andrews, perhaps were not icbm tesz th tests. we are dealing with information that is perhaps a little inprecise. we address that in this bill by putting more funding in in order to fix the issues. and for a moment. >> reclaim might time. for just one quick second. but the systems that mr. andrews is referring to work like all of the time. at this point. and have tested, very, very well. >> that is not true either. the 1 a and 1 b tests of smb failed. so, could you, drive-through quick, on what works and what has difficulties yet? >> mr. turner, it's correct that ftm 15, a test of the 1 a missile failed. and that ftm 16, test of 1 b missile failed. the gmd system is ce 1 and ce 2 interceptors. ce 1 interceptors are 3-3 in their tests. ce 2 interceptors, have failed the last two tests. >> how many -- >> it is my time, if i may. how many of each, the 1 and 2 on the, ce, last one you said, do we have at this point? >> mr. smith, we have 20, ce 1 interceptors. we have 10, ce interceptors. >> are we bidding cb 1s? >> no. >> cb 2s -- >

andrews was referring weren't perhaps even icbm tests. they were missile tests. we're all dealing with information that is perhaps imprecise. there are portions that have been tested. we address that in the bill. >> i claim my time for one quick second. but the systems that mr. andrews is referring to work all the time at this point very, very well. >> that is actually not true either. 1a and 1b tests of icmbs failed. could you just drive through real quick 30 seconds on what works and what has some difficulties yet. >> mr. turner, it's correct that ftm-15, a test of the 1a missile failed and the ftm-16, a test of the 1b also failed. the gmd visits of the ce 1 and 2 interceptors. ce 2 interceptors failed the last two tests. >> it's my time, if i may. how many of each the 1 and 2 on the cb and the last one you said do we have at this point. >> mr. smith, we have 20 of the ce 1 and we have 10 ce 2 interceptors. >> are we still being the ce 1s? >> no, sir, we are not. >> so ce 2 are long term what we're relying on and that's part of the problem? >> i'm not sure -- >

iran does not have an icbm now. there is considerable question as to whether they could or would produce some. and if they were, they would have to have a nuclear weapon, unless they're going to deliver marshmallows to the east coast. so we need to be very careful how we spend our money. it's been very, very clear from this administration that iran will not be able to build a nuclear weapon. so they don't have a weapon, and they don't have a missile. so why are we spending at least $5 billion on a system that in and of itself is questionable? clearly, if we're going to spend money, we ought to make sure the technology works. some questions about whether this technology would work against a sophisticated icbm. the indication it does not work against a sophisticated ibm that has multiple warheads an multiple decoy. we need to get the technology right before we spend the money. my amendment would say we can move forward with some planning, and that's it. but the decision about deploying a missile defense system on the

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

iran does not have an icbm now. the considerable question is whether they could or without would produce some. so we need to be care fful how spend our money. iran will not be able to build a num lar weapon. so they don't have a weapon, and they don't have a missile. so why are we spending at least $5 billion on a system that itself is questionable. we ought to make sure the technology works. some questions about whether this technology would work against a sophisticated icbm. the indication is it does not work against the sophisticated ibm with multiple war heads and multiple decoys. we need to get the technology right before we spend the money. my amendment would say we can move forward with some planning. and that's it. the decision about deploying the missile defense system on the east coast would be left for later. and in the meantime let's deal with the deficit and not spend our money foolishly and initiate in the bill a commitment for an additional $5 billion. it's not 100 million, folks. this requires that t

and in all probability it is not an icbm but rather some other mechanism delivering a nuclear weapon to our coast and exploding it. and that is in another different world. so i just urge you to take a look at what is in this amendment and put aside the rhetoric all of us have been engaged here which is a limitation on the amount of money we're going to spend, allowing us to take the unnecessary expenditure and spend it on something that we do need. with that i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair 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 on the fact that this, unlike the last discussion we had that was broad on our missile defense system, this is a relatively narrow amendment on our ground-based system. and the ground-based system that we have is the only system that protects the intercontinental united states from the icbms. portions of it have been tested and worked. and it absolutely works and it is the system we rely on for existing threats and for the immedi

