that there. we don't just had a bullet with a bullet, we had a dot on the side of a bullet with great consisting of that most of the time. we live in a different world where there may come a time in the future were some jihadist mind-set could launch a nuclear missile against the united states and we should not strip ourselves of the only tested proven system we had to do that -- defend their home. every year since this president has been in office, he has

requested a reduction in our ground-based missile defense capability and the appropriations process. mr. chairman, i just sometimes wonder what the preferred alternative is. i heard from my colleagues on the other side that we have a better system that would more effectively defeat the homeland, i would listen with bated breath. it seems the only preferred alternative is to cut funding or reduce funding when we face a different world than we ever face. i find that to be irresponsible given the committee and the station in life they to us is in. i would hope my colleagues would defeat this amendment and we would move forward with the markup. the german yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it has been said by most

everybody here that everyone on this committee shares a common goal of protecting the united states from a missile attack and any other attack i don't think there's any doubt that we all share that mission. the question here in this amendment is how are we going to spend our money? will we spend it wisely in a way that would continue to allow the necessary research and development of this and that presently does not work very well. it does not really have the capability to receive this stage to goals. instead of putting an extraordinary additional money into this are making it available for corp., this amendment simply says to to get back spend and spend the money that you need to spend in the

coming year to achieve the improvements that are necessary and the men and women in charge of the system say must be made the court -- before it is doable. we need to reduce the expenditure, spend only what you need. that is what this amendment does. it is not a debate about whether we should proceed or not. is just that we should spend his money wisely. no more than necessary. next year, they're able to solve the problems in the intervening year, we'll come back and continue to make money available for its invasion of the program. thee not talking about sm-3. this one is not working well and we should not put any more money out there that is necessary to continue the proper investigation and say the necessary money -- the remaining money for those things that unnecessary.

-- those things that are necessary. there are technologies being developed which may be successful. we don't know we're putting money into those technologies, also, as we should trade we need to protect ourselves. the greatest threat is not necessarily an icbm but rather some other mechanism of delivering i urge you to take a look at what is in this amendment and put aside the rhetoric that all this have been engaged in and look at what is actually being proposed which is a limitation on the amount of money we're going to spend, allowing this to take unnecessary expenditure as that on something we need. with that, i yield back. >> the chair now yields to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i just want to focus the debate on this particular amendment. this is a relatively narrow amendment on our ground-based system. our system is the only system that protects the international -- the internal -- the intercontinental ballistic missile and it works and it is the system we rely on for existing threats and for the media the emergence threats. to cut this system is to actually go to the heart of our current capabilities. there are different missiles that people are 42 and they are either future missiles or missile like currently do not have the capability of

responding to an icbm threats. i don't know what the president meant when he said without open microphone that i will have greater flexibility after this election to dmitry medvedev was to be delivered on to vladimir putin about our missile defense system geared we've asked the president to disclose what the details of that future flexibility is but he has not told us. one thing i can be pretty sure of is if the russians were going to like what he was doing, they relied this. that is cutting the only system we have the upper texas icbm threats to the united states. when we talk about future capabilities and failures of the testing, is our reach, and a greater technology and greater innovation and greater understanding of how to better protect the united states.

the ranking members said the system does not currently respond to... and there are a list of future threats. it says the risk is evolving and we need to revolve. with that, i will be opposing the amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. >> if there is no further debate on this, the question is on the amendment. this is a man and a number 4310 if you are in favor come a sayye. >> excuse me 17401. have it. the man is not agree to add a recorded vote has been agreed to.

