in one of the things that they have not provided and i don't believe they have done so from my inquiries is how that is being utilized. and what does that look like. and that will be really important and so have is 6:09 -- that's really important to understand how you connect them to the organizations here before they leave them in the institution. >> thank you, my time is expired. >> thank you so much. the final questions from the ranking member, mr. brown's. >> thank you. >> thank you, it is very educational. i want to answer some questions that i didn't really give the answers to. the first is i think that is wonderful but it should be -- when we tackle homelessness, when we were able to engage the

community and the va took the lead, we brought that down. and i think that we can do the same with leadership. and so the veterans crisis hotline has come under scrutiny and it has been realigned and i felt that they were on the right track. and everybody knows that they do an excellent job. they know that they should do this and all of this, the peer-to-peer and then the training of the va is different from peer-to-peer and to me it is in the community and they do an excellent job. i have not heard enough of that with the female veterans. i have had several with them,

and we have come up with the women's veterans memorial that we do every year, but they are not educated with what services are available. i don't understand why the women get such a fall out. they don't know what services are available and they don't really use them as a part of the system. so we really need to do some work in that area and we do want to hear about the vietnam veterans because when i went to this conference that is the one area that stood out. saying that the vietnam veterans are one of the highest groups committing suicide. because when they came back and so we need some special reach out. so the last thing that i want to mention is that we would like to give scholarships in that area.

and to give them not just this but social work in other areas. and of course, to get the assistance maybe you need a doctor. but some of us may need the entry level to be referred to a doctor. so with that, i want to hear from everybody. >> i will start on the sand and then we will keep going. we have gotten very loud and clear the message about the 12 priorities. so we thank you for communicating that very effectively. we agreed that the crisis line has been reorganized. and we are really pleased that there'll be a total of 343 responders. i definitely feel like that is moving in the right direction and the lines of that group is right in place. we thank you for celebrating and

we are very celebrated about this and we are very happy to be key partners. we need to do better. we need to have a welcoming environment. we have heard from them what sometimes is perceived is less than welcoming. we need to fix what that is. in addition, we welcome all the help in getting the word out about the va being there for them. we have a communications campaign and we have done a lot with images to improve them. we are also looking at how inclusive we are in treatment programs and research studies and everything else. and so the vietnam vets, as they rolled out the celebration, we have been awarding a number of veterans welcome home medals recognizing 50 years of service including some of our own

employees who continued in ways that i have never seen. we would like to say welcome home to them as a nation. we do that individually, but to have that 50 year anniversary be a reason to do it is a really important thing. we agree about college and scholarships and i will kim ruocco: pass this on to the will pass this on to the rest of the panel. >> one thing that i hear from the families all the time is that they worry how their loved one dies, that it will kind of be what people focus on and they forget how they lived. many of the families and in my testimony, there are stories of the families. they went into the military and they were healthy and strong and did several tours. it wasn't until after they had that exposure and had drinking and other issues. that got them less than honorable discharges and other

things. so we really have to look at what are we asking these human beings to do. let's provide them the kind of mental health care that they deserved. after all of these exposures. and another challenge is that vet centers are doing really well for our family members. but you have to go to the combat zone. this is another faulty situation. if we know in the active duty, 50% of the people that died of suicide have never been in combat. they are struggling with other things and they may have been held back from combat because of their struggles. they are not eligible for this care. so we have mr. berger: the people that do at the peoplelook that do not fit in to those things as well. thank you. >> thank you, congresswoman. >> your comments related to the vietnam vets. back in march, the secretary issued the va, and she publicly announced issues dealing with suicide.

and one of those quoted the va. and that includes that they need to work on suicide prevention. they need to, as i said earlier, to develop a nationwide strategy to address the issues of suicide among our older veterans. there are many risk factors that we share. >> what is it that sets us apart and makes us take our lives joy ilem: more frequently according to the 2013 data. >> hearings have been held, bills have been introduced.

one of the things that is borne out by the research the v.a. has done is once you get them into the va, they are doing much better and that includes how do you get those from other military errors. it resolves in a much higher rate than being part of the system and that includes women veterans that have felt neglected and isolated. 4:29 jacqueline maffucci: >> we have been preparing to rollout the campaign focused on women veterans. and apparently we have had meetings, some of our women veterans are members as well as the survey that was set out beyond membership.

understand what the challenges are, for myself, my they question was are facing different challenges than their male compatriots or are they the same and if they are the same, what do we do? women i spoke to send it up the best and set our challenges are the same but the resources are not tailored to women and women veterans are having challenges finding the resources. a few things i pulled out from the survey findings than this conversations i wanted to share -- our women veterans self identify. they are proud to be veterans that they are tired of defending

the fact that they are veterans to the nation at large. when they come out until full that they are veterans, they have a look of disbelief. this is a cultural change first and foremost. not just at the a it is the , nation. we all need to recognize that women are growing in the forces, they are growing and the veteran community. they are serving right next to the men as well. on the -- on the topic of your support. that is something that our survey showed that women want other women and a peer support program. you know, just understanding to what degree are we a part of this. are we making sure that these are available?

this is something that we are going to keep working on. it is critical within the va and also outside of the va to create that network of peer support so that women can find other women, share their stories and know that they are not alone. and the research piece is critical. and across the federal agencies, there is not a requirement to look at programs and look at gender analyses and age analyses and some of the other covariates that occur when you want to understand the programs. it is past time that the federal agencies at large start to recognize that it is not just about that big picture. we have to start understanding 7:29 -- have to start understanding the populations within the population at large. >> thank you very much. thank you to our panelists for being here today. all members have five days to revise and extend their remarks. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> on the sunday talk shows today, republican presidential candidate, donald trump, was the

subject of many interviews. here's a sampling starting with rnc chairs reince previous responding to stories about donald trump's past treatment of women and then defense robert -- robert gates and peter king of new york on mr. trump's foreign policy. think donald trump in his personal life is something people are looking at and saying i'm surprised he has had girlfriends in the past. sir --ive me, >> the traditional playbook and analysis don't apply. >> is not whether or not he had girlfriends comments whether he mistreated girlfriends, made unwanted advances or humiliated women in the work place. i don't understand why you say that people don't care about that and are you going to look into the allegations? people don'tying

