mr. turner number 46. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. turner. clerk will call the roll. >> mr. mckeon, aye. mr. smith, no. mr. bartlett, aye. mr. reyes, no. mr. thornberry, aye. miss sanchez, no. mr. jones, mr. jones votes aye. mr. mcintyre, votes no. mr. akin, mr. akin. mr. brady. mr. brady votes no. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes aye. mr. andrews. mr. andrews votes no. mr. miller, mr. miller votes aye. mrs. davis, mrs. davis votes no. mr. will son boats eye. mr. longevo, no. mr. larsen votes no. mr. turner votes aye. mr. cooper votes no plxt klein, mr. klein votes eye. miss pordio votes no. mr. rogers votes aye. mr. courtney votings no. mr. franks votes aye. mr. lobesack, votes no. mr. schuster boats aye. miss tsongas votes. miss pengri votes no. mr. landborn votes eye. mr. kissle votes aye. mr. witman votes aye. mr. heinrich votes aye. mr. hunter votes aye. mr. owens votes aye. dr. fleming, votes aye. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. kauffman votes eye. mr. critz votes no. mr. rooney, mr. rooney votes eye. mr. ryan votes no plxt plats, votes eye. mr

mr. turner to give me perspective on that. >> mr. franks, that's the second unblocked package. >> oh, that's the second one. forgive me. never mind. >> any other discussion? gentleman from new jersey. yes. i would like to thank you and the the chairman for some help with an issue that i want to engage on mr. turner, i would like to be thank you for including language in the sub committee mark that provides quit call oversight of the joint space operation mission center program. i think it's important that the fighter meet the

mr. turner on. mr. turner, i would like to thank you for including language that provides critical oversight of the joint space operation center mission program. i think it's very important that the department meet the requirements of the war fighter and improve this program's current capabilities while maximizing cost-effectiveness by leveraging readily available government and commercial capabilities to the fullest extent practical. i would like to ask my friend the subcommittee chairman for his commitment to continue working with us on oversight activities of this important program. i would yield to the chairman. >> andrews, you do have my commitment to work with you on the oversight efforts of the joint space operations center mission program, and i appreciate your valuable contributions and your efforts to this. i look forward to the future work. >> as i do. thank you, mr. chairman. i would yield back. >> is there further deblate on the en bloc amendment? if not, the questions on the adoption of the

mr. turner to require d.o.d. recollaboration with the f.a.a. and nasa and integrating uas in the national air space system. an amendment by mr. wilson to ask the controller general 20 determine the effects of titanium purchase restrictions on domestic manufacturers of aircraft components who contract with the dod. and a technical amendment by mr. turner. is there further debate from the on block amendment? the amendment is agreed to. a roll call vote was orderered. amendment number 085. the question now -- the question now occurs on the amendment offered by mr. >> mr. smith? mr. smith votes aye. mr. bartlett? votes in. . >> mr. thornbury votes no. ms. sanchez? >> aye. >> ms. sanchez votes aye. >> mr. jones? mr. mcindire. mr. mcintyre. mr. aken votes no. mr. brady. mr. brady votes aye. mr. forbes, mr. forbes votes no. mr. andrews. mr. andrews votes aye. mr. miller? no. >> mr. miller votes no. 34rs davis? mrs. davis votes a ye. mr. wilson votes no. mr. larson votes aye. e. mr. turner votes no. mr. cooper votes aye. mr. klein. >> no. >> mr. klein v

mr. chairman. i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mike turner. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i wanted to echo what mr. tho thornberry just said, in the department of defense they built in new mexico and washington and kings bay, georgia. one thing that was pointed out important, this is a one-of-a-kind facility. i guess that would mean no one has experience in doing it and having the dod and nsa work together would probably be a good idea since they probably have similar expertise in these facilities. >> would the gentleman yield? >> just a moment. >> i believe bringing the dod experience to the table makes a difference and i want to point out before i yield to my ranking member, if you look at the text at the bottom of page 3 it states the administrator for the nuclear security of the national nuclear security administration and secretary of energy shall retain authority to regulate, design construction activities pursuant toe atomic energy act and other applicable laws and goes on to still say how nnsa shall be in control of the facility so it does not turn over the authori

mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. miller. thank you, mr. chairman. i am very concerned when there are statements made that there is no threat and that the systems do not work. because even though we have the benefit of classified briefings, that of course contradict all that, which we can't bring forward in these hearings, there are enough luckily, nonclassified statements of information that we can bring forward to contradict the statements of -- it doesn't work there is no threat. one of which is secretary gates himself. who said that -- north korea's, capabilities, that they are seeking -- absolutely threaten the continental united states.