the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. thank you, mr. chairman. what my colleague from missouri and i have introduced is a simple amendment which is less than 50 words that will clearly state once and for all that no military installations of use to perform a marriage or marriage laws-like ceremony involving any of the other than the union of one man with one woman. the defense of marriage? also no asdoma passed in 1996 was clear. unfortunately, some in this of ministers has selectively enforce existing law is based on their own personal beliefs. this has led to much confusion in our armed forces and elsewhere. in the spring of 2011, many of my colleagues and i were alarmed to find that the chief of chaplains, rather admiral marl

kid. this was a clear violation a do ofma as all military institutions are federal property and come under the jurisdiction of federal law. that is why i joined with congress aiken and secretary -- and 60 of my colleagues. the department of defense issued an additional two memos that lie in the face and the first is fromjay johnson who says the requirement of dod facilities made available for private function of the cell is a sexual oriented this presidency. mr. johnson has clearly stated he does not believe the doma is constitutional and does not believe it should be enforced. the attorney general says the department of justice will no

longer a defendsdoma in the courts. the attorney general cited present obama's own doubts about the constitutionality of doma to justify his decisions and today, the president made remarks concerning same-sex marriage in the military. this is not about how many of these individuals feel about current law. it is not of the java j johnson or attorney-general holder or present obama to decide what is or is not constitutional and selectively apply the law to their way in texas. the jobs -- and defend the law as it is written. these actions have created uncertainty regarding the application of federal law to federal property, military bases, where there should be no uncertain vaguerdoma remains the law of the land that should be enforced as such. i am introducing this amendment with my colleague from missouri

to reinforce existing federal law and provide misleading -- much needed clarification. = =--by simply stati that marriage between a man and a woman will take place on military institutions. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment does nothing more than clarify for the department defense that this standard should be upheld a military bases. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yield back. the chair now recognizes mr. davis from california for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. we're talking about a policy that allows dod real property and brazil this to be used on a sexually neutral basis provided that such use is not prohibited

by any applicable state and local laws. private funds are not official activities of the department of defense and therefore they do not constitute an endorsement of the department of defense. eligible beneficiaries should not be denied the use of this. regardless of an individual's sexual orientation, they should be provided the same access to dod installations that every other service member might enjoythe dod policy allows the military chaplains participate -- can participate or a officiate at a ceremony on or off the base provide the ceremony is not prohibited by applicable state laws. we know that chaplains are not required to participate or officiate in private ceremonies that would violate the tenants of their religious or personal

beliefs. that is very clear. there is no compelling evidence to suggest that ended thing is happening other than that. participation of a military chaplain and private ceremony is not prove an irresolution. i believe that this amendment seeks to discriminate against a class of individuals based solely on a site -- sensuality. the quesadilla oppose whon't think anybody attends those functions would feel that is appropriate or proper. the same thing would apply in this case. >> >> the gentle lady yells back. chair recognizes mr. antar is from new jersey for five minutes. >> i oppose this amendment because i believe a mysterydoma

completely and because it misconstrues the very important spirit of the separation of church and state that is recognized in the first amendment of the constitution. with respect to the claim that the voluntary performance of a marriage or a marriage-like, what ever that is, ceremony, on a military base dom let'sa ist notisthe doma statute says that no state that chooses not to recognize same-sex marriage could be compelled to recognize an order of hours that residents in the states that it does. that is irrelevant to this amendment. for purposes under federal law or the word marriage appears, it means one man or one woman of intodoma.

according to the situation got imagine a situation where a minister of a church or a faith practices that faith and believes that some form of marriage or civil union between two persons of the same sex is entirely consistent with that face, that this minister chooses to officiate over a ceremony on a military base. first of all, it is not a violation of doma. second, i think this amendment is a violation of the first amendment freedom of religion rights of that faith minister and of those service members. there's a difference between legal marriage and the religious ceremony that commemorates a marriage.

i completely agree that a rule or statute of the department of defense that purports to authorize the legal institute demerit among service members would be outside the jurisdiction of what the department does. no one is suggesting that should be the case. we are suggesting that if a chaplain chooses to perform a religious ceremony voluntarily that involves two service members of the same gender. the exclusion of the right to do that with two people different agendas differently it -- is a violation of religious freedom. no one has to accept as a

religious doctrine same-sex marriage. i would be the first one to vote against and speak against any rule that says the catholic priest has to perform a same-sex marriage. or an orthodox rabbi or any other person of faith that would feel that way. for the very same reason i would take that position to defend their religious conscience, i think the amendment that vial is the religious conscience -- conference of a fifth writer who feels terribly as bile tate -- violated of the first amendment principles. this amendment misinterprets the law and more importantly, misinterprets the meaning, the historic meeting of the freedom of religion clause of this country. for that reason, is to be defeated and the yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. es.s chair recognized browns >> a marriage ceremony i