care about it, i'm saying he represents something much different than the traditional analysis. everything others me but i don't know the truth of these things other than reading an article, whether these things are true. something donald trump is going to have to answer questions in regard to. after a yearng is of different stories, nothing applies. that's all i'm saying. the bigger question is between hillary clinton and donald trump, who represents somebody that's going to bring a more efficient, accountable, effective government, a career politician or total outsider with potentially some flaws and a businessman that can get toething done? >> he seems

think he has all the answers and doesn't need any advice from staff or anyone else. thingss more about these than anyone else. to doesn't feel the need surround himself with informed advisors. i've worked for some very different presidents of those eight. people would say how could you work for both barack obama and george w. bush and i remind them that i work for jimmy carter and ronald reagan. the differences each one of those presidents, as strong-minded as each one of them was understood he did not have all the answers and surrounded himself with experienced, thoughtful people who would give good advice and they were willing to listen. they would often make their own independent judgment and act contrary to the advice they

receiving,ey were but they only reacted after they listened to different points of view and at the opportunity to make up their mind. >> i'm supporting the nominee of the already but i have lessons as far as national security. i don't think his asian policy is coherent. if he wants to get in a trade war with china, he has to deals with that north korea. how can he be talking about taking troops out of japan and korea? would weaken our leverage against china. i'm very concerned about this romance he seems to have with vladimir putin and as far as the statement said he wants russia to take care of what's happening in syria, that is barack obama's policy. there's a lot about donald trump i like. he's brought in the blue-collar reagan democrats which we have lost over the years. policyhim to make his

more coherent. i'm endorsing him and i'm going to vote for him but before i actively campaign, i have to see a much more coherent foreign policy. >> madam president, we probably vote toof our delegate the next president of the united states. ♪ >> now, a 4 -- eight orchard of the house armed services committee markup of the defense authorization act of 2017. 35bers debate the avenue

program, tactical air and land focuses -- forces is an seapower and projection forces. this is one hour and 25 minutes. >> when i first came to congress in 2007, the administration submitted a ship tolling plan that called for the construction of only three ships. we built on that submission and we have roughly 11 ships included in this budget will stop it is happening for very real, external forces and reasons occurring. the navy remarked that america is entering a maritime era over the next two or three decades and our fleet, which declined

during the 1990's and early 2000 really needs to continue to build on the upward trajectory which was started six years ago under secretary mavis. i would end by saying this subcommittee has been very focused in the out years because ship building is such a long-range gain in terms of the replacement program which is going to cost the country about $80 billion. the new start treaty has really chiseled this in stone and what we have done in this subcommittee is to use really smart acquisition approaches, multi-year procurement to trim the cost of that program in the cbo and congressional research service said that we would save up to $10 billion with the efforts our subcommittee has put together.

a report was issued about one week ago saying we will save 21st -- 25% because of this approach. it has then a bit of a battle to get to this shipbuilding program approved by congress. we were successful lester and i let forward to working with the chairman to make sure this smart approach to shipbuilding is going to a -- going to avoid a situation where we would suffocate the fleet if we did not move forward in this direction. i look forward to working with the chairman in terms of balancing this mark and with the subcommittee. with that, i yield back. before turning to amendments, is there any other discussion on the sub committee mark? none, are there any amendments to the subcommittee report?

the gentleman from oklahoma. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the clerk would please distribute the amendment. thank you. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. lithuania is a country in the

baltics sharing a border and long history with russia. russia has repeatedly shut off with a lady across energy, literally turning off the lights .nd turning off the heat in late 2014, lithuania began operating a floated liquefied natural gas terminal and gave it a very appropriate name -- independence. before the independence, lithuania relied on russia path of itsblem for all natural gas and paid some of the highest prices in europe. almost overnight, they cut the rate by 25%, a 25% rate cut overnight. now, lithuania has a diversity of the life from norway, finland, sweden, the united arab emirates, but seriously, not the united states of america, the world largest natural gas provider. colleagues he the lithuania story in mind because isshows energy security

national security. the two are undeniably linked. when our trading partners are not reliant on unreliable trading partners. the mullahs in iran are learning the same lesson stop and uncertain regulatory environment deters investment and confidence necessary to fully unleash the american energy that helps our allies and partners. my amendment helps fix this album. it is the text of the lng permitting and transparency act sponsored by my friend from ohio, congressman bill johnson. this past in january of 2015 with nearly a vetoproof majority. nine members of the minority on this committee support the bill.

the current export approval process works like this -- the energy regulatory commission approves onshore siding, overseas and environment assessment consistent with the national environment policy act. and other article reviews as required. only after the necessary permits and clearing and our mental reviews does the application reach the department of energy's desk. they then perform a public interest review and accepts or rejects the applications. i would to be clear about what this amendment is an but it does. my amendment only deals with the very last step of this process, .he final dod review my amendment says nothing to shorten or modified in any way existing full environmental review process is. my amendment, applies into law a 30 day limit for them to make a

final decision on an expert application. it is also clear that the backlog of any projects that have cleared the environment the review process. it is necessary to codify the 30 is drivingecause doe up final approvals will past 30 days, define its own guidelines. -- defying its own guidelines. the second part of my amendment reinforces the ability of applicants to use the courts to compel the dod to issue a final approval to avoid endless legal wrangling. when people are investing 20 billion dollars in next terminals, they should not because been regulatory purgatory for endless amount of time. i asked my colleagues to remember the hopeful story of lithuania. former soviety, a

basso, a nato ally once coerced and intimidated by now scott -- moscow through repeated gas shutoffs. when i sport terminal change the game. let's hope repeat that story. they are a win-win for our allies, and a win for our partners and become me. my men help to ensure a fair and reasonable regulatory process which encourages investment. with that mr. chairman, i yield back. courtney >>. just briefly >>, i just point out that this has been an issue in terms of the approval process. issued a directive to expedite this and have been approving applications and are committed as a ministration to doing so. the limit ofthat the amendment mandates a

decision, it does not mandate approval. a decision could be not approval as much as approval. blockingd end up applications as opposed to what i think the proponents desire is to move these along. my republican father practiced law for 50 years, he said careful for what you wish for. i would caution that this amendment is a double-edged sword. i would point that out for the members in terms of the consideration of this amendment. i yield back. >> other discussion on the memo. -- amendment. >> i support this language because it will improve the national defense posture of the united states by improving our ability to export national -- natural gas to our allies. it is being referred to as the oft powerful it ministration

power and active. it will help our allies and their reliance on russian energy. the value of being a major supplier will create u.s. bandages of this diplomacy -- advantages in diplomacy. it has been an important geopolitical lever. it forces russian energy companies to reduce their energy prices to u.s. allies and europe. i would like to thank the chairman from oklahoma on his work on this issue and encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment. i yield back mr. chairman. you.ank desmond from california. -- gentleman from telephone. desk,ave amendment at the but i will not take it up at this time. i would like to risk point, natural gas is a strategic national asset as our ships and

should building. ship building. if we are the strategic asset and deal with lithuania as the gentleman proposes, then we ought to use this national asset to advance the american ship holding industry. uilding industry. my men has not received a waiver from the energy to many, but i will take up on the floor and wh it says is that initial 15% of that lmg in your one must be on american ships and then rants up to 50% of lmg over a on americanriod ships. american to mastech industry is doing well at the moment but in two years, their book of business will decline and there will be significant layoffs within the commercial ship building industry.