mr. turner would know this. are there any examples where this administration has bound the united states to such an agreement and then complied with the 60-day notice that is in title one second 112 b. have they done that at all? since 2009, does anyone know? >> i do not know but one addition from our hearing. they expressly stated in our hearing that they intended not to seek senate approval for this. >> and i apologize for not being present here and i'm not in your subcommittee. i would have been an interloper. did they say that they were not going to submit it as a treaty? or did they say they intended to bind the united states and then comply with the 60-day provision? what did they say? >> we were having a discussion with respect to the treaty. they indicated that once it was passed that there would be regulations that would restrict the u.s. operations. they did not mention any other approval process. >> not to be picky but that raises yet another issue. if an executive branch department promulgates regula

mr. turner. >> thank you, mr. miller. thank you, mr. chairman. i am very concerned when there are statements made that there is no threat and that the systems do not work. because even though we have the benefit of classified briefings, that of course contradict all that that we don't bring forward in the hearings, there are luckily nonclassified statements of information that we can bring forward to contradict these statements of it doesn't work and there is no threat, one of which is secretary gates himself who said north korea's capabilities that they are seeking absolutely threaten the continental united states. so the statements of the people on the east coast don't need to worry. they can't get there is really an absolute overstatement. we're talking about the future. we're talking about a threat that's real. secretary gates himself articulated it to the american people. when the secretary of defense tells the public -- you know the continental united states they are at risk, they're at risk. skpaoeut shouldn't be a debate here as fiction.

mr. turner. >> thank you mr. chairman, as everybody knows, this committee has one bill, one year. intuitively we understand this you cannot restrict an industry and have it re -- we don't need to study that, we can intuitively understand it. if we study it, we could have the study delivered to us and by the time we get to take any action we will be told we have lost the industry and competitive edge. >> gentleman yields back t chair recognize mr. smith from washington. >> i just want to support mr. washington's amendment. made it difficult for our domestic companies to compete but one of the realities of is that other companies from other companies will begin to develop better technology because they have that competitive advantage. so i will -- then point out the very important examples that mr. larsen pointed out, where our ability to support the best national security products were dependent on our ability to get technology from israel and great britain. two very strong allies. this amendment would prohibit us from doing that and clearly harm our national security by restrictin

mr. turner's response. but just a few observations. a lot of us are familiar with the civil war general john sedgwick that was trying to upgrade some of his younger soldiers there for dodging bullets. and his comments, i'm told among his last words were, they couldn't hit an elephant from this distance. he was killed about a second later. it's always astonish to go me that we kind of cavalierly suggest that don't need a redundancy against the most dangerous weapons that 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 development. and it's always astonishing to me when we have this debate that our system is the only tested system that we have that defends this homeland against intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear war heads, the most dangerous weapons, again, in the history of mankind. mr. chairman, it wasn't mr. turner who suggested that the president had a secret deal with russia. it was the preside

mr. turner votes aye. mr. turner votes aye. mr. kline votes aye. ms. bordallo votes aye. mr. rogers votes aye. mr. courtney votes aye. blchlt franks votes -- >> will the clerk please suspend. before everybody rushes out, can i thank all of the members for the great job you've done and sherry chris from the council and your team, thank you very, very much. last call of the house staff, both committee and personal, please stand. thank you very much for a great job. and now you may continue. mr. loebsack votes aye. mr. shuster votes aye. ms. tsongas votes aye. mr. conaway votes aye. ms. pingree votes no. mr. lamborn votes aye. mr. kissell votes aye. mr. wittman votes aye. mr. heinrich votes aye. mr. hunter? votes aye. mr. owens votes aye. dr. fleming votes aye. mr. garamendi. votes no. mr. coffman votes aye. mr. critz votes aye. mr. rooney? mr. rooney votes aye. mr. ryan votes no. mr. platts votes aye. mr. rupperberger votes aye. mr. rigell votes aye. mr. johnson. >> clerk please suspend. we will need to keep a quorum here. we have a little more business. please. go ahead. >> mr

mr. turner for five minutes. >> we oppose the amendment. miss sanchez talked about several that were valid. the others are issues of -- of concern that we would oppose. >> would the chairman yield on that point, please? yield some time? >> i had already yield back. it will be up to the chairman. >> the chair recognizes -- no, the chair asks if there's any other discussion on the amendment. the gentleman from california is recognized for a minute and a half. >> i yield my time to the ranking member. >> thank you. mr. turner, the amendment seeks to correct some of the deficiencies but it still leaves the authority for determining the type of oversight for high hazard operations to the nsa administrator. this would result in weaker standards and long-standing oversight. again, i would urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. if you care about health and safety of those workers in those facilities, you should be voting for my amendment. and i yield back to the gentleman from california. >> gentleman yields back no. >> no, i don't. not yet.