military base does not fly d lateoma for all the reasons that were just pointed out. it puts united states government and department of to the defense and a position of acting contrary to state law. in those states where same-sex civil unions have been recognized. we would be saying no you cannot enforce your law and federal government will step of what the states are trying to do. it also denigrates the service of gay and lesbian women serving in a military by cms second- class citizens with don't think you want to go. it took us alongside iraq feel that. now we have done that, i think we should treat all those serving in the military equally and not single out some for discrimination for any reason. this amendment is very poorly thought out and is not going to be good for the military and insults' the gay and lesbians who are defending our country.

i would urge opposition to the amendment. >> the chair now recognizes mr. west from florida for 5 minutes. >> thank you. i think this is one of the points of confusion -- when you go onto a military installation, all things in prince you have offset offer a bigger change. in the state of florida, even ride a motorcycle without a helmet. as soon as you go on to a military installation, not only do you have to have a helmet, you must have boots, you must of gloves, and you must have a repair said whether you are military or civilian. one of the things that we may not agree with this amendment but we have to start looking at what defines a military institution. the uniform court -- code of military justice is unlike civilian law. as a former commander, i could find someone for not having

proper hair cut. i don't think anyone in the civilian world could find somebody for not having a proper hair cut. occupies a barrel for bouncing checks. a big and one in the civilian world and pies a guy for bouncing checks. my colleague has brought up in interest to.. these are some of the unintended consequences we have to go rushing down the aisle and we don't really understand some of the second and third order effects of selling like this. the mission of united states military is to fight and win our wars. women start to take united states military and conforming to individual behavior "said the types of problems we will have. whether or not my dear friend wants to withdraw his amendment and go back and refined is a man and got that's five but this is the type of discussion we will have to have about many of these things where you cannot make civilian society like the military. a military post your

installation is its own separate entity and is totally different from civilian society and totally devin once you cross that eight you fall under the jurisdiction of them has subtly different. >> thank you. i believe your service to your nation in the military and hal l'aquila you can phrase things -- this is just a simple clarifying amendment. , doma is clear that for purposes of the federal government, marriages to find between one man and one woman. doma applies to dod thistle is which are federal properties. because there is confusion coming from bureaucrats in this administration, it is important that we clarify this for our men and women in uniform.

domo was passed in 1996 with an overwhelmingly large bipartisan support. in the house, it had treated 42-67. in the senate 85-14 and was signed by a president clinton into law in 1996. law change like the law. we are trying to help that men and women in uniform notice of to plies doma. >> i think we also ought to understand that the military chapel's fall under the allied command. the catoe and their military -- having been a former executive officer and commander, i had chaplains under my command. >> the german yields back and the chair recognizes mr.

saunders from massachusetts for five minutes. >> -- ms. tsongas from massachusetts for five minutes. this obviously treats had a rigid, sexual and lesbian soldiers from their compadres. this was chris of a conservative get a service member. why should we treat them to run the and about its they are afforded. clearly i agree that no one should be forced to perform duties that go against their moral or religious beliefs. that is why a provision allowing military chaplains to decline to preside over same-sex ceremonies was signed into law as part of the fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization act. the department of defense's general counsel believe same-sex

marriage performed on military facilities are not official activities. in a memo, we heard private funds and not official activities of the department of defense perry the active dod facilities available for private functions including religious and other at that -- activities does not constitute an endorsement of the activities by dod. but as a result, they are permissible as sanctioned under the state laws which governs each individual case. i am proud to come from a state that has led the nation with his commitment to civil rights and is the first to recognize same- sex marriage. i am proud to see our president today recognized that same thing. i urge no vote on this amendment. >> thank you. > the gentle lady yelled back.