we have the opportunity to use this strategic national asset to the benefit of lithuania and our allies and at the same time, to the benefit of the american voting industry. building industry. the safety of the ports would be significantly enhanced because we would know who the men and women of the ships are. i will not offer this at the time -- this time, but i will take it up later. i will let to go at that. i withdraw. no further is discussion, the question is on the amendment offered but the judgment of oklahoma. by thos -- those in favor say aye. >>aye. >> the amendment is agreed to.

the staff will distribute the amendment. without objection, the amendment is considered as read and the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. >> the amendment is straightforward. it would increase our carrier feet from 11 to 12. makes it a 350 ship fleet. 12 of those should be aircraft carriers. the deployment of these 11 is about a 10 month the plumbing each time.

that is too long and hard on the crew. will behe 12th carrier beneficial to the readiness in addition to the strategic access that a carrier is. onon't want to ask a boat this, my intent is to point out to the committee and others that they need is there for the 12th carrier. we struggle from time to time to understand what our scope of overall needs are for the department of defense. that try to get out the issue, but this is an issue that should be considered at whated at as we look the defense department needs. we will have to make hard priority choices and that is what our chairman has done with respect to the work on the subcommittee. i have the statement made that todo need the 12th carrier properly defend this country. i will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. >> seamen is withdrawn.

further minutes. just went from virginia. -- gentleman from virginia. >> amendments that have been worked with the minority and approve. please pass out the unblocked passage. >> thank you. without objection, the minutes are considered as read. the gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. >> it is comprised of the following, amendment number 18

for briefing on phone distance line replacement, amendment 111 theone concerning the virginia class submarine, amendment 112 to strike incremental funding, amendment number 124 regarding the future underseal operations disabilities. .ommitment 135r1 1mendment number 135r considering the law of the sea. a memo number 180r1 regarding bloody drydocks naval vessels. docks for naval vessels. >> is there further discussion on the unblocked amendments? on the the question is

package of amendments offered by the gentleman from virginia. say i it in favor. >>aye. >> the memo is adopted. theher amendments -- amendment is adopted. further amendment. >> i have an amendment. >> we will distribute the amendment. >> without objection, the

amendment is considered red the gentleman from california. >> reduce the total number of lcf's 240 by down select into one variant. getting to for the price of one is a good thing. getting one for the price of two is not. yet for some reason, we are paying for two variants of the lcf. this defies common sense and has two totallyt different ships requiring their own supply chain and training programs. would improvek to the odds of one of them achieving their objective. the ships are more extensive than originally planned, or unreliable and have limited offense of capabilities. the goal is to make this program more efficient, then we should down select one variant that secretary carter has suggested. he makes the point that by downsizing, we will reduce the

total number of lcf ships to 40 allowing for higher end ships to ensure that the navy has the necessary capabilities and posture to defeat even our most advanced potential adversaries. the lcf has combat in his name, but indeed it is not survivable in combat. i will offer and withdraw this amendment, but i do think there are others who would like to speak on it. >> is there other discussion on the amendment? >gentleman from alabama. >> this issue has been studied by the subcommittee and gentlelady's points have been rejected by the sub committee unanimously. two years ago, secretary of defense ordered the secretary of the navy to review this program, which he did. they did at length. they came back and said they needed a 52 ship lcf ramp. -- program. they wanted to

upgrade the last 22 frigates. to frigates. they reiterated the need for 52 ships. what they have with this program is one of the unusual things in the department of defense is a weapons program that has gone down and cost. i've talked extensively with people up and down the chain of command, they need to ship. the people that sale on it like a ships and they like that there are two variants. the secretary of defense did not get a new study to justify what he is saying. when he came for this committee, i asked him if they had amended the long-range should plant which they are obligated by law to present to the committee and congress to reflect this new proposal and he said they had not. not only has the navy not changed its mind, but the department of defense has not even amended its own should plan to reflect this.

iris liked -- i respect the gentlelady's points but i respectfully disagree with her points. the subcommittee has disagree with your points and i would ask the members of this committee to reject her amendment and any other effort to change this program. with that, i yield back. >> other discussion? gentleman for messages is. -- massachusetts. >> i would like to speak in support of the amendment. i take the point that the ship has gone down in cost, it has also gone down to medically in expectation and capability. in turn our men and women are provided the best equipment being for being sent into combat, it is among our most important response was he. the department of defense director of operational testing and operation, they have all the knowledge the major flaws in the troubled lcf to put our sailors

at risk. over a decade after inception in six years after delivery of the first ship, it has been shown to be lacking in survivability and lethality. pentagon ownsthe testing office stated that neither lcf. it survivable in high-intensity combat because bishops divine -- does i accept the risk that the crew would have to abandon ship under circumstances that would not require action on other service combatants. emerged, couples have with concerns about the ships validating. they have changed the concept of these of the ship and curtailed the mission down from that which it was originally intended to ensure that it stays out of harms way. along with a concerning lack of survivability in combat, the testing office show significant reliability and minutes problems.