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 immediately emerging threats. to cut this system is to actually go to the heart really of our current capability. all the other systems, egis systems, sm3, all the different missiles that people are referring to during these debates are either future missiles or missiles that currently 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'll have greater flexibility after this election to medvedev to be delivered

mr. turner is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank chairman bartlett for his commitment to our industrial base and for his work with the heavy brigade combat team production lines. the issues of being concerned with those lines going cold, this administration had planned to close down production facilities for perhaps a period of three to four years. and in doing so, we would lose both the intellectual capital that the people who worked there would move on to other things. and the production capability techniques to take us to the next generation. the chairman is protecting that in this. one of the facilities commonly known as the tank plant is very concerned as what would happen to their long-term capabilities if the administration's position was allowed to stand. so i appreciate the chairman supporting our industrial base and our capabilities. thank you. >> any other discussion? are there any amendments to the subcommittee's report? >> mr. chairman, have i an amendment. >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment

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

mr. turner from ohio. >> thank you. i appreciate mr. andrews and his great description of the opportunity to me. i do want to note that in considering this, no additional funds are required for the b-2. unfortunately, other airports everts, because they were access to the ehf program requirements, i do agree that there does need to be increased. we need to focus on this. i object primarily to this is a result of the offset of the missile defense system. period. will the gentleman yield for just a moment. i certainly am aware of the representation by the air force that they could not have spent this money and this goodyear 13. i think the chairman shares my view that we sometimes can't spend money because they don't want to spend the money and they are not given the priority patient. frankly, the gentleman he said, runtimes makes the argument that statements from the command needs to be critically examined. i think that the mere fact that the air force says they don't have use for this money is not the spawn of issue. >> that is why i wa

mr. turner... detailed the death of his hero, while he has suggested the whole of a great naval victory, which we believe has never before been successfully accomplished, if it has been before attempted, in a single picture." (narrator) the napoleonic war ended in 1815 at waterloo. the duke of wellington had called the battle "a damn close run-thing." the fragility of civilization intrigued turner throughout his career. the decline of the carthaginian empire depicts the crushing penalty rome inflicted on the carthaginians. the architecture is elegant but the messy dockside suggests the end of a defeated imperial power. the women of vanquished carthage are bidding farewell to their men as they sail towards rome, human spoils of war bound for slavery or death. in 1818, turner was 43. in the twenty years that britain had been at war, he had become a public figure, his reputation based on art and enterprise. the new classes made wealthy by the industrial revolution were eager to buy his works. and he w

mr. turner. >> we had a hearing on this very matter in our subcommittee. in the hearing it is clear that this would have the effect of having a restriction on u.s. operations. any item that is an agreement of our nation binding us to another nation where we agree to restrict our operations, our military operations, use, capabilities is, in effect, and absolutely a treaty. and as that when this administration believes that it is advisable to enter into such an agreement the constitution requires that those go before the senate. that is what this amendment does. it says this is going to restrict our capabilities. we believe it should go before the senate. >> gentleman, time has expired. if there is no further discussion on this -- >> mr. chairman, here. >> gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a code of conduct for how america participates with other nations in the orderly trafficking of satellites in outer space would not be binding on the u.s. from a -- i guess -- an international -- >> will gentleman yield? >> wey will. >>

mr. turner. so many in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed, no. >> no. >> the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, i'd like a recorded vote on that. >> there's sufficient support for a roll call vote. a roll call vote is ordered. we'll call the roll call vote at the end of the subcommittee mark. are there any amendments to the subcommittee's mark? >> i have an amendment at the desk? >> will the clerk please pass out the amendment? without objection, reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for the purpose of offering and explaining his aamendment. >> nu. this amendment offers base and closure rounds and clearly states nothing in this act will be construed to authorize an additional brack round and no funds pursuant to the appropriations contained in the act may be used to propose planned for and execute an additional brack round. this is based on a february 2012 letter where i joined 41 fellow members of congress signing a bipartisan letter to the p

mr. turner... detailed the death of his hero, while he has suggested the whole of a great naval victory, which we believe has never before been successfully accomplished, if it has been before attempted, in a single picture." (narrator) the napoleonic war ended in 1815 at waterloo. the duke of wellington had called the battle "a damn close run-thing." the fragility of civilization intrigued turner throughout his career. the decline of the carthaginian empire depicts the crushing penalty rome inflicted on the carthaginians. the architecture is elegant but the messy dockside suggests the end of a defeated imperial power. the women of vanquished carthage are bidding farewell to their men as they sail towards rome, human spoils of war bound for slavery or death. in 1818, turner was 43. in the twenty years that britain had been at war, he had become a public figure, his reputation based on art and enterprise. the new classes made wealthy by the industrial revolution were eager to buy his works. and he w