the chair now recognizes best critts for 5 minutes. >> i have a couple of questions about the amendment. what happens next? i would ask for a response from the sponsor. if someone does perform this ceremony on department of defense property, what would happen to them? or if the group doing it is caught and what happens next. >> i don't know what would happen next. i think it is a rhetorical question. it is illegal to perform such procedures on federal property according to doma. i guess that would be up to if you don't have a department of

justice enforcing laws, nothing happens. if you don't have the military commanders involved -- it's not illegal at this point, is it right? >> it is illegal to perform same-sex marriages on federal property. this is clarifying language. that helps provide guidance to our men and women in uniform. >> i yield to mr. anders. >> is it illegal to perform a marriage, a same-sex marriage in a federal park? ubnder doma? >> if it is federal land, federal property, it would go a againstdoma.

before i yield back, i would simply say the doma statute says marriage means one man and one woman. unless you have a statute that would outlaw marriages specifically authorize marriages in federal parks, you can have a same-sex marriage and a federal park. that just happens. i would yield back. >> my question was just a clarification. i don't understand what would happen because i don't think it is illegal and the yield back. >> the chair now recognizes ms. spear from california for five men as. >> i rise in opposition to this amendment. i realize i am fairly new here but to think we are spending time on this amendment when we

have taken up hundreds of billions of dollars today without even a comment here or there is somewhat striking, i think. the most important thing to appreciate here is that this would only take place in states that have passed laws that have legalized same-sex marriages. this will not take place at military installations in states that have not legalized same-sex marriage. these are not official activities. the property is this of a restated as being available for private purposes. to that extent, for all of us who embrace state rights, why would we now prevents states from exercising their right as a state to pass laws that reflect their interest? i, too would add my voice to a

chorus of those who have opposed this and i yield back. >> are there any other discussions on the amendment? if not, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. plot so of mississippi. those in favor? >> aye. >> those opposed? >> no. >> the ayes have it, the amendment is not agreed to -- the amendment is agreed to. we will call the roll call of the end of the subcommittee. are there any other amendments for the subcommittee report?

>> mr. chairman, i have an amendment. >> will the clerk please distribute the amendment? >> without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purposes of authorizing and explaining his amendment. >> the president has repealed a don't ask, don't tell, and is now using the military as a campaign prop to advance the gay agenda. my sons, our sons and daughters, did not volunteer to be part of some political agenda.

they volunteered to be part of our country and protect it. by ignoring doma, he is promoting same-sex marriages on federal property. this has all resulted in the need for certain conscience protections for members of the military, for military chaplains. i have a few examples here, just to give a flavor of some things that are happening in the military. these people's names are protected. a chaplain was threatened with early retirement and moved to an assignment where he could be supervised. what did he do wrong? he merely forwarded an e-mail to his subordinates that was a thoughtful reflection of the military's former don't ask, don't tell policy. a number of other examples. i will read one other.

a servant school -- service school recently when karen incident where one male member harassed another. the offender was not injured -- offended was not interested in a same-sex relationship. the offender insisted that they would make a good couple. no disciplinary action was taken. i have another of the other -- number of other examples from an organization called the chaplin alliance for religious liberty. this amendment is necessary to try to blunt -- to try to protect the religious beliefs of people in the service and make sure that they cannot be persecuted or denied rank advancement or education of things because they are not politically correct.

this amendment is not only endorsed by those 2000 chaplains, i also have a right of endorsement from the military archdiocese of the usa. the top roman catholic chaplain. this was really a response to the challenges of changing the various policies that i outlined to begin with. this is, quite simply, a chance for people to have their conscience protected, to create some kind of level playing field in the things that had happened in the destruction of these various policies. i wanted to yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yield back this time. the chair now recognizes mr. andrews of new jersey for five minutes. >> i would urge opposition to this amendment. it states desirable principles of our already low wall.