one vessels by nearly half of recent testing. period without all engines operational. basically frame there's cause another ship to return to port. concerns abouts the vessel survivability and reliability in mind, i will be supporting the amendment which echoes the secretary defenses director -- directive that no more than 40 ships be produced. the navy should -- there is simply better spent on vessels that do not put this safety of our sailors in jeopardy. craft that are capable of surviving. i would like to thank the sponsor of this amendment. with that, i yield back. furtherere is no

discussion, the gentlelady from choosesia jews issue -- to withdraw the amended. considerednt is withdrawn. further amendments, the gentleman from arizona. --my amendment is >> the staff please distribute the amendment. please hold until it is distribute it. -- distributed. without objection, the amount is

considered red in the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five mins. andy men is straightforward completely nonpartisan. with the extent of congress that the marine corps italy's upgraded and phidias tickell -- amphibious vehicle be named a warrior. this is something that is personal to me. i had the luck of serving with lima company. a unit that was one of the hardest hit during the iraq war. were in unfortunately, ill-equipped vehicles and we lost many men include my best friend in that war. i, unfortunately was in one of mine.v doubled over a when you are in these situations, he always question

what was the software. what was their sacrifice for? ever since then, i have a question every day. one of the things that help me deal with this recently was an article regarding the marine corps aed program. they said a lot of the new designs and safety equipment and upgrades were because of the men that died from lima company. i would hope that many of the marines that live in the future because of these designs and their sacrifices, that they would be recognized in the future. for everything that we did. can i asked is that if we help me, and the sense of congress, i'm not mandating anything, that we should remember these men and their sacrifices by renaming the vehicle that many of them ended tomb and attheir

least have some form of victory in the death. i ask you to join me in support in reading norman -- renaming aev.ev lima warrior >> i recognize the gentleman and heizona's goodhart is entitled to speak on this issue are better than i and many people in this committee and for that reason, i decided yesterday to meet with the marine corps to ask his thought. at that the comment of the be entitled could to speak for these losses and 70 people that the marine corps has made good sacrifices in serving their country. the commandant thoughts for this, and norman respect for these individuals who lost their

lives, but his comment was this, the united states graincorp -- recorded -- marine corps chooses not to say go out any unit in the core because all of our marines sacrificed in iraq and afghanistan. was that thing he said they are better ways in keeping with the history and traditions of the marine corps to recognize the ultimate sacrifices made by lima company. we recognize the enormous loss, the other thing cap to recognize -- we have to recognize is almost every year, i will have a good member told me and want us to name a ship after one of their cities or some other thing that has happened. we have rejected that historically knowing that once we open that door, every single year someone will have a great reason why we should name

another ship. this year was no exception. we had a wonderful member come and we could not comply with the request because last year we had another wonderful member that we could not do. the commandant is worried that if we open this door, it would be very difficult to think it our arms around it and with that, and all due respect to the gentleman who i know his heart is right, i know the sacrifice he has offered for our country and all of these men did in the situation, i respectfully hope we will not adopt the amendment and by not adopting it, leave it to be, don -- commandant to do what he feels the record is -- glencore feels is -- the marine corps feels is appropriate. ask what hiske to take is on this. i yield to him.

not to put you on the spot, so early. [laughter] >> thank you for putting me on the spot. this is a difficult call because i have spoke with the gentleman from arizona and having tremendous respect for his sacrifice and the sacrifice of the men he served with, i initially was planning to support the amendment, but i do find the commandant comments compelling and that's difficult as it is to say, i think the marine corps has established this president for good reason and there probably would be a and awful lot of other units that would come in and request different vehicles or ships to be named after them. i can't think of a more compelling case in the case that mr. gallego has presented. this was an unspeakable tragedy

and the appropriateness with which he has envisioned in naming the vehicle after those who died in the incident, seems quite appropriate. i think when you take the long view, you have to understand that the commandant speaks in the interest of not just the rates of today, but the marines of the future. and does so with compelling authority. >> i yield back. thank you. >> just went from california is also a marine. from, is also a marine. would you like to -- [laughter] >> that was well set. thank you. gentleman from new jersey. >> is there a sense of congress on this issue?

resolution? has this been discussed in the house yet? chair,turner, -- it is a sense of congress. what i'm asking is that we set a sense of commerce to accommodate to consider this. as we do know, there are different vehicles, different platforms that are named after people and divisions and what we are saying is that we encourage you to do that. i'm not mandating it, i'm saying that we feel like this is a good idea. at the end of the day, that may not occur. he may not do this. i want to at least say that we should consider this. that is all that this amendment is doing. jerseyleman from new

yields back. gentleman from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. marine fromher california and that is me. once again, i also sympathize with the gentleman from arizona and the subject. i understand where the commandant is coming from. history, theome subject of amtraks. imac or to call up the number of marines that were surprisingly killed by amtrak's. the written -- during the vietnam war, the old amtraks had the fuel cells on the bottom of the amtrak. ied,ey hit a mine or an

that would go right away and kept on fire. there were very few amphibious landings made in the non-but and theyere used were always hit and many of them exploded and blew up because the marines would not be inside the amtrak. they would be on top. when this would happen, i had this happen to me, blowing off the amtrak. many instances, it would catch on fire. not the same experience, but very similar. feelings, it never goes away. happened to that notcle, obviously they did

name the new vehicles for some first or third marine division or my outfit, bravo company 11. but they did change the design of that based upon what happened. i understand and share your sympathy but i also inspect the commandant -- respect the commandant and the past history that goes back a long ways that covers not just your unit, but many others that have had tragic experiences. like you for bringing that forward. i yield back. thehe question is on amendment of mr. gallego. those in favor say aye. no's have it. amendment not adopted. further amendments?

not, the chair recognizes the judgment from virginia for the purposes of offering a motion. adopt thethat we report of the subcommittee on sea power as amended. say i is in favor, no if opposed. 's have it. motion adopted. the committee when i received the report of the subcommittee on technical air and land forces. the chair recognizes the chairman of the subcommittee. mr. turner from ohio.

we will go to the ranking member first if he does not get together. >> thank you. i'm the tactical air and land forces committee member. summary ofre details the town mark last week. i would like to thank the ranking members and all the members of the subcommittee. i would like to thank a moment -- take a moment to express my sincere appreciation of mr. sanchez.