debates are either future missiles or missiles that do not have the capability of responding to an icbm threat. now, i don't know what the president meant when he said, with that open microphone, that i will have greater flexibility fee after this election to medvedev to be delivered on to putin about our system. we asked the president to describe the details of what the future flexibility is. but he has not told us. but the one thing i can be pretty sure of, itch the russians were going to look what he was doing, they would really like this. and that is cutting the only system that we have that protects the intercontinental ballistic missile threat to the united states. i think when we talk about future capabilities and failures in testing, it's our reach, our trying to get greater technology, greater innovation, greater understanding of how to better -- protect the united states. now -- the, the ranking member said this does not, the system does not currently respond to. there is a bunch of lists of future threats it might respond to. not designed to do that. those are things we want

nuclear capable mobile icbm missiles were also on display. putin said just after his inauguration o monday he plans to update russia's military hardware. 1200 service men and others took part in a parade. the navy's pacific fleet is headquartered in the city. he said in a speech that several hundred thousand people were sent from the far east to the front in world war ii and the fleet contributed greatly to russia's victory. the parade featured new equipment including missiles and the advanced surface to air missile system. >> south korea said it will seek international help in urging north korea to stop jamming the satellite global positioning system. the attack raised safety concerns for aircraft and ships. the government there said in a statement on wednesday that north korea is responsible for the disruptions and that seoul will protest pyongyang's actions through the international telecommunication action in geneva. the signals are coming from around the city in the north near the military border between the two koreas. seoul said the di

but instead of taking years to produce another icbm or radar, it's weeks and months we see it change in afghanistan, and, frankly, globally because globally we see about 600 ieds a month. so they are adaptive, and for every new technology we field, i guarantee you there's someone on a computer somewhere trying to figure out how to convert that. >> there could be an ied app for someone that they could control from their smart phone. >> absolutely. >> this is an instance where with relatively meager expendture an enemy is imposing enormous cost on the united states and its allies. what have we gotten for the huge investment that we've made, but moreover, how do we fundamentally change the equation to start imposing greater costs on our enemies? >> well, i would say we've given our commanders freedom of maneuver and that's what i tell my organization is our purpose. they have to operate in an ied environment but ensure they have free of maneuver to get to those villages to conduct operations. and i would tell you that's what i think we've given them. it is the weapon of choice. and as i

they cannot defend from an icbm threat from russia or china who has sophisticated icbm's like the unitedtes. it can only defense -- defend against less sophisticated systems, the type being developed by north korea. host: a couple of questions from twitter. jim asked -- guest: the twitterer is talking about the drone that the u.s. reportedly lost in iran. there has been a lot of speculation. the iranian showed it off at a news conference when they videotaped it. at the bottom of the drone itself, it was obstructed. it is tough to say whether or not there is damage. it is believed, from what sources have told us at the pentagon, that this system was heavily damaged. that was a reconnaissance drone. host: another question from twitter -- it depends. the new systems, a lot of the newer systems do cost a lot of money because of the components that go into them, the navigational components, satellite guidance systems that make an accurate. in a way, yes, a system like the jdam has been mass produced and ined for number of years o iraq. host: we have large stockpiles of old munitions that we n

for very sophisticated icbm. only the less sophisticated being developed by iran. host of this question from twitter -- -- host: this question from twitter -- guest: it depends on which drone he is referring to. the u.s. reportedly lost one in iran. there has been a lot of speculation. the iranians showed up at a news conference and said that the drone itself was obstructed. it is tough to say whether or not it was damaged. it is believed from what sources have told us at the pentagon that this system was heavily damaged. that was a reconnaissance drone. host: another question -- guest: it depends. the new systems -- yes, a lot of the newer systems cost a lot of money because of the components that go into them, the navigation components, the satellite guidance systems to make them accurate. in a way, yes. for instance, a system has been best produced at this point and if has been in use for numerous years for current conflicts, particularly in iraq. host: have huge stockpiles that we need to keep up? guest: that