the redundancy of adopting this amendment, here's what this does. the operative language of this is sub pit -- sub paragraph and a of the first page, saying that a decision maker may not use conscience principles or belief as a basis for adverse personnel actions. the nile, promotion, etc.. what do you think would happen if a soldier were up for promotion and there was a finding that the soldier was jewish? and there was indication on the record that the reason the soldier did not get the promotion was because there was a practicing jew. under any understanding that i have of the rules and procedures of the military, that would be

illegal and outrageous. they could not be denied a promotion. the same is already true reflecting the practice of religious beliefs concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of sexuality. if this amendment said concerning the appropriate -- concerning the exercise of any matter of religious conscience, and i think this is not only inappropriate, but already the law, you cannot discriminate against a person in uniform because he or she expresses a religious preference. to give special treatment to a person whose religious preference focuses on "the appropriate expression of human sexuality," is not only unnecessary, but as mischief to the principle. one thing about the earlier

amendment that is germane to this, my friend from florida who has served the country so well, i respect his experience her much. he talks about the fact that you cannot ride a motorcycle on the base because you cannot ride a motorcycle on the base, because of the need for military discipline. if the rules said that people with red hair cannot ride a motorcycle on the base, but other people can, there would be something wrong with that rule. christians can ride it, but cannot, there would be something wrong with that rule. the issue is not military discipline. it is the discriminatory application of military discipline based upon immutable factors like sexual orientation. the principles expressed in this amendment are fine. they are already illegal if you take adverse action based upon this. by singling out simply matters

of religious conscience concerning the appropriate and inappropriate expression of human sexuality, i think that this does much more mischief than it prevents. i would urge people to vote no on the amendment and yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona for five minutes. >> like i just said, i want to remind all of us that freedom of religion is probably the cornerstone of all freedoms. i think that we can miss the forest for the trees here, if we are not careful. the expression of true tolerance is not attending you have no difference. we certainly have differences on this committee. but the expression of being kind and decent to each other despite differences, this simply says the chaplin cannot be held for averse personal action without wanting to do something that is contrary to their religious

beliefs. we allow soldiers not to pick up a gun. we say that if you are a conscientious objector from a religious perspective, we will let you in the service, but you do not have to pick up a gun and take up arms against a neighbor. we go to great lengths to allow people religious expression. we get all focused on one aspect, but it seems like it is under the direction we have been going for the past few years. in this case i believe it is important that we do not suggest we have the right to force chaplains to violate their religious belief in any area, and this would certainly be one of them. i would hope that my colleagues would support the amendment. i yield back. >> the chair now recognizes the lady from davis. >> thank you. i would like to point out to

your members here that this is a protection of rights of conscience of members of the armed forces and chaplains of such members. the issue of the chaplains has been addressed in the last, as we discussed. military chaplains, a matter of conscience may not wish to perform a marriage or do so, but this goes much further, because this speaks to members of the armed forces and service members in general. i want to ask my colleague, who decides whether or not people are expressing having an inappropriate expression of human sexuality, or cannot use such conscience principles or release. the problem here is that we are

talking about religious freedoms, generally speaking. the law is clear that issues of religious freedom can be expressed. but the former bill that we passed this not include all members in there. i do not know how you continue to have good discipline in command of somehow or other someone has to define what is being protected under the rights of conscience. we already protect religious freedom. what is now protected is sexual orientation, that is not a protected class. it does not exist against sexual orientation. in many ways we are inviting discriminatory treatment of gay

and lesbian service members, who would use [no audio] in in >> we are having some technical trouble with the program you're watching. we hope to return the program shortly.

[no audio]

>> we are having some problems with the program earlier. we will bring you back to you now, the second part of the house armed services committee with defense authorization

markup. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi for the purposes of authorizing and explaining his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. what my colleagues and i have introduced is a simple amendment, less than 50 words, the clearly states, once and for all, that no military installation show used to perform a marriage or anything resembling a marriage with anything other than a man and woman. the defense of marriage act passed in 1996 was clear in defining the role of marriage for purposes of the federal government. unfortunately, some in this of ministration hassocks note -- selectively enforced individual laws based on the personal beliefs, leading to much confusion in the armed forces and elsewhere. many of our colleagues were alarmed to find that the chief of chaplains had signed a memo stating that if the base was

located in a state where same- sex marriage was legal, base facilities to be used to celebrate the marriage. this was a clear violation of doma, as all military installations are federal property and, under the jurisdiction of federal law. that is why i join with the congressman and 62 of our colleagues to share in these concerns. september 2011, the form of defense issued an additional two memos that flew in the face of goma -- doma. it had been required that these facilities be made available by sexual orientation neutral basis. mr. johnson has clearly stated that he does not believe that doma is constitutional and accordingly does not believe it should be enforced. the attorney general has stated that the foreman of justice will no longer defend doma in courts.