mr. chairman. i yield to congressman mike turner of ohio. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the budget control act does not mention cmrr and does not have any requirement whatsoever that this facility's funding be delayed. in fact, this provision we're going to vote on isn't even going to move any money. it is a companion to the first amendment. the first amendment said this facility is not being constructed because of failures of nsaa. we're going to engage d.o.d. to get it done. the second amendment says, d.o.d., now get this done. this is not an issue of funding. the funding is there. the issue is one of nsaa's able to perform the -- the other issue i think that keeps getting confused in the administration talk is they keep saying that there are alternatives. they have not identified any alternatives that would lessen the president's statements of, that this facility is absolutely required and necessary, and needs to be brought online as soon as possible for the protection of our nuclear weapons or nuclear turrant. i believe what the president's statements are on the impo

mr. turner for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm going to reluctantly be speak wig some concerns rp to the amendment. in reading this, i'm concerned that, of the language and wlan its application might be. i want to associate myself with the statements of prior member whose

mr. turner for five minutes. >> i want to commend him for his thoughtfulness on approaching this. it's a serious issue and clearly the issue of protection of employees and our systems are of the concern of all of us. i am opposing the amendment. there is -- in the hearings that we've had -- there's a difference between review and dupe pli ka tif review. we have checkers that check the checkers. and so this is just our initial beginning step to begin the dialogue. we know there's going to be even more dialogue on nnsa reform. we invite the administration to go forward with their proposals and we appreciate your statement on this. we know that it will be part of the continuing dialogue as we look for a solution. thank you. >> any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption, the amendment offered by mr. andrews. those in favor say aye. >> aye. >> those in opposition say no. >> the nos have it. the amendment is not agreed to. roll call vote has been requested. we'll follow -- we will -- let me tell them, the members of the committee will be recessing now f

mr. turner: thank you. mr. speaker, unbelievably, across this country, in family law courts, in states, our service members stand before family law court judges who take custody away from our service members upon their return from either previously iraq or now afghanistan, based solely on the fact that they were away from their children serving their country. mr. speaker, we should not have one arm of the government ordering our service members to deploy and another arm of our government taking their children away from them based upon the fact that they are -- that they were away servicing their -- serving their country. one service member who has been a champion of this issue said she did not understand when she got back, by law, they had to give her her job back but by law no one had to return to her, her child. service members risk their lives in support of the operations that keep our nations safe. state courts should not be allowed -- allowed to use a service member's previous deployments or the possibilit

mr. turner from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you. i would check to the matinee. currently there is a deterrence review been undertaken by the department of defense in conjunction with nato concerning all aspects of the deterrence of nato. we are waiting and conclusion of that review. it's been going on for a year. could be incredibly duplicate it to ascend the secretary of defense to recommence the review of the same subject that are opposing them. >> any other discussion on the amendment? is not the question on adoption of the amendment offered by ms. sanchez from a large number 150, so many are in favor will say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. >> mr. chairman, i will not ask for a reported vote. [applause] >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment the desk. [laughter] >> kirkwall please -- the kirkwall please distribute in amendment without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. they chair now recognizes generally for the purpose of offering and explain her final amendment. >> ester terminus is the final amendment in this section. i thi

mr. turner took clerical cultural. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> the clerk will report the tally. >> of the photo 34, aye 28. >> the amendment is agreed to. i would like to recognize you for the request. >> thank you, mr. chair. i request unanimous consent i review recorded yes for the following amendments. 147. >> hearing no objection, and it doesn't change the outcome we want to be accommodating no objection, so ordered. >> thank you. postponement of further proceedings offered by mr. johnson. 197 are one the amendment would require the secretary to report to the defense committee regarding nuclear weapons reductions pursuant to the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. the question now occurs on the amendment by mr. johnson the clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] ha [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] >> the clerk will report a tally. >> the ayes or 27, notemac noes, 35. >> i have a request to withdraw the request for the recorde