you have served both the country and our daily women in uniform and but those capacities in the have greatly appreciated working with you. we always found a way to reach a bipartisan outcome. time toant to take the thank mr. gibson for all his harmfuland reverse the reductions to the army and wrinkled. this all started with a tactical air and land forces subcommittee last december. we received candid assessments on the impact of these reductions throughout this year. we have heard that the total force is strained. we heard testimony from officers and chicks about liking capabilities and capacity to address threats and mission requirements. therise of russia and islamic state of iraq and fragile security environment in afghanistan. these new security challenges have cap operations at elevated

levels. supporting those deployments by -- the military services have committed over $22 billion of funding requirements. we are concerned that resources are insufficient to meet the strategy. and that we are headed for high-risk force. that within this context we built this part. we are recommended the chairman included 6 billion for additional support. this is a good mark that provides critical modernization capacity. i asked for unanimous consent. objection? gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you. i would like to thank chairman

mike turner for his leadership on the subcommittee. and for being such a good partner. i am pleased that the subcommittee worked in its traditional bipartisan and buildingnt manner in the tactical air and land forces marked. the market for the mentors -- mark before the evidence has three objectives. include provision that allows to have multitier procurement contacts -- contracts. is in respect to our helicopters. i believe from a production standpoint and a planning standpoint, multiple year contracts are significantly better. this saves costs and any products better. better thisroduct will save us billion dollars. this marked includes important

new oversight divisions. it includes our efforts on faependent review to fix the 18 aircraft oxygen life-support system. getting to this issue is incredibly important because it is about the lives of our naval aviators and i strongly supported. thater provision requires the army and record is to set concrete standards for vehicle production. protection. the safety of our soldiers and marines should be our number one priority. finally, this marked includes leg which -- this mark includes language covering 34 different programs.

in terms of the funding is arements, this bill, it little bit different than the last three years. on the plus side, the programs art $69subcommittee better -- six billion dollars for airplanes and additional helicopters in several billion for increases of a range of programs. most of which are from the military services unfunded requirements list. and is that is all good good for the department of defense, but i have to tell you that the way it is paid is, unfortunately, not our normal practice and a little disheartening and mr. smith spoke about it.

in past years, we have done aggressive look at what things cost to try to save money. this year, that the not happen. while the subcommittee did find a few target reductions, most of the $6 billion is coming from the readiness and personnel accounts. i do want to address left issue, it has been a pleasure to serve for 20 years. this is my 20th year. i have to tell you, the first markup i had, i was sitting way down there. that first markup, several things happen. the first was, believe it or not, this committee voted to get rid of all women in the military. it was not until we went to the house floor that we put them back in.

such a change in 20 years. i know because my good friend walter jones was on the committee. max, adam, he were on. back in on the house for. another thing that happened, i don't know if you recall this adam because we had robbed a global village between the two of us -- >> we hope that doesn't happen again. .> encryption was a big issue i come from california and you come from washington state and our companies were on the forefront of encryption and we wanted to allow customer encryption to be sent out of the country in order for us to set the standard and i remember you talking about it and somebody from the top rope called you a communist --.

-- row called you a communist. it was a much different congress. the difference between the number of democrats in the house republican is in the house was five votes. i came under a cloud because nobody knew who i was. it was a difficult election for me. i was set on this committee and i went to pass my first amendment which was an eight sentence amendment about how the south vietnamese had been by our side in the vietnam war. i remember seeing someone on the other side roll their eyes, c have to read this, this is a no-brainer.

steve baer objected, took my amendment and put a substitute amendment on so that i would not have an amendment with my name on it. amendment passed his way without my name on it. and then, i asked mr. spence who is the chairman from south carolina that i had another amendment at the desk. this was after a one-hour debate on an 8% of commitment. he said to me, the sanchez, is a different than the amendment you put forward, i said yes. i have changed one sentence. copies?ave 100 i said yes.

he said he would let the amended come forward. buery began to object. the chairman said i go going to waste another hour of my time? quiet in the amendment was passed with my name on it. so we have come a long way. thank you. commentseciate the from the gentlelady thinking about the past. i would just note that we have a who are madebers enormous contributions on both sides of the aisle over the years in this committee who have said they are retiring or doing something else and we will think inappropriately to recognize their country beaches. -- contributions.

is there other discussion about this portion? >gentleman from new york. >> i sit on this community -- committee know what to say briefly that this is the best years have seen in the 6 i have served. we're strengthening deterrence, improving relationships with allies and we are working on serious reforms to acquisitions, defense planning and post-goldwater initiatives. think -- i want to thank all the cosponsors. i appreciate the attention to detail that you and the staff -- the staff, so many others have put so much effort and i appreciate that.

i yield back. >> no further discussion? we will turn to amendment for the section of the mark. the gentleman from ohio. >> i asked unanimous consent to call up a block passage number one. >> please pass out the unblocked amendments. without objection, the amendment is considered red in the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. . comprised of the

following. amendment 16 pet direct the secretary of the navy to provide a briefing on advanced by control software development. 43r1 expresses the congress regarding the reporting of the crash in arizona. id. at 55 that require the secretary of conduct a study on technology to prevent and mitigate helicopter crashes. directsr amendment that the secretary of the air force to provide a briefing on recapitalization strategy. 220r1 that requires the army and record to acquire a joint acquisition strategy for women and clothing for female soldiers. information of the defense technology security administration and radio

software. amendment 247 that directs the briefing of the departments progress on meeting their goals for ground and unmanned aircraft systems. modification of report language to include plans to highlyevaluate advanced trained design solutions. amended 300 are one don't prohibit the retirement of the aircraft until 2018. >> for the discussion? >> i would like to thank you and the staff are working with me to include language in this unblocked package which directs the secretary of the navy and the commandant of the marine corps to working coronation the secretary of the army to develop a joint acquisition strategy to provide more effective personal protective equipment to meet the

specific and unique requirements of our female marines and soldiers. integrate our to marines and female marines and soldiers into the army. that more important now the equipment that they have is actually outfitted for them. so they can do their job properly. differentlybuilt and it is not just about the stature, but it is that they have different bodies than men. purchasingust about smaller sizes for our female marines but actually it open .ear that will fit them the army has taken a number of steps for females. , tolop new plate sizes

cover the differences between the genders. my amendment would have the marine corps collaborate with the army to make sure this gender specific equipment is made directly. when the two services can get together, we can save money, that the rate equipment and it will allow our female leaders to be even better in combat situations. the yield back. if there is no further discussion. the question is on the unblocked amendment. those in favor say aye. the ayes have it. amendment adopted. further amendments. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> the staff will distribute the amendment.