the attorney-general cited own doubts toma's justify the decisions. today the president made remarks concerning same-sex marriage in the military. the point is that this is not about how many individuals feel about current law. it is not about the job of j johnson or the attorney general, or even president obama to decide what is and is not constitutional and selectively apply the law to their whims and tastes. their job is to uphold and defend the law as written. these actions have created uncertainty regarding the application of federal law to federal property, where there should be no uncertainty. very simply, doma should be enforced as lot of the land without exception or reservation. that is why i am introducing this amendment with my

colleagues from missouri to reinforce existing federal law and provide much needed verification that the law complies by simply stating that only marriages between demand and a woman will be permitted to take place on military installations. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment that does nothing more than clarify that this standard should be upheld on military bases. i reserve the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back this time. >> i yield back. >> the chair recognizes ms. davis, california, for five minutes. >> thank you. we are talking about a policy year that allows real property and facilities to provide on aions to be used1 sexual orientation neutral basis provided that the use is not

prohibited by any applicable state or local laws. private functions, as we know, are not official activities of the department of defense and therefore do not constitute an endorsement of the department of defense. eligible beneficiaries should not be provided use of these installations based solely on sexual orientation. because of an individual sexual orientation, they should be providing the same access that any other service member or eligible beneficiary might enjoy. the policy allows for military chaplains to participate or officiate in any private ceremony, bonn or off, provided that the ceremony is now prohibited by applicable state and local laws. we know the chaplains are not required to participate or officiate in private ceremonies that would violate the tenants of their religious or personal

beliefs, that is very clear. there is no compelling evidence suggesting anything other than that. participation does not constitute an endorsement by the department of defense. i believe that this amendment seeks to discriminate against a class of individuals based solely on the sexual orientation. this could possibly open the door for other ceremonies that occur on bases to not be allowed. i do not think that anyone who attends those functions would feel that that is appropriate or proper. in this case, the same apply. >> the gentle lady yields back. the chair recognizes mr. andrews for five minutes. >> thank you. i oppose this amendment because

i think it misreads doma completely and it misconstrues the spirit of the separation of church and state as recognized in the first amendment of the constitution. first of all, with respect to the claim that volunteer performance of a marriage or marriage-like, whenever that is, a ceremony on a military base, that it violates doma, that is not so. the statute does two things. it says no state that chooses not to recognize same-sex marriage could be compelled to recognize the order that originates in a state that does. frankly, that is irrelevant to this amendment. the second part says that essentially for all purposes under federal law, where the word marriage appears it means one man and one woman.

now, in this situation -- imagine a situation where the minister of a church or faith practices that faith and, in fact, believes that some form of marriage or civil union between two people of the same sex is entirely consistent with that faith? and that faith minister chooses to officiate over a ceremony on a military base. first of all, it is not a violation of doma. second, i think that this amendment is a violation of the first amendment freedom of religion rights of that faith minister and of those service members. there is a difference between legal marriage and the religious ceremony that commemorates a marriage.