iran does not have an icbm. there is considerable question as to whether they would or could produce it, and that they would come in they would have to have a nuclear weapon unless they are going to develop marshmallows to the east coast. so we need to be very careful how we spend our money. i yield back my time. >> at him and yields back. the chair now recognizes someone from ohio, mr. turner provide minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to speak in opposition to the amendment. i first want to begin by thanking mr. garamendi for being the spokesperson for opposing an east coast site, being one of the few members of the armed services committee that lives with less than 300 miles -- lives less than 300 miles from a missile defense silo that has three missiles in it. i'm sure people on the east coast would like to enjoy the protection that exists near mr. garamendi's district. those muscles, i think you would not say are unnecessary. >> mr. chairman -- mr. chairman, may i come up for a moment -- >> everyone

as their capabilities develop as china assists them, the pakistani ability to launch nuclear tipped icbmse in the world grows. that's why as frustrated as we are with the government of pakistan, the temptation to throw them under the bus has to be recysted because if the radicals taken over with the stock of weapons, and given this increasing capability, they are a greater and greater threat. >> we often talk about pakistan? relationship to osama bin osaman or their relationships. but there is at reason. why has it escalated? why have those two countries been unable to hold it down a little bit? >> they have been at sword point since independence. he we can go back to the british. >> i understand that. but it was quiet for a while. >> they have had several wars since inned against. what has move it along, including the attack on the indian parliament shortly after 9/11 is pakistan created terrorist groups to help assert their claims to cashmere and those terrorist groups have grown increasingly powerful inside pakistan as more of the population has become radicalized. they have been used

i am talking about nuclear weapons that were developed, icbms for the cold war, for which there's no use and which we spend billions every year just in maintenance. i'm talking about cuts that will not affect america's ability to fight war. >> there's some room for cuts in the department of defense. >> i love it when you two agree. >> can you imagine a world in which the tea party join forces with occupy wall street? >> i think we are on the verge of a political movement that says, essentially, we're going to take back the economy, take back democracy. we're not going to let the big guys run everything. >> hmm. that sounds like odd bedfellows. it sat down with former labor secretary robert reich next on "your money." on that list. in 25th place. let's raise academic standards across the nation. let's get back to the head of the class. let's solve this. who have used androgel 1%, there's big news. presenting androgel 1.62%. both are used to treat men with low testosterone. androgel 1.62% is from the makers of the number one prescribed testosterone replacement therapy. it raises your t

they're not going to catch an icbm. we've been telling the russians that. they want legally binding assurances. i'm not sure that a legally binding assurance would be ratified. so secretary rasmussen, secretary joe rasmussen is prepared for political assurances but i don't think we need to get him. i think we need to understand where the red lines are. there is a real threat coming from the middle east. this is a serious proposal that has consensus and i don't think we should let the russians move us from the direction in which we are headed. we ought to seek to give them as many reassurances as we can within the scope of the planet that we have. >> let me just ask the other two panelists, do you all agree with that analysis? >> i agree with the analysis. i think hans is spot on. i would add that i think russian motivations behind their opposition to those defense plans are really more geopolitical than our technical. >> there are more upset over the fact the message will have military installations in territories of poland and romany. the only thing i woul

we are not going to catch a icbm. i'm not sure that a legally binding assurance would be ratified. secretary anders fogh rasmussen is assuring political assurances. i don't think we need to give in, though. we need to understand where the red lines are. there is a threat coming from the middle east. this is a serious proposal that has consensus, and i don't think we should let the russians move us from the direction in which we are headed. what we ought to seek to give them as many reassurances as we can within the scope of the plan that we have. >> let me just ask the other two panelists. do you all agree with that analysis? >> i agree with the analysis. i think that hans binnendijk's is spot on. i think it is more geopolitical than they are technical. they are more upset over the fact that the united states will have military installations in the territories of poland and romania. the only thing that i would add, is there concern about the conditionality of the missile defense plans. to quote the president, he stated that president obama, as long as a threat from iran persists, w