without objection, the amendment is considered red. -- read. >> this requires a department of defense to treat the at 35 lockport modernization program as a distinct major defense acquisition program and to separate it from the existing at 35 baseline procurement program. this is not an attempt to hinder procurement. total byot reduce the and does not slow protection -- production. i agree that this country needs

a fifth-generation fighter and there is no doubt about the necessity of the scheduled improvement. however, i feel congress must balance this with our need to conduct rigorous oversight and to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. f-35 use of sensory enables it is developing and testing the software version known as block 3 f which will provide a fully capable aircraft. it is expected to be ready in late 2017. while this is occurring, the program offices is already planning for the next pocket -- package. block four is intended to deliver improved abilities and correct problems identified in earlier software versions. feldman building will be forward

in 2018 and according to the budget request, the department is expected to spend $3 billion for six years just on the software upgrade alone. this is a significant investment and the dollar amount alone would classified as a major defense program. considering the program as its own incremental acquisition. the department of defense has decided against this and despite the size and cost, again, over $3 billion, it will not the modernization program from the baseline program. the department's decision is important because it gets to the heart of transparency and the need for congressional oversight. testimony, byhe treating block for the separate acquisition program, it would set in motion increase oversight mechanisms and include periodic

report programs and progress. progress has been here before. same concern about the 35 modernization program, they also have the f-22. --y warned that the f-22 despite the warning, the department moved ahead and muddled through the subsequent delays of cost overrun. 2012, congressional mandated review discovered that the f 22 modernization costs more than doubled and has been delayed new is seven years. these overruns caused tax dollars -- taxpayers billions of dollars. they record the problem of anddjourning -- co-joining would put the effort. aa require that they separate the progress. they have found that the f 32

modernization program is on solid ground and increased transparency. y13s amendment mirrors the f language. in new and identical situation today, the f 35 modernization program, this time, we are in a position to get it right from the beginning and not waste billions in taxpayer dollars before come back. given the troubled history and numerous delays to insist that the department adheres to best business practices with a $3 billion plus program. repeat the same expensive mistakes we made with the f 22. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. i you back. -- yield back. >> gentleman from ohio. , mr. chairman. i appreciate her hard work on the subcommittee and her concern

for her issues with the f 25. -- f-35. there have been issues and we have provided direct oversight and implementation of some corrective action that has helped the program. the thing that people need to understand when looking at this amendment is that it would not help. it would help. this is not simple, this is complex. what this amendment does is it would create a new major defense acquisition program for the fourth block of the f 35 program. it was separated out. separate itt -- out. it will cost time and money. over $30 million and up to over a year of delay in stting a new program. this would delay schedules for international partners and result in a delay towards dual capable aircraft which is the most important aspect of the

acquisition in a nuclear capability. program offers are taking a number of actions to mitigate concerns and cost accountability. gpo has created a separate contract for the effort which provides more oversight and christmassy and two earned value . plan for cost reporting that tracks content for modernization. po has conducted an independent cost estimate. , and thethis has been most recent report, a recommendation. dod the gpo -- jpo and oppose it. this would result in a delay and i would ask people to oppose the amendment. >> i want to note that this is

not a guarantee that everything will be ok. i agree that the program has made strides, but there have been serious delays and cost overruns all along way. even with the joint program office overseeing the production. the department made the same argument with the f-22 and subsequently go to control spiraling costs and development delays. those delays cost taxpayers over $6 billion. if the department's oversight regiment is already rigorous, it should have no problem required -- following the oversight. >> there are distinct differences. lessons that can be learned from transitioning the modernization own major defense acquisition program have been taken into account on the f-35 program. because of the joint nature, they are in place to manage capabilities. you are correct with the problems of the f-35 and the

f-22. lessons learned from the f-22 have been incorporated. however, the solution that you are suggesting accreting block four as its own acquisition program has with it the creation of its own bureaucracy and the creation of new delays and cost increases. i appreciate your concern, but i still oppose the amendment. i you back -- yield back. >> that you, mr. chairman. are on a while, we opposite sides of the issue. mrs. duckworthrt on her amended. the f 35 program, i have been a big supporter of trying to get a single production multi service aircraft done for many years, we thisbeen bird-dog in thing, seeing cost overruns and

going to take a look at it, looking at the production, working with our allies to do it. there is no doubt that mr. turner and i have worked very hard to move this f 35 program forward. it is is still true that seven or eight years behind schedule. hundreds -- incredibly expensive. it is still does have problems. one of the issues was the development and producing it at the same time in order to save time and money. of course, it has not turned out that way. this is what i would like to say. gao has made the recommendation that we have a separate major defense acquisition program for this

block four. normally that rule kicks in when million inut $480 funding. this program, this piece is at billion over the next six years. the size ofx times the standard mdat. i think it is critically important that we really get the oversight we need on this. i do not believe that it will have an impact -- the 10.5 billion in the 1.2 billion for the program and the additional aircraft, all of this is still in the full program.

we're not asking to stop production, we are not asking to slow down production, that is not what we are asking. we are saying, let's do the right oversight on this program. n and not just lump it i say we will see reports. let's make sure this gets done the right way. for this reason, i will support ms. duckworth on this program knowing that we have done a lot of oversight, that we need to consider -- continue the oversight and that this is way too important to just let it be a part of the overall program. i yield back. >> of the discussion on the amended? the chair wheel to himself. i will not repeat the challenges of the f 35 or the f-22 with i think have been described. the question is whether this helps. my view that they have done

things differently for the f 35. they are doing things toferently for this block make it a major defense program would add money and time. and to repeat something i said in the opening statement, what haunts me are the maintainers and pilots were flying aircraft were made in the 1980's. delay further getting them new aircraft is something that only compounds our readiness problems. for the subcommittee, i appreciate the work that you all have done and putting much more oversight over this program. it is crucial that you continue to do so, that we all do so. three services in a number of international partners

are depending on it. my view is we should not delay further in an additional bureaucratic move that may or may not improve that oversight. i really don't think it does. amendmenton is on the for the gentlelady from -- ms. duckworth -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. we will postpone that vote momentarily. are there any other amendments to this portion of the mark? proceed withll now the vote on the amendment from the gentlelady from illinois, ms. duckworth. the question occurs on the editment from the general from illinois. the clerk will called role.

[roll call vote] mr. wilson? mr. wilson votes no. mr. lobiondo? mr. lobiondo votes no. mr. larson. mr. larson votes aye. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes aye. mr. turner? mr. turner hard snow. ms. per diode --

mr. klein? mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney? mr. courtney votes no. mr. rogers? mr. rogers? ms. tsongas. ms. tsongas votes aye. frank's question mr. frank's votes no. mr. garamendi? mr. garamendi votes no. mr. shuster? mr. shuster? mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes no. mr. conaway. mr. conaway votes no. spear.r -- ms. ms. peer votes aye. ?r. lamborn mr. limberbutt snow. mr. castro? aye.castro votes missed up worth?