i completely agree that a rule or statute of the department of defense that purports to authorize the legal institution of marriage amongst service members would be outside the jurisdiction of what the department does. no one is suggesting that that would be the case. we are suggesting that a chaplain, a faith official, a minister chooses to perform a religious ceremony voluntarily that involves two service members of the same gender -- >> you can watch the rest of this hearing on line. right now we will take you to some of the debate from the house floor on thursday, by a vote of 218-199, the voted to replace the budget sequester, $98 billion in cuts from the

budget in social programs with different cups. $1.20 trillion had been pledged to offset the increase. as the super committee refused to agree on specifics, it went into effect, coming up with other options for where to cut that $98 billion. the house passed the republican bill and sent it to the senate. this is just over an hour. nd their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. woodall: i appreciate you coming in early to be with us this morning. this is a big day. this is the reconciliation bill. i serve on both the rules committee and budget committee, mr. speaker, and as you know we have had some tremendous successes in the appropriations process. this week we have been working through the commerce, justice, science bill. it's a bill that's reduced spending to those levels that we had in 2008. doing those things that the voters sent us here to do. and we are going to vote on that bill today in final passage, but

an appropriations process we have control in this house that process where we reduced spending from 2010 levels down to 2011 levels, they'll go down again for 2013 levels to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, those are overwhelm 1/3 of the taxpayer dollars. 2/3 of the taxpayer dollars that are spent in this town, i mean borrowed and then spent, come on what they call mandatory spending programs. mr. speaker, as you know mandatory spending programs are dollars that go out the door whether congress acts or not. appropriations bills require congress to act affirmatively. but mandatory spending goes right out the door without any oversight from this body. until you get to reconciliation. reconciliation is that process that democrats put in place wisely years and years ago to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight

on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker. to allow the house and the senate to come together and begin to reduce, restrain, do oversight on those mandatory spending dollars. this is a rule that brings that bill to the floor. now, that bill is going to be coming under a closed rule, mr. speaker. we are talking about a bill that has been put together by almost every committee of jurisdiction here in this house and assembled by the budget committee, brought

here to the floor. it's been the subject of countless hearings already. we look at whether or not we would be able to bring a substitute, democratic substitute to the floor. none was smithed that fly with the rules of the house. so we have one bill on the floor today. an up or down vote on whether or not we are willing to engage in the first serious reconciliation process on this floor. some folks might say 2003, i say 1991. it's the right thing to do anyway as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. in this case these aren't reductions for the sake of reductions. these are reductions for the sake of complying with what i would argue was a very good deficit reduction agreement between the president and the senate and the white house last august. and as a part of that agreement we put in some blanket cuts to national security, some blanket cuts that some commentators have described these cuts, mr. speaker, as being intentionally so crazy that they would never happen but would be used only as a tool to get the joint select committee to act. as you know, mr. speaker, the joint select committee did not succeed last fall. it's a source of great frustration for me and the members who served on that committee, had an opportunity to bring an up or down vote to both the house and senate floor on anything they came up with, mr. speaker. they didn't have to get the whole 1.2, they didn't have to get 1.5. they could have just gotten one. half of one. they could have gotten quarter of one. but they got nothing. so where are we?

well, in the words ever secretary of defense leon panetta, he said we are at a place where if these cuts are allowed to go the impact of these cuts would be devastating to the defense department. i happen to share his concerns. again, these were yoord cuts, put in place to be so intentionally crazy that congress would never allow them to occur. it would spur the joint committee to action. i happen to have supported, mr. speaker, an amendment offered by chris van hollen of maryland, the ranking member on the budget committee when we were going through the process last year, he offered an amendment that said, everything's got to be on the table. that includes the defense department. i agree with him. the defense department does need to be on the table. the defense department is undergoing $300 billion towards the reductions today. this bill does nothing to change that. $300 billion being reduced from the defense department as well it should, it's not easy but it should happen and it is

happening, this doesn't deal with that. this is dealing with additional cuts. again the words of secretary of defense, leon panetta, former democratic member of this house, impact of these cuts would be devastating for the department. so we have an opportunity, mr. speaker, to do what i would argue you and i came here to do. not just you and i, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do those things not just that happen year after year after year, those things that have 12 months of efficacy and go away, but things that can be set in permanent law to change the direction of spending and borrowing in this country. candidly, mr. speaker, it's more about the borrowing than it is about the spending. there are priorities in this country. i would argue we did a great job of focusing on the plyors. when you are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar from your children and grandchildren, we have to redefine what responsibility is. that is irresponsible. and this bill th