mr. ted turner. a tv pioneer and outspoken man. i want to know what he thinks of television, america, and his life today. plus a rare interview with george w. bush. tonight he talks about the cause closest to his heart. the country's veterans. >> after 9/11 millions volunteered. and they said i want to serve my country. and i don't view it as anything personal. i view it as we were all serving together. all part of a great cause. the cause of securing our country and liberty. >> exclusive interview with george w. bush coming later. but first someone who i think on this occasion literally needs no introduction. he is the man who created cnn. the reason that i'm here and others are here working here. ted turner. welcome back, ted. >> good to be here. >> how does it feel to be back? >> good. >> does it? >> yeah. >> are you still proud of cnn? >> absolutely. >> do you still watch cnn? >> i watch it, you bet. >> you like what you see? >> i like most of what i see. >> you always said about cnn the news should be the star. >> well, that w

mr. turner sounds like an amzingly -- >> i wanted to hug him when we were done.orses and they firmly believe they don't want any of their horses to have that. even though we'll tell you that it put the horses at a disadvantage but it's better for them. >> one of the greatest joys in life is watching a horse be born. they come down and then they kind of struggle to get up and make it up. >> i would be very curious to see how that works with four legs. i love the shot, too, behind the horse's head. i love that shot. >> those were those digital -- >> that does it for us. we look back at the past week. we want to show you the name of the people who brought you this broadcast. have a great weekend. andrew, here's his genius. >> you made a terrible egregious mistake. no excuse for it. >> this is why we passed wall street reform. >> the taxpayers, middle income families. >> i would like to see real accountability. >> you lose $3 billion, you better not show your [ bleep ]. >> our political leadership, both sides, have to find common ground. >> we shouldn't dread the lim

mr. turner sounds amazing. >> i wanted to hug him when we were done.certain things sanctioned for the horses you can give them. they firmly believe they don't want any of their horses to have any of that, even though they will tell you we know it puts our horses like not in our wildest dreams at a disadvantage, they feel it's better for them. >> one of the greatest joys in life is watching a horse be born. they come down and kind of struggle to get up and make it up. >> i would be very curious to see how that works with four legs. i love the shot behind the horse's head. i love that shot. >> that does it for us. we look back at the past week, want to show you the names of the people who brought you this broadcast. have a great weekend. andrew, here is his genius. >> a terrible egregious mistake. >> this is why we passed wall street reform. >> middle income families holding the bag. >> i'd like to see some real accountability. >> $3 million -- >> our political leadership both sides have to find common ground. >> we shouldn't dread -- >> i'm concerned ab

mr. turner of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for five minutes. mr. turner: madam chair, my amendment increases by $5 million the minimum level of funding for the international trade administration in the amount they must devote to cracking down on unfair chinese trade practices. we must ensure that u.s. manufacturers and workers can compete on a level playing field in the global marketplace. unfortunately, unfair trade practices from countries like china make this increasingly difficult. since the year 2000 there has been a 300% increase in the amount of goods imported from china to the united states. moreover, the import administration tasked with cracking down on unfair trade practices has for years experienced a growing workload of cases involving trade with china. in my own deyton community, paper producers and their employers have been hurt by unfairly sdiced imports of paper -- unsubsidized imports of paper from china. the international trade administration is to devote the same level of funding, $11.4 million, for china anti-dumping and complia

mr. cable, ted turner. let's talk politics briefly. the election is coming up in november.t romney is the like lie nominee. who is going to win. >> i don't know. when i started cnn, i made the decision to stay out of endorsing candidates and to let viewers make up their own minds about politics. it wasn't going to come from me. the other networks were telling everybody what to do, but i wanted to be different and let people make up their own minds. i would talk about candidates. and i could say about mitt romney, i think he's a real gentleman. i think he's been very successful. i think he's really smart. i don't agree with everything that he believes, but i agree with a lot of it. and i think he would probably make a good president, but i'm not endorsing him. >> are you more republican or democrat these days? >> i would like to say that right now, in the last few years, the democrats have been closer -- have been more pro-environment. the coal industry is pretty well entrenched in the republican party. that's one of the things that we need to phase out. >> i've got an inter

mr. turner for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm interested, mr.in the inspectors. there are no 400 rail inspectors, did i hear that right? >> yes. >> and what is their mandate lacks. >> with regard, congressman, with regards to freight rail security, there is one tsa regulation, the one that deals with a secure and positive handoff of toxic an inhalation hazard to their focus has been wholly to go out to our rail facilities, and basically focus on how well that regulation is being adhered to. really come as i mentioned before in my testimony, we value a lot of the good positive relationship with tsa but what we're typically say now, we do have concerns about the level of knowledge and training that the service dissertation inspectors are getting, especially since their growth was so fast. but we are basically sing multiple inspectors coming out to basically observe the same function in a number of limited locations. again, we recognized that tsa bring some great value, partnerships we have with them but i'm not sure that we're seeing the total val