-- ms. duckworth? ms. stuck worth votes aye. aye.. duckworth votes dr. fleming? dr. fleming votes no. mr. kaufman question mark mr. kaufman votes no. ms. gabbard? ms. gabbard votes aye. ms. hart's worth? no. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke votes aye. ht? hec mr. scott? mr. scott votes no. mr. gallego. aye.allego votes

mr. nugent? mr. nugent votes no. ms. graham? ms. graham votes no. mr. cook? mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes no. mr. bronstein? mr. iu lark? mr. i go our votes -- mr. aguilar? mr. aguilar votes no. mr. graves? mr. graves votes no. mr. think he? mr.'s he votes no. phonicnic -- ms. stiff --

mr. macarthur? mr. mcarthur? russell? mr. russell votes no. mr. rogers. mr. rogers votes no. mr. shuster? mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. macarthur?

>> the clerk will report the tally. >> mr. chairman, 20 aye votes, 41 no votes. the amendmentry: is not adopted. >> mr. chairman i moved to adopt the subcommittee report on land forces. chair thornberry: those in favor will say aye. those opposed say no. a quorum being present, the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. the committee will now receive postponet on -- will

until the end of the subcommittee mark. the chair recognizes the joe manchin meant from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. chairman. thisleased to present report on the tree 17 national defense authorization act. i appreciate we are a subcommittee that oversees some of the most critical aspects of the department of defense including cyber command and major origins of the national security agency. andnse wise, science technology efforts such as the defense advanced research project or dark but and the military service labs. operations forces and programs that counter weapons of mass distraction from state and alike.e actors the subcommittee has been active

in all of these major areas and truly represents a bipartisan product of which all members can be proud. review sensitive department of defense authorities, programs, and activities. we also participate in congressional delegations to me with our servicemen and women in the war against terrorism across the world. the members of the subcommittee take this oversight rule very quickly, as we remain current on a cities and programs involving, most notably, forces across the defense intelligence enterprise, andial operations command, our special teams. i'm especially grateful this keying to represent a few areas of the subcommittee mark. this year our mark provides for a robust and resilient cyber capabilities, provide science and technology advances to meet future challenges, and fully

supports our special operations forces who remain at war and globally postured. we extend vital counterterrorism authorities while improving congressional oversight in this important area. improve cyber capability and ensure resiliency for department of defense networks and systems. at this mark fully alls u.s. cyber command and programs while providing authorities to improve cyber recover from ao cyber attack. i would like to thank our ranking member from rhode island to has been an energetic worker on these issues. it has been a pleasure to work with jim. additionally the professional staff have been tireless -- [reading names]

thornberry.hairman i appreciate your leadership and i look forward to discussing emerging threats. with that, i yield back the remainder of my time. chair thornberry: the chair represents -- recognizes the german from rhode island. >> thank you. chairman wilson. his work on this mark as been incredibly bipartisan, as well as the issues we have dealt with over the year. we oversee some very important aspects of the department of defense including cyber command, the nsa, the defense advanced , amongh projects agency just a few to be identified.

this work has been incredibly important, meaningful, and i think the chairman and the members of the subcommittee for their incredibly hard work and due diligence. i especially would also like to recognize staff -- lindsay, ev.e, kevin, katie, n bipartisanorked in a manner. i think the mall for their hard work and expert counsel. i'm very proud of the mark before us today. from tooth and nail we touch on critical policies and programs, these strategic, operational, and tactical levels. criticalns with investments in basic research, extends authorities to guide special operations forces activities around the globe, and culminates with a focus on obtaining those strategic --meworks to enhance natural

national security such as the bio defense of our nation. i'm particularly pleased with provisions related to game changing technologies such as how to properly operationalize and legislation requiring a strategy for electronic capabilities. the department of defense is encouraged to utilize authorities we have given them in the past. the mark also takes action on several of the department's recent innovation initiatives to make them more effective and enduring, while reducing redundancy and bolstering in-house keep abilities. pressures, the mark sustains cyber funding and special operations. we cannot afford to take risks

with cyber funding. there are many policy issues this bill addresses and many to domain.ved in the cyber of course any development must not lag as we forge new territory. finally i am least with the capability we took and extending authorities to defeat nonstate actors like isil and al qaeda, developing those authorities required to combat state authority -- state actor aggression. mr. chairman, especially i would like to thank you for your leadership and your bipartisan up roach to leading the subcommittee and our work together. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. is there othery: discussion of this portion of the mark. >> i just want to highlight one issue briefly for members.

though it appears in the full committee portion of the market, because that deals with the organizational changes that dod, where the changes we make is to make cyber command its own independent command, so it is no longer under strut comp. as -- no longer under stratcom. as anyone can tell, the cyber component of warfare will be more important in the future. the subcommittee does a great job of overseeing that. there are lots of issues out there and we are all going to have to spend more time on that. other comments? if not, are there amendments to this section of the mark? gentleman from south carolina. ask unanimousn, i packageto call en bloc one, a minutes work through with the minority?

chair thornberry: without objection. without objection, the amendments are considered as read and the gentleman from south carolina is reckoned as for five minutes. >> -- representative wilson: amendment 00r1, congressman rob wittman. aguilar, 007 by mr. modifying a report by cyber training. a amendment 032, modifying a

report from the national bureau, requirements for domestic response. r1 by mr. jones, development of nuclear reaction television -- technology. directing a pre-fun the special operations forces education. to designate an official with responsibility for directed energy weapons. r1 by ms. sunk us, making permanent and authority for research and development funds -- by ms. tsongas, making permanent and authority for research and development funds. by ms. spear, directing a brief on data rewards data collection.

directing a brief on software license inventories. chair thornberry: is there further discussion of the en bloc package? >> thank you, mr. chairman. support ofpeak in the package. it designates a single serving for energy weapons. it is increasingly becoming more of a part of our national capabilities. cost benefitgh potential and many applications across multiple domains. this amendment will get this critical technology out of the lab and into the field and i think the chairman and the committee for supporting it. i yield back. furtherornberry: discussion? the tillman from rhode island?

>> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment that mr. lamborn and i have authored together, i believe we are at a place where there are real near-term capabilities to be utilized and it is exciting to be at the tipping point of these technologies with real progress. i think the gentleman for offering his amendments. i look forward to seeing this issue. with that, i yield back. chair thornberry: other discussion? if not, the question is on the theloc package offered by gentleman from south carolina. >> that was a portion of the a bill by the of house armed services committee. hilllked with a capitol

reporter. >> in the coming week the house billion the $610 defense authorization bill, which sets programs and policies for the 2016 fiscal year. we are joined by reporter for cq roll call. what are some of the things we will see debated next week? lotrter: you will see a debated. this authorizes spending, not just for the defense department, but nuclear energy and the energy department. it does not campaign dollars. it authorizes spending. the money is appropriated separately. it obviously runs the gamut. i guess the most sick african thing -- the most significant -- to addt authorizes more money for defense spending. what they have done is, they

have included in the so-called operation,ntingency the war pot of money, $18 billion that more narrowly would be part of the core defense department budget. done that without increasing the total amount of money for the war by only providing seven months worth of funding for afghanistan, the middle east, and elsewhere. that a cut effect is in spending? john: no, it's not because the topline amount of money for the war budget are the level that the president requested. the war budget is the level the president requested only because they have subtracted money from the funds that would go to war operations and instead used that space, if you will, for $18 billion worth of programs, mostly procurement programs such that theighter jets

president did not request officially, but the generals and admirals have said they would like to have. host: i understand there is a provision that would require women to register for the draft in a couple years. how did that make it in there and are all members on board with that provision? made it in under an amendment from duncan hunter, a republican from california who was actually opposed to it. ironically i guess you would say -- he was testing the waters and it ended up becoming a docket item. so it is part of the bill. gowould not require women to fight. let's back up. the defense department has said women may compete for any combat job, including ones that were them,usly closed off to and so the logical extension of that too many members, is they can hold any job, then they should register for the draft,

if a draft were to occur. that's a couple steps removed from putting a rifle in their hands. john: i understand pete sessions is opposed to it and was to file amendment to remove that from the bill. correct. it is almost certain to be a floor fight. there are some 300 amendments that have been filed. i'm not sure how many of those will be made in order, but i bet you sessions will be one of them. another marathon session in the rules committee. houseadline on cq.com, armed services advances the nd aa. reporting on chairman thornberry's amendment, slashing the size of the national security council. why does he want to do that? john: he would do it in an indirect way.

he was say if a national security council is going to be more than 100 people, then the president from national security adviser must be confirmed by the senate. the senate did it in a more staff aty, capping the 150 in a bill they just approved. the reason he wants to do it is because he thinks the staff has become too large and micro manages the war effort, and basically it is a way of pushing back against the bat. we are at the end of the obama administration but we will see what happens. host: you are writing about a potential floor fight, about a helicopter. what is that about? february, cq exposed there was an alarm bell going off in the pentagon and some circles in the armed services committees. the fact that these helicopters, vietnam era helicopters that are

supposed to respond if there were a terrorist attack on one of the icbm silos in the northern great plains, these helicopters are too old to do the job and the head of strategic command has led the way in saying we need to replace these helicopters asap. there are two schools of thought on how to do that. one school says, we don't have time for competition. we need to buy helicopters now to replace these old, old aircraft. the other school says, no, we should hold a competition. whether or not it takes a little bit longer. and there are plenty of helicopter manufacturers chomping at the bit for what could be a $2 billion-plus market. host: the house getting set to take up the defense authorization bill. as we wrap up, john donnelly, the senate defense authorization

bill. if you could give us a snapshot on the different measures? john: i have been covering this a long time and this is one of the widest discrepancies i've seen the between btw and is because of that $18 billion armed servicese committee did. the senate did not go along. they will stay at the resident for level. they will not provide have the year, sevenhalf the months, for the war effort. thethe fighter jets in house bill, they are not in the senate bill. that will be a huge lobbying planeso get -- that many with that much money, to try to get them authorized. but the real fight will be in the appropriations committee. there is no money in these authorization bills. at the real money is in the appropriations bills. and the house appropriations bill does the same thing the house armed services committee does.

that is where the real fight is going to occur. lots of debate ad. you can follow it all with john donnelly at cq.com. he is also on twitter. thanks for that update. john: my pleasure. &a," theht on "q american involvement in the spanish-american war. >> this coup attempt in spain when all of the country's army officers tried to seize power and in some areas succeeded in seizing power -- it sent a shockwave through the world. it was a major country in europe . the right-wing military quickly backed by hitler and mussolini, s, tanks --ms mussolini eventually sent ground

troops. it was a spanish grab for power and people around the world thought it had to be resisted. if not here, where? other where -- otherwise, we are next. >> at 8:00 eastern. host: this week on "newsmakers," the chairman of the natural resources committee, representative rob bishop, republican of utah. thank you for being with us, sir. we also have with us nick timiraos, economics correspondent for "the wall street journal," and mary clare jalonick, congressional reporter with the associated press. let's begin with what the financial situation is in puerto rico and how do you view it, sir? rep. bishop: the financial situation is horrible for them. they have not had audits in the last two years. no one knows what is assets and what is not. we know they have about a $70 billion bonded indebtedness, and about a $44 billion asset deficit in their pension fund, and they don't have the resources to pay that. something has to put this

financial house back in order. host: and it has to be the u.s. congress? rep. bishop: unfortunately, yeah. article four of the constitution still says general control of our territories falls within congress. until you give them independence or make them a state, yeah, congress is ultimately responsible. doesn't matter how much home rule we get, we still have the ultimate responsibility. ms. jalonick: so you all have tried several different versions of legislation to try to aid the territory with the $70 billion in debt. what is the status of the most recent version of this and is this something you think that you can get passed? rep. bishop: yeah, because in all the versions out there that people are referencing, the fundamental issue has always been the same. there needs to be some way of providing some kind of security. so there will be an oversight board that will go down there, work with the government to come up with a plan in which they will get their financial house

in order, they will be able to pay off their debts. and then they will work with the creditors who by and large want to stay in puerto rico. they want to be involved, they want to get the money back. so they will be able to come up with that plan. the board will have the ability of making sure that plan is adhered to and followed through, and that gives security to the creditors that they can stay involved and they may have some readjustments or restructuring of the debts they have, but most of it would be voluntary, and i think we can give some kind of financial order going forward to it. that is based on precedent, has been done in the past. i'm confident it will work here. that basic concept of what we want to do has been agreed by everybody that is a player. i think regardless of what the final version is, that basic structure will be there. ms. jalonick: is this something that - you have had a lot of opposition from different sides, and as you have said, it is not to the central structure of the bill, but to smaller parts of